MQA is Vaporware

[esldude]

12 minutes ago, knickerhawk said:

And I have measured tracks I've used for my comparisons. I am not finding any pattern that consistently favors one format or the other using a spectrum analyzer app on my iPad. No doubt, you will dismiss my sound level checks using an iPad app as far too crude and use that as an excuse to reject my personal findings. So be it. I know what I hear and I know that the character of the differences I'm consistently detecting are not volume related. snip............

 

Are you using a microphone on the ipad to check the spectrum while playing tracks?  Or are you downloading tracks and using the analyzer on the file?

 

If the former, then guess what, it is FAR TOO CRUDE.  And no amount of knowing what you hear will make it otherwise.  

 

You can't match to within .2 of a db using such an app while playing back.  If you can't do that, then you can't match levels sufficiently.  And that is indeed that.  You nor anyone can get around being effected by liking louder as better, even in tiny amounts you don't notice.  You can't separate out the character of differences you are consistently detecting from a volume difference if one is there. You can claim it, but it is not so. 

 

I don't know why this is so hard to get across to people.  No one is attacking you personally.  No one is impugning your hearing ability.  It is simply being pointed out what is needed to make a good comparison. Levels MUST be MATCHED.  

[esldude]

40 minutes ago, knickerhawk said:

 

I'm using the "FAR TOO CRUDE" approach.

 

 

Here's what I DO notice: I notice that my iPad app detects that sometimes the MQA version is slightly louder according to the app and sometimes the 16/44 is slightly louder and sometimes it detects no difference. In these slight/no detected variations, I'm still pretty consistently hearing the MQA signature, and in my system I usually prefer that sound.

 

 

Here's my beef: Rt66indierock keeps referencing Fagan's Nightfly and the fact that the MQA version is louder. It's obviously louder! And I mean OBVIOUSLY louder! If John Darko didn't immediately detect that and adjust levels accordingly before performing his in-depth comparison, then he's either got some major equipment issues or needs to visit an audiologist. Perhaps I'm being overly sensitive here, but I'm getting a little tired of the preaching about an issue that is well understood. Again, perhaps I'm just being overly sensitive here, but I'm also sensing a veiled implication that ALL MQA tracks are louder and, therefore, that's what's misleading anyone who prefers the MQA sound. I disagree with that premise, at least based on the pretty extensive sampling I've done over the past couple of months.

 

Matching levels is step #1.  You have NOTHING worth reporting without it.  Nor does John Darko or anyone else.  So complain, moan whatever.  If you don't do it in a way that is accurate enough you are simply wandering in randomness. 

 

Yes, loudness differences that are obvious are one thing.  I do not know if anyone is saying all MQA is louder.  Some of it has been found to be so.  When one selection is so much louder like with the Nightfly I immediately wonder if it is the same master or not. 

 

How can you do the matching?  Using sound level meters on music itself is simply not good enough.  You even seem to be describing that difficulty.  

 

Matching by ear?  Simply not good enough.  Most people will get within 1 db by ear.  Some can get a little closer.  Unfortunately .2 db or more is enough to make something sound of better quality.  At such level differences you will not hear it as louder.  It will sound like higher quality, more detail, more bass, more space etc. etc.  Yet will be nothing except a tiny bit louder. 

 

This is a step you need to do.  Otherwise everyone listens, everyone comes to their conclusions that they heard, everyone feels better, and more than likely everyone is fooling themselves.  Sorry, I didn't make it this way.  It is the way it is.  

 

So when others complain of your approach it isn't personal.  It is a very valid complaint that very reasonably calls into question whichever conclusions you make. 

 

Now if you care about what I going on about at all you are waiting for me to tell you how to match levels.  In the case of MQA, it isn't easy.  You can't look at files and determine it without decoding them (if I am wrong someone please correct this).  You can't grab a digital out, because it isn't decoded.  You could use an ADC to record the output of a DAC, and likely get close enough.  This is highly inconvenient and most people don't have an ADC for doing this. 

