MQA is Vaporware

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

Not really.  You have compact files sizes as well which is important to streaming services.

Compared to what? MQA files are larger than standard CD and require a licensed (meaning paid for) decoder to access even the same quality. They are also larger than plain 96 kHz reduced to the 18 bits or so of resolution that MQA can provide. It is true that MQA files are slightly smaller than full 96/24 FLAC, but that reduction comes at a significant cost.

 

Oh, and 99.8% of users are happy with 256 kbps mp3.

 

4 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

Also, the MQA deblurring filters are not apodizing filters as I originally thought.  They are a different filter it turns out.

Care to elaborate?

 

4 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

MQA is not the same as someone adding EQ.  It's correcting for problems in the conversion and that gets the final result closer to the live event that was recorded.

Show us the problem. Please.

 

4 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

2.  Compact file size and business model advantages via a premium tier

Why should we, music consumers, care about "business model" advantages? We have the bandwidth/storage space. Why should we pay more just to feed someone's business model?

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

It sounds like your mind was made up before the demo.

And yours wasn't?

[tmtomh]

16 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

So you wind up with a few benefits:  

 

1.  Hirez files with no losses in the audible range

2.  Compact file size and business model advantages via a premium tier

3.  Sound improvements via the deblurring filters.

 

1. You have bit-depth losses because MQA stores the folded-up ultrasonics in the 15th and/or 16th bits. And there are plenty of high-res files with no losses in the audible range, including 24/48k files, which are smaller in size than MQA files.
2. 25% smaller than 24/96 and approx 60-75% larger than 24/48 is not an advantage of any significance (if at all). And business-model advantages via a premium tier do not require MQA, as evidenced by the massive number of lossless redbook and conventional high-res PCM options available. (This is something you've been told repeatedly and have simply ignored.)
3. It has been shown over and over that "sound improvements via the debarring filters" is at best a subjective perception, and is not in any way backed up by evidence, because the filters are too uniform and simple to achieve deblurring in any reliable manner, and because no filter can do what MQA claims when the source is a multitrack recording with multiple and/or unknown ADCs and DACs in the production chain.

And for the umpteenth time, you already know all of this

[Lee Scoggins]

5 minutes ago, mansr said:

Compared to what? MQA files are larger than standard CD and require a licensed (meaning paid for) decoder to access even the same quality. They are also larger than plain 96 kHz reduced to the 18 bits or so of resolution that MQA can provide. It is true that MQA files are slightly smaller than full 96/24 FLAC, but that reduction comes at a significant cost.

 

Oh, and 99.8% of users are happy with 256 kbps mp3.

 

Care to elaborate?

 

Show us the problem. Please.

 

Why should we, music consumers, care about "business model" advantages? We have the bandwidth/storage space. Why should we pay more just to feed someone's business model?

 

1. Most audiophiles want better sound quality than what the masses want.  So your point about how happy most consumers are with shitty sound, combined with recent history of DVD-Audio and SACD, suggests that MQA's approach to piggy-back on streaming tiers is a good idea.

 

2.  I am still studying how the deblurring works so more on that to come later.

 

3.  In terms of the business model, I am evaluating MQA here as a going concern, not from the perspective of the consumer.  My best guess is that MQA simply needs a major streaming service to sign on to become profitable.  I can see this happening but it's unclear what the odds are.  MQA is signing up partners pretty quickly and the labels have tested and approved the technology so I think thing look pretty good but probably best to wait and see on that.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

4 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

 

1. You have bit-depth losses because MQA stores the folded-up ultrasonics in the 15th and/or 16th bits. And there are plenty of high-res files with no losses in the audible range, including 24/48k files, which are smaller in size than MQA files.
2. 25% smaller than 24/96 and approx 60-75% larger than 24/48 is not an advantage of any significance (if at all). And business-model advantages via a premium tier do not require MQA, as evidenced by the massive number of lossless redbook and conventional high-res PCM options available. (This is something you've been told repeatedly and have simply ignored.)
3. It has been shown over and over that "sound improvements via the debarring filters" is at best a subjective perception, and is not in any way backed up by evidence, because the filters are too uniform and simple to achieve deblurring in any reliable manner, and because no filter can do what MQA claims when the source is a multitrack recording with multiple and/or unknown ADCs and DACs in the production chain.

