MQA is Vaporware

[The Computer Audiophile]

17 minutes ago, firedog said:

 

I corrected him in the comments. I'm sure I'll get a nasty response from him. He's been told before he is incorrect about MQA, but he never processes the info and reacts as if he's been wronged. 

Just read your response. I think technically you could've described the sound being even worse than 18/96 becuase it's an MQA CD, at less than 16 bits!

[The Computer Audiophile]

Is MQA CD really 13-15 bit?

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, ARQuint said:

Michael has promised to bring Jim Anderson (another JA!) into the conversation. Can't we wait to hear his take on this? Beyond whether or not a specific technical claim is correct (I'm certainly not qualified to judge, as is the case with many of the most toxic contributors to the Vaporware thread) it would be helpful to understand why a fair number of recording professionals we all respect have a favorable, or at worst a neutral view of MQA.

Hi Andy, the only issues I see with Michael's article, and I will tread carefully here as he who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw stones, are the factual inaccuracies when describing the MQA CD version of the album. Nobody in their right mind should even care which flavor of the Patricia Barber Clique ice cream anyone else thinks tastes the best. 

 

MQA is lossy. Therefore, it factually can't be equivalent to the master. That's not controversial.

MQA CD can't contain more than 15 bits. That's a fact. The master is 32 bit. That's not controversial.

MQA can't retain DXD's high frequency information, it deletes the higher frequencies, and uses upsampling to make the file appear to be the original sample rate. That's not controversial.

 

I respect Michael, even though we've had our differences over the years. He is an enthusiastic music lover and a good friend to some of my good friends. 

 

I don't think we would still be in this pattern of MQA discussions if folks stuck to the facts or stuck to their subjective impressions. I'm happy that Michael has a version of this album that he loves. I have a different version that I love. The best part is that we have choice. 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Michael's article has put MQA in my head for a day or so, and I've been thinking about the upsampling and sample rate display etc... 

 

The MQA CD version of Patrica Barber's Clique is 15 bit max and 44.1 kHz. MQA knew the master was DXD 352.8, so that is in the metadata. 

 

When the MQA CD is played, and MQA or DXD are displayed on the disc spinner, does this mean that the DAC stops upsampling at 352.8, or the DAC upsamples the music to 352.8, then continues to upsample much higher like "all" DACs do internally, or does it display DXD and bypass 352.8 altogether and just upsample to the highest internal rate it would normally upsample to?

 

Kind of a strange sample rate soup. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just as the artist intended, via soundbar. 

LG Introduces 2023 Home Entertainment Wireless Soundbars With Immersive Audio and MQA Support

 

https://audioxpress.com/news/lg-introduces-2023-home-entertainment-wireless-soundbars-with-immersive-audio-and-mqa-support

[The Computer Audiophile]

14 minutes ago, Pierre LeMonf said:

The infamous  MQA Shill Peter Veth dropped into Fremer;s site to repeat the same lies and discredit posters.

When all you have is a hammer, everything is a nail. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

9 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

" MQA technology uses a combination of techniques to capture and reproduce high-resolution audio, including advanced audio compression algorithms, digital filtering, and time-stretching. MQA files are typically encoded at a higher bit depth and sample rate than standard audio files, which allows them to capture a greater range of audio information and reproduce a more detailed and accurate reproduction of the original sound".

I just threw up in my mouth. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

8 minutes ago, dsyzling said:

Over on one of the Roon forums some people were suggesting that some MQA tracks were finding their way onto Qobuz. Has anyone seen or experienced this at all? They were not marked as MQA by Qobuz and I know Qobuz doesn't support MQA, but if the publisher gives them an MQA version of from their catalog and nothing else it starts to become an industry pushed media format which everyone feared. 

Yes this is correct. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Pierre LeMonf said:

Let's play a fun game and guess how many MQA mentions and praises are in this fool's "review"...

https://www.stereophile.com/content/dcs-vivaldi-apex-da-processor

Then guess how many were in my review published today :~)

 

https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/reviews/dcs-rossini-apex-dac-review-r1177/

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

19 minutes ago, Pierre LeMonf said:

10...including 3 in the footnotes!  Incredible amount of mentions for a fringe, very minor blip on the feature set marketing check box.

That’s a very good point. 10 mentions of a technology they’ve been telling the detractors to ignore because it’s small potatoes, but can’t stop mentioning more than any other single item in the business. 
 

