MQA is Vaporware

[botrytis]

23 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Yes, a magazine like Stereophile reviews a lot of products that its typical reader will not be able to afford. See my essay at

https://www.stereophile.com/content/conspicuous-consumption

in which I both offer an answer to the question "Why does a magazine read by regular middle-class people devote space to products that might as well be made from unobtainium?" and examine why the high-end audio industry is undergoing an upward price spiral.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

 

 

There is nothing wrong with that. All one needs do is look at car magazines. They review and look at all price levels (very balanced, BTW). If you look at Stereophile, there are more high end reviews than there are more affordable products. Is it because, the writers want to do it? The manufactures? Or a combination? While it is great to see the reviews, it is better to see and hear in person, hence why AXPONA is nice. 

 

[Doug Schneider]

I'm not going to wade into why these publications acted the way they did when MQA first came out -- and remained on that train even though some of the best experts in digital (Robert Watts, John Siau, among others) were waving red flags left, right, and center. Instead, I want to bring up something I believe is critical that is potentially very destructive regarding MQA and most people are not talking about -- the implementation of the MQA filter as the sole playback filter for all files.

 

Many designers I've talked to (and I've talked to many) have said that ideally, MQA wants their filter used for all playback. If I'm not mistaken, a number of DAC makers did just that -- used the MQA filter for all PCM routed through. The problem is, while the MQA filter might be fine for MQA playback, from what I've learned, it's not the best filter for standard PCM -- it's a very "leaky" filter, among other issues. That said, IMO, those suppliers that implemented the MQA filter for all playback may have severely compromised their DACs doing so. I know I would never buy a DAC that has only the MQA filter.

 

Thankfully, though, not all companies did that. The Hegel H390 that I have here supports MQA, but it has dual paths through the filters for MQA and non-MQA material, as have others. But it's something I believe that potential buyers should look into. This, to me, is crucial -- but why didn't the magazines that championed MQA report on that? One can only guess...

 

Doug Schneider
SoundStage!

 

 

[botrytis]

5 minutes ago, Doug Schneider said:

I'm not going to wade into why these publications acted the way they did when MQA first came out -- and remained on that train even though some of the best experts in digital (Robert Watts, John Siau, among others) were waving red flags left, right, and center. Instead, I want to bring up something I believe is critical that is potentially very destructive regarding MQA and most people are not talking about -- the implementation of the MQA filter as the sole playback filter for all files.

 

Many designers I've talked to (and I've talked to many) have said that ideally, MQA wants their filter used for all playback. If I'm not mistaken, a number of DAC makers did just that -- used the MQA filter for all PCM routed through. The problem is, while the MQA filter might be fine for MQA playback, from what I've learned, it's not the best filter for standard PCM -- it's a very "leaky" filter, among other issues. That said, IMO, those suppliers that implemented the MQA filter for all playback may have severely compromised their DACs doing so. I know I would never buy a DAC that has only the MQA filter.

 

Thankfully, though, not all companies did that. The Hegel H390 that I have here supports MQA, but it has dual paths through the filters for MQA and non-MQA material, as have others. But it's something I believe that potential buyers should look into. This, to me, is crucial -- but why didn't the magazines that championed MQA report on that? One can only guess...

 

Doug Schneider
SoundStage!

 

 

 

Doug,

 

Thanks for this. That is why I haven't updated my iFi Nano I use at work. I do not want to deal with that issue. I also have some DSD files and would not be able to play them.

[John_Atkinson]

9 minutes ago, botrytis said:

If you look at Stereophile, there are more high end reviews than there are more affordable products. Is it because, the writers want to do it? The manufactures? Or a combination?

 

As explained in the essay of mine that I linked to, it is what readers, who vote with the wallets, want.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

[botrytis]

2 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

As explained in the essay of mine that I linked to, it is what readers, who vote with the wallets, want.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

 

I do vote with my wallet. All the time.

[NOMBEDES]

In re Stereo magazines, the 1%, aspiration and such like.