And for the umpteenth time, you already know all of this

 

Where is there evidence that an MQA customer can hear the difference between the original hirez file and the MQA file played back fully unfolded?

 

So far we are seeing a difference chart where much of the frequency range is -150db.  That would be inaudible.

 

Also, the file size is one quarter of the corresponding hirez file.  At scale, that is a significant improvement in both storage cost and bandwidth savings.

 

As for deblurring filters, I tend to lean to Bob Stuart on that point.  His main area of study was human perception of audio phenomena.  Secondly, the description of what the filter does also matches my listening experience of Peter's demo files and others.

[mansr]

12 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

25% smaller than 24/96 and approx 60-75% larger than 24/48 is not an advantage of any significance (if at all).

Considering that roughly half of the MQA tracks on Tidal originate from 44/48 kHz masters, it's actually a net loss.

[mansr]

13 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

I am still studying how the deblurring works so more on that to come later.

Where, pray tell, are you studying this?

[mansr]

10 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

Also, the file size is one quarter of the corresponding hirez file.

Uncompressed CD quality is also less than a quarter of 192/24. It's easy to reduce the size when you're allowed to throw away information.

[kumakuma]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

Where, pray tell, are you studying this?

 

Bob Stuart University aka BSU

[Ralf11]

3 minutes ago, mansr said:

Where, pray tell, are you studying this?

 

 

at the Goebbels Institute for Obfuscation, GIT

[tmtomh]

15 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Where is there evidence that an MQA customer can hear the difference between the original hirez file and the MQA file played back fully unfolded?

 

Also, the file size is one quarter of the corresponding hirez file.  At scale, that is a significant improvement in both storage cost and bandwidth savings.

 

 

 

Where is there evidence that a streaming customer can hear the difference between an MQA file and a 24/48 file?

 

Also, the file size is only one-quarter of the corresponding hi-res file if the high-res file is 24/192. If the high-res file is 24/96, then the MQA file is only about 25% smaller. And if the high-res file is 24/48, the MQA file is bigger.

 

@Lee Scoggins, why would you even say that an MQA file is "one quarter the size" of the original file when you know - and you know that everyone else knows - that this is true only for 192kHz originals? I'm serious - I truly would like some insight into why you think anyone would read that from you and not conclude that you were spinning and willfully leaving out important information. Why bother doing that when you must know someone will call you on it immediately? 

[sandyk]

28 minutes ago, mansr said:

Oh, and 99.8% of users are happy with 256 kbps mp3.

 

 Absolute garbage.

 It won't be a surprise to a large number of forum members however, that you are among the 99.8% 

 

  If you started a Poll, you would almost certainly find that most A.S. members have long since changed to .flac files as their preferred storage medium.

Even with Usenet where most illegal audio file sharing takes place, .mp3 is rarely used these days as it has been replaced by lossless .flac , and I would bet that very few members have in recent years digitised their LPs using .mp3 either.

[shadowlight]

On 3/11/2019 at 4:39 PM, Lee Scoggins said:

premium tier streaming service than if it is an audiophile niche-focused service like hirez media

 

but is a lossy service considered hirez?  to me it's not hirez.

[Paul R]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

 

 

 

If I was a dick I’d give them the same treatment they gave me. But, I won’t stoop to that level. I’ll try to attend though. 

 

 

 

Bet you a whole nickel they politely apologize to you. 

 

-Paul 

[shadowlight]

On 3/11/2019 at 5:08 PM, 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 had asked previously but have yet to get a response.  Is the DRM functionality built in to the spec of MQA (there have been multiple mentions about protecting crown jewels)?  If yes, what's to prevent the studio's from waking up tomorrow morning and saying we want to flip that switch.

[crenca]

1 hour ago, tmtomh said:

....

