MQA is Vaporware

[Paul R]

17 minutes ago, esldude said:

Come on Paul.  Your request is ridiculous.  You can't get an MQA version except from MQA.  And then you have no way to verify the master is the same or any of it.  There are good reasons to think MQA, straight from how it works, is by definition worse than high res PCM or DSD.  MQA is at best lossy in the ultrasonics vs high res PCM.  It sure isn't going to be higher fidelity that way.  

 

By definition, vinyl is also much worse than digital. Still many people think vinyl often sounds better than the digital version. Sometimes, it really does, despite all the distortion, clicks, pops, and other issues that may arise with vinyl. I will take a good sounding vinyl cut of a song any day, over a glaring, compressed, bad digital remaster.  I suspect the same think applies with MQA. A good mastering in MQA will sound better than a poor mastering in high res PCM.

 

Of course, MQA will blame the labels for any problems or mismatches, the same as HDTracks or other services do. So document it and complain to the labels, loudly and a consistently. If it ain't documented, they will ignore it though. And the labels will blame MQA of course. 

 

Fortunately, if the masters are not the same between MQA and PCM, then it is fairly easy to show and document that they are different. If they are the same, then determining a preference for how they sound is not that difficult either.

 

It's effort much better spent than what is happening now.  It all speed the end of the MQA nonsense, both in the audiophile world and here!

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, tmtomh said:

 

I'm sorry, Paul, but this is all irrelevant generalization. It's a much simpler matter than that, and it has nothing directly to do with people's arguments or factual interpretations being driven by their pre-existing biases or agendas. 

 

The issue here is that you and I (and several others) actually agree: to put it in your terms, we agree that MQA is not often measured in isolation. 

 

This is a simple observation, and again, it's one you have made yourself. The only question that follows from that is, if MQA is evaluated based on A-B tests where MQA is not in fact the only thing that changes between A and B, are those tests actually measurements of MQA? The answer is No. That's not an ideologically driven answer - it's simply a logical one.

 

If there are MQA tests out there conducted with rigorous methodologies, and those tests are confirmed to have MQA on or off as the only variable in the test - and if a statistically significant majority of listeners prefer MQA in that scenario, I for one will have zero problem acknowledging that such a test is data in support of listener preference for MQA.

 

But the linked test you cited as an MQA measurement is not in fact an MQA measurement. I don't say that because I'm anti-MQA. I say it because it's true. And I am mystified - truly - as to you why you're so incredibly resistant to simply acknowledging it.

 

Check the McGill study. (If you don't have access to the paper, let me know.) 

 

It was well done, and varied only MQA. The result was the there was no significant difference. I expected people to have a preference for the PCM, but they didn't. Mansr thinks the test was flawed, I disagree, but the paper is available to read and everyone can form their own opinion. I you still think that MQA vs PCM comparisons are irrelevant, then I guess we would just have to agree to disagree. Which is really, no big thing to reasoning people.

 

Given that, I think it is probably just as valuable to identify instances where one to one comparisons are not possible, as the ones that are. 

 

-Paul 

 

[mansr]

7 hours ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

One thing for sure. Virtually NO ONE on planet earth heard what Austin, Atkinson, Fremer, Harley, et all heard.

Of course not. They're on a newly birthed world.

[mansr]

Let's change the tack a little. Back in 2016, 2L made MQA versions of a few tracks available for free. In 2018, they replaced all of them with new encodes. As I had downloaded the full set previously, I was able to compare the two versions. The image below shows the spectrum of one of the tracks as decoded and "rendered" from the 2016 and 2018 versions.

 

 

Can someone tell me which one is Authentic?

[KeenObserver]

WOW!

 

Someone is spending an incredible amount of time and effort re-posting all the talking points that Lee posted.  They are being re-posted in a more passive-aggressive fashion, but they are the same BS.

[Rt66indierock]

7 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

No - I am not the one with the avowed intention of driving MQA the company into the ground. Let's be clear here - that is your intention, not mine. 

