MQA is Vaporware

[Currawong]

6 hours ago, Archimago said:

Wow folks. Now this Fx fellow is a beautiful example of reading comprehension issues! I'm shocked by the inadequacy.

 

Plus an inability to appreciate timelines! 🤣

 

His brain is suffering from time smearing. 🤣

 

4 hours ago, manisandher said:

Interestingly, if I take a 24/96 file, down sample it to 24/48 using a brickwall anti-alias filter, upsample again to 24/96 using a brickwall anti-image filter, I can achieve nulls of -210dB within the audio band. I'm convinced that 'ringing' and 'time smearing' due to filtering is a total non-issue. Just use a brickwall filter that attenuates deeply before Nyquist.

 

This is the issue I have with John Atkinson's article where the ringing of impulse responses is equated with musical transients. An impulse response is an illegal signal -- it's a single positive sample, which by being completely out of bandwidth, causes a digital filter to reveal itself as it attempts to process what amounts to all frequencies at once.  I imagine it as the difference between doing a smooth run-up over a small hill (in band processing), versus the run up to a high-jump (an impulse response).

 

A transient in any acoustic recording is going to be well within bandwidth, and isn't going to cause a filter to ring, or have pre-echo. Now, you could cleverly make arguments about instruments where they have been measured having overtones far into the high frequencies above our hearing, but those are both very low, and unlikely to even be picked up by regular microphones anyway. 

 

Oh the other hand, the aliasing and distortion caused by very short minimum phase filters, as well as the ultrasonic noise from ADCs, far overwhelms any of this information if any still exists in a recording in the first place.

 

2 hours ago, UkPhil said:

 Very true my Project DAC developed by John Westlake made sure MQA switched out when non MQA files were detected, this was noticeable by a few milliseconds gap which was audible 

 

I recall that some manufacturers would send their equipment to MQA for certification with custom firmware that had only the MQA filter running so that MQA wouldn't flag them for this issue, whereas the regular firmware did, since it had to detect the MQA data first, then switch the filter. The irony that manufacturers had to use dishonest means to get certification for a product from a company that was dishonest is not lost!

[Currawong]

4 hours ago, FredericV said:

I really wonder how he makes up all of these claims ....

FB should fact check badges like "Group expert". He is misleading 7K users.

 

PS: he does not know the difference between encoder and decoder. There is no third unfold. After the first unfold, everything else is just upsampling with leaky filters.
 

 

What track was it?

[Currawong]

6 hours ago, Archimago said:

a very delusional individual

 

One shouldn't judge. If there's anything I've learned, it is that we all have something in our minds that we are deluded about. One should just hope that any single person's delusions are harmless.  

 

I think it can be flagged under the same condition as people who believe in conspiracy theories. The current understanding is that it's connected with a desire to feel that they belong to part of something.  There's some of that in this thread too.

 

1 hour ago, vortecjr said:

I would like to see MQA or the new owners clean up the leaker filter. I know that would be admitting there was an issue, but that seems like the logical next step. This assumes a fix is even possible and I have no clue on that. 

 

Much of the supposed process requires the leaky filters.  I believe, given my experiences with various equipment, that the shorter filters push instruments etc. forward in the soundstage (the consequence of screwing things up in the time domain, rather than fixing them) which, along with the other things done to the music, is part why people find the MQA "sound" more appealing. 

[Currawong]

2 hours ago, Archimago said:

 

Sure, we could all be wrong about something or other, holding on to false or questionable beliefs. However, not knowing something or being in error is not delusional.

 

In the case of PV, I think many of us here (including myself on the blog when he shows up to leave a note) have tried to discuss the contentious points around his thinking over the years. He never actually engages in worthwhile discussions. Therefore he's no longer just holding on to questionable or even innocent false beliefs. We're left with pondering whether he's willfully not engaging to find/understand issues (dishonesty? liar? bought and paid for? some other underlying gain?) or a truly delusional individual.

If MQA were paying him, and didn't declare it, I'd guess it would fall afoul of astroturfing laws in the US and UK. He kept up at it though while MQA were in administration, and otherwise seemed to have stopped advertising (unless I'm mistaken), so surely if he was being paid, he would have been let go.

