MQA is Vaporware

[GUTB]

4 hours ago, firedog said:

In his head he knows what they sound like; and that's all that matters. Please don't ask for facts or evidence - they are irrelevant.....

 

And your experience with listening to reel-to-reel tapes is...?

[GUTB]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

 

Utterly wrong. Want to bet? Like $10,000 or $100,000 (but I doubt you are good for it). 

 

Best accept the the fact that you simply don’t understand the math. 

 

 

 

Just accept the the fact that you have no idea what you are writing. Shannon-Nyquist has nothing to do with the limits of human hearing. 

 

Perhaps humans can hear >20k in some fashion. Ok use 24/96 then. 

 

Your babble about sine and square waves remains nonsensical. 

 

Nyquist is mathematically correct, but it requires an arbitrary limit -- in reference to audio, the limits being between 20 Hz and 20 kHz. In reality, humans react to moments of sound far beyond our frequency-domain acuity would otherwise suggest. Additionally it was shown that humans do in fact respond to high-frequency music information even though we cannot consciously detect high-frequency sound. If our audio sensory system deals with frequency and time-domain elements differently, the reliance on frequency sampling as a way to get to "perfect sound" becomes problematic.

 

This is catching up with the FACT that people can perceive the benefit of high-resolution audio and various types of filtering. I think many people in this thread have heard the benefits of high-resolution audio for themselves.

[GUTB]

48 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

 

since you understand it, why not explain it to me? 😫

 

Yes. Sound is energy over time. Energy from one peak to another peak over a certain period of time is the frequency, ie, the how many times these peaks arise over an arbitrary period of time (Hz). 20 kHz can be seen in the time domain as 0.05 milliseconds. Humans can react to sound energy in moments of time much lower than that, even though we can't hear the tone as a frequency of sound.

[GUTB]

1 minute ago, Ralf11 said:

 

this is some of the worst gibberish I have ever heard

 

please go back and take some high school science courses - I cannot find even one correct stmt. here tho you are obviously trying to get some sort of view of reality, and I applaud that

 

"Frequency is the number of occurrences of a repeating event per unit of time." This is the first sentence of the wikipedia article on Frequency. If it's incorrect please assist the world and make an edit.

[GUTB]

So...it looks like MQA is succeeding in the marketplace. What's going on? Wasn't Tidal supposed to have gone bankrupt by now? Why are there still new MQA products showing up?

[GUTB]

Who's going to pick up this new Asus MQA headset?

[GUTB]

58 minutes ago, botrytis said:

What is funny is I think Hypex (who makes gaming headphones0 are better and cheaper than the ASUS ones. No MQA either.

 

The point is the MQA support. I wonder how many gamers are aware of MQA, and how many are going to find out about it because of these?

[GUTB]

So, I guess a lot of non-audiophiles like to comment on this topic.

 

According to Stuart, there is no musical information above 50 kHz or thereabouts. Above this range according to his theory it's just noise, but also some timing cues which are important to our ear-brain system. Supposedly the MQA encoding process retains the 50 kHz range and besides that some elements above that which is determined to be important. So when the full unfold happens the 50 kHz range is brought back, represented by the 88 kHz sample rate, plus whatever timing information was picked up by the encoder in higher-res files. This is probably the basis for calling high-res files above 88 kHz their original sample rate -- according to the theory all the important information is retained and the noise is discarded.

 

MQA began as a way to identify and archive what makes hi-res music sound better. Based on research which showed that humans are much more sensitive to the time domain than our frequency domain acuity would otherwise suggest, Stuart theorized that it wasn't all the noise in hi-res sound, nor the high frequency information we can't discern, but rather the time-domain resolution is what we're actually picking up on.

