MQA is Vaporware

[The Computer Audiophile]

11 minutes ago, mansr said:

As a consumer, you still have no say in which filters get used. The encoding side is what it is, and even if DACs differ, the choice there is limited to whatever MQA has certified.

 

Not entirely true. 

 

It's not totally unlimited and wide open, but there are some choices. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

At least agree that the encoding filter is fixed for any given MQA file (the producer might have options). On the playback end, please tell me how to choose upsampling filters on, say, an Explorer 2. You're also skirting around the fact that without MQA, there wouldn't have been any resampling at all.

 

Dude, I'm not skirting around anything. I just offered information that wasn't available previously and you're jumping all over me because it doesn't fit your narrative. 

 

Consumers never have a choice of encoding filter of the recording. That's the engineer's choice.  

 

On some DACs you'll be able to select filters. And the manufacturer won't have to use the MQA filter.

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

If we buy the studio master, no encoding is performed and thus no filter needs to be chosen. MQA adds a pointless downsample/upsample step, and we have little or no (depending on the DAC, per your revelation) say in the filters used here. When we have the original master, there is rarely any reason for us to downsample it at all. If we do choose to resample before the DAC, we have complete control over the process. I don't see why you feel the need to dismiss this as a "narrative."

 

I don't dismiss what you say. Your anti-mqa narrative would never allow you to say there are filtering options. 

 

People believe less of what they read from extremests versus people who can talk about both sides of issues. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

39 minutes ago, rickca said:

I posted this in another thread, but I think it belongs here.  @PeterSt please comment, thanks.

 

Can't the filter be customized by the DAC manufacturer implementing MQA?  For example, Berkeley plans to offer MQA on the Alpha DAC Reference Series 2 in 2Q2017.  It will be an MQA renderer.  I can't believe Berkeley is going to use some awful filter on their $19,500 DAC just so they can tick the MQA box in their specs.

 

I know every implementation needs to approved by MQA.  I can imagine the DAC manufacturers just love that part. 

 

Bingo. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

48 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I think it is far, far from a juggernaut, and yes, I think we can help to stop it by getting good, reliable information out to the press and the majority of prospective purchasers.  Everybody wants something that's better; no one wants to be duped.  I think many people tend to (at least I do) tune out something that comes across as shouting, as some sort of impassioned screed with an agenda.  Give me the facts (@mansr and @Miska's work on what the filtering actually does, and the non-necessity for the lossy compression) in a way that doesn't have to be technical (as @esldude does in his recent comment) and trust me to make a good decision.

 

Edit: Oh and yes, the DRM potential (please not in a way that tries to convince me the barbarians have already broken down the gates, but lets me know the trebuchets are designed and can be built in an instant if need be).

 

So much of this is in the delivery of the message. 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

I've been digging for information. That's how I found out companies can avoid using MQA filters. I just wish more information was made public. 

 

Hopefully we'll see support for more DSP in the near future. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, mansr said:

I'll take your word for it, for now, but it would be nice it you could point to a source for this information. It's the first I've heard of it.

 

I wish I could as well. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, Don Hills said:

 

In which case, all I can do is assign it the same amount of credibility as I find myself having to assign to so much else about MQA. And the amount of salt I'm thus consuming is having a bad effect on my health...

 

Who you find credible is your decision. If you want to group me into the same category as others who you find lacking credibility, there's nothing I can do to help.

 

My sources of this information have proven to me to be very credible over the years. I believe them. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Should be another content related announcement Wednesday. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

11 hours ago, rickca said:

Did you ever get a Sony press release in Munich re MQA?

 

No. Sony and MQA signed a contract like the other labels, but there isn't a major press release. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Here's the latest press release.

