MQA is Vaporware

[crenca]

Just now, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Didn't Archie come to that conclusion too, and provide repeatable measurements to prove it?

 

It runs deeper - its a basic "fact" in signal processing

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

Just now, crenca said:

 

It runs deeper - its a basic "fact" in signal processing

Right, but Stuart. ran with the "time domain" correction bullshit....and Atkinson and Austin picked up the ball and continued to spew that nonsense.

[crenca]

7 hours ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Let us be CRSTAL CLEAR here:

 

Except for the faint possibility of a few albums, there was no EQ, compression, stereo repositioning with MQA.

 

The simple fact is the amateurish, flawed proprietary DSP distorts the sound. PERIOD. There seem phase issues, soundstage distortions, and clear to see in Paul Miller's measurements, aliasing. 

 

MQA moves you AWAY from the original file, not closer.

 

I'm with our Hebrew Brother on this - I suspect that (beyond changing masters - the source file - and perhaps some small volume increase on many (most?) MQA processed files) MQA has nothing up its "deblurring" sleeve.  Yes, Bob S and MQA hold to a certain philosophy about min phase filtering (and its corollary, "ringing")  and the like, but that is all known art and they have simply packaged it in a proprietary black box and made strong marketing claims about "blur" and the like.

 

If there is something of substance (something "new") behind the curtain, they are waiting awful late to show it...we are in the later half of the game and MQA is losing.  Would not any team have pulled out the trick play by now??!?

 

@John Dyson, you appear to say that what your inside knowledge implies is that there is a benefit to the holy grail of "transients" and the waveform buried within MQA's folding algorithm - or am I reading this into what you said?

[crenca]

8 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Right, but Stuart. ran with the "time domain" correction bullshit....and Atkinson and Austin picked up the ball and continued to spew that nonsense.

 

I have never seen it not spewed by men such as Atkinson and Austin and the wider "Audio Press".   It just seems to be part of the furniture of the Audiophile Confidence Game...

 

 

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

7 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

I'm with are Hebrew Brother on this - I suspect that (beyond changing masters - the source file - and perhaps some small volume increase on many (most?) MQA processed files) MQA has nothing up its "deblurring" sleeve.  Yes, Bob S and MQA hold to a certain philosophy about min phase filtering (and its corollary, "ringing")  and the like, but that is all known art and they have simply packaged it in a proprietary black box and made strong marketing claims about "blur" and the like/

 

If there is something of substance (something "new") behind the curtain, they are waiting awful late to show it...we are in the later half of the game and MQA is losing.  Would not any team have pulled out the trick play by now??!?

 

@John Dyson, you appear to say that what your inside knowledge implies is that there is a benefit to the holy grail of "transients" and the waveform buried within MQA's folding algorithm - or am I reading this into what you said?

 

3 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

I have never seen it not spewed by men such as Atkinson and Austin and the wider "Audio Press".   It just seems to be part of the furniture of the Audiophile Confidence Game...

 

 

In fact, let repeat what I said...the DSP, and that is ALL it is DSP, which anyone with a laptop an audio editing program can do, is a hack job. 

 

As far as Atkinson et al never questioning marketing claims, it is ironic that Atkinson was very cautious and skeptical about DSD in the pages of Stereophile when he first encountered, it and was very slow to warm up to it, once DSD DACs became common.

[John Dyson]

2 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

I'm with are Hebrew Brother on this - I suspect that (beyond changing masters - the source file - and perhaps some small volume increase on many (most?) MQA processed files) MQA has nothing up its "deblurring" sleeve.  Yes, Bob S and MQA hold to a certain philosophy about min phase filtering (and its corollary, "ringing")  and the like, but that is all known art and they have simply packaged it in a proprietary black box and made strong marketing claims about "blur" and the like/

 

If there is something of substance (something "new") behind the curtain, they are waiting awful late to show it...we are in the later half of the game and MQA is losing.  Would not any team have pulled out the trick play by now??!?

 

@John Dyson, you appear to say that what your inside knowledge implies is that there is a benefit to the holy grail of "transients" and the waveform buried within MQA's folding algorithm - or am I reading this into what you said?

