MQA is Vaporware

[Archimago]

20 minutes ago, firedog said:

 

Kal is correct. The overtones don't exist by themselves in a vacuum. 
BTW, are you aware that many microphones - especially many of the most well regarded vintage ones - can't capture ultrasonics, or even anything approaching 20khz? Or that tape machines in studios were often purposely setup not to be able to record anything over 15khz or so? Yet many who listen to 96k or192k digital transcriptions of these tapes would make the same claim as you - that its the (non-existant) ultrasonics in their hi-res files that is responsible for their good sound. 

 

Yup. Speaking of vintage recordings from old tape machines... Here's HDTrack's Kind of Blue, "So What" (1959), in 24/96, FFT averaged over about a minute of audio to clarify the sonic content:

 

 

Notice it's essentially -95dBFS and lower noise from 21kHz onward. I see that HDTracks offers the 192kHz version as well. For $5.00 more of course... Not exactly good value IMO.

[Archimago]

14 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

Yes - but the main content from 100Hz is at -35dB, so this is a difference of 60dB, as per the many download recordings analysed by Hifi News. Maybe they have not used all the bits - 8bits at the top going spare ?

 

Regards,

Shadders.

 

Indeed. I'm certainly not going to argue that KoB "needs" more than 16-bits either!

 

[Archimago]

35 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Strereophile...All MQA, All the time..no matter the time, place or venue!

 

Mr. MQA at the Long Beach show:

 

"A 96K MQA file of Muddy Waters’ “Never Go Back Again” revealed just how much depth this lovely-sounding system could produce (even if MQA-haters are praying we go back, back, back to the pre-MQA era)."

https://www.stereophile.com/content/vandersteen-quatro-loudspeakers-and-m5-hpa-monoblocks-jeff-rowland-corus-stereo-preamplifier#tHMXfVrqVGvISCj0.99

 

What a bizarre comment... What does he mean "back, back, back to the pre-MQA era"?! Considering there is no "MQA era" other than a few words here and there among magazine people who still think MQA has some kind of traction.

 

Is he referring to the ancient days before December 2014 when MQA was infamously introduced at a party at The Shard?

 

Is this guy "okay"? Seems to be losing perspective... "Hebrew Shrink" - I think you need to set this man up for an assessment 🙂.

[Archimago]

9 hours ago, daverich4 said:

 

Sort of like this forum where as soon as @mansr sez or @Archimago sez there can be no other truth...

 

By nature of the critique lodged against MQA, I believe this to be untrue. In fact, the hope (for me at least) is that this is not about "The Man" but the technology itself. I hope the rationale presented over the years have been reasonably clearly laid out for all to consider for themselves. @mansr even reverse-engineered much of the final "rendering" process for all to see! Remember that what I wrote for Chris was a review not just of my thoughts but also those expressed elsewhere (remember Charles Hansen?).

 

I certainly have no issue with anyone disagreeing over interpretations of the data or even with the data themselves if the person can come up with results that are different from the ones I found... In fact, I actively encourage this! No man is infallible and we're certainly free to hold other perspectives so long as it simply makes sense.

 

I honestly think that those of "us" who have been critical of MQA have given the technology a "more than fair" shake and the company plenty of opportunities to explain and respond to critiques. Remember, Chris even contacted MQA and offered Stuart and others an opportunity to say something in response to the review article before publication. We got nothing. Instead Chris' response from the folks of MQA last year at his RMAF presentation was emotional rather than intellectual. I think it speaks volumes when the response is anything but able to engage at the same rational and technical levels.

 

For more than a year now, we have seen nothing but yet more testimonials; sometimes of a remarkably zealous fervor. This has added nothing of value to why anyone should "adopt" MQA as opposed to any of the other lossless, open, free file formats.

 

[Archimago]

1 hour ago, daverich4 said:

 

Do a search for Jim Austin and you’ll come up with any number of comments on the technical aspects of his articles in Stereophile, dismissing them as mere shilling. As well as for John Atkinson and others not members of the inner circle here. 

 

As @Thuaveta said above. In which part of Jim Austin's writings is he demonstrating the value of MQA in a way that answers the critiques technically?

