MQA is Vaporware

[Currawong]

Is it me, or is that Stereophile article that comment quote was taken from, full of numerous contradictions? One moment it seems to be about preserving stuff just above the audioband, then it seems to go back and forth from what is preserved being lossless or lossy.

 

Quote

But I've recorded and analyzed—or tried to—dozens of MQA files, and have noticed few patterns. I've likely encountered most of MQA's 2000+ encapsulation algorithms [...]

 

Hundreds of dozens? 

[crenca]

"....I’m not saying they’re all crooked, I’m not saying they’re all criminals, but they’re all trying to do the same thing — they’re trying to sell you on a story, to get you to buy into their narrative...."

 

https://ideas.ted.com/dont-get-fooled-or-conned-again-here-are-the-5-tactics-to-look-out-for/?utm_source=pocket-newtab

 

 

 

[JoeWhip]

For what it is worth, other than a presentation by Mytek on Friday, I heard no mention of MQA at all at the Capital Audio Fest yesterday.

[Confused]

Not much of a mention at the UK's HiFi Show Live at Ascot last week.  it's almost like it's...…., now what's an appropriate word?  Vaporware maybe?

 

Some nice kit though, pictures per the links for those interested:

 

https://hifipig.com/uk-hifi-show-live-20...ow-report/

https://www.stereonet.co.uk/features/uk-...nd-gallery

[Confused]

Another thought re the above.  I read Hifi News and Record Review each month, being lucky enough to receive a subscription as a gift each year.  Recently there has been some reviews covering kit capable of MQA decoding.  Nothing unusual or interesting about that.  What is striking though is how MQA is covered.  In each article the fact that MQA capability is there as a feature is accurately reported.  But that is pretty much it, nothing about what MQA offers or it's influence on sound quality.  As a typical example from the dCS Bartok review:

 

"….the Bartok used via the dCS app offers instant access to streaming services such as Tidal and Spotify and plays a wide range of file formats including MQA".  

 

And that's it, no other mentions, just a matter of fact note that MQA as feature is there.  It s much the same with reviews for the dSC Rossini, Audioquest DragonFly Cobalt, and others.  

 

 

[Dr Tone]

Now more extensive provenance is the big thing coming from MQA according to Danny from Roon.

 

https://community.roonlabs.com/t/provenance-and-mqa/83875

[The Computer Audiophile]

23 minutes ago, Dr Tone said:

Now more extensive provenance is the big thing coming from MQA according to Danny from Roon.

 

https://community.roonlabs.com/t/provenance-and-mqa/83875

I’m very surprised to read @dannyroonlabs is on the MQA train with so much vigor. I’ve always known him to be an objective guy who makes decisions on data and facts. I hope he has some facts and data he can share about the provenance issue with our music. 

 

I still don’t think MQA is the way to solve any issue when one considers the pros and cons. But, that’s a different issue. 

[MikeyFresh]

34 minutes ago, Dr Tone said:

Now more extensive provenance is the big thing coming from MQA according to Danny from Roon.

 

https://community.roonlabs.com/t/provenance-and-mqa/83875

 

After all of the other outright lies and misrepresentations made by MQA (and parroted by the mainstream media), why would anyone be willing to take their word for it regarding claims of enhanced effort regarding provenance assurance that could then somehow be tied to their BS authentication claim?

 

So Roon's COO is recycling the old authentication story but with provenance added, shall we go all-in and suggest there has been white glove treatment en masse but the "pipeline limitations" at the labels have merely slowed the rollout? 

 

Or are we talking about that hamburger batch processor in the cloud churning out loads of garbage?

 

So now BS is the great protector of provenance, and along with the labels and actual demand by the artists, the poor unwashed masses will finally be saved.

 

I have a bridge for sale, it's in Brooklyn, and it generates toll revenue.

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

I will note this isn’t the first time MQA Ltd has used a term with a generally accepted different meaning to us, and used it with a twist. 
 

MQA’s use of the term provenance is quite different from audiophiles’ understanding. 
 

We’ve always known it to mean a 44.1 master is delivered as a 44.1 file etc... It’s meant to keep the labels honest. 
 

Now MQA is using it to give the labels an out. If they upsample a 44.1 master to 96kHz it will illuminate a blue “provenance” light. 
 

 

[MikeyFresh]

46 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I will note this isn’t the first time MQA Ltd has used a term with a generally accepted different meaning to us, and used it with a twist. 
 

MQA’s use of the term provenance is quite different from audiophiles’ understanding. 
 

We’ve always known it to mean a 44.1 master is delivered as a 44.1 file etc... It’s meant to keep the labels honest. 
 

Now MQA is using it to give the labels an out. If they upsample a 44.1 master to 96kHz it will illuminate a blue “provenance” light. 
 