 

This is theory of course. No one has the tools or ability to verify it without the participation of MQA, and for obvious reason they're not going to give that away being a trade secret. However, what we CAN verify is that MQA has the capacity to sound significantly better than standard resolution audio if you use a a decent MQA-compatible DAC. Not all albums mind you, I've heard plenty which seem to sound no better, but there are those which are clearly, significantly, obviously better. Frankly they can be much better than any 88 kHz track I've ever heard.

[GUTB]

20 minutes ago, MikeyFresh said:

No it didn't, and now you too are citing MQA marketing speak as facts. 

 

Oh here we go again, temporal blurring  shall we?

 

We can't, not anecdotally, nor by means of reviewing the McGill study for example. 

 

Those few that received a special new mastering, perhaps the white glove treatment? Don't bother answering, clearly you've chosen to ignore that aspect entirely despite it having been stated here a million times. A broken record.

 

Even in the cases that you think illustrate your point, isn't that just a subjective opinion vs. any real or broad confirmation, and quite possibly just different as opposed to "clearly, significantly, obviously better" ? 

 

How many releases do you have in 88.2kHz, a handful? Or are you speaking of upsampling?

 

1. If the stated purpose isn't correct, than what was the real purpose? How did you determine it?

2. I don't know what temporal blurring is. Time domain is the flip side of the frequency domain.

3. I'm not familiar with the "McGill study". I have verified through my own testing using Tidal, MQA-CDs and downloaded MQA albums that MQA has the potential to sound better. I downloaded multiple versions of an album I found with an pamplet which lists the engineers, studio and the audio formats (this is a multi-channel 192 kHz album). There's no reason to believe that MQA was mastered any differently than the stereo PCM version. I got a MQA-CD sampler from CDJapan which includes the CD version of the same MQA-CD tracks for comparison purposes. Now, mind you MQA-CD also uses UHQCD which is a new CD media technology that improves signal quality -- but in my testing with that format the quality increase is minor.

 

So, how did you verify that MQA didn't make a difference? DAC? System? Albums?

[GUTB]

Just now, DuckToller said:

If I am not mistaken, you've listed the Holo Audio Cyan and Schiit Yggdrasil as your recent DACs. Both aren't the pinnacle of a "decent MQA-compatible DAC" afaik.
Thus, makes me wonder how you've achieved your verification of MQA's capacity???

 

I was an early adopter of MQA. When it was released to the public I first got a  Meridian Explorer 2. I wasn't able to hear any benefit with MQA from this DAC. I got a Dragonfly Red next and patiently waited for its MQA support firmware update. With the Dragonfly I was able to hear the improvement from MQA for the first time. This wasn't a real DAC however being USB dongle type using a tiny IC amp etc, really lacked dynamics. Next I picked up a Pro-Ject Pre Box S2 Digital, and again I heard the benefit of MQA. Although it was better than than the Dragonfly, once again the dynamics were lacking so it was ultimately an unpleasing DAC. For a while after this I was upgrading my record system, then trying to bring my digital up to the level of of my analog so MQA got back-burnered. Finally I got a Myek Liberty which unlike most MQA DACs can do the decoding on all inputs allowing the use of MQA-CD. I still have the Liberty today and it's hooked up to my headphone system. The Cyan was for experimenting with R2R DSD decoding, and Yggdrasil is my latest and probably final attempt to bring my digital up to the level of my analog. That's on hold right now as I'm burning in a Purifi class D amp and my main amp until recently, an Odyssey Stratos, is broken and my filler amps just aren't as good. I tried to fix the Stratos but to no avail, I may have no choice but to send it in for service, possibly upgrade to something better. So things are on hold right now.

 

If the Yggdrasil can bridge the gap, I'll just have to give up on MQA in my main system and leave it for my headphone setup. If the Yggdrasil doesn't help, maybe I'll upgrade to a Manhattan II and bring back MQA, MQA-CD while my analog is for critical listening / when I feel like it.

 

So yes, I have made some effort to validate MQA's results.