 

Embargoed until 4 pm GMT/11 am EST

 

NUGS.NET OFFERS LIVE CONCERTS IN MQA
Music Fans Step Closer to the Original Performance
 
New York / London, 24 May 2017 – Nugs.net, the official home of live music for some of the largest touring artists in the world, is adopting MQA’s award-winning technology, to bring fans exclusive live concert recordings in master quality sound.  Initially, concerts from GRAMMY Award-winning, Rock & Roll Hall of Fame inductees, Metallica and Bruce Springsteen, are available to download in MQA.  Other iconic acts, including Pearl Jam, Phish and Red Hot Chili Peppers, to name just a few, will follow, and later this year, nugs.net subscribers will have the option to stream concert recordings in MQA.
 
MQA’s technology delivers master quality audio in a file that is small enough to stream or download, and adoption of the technology across music services, record labels and playback partners continues to gain momentum.  Nugs.netusers can download the MQA file and it will play back on any device.
 
Nugs.net’s service offers different tiers of downloads – MP3, Lossless, DSD, and HD-Audio – as well as a physical CD format.  MQA appears as an additional option for HD-Audio downloads, alongside existing 24 bit FLAC and ALAC formats.
 
“Our pursuit of the highest fidelity in our listeners’ playback experience led us to MQA,” explained nugs.net founder and CEO Brad Serling.  “We were intrigued when we first read about MQA and were thrilled with the results when the MQA folks first encoded some of our live recordings.”
 
Mike Jbara, MQA CEO, said, “Nugs.net connects with true music fans like nobody else.  Live recordings amplify MQA's mission perfectly and we are very grateful for this exciting partnership.  Watch this space!”
 
Metallica recently kicked off the North American leg of their WorldWired tour in Baltimore, and will be continuing to tour across the US and Canada throughout the summer.  Each night’s performance will be released on LiveMetallica.com, the service nugs.net has run for Metallica since 2004.  Additionally, recordings of every night Bruce Springsteen and The E Street Band performed on the River Tour from 2016 and 2017 are available now for download in MQA at Live.BruceSpringsteen.net, alongside several releases from Springsteen’s legendary archives.  This week Bruce released the 33-song epic tour finale from Helsinki in 2012, available now in MQA.
 

-Ends-
 
About nugs.net:
Founded in 1997 as a fan site for downloading live music, nugs.net has evolved into the leading source for official live music from some of the largest touring artists in the world.  Metallica, Bruce Springsteen, Pearl Jam, Phish, Red Hot Chili Peppers and many other artists distribute recordings of every concert they play through nugs.net.  Nugs.net’s platform includes downloads, CDs, webcasts, and subscription streaming services, delivering exclusive live content to millions of fans on a daily basis.  Additionally, nugs.net founder Brad Serling hosts a weekly radio show on SiriusXM Jam On featuring the week in live music, cherry picked from the nugs.net catalog.  The “nugs.netLive Stash” airs on MTV Live showcasing concert footage from previous nugs.tv broadcasts.
 
MQA Press Contacts
[email protected]
[email protected]
 
Press Site for MQA
URL: www.mqa.co.uk/press

[The Computer Audiophile]

12 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

Do you have some measurements to post supporting improved SQ?

 

There's no such thing in either direction when it comes to MQA. We've all seen measurements but nobody has seen evidence that any of these measurements actually matter (good or bad). 

 

I'd love to see a correlation between measurements and what we hear. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

Yes, and that's kind of the point.  It's simply a situation where some listeners have found MQA processed files to be subjectively more pleasing than the unprocessed, some take the opposite position.  I also read recently a review of what was claimed to be a undecoded MQA processed file that had somehow been de-blurred without the unfolding. That person also said that this deblurred MQA lossy unfolded file sounded better too?

I know you've read a few reports that the de-blurring process can be accomplished separately from the folding.

What's all this mean?  Not a dang thing. MQA's only supportable quality is that it can compress and de-compress a file for a bandwidth savings that is unnecessary.

 

The whole ball of wax is nuts!

 

Perception is reality. If it sounds worse to people, then it's worse. If it measures worse, but sounds better, then those who look at music will be mad while those who listen will be happy. 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

Two comments:

 

- I think we still have a way to go in finding out what causes us to hear a reproduction as accurate versus the original.

