MQA is Vaporware

[Samuel T Cogley]

"you are in the business you are in and it does (obviously) have real limitations on how it views "the industry" and most importantly here, how it sees things from a consumer perspective (i.e. it has very little consumer perspective)."

 

Please describe how this works, in detail. You see, I know you are wrong so I'm interested in understanding how you think these things work.

 

With due respect, didn't you subtly acknowledge that using your position to chastise Warner for all the dynamically compromised material in their MQA dump is not in your best interests? An honest question, not saying I know the answer.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Im sat here comparing a Meridian Ultra DAC through Wilsons and an 818v3 through same and also Meridian speakers. MQA is great, I suspect you need fast/highbandwidth amps(whatever they are) as per the new Meridian power amps and the SE speaker amps (same thing) to get the full effect. Nice to discuss what's needed along those lines (are valve amps fast?) and what other factors affect the full appreciation. Excuse my language but chat about that would be much more interesting than the eternal (Crenca) bitching that goes on here... Back to the listening... Tracks vary significantly in how much improvement MQA brings, why is that? Sorry to interrupt the bitching. Back to it lads!

 

This thread is a discussion/debate on whether or not MQA is "vaporware". There are many other technical and listening threads on MQA at CA. You might find one of those more in line with what you're looking for.

[Samuel T Cogley]

So true Its like a wreck on the highway, everyone slows down to look and just backs up the traffic while nothing gets accomplished as they lose their way .

Speaking strictly for myself, I think this thread has exposed a glimpse of some of the dissent in audiophilia. That Mr. Lavorgna is willing to participate is laudable, based on the name recognition he enjoys.

[Samuel T Cogley]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you point to my words on this subject?

 

Instead of that, can you characterize your willingness to regularly deliver such a message to the major labels? Surely you have contacts?

[Samuel T Cogley]

I am able to contact the major labels, but I do have "contacts" in what I view as the normal use of that word. In other words, I cannot call Craig Kallman on the phone.

 

I also am not a cheerleader for the labels as crenca seems to be suggesting. Exhibit A:

 

"Thursday, January 5 was the first day of the show and also the date of the Digital Entertainment Group's Hi-Res Audio Update. For the most part I felt a strong sense of déjà vu (not the CSN&Y song but that would kinda make sense too) as the language used to describe the hi-res listening experience had more goosebumps and raised hairs on the backs of necks than a tower of giraffes in a blizzard."

DEG Hi-Res Audio Update | AudioStream

 

 

My thoughts on improving the quality of recordings are touched on briefly here as well:

 

"I would hope that with the wider adoption of delivering the best digital file quality available, CD-quality on up, the word will trickle all the way back to the music makers in the studio so they turn an attentive ear toward capturing and delivering their craft."

 

In my experience and opinion, convincing "the industry" to improve the quality of recordings is not limited to "the labels".

 

It's not the unambiguous response I was hoping for, but I appreciate that you responded.

[Samuel T Cogley]

I would have thought that Tintinabulum's post was de facto evidence that MQA is not vaporware: "software or hardware that has been advertised but is not yet available to buy, either because it is only a concept or because it is still being written or designed."

 

I have no interest in MQA but the premise of this thread is absurd bearing in mind I can buy an MQA DAC on the high street of my small English town and download or stream MQA titles today. Therefore MQA is by definition not vaporware. Does anything more need to be said?

 

There is a threshold of level of adoption that the OP contends has not been reached yet.

[Samuel T Cogley]

I've discussed this subject on AS for years.

 

In my experience, complaining to "the labels" about dynamic compression is not effective in any way. What I will say is that I am unambiguously *not* a fan of the major labels. Ive also been clear about this this on AS. Which is why I regularly promote sites like Bandcamp.

 

I totally understand. As a consumer of digital content going back to the original rollout of CDs (well, maybe not until around 1985 or so), I think it's just disgraceful how much good music the major labels have turned into garbage. I'm perfectly willing to admit that it's perhaps naive to think that they can be shown the error of their ways.