[GUTB]

I frankly don't understand what IT Freak stands to gain by lying. I actually own MQA-CDs. They play back fine from regular CD players, they play back fine on non-MQA DACs, and they unfold just fine on MQA DACs. Therefore we know without a shadow of a doubt that they are are regular 16-bit Redbook PCM streams otherwise standard CD players would not be able to read them.

[GUTB]

I revisited a test album, P.I.Tschaikovsky op - 70 Souvenir de Florence - Unamas Strings Septet downloaded from highresaudio. I have two versions, a regular 192 kHz PCM and the MQA versions of each track. It's been a long time since I listened to it. It was as I remembered it: a very good recording in general, with the MQA version being a little better: a touch more mciro-detail, and strings are a touch more defined against the background. It's the sort of difference you wouldn't recognize unless you were critically listening for it. Maybe it would be more obvious with a better DAC and source. My headphone setup uses the Liberty (plus AliExpress linear power supply of course) and my main PC. DAC and amp are running off of a cheap Emotiva mains common noise filter bar. Also the MQA version of album causes the green light which means its an MQA stream but not fully authorized if that matters at all. I'll look around for another MQA album to compare.

[GUTB]

Okay so comparing the Phil Collins album, just switching between Master and HiFi I was unable to reliably detect any difference.

 

The Deep Purple live, Made in Japan - again, switching between Master and HiFi, the MQA version appears to have a touch more definition, but really just a touch more -- it's like the difference between a CD an a 96 kHz file.

 

I'll listen to the others. Maybe I'll break out the HD600 for this. Currently using the TH900 (Lawton modded for balanced cable) which is a very resolving unit but its V shaped sound signature might be hiding differences.

[GUTB]

I don't think it's an error, I believe MQA will always unfold to 88.2 kHz regardless of the original sample rate. This isn't a simple compression mechanism, it's trying to rebuild a picture of the original's timing cues along with the original information up to 50 kHz (hence the 88.2 kHz rate) and this unfold is likely generated the same across the board with the final unfold applying the remaining timing corrections. This is what I gathered from the various interviews.

[GUTB]

1 hour ago, kumakuma said:

 

 

I appreciate the reaction image, but if you have a better understanding of the process please share. I understand that MQA Ltd. doesn't want to tell the public how exactly it works because it would be stolen. So we have no choice to go by what Stuart says in interviews and other industry people who have an inside track, for example Roon.

 

It's been repeated several times that time domain correction was the driving motivation of MQA. The business aspect of it, providing a compression technique to make hi-res content delivery more economical is there to bring the streaming services onboard. The authentication aspect is for labels. These are things which MQA, a for-profit company, will try to market to consumers. How they chose to market it isn't relevant to me, I only care about the sonic benefits. Don't you care about the sonic benefits?

[GUTB]

5 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

I have zero interest in a proprietary loosy format especially when the sonic benefits are marginal at best.

So, you don't care about sonic benefits. Your difficulty with MQA seems to be philosophical or ethical. I can't argue against that.

[GUTB]

6 hours ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

You are as delusional as the Orange Cheetoh. "Time Domain Correction" is a complete and utter farce, a fabricated phrase that gullible parlour audiophiles can lap up.

 

"Time Domain Correction" at the expense of resolution? At the expense of aliasing and distortion?

 

And Archimago actually showed us it makes timing errors WORSE.

 

But that is the Orwellian world we now live in.

 

I'll drop by Archimago's site at some point. I was very unimpressed by his earlier anti-MQA hobbyhorse and responded to it in detail which went without substantive answer, I'll see what he's come up with now.

 

Weather or not MQA's time domain is fakery is not something which can be determined by looking at a frequency plot of a rendered MQA file. As Jim Austin -- a PhD in physics -- over at Stereophile commented that the only way to test the time domain claims is with the participation of MQA Ltd. No one here, and not Archimago, has the ability to do so.