 

A car magazine will sell more copies with a nice sports car on the cover.

A stereo (audio) publication will sell more copies with an expensive product on the cover.

 

Boys (and it is a male domain) just like to look at the nice stuff.   A Porsche will get you to the local Safeway, so will a Volkswagen.

Most of us will also agree that the value of a Best Buy bog standard integrated amplifier will play music well within Audiophile standards.  The diminishing returns from a five-figure amplifier,  in comparison, are well documented.  

 

I think aspiration, to a certain extent,  drives progress.  I know I will never have a Porsche, but I love to look.

 

[WAM]

15 minutes ago, Doug Schneider said:

Instead, I want to bring up something I believe is critical that is potentially very destructive regarding MQA and most people are not talking about -- the implementation of the MQA filter as the sole playback filter for all files.

 

And this is the very reason I do not buy MQA-capable dac's. Just do not want to take the risk (I am not smart enough to understand the technicalities, so better safe than sorry...)..

[botrytis]

31 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

As explained in the essay of mine that I linked to, it is what readers, who vote with the wallets, want.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

 

 

I want to say, I appreciate your testing of equipment. Why isn't that done with everything in audio? I am just wondering.....

[Kal Rubinson]

53 minutes ago, Doug Schneider said:

But it's something I believe that potential buyers should look into. This, to me, is crucial -- but why didn't the magazines that championed MQA report on that? One can only guess..

I did report on this particular issue and, generally, agree with your comments about it.

[KeenObserver]

"The music consumer strutting around with their high end DAC's and stereo gear.  They were just asking for MQA."

 

"You can't tell me that the music consumer didn't enjoy MQA.'

[firedog]

1 hour ago, Doug Schneider said:

I'm not going to wade into why these publications acted the way they did when MQA first came out -- and remained on that train even though some of the best experts in digital (Robert Watts, John Siau, among others) were waving red flags left, right, and center. Instead, I want to bring up something I believe is critical that is potentially very destructive regarding MQA and most people are not talking about -- the implementation of the MQA filter as the sole playback filter for all files.

 

Many designers I've talked to (and I've talked to many) have said that ideally, MQA wants their filter used for all playback. If I'm not mistaken, a number of DAC makers did just that -- used the MQA filter for all PCM routed through. The problem is, while the MQA filter might be fine for MQA playback, from what I've learned, it's not the best filter for standard PCM -- it's a very "leaky" filter, among other issues. That said, IMO, those suppliers that implemented the MQA filter for all playback may have severely compromised their DACs doing so. I know I would never buy a DAC that has only the MQA filter.

 

Thankfully, though, not all companies did that. The Hegel H390 that I have here supports MQA, but it has dual paths through the filters for MQA and non-MQA material, as have others. But it's something I believe that potential buyers should look into. This, to me, is crucial -- but why didn't the magazines that championed MQA report on that? One can only guess...

 

Doug Schneider
SoundStage!

 

 

Yes, this is important and has been brought up here often. There are also DACs like the Myteks, that switch to MQA filters for MQA, and then don’t switch back to other filters unless there is manual intervention. This isn’t made clear enough to users. It seems that most MQA DACs either implement only the MQA filters, or can’t automatically switch into and out of the MQA filters as needed. 

And then of course, people compare MQA to standard PCM and prefer MQA, without realizing that they are using filters optimized for MQA while listening to both. 

dCS avoided this filter issue when implementing MQA, and iFi did it in the Pro iDSD. But both companies said it required lots of programming man hours and was difficult to implement.

 

It’s just another way most of the audio press has failed in reporting on MQA, as this issue is rarely mentioned. 

[Doug Schneider]

13 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

I did report on this particular issue and, generally, agree with your comments about it.

Good! More have to be informed.

The irony of this is that I believe that those audiophiles who rushed to buy DACs with MQA filters in them (just like those who rushed to buy DSD-capable DACs even if they didn't have any DSD files) might try to quickly unload them once they find out it might not be as good as it could've been if the MQA filter is all there is (which is why I give Hegel credit for sticking to their guns and implementing MQA their way).