 

Remember guys, it was Jim Austin's articles regarding MQA that told us that the record labels didn't want to release their hi-res "crown jewels" and that MQA was some kind of solution...

[Archimago]

2 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

 

Always good to hear from you!

 

Are you a scientist?

 

Well... "Scientist" may be difficult to define and depends on what level of academic life one is engaged in.

 

Let's say I work at the university, my degrees have the word "science" in them, and my faculty appointment also has the word "professor" in there somewhere :-).

[Archimago]

1 hour ago, Jim Austin said:

 

 

Sometimes I think you're smart, and then you write unaccountably really dumb things, like this. Makes me think you really haven't thought through this anonymity thing. And like your earlier comment about knowing the meaning of the saying about throwing rocks at dogs. Who would do that, anyway?

 

Motivations matter. Plus, the need for anonymity itself raises questions. A verified survivor of domestic violence may require such a shield Also, political dissidents. None of that applies here. Anonymous posters here simply want to be shielded from the consequences of their irresponsible online behavior. Many anonymous people here just don't want the inconvenience of having their real identities linked to the opinions they express online. Maybe their employer wouldn't approve; it might even put their jobs at risk. Which, if nothing else, shows how lightly they take these issues, even as they post ugly, rabid things. This disproportionality between their rabid online persona and the meek, cowardly choice is itself is reason for concern. And here I am not speaking of Archimago, who as far as I know has generally been more measured, but of anonymous posters more broadly. It's great to avoid consequences for your irresponsible actions.

 

Are you refusing to go on record stating that Stereophile was not involved in the rumors you irresponsibly repeated here? 

 

Jim Austin, Editor

Stereophile

 

Hello @Jim Austin and @John_Atkinson,

 

Over the years, I think you've seen in my writings that I have very much appreciated what Stereophile has provided for the audiophile community. Without it, there would be essentially no outlet for a more balanced, objective outlook on the many topics and points of contentions at least here in North America. I think you've seen that of all the audiophile press, I have regarded Stereophile as the "authority" for much of the truth that we know as a result and have even thanked Stereophile and you particularly John for the years of service and technical expertise culminating in the large archive of content from which we can draw historical correlations.

 

Having said this, of course I have to take a critical position on some of what I consider as myths that continue to be perpetuated by the audiophile press including in the pages of Stereophile. I do not expect people to agree with all that I say, but I hope you appreciate that when I do say something, I will try to back it up with examples and even demonstrations and blind test opportunities for folks to try at their own leisure (like the "bits are bits" article recently). As such, I am not expecting anyone to consider what I do as "authoritative" in the traditional sense based on who I am or what my credentials are as some kind of audio academic announcing anything. Even among the Stereophile team of writers, how many knowledgeable academics are there? As such, I would rather build the persona of "Archimago" based on the years of writing and allow fellow audiophiles on this journey to think and participate for themselves as best I can convey, based on the "truths" I have found. No connections to the Industry (other than some as friends whom I have had the fortune to interact with).

 

My article here for Chris and on the blog regarding MQA in general have always been an invitation for you and others in the press or general audiophile community to challenge or agree as you see fit. That Bob Stuart and MQA did not respond to the article here I think does convey a message. That you Jim, and John have not provided anything to counter arguments laid out (both objective and hypothetical on how MQA is restrictive for consumers and manufacturers) is also telling. Words around identities and "motivations" do not further the discussions. I certainly hope my motivations are obvious as laid out above (and on the blog).

 

As others have noted, what difference does it make if I write based on a pseudonym when the points I'm making can be verified by anyone who knows how (something @The Computer Audiophile already conveyed last year at that unhappy presentation in RMAF 2018)? I am sure you guys know exactly what I and others here are saying about MQA and pointing at. To think otherwise would be disrespectful of your intellectual abilities. I (and others) too might have questions about your motivations. In fact, is it not more reasonable to question your motivations when dramatic comments like "birth of a new world" are being messaged out (or TAS' "paradigm shift" article not to just point at Stereophile)?

