MQA is Vaporware

[tmtomh]

1 hour ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

This is a straw man as I am not judging MQA on these metrics.  What I did say in my article is that hirez acceptance stands a better chance if it is part of a premium tier streaming service than if it is an audiophile niche-focused service like hirez media.  At some point, having easier access does increase the likelihood that more will try it.  It remains to be seen how many stick around or pay extra for it.  My guess is that a small percentage only need to show interest for MQA to be profitable, as that may just require a major streaming service to come onboard.

 

It is not a straw man argument, Rather, you are deflecting and evading the issue. In your comment hereyou mention "hirez" acceptance in general, and you studiously avoid mentioning MQA acceptance - when the uptake and growth of MQA is by your own frequent admission your main focus of interest. 

 

Of course high-res streaming does indeed stand a better chance of adoption if it's bundled as part of a premium tier that includes lossless redbook as well as high-res. No one is disputing that, and it's not at issue in any way.

But that has nothing to do with MQA. The point of my comment - and the point you continue to deflect and refuse to acknowledge - is that bundled tiers do not measure consumer interest or adoption of a specific format/option within the tier.

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 hours ago, Paul R said:

If MQA is delivering true 24/96k lossless sound, 

It isn’t. You can’t take an MQA file and convert it back to the pre-MQA version. 

[Lee Scoggins]

21 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

But that has nothing to do with MQA. The point of my comment - and the point you continue to deflect and refuse to acknowledge - is that bundled tiers do not measure consumer interest or adoption of a specific format/option within the tier.

 

In my article, I never made a claim that hire would gain wide acceptance, only that there was a chance that more people would adopt it.  As well, I have never claimed that you could judge hirez demand by looking at people buying any kind of Tidal subscription or similar "bundled tier".  The only way you can judge hirez demand is by more specific metrics like # of hirez downloads and the like and, possibly in the future, the numbers of people buying a hirez tier of a streaming service.

[Lee Scoggins]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

It isn’t. You can’t take an MQA file and convert it back to the pre-MQA version. 

 

By that purely technical definition you are right.

 

But based on my own listening sessions, you also can't hear the bits that are being thrown away as they are in an inaudible region.

[n2it]

1 hour ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

But the evidence is that there is no DRM on MQA files.  Not a single file from MQA has had DRM.

 

I didn’t label it as DRM.  If I had to put a label on it I would say proprietary.

 

My question is if I purchased an MQA download - what sort of restrictions are there for my perpetual use?  Would I always need to use (closed, non open source) licensed or proprietary software and/or hardware to decode?  Would the licensors of MQA give me a perpetual license to decode the file (or open source it if the licensor went backrupt).  Would I be limited in any way (e.g. I would only be able to get 44.1 kHz when the file was originally 96 kHz)?

[Lee Scoggins]

1 hour ago, manisandher said:

 

If we can't then:

1. all this talk of MQA being lossy is irrelevant... because it'll sound exactly the same as the original hires

2. MQA's claim of superior sound is BS... because it'll sound exactly the same as the original hires

 

😀

 

Mani.

 

On point #2, would the chart be able to show the timing correction that MQA brings?  I think you would need more than noise vs. FR.

[Lee Scoggins]

4 minutes ago, n2it said:

 

I didn’t label it as DRM.  If I had to put a label on it I would say proprietary.

 

My question is if I purchased an MQA download - what sort of restrictions are there for my perpetual use?  Would I always need to use (closed, non open source) licensed or proprietary software and/or hardware to decode?  Would the licensors of MQA give me a perpetual license to decode the file (or open source it if the licensor went backrupt).  Would I be limited in any way (e.g. I would only be able to get 44.1 kHz when the file was originally 96 kHz)?

 

Given that there are free unfolds bundled into software like Amarra and Audirvana, what would the unfolding ever go away as long as you owned any of those software packages?

[mansr]

7 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

By that purely technical definition you are right.

 

But based on my own listening sessions, you also can't hear the bits that are being thrown away as they are in an inaudible region.

What's the point of high-res then?

[crenca]

2 hours ago, manisandher said:

 

For a while, I've been wondering what MQA actually does to 24/96 (and below) resolution files. I mean, here's the difference between an original 24/96 hires and the equivalent decoded MQA from the same master:

 

 

The difference is pretty low in level. I totally accept that it's accurate to call MQA 'lossy', but looking at this difference, is it fair to describe MQA as some sort of lossy compression scheme? It just doesn't look to me as if that's what it's doing. Those 'humps' in the upper regions seem to be intrinsic to what MQA is doing. I'd be interested in knowing what sort of processing could be causing them. Removing aliasing products due to the ADC used perhaps?