Doug
SoundStage!

[mansr]

1 minute ago, firedog said:

Yes, this is important and has been brought up here often. There are also DACs like the Myteks, that switch to MQA filters for MQA, and the don’t switch back to other filters unless there is manual intervention. It seems that most MQA DACs either implement only the MQA filters, or can’t automatically switch into and out of the MQA filters as needed. 

And then of course, people compare MQA to standard PCM and prefer MQA, without realizing that they are using filters optimized for MQA while listening to both. 

dCS avoided this filter issue when implementing MQA, and iFi did it in the Pro iDSD. But both companies said it required lots of programming man hours and was difficult to implement.

iFi initially did the right thing (if a bit sloppily), using MQA processing only for MQA files. Then they switched all PCM to the so-called GTO filter, insisting it had nothing to do with MQA despite being identical to one of the MQA filters.

[Thuaveta]

3 minutes ago, Doug Schneider said:

I give Hegel kudos for sticking to their guns and implementing MQA their way

 

If you're in the process of reviewing the Hegel, and it does the same type of back/forth switching as the iFis and the dCS', would you mind considering asking them a rough estimate of how many man-hours went into getting that to work ?

 

(and yeah, it's totally to quiet the "but... but... but... MQA is FREE to the consumer !!!" type arguments some of the shills like to try)

[Doug Schneider]

1 minute ago, Thuaveta said:

 

If you're in the process of reviewing the Hegel, and it does the same type of back/forth switching as the iFis and the dCS', would you mind considering asking them a rough estimate of how many man-hours went into getting that to work ?

 

(and yeah, it's totally to quiet the "but... but... but... MQA is FREE to the consumer !!!" type arguments some of the shills like to try)

 
Sure.

Doug

[firedog]

4 minutes ago, mansr said:

iFi initially did the right thing (if a bit sloppily), using MQA processing only for MQA files. Then they switched all PCM to the so-called GTO filter, insisting it had nothing to do with MQA despite being identical to one of the MQA filters.

The iFi site claims the Micro iDSD BL offers switchable PCM filters. Are they all GTO types? That’s not the impression they give. 

[mansr]

3 minutes ago, firedog said:

The iFi site claims the Micro iDSD BL offers switchable PCM filters. Are they all GTO types? That’s not the impression they give. 

They removed the switchable filters completely. The switch does nothing.

[esldude]

ARQuint's proposal is nothing more than another attempt to control the narrative.  I've read several of these question and answer articles including one here on CA.  Bob never directly addresses the hard questions.  MQA principals had the chance to use such a format to inform, and each time they've instead used it to avoid, deflect and keep the inner workings shrouded in mystery to the best of their ability.  

[Rt66indierock]

45 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

 

I want to say, I appreciate your testing of equipment. Why isn't that done with everything in audio? I am just wondering.....

 

The testing equipment I have access to is very expensive. A QuantAsylum QA401 is $450. I'm giving reviewers until next year to get one or I'm viewing them as third class citizens in the audio world. Anyone thinking about spending more than $30k should probably get one too.

[John_Atkinson]

1 hour ago, Doug Schneider said:

If I'm not mistaken, a number of DAC makers did just that -- used the MQA filter for all PCM routed through . . .  why didn't the magazines that championed MQA report on that?

 

Stereophile has done with every DAC that did that, Doug. See, for example, my technical analysis of the Bel Canto Black at

https://www.stereophile.com/content/bel-canto-design-black-aci-600-integrated-amplifier-measurements

where I wrote "The ACI 600's reconstruction filter appears to be identical to the standard MQA filter in both the time and frequency domains, and Bel Canto's John Stronczer confirmed via e-mail that they use this filter not only with MQA but with all PCM data, because he feels it sounds best for all sources."