 

As a magazine that desires to be influential and representative of the audiophile community (I assume you do want this, right?), please don't ignore MQA's obvious use of questionable filters and reduced potential bit depth (especially for MQA-CD!!!). Do not ignore the unfortunate obfuscation about what is "lossless" or that there is anything but lossy content being added to the signal when unfolded. Please remind writers that MQA decoding to 24/192+ as if there is content worthy of this "bit bucket" is also meaningless and will reflect badly on the knowledge base of your writers. These are truths that will not change. The audiophiles who appreciate the potential for high-resolution digital audio unobstructed by MQA both technically and in content restrictions are simply not "wrong" in their opinion, nor should be silenced regardless of what you subjectively believe (or are motivated to portray regardless of specific NDAs or direct financial transactions).

 

I believe that if you truly desire to embrace the breadth and depth of the audiophile community, then these viewpoints should also be reflected on your pages. I for one hope that this is indeed the future of audiophilia and the mainstream audiophile press.

 

[Archimago]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

Or just pretend it has my name on it. After all, I did much of the underlying work.

 

Hey Mans,

You should submit an article to Stereophile with some more insights and details on the file format and rendering process. Now that would truly be a test of how open-minded and independent the press is about disseminating truth...

[Archimago]

1 hour ago, crenca said:

 

I gave you a laughing thumbs up because we don't have a "press" in audiophiledom and the JA's are not "journalists", they are trade promoters.  

 

This is why your article/summary as a challenge to them is a non-starter, at least in how you meant it.  It is a challenge of course, but only as an obstacle in their jobs/careers as promoters of MQA and any and all other industry/trade concerns.

 

Their vehement denials of direct compensation and affirmations of "professionalism" have to be understood in the correct context - what the JA's really do.  Page after page of scolding them for not admitting the truth of MQA really is so much tilting at windmills because it assumes that they are "journalists" or "press" and thus are committed to the truth.

 

They are professionals.  Professional salesmen.

 

edit:  when they do leave their wheelhouse of sales and get into the truth of MQA, their limitations are laid bare.  When it comes to digital/software/IP and the like, they are technically incompetent.

 

Your're absolutely right, @crenca. As interesting as the suggestion may be for Mans to write an article and submit... That's not "our" job! Mans and others here have shared more than needed already.

 

This thread is long-running with over 700 pages. The topic has drawn the attention of many audiophiles and has been commented on by professional studio engineers (eg. Lucey, Waldrep). The technique has been questioned by well known audio designers (eg. Putzeys). Articles have been published on either side of the "debate". The facts have evolved over this time with many points worth considering - technical, discussion on rights control, even ethical around advertising and Industry.

 

As "journalists" who presumably are interested in objectivity, truth, and investigation (actual substance), one would imagine that they should be the ones reaching out, asking questions, producing articles as independent agents in search of disseminating understanding and presenting in detail the value of MQA for their readership to consider. When there are criticisms (even as @FredericVshowed, a non-controversial one like the fact that bits can be missing and the thing still "authenticates"!), where are the journalists independently verifying such an important defect?

 

Many of you over the years have contacted me directly over PM to clarify comments and we've had some nice chats. @The Computer Audiophile obviously saw the interest and was open to investigations and having information shared, thus the invitation to write the front page article. I've had discussions with hardware manufacturers over the years who PM'ed me after they saw the article here. But never a private word from the likes of the JA's to show that maybe they are truly wanting to clarify if I have ulterior motives or show interest in whether some of my claims may be inaccurate.

 

They seem to prefer hanging out here to question anonymity, suggest that maybe there are other motives like perhaps competitors might be spreading negative press. Yes, @Jim Austin, you can complain about "rabid online persona" (this goes both ways of course), but isn't it better to take leadership and show that as a journalist one can rise above that and address the issues plainly? Show by action why indeed there is no need to be critical if you believe that this is the case?

 

For me as simply an "audiophile" like most of you guys (I guess I just have the time and energy to write some articles 🙂), not only are the words written by the audiophile press in line with Industry promotion, but the nature of their actions speak louder than those words. Clearly a very strange form of "journalism" particularly when it comes to dealing with MQA (I think there are many other examples as well).

 

Here's a brief video on ethical journalism. Is this on the whole representative of the traditional audiophile press?

