MQA is Vaporware

[Rt66indierock]

3 hours ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

Referring back to the Hifi News opinion piece about MQA on CD. I have not seen any negative statements about MQA. It does state that there is aliasing above 48kHz, but no negative impact statement.

 

Hifi News is a popular magazine in the UK - and it does provide technical studies/reports, but again, nothing negative about MQA is printed.

 

If the press continue to be uncritical of MQA, then the readership will eventually believe what they are told. It is after all subjective reviews that people take away from a magazine review.

 

And we all know that audiophiles are easily swayed as to the latest and greatest - cables, cable lifters, special USB electronics etc. Many people need to be told what they should be hearing.

 

Peoples understanding and evidence about the shortcomings of MQA are scattered in the pages across this forum. If one were to direct anyone to this site, then the relevant information is so sparsely distributed, that all people will eventually take away from the MQA threads are the exchanges (sometimes vitriolic) between people rather than the information content.

 

I think this has been said before, that what is required is the centralisation of the technical criticisms of MQA in an easily readable format. This can be a thread which is added to as new aspects and technical understanding evolves, and does NOT include exchanges of views which detract from the science. The statements in the thread MUST be backed up with evidence, and not rhetoric.

 

Then all that is required (hopefully) is the direction to the thread for anyone who wants to see the details - which can include referrals to other sites that expose MQA for what it is ?

 

Or should we just link to : https://www.xivero.com/downloads/MQA-Technical_Analysis-Hypotheses-Paper.pdf

 

Makes life a lot easier.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

 

There will be a peer reviewed article coming. As for centralizing criticisms well when we are done collecting data, have analyzed it and have it go through a review process it will be centralized. 

 

Fortunately the mainstream is doing an excellent job of ignoring even CD quality streaming.   

[Shadders]

1 minute ago, Fair Hedon said:

Point taken, but he and the rest position them selves as voices of authority and those with better than average ears. So

equating the fact that most people can't hear any difference between mp3 and Redbook with the audiophiles who "like" MQA over the corresponding hirez file is a false equivalency.

 

The average listener with an mp3 collection who don't lo anything of higher resolution have no agenda, they just want music.

Hi,

Regardless whether a person is an authority, or not, if the consumer hears MQA and likes it, then they may end up purchasing it. That is it - simple equation, people purchase what they like. Lee pointed this out - he uses his ears, as do others.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Samuel T Cogley]

19 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

I mostly post at night and I have a day job.  I have no consulting arrangements or any other arrangements with MQA.  I am just a hirez fan.

 

Yes, but your day job is part of your "Atlanta's Atkinson" shtick.

 

1

Quote

Not only that, my marketing day job has taught me that "Joe Sixpack" doesn't exist.

 

2 One of my favorites.  The Epic Fail that is your LH Labs crowdfunding "reporting".  If someone paid for this bit of "expertise", they should be entitled to a full refund.

Quote

We are in fact suggesting that people deploy strategies targeted to different customer segments. In my day job, I help large companies do this very thing.

 

3

Quote

One thing I have learned about marketing in 2012 (I do marketing analytics for a day job) is that news, good or bad, travels faster every year and reaches more people.

 

4 This post is over ten years old.  You've been doing this "I have credibility because of my day job" bit for over a decade now.

Quote

In my day job I work for a company that uses analytics to segment customers for big and small companies.

 

5 saving the best for last your epic fail that is the downright fawning you did with LH Labs.  Did you know there's still people who haven't gotten their gear from LH Labs that they ordered years ago?

Quote

It seemed very clear to me that the successful LH Geek campaigns are causing much consternation in the “old-guard” audiophile world.  Curious by nature –I’m a marketing consultant to the Fortune 500 – I decided that I needed to do some further investigation.

 

If anyone has brought your day job into your audiophile act it's you.  If you attribute some of your audiophile "expertise" to your day job, then when that expertise is non existent (like with your LH Labs cheer-leading), I think it's perfectly reasonable to call your day job competency into question.  Your day job and your "Atlanta's Atkinson" shtick are inseparable.

