MQA is Vaporware

[Jud]

7 hours ago, mansr said:

As used today, no. It has optional features providing much more restrictions.

 

Sure - we’ll see if market adoption gets to the point where it makes sense to turn those features on.  I would hope not, because in my personal experience MQA on my system has sounded to me a little less good than hi res of the same mastering.

[Rt66indierock]

9 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Well, but it doesn’t.  It prevents unpaid copying of the originals, but then so does the decimation to lower resolutions that is ubiquitous today.  It doesn’t at all prevent copying of MQA files (or, with a little more trouble, streams).

 

 It seems to me the attraction of MQA must be the ability to sell something as new and hi res and better sounding.

 

As I’ve speculated before, MQA without new hardware could be sold as something better, and MQA with new hardware could be sold as a luxury tier for fewer people.

 

I think you are on to something. Part of the appeal of MQA may be that it is a new format and the industry is looking for a new format to sell. The beauty of MQA is once a file is converted to MQA it is high resolution. When you consider the vast majority of current masters are 16/44.1 converting them to MQA instantly makes them hi-res.

 

To an earlier point of yours I’ve been saying since the beginning of this thread that high resolution and MQA as subset don’t work for artists. The revenue from hi-res doesn’t justify the time or expense to make a hi-res recording. Similarly for studios high resolution doesn’t have a revenue stream worth pursuing.

[tobes]

1 hour ago, Rt66indierock said:

The beauty of MQA is once a file is converted to MQA it is high resolution. When you consider the vast majority of current masters are 16/44.1 converting them to MQA instantly makes them hi-res.

I presume you mean that they will be purported to be hi-res - in an attempt to hoodwink people into thinking they've bought something better?

[tobes]

Can anyone point me to a Tidal MQA album that they believe outpoints the standard version?

Some of the comparisons I've done just leave me shaking my head - i.e. the MQA sounds 'dried up' and lifeless.

For instance: Eric Clapton and Friends - The Breeze; Jack Johnson - In Between Dreams; Shelby Lynne - Just a little Lovin'. These records sound much worse to me. This is via Audirvana which doing only the first unfold. The difference is even more in favour of the 16/44 version with Roon/HQplayer.

It may well be that my hardware (PS Audio directstream Jnr) is optimised for non MQA material(?).

The PSA DSJ does have full unfolding of MQA via it's network bridge input and this does no better IMO. 

I'm a bit concerned that MQA might proliferate and replace the standard 16/44 on Tidal as this would seriously degrade my listening experience.

 

[tobes]

Something else I didn't realise.

Art Blakey - Jazz Messengers has two MQA releases on Tidal, a 24/96 and a 24/192 version.

The MQA versions clearly use different mastering - has hard panning left and right - so can't be directly compared to the 16/44 Tidal version. For the record I find the later to sound more natural tonally and in perspective, even though I don't mind the former (headphone uses might want to engage cross feed though).

But the bigger question is what's with the 2 MQA releases? The original master is analog of course and there are no doubt 96K and 192K digital versions for sale.

However, since MQA compacts down to 24/48 in either case, why release both 96K and 192K versions in MQA?

I don't get it. Is this an example of tiering for future price differentiation?

[kaufenpreis]

Apple only just went DRM-free last year. And now comes a new format that involves more DRM hijinx? It's not going to fly with younger ears. It will however, as it is on the brink of now, be gobbled up by audiophiles.

[mansr]

8 hours ago, tobes said:

But the bigger question is what's with the 2 MQA releases? The original master is analog of course and there are no doubt 96K and 192K digital versions for sale.

However, since MQA compacts down to 24/48 in either case, why release both 96K and 192K versions in MQA?

I'd like to take a closer look at those MQA files if someone could capture them.

[Bystander]

5 hours ago, kaufenpreis said:

Apple only just went DRM-free last year.

 

Didn't that happen 8 years ago?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/jan/06/apple-drops-itunes-copy-protection

[tobes]

9 hours ago, mansr said:

I'd like to take a closer look at those MQA files if someone could capture them.

Can't help you with that but there is something else odd.

The 'mConnect' app for my psaudio bridge connection reports the 16/44 version of the Jazz Messengers album above as also being MQA???

Audirvana does not, it just reports the 24/96 and 24/192 versions (encoded rates).

Th psaudio dac correctly  disdplays/replays all these i.e. 16/44, 24/96, 24/192 - via it's  network bridge input.

[Rt66indierock]

On 9/16/2017 at 9:26 PM, tobes said:

I presume you mean that they will be purported to be hi-res - in an attempt to hoodwink people into thinking they've bought something better?

 

You presume correctly. I tend to believe that unless you start out to make a high resolution recording you don't have one. Anything else is putting a lower resolution file in a high resolution container and calling it hi - res.

[FredericV]

More info on the RMAF MQA panel cancellation.

MQA: Avoiding Confrontation
By Mark Waldrep:

http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6046

[rickca]

So what does MQA tell a DAC manufacturer like iFi or Pro-Ject?

 

- the major labels have invested in MQA 

- we're going to spend a lot on propaganda business development to ensure enthusiastic support from influential industry pros and the media, you will benefit from all this free marketing spending and messaging

- you will be at a competitive disadvantage without MQA because you will be missing a key checklist feature

 

The question I have is why does a company like Berkeley Audio decide to adopt MQA?  Audiophiles have a lot of reservations about MQA, and Berkeley isn't one to sweat the feature checklist ... you want USB, buy an Alpha USB box ... and no, we don't do DSD.