And for the umpteenth time, you already know all of this

 

Right. Apparently, it's not about the truth of MQA (or anything else), or persuasion, or even "civilly" sharing an interest/hobby.  I wonder what it could be about...hum...jeepers it's so perplexing...

 

Be honest @tmtomh, when are you going to break down and call out these guys for what they really are?

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, tmtomh said:

 

I'm going to go out on a bit of limb here and say I have a positive reaction to much (though not all) of what @ARQuint writes in this comment.

 

I do think that some participants in this thread are unwilling to make a distinction between (A) strongly and forcefully defending important points, and (B) making repeated ad hominem and uncivil attacks.

 

There's a bit of irony - one could even say hypocrisy - in posts here that insist that "facts are facts" and then immediately proceed to pepper their criticism of pro-MQA folks and "old guard" audiophile press members with snark, sarcasm, unproven insinuations, and so on. 

 

Let me be clear - I am not in any way saying or implying that facts are not facts. As I hope folks know, I am 100% dead-set against MQA for the reasons @mansr, @Jud, and many many others have stated (and the reasons I've repeatedly articulated myself in response to @Lee Scoggins' comments).

 

But at some point, discussion becomes pointless without civility - not because we all have to be nice to each other or gloss over real disagreements, but rather because the entire point of discussion is to impact others' perspective: to educate and hopefully to persuade. And if you simply insult those who disagree with you, you're just preening for those who already agree. You might as well shout into a mirror for all the change your comments will make.

 

That said, while I do appreciate and agree with Andrew Quint's emphasis on baseline civility, I do take exception to the equivalency he sets up between Jud and Lee Scoggins. The evaluation of arguments cannot be objective to the extent that mathematical principles are, but I think by any reasonable standard Jud's arguments here are more substantive, more internally consistent, and more attentive to the technical facts of MQA than Lee's are.

Moreover, everyone should note that immediately after pairing Jud and Lee, Andrew Quint then pairs Lee and the more shall-we-say rhetorical anti-MQA folks here - a group of which Jud is most decidedly not a part. I mention this because it highlights the flaw in Andrew's both-sides framing of this discussion. Lee certainly is not as nasty or biting as many of his detractors - but the quality of his arguments are no better than those of the folks Andrew is upset about here. By contrast, Jud's arguments - not to mention mansr's and many others' - are far superior. And there is no equivalent pro-MQA voice here with substantive, compelling, fact-based arguments.

 

This is why I think @The Computer Audiophile's good-faith investigation into MQA inevitably led him away from the hoped-for middle ground and into anti-MQA territory. The facts simply don't support MQA's value or its claims - and if the repetitiveness of this 400-page thread has any value, it is that it demonstrates that even with virtually infinite time and opportunities, MQA cannot make its case.

 

So civility, yes. But false equivalence in the name of civility? No thank you.

 

What an excellent and well thought out post. I would complement you on it, but it would probably just open you to being snarked at. 

 

Yours,

Paul 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 hours ago, tmtomh said:

 

I'm going to go out on a bit of limb here and say I have a positive reaction to much (though not all) of what @ARQuint writes in this comment.

 

I do think that some participants in this thread are unwilling to make a distinction between (A) strongly and forcefully defending important points, and (B) making repeated ad hominem and uncivil attacks.

 

There's a bit of irony - one could even say hypocrisy - in posts here that insist that "facts are facts" and then immediately proceed to pepper their criticism of pro-MQA folks and "old guard" audiophile press members with snark, sarcasm, unproven insinuations, and so on. 

 

Let me be clear - I am not in any way saying or implying that facts are not facts. As I hope folks know, I am 100% dead-set against MQA for the reasons @mansr, @Jud, and many many others have stated (and the reasons I've repeatedly articulated myself in response to @Lee Scoggins' comments).

 

But at some point, discussion becomes pointless without civility - not because we all have to be nice to each other or gloss over real disagreements, but rather because the entire point of discussion is to impact others' perspective: to educate and hopefully to persuade. And if you simply insult those who disagree with you, you're just preening for those who already agree. You might as well shout into a mirror for all the change your comments will make.