[Currawong]

On 9/20/2023 at 9:22 PM, John_Atkinson said:

It is definitely posted this morning.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

And someone deleted the comment, as the email I got notifying me of a reply goes nowhere.

[Currawong]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

That would be called "garden variety digital audio with lossy compression." 🙂

 

Since no Gibbs effect (commonly called ringing, or in MQA-speak, "blurring") was the primary reason behind MQA, and the only way that can be accomplished is with very leaky filters, or with garden variety apodizing filters that MQA has no patent on, cleaning up their filters would be the same as giving up a good part of their IP.

 

The rest of their IP is the lossy compression, which doesn't exceed the performance of plain old FLAC or ALAC.  So why use it? Easy, lossless compression is a cinch to reverse engineer. The only reason for the lossy proprietary compression was to try to preserve the rest of their IP, the leaky filters.

 

In other words, the only fix that would involve decent filters and a lossless format would no longer be MQA.

 

MQA deliberately confused a real issue and a false one for their "blurring". The first, issues with time-domain errors when recording, which affect our ability to perceive the location of sounds in the original space, which, as we know now, their solutions make worse. The second was the Gibbs Effect, which I believe has long been mis-represented in how it relates to in-band audio signals, since it is something that appears on extremely out-of-band signals, such as single-sample impulse responses and square waves.

 

1 hour ago, vortecjr said:

I would curious to see a lossless compression scheme - 16bit or 24bit at 44.1kHz or 48kHz file that contains hi-resolution content. No compression for the sake of compression. BTW I have no particular reason except to see it can be done. An engineering exercise if you will.   

 

Don't forget that MQA was at least three different things combined, depending how you describe it: The "folding", the (re)mastering, and the DRM.  Obviously, the folding (encoding) and DRM were to ensure equipment licensing profits, and the remastering to ensure that audiophiles hear something different that they think is "better". 

 

As Archimago pointed out (IIRC), an 18/176 file gives you equivalent file size to what 24-bit MQA files do, so I'd argue that what Apple just announced, quietly, is more useful: 20 bit 48 kHz lossless wireless audio.  

[Currawong]

1 hour ago, Archimago said:

 

Nice. I assume you mean this:

https://suite.endole.co.uk/insight/company/SC788059-mqa-ltd

 

Good to know he's selling hi-tech stuff like food, beverage and tobacco. Good luck to the young man (born 1998)... Hope the young man is luckier than the old men.

At some point the guy will google his own name, find this thread, and think "WTF?!?"

[Currawong]

@Jim Austin wrote (in that Stereophile article):

 

Quote

Few consumers care. Streaming Atmos is good enough for most folks. Older audiophiles have lived long enough to remember previous generations of record executives telling us that no one cares about better sound. We, of course, are those "very few consumers." We do care.

Jeff Jones doesn't speak for the whole music industry. One suspects, though, that the opinion he expressed is widely held, and he seems to be right about Blu-ray discs: They're hardly thriving as a music-distribution format. (We're less sure about movies.) Except for vinyl, physical formats in general are fading (footnote 2). The only thing likely to be left standing is streaming—plus, maybe, vinyl.

How much does this matter? The key thing for us is that stereo versions will continue to be available at the usual high quality, streaming and otherwise. Indeed, recent Beatles reissues have streamed at 24/96.

We suspect—but of course we can't be sure—that Apple Music's lossy Atmos will slowly fade away under the weight of higher production costs, lack of consumer interest, and inferior technical quality in this distributed form. Experience shows that people don't exactly notice a reduction in quality. They simply stop listening.

Jones's comments made one thing clear: For those of us who care about perfectionist audio, Atmos, as conceived by record-company executives, is not the answer. We should hope for its demise.

 

I consider this highly hypocritical. You could switch "Atmos" for "MQA" and say essentially the same thing. 
And the bold section, emphasis mine, ultimately so, because MQA and the record labels hoped to eliminate the originals from availability. 

 

I might have posted this in the comments section, but now my comments are being deleted when I make valid criticisms, it's simpler just to post them here.

[Currawong]

It's more than likely that their customers don't care about MQA enough for them to bother with it any more. 

