MQA is Vaporware

[botrytis]

5 hours ago, HalSF said:

You may disagree with him, but @John_Atkinson has written and spoken in great detail about what he thinks are the flaws in double-blind testing of hi-fi gear. His arguments are quite interesting, though I know that saying so doesn't fit the Heroes and Villains gamesmanship of the thread.

 

Like the weather, everybody talks about double-blind testing but nobody does anything about it. Because it's *incredibly* difficult and expensive to do it even half-right.

The problem is, double blind testing is the standard in science testing. If a person wants flawed or biased testing, then by all means don't use it but it is the best way to remove bias.

[botrytis]

6 hours ago, notron said:

Usual patronising circular  argument from those who try to set the agenda and admit of no other view: if I like  MQA it must be because I don’t understand it... if I don’t understand  it my liking must therefore be invalid.

 

I like it simply because, given a choice of music  across a wide range of formats, MQA often provides  me with a particularly satisfying approximation of live music, which seems a reasonable stance for  an audiophile site.   By contrast, I find the notion that an audiophile would dismiss MQA without significant listening because of a received theoretical “understanding” of the technology as inexplicable as you seem to find my opinion.

 

 

Problem is, much of the music I have heard MQA encoded WAS NOT RECORDED LIVE, it was all done in the studio. Therefore, the music sounding live is not accurate.  I want the music to sound the way it was recorded not some nonsense dreamed up by someone.

[botrytis]

33 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

Many audiophiles who are still processing MQA have been puzzled by the emphatic insistence from some quarters that sound quality is not on the table when it comes to judging MQA's value to consumers. SQ now seems to be an acceptable topic for consideration on "MQA is Vaporware" and I was responding to the implication that all the enthusiasm for this aspect of the technology comes from the press.

 

 

 

I am not disputing (or misunderstanding) the conclusions Archimago drew from his Internet exercise. Rather, I looked at his data and noted that there were plenty of instances (78, to be specific) when a listener heard a "moderate difference" or "clear difference" between the high-resolution PCM file and the MQA-treated one. I mention them as examples of a perceived positive effect of MQA on SQ outside of the audiophile press.

 

 

 

There are differing levels of positivity and I do acknowledge the observations by Archimago, crenca, and Brinkman Ship that many of the most glowing assessments regarding SQ were presented early on in the American print magazines. But at these publications there has actually been a range of positivity, even at TAS. In my editorial last year ("The Politics of MQA") my conclusion was that "MQA is definitely different, and usually better. Not night and day better, but better" and the much-maligned Steven Stone has consistently characterized what he hears as the beneficial sonic effect of MQA as "subtle".

 

 

 

The observation has been made on this forum that an audiophile consumer with no connections to the audio industry who had strongly positive views about MQA would not find "Vaporware" to be the most hospitable place to express those views—and would stay away. That's why "civility" has been my subject, rather than sonics or the many valid non-SQ issues that have been raised regarding MQA. In both the "old guard" magazines (as Chris calls us) and at CA, I feel that all points of view should be treated respectfully so that the conversation remains useful to the widest possible constituency.

 

Andrew Quint

Senior Writer

The Absolute Sound

 

 What we, as MQA skeptics, have been asking is why such a reaction difference between what Archimago received in his tests and the rather flowery so positive response from the Audio press. This is a total disconnect between the audience of the magazines and the audience.

 

The magazines routinely test speakers and other equipment but don't test a format which could fundamentally change digital music and delivery? This to me smells bad.

 

I was in one of the McGrath comparison, at AXPONA. His descriptions of the differences before playing the files, corrupted the test so no accurate reaction and listening session could be done. Using ABX tests like that sully the data that can be gleaned from such listening tests.

 

The audiophile press still has not answered as to why this is so.

[botrytis]

1 minute ago, Jud said:

 

Well, duh.  Do you have rights to non-MQA music you haven’t purchased, for example on LP?  How did that happen?  By rights management.  MQA is creating new versions of recordings, and new recordings are being created in MQA.  Of course the rights to such content must be managed.  It is *not* the same thing as saying MQA provides for DRM.

