MQA is Vaporware

[sandyk]

21 minutes ago, Don Hills said:

Second, to accept that in spite of presenting a convincing argument, some people can never be persuaded to change their opinion.

 

That probably applies far more to the MQA crowd, including the Record companies ,than it does to the Audio press that several of you love to so mercilessly bash !

[Jud]

8 hours ago, Tintinabulum said:

This is just your opinion, it's not a truth or a hard truth. 

 

At least your true colours are there for all to see. 

 

This sort of thing and this anti MQA thing  is doing Audiophile style damage in my opinion. By all means make it a members only club but don't look back.

 

If the "anti MQA thing" is providing measurements and technical information showing MQA cannot be as close to the original as regular hi res or Redbook, then that would hardly result in damage with anyone sensible, so I assume that isn't what you're referring to.

[Don Hills]

19 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

That probably applies far more to the MQA crowd, including the Record companies ,than it does to the Audio press that several of you love to so mercilessly bash !

 

I wouldn't expect the "MQA crowd", by which I assume you mean the people with a financial stake in seeing MQA succeed, to change their opinion. And I wouldn't expect the "Audio press" to readily, or at least publicly, change their opinion. At best, I'd expect them to simply go silent on the topic.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

1 hour ago, Don Hills said:

 

I wouldn't expect the "MQA crowd", by which I assume you mean the people with a financial stake in seeing MQA succeed, to change their opinion. And I wouldn't expect the "Audio press" to readily, or at least publicly, change their opinion. At best, I'd expect them to simply go silent on the topic.

Go silent? Not as of yet...

 

To anyone questioning if Stereophile is obsessively reviewing MQA and not the product at hand, yet another referenced "review" of a digital product masquerading as MQA propaganda.:

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/pro-ject-pre-box-s2-digital-da-headphone-amplifier

 

"...when an MQA stream is detected, the MQA icon accompanied by a well-saturated blue dot."

 

and

 

"The MQA icon lit up, as did the blue light. The music became louder, deeper, broader, more enveloping, even more dynamic. The soundstage seemed to grow and surround my head in a way that Tidal's non–MQA Master tracks hadn't."

 

Oooh that blue light so so comforting...yeh man.

 

and

 

"MQA was a revelation through the Pre Box S2 Digital. Skipping around among Tom Petty, Frank Sinatra, David Bowie, Aretha Franklin, Billie Holiday, and some classical from 2L Sampler 2007: The Nordic Sound (24/96 2L/Tidal MQA), I heard major differences compared to PCM versions for most if not all recordings."

and

 

"The MQA version reveals a broader, richer frequency range, more air around instruments, greater depth, and generally better tone. These improvements held true for most of my comparisons of MQA and non-MQA files from Tidal. I particularly enjoyed hearing Wayne Shorter's music in MQA—then wondered why there are no MQA titles from the Miles Davis and Pink Floyd catalogs."

 

and

 

"The recent Super Deluxe Edition of the Beatles' The Beatles (Apple), aka "The White Album," remastered and remixed by Giles Martin, is quite a revelation on its own, and the MQA version in Tidal floored me"

 

"Hats off to MQA and Pro-Ject."

 

Yes, thanks SO much MQA and Pro-Ject.

 

It seems the writer, like a good little puppy, was eager to please his MQA cheerleading editor. Well done.  You can take your knee pads off now. To argue against the fact that MQA that there is anything other than obsessive product placement pushes the boundaries of believability. 

 

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

This all ties into the fact that despite audiophiles with all their puffery and chest beating, have the least amount of faith in their ability to hear, and this is proven by the fact they are constantly looking for reassurance  from their peers. They love to read "positive" reviews of products they have purchased to validate them. They latch on to specific "voices of authority" in the press, and don't question their credentials or motives.

 

So if a reviewer in a magazine like Stereophile, a "respectable:" voice of authority, says MQA makes the soundstage bigger, makes the music tonally more accurate, and "brings the acoustic space" into the listening room, well by golly that is the, ahem, the gospel. 

 

The lack of independent and critical thinking skills have not just been lost on the masses, it apples to audiophile hobby. The apologists and true believers of course see anyone who questions this reality as "anti-audiophile".

[sandyk]

25 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

It seems the writer, like a good little puppy, was eager to please his MQA cheerleading editor. Well done.  You can take your knee pads off now. To argue against the fact that MQA that there is anything other than obsessive product placement pushes the boundaries of believability. 