 

- The commercialization and confidentiality involved with various efforts that we are told aim toward that goal (for example MQA, Schiit Audio's "Manhattan Project") hinder our ability to find out if there's really anything worthwhile in them.

 

- This is a weird one. One person's accurate is another's cartoonish representation. If all music was played in the same hall with the same instruments and recorded with the same equipments and the same engineers, we may be able to come closer to identification of accurate. The same Steinway in different halls with varying amounts of people is going to sound different. It's just physics. Unless one was at the recording and has unhuman audible memory capabilities, there's no way to listen and say, "ah that's accurate." 

 

- I agree for the most part. However, the rubber meets the road when we listen to music. The chefs are saying "trust me" with the ingredients, but we get to taste the food. If we don't like the food we don't buy it and we tell others that we didn't like it. 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, mav52 said:

Its all about ears Chris.   Unless someone measured each listeners ears while listening to MQA vs non-mqa music we will never know.  Since each of our ears is "unique" to everyone of us along with how our brain is translating the music we hear, I think its darn near impossible to measure it.  Music will always be "personal" in the way we hear it.

 

I'm with you on this one. It really comes down to having self confidence to like what you like. It seems that many people must be validated by measurements or reviews, in order to feel comfortable with a purchase or opinion. 

 

I would really like to correlate measurements into sonic attributes for my own knowledge / education. If something measures excellent, but I don't like the sound, I'd like to know why. I'd never be able to look at data sheets and decide if a product is for me or not. 

 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, Sal1950 said:

Opinions are great and everyone is entitled, as they say.

But when a manufacturer claims a product is better or "in audio" more accurate to the source, that's where opinions are useless and the facts become paramount.

 

If a product were to measure excellent but you don't like the sound, then there is something out of kilter with your perceptions of accurate. Or maybe some bias has entered your review that led you to hear things that don't exist, happens every day here.

This pursuit is called High Fidelity and we're a few decades beyond the point where we learned to measure transparency in equipment.

 

Hi Sal - I'm 100% all for facts, not alternative facts. I think we are talking past each other a bit on this one. When I talk about accurate to the source, I'm talking about the actual musical event. To me high fidelity is getting as close to the actual event as possible. Now the subjective parts come into play. There are no measurements of the actual event. Let's say we were all at this actual event - Minnesota Orchestra, Bolero! https://referencerecordings.com/recording/bolero-minnesota-orchestra/

 

The only thing we have is the original recording of the event and some foggy memories of how it should sound. We should throw out the foggy memories because they'll likely lead us nowhere with respect to accuracy. How do we determine what is accurate? An MQA version? A 16/44.1 PCM version?

 

I guess is we call the original 16/44.1 version the master, then there is nothing more accurate than this, even though it may sound like a cartoon of the actual event. However, if we consider the actual event the "master" perhaps we can get closer to that rather than worry about maintaining this story about the original recording being the best. 

 

Either way, it's all subjective as to what is more accurate to the original live performance. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

8 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

 

I find this subjectivist position weird - what I will call "radical subjectivist" as long as everyone knows I am not calling Chris a radical

 

I simply don't believe that "One person's accurate is another's cartoonish representation".  SQ assessment is simply not this radical and varied.  There is to an important degree a very large touchstone of agreement.  Sure, there is always a handful of fools people who come to a "cartoonish" assessment of a well recorded/played version of Beethoven's Fifth through a VPI/Wilson system in a treated room (or a good amp/HP combo) but they are simply the exception that proves the rule that there is High Fidelity , it is real, and it is not radically subjective.

 

Right now, I am working through my personal EQ curve for a new pair of Focal Elear's.  The FR of these cans are exactly as reported by the majority - problematic and indeed I have never reached for the EQ as quickly with any other cans (but they make up for this deficiency in other ways).  After working out my curve for a while I compared it to other's on the internet and guess what - it is more alike than different.  Turns out we share more "subjectively" than we differ.

 

I'm happy to read you've separated my opinion from me personally. All to often people get caught up in combining the two. 

