MQA is Vaporware

[Fitzcaraldo215]

15 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Well, if you really think that I gotta ask - where have you been these last few decades or so?  The term lossless and its meaning have been central (in every way important) to just about everything in the digital audio world on every important level - from the invention of the CD on to lossless codecs.  Not just on the SQ side either, but on how music is played, stored, and perceived.  Even on the legal/cultural side ("piracy", streaming, etc.) and the perceived "value" of music the meaning/concept has been critical.

 

No, it is not about meaningless/pedantic "semantics".  Also, MQA is different than your "lossless" DSP tools/process because it is source software and (putting aside legal issues and the place of formats) thus rather it is "lossless" or "lossy" has different implications...

I would ask where have you been?  As I said, MQA cannot be both a sonic improvement scheme and a "lossless" transmission scheme.  I think it is clear what it claims to be, which is not merely the latter.  But, by all means, keep perpetuating the lynch mob claims.  The truth is out there somewhere.  

 

Maybe we'll all get to ithe truth some day when tempers cool.  But, that might be too late.   Bob Stuart may gave sucked the profits out of all audio commerce by then via his malicious, monopolistic scheme.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

10 minutes ago, mansr said:

Well, that's a first. Do you also understand quantum electrodynamics?

No. And, why should I care at all in any way.  Please, educate me.

[audiventory]

5 hours ago, botrytis said:

 

There is a huge difference between a  DSP that is calibrated for YOUR room and this debluring filter. One is specific and one is not. I don't even know that digital files need to be 'deblured'. Where is the data to show this is a big deal?

 

Using "lazy" (deblurring?) filter is good idea for ringing reducing.

 

As example, for some implementations of resampling filters aliases may be mirrored in higher frequency range of work band, where it must be traditionally/theoretically filtered.

 

This frequency range may be located out of audible range. So lesser ringing is achieved and aliases inaudible. Except case of intermodulations.

 

It is matter of reserve band out of audible range (sample rate). Here high resolution give us good abilities.

 

"Lazy" filter may be used in full record-playback workflow from ADC to DAC. There resampling applied in ADC. In DAC, as rule, used oversampling too. In my opinion, for "lazy" filter system better way is using higher sample rates and non-oversampling DAC.

 

 

[Fyper]

15 hours ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

When I route digital signal from my NAS to PC though a calibrated DSP room correction app to DAC, it achieves a major sonic improvement.  Yes, I want each leg of the transmission to be digitally lossless in the strictest sense, but the DSP process alters the content of the original file in a controlled, but proprietary way using a calibration and EQ tool I have chosen and purchased.  The proprietary inner details of that tool are not fully disclosed, nor do I claim to fully understand them.  But, white papers and commentaries are available suggesting there is much thought and valid theory applied to the process.

 

However, the overall process from the original file to DAC is not lossless. Meanwhile, there is no question that it sounds better to my ears based on careful listening.  Hence, proprietary details, losslessness, etc. are really irrelevant in my listening evaluation of the DSP EQ tool.  Personally, I take the same stance with regard to MQA.

Yes you can apply any DSP to your files and it's not lossless anymore, and yes, it is done for improvement purposes.

But if you change your mind or want to apply another DSP anytime: you still have the lossless original file.

Can you do that with MQA?

By the way, what if MQA improve their "magic", will there be a MQA2 format? And we'll have to buy again the files and the hardware?

[Fitzcaraldo215]

15 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Perhaps slightly over the top (though if he *did* understand QED or QCD or whatever you like to call it, that would be a hoot  ).

 

 I feel reasonably comfortable concluding from all sources of information I've currently seen, that "deblurring" is MQA's snappy term for removing ringing (and any "time smear" that may or may not go with it).

I think that is probably quite accurate.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

8 hours ago, Fyper said:

Yes you can apply any DSP to your files and it's not lossless anymore, and yes, it is done for improvement purposes.

But if you change your mind or want to apply another DSP anytime: you still have the lossless original file.

Can you do that with MQA?

By the way, what if MQA improve their "magic", will there be a MQA2 format? And we'll have to buy again the files and the hardware?