 

There is an easy way to get Audiophiles to abandon MQA. Postulate MQA sounds worse than a high res PCM or DSD copy of the same music, preferably from the same master. Then prove it.  

 

Do that, MQA is dead in a month, because only audiophiles are interested in it, and pretty much audiophiles are only interested in what it sounds like. 

 

Shrug, but you need to do it. My music is either high res PCM, DSD, or redbook. And I doubt very seriously if I will be rebuying any of the thousands of albums in my collection. I don't even fall for the many of the new super deluxe remastered releases. 

 

It's your war, you fight it. Just don't lie to us audiophiles, or try to hide in the shadows and convince everyone how well connected you are. 

 

-Paul 

 

 

I just got a text from my friend Andy Quint. He’s in London getting negative feedback about MQA from the British press.

[firedog]

6 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

I just got a text from my friend Andy Quint. He’s in London getting negative feedback about MQA from the British press.

Tell us more.

[Rt66indierock]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

Let's change the tack a little. Back in 2016, 2L made MQA versions of a few tracks available for free. In 2018, they replaced all of them with new encodes. As I had downloaded the full set previously, I was able to compare the two versions. The image below shows the spectrum of one of the tracks as decoded and "rendered" from the 2016 and 2018 versions.

 

 

Can someone tell me which one is Authentic?

 

Almost like  we’re back to the original post.  There is no master of “Riders on the Storm.” 

[lucretius]

7 hours ago, Paul R said:

I would say that, except it would generate such a spewing from the hide behind an anonymous handle idiots that it is not worth it.

 

Who are you?  ☺️

[Kyhl]

20 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

Examine that from the other way around Danny. 

 

It is is proven that MQA is not a technically superior format than say, flac based high res 24/96k. 

 

So why do some people prefer the sound of a MQA file?

 

There are conspiracy theories and other even more unlikely theories floating around, but the simple and most logical reason they prefer the sound of a MQA file is that something is causing MQA files to sound better to them.  MQA is not going to do the research to explain why - they do not have to prove it sounds better, because people are agreeing with them.  And they might harm themselves with the results, besides being difficult and expensive to do.

 

Nobody here wants to do the research, because it is hard, expensive, and could possibly help MQA. The reason might turn out to be more of a legal or ethical problem than a technical one anyway. 

 

The arguments about the audio press press are in large part totally unjustified, IMNSHO. YMMV, etc.

 

The burden of proof lies on MQA to provide sufficient proof for their idea.  Where is this proof?   This is Russell's teapot.  MQA made claims.  Then claimed their only proof is proprietary information and refuse to share how they came to their findings.  Show us the math.

 

It is not beholden on others to prove or disprove an unfalsifiable claim.  That work lies on MQA to back up their claims.

[lucretius]

57 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Almost like  we’re back to the original post.  There is no master of “Riders on the Storm.” 

 

Lost?  Burned in the fire?

[lucretius]

8 hours ago, Paul R said:

My music is either high res PCM, DSD, or redbook. And I doubt very seriously if I will be rebuying any of the thousands of albums in my collection.

 

Buying MQA versions is risky.  It won't be long before all software that decodes MQA is either eol'd or the MQA functions are deprecated. Similarly, the hardware decoders will disappear from the market.  Then what will you do with your MQA music?

[The Computer Audiophile]

9 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

Buying MQA versions is risky.  It won't be long before all software that decodes MQA is either eol'd or the MQA functions are deprecated. Similarly, the hardware decoders will disappear from the market.  Then what will you do with your MQA music?

You’re completely correct. It’s a question of when not if. HDCD is a good indicator. 

 

 

 

 

[Paul R]

55 minutes ago, Kyhl said:

The burden of proof lies on MQA to provide sufficient proof for their idea.  Where is this proof?   This is Russell's teapot.  MQA made claims.  Then claimed their only proof is proprietary information and refuse to share how they came to their findings.  Show us the math.

 

It is not beholden on others to prove or disprove an unfalsifiable claim.  That work lies on MQA to back up their claims.

 

Prove what exactly? That MQA sounds better than xyz? Or prove that xyz sounds better than MQA? What would ever possess them to attempt to do either? What possible benefit could accrue to MQA to take up critics challenges? 

