MQA is Vaporware

[Confused]

13 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

https://us.auralic.com/pages/auralic-vs-drm

 

I noticed that the above link was mentioned in the latest eddition of Hi-Fi News and Record Review:

(A link to the full review & measurements can be found on Auralic's website, if anyone happens to be interestd)

 

[Confused]

Mr Jabra outlining MQA's environmental credentials on Music:)ally TV...

 

https://musically.com/2021/02/16/the-case-for-sustainability-as-a-priority-for-the-music-industry/

[Confused]

46 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

That article is sophistry and nonsense.   It is a bunch of disconnected ideas, trying to associate 'good things' with MQA.   The only real aspect of sustainability associated with MQA is maintaining a sustainable income for the license holders and further obscuring/paranoid-protecting the industry's intellectual property.   Apparently, the music industry is all about providing the lowest tolerable quality, maximum protection/obscuring IP at the expense of integrity.   There is NO WAY that what is normally being sold today is an accurate copy of the original production.  MQA makes it worse, unless you pay more license fees, and even that 'decoded' result is still inferior to a clean digital copy.   This 'clean' digital copy is already an obscured version of the original production (whether produced digitally or analog -- analog will have touched most consumer recordings, including  some DDD recordings that I have seen.)

 

MQA is simply an additional layer, that increases real, nowaday cost, lining pockets with siphoned off money -- and decreases the risk to the music industry by further obscuring their IP.   I see NO advantage to the consumer.

 

 

 

Indeed.  Plus there have been many posts in this thread and elsewhere pointing out that MQA is not that efficient in reducing bandwidth.  So if saving the planet is the main concern, then there are far more effective ways than MQA for achieving this.  

[Confused]

The What Hifi article is open for comments, if anyone fancies putting the record straight.

[Confused]

5 minutes ago, StephenJK said:

My understanding was that Roon did the first unfolding (if enabled) and the Devialet DAC section did the rest (if enabled). 

 

From what you're saying, Devialet doesn't support MQA and Roon doesn't do much either.  

 

I'll just turn off those settings and not lose any sleep over it.  Thanks for the reply.

I suggest that you take a look here.  It is a four page thread, but the later sections are probably most relevant.

 

https://devialetchat.com/Thread-Devialet-and-MQA?

[Confused]

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

He's a tough get, but I do know one of his good friends :~)

Madonna?

[Confused]

4 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

 

So Norwegians are not interested in what happens to Tidal? Interesting!

I suppose that I wouldn't care what happens to Tidal except for Tidal's support of MQA.

It’s fair to say that the British seem to be more interested in Harry and Megan at the moment than they are about MQA....

[Confused]

36 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

 

Maybe The royal Academy of Engineering will bestow the Prince Phillip Award on Harry and Megan!

Or maybe MQA will get upset by all the nasty posts in this thread and sneak off to talk to Oprah......

[Confused]

On 3/24/2021 at 6:29 AM, Currawong said:

I've had it in mind, for quite some time, to make a video about MQA.  If anyone is interested in helping with that, please PM me. 

 

17 hours ago, botrytis said:

Both sides do it, calling names. It is not one side or the other. It really doesn't matter but it kind of does. I mean Chris did not have to put up with the crap he did at RMAF. That shows the Pro-MQA people are more interested in not having the truth out.

 

This gives me an idea.  Maybe Chris could finish his RMAF presentation as a YouTube clip?  A simple voice over for the original presentation would do it.  This could then be billed as the "RMAF presentation that the MQA executives would not allow to be completed."

 

Just a thought ......

[Confused]

In fairness to Cookie Marenco and & Blue Coast records, it does say this on their website:

 

To compare an MQA encoded file that was originally recorded to DSD256 would be like comparing a $2000 Mytek DSD DAC to a $25,000 DSD DAC from Playback Designs.  I love them both when I don't compare them. Many people can't hear a difference.

 

Personally I look at this a little differently.  If a relatively small record label is aware that there is demand for MQA, or that a particular streaming service will only deal with them if they provide MQA files, then it is good business sense for them to offer MQA.  Note that Blue Coast is offering MQA as an option, DSD, FLAC and WAV are also offered.

 

Furthermore, they also offer a free download in different file formats so you can try and hear for yourself:

 

To quote:

 

 

If you want to compare for yourself, we now include an MQA file along with the 9 other files in our free test download located here.

https://bluecoastmusic.com/free-downloads

Better than guessing or reading, listen for yourself.

 

All of this seems reasonable to me.  (As an aside, the above linked free download might offer a relatively unusual opportunity to compare MQA files with other formats, free of any MQA EQ manipulation or similar.  I might be wrong, but I suspect these examples will be identical, other than the format differences.  Can anyone confirm this, or otherwise?)

 

The issue as I see it is a different one.  Labels like Blue Coast would not be bothering with MQA if there was not a demand for it.  So the issue is not with Blue Coast doing what they have to do from a business perspective, the issue is that there is demand for MQA.

 

I see this more as a failure of those of see MQA for what it really is not getting the message out.  The message is clear enough on this thread, but is the message reaching the big bad world out there?  It would appear not I think.

[Confused]

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I would absolutely be terrible if people started using this as the MQA logo. 

 

Oi!  MQA is British.  (or arguably English)

 

You guys can't be held responsible for everything.