 

Kal Rubinson reports above that he did do so, talking about the Mytek Brooklyn DAC. That is different from the Bel Canto because it does have several filters dedicated to linear PCM data as well as the MQA.filters. If you don't disable the Brooklyn's MQA decoder, you can't select the appropriate PCM filters. Again this was examined in our review, where I wrote "to select any other, possibly more suitable filter, MQA playback must be disabled." I also noted this problemh with Stereophile's review of the Aurender A10 server and other MQA-capable products.

 

I certainly don't expect you to be familiar with everything we have written, Doug. However, I also don't think you should make blanket statements about what has and what hasn't been published in magazines like Stereophile without doing so.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

[KeenObserver]

I took the simple approach.  I bought a Benchmark that is not infected by MQA.

[crenca]

9 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Stereophile has done with every DAC that did that, Doug. See, for example, my technical analysis of the Bel Canto Black at

https://www.stereophile.com/content/bel-canto-design-black-aci-600-integrated-amplifier-measurements

where I wrote "The ACI 600's reconstruction filter appears to be identical to the standard MQA filter in both the time and frequency domains, and Bel Canto's John Stronczer confirmed via e-mail that they use this filter not only with MQA but with all PCM data, because he feels it sounds best for all sources."

 

Kal Rubinson reports above that he did do so, talking about the Mytek Brooklyn DAC. That is different from the Bel Canto because it does have several filters dedicated to linear PCM data as well as the MQA.filters. If you don't disable the Brooklyn's MQA decoder, you can't select the appropriate PCM filters. Again this was examined in our review, where I wrote "to select any other, possibly more suitable filter, MQA playback must be disabled." I also noted this problemh with Stereophile's review of the Aurender A10 server and other MQA-capable products.

 

I certainly don't expect you to be familiar with everything we have written, Doug. However, I also don't think you should make blanket statements about what has and what hasn't been published in magazines like Stereophile without doing so.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

 

 

Hey look, the Old Guard is wagging its moralistic finger again!  After several years of of breathless promotion of MQA, coupled with a real digital technical incompetence, JA wants to point out where they got the facts right...sort of, because what was a reader to make of these qualifications in the context of Stereophiles otherwise "MQA is a birth of a new world" reporting?

 

Oh well, some will claim progress...

[esldude]

4 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

I took the simple approach.  I bought a Benchmark that is not infected by MQA.

If only Bob Stuart took the open accessible approach that John Siau does.  Each time I read something from John Siau I am informed.  Each time I read something from Bob Stuart on MQA I feel like I've just visited a new car dealership listening to a salesman selling me something. 

[KeenObserver]

Seems like the discussion continues to go in a circle. Tested and proven issues with MQA are responded to with obfuscation and misdirection.

When talk turns to the value ( cost, actually) of MQA to the music consumer, MQA promoters point out Bigfoot.

It is tiresome responding to the same BS over and over again.  But that is probably the point.

[Doug Schneider]

26 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Stereophile has done with every DAC that did that, Doug. See, for example, my technical analysis...

 

Come on, John. We've been around the block more than a few times on these topics -- well, maybe not this one, so let me have a go.

 

You casually mention it in the technical measurements, by your own admission here. But have you actually put something in bold like you did with "MQA's Sound Convinces Hardened Showgoers" or the umpteen other articles that trumpeted this brave new digital world?

 

I think in service of the readers, an article about this titled something like "Warning to DAC Purchasers - Watch Out for How MQA Is Implement In Your DAC" might've brought the subject more to the forefront. Then explore it instead of grand-standing with those VERY flawed listening tests that got the front-page news.

 

And in case you think that's not necessarily your job to (I would think the Technical Editor would willfully explore these subjects in great detail), your boss, Paul Miller, did a good job of bringing to light the aliasing artifacts that can arise from the MQA process -- and even allowed me to reprint it with permission in my article, which questioned those things, too.

 

https://www.soundstagehifi.com/index.php/opinion/1104-mismatched-masters-and-false-frequencies-is-mqa-better-worse-or-just-different

 

I think if servicing the readers is #1, the pros and cons should be equally distributed. That's how I see it, anyway.

 

Doug Schneider

SoundStage!