 

To me this has always been a side issue anyway.  The big issue is whether MQA can attain sufficient market power that it impinges on the availability of “lossless” formats.  So far it’s not looking like it.  Keep voting with your keyboards, and most important, your wallets.

The point is there is no rights management on LPs or CDs. You can play them anywhere. You cannot do that with MQA and they can actually turn the screws on DRM to make playing these files harder. 

[botrytis]

Just now, Jud said:

 

There are new made-for-MQA masterings that are in lossless format.

MQA is lossy. What you said is nonsense.

[botrytis]

15 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Player software like Audirvana Plus or HQPlayer, or audio software like iZotope or SoX, offers such choice/control.

 

 

That's right.  I've owned Vandersteens for 30 years, so when I encounter them at a show, it's "Ah, this sounds right."  Of course someone with a different history could easily have a different reaction.

Like me. i couldn't get rid of them fast enough.

[botrytis]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

 

What speakers do you like?

Honestly, the best system I heard at AXPONA was using Dynaudio C2 Platinum speakers which I really like. I also like the new Bowers and Wilkins  800 D3 series, especially the 804 D3 which sounded stellar.

[botrytis]

4 minutes ago, mansr said:

You're reading it too literally.

Sometimes, people who do not have English as their mother tongue are more literal in their use of the language.

 

 

[botrytis]

2 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Which could be literally saying reading it too literally.

I was trying not to be too literal.

[botrytis]

30 minutes ago, WAM said:

   57 minutes ago,  mansr said: 

 I'd like to know how they got Jim Morrison to sign off on it.

 

This exactly the reason I did not trust MQA from the beginning. I lack the technical knowledge  most of you have, but if something is too good to be true...

 I am in the same boat. I can wax poetic about how beer, wine, whiskey are made to the point of boring another person to tears but this topic no. That is why I came here. To learn from people who know more that me.

 

If anyone wants to wax poetic on that topic, let me know. I mean my PhD is in Botrytis biochemistry. We each have our little niches.

[botrytis]

5 hours ago, firedog said:

And your sighted listening tests, which prove nothing.

Do the same tests blind without Peter McGrath in the room.

I have heard the MQA MCGrath files and colour me not impressed. They were playing in the big Quintessence Audio room at AXPONA last year. I ran out of the room since they had so much high end noise, I was thinking there was problems with the system. McGrath liked MQA, and he said as much so their is your not so subtle bump to your sub-conscious to fill in the music.

 

I recently, went to a store in Des Moines, IA where I was listening to both MQA and regular FLAC. You could definitely hear the differences and many times is was not subtle. As an example, Melody Gardot's - Live in Europe can be had in both 48/24 FLAC and MQA. Listening to Track 1 in MQA, the drums (using brushes) sounded like noise, while the regular FLAC sounded like brushes on drums. This is only one of the things I noticed.

 

Lee - you can keep your MQA. I will take my regular FLAC files.

[botrytis]

Just now, Jud said:

 

Let's please not add amateur lawyering to our list of sins.

 

Wait, we have sins? Since when?

[botrytis]

25 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Firedog, with all due respect, you weren't there and I was.  It was pretty civil outside of Derek's desk pounding.  The discussion after Chris left was pretty good.  You should watch the extended video so you get the tone of the whole event.

We WATCHED THE VIDEO. I don't know what planet you are from, but the constant nastiness to Chris in that video is plain as the nose on your face. Saying anything else is disingenuous. I would not have put up with crap like that and I have done quite a few of presentations at International Meetings (science background here). These gents should have been shown the door as they were just there to disrupt.

 

Chris was very open that he was giving BOTH POSITIVE AND NEGATIVES to MQA in the talk.

[botrytis]

 

5 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Nope.  The discussion at the end was a key part of it with lots of good information exchanged.

 

ORLY? You mean one sided, with the people that constantly interrupted Chris having the floor all to themselves. That is NOT an EXCHANGE that is a data dump and not a good one.