 

But I was thinking that perhaps Michael Fremer deserves a little credit for the modern renaissance of vinyl (even though most is digitally sourced, a different topic). Hopefully you see where I'm going with that thought. :-)

[Samuel T Cogley]

Dynamic range compression is an artistic decision made by people involved in the creation of the art (music). Musician, singer, producer, mastering engineer, label head, etc... all factor in. The only way to change this is to get people to want to change their art.

 

Hi Chris

 

I was talking strictly about catalog titles that we have earlier examples of where they are not dynamically compromised. I care very little about mastering techniques of modern music. One exception: some newer classical titles seem to be flirting with the Loudness Wars.

[Samuel T Cogley]

And I brought it up because many catalog titles in the MQA dump are dynamically manipulated. Some worse than others.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Fact, another sycophant loser statement

 

That word doesn't mean what you think it means. Using it incorrectly makes you look foolish. Did you just recently learn that word? Do yourself a favor and look it up.

[Samuel T Cogley]

I agree with you. But, today many would say that even with a re-release/remaster of catalog titles, the decision to volume compress is an "artistic" one by the producer of the remaster.

 

Technically that is clearly correct.

But it's also clear that the "artistic" decision in many cases has nothing to do with any "artistic" consideration; or that the original artist/musician/producer isn't being asked his/her opinion.

 

Personally, I think with catalog titles, the "artistic decision" claim is a dodge by the record labels. See Bob Katz's discussion about "competitive" loudness levels. It's all about what the labels believe is "marketability". They just pay someone (a producer) to be a human shield for this "artistic decision".

 

The most recent Led Zeppelin remastering pass is proof that you can stay in the mid-teens LUFS wise, and still be "competitive".

[Samuel T Cogley]

Thank you for explaining. But the definition of vaporware has nothing to do with content.

 

In this context, I believe it does.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Fine, believe what you like.

 

There are several areas that need to meet the threshold of adoption. One not discussed much here is the mastering facility.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Agreed, I haven't seen much of anything discussed here.

 

I'll bet the entire Warner MQA dump was done at the same facility. I'm happy to be wrong if someone has details on this.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Wrong. As I recall it was done in 7 or 8 facilities around the globe, although the number may be off. All automated with very little change in parameters to adjust for the ADC used (if known at all).

 

Do you have a URL to share about this? Would like to know some details. Thanks

[Samuel T Cogley]

I was just scanning my original post over on the PS Audio forum. This is old (again, Jan '16), but what he said implied full decoding.

 

Actually, Danny Dulai, the Roon Labs COO post in Jan ’16 told us this was going to happen, but “We don’t have a release date yet.” That’s why I never considered purchasing an MQA enabled DAC and haven’t wasted the last year trying to figure out whether MQA was something I had to have. The folks at Roon really are fantastic and they always deliver on their promises.

 

dannyDanny DulaiRoon Labs: COO

Jan ’16

 

 

miguelito:

Is the plan here to allow Roon to decode MQA into the original PCM bitstream?

Yes…. and to answer your next question: We don’t have a release date yet.

 

 

 

 

 

"into the original PCM bitstream" is key. Now I'd be willing to bet Roon will do full decoding and probably DAC profiling for a least some of their certified DACs. That must be where I got it in my head they announced full decoding a year ago.

 

In light of this, do you suppose this information is incorrect or outdated?:

 

Based on information from Auralic, a manufacturer of Audiophile Wireless Audio Streamers, Meridian Audio prohibits digital output of unpacked MQA in any digital format, only allowing the unpacked data to be fed to an on-board MQA-compatible DAC and output in analog form.

[Samuel T Cogley]

We know first-stage decoded output can be sent digitally to an outboard DAC. The Tidal player does it. It's still unclear whether "rendering" is permitted outside the actual DAC box.

 

Thanks. And it's difficult not to read something into Roon's tight-lipped stance on this...

[Samuel T Cogley]

MQA/Tidal/Audioquest seems to still be stuck on getting MQA Core working on ARM processors.  AQ is way behind on that firmware update for the new Dragonflys, apparently blaming Tidal.  But I've heard the actual code comes from MQA themselves.

 

I know of two software MQA Core implementations: Tidal desktop and Audirvana+ 3.0.  Are there any others?