 

Burden of of proof is on the critic here. Critics have already “proven” that the tech claims were false, their business operations are likely unsound, and alerted to the world to those issues. 

 

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, Paul R said:

Critics have already “proven” that the tech claims were false, their business operations are likely unsound,

Then why does it matter what it "sounds like"?

[botrytis]

10 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

Prove what exactly? That MQA sound better than xyz? Or prove that xyz sounds better than MQA? What would ever possess them to attempt to do either? What possible benefit could accrue to MQA to take up critics challenges? 

 

Burden of of proof is on the critic here. Critics have already “proven” that the tech claims were false, their business operations are likely unsound, and alerted to the world to those issues. 

 

 

Yes. That is what MQA says in their claims. That is just like the master. Well, if we can't even figure out what master the MQA file is from and no one is sharing that information. How can we prove what MQA says. With high res PCM, you can tell what master they came from because they tell you. This is a junk claim. 

 

NO - the critics already have proven that MQA is a house of cards. It is up to MQA to prove that it is not. It is up to MQA to step up to the plate and prove a positive, not a negative.

 

Paul, I appreciate your salient writing but you have it wrong here. It is up to MQA and all their supporters and that seems to include you, that what the critics say is not true. It is just that plain and simple. So far, MQA has done nothing but repeat the same platitudes and attack people who question them. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, botrytis said:

and attack people who question them.

Because that's always the sign of an honest company with nothing to hide :~)

[Paul R]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

Then why does it matter what it "sounds like"?

 

I suppose you believe most audiophiles just buy anything, no matter what it sounds like? We just buy stuff and never listen to it?!

 

Or could it be that any and all interest in MQA in the audiophile community has been generated from a suggestion that MQA sounds better?  

 

Of course what it sounds like matters. How MQA sounds is arguably the only thing that does matter actually.

 

It is the nail in coffin.  

 

Everything else can be argued about; currently non-existent DRM,  fears of players being abandoned, so forth and so on. All have counter arguments. 

 

MQA sounding bad, or at least worse than redbook? What is the argument for that? 

 

 

[botrytis]

14 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

I suppose you believe most audiophiles just buy anything, no matter what it sounds like? We just buy stuff and never listen to it?!

 

Or could it be that any and all interest in MQA in the audiophile community has been generated from a suggestion that MQA sounds better?  

 

Of course what it sounds like matters. How MQA sounds is arguably the only thing that does matter actually.

 

It is the nail in coffin.  

 

Everything else can be argued about; currently non-existent DRM,  fears of players being abandoned, so forth and so on. All have counter arguments. 

 

MQA sounding bad, or at least worse than redbook? What is the argument for that? 

 

 

 

If audiophiles know that MQA actually distorts the sound and can make the music sound worse, don't you think Audiophiles would not buy it? It was like HDCD, it really did nothing for the sound, so why pay more? 

 

MQA has a DRM built in, you can't play MQA without either the software and a DAC designed for it  If that is not DRM, I don't know what is.

 

The issue is, the audiophile press, who the audiophiles trust (well not the ones on this board  ) and since the press just regurgitated the talking points of MQA without looking at them and discerning if they are true or not, they have damned themselves. It makes them look bad and untrustworthy.

 

MQA is supposed to be BETTER THAN REDBOOK (majority of it is supposed to be high-res). If it can't sound better that that, MQA is just junk. I have heard files go either way. There is no clear cut advantage to MQA, so why spend MORE money on it? 

[botrytis]

22 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Because that's always the sign of an honest company with nothing to hide :~)

 

I agree

[lucretius]

40 minutes ago, botrytis said:

NO - the critics already have proven that MQA is a house of cards. It is up to MQA to prove that it is not.

 

I agree. The ball is in MQA's court.

[Paul R]

46 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

Yes. That is what MQA says in their claims. That is just like the master. Well, if we can't even figure out what master the MQA file is from and no one is sharing that information. How can we prove what MQA says. With high res PCM, you can tell what master they came from because they tell you. This is a junk claim. 