 

Please stop Lee. Continually going down this road just proves that you are: 1. possibly on the MQA payroll. 2. A shill, plain and simple. 3. Not wanting to understand HOW this will affect the music buying public as a whole.

[botrytis]

I found the link but maybe because I have a PhD, is what makes it possible.

 

😁

[botrytis]

26 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

My View on Chris’ Computer Audiophile MQA Seminar at RMAF 2018

 

Here are some notes on the slides in Chris’ presentation that I found to show bias against MQA.  I will comment on select slides using the page numbers embedded in the pdf file.

 

Slide 6:

The “from-to” slide sets up early an anti-MQA theme even before we can discuss the detail on each point.  Then Chris proceeds to present evidence on each and other points that does not include an MQA counterpoint.  This is my biggest beef with the slide deck.  Many quality points and counter-evidence in favor of MQA are ignored in favor of the anti-MQA argument in my opinion.  I will address the most notable points slide by slide.

 

Slide 12:

MQA has presented MRI research that shows humans can perceive time phenomena in incredibly small amounts.  This is one reason that I believe MQA focused on the time smearing aspects so keenly because that will provide the biggest benefit.  My understanding is that this research was sent to Chris and Bob Harley and John Atkinson at the roughly the same time.  So it seems curious that Chris does not mention this research on timing.

 

Slide 14:

Chris mentions that it is not lossless from a standard PCM standpoint but Bob Stuart has admitted that publicly.  But here Chris is ignoring the MQA approach cleverness (imho) and the playback aspects of the file.  The MQA process uses triangular encoding so the bits that are discarded are in an inaudible region.  So the point that those bits don’t represent the music is missing from the slide.  In terms of capturing that music in the “triangle”, the process preserves that bit for bit.   The discarded information is essentially dead space.

 

Further reading:

https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/mqa-time-domain-accuracy-digital-audio-quality

 

Slide 17:

This studio sound slide implies MQA are remixing the master.  In fact, the differences between the master file and MQA are very small.  MQA is applying filters to correct the time smear of ADC.  So there is a misunderstanding here as well about how studios operate.  Work is done on a mixing “console” and that console outputs (at the end of it all) an analog signal.  That analog signal is then converted to digital using and ADC.  All ADCs introduce time smear.  What happens is that MQA filters correct that time smear so that final analog signal is reproduced better in digital.  It’s a different algorithm than the apodizing filters Stuart has creat in the past but addresses some of the same sound phenomena.

 

If you have different tracks or stems that use different ADCs then they can also be corrected by the MQA process  before being mixed together but that’s extra work and not necessary arguably if you can correct the final analog product coming out of the console.

 

Slide 18:

On the Bruno Mars track, Chris is claiming that MQA is putting a “notch” in this track but MQA doesn’t add a notch in its process in this fashion so it’s unclear what happened in this mastering.  This appears to not be a product of the process so it’s up to the chart creator to explain the process and origin of files.

 

Slide 20:

Regarding MQA taking over all other formats.  Any new audio format wants to be accepted widely so the inventors can make money and pay back their investment.  However, this is not any different from PCM or AAC or other innovations.  Why would this MQA ambition be viewed negatively when every format aspires to the same thing?

 

Slide 23:

This again betrays an understanding of the studio process where a “final” analog signal gets converted at the end (discussed above) for distribution.  The MQA filters eliminate the time smear of the final ADC for the finished product.  MQA has now done this so many times that they were able to build a machine learning algorithm to quickly find the ADC signature and then apply the correct filter to eliminate the time smear.   Now on special recordings, MQA uses a so-called “white glove” process to do a fully custom approach.  The Beatles’ Sgt. Pepper was white glove.

 

Remember, ADC is done off the mixing board.  Every studio you visit, they come out analog to drive effects.  Manley reverb, etc,. then on to digital and that A to D is what is done.   It’s the final ADC unless real-time, wherever ADC is done.  Stems are can be like each of the 48 channels, mix, fade, EQ.  Again, you could MQA each stem if you wanted.  So the concern from multiple DACs being used in the process is unwarranted as the artist hears that final analog signal.