 

Now it is unfortunate I can't tell you how to do it.  I can tell you if you don't manage level matching you can't pass Go, you can't conclude much of anything.  Sorry, but those are just the facts. 

[esldude]

7 minutes ago, knickerhawk said:

snippage..........

 

It is simply incorrect for you to proclaim that the only way to obtain valid test results is by level matching. That is the case when dealing with a single sample or a homogeneous population of samples in which the loudness of one set is greater than the other and you do not know which is louder. It is not the case when dealing with a random sampling population. There is more than one way to skin this cat...

 

The only way to obtain valid test results in a listening test is by level matching first.

 

Your description of multiple samples and varied levels of loudness averaging everything out so you still can make valid conclusions is a fantasy.  And on top of which you do not know if one set is random in relative loudness or all skewed in some direction or uses different masters.  I don't doubt the strength of your feeling in your results.  That confidence is badly misplaced. 

 

 

[esldude]

2 hours ago, knickerhawk said:

 

Both you and esldude are demanding preciseness in my testing but neither of you are being very precise in your criticism of it. You are broadly claiming that no listening test can be valid unless sound level matching within .2 dB is enforced in the test based on the fact that subjective preference can be influenced by application of as little as .2 dB difference in playback of the same track. Therefore, we know that there is a danger zone between .2 dB and the normal human threshold of audibility that needs to be controlled for. You and esldude seem to be arguing that the only valid way to control for this subliminality zone of influence is to measure the sound levels of the A and B samples to within .2 dB accuracy. Anything less accurate than that is, as you put it, "simply invalid" or as esldude put it, "fantasy."

 

My contention is that you do not need that level of accuracy to obtain significant results that can prove listener preference is based on something other than sound level. How? Well, let's consider what should be a statistically significant way of achieving valid listening results without accuracy to .2dB. Let's say we start with a population of 125 tracks to be tested. We have an MQA version and a non-MQA version for each track. We first want to toss out tracks with differences in loudness  between the two formats that are audible to our human subject. One way to do this is to run a repeated random blind A/B test where the subject is asked to pick the louder version. We can throw in a control with slight volume attenuation applied on a random to confirm the accuracy with which our subject is listening for loudness. Let's say that the subject can't detect sound level differences in 100 of the tracks. Now we need to determine if there is any subliminal sound level differences within the remaining 100 tracks. Our problem is that we only have a sound level measuring methodology accurate to, let's say, .8dB. If it turns out that some of the tracks are louder on the MQA side and some are louder on the non-MQA side and maybe some are equal, then we're in luck. Let's say it breaks down nicely to 1/3 for each of these possibilities. Now we run the subject through the main blind A/B tests for identifying preference.

 

Do you now see where this is going??? If preference is based primarily or exclusively on loudness, then the known louder tracks should be statistically preferred to the known quieter tracks and the preference within the unknown cohort will be mixed. In this scenario we can't conclude anything meaningful about preference when loudness is completely eliminated as a variable (i.e, reduced to no more than .2dB difference). However, if preference does not follow loudness to a statistically significant degree in the known loudness cohort, then we know with statistical significance that something other than loudness is dominating preference - the point being that we've achieved this result even though we haven't level matched all the way to .2dB.

 

Now, if we can't agree on the validity of the approach described above, there's no point in moving on to a discussion of how close my personal testing comes to being "valid" or merely "fantasy." I'll willingly slink away with my tail between my legs when you demonstrate the error in the test design described above.

You are making an assumption the loudness between .2 and .8 db differences will be random and evenly distributed between MQA and non-MQA.  That is a supposition.  We don't know if it is true.  

 

Before anyone went to this much trouble, it is far simpler to get a good ADC and use it to test the output of tracks and see what loudness differences there are. 

 

Yes, I know you were describing something in principle.  It still won't work without an assumption that you have no way of knowing is true or not.  And if your intent is to cycle around to saying you hear a consistency in MQA tracks you can identify after listening to dozens of them, that isn't the same as your theoretical testing is it?