 

Though, even if the renderer isn't in the DAC chip, it might still be in the XMOS receiver.

[Currawong]

On 1/4/2024 at 10:27 PM, The Computer Audiophile said:

When I got to the part about Mike Jbara’s “excellent people skills” my eyes were like 😳

Here’s a reminder of my view on that from RMAF (link).

 

Wow, life is rich. 

 

 

 

 

 

JANUARY 4, 2024, CONSUMER ELECTRONICS SHOW, LAS VEGAS – The Lenbrook Group of Companies, owner of globally recognized hi-fi brands like NAD Electronics, PSB Speakers, and Bluesound and the renowned BluOS hi-res multiroom platform, has created a new business unit, Lenbrook Media Group. The new entity will more effectively enable the commercialization and development of Lenbrook’s content management solutions, as well as pursue new opportunities that fit Lenbrook’s vision to offer increased choice to music fans and enthusiasts for quality audio. With the BluOS content management platform at its core, this group will also oversee the growth of content encoding solutions MQA and SCL6 which Lenbrook acquired in the autumn of 2023.

“The acquisition of MQA’s assets complemented our existing BluOS platform and supports creators in the recording studio with capturing and delivering directly and in the highest quality, their art into the homes of music lovers. Creating the Lenbrook Media Group allows us to fully capitalize on this unique position by giving it focus, and putting the right strategies, structure, and resources in place,” explains Gordon Simmonds, President and CEO of The Lenbrook Group of Companies.

 

Lenbrook Media Group will be led by newly-appointed Vice-President and General Manager, Mike Jbara, the former MQA CEO and Warner Music executive.

“We worked closely with Mike when he led MQA and were impressed by his understanding of the complete content chain from creation through playback,” Simmonds adds. “His excellent people skills, his deep understanding of the music industry and his knowledge of music technology and licensing-oriented business activities, makes the leadership role at Lenbrook Media Group a perfect fit for both parties.”

Jbara says, “Once you combine Lenbrook’s vision for advancing choice and innovation in the performance audio industry with the assembly of some of the best minds in audio hardware and software engineering, it results in substantive opportunity to empower creators, distributors, fans, and broadcasters in addition to hardware manufacturers. It is an exciting list of possibilities that we believe will benefit both the music and the specialty audio industries.”

Jbara and Lenbrook Media Group colleague, Andy Dowell, Head of Licensing, will attend the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, January 9-12, 2024, and will be taking appointments to discuss licensing, integration, and other opportunities.

And here I was, all about to suggest someone contact Lenbrook and ask them to put out a press release because we were getting bored, and we needed something to complain about. 😁

[Currawong]

On 1/7/2024 at 4:53 AM, Rt66indierock said:

Lynbrook is reorganizing their business activities to reflect that they have separate hardware divisions and a software division based on BluOS, MQA and Scl6. This makes sense to categorize these activities separately. I doubt the hardware teams wanted the development and operating costs of BluOS in their financial reporting. Adding MQA Ltd staff they brought over brought over as part of the deal to acquire MQA and SL6 assets would not fit well into their hardware divisions.

 

The number of people who can decode an MQA file was probably never over 300,000 and is now less because Roon no longer automatically decodes MQA files and Tidal is switching to FLAC.

 

Tidal has laid off 40 people and according to a Resident Advisor source the company is making a clear shift from "being music-centric to product-centric–pushing tech initiatives instead of anything related to music, labels, distributors or artists."  The quality of this source is unknown, but this would make sense considering Tidal has had virtually no growth since 2020. Tidal will need to show $54 million of revenue in the fourth quarter of 2023 or they will show a loss of revenue from the prior year.

 

What doesn't make sense to me is for Lynbrook to create a streaming service with MQA. High-resolution streaming has not shown that it can attract enough customers to make it worthwhile with Tidal’s numbers, Qobuz’s small numbers and no one talking about how successful high-resolution streaming was at either Apple or Amazon. You must consider that the market may be saturated and there is no room for more growth.

 

What looked like a relatively risk-free acquisition of MQA and SCL 6 now looks a lot riskier.