 

That said, while I do appreciate and agree with Andrew Quint's emphasis on baseline civility, I do take exception to the equivalency he sets up between Jud and Lee Scoggins. The evaluation of arguments cannot be objective to the extent that mathematical principles are, but I think by any reasonable standard Jud's arguments here are more substantive, more internally consistent, and more attentive to the technical facts of MQA than Lee's are.

Moreover, everyone should note that immediately after pairing Jud and Lee, Andrew Quint then pairs Lee and the more shall-we-say rhetorical anti-MQA folks here - a group of which Jud is most decidedly not a part. I mention this because it highlights the flaw in Andrew's both-sides framing of this discussion. Lee certainly is not as nasty or biting as many of his detractors - but the quality of his arguments are no better than those of the folks Andrew is upset about here. By contrast, Jud's arguments - not to mention mansr's and many others' - are far superior. And there is no equivalent pro-MQA voice here with substantive, compelling, fact-based arguments.

 

This is why I think @The Computer Audiophile's good-faith investigation into MQA inevitably led him away from the hoped-for middle ground and into anti-MQA territory. The facts simply don't support MQA's value or its claims - and if the repetitiveness of this 400-page thread has any value, it is that it demonstrates that even with virtually infinite time and opportunities, MQA cannot make its case.

 

So civility, yes. But false equivalence in the name of civility? No thank you.

Well stated. 

[MikeyFresh]

4 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

What I don't want is for there to be a new mastering pass on the material and only MQA appears at the end of the process.

 

Bingo, or if a previously released hi-rez version I have on my radar but haven't as yet found the scratch to buy is suddenly withdrawn by the labels and replaced with an MQA version, then I've missed out on what I really wanted just because I don't have unlimited funds.

 

I buy music year round and have so for decades. Still there is the reality of a budget for that endeavor and I simply can't afford  to buy everything as soon as it's released, sometimes it takes years for me to eventually acquire a reissue I want. If those hi-rez reissues are ever just summarily replaced by MQA versions, I will have lost the opportunity at the real McCoy in favor of Master Quality Approximated. Hard pass.

[crenca]

15 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Well stated. 

 

Well stated, but wrong.  Jud, tmtomh's, and your own reasoned technical arguments might be necessary, but they are not sufficient.   It's a signal to noise thing.  Sometimes the signal needs to be turned up relative to the noise.

 

Notice how tmtomh's reasoned, technically correct, and very polite/civil responses to Lee have gone exactly...nowhere.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, crenca said:

 

Well stated, but wrong.  Jud, tmtomh's, and your own reasoned technical arguments might be necessary, but they are not sufficient.   It's a signal to noise thing.  Sometimes the signal needs to be turned up relative to the noise.

 

Notice how tmtomh's reasoned, technically correct, and very polite/civil responses to Lee have gone exactly...nowhere.

Feedback noted, but wrong. Notice how your turned up “signal” has gone exactly nowhere?

 

There is nowhere to go. We’re in a post factual era. Being civil and laying out facts gets you to the same destination as being a jerk and stating the same facts. It’s all about who you want to be and how you want your facts to be received. 

 

I’ve yet to see anyone succumb to an MQA beating, but I certainly changed my mind about MQA because of civil discourse. 

 

Sugar works much much better than spice. 

[rickca]

2 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

MQA is  was signing up partners pretty quickly

 

[crenca]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Feedback noted, but wrong. Notice how your turned up “signal” has gone exactly nowhere?

 

There is nowhere to go. We’re in a post factual era. Being civil and laying out facts gets you to the same destination as being a jerk and stating the same facts. It’s all about who you want to be and how you want your facts to be received. 

 

I’ve yet to see anyone succumb to an MQA beating, but I certainly changed my mind about MQA because of civil discourse. 

 

Sugar works much much better than spice. 