 

 

[Archimago]

On 8/24/2019 at 10:27 AM, botrytis said:

 

Certainly a reason to stay anonymous. 😨

 

Alas, I think the threat is overblown. Here, I found a clip of the Audiophile Godfather:

 

[Archimago]

1 hour ago, rwdvis said:

 

One of the biggest failures is the fact that BS and MQA failed to take this into account.  Or they believed they could just bribe and obfuscate their way around it.

 

We’re now in the information age where BS and misinformation have nowhere to hide.

 

Sadly, I think if we look at much of the news out there, the information age has given massive opportunities for even more confusion and "fake news" upon "fake news".

 

However, for us in the audiophile world, I'd like to think that we've been in the era of "fake news" and BS claims for way too long already... Maybe as a hobby, the next generation of audiophiles are ready for the "post-fake-news era". The job now is to get back to understanding the foundation of our technological, science based hobby, applauding companies that pursue honest engineering that achieve high fidelity and "good sound" (nothing wrong with understanding subjective preferences even if not strictly "accurate"). As @Doug Schneidersuggests, a worldwide collaboration that is willing and able to dissect and seek truth.

 

Verify, then trust for anything that seems a little too good to be true - at least for the time being in this current atmosphere.

[Archimago]

On 8/29/2019 at 8:40 AM, crenca said:

 

 

Therein lies the problem.  If the culture of audiophiledom has just such a blase attitude and understanding (which is not really "libertarian" in the strict sense), then it deserves MQA, magical digital cables and grounding boxes.  In other words, it's not about high fidelity, it's merely about luxury sales and a confidence game of "high end".

 

This is why @Archimago & @Doug Schneideroptimism is probably just a little (or more) naive.  Not because I want them to be wrong, but because it is obvious that your attitude towards the status quo is the prevalent one.

 

It should then be obvious that Audiophildom is not a hobby about high fidelity - that's just a sales bullet point.

 

Can't speak for @Doug Schneiderof course, but while I might be a bit optimistic, in the big picture of all who enjoy music and want good hardware, "high end" is such a small niche that I don't think it's too difficult to change in time now that we are all connected to the information stream.

 

At work, when I tell people that for fun I write about hi-fi audio, very few will recognize AudioQuest, Wilson, Magico, Focal, Dynaudio, Chord, Audeze, etc... Even fewer will know about stuff like Synergistic or MQA, or even care about expensive cables. All of us here are already part of the 0.01% club of audio enthusiasts and there aren't that many of us who need to be swayed to create significant changes in the zeitgeist of this hobby.

 

If the forums have been any indication, since I started publishing stuff in 2013 to now, whereas I received much hate mail and massive opposition in the early days on places like Audio Asylum and Steve Hoffman Hardware Forum (thankfully no death threats 😉 though someone warned me about this on the Squeezebox Forum), things have been much more civil in the last 2 or 3 years. I think audiophiles gradually will continue to recognize that more objective analysis makes sense... That some "predictions" like Pono and NY's rhetoric was bogus. That the promise of "hi-res" audio was bound to fail in light especially of poor mastering. And of course, that the hoopla around MQA did not make any sense regardless of who was pumping it (including BS and the traditional audiophile magazines). I would also add this current chapter of the AudioQuest Cobalt reviews as part of this story where advertising claims, the name of designer-gurus for selling a product, the voice of online reviews and people like "The Audiophiliac" are being challenged when faced with objective realities. Don't for a minute think that reviews of the Cobalt like what @mansr wrote or the subjective opinions of more measured folks like @The Computer Audiophilewill not affect sales (I've seen it already).

 

It will be interesting to see what RMAF this year looks like with the presentations. Sure, Synergistic will be there. So be it. This is the "long game". Just like how long-lasting this thread has been, MQA will not die overnight. Likewise, the hobby will not change from being the domain of multiple fraudulent claims to championing verifiable truths without time to digest and members to accept such changes.

[Archimago]

5 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

It will be fun especially the presentations and discussions about objective parts of the hobby. 

 

Any specific presentations you're looking at @Rt66indierock?