 

 

[Rt66indierock]

10 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

Regardless whether a person is an authority, or not, if the consumer hears MQA and likes it, then they may end up purchasing it. That is it - simple equation, people purchase what they like. Lee pointed this out - he uses his ears, as do others.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

 

It isn't easy to listen to MQA in the United States without trying. In the Valley of the Sun you would have to look hard to find a DAC or be one of the few HiFi tier Tidal subscribers.

[Shadders]

2 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

It isn't easy to listen to MQA in the United States without trying. In the Valley of the Sun you would have to look hard to find a DAC or be one of the few HiFi tier Tidal subscribers.

Hi,

I heard MQA via a comparison on youtube - MQA sounded thin by comparison.

I certainly will not be buying an MQA capable DAC - i have a setup which includes the DAC in the main processor - which i am very happy with.

If MQA is to be sold to the masses - then it would have to be the same cost as MP3 and available on all phones. I do not see that happening given the licence costs etc.

Regards,

Shadders.

[Lee Scoggins]

2 hours ago, Dr Tone said:

 

I thought it was common knowledge that persons with the financial means to buy expensive systems that are "Extremely Resolving" are not susceptible to bias.

 

Everyone is subject to bias, it's just that with more resolving systems, you can hear the differences easier.

[Lee Scoggins]

1 hour ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

I heard MQA via a comparison on youtube - MQA sounded thin by comparison.

I certainly will not be buying an MQA capable DAC - i have a setup which includes the DAC in the main processor - which i am very happy with.

If MQA is to be sold to the masses - then it would have to be the same cost as MP3 and available on all phones. I do not see that happening given the licence costs etc.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

Making judgments from youtube videos is iffy at best.  If you live near a regional audio show, I would suggest going to the show and sitting down at either the Audioquest or Mytek tables and have a listen.  The trick of course is to find a time where the crowds are sparse so the noise is not too bad.

[Shadders]

12 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Making judgments from youtube videos is iffy at best.  If you live near a regional audio show, I would suggest going to the show and sitting down at either the Audioquest or Mytek tables and have a listen.  The trick of course is to find a time where the crowds are sparse so the noise is not too bad.

Hi Lee,

It will be a problem to integrate an MQA DAC into my system, but here is the demo i heard :

https://www.pursuitperfectsystem.com/equipment-shoot-out.html

For me, this was sufficient.

Regards,

Shadders.

[firedog]

3 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Sure, not everyone will be into streaming but I think it has the best chance for widespread appeal.

 

As for sound quality, I let my ears be the guide. They remain the best instrument out there for evaluation.  So far, I have been impressed by the sound quality.

 

Can't argue with what you hear. But I can argue with all the reviews basically saying MQA is clearly better, and pretty much always better in every case. I don't hear that at all: I hear sometimes better, sometimes worse, sometimes different but not really better or worse.

I just listened to  Keith Jarrett's "Shades" in Redbook, MQA, and 24/96. I'd assume the MQA is made from the 24/96 (unless they went back to the tape, which I seriously doubt, as pretty much the entire ECM catalog suddenly appeared in Tidal and in MQA). 

The main difference I hear between the MQA and the Redbook is that in the MQA everything is pushed forward closer to the listener. Is this better? It's a matter of debate. I'd have to say yes, because it makes it easier to hear some of the detail.

But how does that sound compared to the 24/96? IMO, not as good. And clearly not. The 24/96 sounds somewhat between the Redbook and MQA in how far "forward" it seems to be. So you easily hear all the detail. But I'd say the hi-res is a more balanced, coherent, natural sound. Much more like real music and makes the MQA sound sort of artificial - impressive, but not like the real thing. 

 

Just my 2 cents. I can't argue with people who like MQA. But I can't help feeling that the without exception praise some are making about every MQA track they hear is at least partially based on expectation bias. Reverse the labels on the tracks, and they'll tell you the standard hi-res track sounds better than the MQA. 

[Samuel T Cogley]

34 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Everyone is subject to bias, it's just that with more resolving systems, you can hear the differences easier.