I’d love to see an index listing the number of mentions of specific topics. I have zero interest in telling anyone what to write or what’s appropriate to write, as I don’t want anyone telling me the same. I’d just like to know what has been written about and how that compares with market trends, emerging tech, hi fidelity as a goal, etc... 
 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

11 hours ago, Archimago said:

I think more importantly after all this time, it would be nice to see a formal retraction from the mainstream audiophile "press"; something from the "journalists" out there who might have come to their senses by now? I think that would be helpful for the audiophile hobby, and a sign of integrity.

That would be like a hostage video. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

Block Inc had their Q4 22 earnings call yesterday Other Revenue (Tidal) was $38 million. A decline of $16 million from Q3 22.

 

1 minute ago, Apollo said:

Does this mean Tidal is actually making profit?

 

Perhaps we should make sure we are talking about the right terms. 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

PSB Speakers, Sonical and MQA announce partnership to create next-generation headphones 

 

The first in new category of smart, mobile and true hifi audio products

Tuesday, Febraury 28, 2023, Pickering, Canada– PSB Speakers, together with hearables start-up Sonical and audio specialists MQA, announced a partnership that will define a new category of high-resolution audio headphones. The product combines high resolution wireless transmission, proven high-fidelity design, and Sonical’s CosmOS platform. Released under the PSB Speakers brand by Q1 2024, it will be the first headphone to feature Sonical’s ear computing platform, enabling a variety of apps and software upgrades. It also includes MQA’s latest technology, SCL6, the most advanced codec for adaptive, high-resolution audio streaming.

 

CosmOS is Sonical’s revolutionary operating system that runs on powerful low wattage processing cores, bringing unprecedented levels of connectivity and computational power to headphones. CosmOS offers mobile audio product manufacturers the versatility to keep pace with rapidly changing consumer demands for convenience and performance. The integration of Qorvo’s Ultra-wideband (UWB) radio technology enables a superior audio experience thanks to UWB’s higher data rate and extremely low latency. Using Antennaware’s UWB antenna directly addresses any issues associated with Body Blocking which could occur with wireless wearable devices. 

 

Canada-based PSB Speakers, a pioneer in psychoacoustics and an early brand to create audiophile grade wireless headphones, will innovate through deep relationships with Sonical and MQA to push the boundaries of mobile listening. The product will utilize MQA’s new technology, SCL6, an innovative, time domain-based codec for the highest quality audio streaming. Developed by industry veteran and MQA founder, Bob Stuart, SCL6 ensures high-resolution sound even at low data rates.

 

“Given PSB Speakers’ long-time commitment to the science of audio and music listening, it’s a pleasure to be in this partnership which shows the world what CosmOS can do,” says Gary Spittle, Founder and CEO of Sonical.

 

“Our use of the CosmOS platform to make the world’s first software defined wireless headset and the inclusion of MQA’s adaptive wireless codec helps set a new benchmark for a high resolution, mobile high-fidelity product. We believe this product underscores what Paul Barton and the PSB team have accomplished over the brand’s 50-year history in the pursuit of audio excellence for listeners at home and now on the move,” says Gordon Simmonds, President and CEO of Lenbrook Industries, PSB Speakers’ parent company.

 

“MQA was founded by one of the great innovators in audio. We design by thinking of the consumer experience first which means we are comfortable challenging the status quo. The vision shared by our partners at PSB Speakers and Sonical, bringing together superior audio quality and the next generation of consumer convenience, makes this a perfect fit for our latest technology SCL6,” says Mike Jbara, CEO of MQA.

[The Computer Audiophile]

57 minutes ago, FredericV said:

Where are the FB fact checkers when we really need them

The telling part of this is that the MQA reps in that group would be happy to correct people if the inaccuracies have a negative connotation, but 4 unfolds sounds good, so they let it slide. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

32 minutes ago, Archimago said:

Hey, if MQA is able to make headway in this space against the likes of Sony (LDAC) and Qualcomm (aptX), and truly comes up with a system that's inexpensive, objectively improves quality, and has good hardware compatibility, then that's fine and I'm OK with them making honest money!

Absolutely. If MQA can improve audio, without removing consumer choice, then I'm all in. For now, I'll use history as the best predictor of the future. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, Manchester said:

If you keep saying it's rubbish, does that make it rubbish? Pot kettle black, as they say...

I keep saying the Earth is round. It has no effect on the Earth or those who think it’s flat. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

Two first-time posters with a seemingly pro-MQA view post in this thread in the same 24 hour period.  I'm sure it's a coincidence. 🙂

Add to that use of anonymizing VPNs :~)

[The Computer Audiophile]

7 minutes ago, FredericV said:

Nothing meaningful has been posted, just brief attacks and then run away.

