MQA is Vaporware

[botrytis]

2 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

I will come out and say this: Being a music consumer and seeing that MQA is pure BS and royally screws the music consumer,  I am vehemently opposed to MQA.

 

Why some people spend enormous amounts of time and effort making excuses for MQA raises questions in my mind.

 

Here is there argument......

 

[botrytis]

59 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

Prove what, exactly? That MQA sounds no better or even worse to you than does a comparable FLAC? 

 

Right. Now how precisely do you expect anyone but yourself to do that? 

 

And please stop stop trying to make me out as an MQA advocate. I have said exactly nothing to indicate I like MQA and more than once, stated beyond any possibility of doubt I do not.  

 

You want to put an end to your MQA “menace?”  Then simply tell people how it sounds to you. YOU have the power to do that. Not I. 

 

And - it is all you have to do. 

 

 

 

 

 

The point is I have. People tell me that is not what you heard. Nothing more I can do. This has happened more than once and on more than one forum. As I said, people have read in the audio magazines that MQA is the best thing since sliced bread. They ask me, what do I know.? This is the impasse we are at. You have the disingenuous audio press pushing MQA, yet I have determined, for me, it is not a good thing (sounds terrible, etc.). How can I compete with the audiophile press?

 

Then we have people, like Mansr, Archimago, Chris, etc. that go out of their way to explore and test MQA, along with other things (like DACs, etc) and prove that MQA is not all they say. What do they get? Condemnation and belittling from the audio press as well as MQA itself. That just tells me they knew it was a load of horse poop from the beginning. 

[botrytis]

11 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

The last change was described by Bob Carver a few months back but he didn't offer any evidence for there being alterations in stereo width in MQA-encoded recordings. I therefore took a selection of MQA-encoded files for which I had the hi-rez PCM equivalents and created sum and difference files for both the originals and the decoded MQA versions. The amplitude statistics for the sum and the difference files for both PCM and decoded MQA versions were identical. Ipso facto, there was no "stereo width tweaking." I also didn't find any evidence for EQ and dynamic range compression.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

 

Were they from the same master? The comparison is absolutely useless if the masters were not the same master.

 

And if you knew the masters were the same, how did you get that information? I have had a hard time, actually an impossible time getting master information about MQA files.

 

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

No, but I wasn't aware that posting to this on-line forum requires claims to be peer-reviewed.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

 

 

Well, Archimago put all his files and his methodology online for ANYONE to see if they get the same results. People make mistakes, even scientists (that is why PEER REVIEW is done). Just saying what the results are, kind of means nothing without the information as to what the files were, etc. A good scientist always publishes test methodology.

 

Journals like AES, which are not peer reviewed, have issues that they are basic commercials, nothing more.

[botrytis]

19 minutes ago, Tintinabulum said:

As long as it's only one...

 

If people believe what they read rather that what they hear, leave them to it (what's it got to do with you?)

 

MQA sounds great BTW.

 

 

 

You enjoy it great, just enjoy the music and move on.

 

Most of the MQA files I have heard sounded very crackly and sizzly, like there is was a problem with the recordings or too hot a microphone. Example, try Melody Gardot Live in Europe and I know this LP quite well as I have the 48/24 version. Well, I was able to do a comparison between the MQA version and the regular FLAC version at a local dealer (he was nice enough to leave me alone to listen). What I found was the drums, cymbals, and parts of the guitars sounded muddied and not all there on the MQA version. It was also louder by quite a bit (I didn't measure it but it was louder) and there was a sizzle in the recording . That tells me that MQA is not worth listening to.

 

This is just one of many examples that I found.

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, manisandher said:

 

However it's stated, the results suggest that MQA is neither massively better or worse than the equivalent hires, contrary to what some claim in this thread. (Or perhaps I should say "neither massively worse or better" .) 

 

But the point is, you need to buy a new DAC, the MQA files cost more, AND there is the DRM which does not bode well. If there really is no difference, WHY WOULD I PAY FOR IT? That is the bottom line. One should only pay if there is a definite improvement which there is not.

[botrytis]

8 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

I bought a Benchmark DAC3 HGC for a number of reasons.  One of the primary reasons was that it was not infected with MQA.  It is a quality built piece of equipment that fit in with my needs.  Of primary importance to me is that it is made in America.  Being a proud American makes this important to me.

 

I do not purport to know what Mr Atkinson thinks,  but I suspect that Mr Atkinson wanted to lend support to a fellow Brit who was running a failing business.  I also suspect that Mr Atkinson wanted to see a process that would bring needed cash into a country that is slipping into third world status.  What bothers me is the disregard for the music consumer who is the base for his status.

 

I don't think that at all. That is too much of the 'conspiracy koolaid'. I just think they went with the talking points from MQA and used them. Then when there was push back, they kept pushing the same nonsense because of course, the HAVE TO BE RIGHT. It is more about being right and not admitting being duped, than anything else. 