You are, of course, correct.  Only studios would have the raw original file, much as happens now if they record their CD releases at higher than RBCD resolution even without MQA.  They might re-release at higher resolutions or "higher quality" mastering later, as they often do, over and over with every new wrinkle.

 

My comparison as an example to user applied DSP is not exactly analogous to MQA, and it might be misleading to take the analogy too far.  As we know, DSP room EQ is normally only applied on the fly and does not replace source files.  

 

As an aside, one of my biggest concerns is interoperability of MQA with DSP room EQ. That is not looking good, unless I were to replace my EQ package(Dirac Live) with someting new that is MQA compatible.  It is to early to know for sure, but If it came to it, I doubt I would eliminate or replace my DSP room EQ for the sake of MQA.

 

Aside from that, if I were sold on the merits of MQA, which I am not by the way, I would not have a reason to want the non-MQA original or to be able to "undo" the MQA encoding in a file.  I assume the studio would archivally keep the raw original file.  The studio owns the rights to that file, and they may release or re-release it as they wish in whatever format. 

 

MQA2.  Hmmm, sounds like a real moneymaker to me, since it has been so smooth and easy to get MQA1 off the ground.

 

 

[Rt66indierock]

The MQA Vaporware Trails April Update

 

As of April 26, 2017 there are 2,770 albums on Tidal. The pace of new MQA versions on Tidal is slowing as the number reaches January press numbers of 30,000 tracks or 3,000 albums from Warner Music Group.

Xuanqian Wang of AURALiC  basically said no to MQA and his comments about his DSP software seem to imply that part of the difference audio journalists report hearing with MQA may be  digital sound processing in a conventional sense. It would square the not necessarily better but different comments.

 

Vinnie Rossi decided not to implement MQA in an upcoming DAC module.

 

 AudioQuest will eventually release desktop software for the DragonFly to decode MQA but when is anybody’s  guess.

 

I’m not seeing movement to introduce new DACs with MQA at this time nor would I expect to. Too many things are causing manufacturers to pause. One is the Dolby audio patents expiring allowing royalty free use of their sound processing and compression. Two filtering is getting additional attention since there more opportunities to improve the sound of their DACs this way than many realized. Three with little music available in the United States MQA is not a must have feature.

 

Summing up what I found most interesting this month was the comparison of MQA to DSP. People are increasingly seeing DSP as part of the MQA process. It’s as if the MQA conversion process creates a slightly different sound when a recording is processed instead of using DSP as a logical way to solve room and speaker interaction with the room issues.

 

Finally I must thank Kal Rubinson of Stereophile. He is apparently the driving force behind multichannel MQA. Imagine Joe Six Pack springing for three DACs to make this work. And for this quote from Music in the Round #84 talking about the improvement MQA made to multi-channel recordings (and some stereo) “However, the differences weren't blatant; I couldn't hear them without paying close attention. A visiting colleague said similar things, and although we agreed that MQA's improvements were of the same order that we experience from applying good speaker and room correction, we also agreed that they were a different sort of difference.”

[The Computer Audiophile]

I believe some MQA Announcements will be made at the Munich show in May.  

[Fitzcaraldo215]

1 hour ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

 

Summing up what I found most interesting this month was the comparison of MQA to DSP. People are increasingly seeing DSP as part of the MQA process. It’s as if the MQA conversion process creates a slightly different sound when a recording is processed instead of using DSP as a logical way to solve room and speaker interaction with the room issues.

 

Finally I must thank Kal Rubinson of Stereophile. He is apparently the driving force behind multichannel MQA. Imagine Joe Six Pack springing for three DACs to make this work. And for this quote from Music in the Round #84 talking about the improvement MQA made to multi-channel recordings (and some stereo) “However, the differences weren't blatant; I couldn't hear them without paying close attention. A visiting colleague said similar things, and although we agreed that MQA's improvements were of the same order that we experience from applying good speaker and room correction, we also agreed that they were a different sort of difference.”

I am not sure I follow your comments regarding MQA and DSP, especially not after reading Kal's comments.  The two clearly do different, non-overlapping things.  The only big, unsolved problem so far is their lack of inter-operability. Ideally, we could do both simultaneously.  So far, that has not happened.