 

https://twitter.com/thebennyhill/status/1010138865863155712

 

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

Just now, sandyk said:

https://twitter.com/thebennyhill/status/1010138865863155712

 

..just like clock work, a True Believer to the rescue...🤣

[sandyk]

10 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

..just like clock work, a True Believer to the rescue...🤣

 

That's BS.

I don't like MQA either, but I am , like many other members, heartily sick of your never ending nasty attacks on everybody that doesn't agree with you, and your insinuations that all contributors to the HiFi press are all corrupt backside kissers..

 

 

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

1 minute ago, sandyk said:

 

That's BS.

I don't like MQA either, but I am , like many other members, heartily sick of your never ending nasty attacks on everybody that doesn't agree with you.

 

 

This post is a joke, right? 

[Jud]

43 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

This all ties into the fact that despite audiophiles with all their puffery and chest beating, have the least amount of faith in their ability to hear, and this is proven by the fact they are constantly looking for reassurance  from their peers. They love to read "positive" reviews of products they have purchased to validate them.

 

The lack of independent and critical thinking skills...applies to audiophile hobby. The apologists and true believers of course see anyone who questions this reality as "anti-audiophile".

 

Gosh, I have no idea why anyone would see this as anti-audiophile. 😄

[shadowlight]

On 3/29/2019 at 8:12 PM, John_Atkinson said:

There are 2 services offering hi-rez streaming in the US: Tidal and Qobuz.

 

Please, help me understand how a lossy stream is considered hi-rez?

[KeenObserver]

3 hours ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Go silent? Not as of yet...

 

To anyone questioning if Stereophile is obsessively reviewing MQA and not the product at hand, yet another referenced "review" of a digital product masquerading as MQA propaganda.:

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/pro-ject-pre-box-s2-digital-da-headphone-amplifier

 

"...when an MQA stream is detected, the MQA icon accompanied by a well-saturated blue dot."

 

and

 

"The MQA icon lit up, as did the blue light. The music became louder, deeper, broader, more enveloping, even more dynamic. The soundstage seemed to grow and surround my head in a way that Tidal's non–MQA Master tracks hadn't."

 

Oooh that blue light so so comforting...yeh man.

 

and

 

"MQA was a revelation through the Pre Box S2 Digital. Skipping around among Tom Petty, Frank Sinatra, David Bowie, Aretha Franklin, Billie Holiday, and some classical from 2L Sampler 2007: The Nordic Sound (24/96 2L/Tidal MQA), I heard major differences compared to PCM versions for most if not all recordings."

and

 

"The MQA version reveals a broader, richer frequency range, more air around instruments, greater depth, and generally better tone. These improvements held true for most of my comparisons of MQA and non-MQA files from Tidal. I particularly enjoyed hearing Wayne Shorter's music in MQA—then wondered why there are no MQA titles from the Miles Davis and Pink Floyd catalogs."

 

and

 

"The recent Super Deluxe Edition of the Beatles' The Beatles (Apple), aka "The White Album," remastered and remixed by Giles Martin, is quite a revelation on its own, and the MQA version in Tidal floored me"

 

"Hats off to MQA and Pro-Ject."

 

Yes, thanks SO much MQA and Pro-Ject.

 

It seems the writer, like a good little puppy, was eager to please his MQA cheerleading editor. Well done.  You can take your knee pads off now. To argue against the fact that MQA that there is anything other than obsessive product placement pushes the boundaries of believability. 

 

 

You have to remember that at one time Stereophile endorsed green pens for CD's, among other "magic" tricks!  In fact, John Atkinson lent his name to advertising for one such green pen.

People can make up their own minds, but as far as I am concerned, Stereophile's imprimatur on any product is less than worthless.

[sandyk]

2 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

You have to remember that at one time Stereophile endorsed green pens for CD's, among other "magic" tricks!  In fact, John Atkinson lent his name to advertising for one such green pen.

 

 Many people did in fact find that there were differences that they found pleasing, however later research found that they resulted in an increase in  Jitter, which has since been demonstrated to be found pleasing to many people, as it may sometimes result in a larger soundstage with the appearance of added HF detail. (artificial) .

 

Quote

as far as I am concerned, Stereophile's imprimatur on any product is less than worthless.

 

And yours, Crenca's  and Slapowitz's are far more valuable/ reliable  ?