 

Setting aside whether or not MQA sounds better, it seems that everyone who has actually listened to MQA through a MQA DAC reports that it can sound very different. Many albums I could detect no difference. Many albums I could detect only a slight improvement. Some albums have shown a huge difference, the first one such I was immediately suspicious that there were EQ-ing going on. I have since then begun to suspect this perception of increased volume, or forwardness, as if one were leaning into the mic, is an illusion from improved time domain performance. I noticed that in my vinyl system, many of my records displayed a clear and obvious improvement of dynamics over the digital versions of the same album. This is what has sent me chasing after a digital solution to this gap for the last few years. I wonder if what I was actually hearing in the records was the correct time domain information. You can't blame different masters either. Hit up Tidal for Confederation:

https://tidal.com/browse/album/50641444

This is a Sheffield Lab direct-to-disc recording, the album was directly transcribed to wax in real time with the performance. Completely analog to start to finish. The Tidal version is essentially a needledrop done by a professional mastering engineer. Now when you listen to this album, you'll probably find nothing wrong with it. It sounds fine. Except you have no idea what the record from 1977 sounds like. It's a different experience. It may give the impression of being more forward, but in reality, it's the sense of reality, of higher highs and deeper dips, that dynamic power and contrast which is so pleasing and life-like. Everyone knows that vinyl is nosier, more distorted, has less (usable) bandwidth, etc. So what is it? What if it just boils down to the lack of timing errors endemic to digital? What if Stuart's theory is correct and it's this timing information what actually makes hi-res sound better than Redbook?

 

[GUTB]

1 hour ago, MikeyFresh said:

False. See the McGill study.

 

Oooh, a call to authority. Maybe with Jim and MQA's help we can birth a new world too.

 

Well, you've responded to all listener critiques with citing this McGill study. I'll go check it out and see why it substitutes the need to listen to MQA.

[GUTB]

6 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

 

I put as much credence in these observations as I have put in every observation you have made in the past.*

 

*When I have not had you on ignore.

 

MQA is not allowing independent comparison of their product for the alleged reason that  they are protecting intellectual property. They are not allowing independent comparison of their product because they are protecting the very carefully constructed illusion that MQA provides a benefit to the music consumer.

MQA is terrified of independent examination of their product because the truth would come out.  Much of the truth has already come out and MQA is scrambling to cover up the truth.

 

So, what are your listening impressions? Do you find an improvement in sound and your criticism is philosophical / ethical? Did you find it sounds worse? Some combination?

[GUTB]

21 hours ago, Currawong said:

 

I have spent some time recently listening to a variety of TIDAL MQA albums, both the originals (some which required listening via Qobuz) and the MQA versions. I've also done a bit of file analysis, as I have been able to capture the digital output, or get the original TIDAL file (with help from a software developer).  I haven't looked at the new MQA 16-bit files on TIDAL yet though.

 

After a long, heated discussion with a friend, who is or was pro-MQA (he didn't know about many of the things discussed here) he discussed some of the issues brought up with friends in pro audio, and there are some issues with some of the arguments here, which I'll leave for another time. However, he did suggest to me some albums he felt were improved by MQA, which I had a listen through a Chord Hugo 2 direct to headphones (Focal Utopias or Final D8000s) or through my speaker system which, while not super high-end, was enough to determine what I'm about to write about. I do have MQA DACs here I can listen with also, but listening with those didn't change what I experienced.

 

The one album that sounded better with MQA was the Beatles Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club. Whatever processing they did brings some quieter sounds more forward, which was pleasant. However, the album itself isn't super high resolution in terms of what subtleties are noticeable in the recording, so no loss from the processing. 

 

Various classical albums (there are a variety) were wrecked by MQA, the subtle atmospheric details around the instruments obliterated, making everything sound more "one-note".  This was very obvious through headphones direct out of the Hugo 2, and may not be noticeable through a complex speaker system that loses some resolution through having multiple components and cables.