 

 

[esldude]

3 minutes ago, knickerhawk said:

 

Let's see if we can establish consensus about the testing scenario I outlined in my previous post before we wade into the details of what I did in my personal testing. Do you agree that the scenario I described is an example of how it is possible to obtain valid preference results from a blind A/B test even though you have not verified sound leveling to within .2dB?

I don't agree.  You are assuming too much. 

[esldude]

4 minutes ago, knickerhawk said:

 

It is supposition but a reasonable one if you have a (statistically large enough) population that is falling into a normal distribution for the samples that vary by more than the .8 dB measurable limit in my hypothetical. Regardless, it still doesn't matter if you have enough samples outside of the unknown cohort. With a large enough sampling outside of the unknown cohort and the preference results obtained from inside of the unknown cohort you should be able to statistically determine the distribution of louder MQA and louder non-MQA tracks within the unknown cohort. In the unlikely case of a distribution of actual preference results from within the unknown cohort that's inconsistent with the predicted normal distribution, you would need to further investigate the cause.

One result tells you there is either a quality difference or sound levels are not randomly distributed.  And you are back to investigating whether levels are skewed.  The other result says there is no difference.  Meaning you are unable to show if MQA is qualitatively different or not. 

[esldude]

49 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

It's lossy nature makes it the hi-rez version of mp3.

 Brings to mind a good comparison to make if you could get duplicate tracks to compare.  With one being MQA.  Ogg Vorbis unlike mp3 will allow you to lossy compress high sample rate material and keep the extended ultrasonic response.  Maybe someone should do listening tests of Ogg Vorbis at hirez rates and MQA.  

[esldude]

27 minutes ago, ralphfcooke said:

It's not just a matter of overall level; if MQA uses an internal DSP of some sort then a flat level over the audio spectrum

is no longer a given. It's quite feasible for MQA to emphasize certain aspects of a recording, which would make

an accurate level comparison almost impossible (if that's what they do?)

That is correct.  Though one could record with a quality ADC the output and detect things like that or at least might be able to do so.  Of course people have worked some of what MQA is doing and it does not appear to be an improvement in fidelity.  

[esldude]

1 hour ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Experienced listeners will not be fooled or swayed by this. Seriously.

All human listeners will be fooled by this.  Fify.

 

[esldude]

15 minutes ago, FredericV said:

Sorry to bust your bubble, but's it's lossy and not authentic to the master.
 

Here is 2L.no's 2L-053 demo track in the original studiomaster (blue plot) vs the first unfold (red plot) and second unfold (green plot):
 

The first unfold actually is true to the original spectrum but in a band limited fashion, as it stops at 44.1 Khz nyquist. 2L.no files are all multiples of 44.1 Khz and edited as DXD.

The second unfold which upsamples + dithers the first unfold just creates a totally new response not in the original.

Hey your graph proves MQA is better than the original. There is more response in that second unfold than in the original DXD.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No I don't really mean it.  

[esldude]

4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Hi @Brinkman Ship, Welcome to CA. Or, should I say welcome back to CA or welcome to CA under a new name?

 

Based on your posts, your registered email address (mqatruth@<domain>.com), and the fact you're obscuring your physical location pretty well (IP addresses from all over the world, just in the last few hours), I'm quite suspicious of you. It appears you have an agenda and/or something to hide. 

 

I don't mind anyone hiding his location or using an email address such as yours, but given the volatility of this topic, it seems you are hear for reasons other than to truly discuss MQA with the community.

 

Please be careful and follow the rules.

Oh this is too funny.  Or pathetic.  Or both.  

 

mqatruth..................that must be the mqa truth hit squad.  

 

Be careful Chris.  You might be on their hit list. 

 

 

[esldude]

3 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Suspicious of what? I joined here to specifically participate in this thread.

 

I have my issues with MQA, but I am also trying to understand all the venom spewed towards it.

 

The email i created was so I could keep track of this forum and its posts. No malicious intent.

Okay. I am no expert, but maybe can give a summary others can add to or correct.

 

MQA is lossy.  For quite awhile they pretended it wasn't or were vague. 

 

MQA purports to be better quality than hirez originals.  