 

I assume no MQA presentation this year??? 🤔

[Archimago]

On 9/7/2019 at 1:29 PM, The Computer Audiophile said:

I just happened to be in room 6117 at 11. @Rt66indierock was also there. Ken from MQA was in the back. 

 

But, for some reason the MQA presentation didn’t happen. 

 

Glad I didn't bother going yesterday! On way back home now. Nice meeting you @Rt66indierockand @The Computer Audiophile!

[Archimago]

9 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Great to me you Mr. Pseudonym !

 

I am only a figment of your imagination. Like this guy...

 

Until next time boys...

 

 

[Archimago]

2 hours ago, esldude said:

Did you get NDA's to protect your troublesome anonymity? 

 

I think I'm pretty safe with these guys... Hell, if MQA is afraid to present with @Rt66indierockin the audience, I got nothing to worry about :-).

 

No kidding getting out of Denver is hard. My flight has been delayed 2 hours already.

[Archimago]

2 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

Looks like he's desperately trying to stay relevant.

 

I chatted with David a few times I think back in 2017. Nice enough fellow but I think he does get a bit too excited about the technology whether it be DSD or now MQA. The music is recorded well and sound quality is good because of that rather than whatever format du jour...

 

[Archimago]

16 hours ago, FredericV said:

Damn this is so misleading. They claim Marijn Nederlof (Meridian distributor) and Hans Beekhuyzen (the guy who does NOT understand MQA) are the authorities on MQA.

Hans still believes there is a third unfold. Hans is wrong. Hans does not correct his mistakes on his website.

Thanks for spreading these lies in the official X-FI magazine. They sure must have deluded the audience with MQA evangelist marketing BS - which was fully debunked here on CA.

 

Those who have really looked under the hood, like @Archimago @mansr probably have a better understanding of MQA than those two Dutch guys combined. I'm pretty sure the fake authentication, and upsampling in the renderer, and pseudo 17/96 hi-res with crypto DRM, will not be discussed in the evangelists talk.

I also did take a look, but our research is ignored by these false bringers of the fake light:
 

 

 

Interesting update @FredericV. Curious how large the conference/show is? 

 

So is Hans Beekhuyzen a well-known figure among the Dutch audiophiles over the years and before his YouTube videos? He seems to be one of these guys who have lots of words and his main job is to spread uncertainty by generalizing about "cheap" vs. expensive parts, push certain products, and scare people about "jitter" and such. Funny how he's starting to equivocate about the generalization he has tended to hold about switching vs. linear power supplies in recent video on "What makes a good DAC?". I cringe every time I hear him say at the end of his videos that supporting him financially keeps him "independent and therefore trustworthy". I think those are very different things.

[Archimago]

1 hour ago, Dr Tone said:

If he had a following, he's slowly losing it.

 

 

Interesting!

 

Seems like Amir (Chief "Fun" Officer indeed) is getting a little too engrossed in the concept of "authority" and what that means for hobbyists.

 

I don't think anyone is questioning Bob Stuart and his academic CV (okay, maybe a few of you have some concerns with his recent work 😉). Nor has anyone questioned the fact that Harley has been around for awhile and has been involved in many audiophile magazines. However, neither of these things - "academic authority" nor magazine editor experience/"authority" - need be that important when determining if 2+2=4 or MQA is any good as judged by some facts we can all have access to and verify for ourselves if we look around (especially thanks to the work of others like @mansr). Can't we not have "faith" in these "authorities" when evidence shows otherwise?

 

In my world, those who are truly respectable are usually too humble to accept that the word "authority" needs apply to themselves. They speak up for themselves and bring facts along for the discussion. Able to accept, learn, and change when they're wrong.

 

[Archimago]

16 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

AES is not an "academic" organization is it?  I thought it was an industry group created by and for the industry and its authoritative insiders.  Is Bob Stuart an actual academic?

 

 

Is there a significant authority in Audiophiledom who has "accepted, learned, changed" and thus walked back his initial support of MQA?  Amir it seems is just another Audiophile insider with a crisis of authority around MQA.  

 

It also appears you have gotten under his skin a bit @Archimago, in that your the real "objectivist" in the room.

 

MQA is wonderful in its ability to burn down and reveal the naked belly of these alleged authorities...

