Jump to content
IGNORED

MQA is Vaporware


Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

‘nother thread please. 

 

Your response seems rather odd to me, Chris.  Should I assume the implication of your response is this thread is only intended to be about technical aspects pertaining to MQA?

 

I’ve no intention of opening a new thread.  But if I did, what would you propose be the title, “MQA is Vaporware – from a performance perspective”?

 

The more I dabble with extreme forms of electrical mgmt. and extreme forms of vibration mgmt., the more I’m convinced it’s all just variations of managing mechanical energy. Or was it all just variations of managing electrical energy? No, it’s all just variations of mechanical energy. Wait.  It's all just variations of managing electrical energy.  -Me

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

 

"But just to be sure we’re coming at this from the exact same perspective let me ask you this.  Why do you suppose it is that the general consensus of comparing the sonic performance of a well-engineered Redbook recording verses say a well-engineered 24/192 hi-rez recording, the audible differences are usually only marginal, if not debatable?"

 

In fact, hate to bring up the bad boy of analog, Mikey Fraymor, but he originally reported the Dylan album Shadows In The Night was cut from 24/192 files because it sounded "superb". Then Bruce Botnick, (famed Doors engineer) Dylan chose as the source for every version was live to CD-R mix that was eventually padded with 8 bits during mastering. Yep a CD-R.   He had to an issue a correction, and this was not the first time his ears got it wrong.

 

https://www.analogplanet.com/content/shadows-night  another-side-bob-dylan?page=1

 

 

 

 

 

Understood.  I cannot think of a single redeeming quality about the man called Mikey. 

The more I dabble with extreme forms of electrical mgmt. and extreme forms of vibration mgmt., the more I’m convinced it’s all just variations of managing mechanical energy. Or was it all just variations of managing electrical energy? No, it’s all just variations of mechanical energy. Wait.  It's all just variations of managing electrical energy.  -Me

Link to comment
2 hours ago, FredericV said:

I was thinking: why did Meridian not create an MLP file format, and put that on tidal.

 

I believe Meridian had sold all of the IP related to MLP to Dolby, who have effectively rebranded it as Dolby TrueHD with added provisioning for 8 channels.

no-mqa-sm.jpg

Boycott HDtracks

Boycott Lenbrook

Boycott Warner Music Group

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

This thread is about MQA. The quote I commented about isn’t about MQA. 

 

<quote>" Why do you suppose it is that the general consensus of comparing the sonic performance of a well-engineered Redbook recording verses say a well-engineered 24/192 hi-rez recording, the audible differences are usually only marginal, if not debatable? </quote>

 

Understood.  But the implication being that MQA is also called by few-to-some a "hi-rez" format.  In fact, few-to-some call it sonically superior to all other hi-rez formats.  And it's my intention to address that claim.  Even if I have to prod Audiophile Neuroscience a bit to get there.  :)

The more I dabble with extreme forms of electrical mgmt. and extreme forms of vibration mgmt., the more I’m convinced it’s all just variations of managing mechanical energy. Or was it all just variations of managing electrical energy? No, it’s all just variations of mechanical energy. Wait.  It's all just variations of managing electrical energy.  -Me

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, shtf said:

 

 the implication being that MQA is also called by few-to-some a "hi-rez" format.

 

who is implying or calling MQA a Hi-Rez format ?

 

Comparisons to Hi Rez, sure. Even if "few to some" are calling it Hi Rez, it doesn't make it a fact - but I am happy to be corrected here.

 

Robert Harley stated, "If you play the file through a DAC with MQA decoding, you’ll hear the sound in the studio’s original bit rate, which could be anything from 44.1kHz to 384kHz (or higher), provided that your DAC can handle the studio’s sample frequency.”

Sound Minds Mind Sound

 

 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

who is implying or calling MQA a Hi-Rez format ?

 

Comparisons to Hi Rez, sure. Even if "few to some" are calling it Hi Rez, it doesn't make it a fact - but I am happy to be corrected here.

