MQA is Vaporware

[shtf]

22 minutes ago, Jim Austin said:

 

I'm reading about every third or fifth post now, but this one caught my eye. It's frustrating to repeat here what I've written elsewhere. The "stakes" are that if MQA (a proprietary technology) is widely adopted there's a risk that it will supplant nonproprietary technologies for all audio distribution--as I'm sure has been widely discussed here. This seems to be a talking point aimed at gaining record-company buy-in. I'm less worried about this than others are--if the payoff is high enough--incontrovertibly superior sound--then I personally would be willing to make the sacrifice, and I think a lot of other people are, too. But, as I've written, I consider that to be a not-insignificant cost. Before we substitute a non-proprietary technology with a proprietary technology, there's a high threshold: It has to be significantly better. If it's not, we shouldn't adopt it. 

 

This answers another, somewhat similar post: Because these stakes are high, MQA should not be anointed by me or any other reviewer. (No, I was not thinking of Moncrief.) Listening tests should be done. If a panel of expert listeners cannot hear the difference, MQA should not displace those nonproprietary technologies (PCM/FLAC). 

 

Yes, I have a stake--as an audiophile and music lover. So do you, and so do all the rest of us who enjoy listening to music in digital formats.

 

jca

 

And what pray-tell do these stakes have to do with a lowly reviewer?  Besides, it seems clear these stakes were not taken into consideration when Atkinson claimed 4 years BEFORE MQA was released and after just I think 1 maybe 2 short demo's that Atkinson's experience was the equivalent to observing the birth of new planets, "blew his socks off",  along with a few other seemingly off-the-cuff responses.  For all we know Atkinson was eating his favorite ice cream during those short MQA demos but at that time he obviously gave no hesitatation then to tell the world.  Wouldn't that have been the appropriate time to consider the full impact of MQA and what Atkinson experienced?  Are you implying that your editor-in-chief acted in a reckless and irresponsible manner 4 years ago? 

 

So clearly your editor-in-chief did not take any of this into consideration.  Why do you feel it's your responsibility to do so now, 4 years later?   IOW, here we are 4 years later and suddenly the responsibility and burden falls to you a reviewer to ensure everybody acts circumspectly pertaining to MQA's performance benefits?  Again, such responsbilities are outside the scope of a reviewer, for which tho art one.

 

Who assigned this responsibility to you that is clearly outside your scope as a product reviewer?

 

 

[Jim Austin]

2 minutes ago, shtf said:

Who assigned this responsibility to you that is clearly outside your scope as a product reviewer?

 

What a silly post. Ignoring you. 

[rickca]

1 hour ago, shtf said:

To draw attention away from MQA's legitimacy that is.  A distraction if you will.

That's my impression as well.  Running interference.

[mansr]

29 minutes ago, Jim Austin said:

I'm reading about every third or fifth post now

Neat way of avoiding the hard questions.

[rickca]

17 hours ago, Jim Austin said:

My work here is done. 

Evidently not.

[crenca]

1 hour ago, Jim Austin said:

 

I'm reading about every third or fifth post now, but this one caught my eye. It's frustrating to repeat here what I've written elsewhere. The "stakes" are that if MQA (a proprietary technology) is widely adopted there's a risk that it will supplant nonproprietary technologies for all audio distribution--as I'm sure has been widely discussed here. This seems to be a talking point aimed at gaining record-company buy-in. I'm less worried about this than others are--if the payoff is high enough--incontrovertibly superior sound--then I personally would be willing to make the sacrifice, and I think a lot of other people are, too. But, as I've written, I consider that to be a not-insignificant cost. Before we substitute a non-proprietary technology with a proprietary technology, there's a high threshold: It has to be significantly better. If it's not, we shouldn't adopt it. 

 

This answers another, somewhat similar post: Because these stakes are high, MQA should not be anointed by me or any other reviewer. (No, I was not thinking of Moncrief.) Listening tests should be done. If a panel of expert listeners cannot hear the difference, MQA should not displace those nonproprietary technologies (PCM/FLAC). 

 

Yes, I have a stake--as an audiophile and music lover. So do you, and so do all the rest of us who enjoy listening to music in digital formats.

