MQA is Vaporware

[mcgillroy]

On 2/4/2018 at 9:43 AM, Fokus said:

 

 He found nothing new, he only documented it more explicitly.

 

'minimum phase', 'induced phase shift', and '40-50us delay of the high' all amount to the same.

 

The overload/distortion behaviour was also known.

 

Actually that is not correct. I am not aware of any MQA group-delay measurements publicly available before Archimagos posting. Given enough knowledge one could infer delay-effects due to the use of minimum-phase filters but there where no hard numbers available.

 

40-50us is one order of magnitude above the 4us resolution @44.1k MQA claims to better. That's pretty damming with regards to their time-domain-narrative.

 

MQA = Megablur Quality Assured.

 

Ditto for the overload and distortion behaviour. I am not aware of any publicly available measurements with regards to THD and afaik the poor intersample overload performance was not shown yet.

 

The ball is in MQAs court. Unless they are able to prove that the filters measured by Archimago and his friend are not used in production of MQA material their story pretty much has completely fallen apart.

 

1% distortion is audible, as are 40us of delay, some people might like the sound but it would be very easy to build an effect-plug-in mimicking that behaviour. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Guys - Just an update from me on MQA. I've reached out to a couple people to write MQA articles for CA and so far the response has been positive. Christoph is working on a series of articles for publication on the front page, as is another person who has done many measurements and has offered several technical explanations about MQA. I won't name him yet.

 

Perhaps I've finally had enough of the fact that MQA has been relegated to the "back page" when anything negative or questioning the technology is brought up. 

[Brinkman Ship]

59 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Hi Guys - Just an update from me on MQA. I've reached out to a couple people to write MQA articles for CA and so far the response has been positive. Christoph is working on a series of articles for publication on the front page, as is another person who has done many measurements and has offered several technical explanations about MQA. I won't name him yet.

 

Perhaps I've finally had enough of the fact that MQA has been relegated to the "back page" when anything negative or questioning the technology is brought up. 

My hat off to you sir.

[rothosand]

16 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

My hat off to you sir.

And my hat off to you for the MQA listening test...

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/reference-level-system-mqa-listening-results.729556/

[4est]

21 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Hi Guys - Just an update from me on MQA. I've reached out to a couple people to write MQA articles for CA and so far the response has been positive. Christoph is working on a series of articles for publication on the front page, as is another person who has done many measurements and has offered several technical explanations about MQA. I won't name him yet.

 

Perhaps I've finally had enough of the fact that MQA has been relegated to the "back page" when anything negative or questioning the technology is brought up. 

Thank you! I hope mansr is involved in this...

[botrytis]

22 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Hi Guys - Just an update from me on MQA. I've reached out to a couple people to write MQA articles for CA and so far the response has been positive. Christoph is working on a series of articles for publication on the front page, as is another person who has done many measurements and has offered several technical explanations about MQA. I won't name him yet.

 

Perhaps I've finally had enough of the fact that MQA has been relegated to the "back page" when anything negative or questioning the technology is brought up. 

 

I can't wait, myself, to read the articles. Thanks for doing this.

[Mordikai]

23 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Hi Guys - Just an update from me on MQA. I've reached out to a couple people to write MQA articles for CA and so far the response has been positive. Christoph is working on a series of articles for publication on the front page, as is another person who has done many measurements and has offered several technical explanations about MQA. I won't name him yet.

 

Perhaps I've finally had enough of the fact that MQA has been relegated to the "back page" when anything negative or questioning the technology is brought up. 

Chris- I know you have caught some flack from your cautious approach to MQA, but I personally (despite hating everything about MQA) appreciate how you've let it play out.

I'm really glad I found this place! Thank you

[Rt66indierock]

Tell me what has changed since I posted this other than the marketing of MQA has morphed into "a point of view" and a "philosophy."