Pure speculation on my part:

I'm going to guess that they might try and push devices with SL6, and get manufacturers on board, using what little revenue MQA brings in. All they have left are a few companies that have it built into the hardware, such as XMOS. So, a few manufacturers, mostly in China, can throw the MQA logo on devices for the few people who still care. 

In the Bluetooth realm, APTx Lossless is starting, very slowly, to make an appearance. I don't see why any manufacturer would really want to deal with an unknown protocol over something from Qualcomm, or Sony for that matter, which has already been very successful with LDAC. 

I strongly suspect part of the reason Apple came out with high-res was, in part, to kill MQA. They hate being beholden to other peoples' software, as it burned them in the past, and it was entirely in their interest to ensure that MQA didn't become mainstream.

In the end, the separation means that if their MQA and SL6 efforts tank, it wont drag down the hardware division with it.

 

But, let's take a guess at what Lenbrook might do with the IP that could attract interest. 

Given the Bluesound Node is a big deal, I wonder if they aren't planning to create a lifestyle-component ecosystem of NAD/Bluesound components (streamers, receivers, DACs and headphones) that stream using MQA and SL6?  They could call it "BlueStream" (if someone hasn't already taken that, then "BlueSound Stream" or similar) and leverage the BlueSound brand. Requiring compatible components, if they get enough interest, other manufacturers might want to licence it. 

[Currawong]

He might have meant ALAC and just typo'ed it. It was originally available to purchase online. It's a fantastic album.

[Currawong]

6 hours ago, Archimago said:

 

FLAC vs. APE - both lossless. Technical advantage of APE/Money Audio is better compression. But slower than FLAC for decompression speed so FLAC better for lower-power streamers.

 

A lot of the variants are like this. For example WV/WavPack allows DSD compression but unfortunately compatibility limited. Also variation in whether the format handles 32-bit PCM, how many channels, etc...

Can you compress a DSD file much at all? I was under the impression that it is near impossible to get any significant space savings.

 

Also, the last comment in the article on your site is spam.  I couldn't see a report link for it.

[Currawong]

On 2/2/2024 at 3:13 PM, bogi said:

 

1 minute googling:
On a SACD the compression achieved is about 50%

The WavPack is the best method to compress DSD. It achieves a 50%~60% compression ratio in my library.
 

I wouldn't mind saving the space on those files then, except Roon doesn't support WavPack as far as I can tell.

[Currawong]

DSD is going to always be an incredibly niche format. It's essentially non-existent in terms of actual use. High-res doesn't really have that much more traction. MQA was the first actual effort to legitimise high-res and make it mainstream, even if it wasn't a good-faith effort. Given it got essentially zero traction, I don't see anything changing in the future, except that Apple has a lossless Bluetooth streaming solution for the Vision Pro, and Qualcomm has finally come out with APTx Lossless, and we aren't even talking about high-res yet!

[Currawong]

On 3/7/2024 at 1:01 PM, Nikhil said:

I have a question about the Gustard R26 and A26 DACs.  I was keen on trying the R26 but stopped short when it had MQA built in.  How much MQA processing is baked into these DACs?  Can one bypass the MQA processing on these DACs?  Does it matter?

I never noticed it in the R26 to be honest!

On 11/21/2023 at 4:31 AM, Archimago said:

I noticed ongoing MQA disgruntlement in the Stereophile As We See It article. Anyhow, I'm trying to respond to the fellow "mieswall" but the system says "You are not authorized to access this page."

 

Anyhow, I might as well respond here and if someone still can post to the Stereophile comments, feel free to direct the discussion...

Honestly, I'd go to a show that you know they will be at, and introduce yourself in person.  

On 3/7/2024 at 11:58 AM, loop7 said:

I wonder if writers for the big two pubs will still use MQA content for reviews? If a track/format is not widely available to most consumers, I find it cheating.

I doubt it. They are reviewing for whomever reads, and whatever they are interested in. If MQA disappears, then so will the interest. It'll quietly be forgotten about. 

[Currawong]

On 3/13/2024 at 7:02 AM, ARQuint said:

 

Someone needs to call out the fake news here for what it is, and it might as well be me. Perhaps it's because the American presidential contest is now (almost) officially set and the strategy of one side depends largely on introducing a false narrative and then using that premise as if it was factual to attack the other side. That, I think, is what's going on here.