 

MQA claimed to authenticate you were getting the master, and it does not. 

 

MQA claimed quite a bit of new innovative use of the digital medium fixing "blur".  Subsequent investigation uncovers it can't do anything over 96 khz, it simply oversamples.  It does unfold to 96 khz from 44 or 48 khz, but the extra stuff after the unfold is lossy in encoding. It uses filters that allow some aliasing.  

 

It appears to only have 17 bits of resolution. 

 

Unencoded it reduces quality of the track to maybe 13 bits.  

 

There are a few other issues. 

 

My main complaint is it can function as DRM.  And even if never used that way it prevents anyone from using digital room correction or speaker correction.  The latter is a big boon to performance.  Offset against a questionable improvement brought by MQA it makes MQA a non-starter for many.  

 

There is plenty more, but that should be a good start for you. 

[esldude]

28 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Thank you for the summary.

 

So if take at face value all of the information above is correct, why have I not read about any of this in Stereophile or The Absolute Sound, or DAR, or Audiostream?

 

And why have they all consistently said it sounded *better* than the master file?

Okay, good question.  Think about it.  How could it sound better than the master file?

 

The claim was there are errors and blurring in the old ADCs and they could retroactively correct them.  Now that raises lots of questions.  

 

What about old recordings that were from tape?  What about digital processing in between that isn't from the DAC on multi-track recordings?  How can you undo all that?  We were assured they could.  How can you take the time to puzzle thru every single recording of hundreds of thousands and it not take forever?  We were assured they could. 

 

Then its found they are taking masters, performing some different filtering, some lossy encoding, and folding it which necessarily means fewer bits (apparently about 17), and aliasing they say will always be below the noise floors.  So how is that better than a lossless FLAC compression which doesn't do those things to the master?  And this of course doesn't even attempt to meet the promises that the MQA would be better.  Sometimes they would claim it perceptibly equal.  Again, give us the FLAC master and it is fully bit for bit equal no questions.  We don't need a proprietary format that requires different hardware and prevents using DSP upon playback.  

 

So MQA principals and the established print media have been coy, supportive and less than direct about addressing any of these issues. 

 

Plus we were promised the undecoded CD would not just sound equal to a regular CD, but because of blah, blah, blah deblurring better.  Yet it only leaves us with 13 bits that are clean. Either 13 bits is clean enough so 16 is too and what do we need with MQA.  Or we are being told we can have it both ways for their benefit.  It simply wasn't addressed honestly. 

 

I am only scratching the surface here.  They generally have not made available regular CD, the original hirez and MQA to do a straight up comparison with.  Why is that?

[esldude]

14 minutes ago, firedog said:

snip.....

The question remains whether the actual hi-res masters (or even Redbook)  will still be made available to the public if MQA becomes established. I'm guessing they won't be: there's a reason Robert Harley gushed about MQA allowing the labels to release "hi-res" yest still guard the "crown jewels". 

Yet one more area MQA is trying to have its cake and eat it too. 

 

If the MQA were perceptually better than or equal to masters, they haven't actually guarded anything.  If they aren't equivalent to the masters then the whole thing is a sham.  A con to convince the public they have the master sound without having the master sound. 

[esldude]

5 minutes ago, firedog said:

And the even more amazing part is Lee Scoggins report that the Chesky's told him blind testing "proved" MQA is "indistinguishable" form 24\192. Let's say that's true. What happened to the MQA and audio press claims that MQA sounds superior, and is a great step forward, and is giving us something we didn't already have? 

Well Chesky only records binaurally now. 

 

So maybe he had MQAB. 

[esldude]

28 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Extensive listening test underway. Expect report on Monday.

Describe parameters of your listening test.  Have you obtained MQA files and non-MQA you know are the same master?  Are you able to match levels very carefully?

[esldude]

Just now, Brinkman Ship said:

Yes, and Yes. Full details after weekend.

Please, some details now. 

 

A collaborative effort to have your listening test mean something to other people. 