 

There's no doubt that for files above 24/96 resolution, MQA is definitely lossy. As has been shown before, at these resolutions, decoded and rendered MQA doesn't reproduce any signal above 88.2/96 kHz in the original hires faithfully. But generally, all there is above 88.2/96 kHz in the original hires is noise (often at quite high levels). Does it matter that this noise is not reproduced losslessly, but is replaced instead by imaging artefacts above 88.2/96 kHz, due to the non-ringing filters used by MQA renderers?

 

These are genuine questions that I'd like thoughts on.

 

Mani.

 

You make several errors here.  Please read the front page article about MQA here...

[The Computer Audiophile]

17 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Given that there are free unfolds bundled into software like Amarra and Audirvana, what would the unfolding ever go away as long as you owned any of those software packages?

 

There’s no such thing as free. 

 

 

 

 

23 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

By that purely technical definition you are right.

 

But based on my own listening sessions, you also can't hear the bits that are being thrown away as they are in an inaudible region.

 

The world of music playback shouldn’t be dependent upon Lee Scoggins listening sessions. 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

22 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

On point #2, would the chart be able to show the timing correction that MQA brings?  I think you would need more than noise vs. FR.

It’ll follow the chart from MQA Ltd that shows it. 

[KeenObserver]

Every time I log back on it is the same circular BS over and over again.

 

It's like a Monte Python skit:

 

MQA is lossless

No it's not

Yes it is

No it's not

It's perceptually lossless

What?

Look, there's bigfoot!

 

The MQA shills must figure people will just get sick of it and say:  "All right! Just take all my money and give me the crippled recordings!  Just shut up"!

[mansr]

30 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

On point #2, would the chart be able to show the timing correction that MQA brings?

Do you have a chart showing the error that MQA "needs" to correct? Without that, it's pretty hard to assess the efficacy of the "correction." In fact, one would be inclined to infer that no actual error even exists.

[KeenObserver]

33 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

On point #2, would the chart be able to show the timing correction that MQA brings?  I think you would need more than noise vs. FR.

 

Look! There's bigfoot!

[Paul R]

2 hours ago, manisandher said:

 

For a while, I've been wondering what MQA actually does to 24/96 (and below) resolution files. I mean, here's the difference between an original 24/96 hires and the equivalent decoded MQA from the same master:

 

 

The difference is pretty low in level. I totally accept that it's accurate to call MQA 'lossy', but looking at this difference, is it fair to describe MQA as some sort of lossy compression scheme? It just doesn't look to me as if that's what it's doing. Those 'humps' in the upper regions seem to be intrinsic to what MQA is doing. I'd be interested in knowing what sort of processing could be causing them. Removing aliasing products due to the ADC used perhaps?

 

There's no doubt that for files above 24/96 resolution, MQA is definitely lossy. As has been shown before, at these resolutions, decoded and rendered MQA doesn't reproduce any signal above 88.2/96 kHz in the original hires faithfully. But generally, all there is above 88.2/96 kHz in the original hires is noise (often at quite high levels). Does it matter that this noise is not reproduced losslessly, but is replaced instead by imaging artefacts above 88.2/96 kHz, due to the non-ringing filters used by MQA renderers?

 

These are genuine questions that I'd like thoughts on.

 

Mani.

 

I sure hope you have your lead pants on. For what it is worth, very nice analysis.

-Paul

 

[sandyk]

41 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

But based on my own listening sessions, you also can't hear the bits that are being thrown away as they are in an inaudible region.

 

That doesn't mean that others will not miss their absence.

We have heard similar claims before, like with .mp3 encoding where they claimed that they would be masked by higher level material..

[Paul R]

2 hours ago, n2it said:

 

 

I tried Tidal and I am no longer using it - so I voted with my pocket book. I think we all get that differences in levels - and we might even agree that the only reason to use Tidal is if you subscribe to the "HiFi" as the premium (i.e. mp3) doesn't offer any value over other services (unless you use Roon and Qobuz isn't available to you or some other personal limitation) and I think we agree that MQA is included in the price.

 

But please note, just because something is included does not mean that there is no cost

 

Something being included "for free" is an iron clad guarantee you are paying for that "free" thing somewhere ion the cost.