 

With regards to timing information being improved by MQA, that is categorically bullshit. With correct timing information, I can hear a good-quality, standard stereo recording of classical appear to come from behind my speakers, which are ~2.5m away from me, with the instrument locations correct in two dimentions. The depth and width of the stereo image are both preserved extremely well with Chord DACs, unlike with others, where the "space" of the stereo image is often compressed front-to-back to one degree or another. When the timing information is preserved, so is the stereo image! Timing is how our brain interprets the location of objects around us. 

 

The MQA filters are all short filters of one type or another, and they cannot reproduce a correct spacial representation of a recording.  This, both from the science of filters, as well as what is clearly audible when comparing with digital equipment that does it correctly. For example, when you use the short filters with an iFi DAC like the Pro iDSD, even on a non-MQA album, instead of a correct, deep stereo image from this music, instead the instruments are brought unnaturally forward -- on my system it sounds like they are coming from in front of the speakers. While this is more exciting to listen to, especially on headphones, it isn't a proper reproduction.  Again, it's enjoyable, but the actual stereo image is clearly not real. A full MQA chain doesn't change this at all!

 

So there isn't a question of "What if Stuart's theory is correct" because there is no "if" involved -- he's abusing a valid science to justify something that has the opposite effect.

 

Interesting information. Can you explain what a short filter is and how it impacts time domain performance?

[GUTB]

Setting aside the question of MQA's efficacy, I think it's pretty obvious it's here to stay. The labels appear to have embraced it as the de-jour high-res delivery method for their catalogues. Outside of MQA, the only options are going to be the usual players: audiophile labels and whatever master-quality albums the main labels feel like releasing. MQA isn't going to impact the audiophile labels, they're still going to be releasing very high-res audio in all consumer formats even if they add MQA to their catalogues. So really nothing's going to change.

[GUTB]

1 hour ago, MikeyFresh said:

Except it isn't, in fact the entire current business model of streaming is not guaranteed to stay, those that report financials clearly lose huge money every single quarter, including Spotify who has the largest paid subscriber base. While the labels love it, they are the only ones making money, the streaming services do not and the artists aren't exactly pleased either. That appears unsustainable in its current form.

Given MQA's only current delivery method is the money losing Tidal (unless you are counting the stillborn MQA-CD which GUTB might be), I'd say there is no proof at all that it's here to stay.

 

 

So the GUTB crystal ball sees download services such as HDtracks being forced to shut down due to MQA?

 

That same GUTB crystal ball indicates the labels would continue to approve hi-rez releases "in all formats"? Not if their greedy accountant/lawyer top execs have their way. What are the formats (plural) you refer to? If they killed the standard Redbook streams in favor of lossy MQA-CD, what makes you think they would continue releasing actual Redbook CD media at all?

There's no crystal balls? Have any audiophile labels stopped releasing hi-res and switched over to MQA? I don't know if a single one.

 

 

1 hour ago, MikeyFresh said:

 

You just parroted the stance of the main stream audio press, including right here in this very thread several years ago. That is of course exactly what the labels and MQA want everyone to think, while they slowly quietly eliminate consumer choice.

 

Well...look. The labels are the ones who will decide if and how they release their catalogues for hi-res. If there was no MQA there's no reason to believe they'd start releasing lossless hi-res when that technology has been around and in very wide usage for many years before MQA came out. So, in reality, MQA provides more choices by enticing the labels to release their catalogues in a hi-res format. Let's say MQA is just snakeoil -- the big labels weren't going to release their catalogues in hi-res ANYWAY so what difference does it make if MQA comes along and ends up being no different than CD-quality?

 

Now here's a crystal ball prediction: if the streaming services die, the labels will obviously try to figure out how to market their catalogues to consumers. The audiophile labels won't care because their market is small but dedicated and big spenders. If they have these giant MQA catalogues which allows them to market them as hi-res with the bandwidth of regular CD audio, I don't imagine they'll just abandon them without trying to make money off them. They'll keep pushing it. Also, I very much doubt streaming is going anywhere -- maybe the players will consolidate and come up with an economical platform, but that won't kill MQA by itself.

