MQA is Vaporware

[Shadders]

7 minutes ago, synn said:

I actually had an audio test done and can hear from 20hz to 18khz.

 

i would love to have younger ears though!

Hi,

Nothing wrong with old ears : the bigger the better - capture more sound :

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

5 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

That's Bob Stuart.

Hi,

 

This reminds me - a woman whose husband is an apiarist (keeps bees) thought it would be nice if she had a tattoo of a bee on her bum cheek, as a birthday present to her husband.

 

So the tattooist arrives, and she explains she wants a bee on her left cheek.

 

He tattoos the left cheek, and explains that it does look a bit crooked, so would she like, free of charge, another bee on her right cheek.

 

The woman agrees.

 

The woman's husband arrives home and as he enters the door, she has already removed her clothing, and is bending over with her bum facing her husband as he walks in.

 

She says, "What do you think ?????"

 

He says : ""Who is Bob ????"

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

12 minutes ago, Fair Hedon said:

What problem is MQA trying to solve? That is easy..to keep Meridian from going into receivership. They have bled out roughly 30+ million pounds since 1977.  Last ditch, desperate effort to keep the doors open.

Hi,

I do not want to see any manufacturer go into receivership, as the jobs lost will be predominantly those people not in control.

Meridian equipment is of high quality - but some design decisions do seem odd - i have read that they used tantalum capacitors on the output stage path in one product.

MQA represents a pure greed approach to a new technological development and deployment. The less than "accurate" statements regarding the technology details, have not helped.

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

5 minutes ago, Fair Hedon said:

I am not sure why you don't understand why MQA could have been formed to keep Meridian and Stuart afloat.  We will leave it at that.

[Shadders]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

This also raises the question, why would the labels keep an inferior version of the crown jewels and release something better to the public?

 

Hi,

I believe that money is the driver. As per Brian Lucey - each release is an artistic impression, and remasters are essentially a con - to take money from everyone.

As others have stated - MQA V2 may be next as we progress, and the patents near the end of their time, or to create a rolling, never ending upgrade.

Dolby are always coming up with the next best thing - locked in system, and to get the latest and greatest, we need the next version, which is even better. (new recordings, new hardware - DRM possibly - everyone wins..... except the customer)

 

This reminds me of a speaker manufacturer - they claim the newest version excels, and on the forum, people people state, ok, but i was going to buy the cheapest, so are they not very good - the response is no, they are the best, but the newer ones are even better.

MQA is the same, anything will be said to sell the current version, or the next version, whist still claiming the previous is still the best....

 

Without sites like this, and the contribution from experts in the field - people will be hoodwinked so easily, since they do not understand the detail.

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

6 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Cookie Cutter (Music) : Marked by sameness and a lack of originality; mass-produced.

 

https://www.google.nl/search?client=opera&q="cookie+cutter"&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

 

Now we now what the message was. Maybe it's a UK term.

Hi PeterSt,

Absolutely not a UK term. We have biscuits over here.

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

Just now, mansr said:

Can we have a debate about the difference between a cake and a biscuit?

Hi mansr,

Yes - a cake is of soft composition, large diameter, with multiple flavours, usually eaten with a cup of tea. Generally in the afternoon.

A biscuit is hard composition, small diameter, usually eaten at any time of the day.

This site seems to be frequented by savages.

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

2 minutes ago, synn said:

I’ve heard that Bob Stuart has invented a biscuit that unfolds into a cake.

Hi synn,

Yes, but you lose a lot of the flavour, with the first unfold.

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

7 minutes ago, synn said:

 

Authenticated by the chicken that laid the egg no less.

Were they free range, or high dynamic range chickens.....

[Shadders]

20 minutes ago, synn said:

 

High dynamic range chicken are OLD

if you like their eggs, you are WRONG!

 

lies!

 

etc... etc...

Old chickens have an eggcellent flavour, if you cook them with the right equipment.

A new bird, is always welcome though.

[Shadders]

8 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

I'm surprised he lasted this long.

Hi,

This is a shame - Brian had some very good points to state on the industry. Despite the personal exchanges, he was telling it like it is - High Resolution is a rip off, MQA is a con, remasters are just a money spinning exercise, and dynamic range is not the be all and end all.

On the upper 8bits being clean - someone else on another forum showed this - 24bit recordings, the 8 upper bits were clear. We should not have to check that we are being conned.

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

20 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Can you point me to a reference to this?