 

jca

 

Well stated Jim.  I disagree, but well stated.  Here is why:

 

-  In a balanced approach to Audiophile consumer electronics, technology, and audio, sound quality (SQ) is but one element.  

-  SQ is a primary, if not THE primary element, but it is not the only element, and not all should be sacrificed for it.

-  There are many other elements, such as cost, value (i.e. ratio of SQ and/or other elements {e.g. convenience} to cost), pragmatism,etc.

-  Sometime we should sacrifice short term SQ gain, for a long term overall balance of elements.

 

Let's say for argument's sake that MQA turns out to be a real SQ gain in the digital world of equal to (go with me on this simplified 1 to 1) the difference between 256kbps MP3 and 24/96.  Should the Audiophile, to say nothing of the general musical consumer, then accept this as the reason (or even a reason among others) to accept MQA?

 

No.  Why?

 

Because of the significant cons of MQA.  Many of them have been discussed ad nauseum so let's just stick with the innovation/technical arguments:

 

- MQA is a proprietary/IP/DRM lock in, but yet the SQ "art" will be available in other ways in due time.  Patents expire, others build even better mouse traps, etc.  A little patience pays off in the end

- MQA makes too many other demands in its (albeit broken) "end to end" restrictions.  Better results are attainable by leaving MQA out of the chain through mastering, etc.  Granted, these other things have to happen but MQA is not required.

- MQA's SQ gains are not as important as other aspects of the play back chain (i.e. speakers, rooms, etc.) even in within it's own alleged parameters (i.e. "time domain", etc.), to say nothing outside of it (i.e. DSP, etc.)

 

So even doing as you and the trade publication mentality suggest - judging MQA on SQ alone, it does not hold up.  When you throw in it's innovation stifling design, it becomes even less convincing. 

 

You misjudge and underestimate the sophistication of the reaction to MQA.  It is not simply reactioinary, "libertarian" in orientation, etc.  We reject MQA on the very grounds you would make your "sacrifice".  Your ignoring the 'time value of money' in your "payoff" scenario in that you are getting $1 today when you can have $2 tommorow of SQ goodness if you would only turn down this particular investment...

[HalSF]

1 hour ago, Jim Austin said:

if the payoff is high enough--incontrovertibly superior sound--then I personally would be willing to make the sacrifice, and I think a lot of other people are, too

 

I can't stop harping on the weirdness of you putting this crucial matter of MQA sound quality in the conditional tense.

 

"If"? If at this late date you of all people can't ante up and endorse MQA having "incontrovertibly superior sound," what's the point of fighting for it and about it? It's the ultimate factor that determines good faith in this whole stupendous debate. 

 

I see that the ancillary issues @crenca is mentioning are also important, but actually taking the "setting aside the unresolved question of MQA SQ" approach seems nuts to me. 

[GUTB]

8 hours ago, mansr said:

Very well, let's suppose there is something that matters above 40 kHz. What does MQA do with it? Starting with a recording at 192 kHz or higher, some unknown processing is applied, then the signal is downsampled to 96 kHz using a rather weak anti-aliasing filter. We know this because looking at recordings with some distinct content above 48 kHz (and these are rare indeed), faint alias products are recognisable in the lower frequencies of the decoded MQA file. The attenuation appears to be around 50 dB, but this is a very rough estimate.

 

The 96 kHz signal then undergoes band splitting, the top half compressed and encoded into the low 8 bits of the final stream. This step actually seems to work quite well in that the decoded output is pretty close to the input, at least for typical music and within the target precision. However, as clever as it may be, this scheme is wholly unnecessary. Standard methods, such as FLAC, perform equally well. As Xivero have demonstrated, the efficiency of FLAC can be further improved by preprocessing the input to remove non-information-bearing noise in the lowest bits. Needless to say, this process is not entirely lossless with respect to the input, but then neither is MQA. The Xivero method is also superior in that the output is a fully compliant FLAC file playable on any existing device without firmware updates or additional software. Of course, there are no royalties for Bob either.

 

Then comes the so-called rendering stage. As revealed by my reverse engineering, this consists of nothing but textbook FIR upsampling followed by shaped dither, usually at 16 bits. That last part is especially interesting. The images of the low frequencies left by the leaky upsampling filters, which is where any useful content must reside, are to a large extent buried under random noise.