 

I have now also heard MQA for myself, though in stereo, not Mch, via an Aurender A10.  The MQA and non-MQA versions were compared via Tidal. My views are very much in line with Kal's, and they were shared unanimously by two other listeners in the same session.  One, our host, is a reviewer who will publish his views in a month or so.  I think MQA offers a potential sonic improvement of worthwhile significance.  

[new_media]

7 minutes ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

I have now also heard MQA for myself, though in stereo, not Mch, via an Aurender A10.  The MQA and non-MQA versions were compared via Tidal. My views are very much in line with Kal's, and they were shared unanimously by two other listeners in the same session.  One, our host, is a reviewer who will publish his views in a month or so.  I think MQA offers a potential sonic improvement of worthwhile significance.  

Some of the standard vs. MQA albums in TIDAL are from different masters, so you have to be careful that you are comparing apples to apples.

 

I have compared some of my own FLAC files to MQA through TIDAL, which I'm pretty sure are the same masters, both using an ME2 DAC, and frankly I don't hear much difference.

[Rt66indierock]

6 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I believe some MQA Announcements will be made at the Munich show in May.  

Chris,

On January 12, 2017 Robert Harley wrote about the many MQA DACs about to come to market. Three months later it wasn’t happened.  So in less than three weeks there will be some announcements. Well there were supposed to be announcements at T.H.E. Show last year in Irvine, RMAF 2016 and CES 2017 and nothing much happened. So when I write my May update please tell me how many MQA DACs I can have delivered to my office two days after I order one.

[Rt66indierock]

5 hours ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

I am not sure I follow your comments regarding MQA and DSP, especially not after reading Kal's comments.  The two clearly do different, non-overlapping things.  The only big, unsolved problem so far is their lack of inter-operability. Ideally, we could do both simultaneously.  So far, that has not happened.

 

I have now also heard MQA for myself, though in stereo, not Mch, via an Aurender A10.  The MQA and non-MQA versions were compared via Tidal. My views are very much in line with Kal's, and they were shared unanimously by two other listeners in the same session.  One, our host, is a reviewer who will publish his views in a month or so.  I think MQA offers a potential sonic improvement of worthwhile significance.  

 

Let me help you then. Xuanqian Wang of AURALiC  comments on John Darko’s site are consistent with other people’s findings that there is processing of the sound in the conversion of a file to MQA. Kal is saying he couldn’t hear differences in between MQA and non MQA files unless he listened closely. And that the magnitude of the difference when he listened closely was similar to difference between applying good speaker and room correction and not applying it. I don’t think I’m putting words in Kal’s  mouth to say that is a very small difference. Otherwise he would have said he could hear the difference listening casually.

 

So if you agree with Kal you can’t hear a difference listening casually. I must ask how MQA offers a potential sonic improvement of worthwhile significance.

[Sal1950]

13 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

So if you agree with Kal you can’t hear a difference listening casually. I must ask how MQA offers a potential sonic improvement of worthwhile significance.

Better or just different, who is to say and what evidence can be presented in support of claimed SQ?

And ultimately is it worth the sacrifice of access to the original lossless files, in favor of those have been modified by MQA in undisclosed ways.

[Sal1950]

On 4/5/2017 at 0:21 PM, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Aside from that, if I were sold on the merits of MQA, which I am not by the way, I would not have a reason to want the non-MQA original or to be able to "undo" the MQA encoding in a file.  I assume the studio would archivally keep the raw original file.  The studio owns the rights to that file, and they may release or re-release it as they wish in whatever format. 

Fitz, Am I understanding you correctly?  You don't care if access to all the original lossless files is withdrawn by the labels. Thus allowing MQA to slap its DRM like control over music delivery. 

I would find that a very discouraging position.  

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, Rt66indierock said:

Chris,

On January 12, 2017 Robert Harley wrote about the many MQA DACs about to come to market. Three months later it wasn’t happened.  So in less than three weeks there will be some announcements. Well there were supposed to be announcements at T.H.E. Show last year in Irvine, RMAF 2016 and CES 2017 and nothing much happened. So when I write my May update please tell me how many MQA DACs I can have delivered to my office two days after I order one.