 

Robert Harley stated, "If you play the file through a DAC with MQA decoding, you’ll hear the sound in the studio’s original bit rate, which could be anything from 44.1kHz to 384kHz (or higher), provided that your DAC can handle the studio’s sample frequency.”

 

Never mind, Chris.  Cleary I was barking up the wrong tree.

The more I dabble with extreme forms of electrical mgmt. and extreme forms of vibration mgmt., the more I’m convinced it’s all just variations of managing mechanical energy. Or was it all just variations of managing electrical energy? No, it’s all just variations of mechanical energy. Wait.  It's all just variations of managing electrical energy.  -Me

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

who is implying or calling MQA a Hi-Rez format ?

 

Comparisons to Hi Rez, sure. Even if "few to some" are calling it Hi Rez, it doesn't make it a fact - but I am happy to be corrected here.

 

Robert Harley stated, "If you play the file through a DAC with MQA decoding, you’ll hear the sound in the studio’s original bit rate, which could be anything from 44.1kHz to 384kHz (or higher), provided that your DAC can handle the studio’s sample frequency.”

 

There is absolutely no doubt MQA was and is marketed as "high resolution"..this is not even up for debate.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

 

There is absolutely no doubt MQA was and is marketed as "high resolution"..this is not even up for debate.

 

As I said I am happy to be corrected. I have not seen it described in such terms. Compared to Hi Rez yes, marketed as better than Hi Rez, yes, deliver the recording studio resolution, yes, just not "it is High Rez".

 

More relevantly, moving beyond marketing, is it or is it not a HiRez format?

Sound Minds Mind Sound

 

 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

As I said I am happy to be corrected. I have not seen it described in such terms. Compared to Hi Rez yes, marketed as better than Hi Rez, yes, deliver the recording studio resolution, yes, just not "it is High Rez".

 

More relevantly, moving beyond marketing, is it or is it not a HiRez format?

..it is not 24 bit  however, it can be up to 96 Khz. Any way you slice it, it is a lossy verison of what it was processed from, and does not represent what the mastering engineer did.

Link to comment
44 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

As I said I am happy to be corrected. I have not seen it described in such terms. Compared to Hi Rez yes, marketed as better than Hi Rez, yes, deliver the recording studio resolution, yes, just not "it is High Rez".

 

More relevantly, moving beyond marketing, is it or is it not a HiRez format?

From the MQA home page. Quoting a Warner music exec.  Then from same page Michael Nash of Universal Music Group. 

 

“Music fans will love it when they hear it, and WMG is thrilled to be partnering with MQA to take the next step in bringing hi-resolution music to consumers across the globe.”

 

“With MQA, we are working with a partner whose technology is among the best solutions for streaming Hi-Res Audio, and one that doesn't ask music fans to compromise on sound quality for convenience.”

 

 

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, esldude said:

From the MQA home page. Quoting a Warner music exec.  Then from same page Michael Nash of Universal Music Group. 

 

“Music fans will love it when they hear it, and WMG is thrilled to be partnering with MQA to take the next step in bringing hi-resolution music to consumers across the globe.”

 

“With MQA, we are working with a partner whose technology is among the best solutions for streaming Hi-Res Audio, and one that doesn't ask music fans to compromise on sound quality for convenience.”

 

 

 

Speaking of which, I'm not sure why some of you MQA skeptics haven’t given much consideration to the possibility / probability that the music industry approached Bob Stuart rather than Bob Stuart approaching the music industry about a new format to do away with all other formats.

 

I remember 3.5 years ago watching extended version videos of MQA’s product launch and it reminded me of a Jim Jones followers drinking the Kool-Aid type of event.  

 

Below are a couple of short videos as I couldn’t locate any extended versions.  As I recall it seemed like every record label had representation at the event and the event itself was far bigger than I would have anticipated.