 

To recap, whatever smidgen of useful signal identified by MQA in the high frequencies has, by the time it reaches the DAC, been attenuated, aliased ("folded" in MQA newspeak) into the much stronger low frequencies, compressed, uncompressed, imaged ("unfolded") back to the high range along with the mirrored spectrum of the (still much stronger) low frequencies, and finally drowned in random dither noise. "Post-Shannon" or not, nothing can survive this mangling and still be recognisable, let alone useful. If I'm wrong, show me the maths.

 

You seem to be talking about something that isn't MQA.

[mcgillroy]

We are now in sacrifice-territory. The price of progress.

 

But it’s indeed real progress that a representative of the established audiophile-press speaks out the systemic effects MQA entails.

[crenca]

26 minutes ago, mcgillroy said:

We are now in sacrifice-territory. The price of progress.

 

But it’s indeed real progress that a representative of the established audiophile-press speaks out the systemic effects MQA entails.

 

Thats just it, they, the established trade publications, have actually been talking about the "systemic effects" at least a little bit.  Robert Harley in his "10,000" feet article, JA and JI recently.  Jim Austin in this thread.  It is not like they are unaware of them.  

 

What is strange is that they don't actually weigh them, or when they do they do so to dismiss them.  They come across as not quite real people, but rather as sort of living and breath audiophile cliches.  We wonder if they would sacrifice their own mothers for a small SQ tweak of controversial and dubious effect like MQA.

 

Ironically, they accuse the consumer as represented by posters on the forums (aka, "trolls") of a lack of sophistication;  we don't take seriously the technical arguments, or the SQ gains, or the sophistication of digital audio, etc.  Not only do we do this better than they do it, we also do the business side, the DRM/IP side, the "end to end" side, and the general pros and cons of digital audio better than they do it.

 

Like I have said before, MQA has really exposed the limitations of these writers attitudes, understanding, and insular culture.  Apparently it is good enough for the business model to work however, but I wonder how long that can last...

[John_Atkinson]

3 hours ago, shtf said:

it seems clear these stakes were not taken into consideration when Atkinson claimed 4 years BEFORE MQA was released and after just I think 1 maybe 2 short demo's that Atkinson's experience was the equivalent to observing the birth of new planets, "blew his socks off",  along with a few other seemingly off-the-cuff responses. 

 

My news report on was written in December 2014, so that would make your estimate of the format's launch December 2018. Perhaps your math needs work? And what is wrong with my writing a news report on new technology?

 

As to the rest of your post, please read what I actually wrote back then, not your "Chinese Whispers" account:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/ive-heard-future-streaming-meridians-mqa

 

Thank you for doing so. Note, BTW, the exchange between Archimago and myself in the comments, where I mention the DRM-like aspect of MQA, something that I have been accused on CA of ignoring.

 

John Atknson

Editor, Stereophile

 

[wdw]

Somewhat OT but wanted to bring this to the forum's attention.  

Dalethorn is using the Austin MQA article comment section to vent his anger at being banned from this site by denigrating Chris and calling him unethical.  I, in a moderate tone, challenged his posts (below) and mine was deleted but not his.  

WTF!

Never thought these guys at Stereophile would stoop to this level of behaviour.  Dalethorn can call Chris unethical but I cannot challenge his comment.  HIs post is simple hubris for being banned from here and the What's Best forum.

[Hugo9000]

So, I was thinking back to the days of SACD/DSD, and all of its promises.  I can't tell you to this day if it is actually an improvement over high resolution PCM or not, or even if the technology is truly superior even to standard CD.  Regarding the higher frequency improvements that are/were claimed, I cannot judge at all, as my own hearing starts to drop off pretty sharply at around 15kHz, and is nonexistent just above 16kHz (I'm 49, so that's probably not too horrible, all things considered).  However, I believe I can say that it does not seem to harm fidelity, and there was a definite benefit to some consumers--RCA's Living Stereo Hybrid SACD project.  It allowed for the actual 3 channels of sound in the session masters to be heard by consumers via the surround layer of the SACD, so that was one benefit (for those recordings made in 3 channel, that is).