 

Anyway, as an example of what I'm talking about - I was listening to some MQA recordings with the recording engineer who recorded the tracks. He asked for my opinion about the sound when we A/B'd the tracks (MQA and non-MQA). I said I loved the sound, but I had no clue if one was closer to the original live performance. He suggested that everyone knows what a Steinway sounds like and the MQA version was clearly closer to the original performance. 

 

I'm certain that everyone doesn't know what a Steinway sounds like and I'm certain not all Steinways sound alike. I'm also certain that every concert hall is different. Thus, there's no way for me to know if the MQA or non-MQA version is more accurate. I also don't believe there is any objective way to know which one is more accurate. 

 

If we are going back to the original performance as the gold standard, does anyone know how we can tell which version is more accurate? 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, crenca said:

 

 

Yep, fewer and fewer people are experiencing a Steinway.  Nevertheless, a Steinway is real and our common humanity is real.  IF we could get "everybody" an appropriate amount of Steinway experience, a strong consensus would develop about which recording is more "accurate", and more importantly this consensus would be real and not merely "subjective" in a radical way...

 

But when we move the Steinway to a different hall, all bets are off. The environment is the biggest instrument.

 

Was it a Steinway Model A, Model B, Model O, Grand or Upright, etc...?

 

:~)

[The Computer Audiophile]

21 minutes ago, Daudio said:

 

I recall you making this argument before, and I still have a hard time understanding it, because I have always seen that the audiophile point of listening to live classical concerts is to train ones ear in all the sounds: of single instruments, grouped instruments, the full orchestra, the sound of this hall, and that hall, in this seat, and that seat, both focused and 'grokked'. But never to attempt to memorize one unique performance. It simply isn't realistic, outside of very rare circumstances.

 

That ear training works similarly to the way I suggested that you ear learn classical music. Exposure, absorption, osmosis, a normal, even primitive, human learning mode. Enhanced by directed attention and activities. So then one can compare his/her internal, conceptual, sound of an instrument, orchestra, hall, whatever, to new examples in recorded music. One can become very good at it with enough practice, being able to distinguish different piano makers and models, violins, venues - large and small (just check out the active thread on international music halls here in CA), even different electric guitar amps !

 

Does that help to answer your concern ?

 

Here's more. How soon they forget... the absolute sound

 

You seemed to say earlier in the thread that our memories don't capture sound quality, but I wonder if you didn't hear every little difference in a remaster of your favorite 'Pearl Jam' album, How could you do that if our brains can't remember the sonic aspects of music we've heard repeatedly ?

Just saying...

 

 

Hi Daudio - I'm trying to follow your logic but I'm having a hard time. Some audiophile's may listen to live concerts to train their ears for some reason, but I think it's a fool's errand. Let's say you go to every performance of the Minnesota Orchestra for ten years. What does this do for you? It gives you an idea how the Minnesota Orchestra sounds live in Orchestra Hall. That's it.

 

I also, think people fool themselves by saying they've been to all the Mn Orchestra performances, so they can judge accuracy by playing the recording, of some of the performances they attended, at home. Audible memory doesn't work that way. Humans can recognize patters, but can't remember sounds like the accuracy of a violin from a concert last year. We just can't do it. @Jud has researched this fairly well. 

 

There's also no way to extrapolate this sound / experience to any other performance with respect to accuracy. One may say the violin sounds just like it did when I was at Orchestra Hall, but if it's a recording at Disney Hall, all bets are off. In fact, the violin should sound different. No two halls are the same. 

 

One's "internal, conceptual, sound of an instrument" has absolutely nothing to do with the accuracy of a recorded instrument compared to the real performance in question. In fact, I think it's a disservice to suggest otherwise. 

 

"One can become very good at it with enough practice, being able to distinguish different piano makers and models, violins, venues" - You're recognizing patterns here, not the accuracy of a recording. 

 

I think people are fooling themselves with the realities of the absolute sound concept. The idea is great, but in reality it isn't possible. 