 

2 hours ago, n2it said:

- e.g. could the service be cheaper if no MQA, what about locking someone into a particular ecosystem (limited software options, proprietary hardware with licensing paid for by the manufacturer, recording studios, labels etc. (and therefore one way or another, the consumers), what about the confusion to users who think they are getting something (lossy) that is better than the real thing (lossless)?).  If you'd like, feel free to pass this on to MQA and Tidal - I am certainly not wasting time trying to improve something that I have no need for.

 

The whole argument about loosing access to your music is, I think, more than a it of a straw man argument. If MQA were to go away, then their code would be reversed engineered almost overnight. If they try to lock down the music, bypasses around the DRM / Copy Protection will be available in very little time as well. We certainly have DIVX encoders today, and that was Circuit City pulling almost the same thing as MQA. 

 

2 hours ago, n2it said:

I don't buy MQA based media or streaming as I don't want to have to use particular software and/or hardware to get the best experience - I've already got the best experience with other formats out there.   I am currently trying Qobuz streaming now that it is in the US - I liked that I could listen to the same resolution as I would be buying (as well as analyze and compare with the other versions) as well as the support for 192/24 ... I am really thinking if it is worth it or not to keep the studio trial I have right now ... but not missing Tidal at all.    

 

As a note, I already have Apple Music (for the kids and wife) - my plans for now is to use apple music when I want to preview something (or for other times when I don't want to buy something) and spend the extra money that I might use for additional streaming services and buy the album in the format that makes the most sense - i.e. CD or higher res - depending upon source, provenance, mastering, cost/value, etc.

 

 

 

I have Apple Music, and it sounds better than Tidal does to me. I also have Qobuz. I dropped Tidal as quickly as possible when QoBuz went public Beta.  I don't really like either Tidal or MQA, but I don't consider either one a threat to my access to music I love at a reasonable price and with high quality. 

 

-Paul 

 

[Paul R]

2 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Nonsense!  What prevents me from decoding MQA content without MQA hardware and/or software?    --> DRM <--

 

You ar a moral guy who respects IP if and until the IP rights become meaningless?

 

[KeenObserver]

"The whole argument about loosing access to your music is, I think, more than a it of a straw man argument. If MQA were to go away, then their code would be reversed engineered almost overnight. If they try to lock down the music, bypasses around the DRM / Copy Protection will be available in very little time as well. We certainly have DIVX encoders today, and that was Circuit City pulling almost the same thing as MQA. "

 

The majors would still have a vested interest in it.  Do you think they would want to sell you their catalog all over again?

[Paul R]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

You are absolutely right. MQA does not have DRM. MQA is DRM.

 

Not so - MQA has the capacity built in to implement DRM. It is not now, and never has been DRM, it is a compression scheme. 

 

In effect though, that is why Lee is wrong. No file to date may have been sold with DRM, that doesn't mean a future issue of the MQA software could not successfully implement DRM, even with all the files that have been sold already. 

 

-Paul 

 

 

[mansr]

8 minutes ago, Paul R said:

The whole argument about loosing access to your music is, I think, more than a it of a straw man argument. If MQA were to go away, then their code would be reversed engineered almost overnight. If they try to lock down the music, bypasses around the DRM / Copy Protection will be available in very little time as well.

You seem to have a very confused understanding of intellectual property law and its enforcement.

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

 

Why is this even a question? Get up to speed-MQA is objectively lossy. That’s been proven beyond a doubt. How it sounds it a subjective judgement open to disagreement.

 

When I said "sound" I was referring to audio, not subjective sound.  I am not so sure that 24/96 is actually lossy, or that even if it is, it makes any difference to most people. 24/192? No question.

 

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, Paul R said:

Not so - MQA has the capacity built in to implement DRM. It is not now, and never has been DRM, it is a compression scheme.

What is the difference between a proprietary encoding like MQA and something you would qualify as DRM?

[Paul R]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

You seem to have a very confused understanding of intellectual property law and its enforcement.

 

If anyone here is confused about that, you are.  

 

I have referenced DIVX many times, go look it up. The situations are closely parallel. 

 

-Paul 

 

[mansr]

Just now, Paul R said:

I am not so sure that 24/96 is actually lossy,

It has to be. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeonhole_principle

"The principle can be used to prove that any lossless compression algorithm, provided it makes some inputs smaller (as the name compression suggests), will also make some other inputs larger. Otherwise, the set of all input sequences up to a given length L could be mapped to the (much) smaller set of all sequences of length less than L without collisions (because the compression is lossless), a possibility which the pigeonhole principle excludes."

 

An obvious corollary is that if an algorithm compresses all inputs, it must be lossy. MQA compresses all inputs.