 

 

The labels also have a shoddy track record with regard to older recordings on analog tape. There the provenance issue goes back somewhat further still, tape source questions that the labels intentionally dodged early on with their legal disclaimer printed on nearly every disc booklet/case back:

 

 

 

They made little or no attempt to authenticate anything from the get-go with digital, but now suddenly through the miracle of MQA, the labels will turn over a new leaf and work directly with the content producers to ensure proper end-to-end "authentication"?

 

Failing that, which record label staff will be choosing which existing digital transfers to feed the hamburger batch encoder?

[The Computer Audiophile]

10 minutes ago, MikeyFresh said:

 

 

 

 

 

Oh wow, I forgot about that disclaimer. It’s pretty rich. I feel like diving into all the possibilities of that disclaimer could consume an entire thread. 
 

So tape isn’t very good?

overstating the quality of early CD?

etc...

Nobody would be happy in the end 😀

[Allan F]

24 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Oh wow, I forgot about that disclaimer. It’s pretty rich. I feel like diving into all the possibilities of that disclaimer could consume an entire thread. 
 

So tape isn’t very good?

overstating the quality of early CD?

etc...

Nobody would be happy in the end 😀

 

And don't forget that a number of the early CD's sounded terrible because analog recordings were converted directly to digital from tapes created with RIAA equalization for vinyl. IOW, the lows were attenuated and the highs boosted on playback because the reverse equalization process that takes place on vinyl playback was not applied.

[John Dyson]

45 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

And don't forget that a number of the early CD's sounded terrible because analog recordings were converted directly to digital from tapes created with RIAA equalization for vinyl. IOW, the lows were attenuated and the highs boosted on playback because the reverse equalization process that takes place on vinyl playback was not applied.

Actually, the analog recordings were not DolbyA decoded before creating the digital master used to produce the CD.  That is, many (if not most) early CDs and even more recently are just equalized copies of a DolbyA master without proper DolbyA decoding.  That means that many/most pop CDs of earlier material have between 10-15dB of HF compression and 10dB of LF compression.  Usually, there isn't all that much active compression going on between 100Hz and 2-3kHz.

 

Summing it up - many CDs of material created till approx 1990 are a technical mess.

 

John

 

[Archimago]

Wow. We had a break from MQA discussions from November 3rd until today November 18th.

 

That's 2 weeks of peace :-)! Must be close to a record since this thread started.

 

LOL. Let's think about this provenance / authentication claim with a hypothetical example...

 

Say in 2020 there's an MQA release of Kind Of Blue, authenticated by "Jim Bob the Archiver of Jazz" working at Sony/Columbia as the truly "authentic", final "analogue" sound. Cool. "Jim Bob" used the best original tapes baked "just right", made the transfer with perfectly aligned reel-to-reel player, all the bells and whistles transferred to 24/384 digital. Top class, sound to die for, "white glove" and all of course.

 

Presumably, Sony will make some money stamping LPs. Probably a CD release. If we're lucky maybe a 24/96 download that's not "authenticated" to buy, and perhaps the same one distributed to Amazon and Qobuz for streaming. Sadly, "only" 24/96 and more "family jewels" than "crown jewels" quality 😀.

 

And Tidal gets 24/48 MQA, "authenticated" file for their streaming. (Yes, I know, MQA fans must be salivating over this prospect as the DAC will no doubt also say decoded/upsampled to "24/384".)

 

When Roon plays the Qobuz version, perhaps in the album title, it says "Kind of Blue, 61st Anniversary Edition" to indicate which album/master is used. When playing off the Tidal MQA, there's not only a blue light 😉, and not only does the album title say "Kind of Blue, 61st Anniversary", we now also have "Authenticated to be THE ONE TRUE ANALOG SOUND by Jim Bob of Sony/Columbia, January 25, 2020"!!! (I can see MQA fans fainting at the prospect of this awesome knowledge right about now!)

 

Is that valuable? If so, to whom other than MQA and said fans? Audiophiles? Completist digital audio collectors? (Of course, few places to download these MQA files.) Miles Davis is long dead so did his estate ask for this and would they even know what the artist intended? We already know from FredericV that the blue light doesn't ensure "bit perfect" even, so there is no assurance that Tidal didn't get a bad copy or perhaps error happened during streaming.

 

And finally, does anyone really care if "Jim Bob", Sony, or Columbia markets this version as the definitive "analog sound"? Surely there will be the even-more-authentic "66th Anniversary Edition" in 2025, right?!

 

What am I missing here? What's the fuss?

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, Allan F said:

 

And don't forget that a number of the early CD's sounded terrible because analog recordings were converted directly to digital from tapes created with RIAA equalization for vinyl. IOW, the lows were attenuated and the highs boosted on playback because the reverse equalization process that takes place on vinyl playback was not applied.