[Confused]

25 minutes ago, Cebolla said:

Crikey, hope you're not suggesting that the Q should be in Union Jack colours - I'm just about to tuck into my tea here!  

My apologies for that one. 🙂

 

On reflection, the more “anonymous” looking US version is far more suitable.

[Confused]

12 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

We should also keep in mind these are likely white gloved MQA, not batch processed. 

So you are thinking that very possibly they have actually been “tweaked” by MQA?

[Confused]

21 minutes ago, danadam said:

I always thought that "white glove" processing meant:

1. carefully prepare a new master (in good old PCM, mind you)
2. encode it in MQA, the usual way
3. release to public only the encoded version and keep PCM master in safe

which would not entirely apply in case of BC because, presumably, the master they release in FLAC/DSD is already a carefully prepared master.

The above is exactly what I was thinking in my earlier post.  Reading the comments of others, I am now not so sure.  I guess we will never know for sure.

 

I might try the Blue Coast sample files out of pure curiosity.  In the past I tried comparing MQA versus PCM with some of the 2L sample files and found not a lot of difference, so it might tell me something if the Blue Coast samples did somehow sound radically different.

[Confused]

1 hour ago, StephenJK said:

Would you not need MQA compatible hardware to be able to play the MQA sample?  If you bought hardware that was compatible, could there be the inclination for a slight bias?

Confirmation bias is a powerful thing, that is for sure.

[Confused]

10 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

P.S. I’ve always thought the Ever Given was sabotaged. Those boats all have auto pilot to keep them where they’re supposed to be. 

Maybe Bob can find a way to fold these big ships into smaller ships, then losslessly unfold them when they have made it through the canal?

[Confused]

On 4/20/2021 at 11:25 PM, UkPhil said:

Anyone cozying up for Bob’s fireside chat on Saturday with What Hifi,  not me I’ll be too busy watching paint dry unfortunately.

 

I suspect that the hardness of the hard hitting interview might be determined by this:

 

 

[Confused]

1 hour ago, SoundAndMotion said:

Have there been any reports on this? I’m particularly interested in whether the video from @GoldenOnewas mentioned at all.

No, it was just a nice little chat with BS.

There was a good bit about digital files having impurities, and how high resolution files are larger and so dilute the impurities, which is good, whereas MQA is even better because it actually takes the impurities away.  (During a segment in which BS kept on apologising for being too technical).  Then another bit about the high carbon footprint of digital streaming, so you need MQA which just streams the data with music, not all the planet killing extra stuff that high resolution files contain.

 

I had eaten some cheese before watching it, and was very tired.  I fell asleep before the end and had a funny dream about a white haired super hero saving  the world and then taking over the universe.  

[Confused]

16 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

Is the opposition to MQA reaching critical mass?

 

Are people finally realizing the truth about MQA?

Impossible to say for sure at the moment I think, but here is a little piece of information:

 

I notice that the GoldenSound video on YouTube is currently showing 130,696 views with 8,900 likes and 99 dislikes.  Based on this, the dislikes are currently running at about 1% of those that viewed and bothered to rate.

 

Purely anecdotal, but the GoldenSound video was posted on another forum, one or two subsequent posters noted that they had switched from Tidal to Qobuz for reasons of sound quality.  One poster mentioned he had previously avoided Qobuz as it did not have the content he required, but this was no longer an issue for him as the Qobuz music selection had now improved.

 

It would be nice if there were some accurate and up to date numbers for Tidal versus Qobuz subscribers, but I do not think any exist?

[Confused]

2 hours ago, SoundAndMotion said:

Either way, the conference looks interesting, especially many talks/sessions on spatial sound...

 

Slightly off topic here, but I have to say I agree, there are a number of other sessions that do look as if they might be very interesting.  I think I will register.  

[Confused]

More from Hans ....

 

 

[Confused]

He actually said pretty much nothing that was directly related to the Golden Sound video.  Mostly a history lesson, followed by "trust your ears".

 

I did like the line towards the end (about 9mim30s), to quote: "on how MQA achieves this we can only guess".

 

I think this pretty much sums up he current MQA debate.  Those on the anti side can provide actual technical data, results of testing and information to back up their claims, those on the pro side say Bob is very smart and you should trust your ears.

[Confused]

3 hours ago, lamode said:

There are laws in the UK against false and misleading advertising. ( see https://www.gov.uk/marketing-advertising-law/regulations-that-affect-advertising )

 

Maybe someone in the UK could start the process of reporting MQA to their local Trading Standards office?

It has been done.  It did not get the desired result though:

 

https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/mqa-ltd-a18-470395.html

[Confused]

Apple:

Apple Music will also make its catalog of more than 75 million songs available in Lossless Audio. Apple uses ALAC (Apple Lossless Audio Codec) to preserve every single bit of the original audio file. This means Apple Music subscribers will be able to hear the exact same thing that the artists created in the studio.

 

MQA:

Using a unique ‘origami’ folding technique, the information is packaged efficiently to retain all the detail from the studio recording.

[Confused]

10 minutes ago, UkPhil said:

Well if MQA infects FLAC by stealth there will now always be ALAC for lossless 

That's quite a thought.  A new world order where ALAC is the watchword for untainted true lossless audio.