 

I checked the Shania recording I mentioned above and the 8 upper bits of the 24/44.1 release are NOT clear as you can see in the Bit Monitor in upper left hand corner:

 

Hi kumakuma,

It was another forum, and not the Shania Twain recording. I will try and locate it - was about 5 years ago now.

EDIT - Just checked - the forum was upgraded 1 year ao and all posts preceding this are now gone.

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

2 minutes ago, esldude said:

Here is the post where the term was used.  I will point out I tried in several posts to create a bridge of conversation with BL.  He obviously has zero interest in that.  The whore comment wasn't so much to say he was one.  But to point out if one wanted to to pre-judge someone, there were plenty of ways to pre-judge his activities in negative light.  The very ways he thought gave him credibility.  That he had so many clients we should all quit complaining and listened to the wise Brian Lucey mastering extraordinaire. In context of a few posts between he and I it was meant to try one more time to get his attention as being subtle wasn't working.  Reading back over it I think that context wasn't very clear. 

 

If Chris thinks that should result in a ban, then okay. 

Stone him, i say, stone him....

[Shadders]

32 minutes ago, Norton said:

 

You are a fool wrapped up in your little boys' war about an audio format.

 

You joined in July of this year, have posted 19 times, all but 3 in criticism of MQA and you think my activity is suspicious!

By contrast I joined in 2010, have over a 1000 posts, the vast majority having nothing to do with MQA

 

I've noticed a trend for new members to join in the last 18 months who post promiscuously in criticism of MQA but otherwise show little interest in Computer Audio or participating more generally in this community.  I actually care about this site as a community for the positive advancement of Computer Audio, rather than to serve personal agendas and vendettas, so I find this development concerning.

 

But as you care so much about bona fides:

 

1. I have never worked for in any capacity, nor had any form of business or professional relationship with any individual or organisation involved in any way with the recorded music or audio industries or related journalism;

 

2. 1. I do not know, socially, anyone involved in any way with the recorded music or audio industries or related  journalism;

 

3. I don't stream music, don't own a MQA compatible  DAC (despite spending over $2k on a DAC in the last month), or any MQA downloads.  I have never heard MQA replay.

 

As a challenge to you, Rt66indierock and anyone else joining in the last  18 months and posting mainly in criticism of MQA, can I respectfully ask you to confirm the same?  

 

If you are not prepared to confirm #1 then you should be making your connection to the industry clear on this site, so we can understand where you are coming from, and of course using your real name.

Hi,

I can confirm that as per your answers to 1, 2, 3, that i do not work in the audio industry etc., nor have i heard MQA.

 

For me, i was expecting MQA to be a solution to a known current problem in audio (as of 2014 when first reported), but the revelation is that it is a scam. I am very disappointed, that Meridian has produced such a format. I expected more of such a well regarded British audio engineering company.

 

I use this site to learn about MQA, and the capability of the people posting here greatly exceeds any other hifi site i have visited, and it seems from the analysis of said people, MQA claims cannot be trusted. I have read some other statements such as from the Benchmark, Linn etc., and from that i formed a basic understanding of both technically and strategically of what MQA is. I then joined this site to further my engineering knowledge regarding MQA, which helps my interest in DSP.

 

I welcome all views, although i may disagree in some areas, we all have a voice and a new slant on what MQA could mean for the audio industry and consumers.

 

I have not read any negative reviews of MQA in the hifi press, even though i subscribe to a few magazines in the UK. The lack of critical analysis by such publications is of a concern. I expect more from such publications.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

40 minutes ago, Norton said:

 

People may disagree as to the merits of MQA, but only a very few would actually call it a scam, which I interpret to mean a deliberate act of criminal deception.(I'm sure though one or two will be along to that effect shortly) 

 

I'm interested though that you condemn it so strongly seemingly based purely on what you have read on this site, without even hearing it.  That just confirms my concerns about the uses to which this site is now being applied.  I've never heard it, but I note that at least some who have seem to  think it has some merit.

 

If it interests you, why not listen and then come back with your impressions?

Hi,

Any entity that states falsehoods with regards to the system they have created, with a view to extract money from every part of the audio chain, is a scammer.

The engineering analysis by people on this site shows that MQA claims are false. Try to focus on the engineering analysis and conclusion, rather than your disagreement with the analysis without countering the engineering conclusions. If you do not agree with the analysis, provide your own which confirms MQA is correct.

Does the problem that MQA states that is solved, actually exist ?. The analysis in these threads shows that it does not exist with current recording technology.