I didn't give any quality or processing evaluation about MQA other than 'interesting.'   Lots of DSP things in audio processing are 'interesting' to me.  The modulation distortion mitigation methods for fast gain control systems is *more* interesting to me, and should be interesting to people writing software that does fast dynamic gain control.   Hearing the severe effects of the hyper compression that recordings are being subjected to show that not many people writing fast gain control software might not even realize the benefits of techniques that are already on very old patents and probably usable.  I regret people focusing so much energy on an almost idle curiousity of mine vs. more important matters.

 

John

[John Dyson]

2 hours ago, rando said:

Well enough, I won't break your concentration on matters important to this campaign any further.  

 

@John Dyson I compliment the attitude you have displayed towards seeking out all that may be potentially of great interest.  Those who never look will never know when something that would have been encountered becomes exceedingly important.  Why you gained recognition and success where others languished is happily apparent.  

Thank you so much...  I feel bad about too much focus on a matter that is of a minor curiosity, when there are much more important things to work on.  Everytime that I hear a hyper compressed recording (at the point of being irritating), I try to figure out whether or not some improvement can be made to the smoothness/clarity of the sound.  Hyper compression is a terrible, ongoing problem that needs to be looked at.  If we must have material that is hyper compressed (or processed at all), I'd like to find ways that mitigate the damage.  Modulation distortion issues are where a big part of my thinking is focused.  Some of MQA techniques might be an idle curiosity, even though I don't like MQA for what it is/does.

 

Thanks again.

John

[Ralf11]

29 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Come to Russ N Daughters on the Right Coast. A schemer on an everything bagel with gravlax...pure heaven!

 

Thanks for the tip, but I haven't crossed the Rockies in the last couple of decades.

[crenca]

1 minute ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

 

As far as Atkinson et al never questioning marketing claims, it is ironic that Atkinson was very cautious and skeptical about DSD

in the pages of Stereophile when he first encountered, it and was very slow to warm up to is, once DSD DACs became common.

 

Atkinson has defended this difference (here in this thread and elsewhere) by saying that what he and others (Harley certainly falls into this thinking) found seductive was the "Authenticated" or "end to end" part, and how that would play into the overall business circumstances of the industry (i.e. piracy, "crown jewels") and Hi Res, the future (i.e. streaming, etc.), blah blah blah...

 

So unlike DSD, MQA offered a real solution to a real problem that all Audiophiles recognized and could get behind a solution there of...

 

Except we all know that the reality of MQA was/is quite different than the sales job.  

 

What is revealing I think is that the SQ argument of MQA is perhaps the pick of the litter of half-baked and fraudulent MQA claims basket, yet it is the one that Stereophile writers and the wider Audiophile "press" still put most of their energy behind.  We can understand why, as SQ is the bedrock of the hobby, and thus the bedrock of any (true or false) marketing effort.

 

Yet, even when the SQ claims have been debunked, it's still full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes.  Just shows how entrenched the Old Guard, anti-consumer, to hell with the truth what's "good for the industry is good for everyone" thinking/habits are...

[John Dyson]

54 minutes ago, crenca said:

@John Dyson,

 

I am sort of with @mansr, as I am not sure what you find "interesting" about your inside knowledge and how it fits into the overall MQA story.  Let's say there is (as your informant implies) a genuine "new thing" in the math/technique behind MQA's proprietary folding process.  What's its value?  Is it just another way to skin a cat - a relatively minor algorithm in an ocean of more or less equal and effective algorithms, or is it something that would really bring real benefit to even a small number of end users?  Is it like so many "new things" in the software world (i.e. the legal/market world) so hopelessly buried beneath the $hopes$ and $lawyers$ of a few and their business schemes that it will probably never bring any benefit to anyone?  Your perspective on the GPL is cogent because the GPL is doing what it is supposed to be doing by modifying your behaviour such as it is:  it is limiting you and your outsized ambitions for small (algorithmic) discoveries.  The problem with inventors is not that they invent, but that they (and their investors) almost always overrate the real value of their inventions.  Of course, the patent process, particularly as applied to digital, is a mess and so blunt instruments such as the GPL are a kind of necessary corrective evil, at least from a certain point of view...