 

As I stated before, it is the same thing that people who are anti-vaxxers do when you show them paper and paper that they are wrong. You bluster up and attack.

[botrytis]

3 hours ago, daverich4 said:

 

Not defending MQA but I didn’t need a new DAC, Roon does the first unfold for me and I don’t care about the second, upsampled unfold, Tidal doesn’t charge any extra for MQA and my understanding is the potential for DRM is built into MQA but isn’t currently active. 

 

I do not want ROON as it is to spendy for my blood.  I though that was only if you listen to TIDAL which I do not. I don't upsample either, as it really doesn't do anything, to my ears.

 

The point is, it is trying to sell you another thing, that MQA ends up making money on, not the artists. Sorry, support the artists, not the middle man.

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, Rexp said:

Maybe just a coincidence that I prefer the recent remasters that are also available in MQA. Here is another goodun:

 "The Song Remains The Same (2018 Remaster)" by Led Zeppelin https://tidal.com/album/94079380

 

 

Well, it is known that the remasters of Led Zepplin are highly compressed. That and with most MQA being 1.4 -6 db higher in playback, that explains a lot.

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, daverich4 said:

 

Roon and my DAC think Tidal’s MQA files are 24/whatever. Are you saying they’re not?

They are not but, that is what MQA WANTS you to think. They are more than likely 17-18 bit at the most. Anything over 96KHz is all done by oversampling, not actual recording at that level.

[botrytis]

11 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

Again, you become petulant and defend your stance with silly statements like this. 

 

Evasion again - go listen to MQA vs PCM and give audiophiles yet another, convincing and difficult to dispute reason to stay away from MQA. 

 

 

It is not thje sound we are disputing, it is what it does to the music, when you analyze it and how it is encoded that is the issue. That and what MQA ecology means to the over all music business. MQA is like a terrarium. Fully self-contained with no way to have any input. It is a selfish business model.

 

Mansr, Archimago and others have done what the major audiophile magazines should have done. Namely, investigated if what MQA says they system is doing is real or nonsense. It was these individuals that got MQA to admit their system is lossy not lossless. Once that happened, the rest fell into place. 

 

I don't care how it sounds, that is the point. It is a system that has the real chance to control your music too much. That cannot happen. I buy it, I can do with it what I want with my copy, as long as I don't sell it, etc. This is where this system is going to - total control.

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

 

What does MQA sound like to you vs. PCM?  

 

As for criticism of others, there are people in this thread who has masters on that, and some who are still in Middle School. I do not think I qualify at all. 

 

I have posted my comments about MQA, but people seem to ignore (those that like MQA or pushing it). They say I have an axe to grind. I do not. MQA sounds shrill to me, kind of like listening to horn speakers. I get a headache from it. That tells me all I need to know.

 

That said it, it also changed how the music sounded to me. AN example was with Melody Gardot's Live in Europe LP (which I have in 48/24 FLAC). That is what the MQA was also. Since it is a recent LP, it seems that they just took the master and ran it through the MQA meat grinder to encode it. The cymbals were gone, the guitars sounded dull (same with the plucked cello) and there was a sizzle to the high end which I didn't have in the regular FLAC file. That gave me the headache. It was also much louder.

 

I have posted this before but people seem to ignore the negative review posts.

[botrytis]

Anderson East - Encore (2018 Elektra Records) [11 tracks, 96Khz]  - this LP can be bought 96/24 - FLAC/AIFF/MQA

 

Since this is a recent LP, there is probably one master.

 

https://www.prostudiomasters.com/album/page/30487

[botrytis]

14 minutes ago, daverich4 said:

 

That has nothing to do with what we were talking about. But, in any event, your statement is true for many plain hirez files as well and isn’t limited to MQA.

 

Just remember 16/44 MQA is actually 12/44 for MQA. 

[botrytis]

58 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

We will have to disagree. In the audiophile market, which defines everyone here, it is always and inevitably about the sound. 

 

Archimago’s and Mansr’s research is only relevant to audiophiles as it suggests the sound may not be as good as promised. Actually, it provides compelling evidence about that, but the final test is listening. The most compelling test, for audiophiles, is listening.

 

That Mansr, for instance, refuses to either confirm or deny he ever listened to a MQA vs PCM comparison (a valid one) argues for, what? He is nkt an audiophile and simoly wants to show up audiophiles? He is concerned his evidence won’t be confirmed by listening? 

 

 

 

 

You keep saying sounds better, to whom? I do not trust the Audio Press as they have been shown to care more that a piece costs more than my house, than it's actual sound. That is the part that perplexes me. The auto press reviews vehicles from all price ranges, yet the Audiophile press seems to be enamored with pieces most people can't afford.