 

Again, lossless hi-res compression has been around for ages and it's in very wide usage, way wider than MQA. The labels simply decided they didn't like it. So what's the solution?

 

 

 

[GUTB]

1 hour ago, MikeyFresh said:

Actually depending on the exact contract language in place, it is often the label in tandem with the artist, a good contract prohibits the label from doing anything without the artist's approval. Unfortunately many artists did not have good representation and signed a bad contract.

 

False, and more parroting of the audio press. The labels long ago released a very wide range of their titles on hi-rez, not only on physical media such as SACD and DVD-Audio, but then on a much greater scale with downloads. Those same transfers are available on Qobuz right now without any MQA crap. This idea that MQA enables some larger swath of records to be issued as hi-rez is total bullshit. No one needs MQA for that, it was already happening en masse without MQA. Further, MQA is not hi-rez.

 

Because the labels were in fact releasing hi-rez, and the only pause there is if their accountants and lawyers are told of a manner they can do that that cheats the customer while enriching the label, they'll go for that instead of actual hi-rez downloads, or even reissued CD-quality albums.

 

They won't, because the audiophile labels know that MQA is complete BS, they wouldn't stake their reputation on such garbage. They wouldn't be able to market it as hi-rez when they already do the real thing, only in the fantasy land of magazines and gear manufacturers/dealers is MQA considered hi-rez. Why do you think audiophile labels care about that bogus claim that MQA delivers hi-rez with "the bandwidth of regular CD audio"? the audiophile labels don't engage in anything currently that makes bandwidth important to them, and it's a false claim anyway, regular FLAC is just as good at bandwidth savings, and if it were not already completely moot, it will be shortly with the agent of 5g.

 

Don't play their game or support their bad greedy decision in any way. Don't buy any MQA hardware (too late for GUTB), don't stream any MQA track versions, in fact, don't subscribe to Tidal at all. That sends the message with the wallet, and it will be heard loud and clear.

So....what hardware and albums did you use to evaluate MQA again?

[GUTB]

11 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

There is NOTHING that MQA does that is a benefit to the music consumer.  There is nothing that MQA claims to do that cannot be done better by non proprietary means. MQA produces an added cost to the music consumer. 

MQA should be rejected by the music consumer for a number of reasons.

MQA claims to dramatically improve time domain errors. What non-MQA process can do this? Record in DXD? Move back to master reels? 

[GUTB]

7 hours ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Here is a nice example of how clueless the press is.

 

 

Michael Fremer, from Analog Planet-

 

"The TIDAL MQA streamed 96/24 version was like another recording altogether. The piano sounded more like a piano made of wood. The church space on the live performance was well-separated from the instrument and it was overall far more coherent and satisfying. I don’t understand those who are MQA resistant especially those who view it as a “plot” to control their recorded musical existence.  And, not surprising (to me at least), the extremely well mastered and flawlessly pressed vinyl record sounded very much like the MQA 96/24 stream.

 

https://www.analogplanet.com/content/lang-lang—-classical-music-superstar-critics-love-hate-hate-delivers-his-goldberg-variations

 

 

Listening to this album a bit, I do detect an improved resolution in the MQA version (switching between Master and Hifi in Tidal). Improved separation of notes and associated harmonics in complex passages. To me it sounds very much like a 96kHz recording: a minor improvement in separation and "clarity" (ie, "resolution") over 44.1kHz. I thought I could hear the venue in both versions, but I'm also listening on pretty resolving headphones (TH900). Also I'm sure Fremer is using a much better system than I am. The Mytek Liberty isn't exactly a high-end DAC, just the best one I have to evaluate MQA and MQA-CD. Obviously I did get a linear power supply for it, but it's a cheap AliExpress job.