 

However, I believe that the greatest benefit was simply the method used in remastering the material for the new format.  For the first time, RCA went back to the session tapes for Leontyne Price's Madama Butterfly recording.  In the LP releases, cassette tapes, the initial RCA Red Seal CD set, and even the first CD remaster issued with the "Living Stereo" label, there is a very audible and harsh glitch as Mme Price sings the name "Yamadori" (Cio-cio San's wealthy suitor).  Apparently, this glitch existed in everything other than the actual 3-track session tapes, as RCA went back to the first stereo "submaster" or whatever you'd call it on all of the prior releases.  That was a flaw that bothered me for decades, and I had practically given up hope of a fix until I first read about the SACD project, and the methods being used by Soundmirror for RCA/Sony.

 

I remembered that I first read details about the process in the pages of Stereophile, but I couldn't recall the writer of the article.  Today I searched for information on Soundmirror, and found a link to the article in question.  I suppose no one should be surprised at who it was that gave the tech a detailed investigation, and provided interesting and valuable information to at least one music fan/audiophile (me! lol):  Kal Rubinson!  So the whole thing points up a few key differences to me:

 

1) A writer who seems to care about the subject as well as his readership, and who tries to write informatively about it

2) Companies being open to investigation, and inviting/allowing a journalist to witness and experience the process itself, even though it is a patented technology that the company would like to make into a new standard, industry-wide

3) Actual research and dedication to finding the session tapes (not just some vague talk of "masters" whether they mean stereo master, session master, the EQ'd for LP master, whatever), using authentic and properly rebuilt tape machines to play back those session tapes for the new recording process, research to determine the correct EQ for those sessions, etc, etc, etc.

4) Something that is actually new, in the case of SACD, extra channels of audio information, allowing for 3 track as in many original RCA recordings from the "Golden Age," and up to 5 channels, as well as a standard that allowed a fully backward compatible CD layer, with no compromise compared to regular CD (i.e. no need for special equipment or processing required, or to put it another way, no "crippling" of the fidelity of the CD layer itself).

 

Contrast all of that to MQA.  Closed, proprietary, completely secretive about what is really done or not done in the process.  Zero transparency, no actual engagement by anyone involved in the tech (does it even deserve to be called "technology?"  I don't know...) with experts or the curious or even with the press, other than giving them assurances that it's all very wonderful and aboveboard.  Perhaps it is.  But why not allow selected people to witness/experience the process, as a matter of pride of achievement, if not merely to satisfy critics or a distrustful public?  It still has full legal protection as "Intellectual Property," just as Sony and company were protected with regard to SACD/DSD.

 

Anyway, a few thoughts on the matter, as I prepare to listen to Leontyne Price's Madama Butterfly on SACD yet again!

 

 

If anyone is curious, here is a bit from Kalman Rubinson from 2005:

 

Music in the Round #11

[John_Atkinson]

2 minutes ago, wdw said:

I, in a moderate tone, challenged his posts (below) and mine was deleted but not his.  WTF!

 

Actually, I deleted some of Dalethorn's as well as your postings.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

[wdw]

22 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Actually, I deleted some of Dalethorn's as well as your postings.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

You left the most damaging posts where he is calling Chris unethical and unprofessional in place while my deleted comments are simply factual.  His post is simply hubris.  I have seen this animus spill into his on-line posting since the banning.  You aren't playing this fairly at all.  I had more respect for you than this would allow.  

[Thuaveta]

33 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

My news report on was written in December 2014, so that would make your estimate of the format's launch December 2018. Perhaps your math needs work? And what is wrong with my writing a news report on new technology?

 

If you took a step back, wouldn't you feel like the editor in chief of a publication that pimped Shakti stones for years nitpicking over a bit of hyperbole, in the name of the accuracy of his own, since-disproven, hyperbole, is a bit rich ?

[miguelito]

3 hours ago, crenca said:

So even doing as you and the trade publication mentality suggest - judging MQA on SQ alone, it does not hold up.  When you throw in it's innovation stifling design, it becomes even less convincing. 

But even SQ is not a slum dunk. Surely good remasters matter. Surely it might be the case that some ADCs need "fixing" (though I challenge you to prove any modern ones do). But even with all this, the SQ improvement is almost entirely always the result of remastering and eq, and that only for the very few albums that get the "white glove" treatment. I just don't see how this money grab can stand.