 

Slides 25-27:

The implication is that MQA does not create size compression that is of value.  However, we have all seen situations at home where bandwidth becomes a problem.  I have fast U-Verse fiber and when my wife and I are on the laptops, watching a 4K movie sometimes stutters.  If you look at streaming services like Qobuz at 24/192, you need 9.2 mbps speeds which you often don’t find when traveling on trips or sitting at home.  I have noticed Qobuz, which I otherwise like, sometime stutters or “hangs” in my home office.  MQA, due to its compression, only needs 2.4 mbps to work so a quarter of the bandwidth.

 

MQA compression is also useful when you want to offload the music to a phone.  A 60-minute 24/192 file needs 4 gigabytes versus around 1 gigabyte in MQA form.  There is a limit to the amount of phone storage you can have and so far none have things on the order of terabytes.  So the advantage here is that you are taking up 1/4 of the space with the MQA file.

 

Slide 29:

This slide shows bias in that it doesn’t mention a critical fact: no DRM files have been issued by MQA or their partners.  It also defines DRM to include even MQA’s desire to create an authentication process, not for nefarious reasons of taking away customer freedom but to make sure if the file is certified MQA then the end consumer is assured they are getting the genuine article.  I think there are two reasons for this:

 

1. (audit) It creates a quality check on the overall file integrity.
2. (marketing) It creates a feature on the hardware that tells the consumer that the file is full MQA authenticated via a light and the thinking is that consumers could desire that light to know they were listening to a better sound experience.

 

It seems that many here conflate authentication with DRM but they are two different things.  And this was the point I brought up in the seminar, if no one is issuing DRM on the music then why do we care?  The consumer is protected from DRM.  Files can be copied and shared.

 

Even when we look at outside evaluation, we see a conclusion there is no DRM.  See the Electronic Frontiers Foundation. And as we saw today, the ASA team studied MQA and did not find MQA had many any exaggerated claims.

 

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/12/closed-proprietary-felonious-toxic-rainbow-locked-technology

 

Slide 30:

To me this slide ignores economic reality.  Each participant must make money to be interested in investing time and money, whether to release new hirez files which require retrieving masters and running the process or redesigning chip implementation at hardware manufacturers.  As my friend JB says, “people gots to be paid.”

 

Slide 33:

“We no longer matter.”  I think this is true on one level as major corporation will decide the success level of MQA in the near term.  But I also believe that, in the long run, MQA will succeed mostly on how the consumer acts in terms of demand.  Will they pay for a premium tier like Tidal Masters to get MQA quality?  Will they reward device makers by buying MQA-embedded product?  Will they pay for another major streaming service to offer better sound quality?  I don’t have the answers to these questions but it’s got to be perceived by the customer to be of enough value to purchase or participate in.  If that falls flat then record label, streamer, and hardware device manufacturer interest will wane and MQA will fade out.

 

Other general comments:

There is also no mention of the success MQA has had in getting all the major record labels on board, the dozens of hardware manufacturers now including MQA in the process, and success in the mobile and automotive worlds.  If Chris is going to present the financial losses the firm has had as a startup then it’s only fair to objectively present their successes too.  We also don’t have a current set of financial statements so it’s impossible to judge what progress they have had over the past several months.

 

My conclusion is that Chris did not give MQA a chance to present their side of each point in the argument and, more importantly, did not present the MQA counterpoints we have been discussing all year or even include some of the relevant studies that were sent to him and other journalists.  So any person perusing these slides is only seeing half the information needed to make an informed judgment.  Of course, one should also partake in arguably the most essential event of all: that of a good MQA demo so one’s own ears can decide.

 

Point one - Chris DID NOT HAVE TO GIVE MQA their time. WHY? It was not a discussion panel. Every discussion panel that was setup for discussion of MQA was stopped due to the fact that NO MQA PERSON WOULD SHOW UP. This happened at AXPONA and RMAF, the previous year. 

 

Point Two - this was Chris' take on MQA, period. As an independent voice, Chris has every right to talk about MQA the way he sees fit.