 

 

Why don't you ask some manufacturers. 99% of them will tell you they are working on it. 

 

There was huge announcements at CES with respect to content. I expect Munich to be similar. Announcing an MQA DAC really isn't news. 

 

The hold up with hardware releases is the MQA certification. It takes quite a while. 

[mrvco]

39 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

Better or just different, who is to say and what evidence can be presented in support of claimed SQ?

And ultimately is it worth the sacrifice of access to the original lossless files, in favor of those have been modified by MQA in undisclosed ways.

 

If MQA means losing access to FLAC Hi-Res versions, then no.  I do not want HD Tracks, Pro Studio Masters, etc. to only be able to offer proprietary MQA versions.  I have yet to hear a difference between an MQA file and a FLAC file at like for like resolutions (Explorer 2).  My home network is more than capable of streaming at DxD and DSD256 bit-rates, so the bandwidth savings is totally irrelevant.

 

If a streaming service like Tidal leverages MQA to save a little on their storage and bandwidth costs to deliver higher-res streams, then i don't really have a problem with that as long as they don't degrade below Red Book quality when not using an MQA DAC.  Ideally competitors will be able to choose to offer non-MQA Hi-Res streams.  At the end of the day I prefer competition so the market can decide rather than have the studios sold a bill of goods and be coerced into only releasing Hi-Res files in a single proprietary format (Which I do believe is the end-game that MQA is ultimately pursuing).

[mrvco]

12 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

 

Why don't you ask some manufacturers. 99% of them will tell you they are working on it. 

 

There was huge announcements at CES with respect to content. I expect Munich to be similar. Announcing an MQA DAC really isn't news. 

 

The hold up with hardware releases is the MQA certification. It takes quite a while. 

 

That has to be a major concern, since that cert pipeline can and will inevitably be manipulated by the larger, better connected manufacturers.  Volume = $$$.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

12 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

Fitz, Am I understanding you correctly?  You don't care if access to all the original lossless files is withdrawn by the labels. Thus allowing MQA to slap its DRM like control over music delivery. 

I would find that a very discouraging position.  

Yes, I think you are misunderstanding. I see no actual evidence or even the possibility that MQA can so monopolize the global recording industry consisting of many separate, independent companies, its formats and distribution channels, such that that the "discouraging position" to which you refer has the remotest chance of occurring before our eyes as we sit powerlessly by.  It seems like a paranoid, trumped-up conspiracy theory to me.

 

The sky is not falling, studios are not withdrawing all lossless files, and massive DRM is not being imposed throughout the Galaxy. Has anyone actually said they are withdrawing all their non-MQA recordings from CD, BD, streaming or downloading?  

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

19 hours ago, new_media said:

Some of the standard vs. MQA albums in TIDAL are from different masters, so you have to be careful that you are comparing apples to apples.

 

I have compared some of my own FLAC files to MQA through TIDAL, which I'm pretty sure are the same masters, both using an ME2 DAC, and frankly I don't hear much difference.

Do we know this "different masters" thing for a fact on Tidal?  Do we know which ones? Is there a list somewhere?

 

It is possible there were different masters.  But, we listened to a number of selections in different genres from different labels.  Some recordings were fairly newly made, some were analog remasters, etc. 

 

The results, the "sonic signature" of the difference was similar between them all.  After the first few comparisons, where we learned what the difference sounded like, two of us could then spot it immediately blind, not double blind, with our host making the selections.  It is not true objective science, but it was close enough to convince us. So, I do not think the "different masters" theory was at work.

 

[Jud]

22 minutes ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Do we know this "different masters" thing for a fact on Tidal?  Do we know which ones? Is there a list somewhere?

 

It is possible there were different masters.  But, we listened to a number of selections in different genres from different labels.  Some recordings were fairly newly made, some were analog remasters, etc. 

 

The results, the "sonic signature" of the difference was similar between them all.  After the first few comparisons, where we learned what the difference sounded like, two of us could then spot it immediately blind, not double blind, with our host making the selections.  It is not true objective science, but it was close enough to convince us. So, I do not think the "different masters" theory was at work.