 

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

19 minutes ago, jhwalker said:

 

Not that I know of - wild to see such slow rollout (over two years now!), and maybe it will die on the vine.

 

I have very little skin in this game - the only thing I have that is MQA compatible is the Meridian Explorer 2, and I'm not buying any MQA files either, just streaming.  I'd just like to see it given a chance to succeed.

 

I have an ME2 as well.  Bought it just for MQA.  For me, the bloom was off the rose after about 3 days.  Even with non-MQA content, I start to get listening fatigue with the ME2 after a couple of hours.  Also, there was a bug uncovered in the MQA technical analysis thread that after playing MQA content, the MQA filter stays enabled when playing non-MQA content.  Best to unplug/re-plug the ME2 when transitioning.

 

Regarding the success (or not) of MQA, unless they can address mobile decoding on non-Meridian hardware, they're doomed.  The ME2 draws too much USB power to be a viable mobile DAC.

[Samuel T Cogley]

14 minutes ago, mansr said:

 

There's an ARM version used on Bluesound devices and possibly others. This is probably built from the same source code as the library used by Tidal and A+. There is nothing platform specific in the code.

 

The Explorer 2 has an XMOS processor, so clearly a decoder exists for that as well. They also state as much on the MQA website.

 

The AQ Dragonfly is different beast. It has only a puny MIPS processor that is far too slow to do even the "render" part in software. My guess is that the firmware will only extract the metadata from the LSB and program the ESS DAC with the requested filters. It's ridiculous that it's taking them this long.

 

I hear you.  Can you characterize the difference between Bluesound's ARM implementation and a typical mobile one?  Perhaps the issue is Android/iOS integration?

[Samuel T Cogley]

54 minutes ago, audiventory said:

 

MQA Core is not full MQA ability?

 

Correct.  There is MQA Core and MQA Render(er).  The latter is what the new AQ Dragonfly does (after the as yet unreleased firmware update).

[Samuel T Cogley]

Just now, PeterV said:

 

 

MQA especially since the hostile attacks are so obviously biased by other than audiophile arguments. Just accept that someone can actually be happy and have fun with MQA. If you do not like it, just use another solution and do not start crying 

 

You post is kind of ambiguous.  Are you saying that MQA is or isn't paying you?

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, PeterV said:

 

I say MQA is not paying me literally of course. I am not stupid or a 'shill' or whatever title other gave me several posts ago. The reward I get from MQA is just the MUSIC in my room and the quality increase I perceive over here. I have some friendly contacts with them, but never received money or special information, just once an a while a 'thumb' on my Facebook page from Bob Stuart. He of course noticed I am a strong fan and believe he is a genuine an honest person and I have much respect for him and what MQA is bringing me. So yes: as Frederic vanden Poel mentioned: I am an MQA fanboy and am happy with this :-)

 

Thanks for the clarification.  Your posts here and in other forums are well known to those who watch MQA.  Almost everyone is a fan of something.  Please carry on with your advocacy. 

[Samuel T Cogley]

2 minutes ago, PeterV said:

Thanks Samuel, that is indeed what I try to do and I am talkative.. not always using good English words and I am also not an engineer. I just love music like everyone here. But enjoying something new should not be regarded as stupid or wrong or biased or impossible. It is personal first of all. If anyone prefers vinyl,  SACD or MP3 that's no threat to anyone, so why is MQA regarded as 'bad'..?  strange to me, really. 

 

Your English is way better than my Dutch, so don't let that hold you back. I'm not a fan of MQA (so far) myself, but I totally respect your honest advocacy.

[Samuel T Cogley]

7 minutes ago, firedog said:

Slightly old article by now, but interesting approach by someone who isn't a hater and evaluated MQA with Mytek Brooklyn.

 

https://arstechnica.co.uk/gadgets/2017/05/high-res-audio-guide-mqa-explained/5/

 

Thanks for this.  I've struggled to express my experience with MQA playback.  This is pretty close to my MQA experiences:

 

Quote

And my concentration through the length of a song would waver, as if I had to reconstruct the sense of the music in my head, some cognitive load upsetting relaxed infusion.