 

The Vaporware Trails March 2017

 

Starting with will high resolution ever make it into the mainstream at SXSW it should be becoming clear to the supporters of hi-res that it is niche market only. If all the panelists can come up with is we need a star like Neil Young to promote it even when they were reminded about Pono then hi-res doesn’t stand a chance in the mainstream.

 

So where does this leave MQA? As of March 25^th there are 2,689 entries in the spreadsheet tracking MQA music. They have created videos to help their promotional efforts but in my opinion they are too Brit centric to matter in America. In America the promotional effort seems to be audio shows and audio societies. I don’t see any how this approach will make MQA anything but a niche product among audiophiles in America.

 

The things that matter to me about MQA are the following. I still can’t download MQA files of the music I listen to. I haven’t found any bands in the genres I mentioned January 2, 2017 interested in making MQA recordings. One of my nine reference albums is now converted to MQA. AudioQuest hasn’t released the update for MQA. I think it is fair to say it is late. And finally I’ve heard nothing about MQA on Roon.

 

Personally I’m gratified people have taken the time to track the MQA conversion process, track the providence of recordings and where they are available. It’s great to know that a lot of the music is converted from 16/44.1 because it seems that there is an effort to sell audiophiles that MQA is gathering momentum when it isn’t.

[mansr]

Someone suggested looking at Morrissey's album Low in High School. Here's the power spectrum of track 2 from that album, high-res and MQA:

The high frequencies in MQA reconstruction have what appears to be very strong filter ripple. I've never seen anything like this before.

[mansr]

46 minutes ago, mansr said:

Someone suggested looking at Morrissey's album Low in High School. Here's the power spectrum of track 2 from that album, high-res and MQA:

The high frequencies in MQA reconstruction have what appears to be very strong filter ripple. I've never seen anything like this before.

Of the 12 tracks on the album, 7 show this effect.

[firedog]

And is any of that audible?

[kumakuma]

2 minutes ago, firedog said:

And is any of that audible?

 

Doesn't matter.

 

Knowing that MQA is messing with the sound will lessen our enjoyment of it... unless, of course, you are one of these audiophiles who is immune to the tricks that the human mind plays upon us. 

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, firedog said:

And is any of that audible?

I doubt it. The question is what the purpose of that filter was.

[Spacehound]

7 minutes ago, firedog said:

And is any of that audible?

No. So MQA  is pointless, which we knew all along.

 

(Hi-res is too, but I'm   not  getting into that argument.)

[mansr]

Just now, Spacehound said:

No. So MQA  is pointless, which we knew all along.

The filter might have done something audible that just isn't visible in this plot. For instance, it could have messed with the phase.

[firedog]

30 minutes ago, mansr said:

The filter might have done something audible that just isn't visible in this plot. For instance, it could have messed with the phase.

That was more the intent of my question.

[christopher3393]

On 2/11/2018 at 10:59 AM, kumakuma said:

 

Doesn't matter.

 

Knowing that MQA is messing with the sound will lessen our enjoyment of it... unless, of course, you are one of these audiophiles who is immune to the tricks that the human mind plays upon us. 

 

With practice, distractions may decrease  

 

[FredericV]

Not sure if this was mentioned, as I could not find this URL on CA in any post:

https://www.whathifi.com/advice/high-resolution-audio-everything-you-need-to-know

Article from 19th January 2018 mentions:
 

Quote

MQA (hi-res): A lossless compression format that packages hi-res files with more emphasis on the timing. Used for Tidal Masters hi-res streaming, but has limited support across products.

MQA is not lossless, but a lossy codec which is the equivalent of 17 bits 96 Khz at best

 

Quote

 

Qobuz Sublime+ - £350/year

Qobuz strikes again here and says its hybrid download-and-streaming tier is '"the best music subscription in the world." This top tier package offers hi-res streaming up to 24-bit/192kHz files (as well as MQA and CD quality tracks) on its desktop and mobile apps. It has a 70,000-strong catalogue of 24-bit/192kHz files, and 40 million other hi-res content (everything above CD quality).