 

As we both know from Hoffman, "your system's not resolving enough" is the go-to retort to those claiming not to hear a difference that the audiophile elite swear by.  Here, @GUTB has simplified this to, "your system sucks".  Same sentiment.

[Fair Hedon]

6 minutes ago, firedog said:

 

Can't argue with what you hear. But I can argue with all the reviews basically saying MQA is clearly better, and pretty much always better in every case. I don't hear that at all: I hear sometimes better, sometimes worse, sometimes different but not really better or worse.

I just listened to  Keith Jarrett's "Shades" in Redbook, MQA, and 24/96. I'd assume the MQA is made from the 24/96 (unless they went back to the tape, which I seriously doubt, as pretty much the entire ECM catalog suddenly appeared in Tidal and in MQA). 

The main difference I hear between the MQA and the Redbook is that in the MQA everything is pushed forward closer to the listener. Is this better? It's a matter of debate. I'd have to say yes, because it makes it easier to hear some of the detail.

But how does that sound compared to the 24/96? IMO, not as good. And clearly not. The 24/96 sounds somewhat between the Redbook and MQA in how far "forward" it seems to be. So you easily hear all the detail. But I'd say the hi-res is a more balanced, coherent, natural sound. Much more like real music and makes the MQA sound sort of artificial - impressive, but not like the real thing. 

 

Just my 2 cents. I can't argue with people who like MQA. But I can't help feeling that the without exception praise some are making about every MQA track they hear is at least partially based on expectation bias. Reverse the labels on the tracks, and they'll tell you the standard hi-res track sounds better than the MQA. 

Isn't curious that a relatively small group of writers and bloggers set the narrative that MQA sounds better?

 

No where else has this narrative originated.

[Dr Tone]

 

4 minutes ago, Fair Hedon said:

Isn't curious that a relatively small group of writers and bloggers set the narrative that MQA sounds better?

 

No where else has this narrative originated.

 

The expectation bias was implanted as quickly as possible on announcement.

[Fair Hedon]

1 minute ago, Dr Tone said:

 

 

The expectation bias was implanted as quickly as possible on announcement.

Yes, and in talking to literally hundreds of show attendees who heard MQA demos, and those who compared MQA to hirez and at home, i literally could not find on single listener with the same opinion as the pro shills.

[Dr Tone]

11 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

As we both know from Hoffman, "your system's not resolving enough" is the go-to retort to those claiming not to hear a difference that the audiophile elite swear by.  Here, @GUTB has simplified this to, "your system sucks".  Same sentiment.

 

I've heard some of these "resolving systems".  I'm not going to lie, MQA filtering might actually make them somewhat more tolerable to listen to.

[Lee Scoggins]

35 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Hi Lee,

It will be a problem to integrate an MQA DAC into my system, but here is the demo i heard :

https://www.pursuitperfectsystem.com/equipment-shoot-out.html

For me, this was sufficient.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

Well I appreciate that you are trying but the recording quality was a bit too rough on that video to make any conclusions I think.

 

The best way is to download comparison files and play them back (with at least one unfold on MQA) on a system you are most familiar with.

[Lee Scoggins]

16 minutes ago, firedog said:

 

Can't argue with what you hear. But I can argue with all the reviews basically saying MQA is clearly better, and pretty much always better in every case. I don't hear that at all: I hear sometimes better, sometimes worse, sometimes different but not really better or worse.

I just listened to  Keith Jarrett's "Shades" in Redbook, MQA, and 24/96. I'd assume the MQA is made from the 24/96 (unless they went back to the tape, which I seriously doubt, as pretty much the entire ECM catalog suddenly appeared in Tidal and in MQA). 

The main difference I hear between the MQA and the Redbook is that in the MQA everything is pushed forward closer to the listener. Is this better? It's a matter of debate. I'd have to say yes, because it makes it easier to hear some of the detail.