 

What about old recordings - they state that they correct the "temporal blur". Temporal blur is dispersion (an engineering term). Dispersion occurs on transmission lines - due to the different frequencies either being attenuated or delayed compared to other frequencies. A perfect rectangular pulse will be stretched, and rounded off. You can never recover the perfect pulse - only approximate it with or without the addition of "guessed" higher frequency information - it will still have curved edges etc. So how can MQA recover the temporal blur in audio, if every track that makes up a song undergoes different temporal blurs ? It cannot. Maybe, the added information is harmonics as per Brian Lucey statement that harmonics exist in MQA tracks ?. We will never know due to the NDA. Maybe this is why people like it - even order harmonics.

 

Then there are the aliasing filters - very poor design.

 

The disagreement with MQA is simply engineering analysis - so i do not see why it is an issue for you. This site is a forum - people are using it exactly the way it was intended to be used. Again, if you disagree with the points, engineering or otherwise, then provide your alternative analysis.

 

For your last statement - i am interested in the technical analysis - so hearing MQA is not something i am interested in. If you can follow the engineering arguments, you will understand how pernicious MQA is.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

20 minutes ago, Norton said:

As I say, I'm not particularly  interested in MQA.    You indicated however that you were interested in MQA, until apparently you read the comments on this site.  I think that's sad.  If it was me I'd certainly take these comments on board, but make my own mind up by listening, which is after all, the object of audio.

Hi,

I stated that i am only interested in MQA technical aspects, and was aware that it was not what it purported to be before i visited this site, but visited this site to gain extra technical information.

As an example, if something sounds great - has even order harmonics added, implements some extra phase processing similar to QSound to give the illusion of 3D, wide soundstage etc., then i would want to know that all i am hearing is an effect, and not the claimed "as the mastering/recording engineer/artist heard it".

Think about it, MQA claims lossless, yet offers less than 16bit or less than 24bit presentations. How can this be if it is lossless. So it has to be lossy, contrary to the MQA claims. This is simple logic. So how can it be what the mastering/recording engineer/artist heard, if it is lossy ?

Too many contradictions and false statements.

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

3 hours ago, RichardSF said:

 

MQA does not claim to be lossless. When questioned about it, Bob Stuart dances around and tries to deflect the question by offering an "alternative meaning" for the word.

 

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/ca/ca-academy/A-Comprehensive-Q-A-With-MQA-s-Bob-Stuart/

(scroll down and search for "LOSSLESSNESS")

 

Hi,

If you check the MQA web site, it never discusses whether the codec or lossy or not (i could not find it).

What it does state is "MP3 files deliver just 10% of the original studio recording. MQA captures 100% of the performance".

It is a play on words leading you to believe that it is lossless.

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

38 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

 

The Aurender Conductor software update of mid-December (2.9.1) has a "switch" to disable the upsampling filter that's required to correctly render MQA  content. Below is what the option in the Aurender settings looks like.

 

Aurender told me that they did listening tests and felt that the filter benefited all content—having it did not represent a mistake or, to use their word when I last communicated with the company, a "shortcoming". As I see it, the idea that MQA-decoded files were given an artificial advantage because they were compared to non-MQA files that had been sullied by the application of the upsampling filter doesn't hold up. It's farfetched to believe that Aurender would intentionally degrade the sound of non-MQA content to give MQA a leg up—they know that the great bulk of listening that an A10 owner will be doing will be to non-MQA files.

 

Still, in response to the concerns raised by JA's reports and others, the  2.9.1 Conductor software update allows the upsampling filter to be defeated. I think this was a sensible decision. The A10's MQA-decoding capability is really not a critical feature of this excellent product and won't be a make-or-break factor in a consumer's decision to purchase one.

 

Thank you for the chance to comment on this confusing issue.

 

Andrew Quint

Senior Writer

The Absolute Sound

Hi,

Is this not about the owner of the equipment having a "choice" ?

Surely it is up to the owner/user of the equipment to decide that they do, or do not want the MQA filters in the path on non-MQA material.

Or, alternatively, maybe the customer prefers to NOT have the MQA filter in the path permanently, as this is subjective, and Aurender should not be deciding for the customer what is their preferred subjective sound.

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

Hi,

I do not understand the questioning of another person subjective experience. If one person does not like a specific filter on a specific DAC, then so be it.

It is like someone saying to another person, you must like the Chicken Tikka Masala dish from restaurant A more than restaurant B. When in fact, restaurant B is preferred - so why anyone is trying to tell another which restaurant dish is best, seems a silly exercise.