 

@John_Atkinson,

 

Interested if you were aware of what @Hugo9000refers to above and the how of your seeming certainty such DSP was not applied to your own recordings...

 

I don't own the MQA technology at the level that I can share it (the details or any subset.)  Some day, whatever technology there is supporting MQA will likely be public knowledge.  People who are actually in the field, and understand that something interesting might be happening, then that is the situation where one might want to approach the owners of MQA for further information.  If the interest is 'idle curiosity', like it is for me, then people with that level of interest can wait or do the additional research.

 

Sometimes, there are trade secrets, and sometimes there is intellectual property that is made more available than being a 'secret'.  My own intellectual property is somewhere in-between, and I do have my own reasons for not exposing the details YET.   I appreciate it when people don't openly expose the techniques that I have worked LITERALLY for a couple years to develop.  I'd like the opportunity to present the work in a paper and gain a small acknowledgement of some kind -- I earned it.  Similarly, if I know something that someone else worked hard to develop, and I have been asked not to divulge, then I will not do so.  The owners of the intellectual property should be able to utilize it how they want to -- they might have worked very hard to develop it.  I would NOT  be saving any lives by losing my honor by breaking a promise to divulge something that I simply shouldn't.  The only way that I'd be tempted to break a promise would be to save a life, divulge a serious fraud, etc.  I know of no situation like that associated with these matters.

 

It is often NOT cheap/inexpensive to create new techniques or apply older techniques in novel ways.  It is good to know that there might be *something* going on.  The person who might be interested can perhaps contact those who own the intellectual property and make arrangements with them.  (phrase removed that might be interpreted as rude, yet it wasn't intended -- best to ignore the statement that I removed)

 

John

[mansr]

44 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Didn't Archie come to that conclusion too, and provide repeatable measurements to prove it?

A man called Fourier discovered it 200 years ago. I'm surprised Bob Stuart hasn't heard of it yet.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

12 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Atkinson has defended this difference (here in this thread and elsewhere) by saying that what he and others (Harley certainly falls into this thinking) found seductive was the "Authenticated" or "end to end" part, and how that would play into the overall business circumstances of the industry (i.e. piracy, "crown jewels") and Hi Res, the future (i.e. streaming, etc.), blah blah blah...

 

So unlike DSD, MQA offered a real solution to a real problem that all Audiophiles recognized and could get behind a solution there of...

 

Except we all know that the reality of MQA was/is quite different than the sales job.  

 

What is revealing I think is that the SQ argument of MQA is perhaps the pick of the litter of half-baked and fraudulent MQA claims basket, yet it is the one that Stereophile writers and the wider Audiophile "press" still put most of their energy behind.  We can understand why, as SQ is the bedrock of the hobby, and thus the bedrock of any (true or false) marketing effort.

 

Yet, even when the SQ claims have been debunked, it's still full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes.  Just shows how entrenched the Old Guard, anti-consumer, to hell with the truth what's "good for the industry is good for everyone" thinking/habits are...

..also amusing to note how the wanna bees and sycophants like Darko, Stephen Stone, Andy Schaub, Lasagna, et al jumped right on the train like good little puppies.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

20 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

Thanks for the tip, but I haven't crossed the Rockies in the last couple of decades.

You don't know what you are missing boobie...

 

As for yours "authenticated" lol....

 

 

 

[kumakuma]

9 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

You don't know what you are missing boobie...

 

As for yours "authenticated" lol....

 

 

 

 

<drool>

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

1 minute ago, kumakuma said:

 

<drool>

For the record I order without onions....fresh breath is a priority...😍

[Kal Rubinson]

10 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

For the record I order without onions....fresh breath is a priority...😍

Fish breath is OK?  I go with all of it.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

5 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Fish breath is OK?  I go with all of it.

 

[daverich4]

1 hour ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

..also amusing to note how the wanna bees and sycophants like Darko, Stephen Stone, Andy Schaub, Lasagna, et al jumped right on the train like good little puppies.