 

 

 

 

[rickca]

I don't think an MQA panel discussion will ever happen.  It's got nothing to do with MQA not planning to have a representative at RMAF.  Nobody who has signed an NDA will ever get permission to participate.  The major labels are doing MQA whether we want it or not.  Why engage in a discussion where the merits of MQA might be challenged?  It's already a done deal.

 

If you plan to control future distribution, why wouldn't you think you can control messaging and media coverage? 

[The Computer Audiophile]

53 minutes ago, rickca said:

The question I have is why does a company like Berkeley Audio decide to adopt MQA?  Audiophiles have a lot of reservations about MQA, and Berkeley isn't one to sweat the feature checklist ... you want USB, buy an Alpha USB box ... and no, we don't do DSD.

 

I really wish you could talk to them about MQA. I've had no less than 3 discussions with Berkeley about MQA, in the last couple months. Very different perspective from what others are saying on both sides of the debate. Berkeley is in a unique position, having spent millions of dollars on research for the previous company Pacific Microsonics. 

 

 

[Rt66indierock]

 

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I really wish you could talk to them about MQA. I've had no less than 3 discussions with Berkeley about MQA, in the last couple months. Very different perspective from what others are saying on both sides of the debate. Berkeley is in a unique position, having spent millions of dollars on research for the previous company Pacific Microsonics. 

 

 

 

Why not enlighten us on Berkeley's perspective?

[The Computer Audiophile]

I've told every manufacturer and MQA that I'm not their mouthpiece. If they want people to know something, they can say it. 

[Rt66indierock]

4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I've told every manufacturer and MQA that I'm not their mouthpiece. If they want people to know something, they can say it. 

 

They tell you anything they didn't tell Brian Lucey and me? What they told us is in GearSlutz.

[The Computer Audiophile]

10 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

They tell you anything they didn't tell Brian Lucey and me? What they told us is in GearSlutz.

Not sure what you guys have been told. Haven't read the GS stuff. 

[FredericV]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Berkeley is in a unique position, having spent millions of dollars on research for the previous company Pacific Microsonics.

 

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering-forum/1101429-mqa-39.html

 

Quote

Further, the founder of PM, now Berkeley Audio AGREES THAT MQA on PCM is destructive, he sees this stage as a necessary evil to get to all MQA world, round trip for all.

Grammy award winning engineer Brian Lucey who is against MQA, uses PM converters.

So why did Berkeley make a 180 degree turn?

[rickca]

37 minutes ago, FredericV said:

he sees this stage as a necessary evil to get to all MQA world, round trip for all

I have no idea what this is trying to say.

[crenca]

2 hours ago, FredericV said:

 

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering-forum/1101429-mqa-39.html

 

Further, the founder of PM, now Berkeley Audio AGREES THAT MQA on PCM is destructive, he sees this stage as a necessary evil to get to all MQA world, round trip for all.

Grammy award winning engineer Brian Lucey who is against MQA, uses PM converters.

So why did Berkeley make a 180 degree turn?

 

 

Yes, but why is he a supporter, or perhaps even, a true believer?  What is it that MQA gives him - let's not pretend he is in this for some altruistic purpose - such that he thinks an all MQA world is good?

 

Is he bold enough to step up and fully explain his position?  The answer is no apparently (though Chris might protest but what can he say - he refuses the microphone himself as well).  Since MQA is a DRM play and a bit of of a SQ fraud (at least the way it is marketed - a small tweak is not a "birth of a new world" even in this voodoo drenched industry) in any reasonable perspective then it must be assumed that Berkeley is simply riding the voodoo wave that most of the rest of the industry is as well...

[Shadders]

6 hours ago, crenca said:

 

 

Yes, but why is he a supporter, or perhaps even, a true believer?  What is it that MQA gives him - let's not pretend he is in this for some altruistic purpose - such that he thinks an all MQA world is good?

 

Is he bold enough to step up and fully explain his position?  The answer is no apparently (though Chris might protest but what can he say - he refuses the microphone himself as well).  Since MQA is a DRM play and a bit of of a SQ fraud (at least the way it is marketed - a small tweak is not a "birth of a new world" even in this voodoo drenched industry) in any reasonable perspective then it must be assumed that Berkeley is simply riding the voodoo wave that most of the rest of the industry is as well...

Hi,

I had a quick check of their website, and the MQA DAC that they offer does not have any network connectivity.

The web site states : "The Alpha DAC Reference Series 2 MQA replaces the Alpha DAC Reference Series 2 which will no longer be produced". 

The other DAC's on the site do not have MQA capability, only the top end DAC, which costs circa $19,995. So, providing MQA is just a tick box exercise. Bekely are a business, so they are just covering all bases.

As with any manufacturer, they will have signed an NDA. This i assume means that even if MQA fails, they still cannot discuss MQA.

 

As an aside, the NDA seems to be a mechanism to ensure no negativity published by people who actually know about the system, and you can only know about MQA details once the NDA has been signed.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

Hi,

Is everyone have the problem of not being able to edit posts in this thread ?

OK- can edit this post, but not the one above.

Anyway, NDA is like fight club, every one in fight club, cannot talk about fight club.

Regards,

Shadders.

[mansr]

57 minutes ago, Shadders said:

The other DAC's on the site do not have MQA capability, only the top end DAC, which costs circa $19,995.

And even this one has only "rendering," not full decode.

[kana813]

The Politics of MQA:

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/the-politics-of-mqa/