 

I use a wide range of reference tracks in my reviews and less than 2% are MQA encoded.  That's always been the case. I stream only Qobuz and have exactly one locally stored file on my equipment review playlist that happens to be MQA-encoded. Most of the thousands of CDs and SACDs in my collection pre-date MQA, and I still use LPs to assess gear. This is pretty much the situation for everyone at TAS (though, of course, different writers use very different proportions of LPs, silver discs, and streaming) and I can think of one, maybe two guys at our friendly competition who have cared much about MQA.

 

Please don't conflate the initial misplaced enthusiasm for MQA from several thoughtful and influential editors, eight or nine years ago, with the way those same writers approached the task of reviewing audio equipment, then and now. Discussions about the merits of the technology (or lack thereof) mostly occurred outside the context of an equipment review. No reviews, or certainly very few, elevated MQA-encoded files as a preferred source material for either the subjective or objective consideration of sound quality. For some of us, the MQA "debate" was about the decline in civility within a hobby known for more camaraderie in years past. It's a trivial observation to point out that the Internet has helped make it this way in so many fields and endeavors.

 

Frankly, my sense is that there has always been a small group of hobbyists who need to detest audio writers who have their name on a masthead and get paid for doing something that's super-fun (though, I'd hasten to add, harder work than you might think.) It's about, to use the tile of a book  by Tom Nichols that's well worth reading, the death of expertise. MQA has become an irrelevancy—if it ever was relevant, except for a brief moment at the outset. For a bitter subset of audiophiles, MQA was nice while it lasted but these folks surely will find some other reason to hate established audio journalism. And this thread will live on, in spirit, if not in actuality.

 

Andrew Quint

 

In any society, or hobby, there are groups, or sides, with opposing ideas. In any civilised society, people may disagree, but they all know that there are lines not to be crossed -- lines beyond which peoples' integrity* is threatened, to put it in the most basic terms.

I've observed that in both society in general, as well as in hobbies and sports, once the lines are crossed, people start to get abusive or violent. They feel that if the other side starts or permits the violation of peoples' integrity, then the gloves are off and a similar response is fair game.

 

Critically, however, it often begins when one side ignores, or even champions an attempt by a group (or sub group, on their side) to sell an idea as being beneficial, and rally people around it, but is founded upon dishonesty, or even actually harmful. The group wants power and control, and uses a litany of tactics to get its goals. When people are harmed, and often dragged into dependency on the idea to continue their lives or participation, the people on that side ignore the harm, and try and talk it away, or suppress knowledge of it, instead, attacking people on the other side who pointed it out. 

 

Then, the other side, seeing harm done, pointing out the threat to their freedom*, and responds in kind (ignoring their own attitude where "freedom" is only for people who agree with them). As the gloves are off, anything goes, as long as they can rally an equal number of people to their goal, and they begin ignoring harms being done by people on their side, and even beginning to justify it, since they see the people on the other side essentially doing the same.

 

When the first side continues to ignore their responsibility for the growth and perpetuation of the problem, instead blaming the others for what is a reaction to their own actions (wilful ignorance is itself an action) then the cycle continues until someone or something gives way or dies. 

 

*Personal, ie: safety, or in the case of a hobby, ability to participate or practice in their own way.

 

2 hours ago, ARQuint said:

There's another aspect of the MQA rise and fall that I'm willing to discuss openly because I'm honestly unsure of the "right"—as in morally correct—stance. For as long as the issue's been out there, some audiophiles have maintained that a reviewer not savaging MQA was as guilty as being a zealous proponent. I don't think that's fair because an audio publication ought to be able to define what its role is. That role, I feel, can be to inform, entertain, and help with purchasing decisions—that's how John Atkinson explained it to me  years ago. Despite the awards and lists of recommended products, we're not Consumer Reports and certainly a consumer protection agency. I've said many times that this hobby, especially the subjective part of it, is about the point of intersection of art and technology, a perspective that CR can't and won't provide. We can provide some leeway and room for discussion of different points of view. If we don't, I think it's a slippery slope. Should the technological basis of Ted Denney's products be reviled? I don't think so but plenty of  audiophiles facilely  dismiss him as a P.T. Barnum. How about pricey cables? Also a scam? Some people think so. You can see where I'm going with this.