 

It was rather disheartening to watch to say the least but I'd be surprised if Bob Stuart was much more than a minion himself in this alleged charade.

 

   Meridian launch MQA at The Shard

 

 

  Meridian Audio, Atlantic Records interview: streaming, MQA, high-res audio

 

The more I dabble with extreme forms of electrical mgmt. and extreme forms of vibration mgmt., the more I’m convinced it’s all just variations of managing mechanical energy. Or was it all just variations of managing electrical energy? No, it’s all just variations of mechanical energy. Wait.  It's all just variations of managing electrical energy.  -Me

Link to comment
48 minutes ago, esldude said:

From the MQA home page. Quoting a Warner music exec.  Then from same page Michael Nash of Universal Music Group. 

 

“Music fans will love it when they hear it, and WMG is thrilled to be partnering with MQA to take the next step in bringing hi-resolution music to consumers across the globe.”

 

“With MQA, we are working with a partner whose technology is among the best solutions for streaming Hi-Res Audio, and one that doesn't ask music fans to compromise on sound quality for convenience.”

 

 

 

Aha,  so I guess if it delivers > 44.1k sampling rate it could be considered "Hi-Rez" despite the lossy nature and other mangling.?

Sound Minds Mind Sound

 

 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, shtf said:

It was rather disheartening to watch to say the least but I'd be surprised if Bob Stuart was much more than a minion himself in this alleged charade.

 

   Meridian launch MQA at The Shard


01:19 the sound engineer mentioned he is an MQA fan for already > 2 years (before the official MQA launch).
That sounds very similar to the banned CA member PV and owner of the closed MQA group, who was also a fan long before he could listen to MQA via Tidal on his bluesound.

So MQA has been recruiting opinion makers in advance, even before the launch?

At the end of the video Bob says it's incredible, especially for the music industry and the journalists.

Designer of the 432 EVO music server and Linux specialist

Discoverer of the independent open source sox based mqa playback method with optional one cycle postringing.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, esldude said:

From the MQA home page. Quoting a Warner music exec.  Then from same page Michael Nash of Universal Music Group. 

 

“Music fans will love it when they hear it, and WMG is thrilled to be partnering with MQA to take the next step in bringing hi-resolution music to consumers across the globe.”

 

“With MQA, we are working with a partner whose technology is among the best solutions for streaming Hi-Res Audio, and one that doesn't ask music fans to compromise on sound quality for convenience.”

 

 

 

Regarding your bold parts (and I would honestly prefer MQA would just go away) but if you compare the 1st unfold (I'm only talking the 1st unfold and nothing beyond that) to the same master that can be purchased, they are essentially the same. It's easy to verify if you're able to capture and analyze the streams and purchases on your computer.

 

You can test with the album MAGNIFICAT on Tidal (353kHz) and purchase the 24/96 version and DXD master. The 1st unfold on Tidal stream and the 24/96kHz purchase will look identical. 

 

Again I'd prefer MQA go away. Again, I'm only talking about the 1st unfold. 

 

@Archimago said similar....

 

"Objectively with the songs I examined, the software decoder works well to reconstruct what looks like the equivalent 24/96 download."

 

and

 

"Bottom line: TIDAL/MQA streaming does sound like the equivalent 24/96 downloads based on what I have heard and the test results"

 

https://archimago.blogspot.hk/2017/01/comparison-tidal-mqa-music-high.html

 

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

 

Regarding your bold parts (and I would honestly prefer MQA would just go away) but if you compare the 1st unfold (I'm only talking the 1st unfold and nothing beyond that) to the same master that can be purchased, they are essentially the same. It's easy to verify if you're able to capture and analyze the streams and purchases on your computer.

 

You can test with the album MAGNIFICAT on Tidal (353kHz) and purchase the 24/96 version and DXD master. The 1st unfold on Tidal stream and the 24/96kHz purchase will look identical. 

 

Again I'd prefer MQA go away. Again, I'm only talking about the 1st unfold. 