[church_mouse]

After my Sunday morning review of this week’s postings, I have had a revelation.

 

All those tests to see if HI Res and fully decoded and upsampled MQA could be distinguished, which seemed to have resulted in a bit of a “meh” conclusion, have been going about it erroneously.

 

Mr Dudley, in his review of the non-MQA Naim streamer, has shown me the truth.  To really hear the beauty of MQA (which I was unable to do playing MQA through Audirvana’s unfolding) one needs to play a completely folded, bit reduced version.

 

Later today, I am going to try some other experiments, such as stuffing little bits of cotton wool in my ears, to see if further reducing the information getting to my ears enhances the sound even more.

[John Dyson]

16 hours ago, tmtomh said:

 

Well-said - and amen!

 

I would only suggest one partial qualification, in regards to your "occult" comment: I have no doubt that MQA's interests are mercenary (especially given the major labels' reported 20+% ownership stake). And Stuart et al's way of promoting MQA does indeed seem to be deceptive and misleading, regardless of the specific psychological and financial motivations behind it.

 

 

I admit that using 'occult' or 'hidden' might imply a conspiracy that doesn't exist.  Maybe I have assumed the MQA community to be more organized than it really is.  The continual repeating of the same gobbledy-gook made me think that there is more coordination than there really is.  The similarities are probably not due to hidden communications, but often due to incorrect 'common knowledge' and damaging memes.  

It IS the responsibility of publishers to go the extra mile to be skeptical when distributing information represented as fact, when it is actually mixed with opinion or (common knowledge.)  An incorrect fact can be mistakenly passed amongst the press (back and forth) until it becomes an incorrect common knowledge*.

 

*  BTW -- not everything stated about some of MQA's technology is wrong, but some 'facts' are so far off, that they worry me about some of the rest of the 'technical know-how' in areas where I am NOT well versed.  I certainly DO NOT know everything, so -- unlike some 'experts', I TRY not to represent things that I do not factually know as an accurate fact.  Even though I am FAR from perfect, this thing called 'integrity' is important to ALL of us.  We do sometimes forget and DO make mistakes.  There is room for forgiveness.

 

John

[Currawong]

On 3/29/2019 at 3:26 AM, John Dyson said:

First -- I DO MAKE MISTAKES, and I am just as susceptible to myths as anyone else.  Geesh -- I used to believe that 'Gibbs' is really ringing for many many years -- until I put my EE/DSP hat on instead of my 'just me' hat.  It is so easy to be mistaken in these highly technical fields, and one thing that I have learned to say (or write):  yes, my statement was wrong, I was wrong in my beliefs, etc...  (I am not wrong about Gibbs, but I have been wrong about A LOT of things. 🙂)   Threw the stupid part of ego away -- once I did that, it was so much easier to be intellectually honest and accept the truth.

Another thing -- gotta give up on trying to convince those who don't want to admit the truth.  I remember an old co-worker, a little long in the tooth, telling me that he was a real expert in this or that field.  In fact, he said:  I can't be taught anything!!!   He really said that, I was incredulous and kindly kept my mouth shut :-).

Stupid arguments are not worth throwing away friendships or even kind correspondents.

 

John

 

A friend of mine once commented, "The true measure of intellect is seen in the ability of a person to re-evaluate what they believe to be true when additional and clarifying knowledge is received, and then apply this knowledge in their life so as to intimately embrace the higher truth that has been revealed in the endeavor to receive still Higher Truth."  It was referring to spirituality, but it is equally relevant to anyone's life and profession. 

 

I believe many of the issues with people who fanatically believe in things is that they simply don't want to even consider any view that would shatter their belief. I've observed that many people are this way, and nothing can "remove the beam from [their] eye".

 

The discussion here has been very helpful towards increasing my understanding of digital audio. Sadly the above reality means it has not been for some who really should be learning more.

 

On 3/29/2019 at 3:48 AM, The Computer Audiophile said:

Thank you. That's the answer I needed. 

 

Just an observation which you may find useful: I found, after moderating forums for many years, that I tended to see the worst in what I read from other people. 

 

On 3/29/2019 at 10:25 AM, Paul R said:

 

It is possible I am really missing something here. I really don't get the idea that MQA is going to cost anyone here any amount of money that would hurt them. 