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

35 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Keep in mind this is a series of articles to explore the format.  I have not commented on the technical elements yet.

 

The elegance of the MQA business model is that it does not look at hirez availability from the audiophile perspective but instead looks at what the record labels recognize is important and that is streaming.  We may disagree but this idea around enhancing existing files for better quality in streaming is sort of, in my view, a way to piggyback hirez quality onto a way into non-audiophile's homes.  Best of all, it seems to have worked as the three big labels and the independent community have signed up for the whole catalog.  

 

Also, there are legitimate bandwidth concerns at scale so I would differ with you there.  

 

And keep in mind that many mastering engineers are unhappy as the MQA approach limits the amount of times they can get paid to release in different formats.

 

This first article was positive because I am genuinely excited about getting millions more tracks in hirez.

 

As more music becomes available, we will see more hardware providers jump in.  As more hardware can do MQA, we will see more consumer interest and/or exploration.

 

With all of the major labels on board, it seems likely that MQA is becoming a standard whether we have different technical opinions or not.   In my view, getting MQA done is a simpler path to getting hirez released than the audiophile-centric way of limited releases on download sites and formats like SACD/DVD-Audio that were great but lacked traction and title availability.

Hi,

What if the claims by MQA are not true, and MQA is sham hiding behind an NDA, relying upon the inability of the "educated" press to determine this.

 

Some of the claims have been disproved, by experts posting on this site.

 

If the claim that temporal blur (dispersion) is corrected by MQA, is subsequently disproved by evidence or an academic expert in audio (University Professor), would you denounce MQA as a scam ?

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

5 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

I don't just accept any prevailing opinions of this board, regardless of how many audiophiles are on it.  I've been doing professional recordings since 1989 and was on the cutting edge of hirez before it even launched.  And my opinions will be informed by my recording work, research, interviews with industry experts, and listening test.  If my thoughts on the topic don't please members of CA then I really don't care.  

 

I have read all 249 pages of this discussion over the past year and it's quite clear that many here have an axe to grind.  If the evidence against MQA was so obvious, there wouldn't be literally dozens of members here responding with personal attacks.

Hi Lee,

Since you have read all 249 pages, then why have you not understood and accepted the evidence provided on CA forum, that MQA have lied ?

 

Opinion is one thing, but facts are facts, and for those statements regarding MQA technical aspects, it has been proved that MQA has lied.

 

So, i am unsure as to what your purpose is here, and on your website.

1. Are you commenting on MQA as an opinion only ?.
2. Do you repeat only the MQA supplied facts ?
3. Are you discounting the evidence presented on this forum because of arguments between posters ?
4. Are you a journalist ?

Thanks and regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

3 hours ago, Fokus said:

(* As an aside: the output of QMF1 is what people without MQA decoding have to listen to.

QMF1 has to be optimised to allow a lossless split-join in the origami folding step. This is an

extremely limiting constraint. This means that QMF1 cannot likely be optimised, at the same time,

for optimal sound quality for non-MQA listening. This is mathematics.)

 

Hi,

What is the type and order of the Quadrature Mirror Filter ?

Thanks and regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Telling people to shut up and calling them idiots isn’t allowed here at CA. 

 

If if you have evidence that someone is in fact an idiot, please put that forth and address the subject matter. 

Hi,

As long as we can exclude ex-wives from presenting said evidence, then the rule is ok.

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

1 minute ago, Fokus said:

 

It is not a filter type, but rather a relationship between two filters, so that when combined they satisfy (free of error) a specific criterion. In this case two QMF pairs have to be used to split a 96k signal into two bands that each can be sampled at 48k, and which after recombination yield the original 96k signal.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrature_mirror_filter

Hi Fokus,

Thanks. I do believe that there must be an order to the filter - to be able to split the two bands.

In addition, every filter has a type - Bessel, Butterworth, Chebychev etc. which provides a type of passband amplitude and roll off, with or without in band ripple etc.

Thanks and regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

Just now, Fokus said:

 

Of course. But with the present public knowledge we cannot know that order. It would be immensely interesting to have access to an MQA encoder. My first test would consist of pink noise steeply filtered below, and then above, exactly 24kHz, in each case studying the undecoded output signal.

 

Hi Fokus,

Thanks.

What is interesting is that correcting dispersion (temporal blur) is the crux of MQA, yet they use extremely high order filters (QMF) which will cause significant dispersion, and this is not corrected.

Unless someone has evidence to the contrary ?

Regards,

Shadders.