 

@Archimago said similar....

 

"Objectively with the songs I examined, the software decoder works well to reconstruct what looks like the equivalent 24/96 download."

 

and

 

"Bottom line: TIDAL/MQA streaming does sound like the equivalent 24/96 downloads based on what I have heard and the test results"

 

https://archimago.blogspot.hk/2017/01/comparison-tidal-mqa-music-high.html

 

Sure there is a sound point underlying the MQA triangle- there is very little information on any recording which couldn’t be captured with noise shaped 16/96. 

Unfortunately BS is not interested in distributing noise shaped 16/96, which could be packed in 24/96 with the bottom 8 digits frozen and packed in a similar size flac container to MQA. 

It would have the same information content as pretty much any 24/96 file (and  pretty much any 24/192 either).

You are not a sound quality measurement device

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, adamdea said:

Sure there is a sound point underlying the MQA triangle- there is very little information on any recording which couldn’t be captured with noise shaped 16/96. 

Unfortunately BS is not interested in distributing noise shaped 16/96, which could be packed in 24/96 with the bottom 8 digits frozen and packed in a similar size flac container to MQA. 

It would have the same information content as pretty much any 24/96 file (and  pretty much any 24/192 either).

 

Noted and agreed. Just thought I'd mention it because I've seen lots of comments across various forums about people not liking the 1st unfold on Tidal.

 

In reality they're not liking the master... because the 1st unfold is essentially equivalent to the HiRes master that can be purchased (if it can be purchased).

 

Again, I'm not talking about anything beyond the 1st unfold. There's been enough said and analysed there hehe.

Link to comment

I notice that at the start (1m 20s) of the What Hi Fi interview Mr Stuart uses the term "Losslessly, analogue losslessly".  Of course, we now know that MQA is not "Lossless" in the traditional sense, that is the original data can be recovered in full from a compressed file without loss.  Maybe "analogue losslessly" was a way for the term "Lossless" to be used without stating MQA is lossless in the accepted sense.  That said, lossless analogue would be most splendid I think, if it existed.

 

As an aside, it is perhaps worth mentioning that What Hi Fi is the one publication in the UK that appears to be generally positive about MQA.  Others such as 'HiFi News and record review' appear to be far more considered in their approach to MQA.  We certainly don't have anything the equivalent of the almost evangelistic US coverage of MQA in the publications this side of the pond. 

 

 

Windows 11 PC, Roon, HQPlayer, Focus Fidelity convolutions, iFi Zen Stream, Paul Hynes SR4, Mutec REF10, Mutec MC3+USB, Devialet 1000Pro, KEF Blade.  Plus Pro-Ject Signature 12 TT for playing my 'legacy' vinyl collection. Desktop system; RME ADI-2 DAC fs, Meze Empyrean headphones.

Link to comment
On 5/29/2018 at 7:57 PM, Summit said:

I must say that I’m positively surprised about the MQA SQ change with (I believe) the latest ROON update. Now with the ability to choose both MQA decoder and renderer in ROON/Tidal it’s no longer sounding dull and soft as it have been previously, in my audio system. Well more listening is certainly needed before I can say if it’s sounds better than the same music in hi-res. What I can say is that I liked the three records I have tested so far better in MQA compared to the Redbook version, something I haven’t in the past than I always preferred the non MQA version. I guess the different in master is one big reason, but still.

 

The tested records are mad by Ry Coder, Tom Waits and Melody Gardot.

 

I have listen some more, with and without MQA doing the decoding in Roon. Both the unfolded hi-res files and the MQA 1st unfold sounds very good and are definitely an improvement over the Redbook 16/44 versions I have tried so far. The difference in SQ between the ROON/Tidal unfolded hi-res material (with No MQA decoder selected) and with the MQA decoder selected is less obvious and can probably be more of a system and preference thing, I guess.