But how does that sound compared to the 24/96? IMO, not as good. And clearly not. The 24/96 sounds somewhat between the Redbook and MQA in how far "forward" it seems to be. So you easily hear all the detail. But I'd say the hi-res is a more balanced, coherent, natural sound. Much more like real music and makes the MQA sound sort of artificial - impressive, but not like the real thing. 

 

Just my 2 cents. I can't argue with people who like MQA. But I can't help feeling that the without exception praise some are making about every MQA track they hear is at least partially based on expectation bias. Reverse the labels on the tracks, and they'll tell you the standard hi-res track sounds better than the MQA. 

 

I have heard a couple of tracks where the MQA did not help so bad tracks definitely exist.  It seems to work best with better recordings that are not overly processed.  But most of what I have heard in MQA has had more clarity and presence.

 

My hope is that I can find some nice tracks where we split the mic feed into 16/44 and 24/176 and see where MQA falls.

[Samuel T Cogley]

3 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

I have heard a couple of tracks where the MQA did not help so bad tracks definitely exist.  It seems to work best with better recordings that are not overly processed.  But most of what I have heard in MQA has had more clarity and presence.

 

My hope is that I can find some nice tracks where we split the mic feed into 16/44 and 24/176 and see where MQA falls.

 

I predict the result will be that MQA is awesomely awesome.

[Shadders]

4 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Well I appreciate that you are trying but the recording quality was a bit too rough on that video to make any conclusions I think.

 

The best way is to download comparison files and play them back (with at least one unfold on MQA) on a system you are most familiar with.

Hi Lee,

I understand your concern, that the quality is not that high, but the differences are apparent. For me to listen to MQA, i will have to purchase a DAC - and i am happy with what i have got.

 

To add to this - reading the MQA AES paper, they use a technique for adding information that is not there. That is, they process the file to add information which they cannot know was there in the original recording. This is an effect that some people like, and others do not like, or are ambivalent about.

 

So, my take on this is, adding information to a recording which you do not know was there in the studio in the first place means any MQA processing is fake. It may sound nice, but it is still fake.

 

The other aspect is temporal blurring. Without knowledge of the filters used, you cannot reverse this.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Fair Hedon]

11 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Hi Lee,

I understand your concern, that the quality is not that high, but the differences are apparent. For me to listen to MQA, i will have to purchase a DAC - and i am happy with what i have got.

 

To add to this - reading the MQA AES paper, they use a technique for adding information that is not there. That is, they process the file to add information which they cannot know was there in the original recording. This is an effect that some people like, and others do not like, or are ambivalent about.

 

So, my take on this is, adding information to a recording which you do not know was there in the studio in the first place means any MQA processing is fake. It may sound nice, but it is still fake.

 

The other aspect is temporal blurring. Without knowledge of the filters used, you cannot reverse this.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

...and the fact that MQA adds what is not there gets to the heart of the ultimate MQA lie..that it is exactly what was heard in the mastering studio, and can be "authenticated".

 

We start of with a massive lie, then it only got wose as the layers were peeled.

[Norton]

5 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I’m all ears for suggestions. 

 

In that case, how about a MQA listening report?

[Dr Tone]

17 minutes ago, Norton said:

 

In that case, how about a MQA listening report?

 

Do we really need another one of those?  People are quite capable of making up their own mind and shouldn't need reports from other people.

 

I'd like to see a report on the business of MQA, what the labels want from MQA and the implications on the consumer. What are the possible futures of music distribution with and without MQA.

 

Edit:  And to add, from someone else than Lee.

[Norton]

18 minutes ago, Dr Tone said:

 

Do we really need another one of those?  People are quite capable of making up their own mind and shouldn't need reports from other people.

 

 

I believe It's quite common to publish listening reports in audiophile media.  Have I missed Chris's?

[Hifi Bob]

4 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

There will be a peer reviewed article coming. As for centralizing criticisms well when we are done collecting data, have analyzed it and have it go through a review process it will be centralized. 

 

Fortunately the mainstream is doing an excellent job of ignoring even CD quality streaming.   