 

 

Hi Fitz - Granted it may not have affected your listening, I did hear plainly different masters between regular Tidal and MQA files: instruments in different locations.

[crenca]

1 hour ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Do we know this "different masters" thing for a fact on Tidal?  

 

 

Yes.  I have no idea of the percentage, etc. but some albums are most defiantly different masters and the difference in SQ between the 16/44 and the MQA is because of this to a very great degree (which ever one you prefer).  On the albums on which I am reasonably confident are not different masters (thus an apple to apple comparison), the SQ difference between MQA and 16/44 is (usually) very hard to detect and to my ears of no real value.  All this has been discussed to great length on other threads here...

[Fitzcaraldo215]

14 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Let me help you then. Xuanqian Wang of AURALiC  comments on John Darko’s site are consistent with other people’s findings that there is processing of the sound in the conversion of a file to MQA. Kal is saying he couldn’t hear differences in between MQA and non MQA files unless he listened closely. And that the magnitude of the difference when he listened closely was similar to difference between applying good speaker and room correction and not applying it. I don’t think I’m putting words in Kal’s  mouth to say that is a very small difference. Otherwise he would have said he could hear the difference listening casually.

 

So if you agree with Kal you can’t hear a difference listening casually. I must ask how MQA offers a potential sonic improvement of worthwhile significance.

You are completely distorting what Kal said in his review.  Elsewhere In the review, he says (unquoted by you), "...I am confident in saying that MQA, played through Mytek's Brooklyn DACS, made a real and consistent improvement."  It is no secret that Kal's approach is one of understatement, which I find refreshingly honest, personally.

 

He likened the improvement as similar in magnitude to, but quite different in sonic effect from what can be achieved by DSP Room EQ.  That is to say DSP EQ also, like MQA, is not a "blatant" improvement, but one must listen to it by paying close attention.  That is true for much of audio today - amps, DACS, hi vs. low rez, even speakers.  However, if you had been reading Kal's column for the last two decades,  as I have, you would understand that he considers DSP Room EQ an essential, very high priority in his system.  

 

That it is a substantal improvement is not inconsistent with the need to listen to it carefully.  It would take 30, 60 seconds or even more of careful comparative listening for me to determine if someone had switched my EQ off while I was out of the room.  Yet, like Kal, I consider DSP EQ to be a huge sonic performance breakthrough I would never part with.  That Kal considers MQA sonically of the same order of magnitude an improvement is high praise indeed, contrary to your interpretation of his review.

 

So, have you, yourself carefully listened to well set up DSP EQ vs. no EQ?  Have you yourself compared the MQA vs. non-MQA versions of the same recording? That might help you better understand.

 

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Deleted.

 

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Hi Fitz - Granted it may not have affected your listening, I did hear plainly different masters between regular Tidal and MQA files: instruments in different locations.

The biggest difference we heard was in spatiality, soundstage, depth, etc..  There were other differences that were less immediately obvious. But, spatial differences can indeed be subtle under any circumstances.  But, here, for example in Coltrane's Giant Steps, the arrangement of the group behind 'Trane's sax comes into much clearer focus as part of the group.  Without MQA his sax tends to more aggressively dominate everything and the group is more drowned out.

 

Similar effects were heard in all the other recordings.  Were they all finagled by remastering?  No.  2L and some of the classical labels we heard would not and do not have the time and resources to do that, I do not think.  

 

So, while the remastering thing is possible, I consider it unlikely in the absence of a smoking gun, more like totally unfounded.

 

I would add that what you describe, shifting spatial position,  would require access to the original multitrack master so as to be able to repan the multitrack down to a different final stereo master mix.  Neither Tidal nor MQA would have access to that multitrack master.  Only the recording studio would, unless for some strange reason they passed it on to those crafty, underhanded conspirators.  But, what incentive does the studio have to expend the resources itself or to give away their masters to do this?  It makes no sense to me.

 

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Were they all finagled by remastering?  No.  2L and some of the classical labels we heard would not and do not have the time and resources to do that, I do not think.  

At least one 2L album (2L-038) has been remastered for MQA.