 

Are we still doing Lasagna instead of Lavorgna? That’s just as clever and witty as it was two years ago. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

A couple personal attacks have been removed. 

 

Enough of the BS, please get back on the topic of BS 😁

[esldude]

1 hour ago, John Dyson said:

 

I don't own the MQA technology at the level that I can share it (the details or any subset.)  Some day, whatever technology there is supporting MQA will likely be public knowledge.  People who are actually in the field, and understand that something interesting might be happening, then that is the situation where one might want to approach the owners of MQA for further information.  If the interest is 'idle curiosity', like it is for me, then people with that level of interest can wait or do the additional research.

 

Sometimes, there are trade secrets, and sometimes there is intellectual property that is made more available than being a 'secret'.  My own intellectual property is somewhere in-between, and I do have my own reasons for not exposing the details YET.   I appreciate it when people don't openly expose the techniques that I have worked LITERALLY for a couple years to develop.  I'd like the opportunity to present the work in a paper and gain a small acknowledgement of some kind -- I earned it.  Similarly, if I know something that someone else worked hard to develop, and I have been asked not to divulge, then I will not do so.  The owners of the intellectual property should be able to utilize it how they want to -- they might have worked very hard to develop it.  I would NOT  be saving any lives by losing my honor by breaking a promise to divulge something that I simply shouldn't.  The only way that I'd be tempted to break a promise would be to save a life, divulge a serious fraud, etc.  I know of no situation like that associated with these matters.

 

It is often NOT cheap/inexpensive to create new techniques or apply older techniques in novel ways.  It is good to know that there might be *something* going on.  The person who might be interested can perhaps contact those who own the intellectual property and make arrangements with them.  (phrase removed that might be interpreted as rude, yet it wasn't intended -- best to ignore the statement that I removed)

 

John

Sparse sampling, subtractive jitter.  Hinted at at least. 

 

Of course none of this explains why with this wonderful new format the first public demonstrations were against MP3.  You have a hard time squaring that with simply protecting hidden IP.  More like hiding that there is no worthwhile IP involved. 

[crenca]

28 minutes ago, esldude said:

Sparse sampling, subtractive jitter.  Hinted at at least. 

 

Of course none of this explains why with this wonderful new format the first public demonstrations were against MP3.  You have a hard time squaring that with simply protecting hidden IP.  More like hiding that there is no worthwhile IP involved. 

 

I don't know, as a super MP3 it seems like its natural competitor is the various lossy compressed algorithms. 

 

The idea that it is somehow a substitute for even 16/44, let alone the high-res "master", is a marketing bridge too far even without all the IP/innovation lock in, DRM, cost, etc.

[lucretius]

7 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

Well, that is one interesting point of view. 

 

However, consider whom the music labels, hardware manufacturers, and streaming services derive their revenue from. Who are there customers? 

 

In particular, what specific segment of their customers are interested at all in MQA?  I consider your thinking flawed there, in assuming that the labels or any HW manufacturers will pay MQA money for something their highly profitable customer base objects to for a reason that simply cannot be countered. 

 

Consider why why we have high res downloads today. Because the potential customers believe it sounds better and are willing to pay for that better sound. That despite all the raving hostility and utter proof that nothing can sound better than CD quality. We have DSD for the same reason. 

 

Neither the potential MQA customers, nor their customers care much at all about the arguments surrounding the technology. The biggest technical argument for MQA was that it reduced file sizes, which is a non issue and non concern today for multiple reasons. The labels are not going to spend money for a format that nobody buys because it does not sound better. 

 

If MQA were to sound much much better than today’s Redbook music, then all the ethical opposition in the world could not stop its success. On the other hand, if it does not sound better, nothing can save it from becoming dusty audiophile history. (Shrug)  

 

 

I am trying to follow you here but I am having some difficulty.

 

"However, consider whom the music labels, hardware manufacturers, and streaming services derive their revenue from. Who are there customers?"

 

Boutique hardware manufactures/sellers may primarily benefit from audiophiles (that is the larger group for which those interested in computer/digital audio are but a subset); otherwise, the revenue for the music labels, hardware manufacturers, and streaming services comes largely from non-audiophiles.