 

 

Why did you bring this up at all? The whole point of the discussion to begin with is that MQA was based on flat-out lies, and the implication, analysis, is that it can act as a trojan horse for the music industry to wreck the quality of available music, potentially even device-limiting playback.

 

Heck, I just ripped a CD in iTunes to use in a classroom (from a textbook) and iTunes refuses to copy half the tracks to my phone due it not being available in my region. This even though I purchased the textbook. And this isn't even MQA! So the paranoia isn't far-fetched at all.

 

On 3/30/2019 at 6:59 AM, Paul R said:

I applaud the efforts to oppose MQA, I think it needs to be opposed. But it is not all bad. Those people with $7/month subscriptions might get better sounding music, access to more music, ad so on. 

 

From what we've seen, they wont get better sounding music, not access to more music as a result. So you are right, it needs to be opposed. However, I'm not sure why you agree it needs to be opposed yet hold the view that "people with $7/month subscriptions might get better sounding music" from MQA if that is so.

 

 

[Tintinabulum]

10 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Audio Research, I think

Thanks Kal, I'll try and blame predictive text... Great amp btw.

[sandyk]

39 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

It IS the responsibility of publishers to go the extra mile to be skeptical when distributing information represented as fact, when it is actually mixed with opinion or (common knowledge.)  An incorrect fact can be mistakenly passed amongst the press (back and forth) until it becomes an incorrect common knowledge*.

 

It seems highly likely, that with many contributors, and probably the editorial staffs of some publications  now working from  home as well , that this desirable situation is less likely to happen in future.

[Currawong]

47 minutes ago, Currawong said:

Heck, I just ripped a CD in iTunes to use in a classroom (from a textbook) and iTunes refuses to copy half the tracks to my phone due it not being available in my region. This even though I purchased the textbook. And this isn't even MQA! So the paranoia isn't far-fetched at all.

 

I can't edit my post to fix this for some reason, but it looks as if this was a bug, as it now syncs without issue.

[John Dyson]

1 hour ago, Currawong said:

 

I can't edit my post to fix this for some reason, but it looks as if this was a bug, as it now syncs without issue.

Windows has regularly frustrated me in trying to create demo CDs (not to be distributed) -- but I have ways around it.  However, when not even violating the fair use, they clamp down too much.  Pretty soon, we will be paying something like 10 cents every time we play a song for our own enjoyment. (might be exaggerated -- but in essence it is the reality.)

 

There are already 'helpful' broadcast protection schemes, and that should be enough.  The non-fair-use advocacy is trying to destroy every bit of freedom to get every last dollar (pound, Euro, etc) that they can get from us.

 

John

[John_Atkinson]

12 hours ago, Don Hills said:

How dare anyone question the words of someone who gets paid by the word?

 

More misstatements. No-one at Stereophile is paid by the word. In addition, as Art Dudley is a fulltime Stereophile employee, he gets paid regardless of how much or how little he writes.

 

And on the sound quality of MQA, a manufacturer was delivering a product for me to review recently. Once we had installed his product, he asked to hear some music. I played some of his files with the dCS Rossini DAC but then played him 3 versions of the same song (peak levels were identical): the original 24/88.2k master of one of my recordings; the MQA version unfolded by the Rossini; and the CD-resolution version from the commercial release. His ranking was the same as mine: CD was okay but somewhat uninvolving compared with the hi-rez master, with a less deep soundstage; the MQA version was tonally identical to the master but better resolved the soundstage with the acoustic objects within the stereo image having somewhat greater palpability.

 

And to address something in another posting, I don't remember ever endorsing the infamous CD StopLight green pen in an advertisement. I did write in Stereophile in 1990 about the effect the pen had on CDs, primarily looking for differences in the noisefloor, which would be due to changes in jitter - see https://www.stereophile.com/content/cd-jitter-errors-magic-more-measurements . It is possible, therefore, that someone had quoted something I  had written in an ad. Legally, that would be defined as "Fair Use" but not an actual endorsement.

 

John Atkinson

Editor (until midnight today), Stereophile

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Shadders]

12 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

More misstatements. No-one at Stereophile is paid by the word. In addition, as Art Dudley is a fulltime Stereophile employee, he gets paid regardless of how much or how little he writes.