 

If you have ROON and Tidal it’s easy to compare, just check “No MQA Support” This will enable Roon’s MQA Core Decoder for all MQA content and enabling you to listen to MQA without a MQA DAC. Now change the “No MQA Support” to “Decoder only” and listen without MQA.

 

My verdict is that the difference between playing Tidal Masters (hi-res) and the same music recordings in Redbook is much greater than the difference between MQA decoding and no MQA decoding, at least to my ears and in my system.   

Link to comment
11 hours ago, shtf said:

 

Speaking of which, I'm not sure why some of you MQA skeptics haven’t given much consideration to the possibility / probability that the music industry approached Bob Stuart rather than Bob Stuart approaching the music industry about a new format to do away with all other formats.

 

I remember 3.5 years ago watching extended version videos of MQA’s product launch and it reminded me of a Jim Jones followers drinking the Kool-Aid type of event.  

 

Below are a couple of short videos as I couldn’t locate any extended versions.  As I recall it seemed like every record label had representation at the event and the event itself was far bigger than I would have anticipated.

 

It was rather disheartening to watch to say the least but I'd be surprised if Bob Stuart was much more than a minion himself in this alleged charade.

 

   Meridian launch MQA at The Shard

 

 

  Meridian Audio, Atlantic Records interview: streaming, MQA, high-res audio

 

Too far fetched..I can conceive of a scenario where the labels approached BS. That is giving them too much credit.

 

To me Stuart reminds of the character Peter Sellers played in Being There.

Link to comment
55 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Too far fetched..I can conceive of a scenario where the labels approached BS. That is giving them too much credit.

 

To me Stuart reminds of the character Peter Sellers played in Being There.

 

Exactly my point.  That's why I can't conceive of Bob Stuart being the mastermind behind this grandiose scheme.  IMO, that would be giving Bob too much credit.  For that very reason, I wouldn't be suprised if Bob inherited MQA with wrapping paper and bow and he was tasked with familiarizing himsef with the technology behind it. 

 

I've read a few MQA interviews with Bob and watched a few MQA interviews with Bob and it just seemed he was fumbling a bit too much and lacked enough confidence to be the real author behind MQA.  Morevoer, wasn't Meridan something like $40M in the red at the time, yet MQA's product launch seemed almost as though no expense was spared and all the record label reps were in attendance and already had their seemingly scripted over-the-top endorsements, much like the audio magazines.

 

I can't help but think there's more than meets the eye with MQA.  As well as less.  :)

 

The more I dabble with extreme forms of electrical mgmt. and extreme forms of vibration mgmt., the more I’m convinced it’s all just variations of managing mechanical energy. Or was it all just variations of managing electrical energy? No, it’s all just variations of mechanical energy. Wait.  It's all just variations of managing electrical energy.  -Me

Link to comment
9 hours ago, adamdea said:

Sure there is a sound point underlying the MQA triangle- there is very little information on any recording which couldn’t be captured with noise shaped 16/96. 

Unfortunately BS is not interested in distributing noise shaped 16/96, which could be packed in 24/96 with the bottom 8 digits frozen and packed in a similar size flac container to MQA. 

It would have the same information content as pretty much any 24/96 file (and  pretty much any 24/192 either).

If you play back the 1st unfold does it not engage the rather lax filtering of MQA?

 

And yes, I'd prefer 96/16 FLAC. 

 

 

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
On 6/7/2018 at 4:09 PM, rickca said:

I suppose he has these products on long term loan in exchange for using them in his reviews. 

 

Presently, the only Synergistic products I have in my system are the Tranquility Bases.

 

I obviously like what Shunyata is doing in power conditioners. Being a reviewer, I want the best sounding gear for my system that I can afford. I also like to let readers know what I am using.  I feel the equipment choices I make do influence outcomes and reflect my acoustic preferences. 

 

As for my equipment, no one gives this reviewer stuff. I'm a small timer in the grand scheme of things.

 

 

Steve Plaskin

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...