 

You keep harping on Mansr. He has pointed out the sloppy filters, etc. used in MQA. Why should he listen, if he has already stated he doesn't want it?

 

I have done listening, but yet you do not even mention anything that I have stated as a negative, on my listening tests.

 

Listening can be influenced. Hence why many listening tests, the ones operating the test, tell you what you will hear. Even if it is not present, your brain will fill in those details. How is that even useful?

[botrytis]

Just now, Paul R said:

 

Um, no. I replied to your post where you told us what it sounded like, at least the first time, with a note the your posting and opinion was quite valid, important, and appreciated. 

 

Discounting the audio press may not be the smartest thing to do. They may be - uh - a little aggravating at times, but they do know how to listen, and how to write about what they hear. 

 

In Mansr's case, he is near rabid about how people are basically stupid if they even give MQA a second though based upon his research. It's the wrong attitude, in my opinion, for audiophiles. Those are the hearts and minds that count here. 

 

Conside the thinking of Joe Audiophile: "Mmm, what is they MQA thing?  The hobbyists say it is technically terrible, the journalists say they like the way it sounds. Gosh, I have been reading Art Dudly for 30 years, and this xyzzy guy popping up isn't even the old! He doesn't know what sounds like either!  Maybe I should listen to this and just ignore them all if I like it.... "

 

 

Many 'Joe' audiophiles I know, personally, trust 'urban legends' more than they do science and engineering. Not saying all are that way but that goes along way to understand why nonsense like MQA can be sold as good fidelity.

[botrytis]

Just now, kumakuma said:

 

It's not a fan.

 

That means? Inquiring minds would like to know. 

[botrytis]

Thanks for posting - I knew about the xivero paper as that was made me suspect about MQA. That and a nice discussion with Mark Waldrep at AXPONA about it.

[botrytis]

2 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

I thought it was just as clear the the audiophile market is the only market for hi-res or "master" material?

 

 

I guess you missed the post by our Lox-loving brethren. On Bandcamp you can get hi-res (OK 48/24 or 44.1/24) material direct from the band. It is not only for Audiophiles, as you suggest. I went to a Head Fi meet and I was amazed at the equipment some of these college students have (for headphone listening). These guys don't claim to be audiophiles either.

[botrytis]

36 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

For your Wednesday morning viewing pleasure...

 

 

 

Teacher, do I have to watch it?

[botrytis]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I understand. It's like watching Lawrence Taylor sack Joe Theismann. Painful to watch.

 

I was actually thinking Dick Butkus.......

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

I attended the presentation at AXPONA because many opponents of MQA - including, IIRC, Chris Connaker - had said they would be there to ask Mike Jbara questions. However, as you can read in my report - https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-master-class - none of the critics turned up. So it goes.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

 

I was going to go but I was attending the show with a friend who wanted nothing to do with the presentation (as we had so many rooms to go through). Also, after the MQA contingent got done with Chris at RMAF, the previous year, I figured if I would have asked a question, I would have gotten a shoe thrown at me. 

[botrytis]

8 hours ago, GUTB said:

 

I have two sample packs (Jazz and Classical) which contain a MQA-CD and regular CD of the same tracks. Kiyohiko Ozaki Second Album, Hiromi - MOVE, and Portrait in Jazz - Bill Evans Trio (Riverside). I thought I had Portrait in Jazz in CD format but I didn't so I ordered one in order to do a comparison. That will come hopefully this week. The sampler packs show a clear improvement in the MQA version but of course being sampler packs these may be cherry-picked examples.

 

Also here is an MQA insert that came with the MQA-CDs:

 

Most Hiromi LP's are overly compressed and recorded very high. I saw her live in Boston and that was an amazing show to see but her LP's are not so good. I wouldn't tout those and the end all and be all of MQA unless you like loud, overly compressed music.

[botrytis]

Just now, KeenObserver said:

Now I am really interested in seeing this years financials for MQA ltd.  If all of the shills are coming out of the woodwork all of a sudden, it means that MQA is continuing to try and ram it down the consumers throats.  The investors must have dumped more capital into the scheme.  If that is so, they must expect to reap huge profits.  Profits borne on the backs of the music consumer.

 

Don't forget the Artists themselves. They are being used also.

[botrytis]

52 minutes ago, GUTB said:

Why not invest into a MQA playback chain and listen for yourself? If you're an audiophile, that is.

Why would I bother? You haven't given us any reason to. We have plenty of good reasons not too. 1. Lossy. 2. not high-res. 3. adds artifacts not found in original recording. 4. Closed system. I think you get the point. I have no need for MQA. ALTHOUGH MQA NEEDS US TO SURVIVE. 

 

As far as SACD is concerned, there is only 3 factories that make them now. How is that a burgeoning amount of Audiophiles?