 

Hi Allan

 You are correct with that statement. This also happened with some CD pressings made by HMV at Homebush in Sydney.

 I was one of those who actually contacted HMV by mail to complain about this.

 In typical Record Company fashion though , they didn't even acknowledge receipt of these complaints .

Regards

Alex

[fas42]

3 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

And don't forget that a number of the early CD's sounded terrible because analog recordings were converted directly to digital from tapes created with RIAA equalization for vinyl. IOW, the lows were attenuated and the highs boosted on playback because the reverse equalization process that takes place on vinyl playback was not applied.

 

Are we really, really sure about that? ... On reading a few conversations elsewhere, what happens is that EQ is applied to the tape used for the mastering session, to suit the vinyl medium - but the RIAA curve is a completely different thing, and is only brought into play in the chain used in the actual cutting session; it never exists on a tape format.

[John Dyson]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

Are we really, really sure about that? ... On reading a few conversations elsewhere, what happens is that EQ is applied to the tape used for the mastering session, to suit the vinyl medium - but the RIAA curve is a completely different thing, and is only brought into play in the chain used in the actual cutting session; it never exists on a tape format.

Actually, I agree with you on this -- RIAA is part of the vinyl creation process.  There is no reason for RIAA to be involved with the 2trk master itself (as I have some and know what they are like.)   In fact, RIAA would mess up some aspects of a master tape.  There MIGHT be an interim tape that has RIAA on it, even though I don't know a good reason for it.

On the other hand, there might be some small amount of EQ on a master tape based on the assumption that the traget was historically vinyl, but even then -- the LF rolloff and the HF limiting only needs to reside in the vinyl master creation itself.

 

John

 

[Fokus]

1 hour ago, John Dyson said:

RIAA is part of the vinyl creation process.  There is no reason for RIAA to be involved with the 2trk master itself.

 

Indeed. I have the circuit diagrams of several Neumann cutting racks, and I can assure people that the inverse RIAA is part of the head-driving electronics.

 

1 hour ago, John Dyson said:

There MIGHT be an interim tape that has RIAA on it, even though I don't know a good reason for it.

 

As always in life never say never. There might occasionally have been such a thing, but it most certainly never was part of a standard work flow.

 

1 hour ago, John Dyson said:

On the other hand, there might be some small amount of EQ on a master tape based on the assumption that the traget was historically vinyl, but even then -- the LF rolloff and the HF limiting only needs to reside in the vinyl master creation itself.

 

What did happen in the industry was that a more or less renowned cutting engineer would master a first set of lacquers, and would then make a tape copy (*) of the output of the cutting rack and its preceding effects, for distribution to remote cutting houses. Thereby, hopefully, preserving the sound of this original cut on the lacquers cut by someone else.

 

Remote cutting houses were employed for the world-wide release of volume-selling artists, to synchronise the releases and to avoid having the original masters travel around the globe.

 

 

(* Preferably on PCM1610, of course 😈)

 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 hours ago, Archimago said:

Wow. We had a break from MQA discussions from November 3rd until today November 18th.

 

That's 2 weeks of peace :-)! Must be close to a record since this thread started.

 

LOL. Let's think about this provenance / authentication claim with a hypothetical example...

 

Say in 2020 there's an MQA release of Kind Of Blue, authenticated by "Jim Bob the Archiver of Jazz" working at Sony/Columbia as the truly "authentic", final "analogue" sound. Cool. "Jim Bob" used the best original tapes baked "just right", made the transfer with perfectly aligned reel-to-reel player, all the bells and whistles transferred to 24/384 digital. Top class, sound to die for, "white glove" and all of course.

 

Presumably, Sony will make some money stamping LPs. Probably a CD release. If we're lucky maybe a 24/96 download that's not "authenticated" to buy, and perhaps the same one distributed to Amazon and Qobuz for streaming. Sadly, "only" 24/96 and more "family jewels" than "crown jewels" quality 😀.

 

And Tidal gets 24/48 MQA, "authenticated" file for their streaming. (Yes, I know, MQA fans must be salivating over this prospect as the DAC will no doubt also say decoded/upsampled to "24/384".)

 

When Roon plays the Qobuz version, perhaps in the album title, it says "Kind of Blue, 61st Anniversary Edition" to indicate which album/master is used. When playing off the Tidal MQA, there's not only a blue light 😉, and not only does the album title say "Kind of Blue, 61st Anniversary", we now also have "Authenticated to be THE ONE TRUE ANALOG SOUND by Jim Bob of Sony/Columbia, January 25, 2020"!!! (I can see MQA fans fainting at the prospect of this awesome knowledge right about now!)