 

And on the sound quality of MQA, a manufacturer was delivering a product for me to review recently. Once we had installed his product, he asked to hear some music. I played some of his files with the dCS Rossini DAC but then played him 3 versions of the same song (peak levels were identical): the original 24/88.2k master of one of my recordings; the MQA version unfolded by the Rossini; and the CD-resolution version from the commercial release. His ranking was the same as mine: CD was okay but somewhat uninvolving compared with the hi-rez master, with a less deep soundstage; the MQA version was tonally identical to the master but better resolved the soundstage with the acoustic objects within the stereo image having somewhat greater palpability.

 

And to address something in another posting, I don't remember ever endorsing the infamous CD StopLight green pen in an advertisement. I did write in Stereophile in 1990 about the effect the pen had on CDs, primarily looking for differences in the noisefloor, which would be due to changes in jitter - see https://www.stereophile.com/content/cd-jitter-errors-magic-more-measurements . It is possible, therefore, that someone had quoted something I  had written in an ad. Legally, that would be defined as "Fair Use" but not an actual endorsement.

 

John Atkinson

Editor (until midnight today), Stereophile

Hi,

If possible, can you comment on the impact of MQA on the blossoming market of DSP room correction, and other technologies, where the removal of access to the digital audio data stream means that those products are rendered useless.

 

Thanks and regards,

Shadders.

[Currawong]

To be fair to JA, I think the suggestion that they are trying to market MQA is somewhat unfair. I noticed Herb Reichert gently pissed on MQA in the Kitsune DAC review, for example. 

 

Of "the acoustic objects within the stereo image having somewhat greater palpability", this reminds me of my impressions of the MQA-similar GTO filter in the iFi Pro iDSD, which brings instruments more forward, and makes them feel a bit livelier. My issue would be that the whole MQA process is unnecessary to get that kind of result with music. 

 

Not unlike how the slightly V-shaped sound signature of tubes (something which a designer I know could fake in solid-state circuits by adjusting the crosstalk) and even-order harmonics make the music sound "richer" (or whatever word one wishes to use) I think MQA simply picked distortions that would appeal most to listeners. But again, the whole process is simply a trick, and the MQA folding, and etc. is completely unnecessary.

 

 

[John Dyson]

46 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

More misstatements. No-one at Stereophile is paid by the word. In addition, as Art Dudley is a fulltime Stereophile employee, he gets paid regardless of how much or how little he writes.

 

And on the sound quality of MQA, a manufacturer was delivering a product for me to review recently. Once we had installed his product, he asked to hear some music. I played some of his files with the dCS Rossini DAC but then played him 3 versions of the same song (peak levels were identical): the original 24/88.2k master of one of my recordings; the MQA version unfolded by the Rossini; and the CD-resolution version from the commercial release. His ranking was the same as mine: CD was okay but somewhat uninvolving compared with the hi-rez master, with a less deep soundstage; the MQA version was tonally identical to the master but better resolved the soundstage with the acoustic objects within the stereo image having somewhat greater palpability.

 

 

Who cares about CD for the best quality -- just get 24bit at least 48k sample rate -- no need for recording obfuscation?  No need for excessive control/royalties for patents/stifling innonvation, etc.  No need for more centralized control.  There are already broadcasting protections, and a few schemes to impede common folk to copy while using their favorite communications sites.

My current bandwidth is 90Mbps download -- fast enough to grab anything that I want.  My upload is 12Mbps --low enough to keep me from much broadcasting much directly from my machine (not that I would ever wish to do that.) (I guess I could write a cloud app -- but really

SO, why mess with the audio, to save some space, when it isn't needed.  If the CUSTOMER wants to save space, there are adequate methods.

Again, why MQA?  Answer:  Benjamins (or is it Benjamines :-)).

john

[mav52]

16 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

 

And to address something in another posting, I don't remember ever endorsing the infamous CD StopLight green pen in an advertisement. I did write in Stereophile in 1990 about the effect the pen had on CDs, primarily looking for differences in the noisefloor, which would be due to changes in jitter - see https://www.stereophile.com/content/cd-jitter-errors-magic-more-measurements . It is possible, therefore, that someone had quoted something I  had written in an ad. Legally, that would be defined as "Fair Use" but not an actual endorsement.

 

John Atkinson

Editor (until midnight today), Stereophile

 

 

 

 

 

 

This must be it John

 

"This stuff works! The cost per disc of this tweak is almost zero...it offers a big bang for the buck and can be confidently recommended!" – John Atkinson, Stereophile

From Music Direct  and Amazon even shows it,

 

John if you didn't say it, then a lot of people are thinking you did.