[beetlemania]

5 hours ago, Jim Austin said:

incontrovertibly superior sound--

 

Shouldn’t there be reports like this outside the pages of Stereophile and TAS by now? Instead, the unwashed masses are reporting that mqa sounds worse to about the same as Hi-res, a handful reporting that mqa sounds better on a few songs. 

 

Given the substantial downsides of mqa the sonics would have to be clearly worth it. The reality is it’s not even close. 

[crenca]

28 minutes ago, miguelito said:

But even SQ is not a slum dunk. Surely good remasters matter. Surely it might be the case that some ADCs need "fixing" (though I challenge you to prove any modern ones do). But even with all this, the SQ improvement is almost entirely always the result of remastering and eq, and that only for the very few albums that get the "white glove" treatment. I just don't see how this money grab can stand.

 

I was in my clumsy way trying to say this.  Grant MQA some percentage of inherent SQ gain, say a 20% improvement over equivalent Hi Res.  Is it worth The Sacrifice™ (I trademarked that for Jim A  )? 

 

In reality, when you examine actual MQA you see that it is not getting anything near this, but you could be getting what you and Hugo9000 want to see (and JA for that matter in his original understanding of "end to end"), a bit of a better (sometimes) mastering/eq job.

 

So as the onion gets peeled, 20% becomes 10%, then 5%...   

 

Then the skepticism of The Trolls™ gets poked, and a stirring happens across Audiophiledom 

[Brinkman Ship]

28 minutes ago, beetlemania said:

 

Shouldn’t there be reports like this outside the pages of Stereophile and TAS by now? Instead, the unwashed masses are reporting that mqa sounds worse to about the same as Hi-res, a handful reporting that mqa sounds better on a few songs. 

 

Given the substantial downsides of mqa the sonics would have to be clearly worth it. The reality is it’s not even close. 

MQA has been totally ignored by every other sector as far as the press goes...exactly ONE article in Sound On Sound magazine, and spoon fed mentions of MQA by Stereophile in The New Yorker. Pro audio folks think it is an utter joke.

 

Stuart and the editors (and manufacturers) thought they could easily capitalize on audiophile's FOMA mentality, and their love of 3 letter acronyms and colored lights.  Did not quite work out as planned...although clearly the must gullible and weak minded did fall for it.

 

Stuart has promised phantom MQA "mastering tools" which are truly the definition of vaporware, with zero chance of ever appearing in any legitimate form.

[GUTB]

10 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

MQA has been totally ignored by every other sector as far as the press goes...exactly ONE article in Sound On Sound magazine, and spoon fed mentions of MQA by Stereophile in The New Yorker. Pro audio folks think it is an utter joke.

 

Stuart and the editors (and manufacturers) thought they could easily capitalize on audiophile's FOMA mentality, and their love of 3 letter acronyms and colored lights.  Did not quite work out as planned...although clearly the must gullible and weak minded did fall for it.

 

Stuart has promised phantom MQA "mastering tools" which are truly the definition of vaporware, with zero chance of ever appearing in any legitimate form.

 

Why did you make up a fictional MQA comparison? Why not just perform a real comparison and post your observations?

[beetlemania]

25 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

and manufacturers)

 

I think many/most of these signed up fearing sales losses if their product lacked the blue light feature. I know i’ve read posts here or at audioasylum from folks claiming they would not consider a DAC without this feature. And who could blame them given the praise from RH and JA.

[Brinkman Ship]

26 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

Why did you make up a fictional MQA comparison? Why not just perform a real comparison and post your observations?

Fake news. Shouldn't you be getting back to fondling your power cords?

[Brinkman Ship]

8 minutes ago, beetlemania said:

 

I think many/most of these signed up fearing sales losses if their product lacked the blue light feature. I know i’ve read posts here or at audioasylum from folks claiming they would not consider a DAC without this feature. And who could blame them given the praise from RH and JA.

"...I know i’ve read posts here or at audioasylum from folks claiming they would not consider a DAC without this feature."

 

As I said, the weak minded, easy targets.

[kumakuma]

4 hours ago, GUTB said:

 

You seem to be talking about something that isn't MQA.

 

44 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

Why did you make up a fictional MQA comparison? Why not just perform a real comparison and post your observations?

 

You're going to have to do better than this to compete with the MQA trolls that have come before you.