 

Slide 6 is a setup of what the talk will be about.  THERE IS NO SLIGHT TO MQA. What did you expect. Your bias has already shown it's head, Lee, therefore everything else after that is biased nonsense.

 

As I said before, please stop. MQA IS NOT GOOD FOR CONSUMERS OR AUDIOPHILES. You like it great, but it is not the latest thing since sliced bread. it is just another way to repackage and resell the same music over and over.

[botrytis]

The sad part is, most music streaming sites, play watermarked music files. So recording them would just be annoying as sin, since the watermark would be there also.

[botrytis]

1 minute ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Strawman.  No claim made by me as to the friendliness of the labels to the consumer.

 

It is not a strawman argument. I mean, the same can be said about the labels to the artists. The labels seem to care more about themselves than they do the artists.

 

Your dismissal is condescension pure and simple.

[botrytis]

1 minute ago, Em2016 said:

 

I disagree. This may apply moreso to the early Napster days perhaps, where it was apparently so easy for everyone to get stuff free?

 

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the big growth in streaming MAY be due to those people saying 'can't be bothered anymore' with going to the illegal sites anymore. So they stopped getting stuff free and just took up paid streaming...

 

Also young kids getting stuff free eventually turn into working adults and MAY pay later at some point (also the same 'can't be bothered' factor with sourcing illegal stuff, when you're a busier adult).

 

I don't think it's easy to generalise so easy?

 

But anyway, if the labels perceive it to still be a concern (RIAA CEO's words above, not mine and I assume he's echo'ing their thoughts) then obviously they are still looking at ways  to further reduce illegal downloads. 

 

 

 

If you want, there are always ways around any system. People, who I know stream, just want music. They don't want to have libraries of music. Many of them have already sold the physical copies of the music they owned. The RIAA tried to stop that also (the sale of used physical copies of music) and that went nowhere.

 

[botrytis]

7 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

This is incorrect.  Chris purported to take an objective look but the points I lay out show bias on almost every slide.  He did at least owe the audience a counterpoint to each argument.

 

Also, MQA is not a repackage of prior work.  It is a new series of algorithms and practices that aim to transmit hirez music in a better way and in smaller file sizes.

 

It was an objective look. He was pretty laid back about the whole thing. If it wasn't an objective look, he would have presented, just like the MQA shills did, when they interrupted them. What you want is a subjective look.

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, ARQuint said:

 

This isn't as "off-topic" as some think. The behavior of the MQA people at CC's RMAF seminar was unacceptable—they certainly would have had their chance to have their say if they'd just let Chris finish his presentation. (I'm pretty sure that Chris had built time for discussion into his session, plus it was the last seminar of the day and a dialogue could have continued indefinitely.) But, as I've suggested before, they came "loaded for bear" because, I think, they conflated Chris's approach to MQA with that of the most rudely extreme, take-no-prisoner participants on this forum. It was a disappointment to me, as I would have liked to witness a true back-and-forth debate. Probably, a superior format would have been a panel of (well-informed) pro- and anti-MQA partisans, with Chris as the moderator who could have held the panelists' feet to the fire and assured that questions really got answered - both the "who is Archimago, why is he anonymous and what are his possible motivations?" and the "tell me why MQA isn't DRM?" varieties.

 

So I think Paul R's point is well taken. More kindness, respect, civility—whatever you want to call it—would have allowed for a more meaningful MQA discussion at RMAF, and elsewhere in our small universe.

 

Andrew Quint

The Absolute Sound

 

Why kindness, when we Chris saw nothing but contempt? Civility is a 2-way street. There was supposed to be an AXPONA MQA discussion panel with Dr. Mark Waldrep being on the panel. Guess what, NO MQA PERSON WOULD SHOW UP. So, the panel discussion never happened. This is the issue. If they want to discuss, discuss. Let's discuss the positives and negatives, not hide behind veil, like the MQA proponents have been.