 

 

Qobuz offers the real deal (real lossless hi-res flac), so why mention lossy MQA?

[HalSF]

I don’t think this has been mentioned earlier in the thread, but David Denby, a writer for The New Yorker, contributed an online article about hi-fi gear last month and included a section about MQA that seemed to credulously cite all of the MQA marketing bullet points together with his own enthusiastic endorsement as a listener, with not a word about any controversy or dissent from the pitch that MQA is a revolutionary technical innovation in sound quality. This may be the most notable example of uncritical MQA coverage in a non-audiophile publication to date.

 

Quote

You can’t, at the moment, listen to high-res on your iPhone, but help may be on the way, for there’s still another, recently developed high-resolution digital format that has possibly revolutionary consequences. It’s called MQA, which stands for Master Quality Authenticated. The engineers go back to the master tapes of a given recording and recode the information digitally in a new way: the information is compressed (as with MP3s) to get it through the Internet, but then magically reopened, like a field of flowers after rain, by a server at the receiving end. In addition, the information is stripped of certain common digital artifacts—it’s de-blurred. Jay-Z’s streaming service, Tidal, offers MQA recordings—some classical, much R. & B. and soul, Latin, and everything else, including (surprise) Beyoncé. In MQA streaming, on a good system, the woman is there, right in front of you.

At Sound by Singer, at 242 East Twenty-seventh Street, I heard a relatively modest system ($22,000) delivering the goods by MQA and other streaming formats, controlled by an iPad and running through the Aurender A10 and the (Italian) Norma Revo 140 IPA Integrated amp ($8,000), and ending with a hearty and fatigue-free pair of speakers, the Endeavor E-3 MkII ($8,000), which are the best-sounding speakers I’ve heard in that price range. But all of this is possibly just the beginning of the MQA bounty. The major record labels have agreed to allow their master tapes to be re-coded. And the founders of MQA—don’t ask me to explain this—claim that the new codec could be applied to old recordings, which could then be streamed or downloaded to portable devices outfitted to receive MQA. In other words, not just great availability but extraordinary sound could be lodged in your hand.

 

[Brinkman Ship]

4 minutes ago, HalSF said:

I don’t think this has been mentioned earlier in the thread, but David Denby, a writer for The New Yorker, contributed an online article about hi-fi gear last month and included a section about MQA that seemed to credulously cite all of the MQA marketing bullet points together with his own enthusiastic endorsement as a listener, with not a word about any controversy or dissent from the pitch that MQA is a revolutionary technical innovation in sound quality. This may be the most notable example of uncritical MQA coverage in a non-audiophile publication to date.

 

 

He was spoon fed all this via Stereophile, Michael Fremer, and a dealer who sells MQA compliant gear.

 

Fremer saw a chance to steamroll a patsy.

 

A total con job.

[botrytis]

1 minute ago, HalSF said:

I don’t think this has been mentioned earlier in the thread, but David Denby, a writer for The New Yorker, contributed an online article about hi-fi gear last month and included a section about MQA that seemed to credulously cite all of the MQA marketing bullet points together with his own enthusiastic endorsement as a listener, with not a word about any controversy or dissent from the pitch that MQA is a revolutionary technical innovation in sound quality. This may be the most notable example of uncritical MQA coverage in a non-audiophile publication to date.

 

 

 

I read that. It was not a great piece of writing. I mean, the way he waxed poetic was a little sickening. BUT, and this is the big thing, it wasn't a review but a report on the audiophile hobby.

[HalSF]

15 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

I read that. It was not a great piece of writing. I mean, the way he waxed poetic was a little sickening. BUT, and this is the big thing, it wasn't a review but a report on the audiophile hobby.

True enough, but even though I’m someone who thinks people have been unjustifiably losing their minds over MQA as a supposedly monstrous scam, I found the presentation of MQA’s sonic wonderfulness and scientific glory as settled facts to be over-the-top and mildly alarming. It definitely seems like a win for audiophile magical thinking even if it has no real influence one way or another in the long run.