 

Most, if not all of these non-audiophiles have never heard about MQA. They have no opinion on MQA. No hardware manufacturer is paying MQA Ltd. for the reason that these specific customers want it -- these customers couldn't care less.  The few hardware manufacturers that are paying MQA Ltd. are obviously doing so for other reasons. What could these reasons be?

 

1. They are boutique hardware manufacturers catering to audiophiles (the larger group); and/or

2. They want to ensure that their equipment can accept the "best" streams coming from streaming services; and/or

3. The want to add the bullet point to their marketing literature as well as 'future proof" their product. After all, look what the audiophile press has been saying -- these manufactures are afraid of being left behind. However, as it is becoming more evident that MQA is dying, these manufacturers are a lot less enthusiastic about supporting MQA.

 

Further, the revenue from high res downloads is a pittance. And yes we have DSD but the files are not coming from the major labels. So what does hires and/or DSD got to do with the revenue stream of "music labels, hardware manufacturers, and streaming services"? (Actually, I cannot see music being distributed in DSD format in the long run, except by some obscure, indie label.)

 

"The labels are not going to spend money for a format that nobody buys because it does not sound better".

 

As I said before, the customers noted above (who are providing almost all of the revenue stream) have no opinion on MQA and couldn't care less. So, if these customers are inadvertently forced to subsrcribe to a MQA streaming service (or do without any streaming service), the only thing they will care about is the price and selection. They would also likely be just as happy with MP3s. Similarly for CDs (although I cannot see the production of music CDs continuing on in the long-term). That is, it's not a matter of whether these customers are willing to pay for MQA -- it's about what songs/albums they can get and at what price.

 

It must be obvious that the impetus for the major labels to provide MQA music to streaming services and to consumers has nothing to do with "better" sound. So why do they bother? (That is rhetorical!)

[firedog]

9 hours ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

https://www.hifinews.com/content/opinion-more-questions-answered

 

 

Graph 2 (above), however, illustrates what MQA calls the ‘upward rendering’ of aliasing products with twice-folded files, trading increased frequency distortion for reduced time distortion. The red trace shows a 192kHz LPCM rendering of Laura Metcalf's First Day while, in blue, a partial ‘image’ of her piano-playing is reflected above 48kHz from the MQA encode/decode.
 

Of course, that hump is more than 100db down at frequecies above 50k , so you could reasonably make the argument that it is inaudible.

[firedog]

7 hours ago, Paul R said:

Niche market all, but then so is all high end audio.

Sorry Paul. You admit it is a niche market, but insist on repeating that somehow that same niche market is significant.

It isn't. Compare Spotify, Apple Music, and Google Music to Qobuz and Tidal. The hi-res steaming services barely make it onto a pie chart of market share. 
Niche markets can be economically viable for smaller players, but that doesn't mean they have any real significance or influence. I think you are way too far inside the audiophile bubble to see market reality.  Do you not think Spotify and Apple know the market? It's pretty significant they show no inclination to go hi -res. They've seen that it has done virtually nothing for Tidal (even "giving away" MQA hasn't pumped up their subscription numbers) and that Qobuz remains a small player primarily directed at audiophile classical and jazz listeners- a tiny niche market. 

And I don't agree the loudness war created the market for hi-res. Lots of hi res is also volume crushed. 

 

Classical labels sell hires b/c that's their market - just like they are the only market outside of Japan still producing SACD.  For other kinds of music - almost no SACD being made. It proves nothing about the overall long term viability or importance of SACD.

The bigger labels put out a small amount of stuff in hi-res because it costs them very little and they make a profit. Do you actually think  1000- 5000 hi res downloads of some product makes an impression on them vs. other markets? Because that's the size of successful hi res product. It's pocket change. 

 

In short "better product" often has little relationship to success. The hi-res market is simply the exception that proves the rule - the opposite of what you claim, in fact. 

[firedog]

6 hours ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

For the record I order without onions....fresh breath is a priority...😍

Fresh breath after eating lox? I think not.