 

As far as anonymity is concerned and journalism, most of the important 20th century news stories were started because of anonymous sources. Does that mean the information is invalid? NO IT DOES NOT. Archimago has been straight forward with his reporting on MQA and what he has discovered. As a matter of fact, he even gave out all the information so anyone with the proper equipment can repeat what he has done and actually welcomed that. Why it is a big deal to you who Archimago is? He has stated he does not work in this industry  and does it because he loves audio. You want people to take what MQA says at face value but you do not what to take what Archimago has done at face value? Sorry, it is a 2-way street.

 

I think this is another case of, obfuscation by the MQA proponents while giving no information as to why we need it? We do not and this has been proven time and time again.

[botrytis]

What I want to know is if Lee says he does not get ANY remuneration from MQA, how can he report this 

 

https://parttimeaudiophile.com/2019/03/05/florida-2019-mqa-makes-more-progress/

 

and say he is not getting some payback from MQA. All the magazines take Ad money, there ya go Lee. Not so truthful....

 

https://parttimeaudiophile.com/contributors/

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

This is correct.  As I have said repeatedly here, I get no compensation, financial or otherwise from MQA.  

 

PTA pays me a small amount for each article I write.

 

MQA is not my favorite topic, that award goes to show coverage as I like to travel and hear new gear.  So far I have written about MQA twice in roughly 110 articles including prior publications.

Lee, not true. You have a place to publish and that CAN be considered compensation. Also you said you do get paid, albeit small. THAT IS COMPENSATION, no matter how small. Advertisements pay for the magazine, not subscribers.

 

As such, you should be saying that all your posts are advertisements, just like we do in peer reviewed scientific journals when one gets grant money from the government.

[botrytis]

31 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Dude, this makes no sense.  I am a writer for Part-Time Audiophile.  My job there is to write articles.  There is no compensation from MQA, only from PTA.  And it's a tiny fraction of my day job.  I do it because I like audio gear.  It doesn't influence my opinion on MQA or anything else one bit.

 

All magazines survive by ad dollars, that's just how the business works.  And any advertising is done through the publisher Scot.  We have a "chinese wall" to protect conflicts of interests.  AFAIK, MQA is not even an advertiser.

 

Lee, the point is you are getting paid, small amount or not. You cannot say you not getting paid, that is false. Just because it is not your full time job, is besides the point. You do get money from your articles. Where do you think the money comes from? Off of a tree? Come on Lee, be realistic. Ads pay for your space to publish and your small pay.

 

'nuff said on that topic......

[botrytis]

This discussion reminds me of one I had with a friend who was an anti-vaxxer. He did not vaccinate his children because he said they cause autism and all types of nasty things. I showed him a multitude of scientific papers showing that he was wrong. People would rather be stupidly right than admit they are wrong. This has been stated before, in this thread, and it is the truth.

 

As far as MQA, I have heard the Peter McGrath MQA samples and the spiel beforehand. I closed my ears to the spiel and listened to just the music. There was a difference and it wasn't pleasant. This is the problem with MQA listening sessions and it is classic psychology. Tell them what they will hear, Explain in flowery language and your brain will subconsciously fill in the rest. This happens ALL THE TIME, listening to loudspeaker presentations, etc. They also will play the music twice because our brain does have a little small tape recorder in it, that will save what we heard then will add more on top of that tape. Kind of like layering. This is how they get audiophiles to buy. 

 

I remember one great audio demonstration I went to. It was simple and straight forward. It was the CEO and head designer of HRS Systems. What he did was to play one CD in a player (he did it twice - but both times) let us listen. Then he just moved the CD player to one of his racks and just played it again. He did the explanation AFTER the demo. He didn't use influence or anything else. The difference was there. THAT WAS A DEMO.

 

Of course, the problem with music is, what master are you using. This is one of the issues I have with MQA, you cannot determine which master they are using. They just say, 'Trust us.'. Sorry, after the way the music industry has reacted over the last 50-60 years, their record does not exude confidence in me.

 

That said, this argument will go round and round, ad infinitum. This is because the Lee Scoggins of the world can't admit they are wrong or look at the data that is out there for anyone to see and reproduce, if they equipment to do so, reproduce what has been reported here.

 

I will close with a David Hannam quote, 'There is a sucker born every minute.' (Look it up - it wasn't PT Barnum).