Hope the article includes a graph like this (a picture paints a thousand words and all that):

 

[knickerhawk]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

I just listened to  Keith Jarrett's "Shades" in Redbook, MQA, and 24/96. I'd assume the MQA is made from the 24/96 (unless they went back to the tape, which I seriously doubt, as pretty much the entire ECM catalog suddenly appeared in Tidal and in MQA). 

The main difference I hear between the MQA and the Redbook is that in the MQA everything is pushed forward closer to the listener. Is this better? It's a matter of debate. I'd have to say yes, because it makes it easier to hear some of the detail.

But how does that sound compared to the 24/96? IMO, not as good. And clearly not. The 24/96 sounds somewhat between the Redbook and MQA in how far "forward" it seems to be. So you easily hear all the detail. But I'd say the hi-res is a more balanced, coherent, natural sound. Much more like real music and makes the MQA sound sort of artificial - impressive, but not like the real thing. 

 

I think your description of the audible effect of MQA is a reasonable one. For me, however, I would characterize it less as a "pushing forward" of the sound and rather as more of a concentration or focusing of the sound. The illusion of position isn't changed for me but the increase sense of high level detail is almost always present. I'd say I've gotten pretty good at zeroing in on the MQA signature that's common to pretty much every comparison I've made (at least 25 albums now). It's similar to that undampening effect that you can get when you take off speaker grills.

 

I just tried a brief audition of Shades. I have access to the CD and MQA versions on Tidal but I don't have the 24/96 version. Not one of my favorite Jarrett sessions but, regardless, the difference between the CD and MQA versions in my system when running the tracks through my BlueSound Node is not as significant as I hear in some recordings. I'd apply my speaker grill analogy but only to the extent that the grill is a pretty transparent one to begin with. While I don't have a 24/96 version for that particular Jarrett recording I do have one for the Jarrett and Charlie Haden collaboration, "Last Dance." Again, not a dramatic difference between the CD, MQA or 24/96. For me it really requires close listening especially between the redbook and 24/96 versions. I think I can distinguish the MQA version from the other two because of that little extra sizzle that you're probably hearing as "forwardness." What I don't get is your conviction that the 24/96 version is more "real." It's just a little different in what gets emphasized. As a fairly serious violin and piano player through my college years, I wouldn't really reward either HiRes or MQA as more "real" compared to each other but I would note that I've been far less frustrated with the playback of especially classical music in my system when listening to MQA versions compared to CD versions. In virtually every instance, I'm finding it to be a blessed lifting of some of the muffling of detail that has always frustrated my listening to classical music on CDs. Will the effect last? Will I eventually find it artificial? Can't say, but for now it's invigorating and getting me to listen to classical music again, which is great!

 

By the way, for whatever reason, I'm generally finding that the ECM recordings don't have quite as much of a differentiation than some other labels. Not sure what that means. 

 

1 hour ago, firedog said:

Just my 2 cents. I can't argue with people who like MQA. But I can't help feeling that the without exception praise some are making about every MQA track they hear is at least partially based on expectation bias. Reverse the labels on the tracks, and they'll tell you the standard hi-res track sounds better than the MQA. 

 

That's possible, of course, but the reverse bias could also be leveled against many in this thread who seem dead set on rejecting MQA based on their own set of biases (preconceptions). Shadder's rejection of MQA based on listening to a YouTube file of an analog recording of a very informal A/B comparison would be my Exhibit 1 here. 

[Shadders]

18 minutes ago, knickerhawk said:

but the reverse bias could also be leveled against many in this thread who seem dead set on rejecting MQA based on their own set of biases (preconceptions). Shadder's rejection of MQA based on listening to a YouTube file of an analog recording of a very informal A/B comparison would be my Exhibit 1 here. 

Hi,

It was a comparison test, not absolute test. So the test is valid.

I have been told by people who state cables make a difference that my experience was :

1. Wrong due to i did not set it up right
2. I do not want to hear a difference so did not hear a difference
3. My system was inferior so the details of the changes will not be heard
4. The cables i used were not expensive enough

I accept other peoples experience, so you should really accept mine.

Regards,

Shadders.