[esldude]

1 hour ago, ARQuint said:

Well, I am happy that the focus of the discussion has turned, after so many months and web pages of fevered supposition regarding the motivations of audio writers or Bob Stuart's plans for world domination, to sound quality.

 

We all need to carefully review the McGill report when it's widely available, as the "bottom line" might be different depending on ones point of view. (For example, what does the word "necessarily" mean in Archimago's summary of the findings, and we do need to hear more about the caveats in the paper's conclusion that he alludes to.) And I don't have to tell you that some will feel that the methodology is flawed on the most basic philosophical grounds: the debate about blind A/B testing as a way of judging sound has been a topic of controversy for as long as I've been in this hobby. But it's far preferable to consider data like this than to traffic in character assassination and conspiracy. I hate to think what the discussion would be like had the McGill work shown a clear preference for MQA. We can all move forward to the next stage of analysis and—most importantly for me—some reconciliation among brethren.

Andrew Quint

 

 Please.  What does the word "necessarily" mean?  If you don't know look it up on www.dictionary.com pal.  

 

Did you go to Yale like Bill Clinton?  Is ARQ a pen name for Bill Clinton?  Has Bob Stewart paid Bill Clinton to lobby for MQA?  These are all about as pertinent to this thread as your questions about the McGill results. 

 

 

[esldude]

1 hour ago, Don Hills said:

 

Journalists tend to have certain character traits. One of them is to never admit being wrong. If forced to retract a headline, do it with a small sentence hidden on an inside page. Realistically, you aren't going to get people in Andrew's position to "publicly" change their opinion.  The best you can do is reasonably counter his arguments and present a credible alternative viewpoint for the audience. Rabid anti-MQA sentiment and personal attacks destroy your credibility. He wins because of your lack of self control.

I missed the part where Andrew presented a credible viewpoint. He has a public platform, but things like MqA coverage have eroded much credibility that once would have been granted the publication.

 

The fact such people calmly pretend they've any credibility left to counter the reality of mqa just causes me to dismiss them on other matters. I don't think that's an uncommon reaction these days. They no longer control the flow of information.

[esldude]

13 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Let's remember the good times in the nineties when there was no The Absolute Sound. 

They were around before the 90s. Like from 1970s.

[esldude]

1 hour ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

I can't imagine with such a low subscriber count, about 20,000 that they can make much money. As John Atkinson is fond of saying we are larger than all the other English language audio publications combined. And look what happened to them.

Did TAS ever make money?  When Harry Pearson still had it for some time it had no ads.  Then limited ads.  Subscriptions were high and did apparently cover cost of the magazine.  I don't know if it made money until after 1998.  

[esldude]

2 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Yes, it did. Pearson at one point was flush with cash. He apparently blew every penny on younger companions and basically was left with nothing in the end.

I thought HP inherited money.  Like Chris, if you've no one to leave it to nothing wrong with using it all if you ask me.

[esldude]

46 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

I don't know if he inherited money or not.

 

Sure, but you could pass it on to a good cause if there is something left...

Yes you could donate.  I'm not one to say I find that better than spending it on his own enjoyment.  Do you live the very least expensive life possible with plans to leave some money to a good cause? Should I judge you negatively if you don't?

[esldude]

3 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

LOL. No, i would not advocate self deprivation or meager living so you have some left for the government or a charity.

 

But if you can't spend it all..then...

Apparently HP could and did spend it all.

[esldude]

44 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

As I said I am happy to be corrected. I have not seen it described in such terms. Compared to Hi Rez yes, marketed as better than Hi Rez, yes, deliver the recording studio resolution, yes, just not "it is High Rez".

 

More relevantly, moving beyond marketing, is it or is it not a HiRez format?

From the MQA home page. Quoting a Warner music exec.  Then from same page Michael Nash of Universal Music Group. 

 

“Music fans will love it when they hear it, and WMG is thrilled to be partnering with MQA to take the next step in bringing hi-resolution music to consumers across the globe.”

 

“With MQA, we are working with a partner whose technology is among the best solutions for streaming Hi-Res Audio, and one that doesn't ask music fans to compromise on sound quality for convenience.”