 

Well... Leaving AES aside :-)...

 

I remember the first time I heard about Amir was when he was debating the late Arny Kruger about hi-res audio. It's been awhile since I've seen that thread but in general I agree with this Audio Investigations entry. No doubt Amir is a smart guy, I can't help but feel there's some ego there that I'm uncomfortable with.

 

I enjoy reading his measurement reports (like recently the PS Audio DAC and the much-ballyhooed-by-various-audiophiles Totaldac - no surprise there are issues with these devices) nonetheless.

[Archimago]

1 hour ago, crenca said:

 

... It's a niche hobby so we more often than not don't have several authorities measuring the same piece of gear, so IMO it's best to take them for what they are:   data point(s) from a single flawed individual who usually has an agenda/ego/"philosophy"...

 

Well said.

 

Certainly no argument from me that we all have our own "agenda / ego / philosophy" whether consciously or subconsciously expressed. 🙂

 

Agree or not with the other person's opinion, I think internal consistency of one's philosophy and clarity of communication are essentials when debating. In this regard, I'm not sure I understand where Amir is coming from or why he feels the way he does about MQA...

[Archimago]

3 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Agrred, MQA Ltd and Tidal’s financials haven’t been posted yet.

 

What's the meaning of this @Rt66indierock? Is it mandatory? Is there a firm deadline?

[Archimago]

2 hours ago, Currawong said:

 

I think this the crux of the issue. I was talking to a dealer here in Japan the other day about MQA and he was talking about how the only people who buy MQA CDs were old audiophiles who wanted their "high res" without having to deal with a computer.

 

 

Did the dealer indicate how well those MQA-CD releases are selling? I bet the blue light shining would be much more reassuring than just a label on the box saying XRCD, UHQCD, Blu-Spec...!

 

[Archimago]

9 hours ago, Currawong said:

 

I didn't ask. I don't know what is going on within the Japanese hi-fi scene. With the Tokyo show coming up I'll ask. 

 

That would be very interesting @Currawong! Not just about MQA but also thoughts about the cultural differences among audiophiles. With streaming becoming (or is already) a majority chunk of music consumption the disparity with physical content purchasing especially as we've heard in Japan is interesting...

 

Enjoy the Tokyo Show and hope you let us know what's going on in that part of the world!

 

[Archimago]

43 minutes ago, esldude said:

I'm still hoping some of those Synergistic Research Quantum products can entangle my audio system with quantum particles as they existed prior to the invention of MQA.  Then I'll listen as if it never existed in the fullness of time. 

 

That or I need to make cables that are AQM.  Authenticated Quantum-entangled Masters.  You know you have the sound of the time and place the master was created because your subjective experience will be the same as having been there.  The software interface will allow you to select time, and place (with a handy list of studios used for every single recording ever made).  Now this might seem far fetched to you, but all I've really need to do is see to it the cables have the same electrical signals as those which flowed in another time and place.  It is only in the specially prepared internals of those cables which entangle with particles of the past.  A further benefit is the signal for everyone who uses the cables means everyone's signals are authenticated as the same ensuring everyone at every place and time hears definitively the same sound.  I won't need blue lights as you'll simply feel the rightness of it in your mind when it is working. 

 

You shouldn't be giving away ideas like that to Ted Denney III (aka "Tony Stark of the audio world"). You should be selling that idea and getting a royalty!

 

Oh well. Can't be unsaid now.

 

Just watch those ideas get incorporated into his next generation of "world reference" SRX Infinity Interconnects with Evolved UEF Folding utilizing Tuned Electro-Magneto-Quantum Active Shielding with Cylindrical Missing Link Grapheme Nano-Particle Matrix SuperActive Ground Plane protected by Blue Quantum Mono-Crystal Alloy Fuses lined by Atmospheric Electronic Circuit Transducers operating at Schumann Resonance with ULF Field Generated Active EM Ground Block SE (of course) all housed in a Carbon Fiber Tesseract. And this will be all handmade by virgins in their California factory!

 

The paradigmatic Audio Singularity is near and @esldude just gave it away to Synergistic Research for free on a forum. 😞