 

NO - the critics already have proven that MQA is a house of cards. It is up to MQA to prove that it is not. It is up to MQA to step up to the plate and prove a positive, not a negative.

 

Paul, I appreciate your salient writing but you have it wrong here. It is up to MQA and all their supporters and that seems to include you, that what the critics say is not true. It is just that plain and simple. So far, MQA has done nothing but repeat the same platitudes and attack people who question them. 

 

I am not an MQA proponent. I just believe that one needs to look at facts rather dispassionately to avoiding being caught up in an agenda with unknown purposes. 

 

Did MIT have to prove to you their cables sound great? With all the technical arguments and compelling scientific evidence against it? Or did you simply listen and decide for yourself? The question is of course rhetorical, I have no doubt you listened to the cables and decided for yourself. 

 

Yet with MQA you suggest that audiophiles should not listen and decide for themselves. Does that not set off any alarms for you? If all the tech criticism about MQA is true, and I am convinced it is, then there is nothing really to fear. MQA can not sound better than comparable ALAC, AIFF, WAV, or FLAC files. 

 

If there are no comparable files, then as you point out, that says something right there. But it is rather unlikely there are no comparable files, unless the MQA file has been remastered. If that is the case, and the MQA mastering is so much better, then the audiophile quandary does become an issue. But we have not seen much of that. Music continues to be released primarily as AAC, FLAC, AIFF, WAV, or MP3, usually in multiple formats. 

 

All comes down to setting aside the emotional crap and focusing on the simple, easily answered question. Does it sound better or not? There is only an issue if it does sound better. 

 

The why only becomes important if MQA sounds better. It is a matter of having the courage of one’s convictions, same as buying audiophile cables. (I have Nordost cables myself, and dearly love them.  )

 

[lucretius]

31 minutes ago, Paul R said:

Of course what it sounds like matters. How MQA sounds is arguably the only thing that does matter actually.

 

It is the nail in coffin.

 

MQA is already at the undertaker's door.

[Paul R]

1 minute ago, lucretius said:

 

MQA is already at the undertaker's door.

 

(Grin) One does not usually nail a coffin shut unless the deceased is already in it. 😇

[botrytis]

6 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

I am not an MQA proponent. I just believe that one needs to look at facts rather dispassionately to avoiding being caught up in an agenda with unknown purposes. 

 

Did MIT have to prove to you their cables sound great? With all the technical arguments and compelling scientific evidence against it? Or did you simply listen and decide for yourself? The question is of course rhetorical, I have no doubt you listened to the cables and decided for yourself. 

 

Yet with MQA you suggest that audiophiles should not listen and decide for themselves. Does that not set off any alarms for you? If all the tech criticism about MQA is true, and I am convinced it is, then there is nothing really to fear. MQA can not sound better than comparable ALAC, AIFF, WAV, or FLAC files. 

 

If if there are no comparable files, then as you point out, that says something right there. But it is rather unlikely there are no comparable files, unless the MQA file has been remastered. If that is the case, and the MQA mastering is so much better, then the audiophile quandary does become an issue. But we have not seen much of that. Music continues to be released primarily as AAC, FLAC, AIFF, WAV, or MP3, usually in multiple formats. 

 

All comes down to setting aside the emotional crap and focusing on the simple, easily answered question. Does it sound better or not? There is only an issue if it does sound better. 

 

The why only becomes important if MQA sounds better. It is a matter of having the courage of one’s convictions, same as buying audiophile cables. (I have Nordost cables myself, and dearly love them.  )

 

 

We already have WAV,  DSD AND, FLAC that can handle high-res, why do we need another that is encoded and can only be used by those with the proper equipment? I am not one that can spend constantly on equipment to chase the latest new-fangled thing. I have my TEAC UD-501 and unless something comes around that sounds as good, to me, for the same price I got this one, well it is sitting being used on my shelf.

 

What benefit does MQA give to me? Don't say the same nonsense that was spewed forth from the magazines. I want proof, scientific proof. I am a biochemist by training, BTW.