 

Wrong again.  The truth of MQA was never "in the middle", nor is sugar always the best strategy.  It's a both/and not an either or.  Sugar sometimes works, but how did that work out for you at RMAF?  Fail! as the kids say.    MQA is counting on the status quo audiophile sugar - it's a play on the sugar.  Neither yourself, nor Jud, nor tmtomh are going to convince the Lee's, ARQuint's, and JA's of the world that they are wrong about MQA.  If they don't know already, they ain't never going to know.  What they know and what they say are always going to be different because their whole position/livelihood depends on them not being wrong about MQA.

 

ARQuint civility sugar play is just that, a play.  These guys are going to work that play for the next 4 years just as they have for the last 4 years.  Sometimes, the truth needs a little spice...

[MikeyFresh]

2 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

It's correcting for problems in the conversion and that gets the final result closer to the live event that was recorded.

 

With what, the hamburger encoder in the sky that knows all of the "flaws" in all of the ADCs ever made?

2 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

1.  Hirez files with no losses in the audible range

 

We already have those, and no origami, DRM, upsampling with shitty filters, blur LEDs, or licensing fees at every stage are necessary.

 

2 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

3.  Sound improvements via the deblurring filters.

 

Please elaborate, oh wait mans has already asked that many times and you can't seem to do so in any way because there is zero evidence of any such "deblurring". Great job of spewing BS marketing-speak though. 

[Jud]

Some additional points about MQA:

 

1 - Why can't MQA be done "better"? 

 

a -- To put what I said in my long post in different terms, every filter must strike some mathematical balance between "frequency distortions" (aliasing, imaging) and "time distortions" (ringing).  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjugate_variables  This has been known for the better part of two centuries.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform#History

 

b -- It is the essence of MQA that it seeks to absolutely minimize time distortions.  If you don't have this, you don't have MQA.  This extreme approach to filtering inevitably means mathematically that it *must* maximize imaging and aliasing.  And this is indeed what we see in the frequency responses of all MQA filters.

 

c -- As noted by me and others, lossless compression cannot satisfactorily protect how MQA processing works, its intellectual property.  In order for MQA to make money in the way it is intended to do, by utilizing proprietary processing that protects its IP and allows the labels to hold back full resolution digital files (since they are still convinced, or at least trying to convince their bosses and investors, that piracy is the reason they aren't more successful), it must use lossy compression.

 

d -- As Miska has mentioned and mansr has confirmed, MQA uses part of the 24- or 16-bit word length to hold information about MQA decoding.  Thus, although the full dynamic range of 16 bit material is never used (let alone 24-bit, which is pretty well impossible, since you're into the heat noise of the electronics by that point), MQA does limit potential dynamic range versus RedBook material in particular.

 

e -- Combine filtering that must produce distortion with lossy compression and a higher noise floor with RedBook material, and the result *must* to a mathematical certainty be further from the original than better filtering and lossless (if any) compression, i.e., genuine hi res or RedBook played back with a reasonably good DAC or software player.

 

f -- Now you may not hear the distortion, or the losses due to compression, or you may not mind them if you do hear them, but MQA is not marketed as "We screwed up your music, but not so badly you can actually hear it."  It's marketed as closer to the original, which as we've just seen can't be true on a sheer mathematical basis.  No real room for argument, this is as plain a mathematical fact as 2+2=4 (though I do love the T-shirt that says "2+2=5, but only for higher values of 2").

 

2 - So why might people like it?

 

a -- We've gone through a variety of reasons - subjective predisposition, subconscious pressure of social expectations, a liking for a very slightly warmer, more exciting sound that distortion might produce.  But I want to add one more, that was first brought to our attention by @firedog.  It is that many MQA DACs do not stop using their MQA filters once MQA material is no longer being played.  Giving a DAC the ability to stop means extra expense and complexity.  So what many people who think they're comparing MQA and normal hi res are actually doing is comparing material that may have been prepared specifically for MQA's DAC filters (it may have the highs and low ultrasonics rolled off by the ADC) to material that doesn't play well with those same filters (real hi res, that has response in the low ultrasonic, causing intermodulation and harmonic distortion when used with MQA's filters).  In that situation, you would in fact be hearing more distortion with genuine hi res.