[Ralf11]

11 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

... the way he waxed poetic was a little sickening. ...

 

 

you have obviously never spent time in Monkeyside Hts.

[Brinkman Ship]

For the record, here is what Fremer wrote about MQA:

 

"Listening to MQA files supplied to me for this review or streamed from Tidal HiFi/Master made two things clear: Those who claim they can't hear a difference between CD-resolution files and hi-rez MQA files either haven't bothered to listen, or don't want to admit that their claims of "CD sound is perfect" are just plain wrong.

 

MQA has been convincingly demonstrated at Consumer Electronics Shows, and most recently at an event sponsored by New York City dealer Innovative Audio, where Wilson Audio Specialties' Peter McGrath, an accomplished recording engineer, played unprocessed hi-rez files of his simply miked orchestral recordings, followed by the time-corrected MQA versions. The differences were profound, and obvious to all attending: The MQA versions had greater image solidity and three-dimensionality, and wider perceived dynamics. More like a good LP. McGrath even surmised that vinyl's superior performance to CD in the time domain may account for why, on the best LPs, dynamics appear to be wider, even if the measurements say otherwise.

 

As for MQA's ability to "fold" and "unfold" very large files for streaming and playback, hearing 24/96 and 24/192 files streamed through the Nyquist via Tidal was an ear-opener. Had this been CD sound in 1983, I'd still be an LP guy—but I'd also be all in with digital. In many reviews, I've mentioned the Modern Jazz Quartet's European Concert (2 LPs, Atlantic 2-603). This 1960 live recording is one of my favorite MJQ albums, and Swedish engineer Gösta Wiholm nailed it. And there it was on Tidal as a 24/192 stream. For the first time, I heard this familiar recording free of the occasional vinyl blemishes, and not restricted by the glaze and two-dimensionality of "Red Book" CD resolution. The sound was clean, pure, spacious, and more transparent than any CD I can recall hearing in terms of verisimilitude of attacks, sustain, and generosity of decays. It was free of unnatural edge, grain, and other digital afflictions, and yet—I hate to sound like a broken record—the LP still sounded to me more real, especially in terms of image solidity, three-dimensionality, and harmonic structure.

 

"..when I played James Taylor's cover of Carole King's "You've Got a Friend," from his Mud Slide Slim and the Blue Horizon (LP, Warner Bros. 2561), through a Lyra Atlas SL or Ortofon A95 cartridge and the CH Precision P1 phono preamp, it didn't sound as warm and full-bodied as did the MQA version through the Nyquist. I'd never before heard Leland Sklar's bass sound so voluptuous, or Taylor's voice so mellifluous, honey-coated, and round-bodied as it did digitally, through the Nyquist."

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/brinkmann-audio-nyquist-da-processor

 

Ok, where to begin here?

 

-First, he puts the reader on the defensive by saying that if you can't hear the difference between "hi-rez" MQA and "CD", you have not even listened.  What he gets WRONG is the comparison should be between MQA and Hi-Rez, NOT CD.

 

-2 He has utterly no clue that MQA is not capable of 24/192 resolution, let alone 24 bit resolution

 

-3 He claims MQA bettered LP playback with the set up he details. (Anyone want to buy a bridge?)

 

4-If MQA had been around when digital first appeared he would have been "all in". (I have another bridge if you need it...)

 

5-He makes it clear, since he is the king of pseudo science, after all, that it does not matter what the measurements say, (loss, distorted, aliasing, etc) MQA is all good.

 

Perhaps one of the more shameful sellouts to Stuart and gang we have seen.

 

 

 

 

 

[Brinkman Ship]

I love this comment to the so called "review":

 

"So it turns out after a couple decades, the the missing ingredients that made unmusical digital so cold, harsh and sterile were:

Low frequency distortion and random noise added at playback and then a nice little dose of High frequency and harmonic aliasing distortion "fold"/embedded into the audio band during the encoding stage.

Cool ;-)."