 

I don't believe using memory to judge sound accuracy is a solid practice. I notice the differences between Pearl jam masters, but this has nothing to do with accuracy and everything to do with pattern recognition. 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 hours ago, crenca said:

 

 

Nope, it does much more than that.  The experience is not nearly so relative/subjective as you making it out to be.  Besides, experience of music is never (or should not be) this monotonous.  I have experience of acustic intstruments in many different settings, room conditions, etc.  From this, I am able to identify Fidelity to a reasonable degree - I can hear through any given playback chain an level of "accuracy" of a trumpet or violin and this accuracy is transferable - others can confirm it.  Your simply denying it with a radical subjectivist take on fidelity.  

 

Absolutely not. 

 

Sure you can identify a trumpet, but that has little relation to accuracy. I can identify my wife's voice sampled at 8 bit / 32 kHz, but that don't mean the recording is accurate. 

 

Ask a violinist if violins sound different. The answer will be yes. If you don't know the exact violin in use, you have no way of judging accuracy. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

 

http://www.thestrad.com/blind-tested-soloists-unable-to-tell-stradivarius-violins-from-modern-instruments/

 

http://www.thestrad.com/players-favour-new-violins-over-old-in-largest-ever-blind-testing-experiment/

 

The second link bolsters my point that violins sound different and violinists identify these differences. 

 

"The final results showed that one modern instrument garnered a total of 26 points, being the top choice for four players, second choice for another four, and rejected by two. Conversely, a Stradivari ended up with a score of -9. Its closest rival was a modern instrument, which had a score of -7."

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Yes, but why can't professional players, even when playing the instruments themselves (first link), match the pattern of a Strad?  They've surely heard the sound over and over again for years.

 

(There is an answer to this.)

 

Good question. Perhaps, if the Strad is the gold standard and people build to match the gold standard, they've done a great job of matching that gold standard. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just stumbled upon this (accidentally), where Andrew talks about real music and reproducing the real thing etc...

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

12 minutes ago, Daudio said:

 

Ha, that's getting to be quite the meaningless buzzword in this thread 

 

I would suggest 'memory and comparison' for that question.

 

I highly recommend you do the research on pattern recognition versus memory (with respect to sound) rather than make yourself look uneducated. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

7 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

The Vaporware Trails May update

 

Let’s start with some speculation or as Newt Becker would say an informed estimate. Jeff Toig was fired partly because MQA was not bringing in enough new subscribers to cover the costs of streaming MQA. TIDAL starts streaming MQA and the CEO is gone in less than three months. I’m hearing whispers and rumors that the million mark for paid TIDAL subscribers may be inflated. I don’t have the contacts in the hip hop and go go world in the Valley of the Sun I had in Washington, DC to readily confirm this but I’m working on it.

 

Adding MQA versions of concerts this month covered the culling of duplicates in the MQA list so I’m estimating there are still fewer than 2,800 albums and concerts converted to MQA.

 

There still isn’t any mainstream music to download in the United States.

 

I’m still looking for interest in recording using MQA without success but I keep looking.

 

On the music business side Spotify has signed an agreement with Universal to reduce royalty payments, Warner is expected to complete its agreement in June and Sony has yet to start similar negotiations. These agreements are far more important to streaming companies reducing their losses than any subscriber gains from new formats.  If you wondered why the MQA Sony licensing agreement didn’t receive any fanfare, Sony has history of dragging its feet. They have signed a license agreement to protect them but probably have no plans to convert any of their catalogs anytime soon.

 

The month of May for MQA can be summed up with press releases to keep audio journalists thinking there is progress but missing that all the new product partners hadn’t been certified as of the press release date. And there are some new licensing agreements without anything actually being done to convert enough music to MQA to matter.

 

Finally rest in peace Gregg Allman you will be missed.

 

You are right, your sources aren't what they used to be. You're off by quite a bit. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

59 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 If you wondered why the MQA Sony licensing agreement didn’t receive any fanfare, Sony has history of dragging its feet. They have signed a license agreement to protect them but probably have no plans to convert any of their catalogs anytime soon.

 

You should research when Sony actually signed the deal with MQA. You may change your story.