 

Is that valuable? If so, to whom other than MQA and said fans? Audiophiles? Completist digital audio collectors? (Of course, few places to download these MQA files.) Miles Davis is long dead so did his estate ask for this and would they even know what the artist intended? We already know from FredericV that the blue light doesn't ensure "bit perfect" even, so there is no assurance that Tidal didn't get a bad copy or perhaps error happened during streaming.

 

And finally, does anyone really care if "Jim Bob", Sony, or Columbia markets this version as the definitive "analog sound"? Surely there will be the even-more-authentic "66th Anniversary Edition" in 2025, right?!

 

What am I missing here? What's the fuss?

Actually you’ve taken the authentication too far. It has nothing to do with quality. It only means the track hasn’t been compromised by a man in the middle attack. 
 

We are supposed to go full patriot act, mass NSA data collection on this one because an intern once gave a streaming service the wrong file. Give up everything, pure PCM, for one “benefit.”

 

As I said in the Roon thread, this provenance thing is like voter fraud in the US and MQA is the voter ID law “fixing” a problem nobody has ever proven to exist. 

[NoisyNarrowBandDevice]

5 hours ago, Archimago said:

What am I missing here? What's the fuss?

 

Provenance is a smart move. Reading the tea-leaves they might try to shift the MQA-narrative from audio-quality to artist-approved files/streams.

 

This could allow for a number of marketing and licensing options for music: artist approved streaming exclusives (price differentiation), authorized bootlegs, higher-quality masters etc.

 

Once you manage to establish "provenance" as a valid term in the music context you have an interesting marketing tool at hand. Of course the concept of provenance is highly questionable to anybody familiar with the realities of audio production. But fans do strive for authentic experiences and a connection to the artist. Artist strive for control - just look at Madame Swift and her recent moves on Twitter.

 

"Provenance" is where both desires meet.

 

Of course this reveals ever more clearly that MQA is about rights-management (yes with a big D) rather than audio-quality. But I don't expect for anybody outside of our bubble to notice.

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, NoisyNarrowBandDevice said:

Provenance is a smart move. Reading the tea-leaves they might try to shift the MQA-narrative from audio-quality to artist-approved files/streams.

Especially long-dead artists.

[KeenObserver]

2 hours ago, John Dyson said:

Actually, I agree with you on this -- RIAA is part of the vinyl creation process.  There is no reason for RIAA to be involved with the 2trk master itself (as I have some and know what they are like.)   In fact, RIAA would mess up some aspects of a master tape.  There MIGHT be an interim tape that has RIAA on it, even though I don't know a good reason for it.

On the other hand, there might be some small amount of EQ on a master tape based on the assumption that the traget was historically vinyl, but even then -- the LF rolloff and the HF limiting only needs to reside in the vinyl master creation itself.

 

John

 

 

The plates used to press records had a life span.  If a record was popular and sold millions there would of course been multiple pressings.  There were Masters ( sub Masters? ) used to make new plates.  I don't know if the RIAA equalization was part of these sub Masters.  I do know that in the past I have run some of my CD's through a RIAA filter and they seemed to have sounded more natural.  This led me to believe that some CD's were pressed with RIAA equalization.

[John Dyson]

7 minutes ago, NoisyNarrowBandDevice said:

 

Provenance is a smart move. Reading the tea-leaves they might try to shift the MQA-narrative from audio-quality to artist-approved files/streams.

 

This could allow for a number of marketing and licensing options for music: artist approved streaming exclusives (price differentiation), authorized bootlegs, higher-quality masters etc.

 

Once you manage to establish "provenance" as a valid term in the music context you have an interesting marketing tool at hand. Of course the concept of provenance is highly questionable to anybody familiar with the realities of audio production. But fans do strive for authentic experiences and a connection to the artist. Artist strive for control - just look at Madame Swift and her recent moves on Twitter.

 

"Provenance" is where both desires meet.

 

Of course this reveals ever more clearly that MQA is about rights-management (yes with a big D) rather than audio-quality. But I don't expect for anybody outside of our bubble to notice.

I agree 100% with what you say, but why are so many people so fastidious about 'accuracy' or 'provenance', when the version being distributed is so very messed up anyway?  I don't understand worring about 0.1dB of frequency response and 0.001% distortion when the gain/frequency response is flopping all over the place (like flopping at 10-15dB at freq above 3kHz)  on un-decoded material anyway?

Some kinds of material are properly processed, but I even have a classical CD or two, both aren't decoded either.  This problem is not only a pop-music issue.

 

If I could only produce a more automatic decoder with a nice GUI (I'd do it for almost free if I could), so that people could hear what was actually recorded instead of the mess that is on the CDs.

 

John

 

[KeenObserver]

MQA Ltd stated in their filings that they were seeking further financing.  Does anyone know if they have in fact secured further financing?

[NoisyNarrowBandDevice]

10 minutes ago, mansr said:

Especially long-dead artists.

Which have the advantage of being easier to handle by the rights-holders.