From the playbook:
 

https://blog.cyberwar.nl/2019/06/twenty-five-ways-to-suppress-truth-the-rules-of-disinformation-h-michael-sweeney-1997-2001/

 

 

 

I was hesitant to allow the posts to be published, because the goal is pretty clear. However, I error on the side of publishing, rather than be accused of withholding pro-MQA comments. Dumb I know.

[The Computer Audiophile]

15 minutes ago, ECL said:

My comments about experts and expertise pertains to the fact that none of the discussions I ever see on the topic, whether pro- or anti-, have their head anywhere in clean air but mostly in a dark musty place where the sun doesn't shine, rank with propaganda, fearmongering, misinfo, on both sides. Where are calm people weighing the good and the bad with an even analysis? Few and far away, just like the ones who know what they're talking about.

Here you go

 

https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/reviews/mqa-a-review-of-controversies-concerns-and-cautions-r701/

 

16 minutes ago, ECL said:

t. I can't get over the feeling that Tidal is doing extra, hidden, secret DSP to what it sends out in MQA, as I just can't escape the feeling that sometimes someone is hitting one of those "3D Acoustic Ambience" buttons like you often used to see on LowFi consumer AVRs. I'm less outraged over it since they do a surprisingly non-heinous job of it, but the whole thing still smells of hidden dark secrets and disingenuous marketing which audiophiles don't want

This actually can’t be the case because MQA decoders wouldn’t work if it was.

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 hours ago, ECL said:

the end of the day, there's absolutely NO WAY and NO CHANCE IN HELL that MQA is taking over anything, nor replacing anything superior to itself. ANY talk on this subject comes from people with their head where the sun don't shine and completely ignorant of how music/recording industry works.

 

I’m my experience the industry exists to make money. Public companies serve shareholder interests. Period. If MQA can help them make money, it’ll be the standard. Zero to do with anything else. 

 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, ECL said:

As I alluded to before, I believe a lot of the controversy is deservedly due to mis-marketing and overhyping of claims, combined with poor PR and proprietary secrecy. This has created a partisan atmosphere where it seems that nearly 100% of people who are politically anti-MQA think it also sounds worse, and nearly 100% of people who are politically pro-MQA also think it sounds better. Whereas we all know that if this were a cleanly conducted discussion, those two things should be independent variables.

fair enough. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

This and your curious use of the word "partisan", which is commonly used by the MQA principals to describe skeptics/critics makes me doubt the alleged purity of your intentions.

 

A fair critique as well. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, garrardguy60 said:

 

Why do we care what the pro-MQA people think about whether you publish their comments or not?

 

This is precisely why the technique of ECL and the BS lobby works!

 

We are very kinda-sorta self aware, as in "Ho ho ho ECL, we see what you're doing here. You're luring us into a rhetorical trap. We see you. PAUSE. OK, now we'll jump into your trap and start debating this all over again."

 

Why do we always take the bait?

 

I care because people will see their comments deleted or hidden, screenshots them, post them on pro MQA groups, and discredit the work that has been done here. People may get the idea that I’m hiding the “real” benefits of MQA, when I’m not hiding anything. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

50 minutes ago, ECL said:

At the end of the day, the elephant in the room is this, and NO ONE here is talking about it so hasn't even passed level 1 out of 10 in due diligence:

As Bob Stuart CORRECTLY says, all the recording engineers in studio COMPLAIN that the A-to-D-to-A PERFORM-RECORD-PLAYBACK tests right in the studio show that what goes in IS NOT WHAT COMES OUT. Compared right next to analogue in the same studio, the analogue is still performing better in SOME metrics over digital. Unlike poop-throwing chimps, I applaud him in giving a calm, clear, thorough, and civil explanation of the hypotheses for why this is the case, based on our current scientific understanding of all the known phenomena from multi-disciplinary fields coming together

That’s quite a rich post and I only have a minute to address a small piece. 
 

Im willing to bet any of the experts in this thread would respond to and single argument you have, but telling them to move monkeys, isn’t going to help anyone. 
 

You applaud Bob for stating what everyone on earth knows and has stated for years? Strange. 
 

He used the hearing of owls in his analysis. We aren’t owls. 
 

You seem to have fallen hook line and sinker for all the technical BS from BS. MQA says it improves items that it actually hurts. It has been shown objectively many times. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

@ECL I encourage you to name a single thing that MQA improves and have an open back and forth discussion about that single thing at a time. It’s much easier to focus. Us poop throwing monkeys can’t concentrate very well. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, ECL said:

But I don't care about that as much as making sure a bunch of nazis don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Ouch. I missed this. You lose. You took it there, after being presented objective data from @Jud and @Archimago that shows MQA doesn’t do what it claims.