It's about choice, or not having choice.  

[Currawong]

On 3/13/2024 at 5:16 AM, Norton said:

But is that a hard definition, and if so , whose?  And indeed what do we mean by a Master recording and the implied provenance, if  there can be multiple masters?   For example, if a 70s analogue  recording is transferred by the record company to 24/96 and then distributed as RBCD as a “remaster” and I then make a bit perfect rip of that CD, can I be said to have a lossless copy of the original analogue master?  I’d suggest not and that, far from a hard definition, lossless is just a meaningless  marketing term 

 

 

 

On 3/15/2024 at 7:16 AM, ARQuint said:

 

Hello Arch

 

Here's an interesting development. It's always possible that I hallucinated the whole thing but within the last 12 hours, somebody named "Spike" (from Germany, I believe) contributed a post to this thread reviling me for (1) a TAS editorial about MQA I wrote 7 years ago and (2) a single sentence in a review of a DAC that mentioned that the product didn't decode MQA, as a point of information. That post is now gone.

 

On the one hand, thank you Chris. Although I have pretty thick skin—I wouldn't keep ringing in here from time to time, rather than just lurking, if I didn't—it looks as though you were maintaining a declared standard for AS, that gratuitous insults won't be tolerated. On the other hand, if it did remain, it would undermine Archi's statement that

 

"Many magazine writers say nothing about MQA or just mention it without extreme claims, and I don't think folks drag those people's names into these critical discussions without cause."

 

And you, Archimago, do not. But this now-departed post was a pretty good example of painting with a broad brush to dismiss me personally as a writer and TAS as a publication. This sort of thing has happened from the very beginning of "Vaporware" and continues to go on even now that MQA is pretty much dead and buried.

 

That editorial from 2017 is the only time I've written about MQA in TAS.  I was reviewing an Aurender server that had MQA and I felt, at the time, that there was a marginal sonic benefit for some content. This was, of course, early on in MQA's ill-fated commercial run and I soon concluded that the technology brought nothing to the table. I've never owned a piece of audio gear that did MQA.

 

What's notable, I think, is that the narrative changed at Vaporware from criticisms of the technology (with testimony from such respected engineers as Andreas Koch) to an assault on the ethics of those selling it (and advocating for it.) The Canadian blinded study notwithstanding, sound quality was taken off the table early on. Which is unfortunate. I think that, ultimately, it was the lack of a sonic benefit that sunk MQA, not the outrage of a small group of audiophiles. The market as spoken. If Michael Fremer felt that the MQA version of that Patricia Barber album sounded better, he should be able to maintain that opinion without maligning his ethical core.  Call his hearing into question, if you must, but it's not some sort of moral failing. It's just his opinion...about the sound, right?

 

The MQA story was  a tiny part of TAS (and even Stereophile) over its brief history. How do you feel about all the equipment and music reviews published in The Absolute Sound these past seven years? Our assessments of audio products have been pretty much in line with those presented in AS though, obviously, our coverage is more expansive (and the packaging more aesthetically pleasing.) No one seems to saying that we usually get it wrong when it comes to the SQ of audio gear and recordings, which is kind of the point of a hobbyist audio magazine. To use the MQA debate as some kind of litmus test for good vs.bad, believable vs.unbelievable, honest vs.dishonest, ethical vs morally lacking is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

Andy

I do wonder... do you actually read what people reply to you? I should probably thank you for coming back here to post, as it resulted in both my putting down thoughts about social behaviour that I've had in my head for some time, and other good posts which I'll bookmark for the next time an audio press member in denial stops by. 

 

But really, at some point, when a person keeps repeating the same deeply flawed, and even disproven argument over and over again, at some point frustration will get to the point that they'll be called an idiot, or worse.

 

3 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

You might want to spend some time on What’s Best Forum, Steve Hoffman’s Forums, eCoustic, and listen to few YouTube videos about Mobile Fidelity vinyl then talk me about weak links in the audio world.

 

Funny you mention Steve Hoffman's forums. A person there tried to argue that a product could no longer be described as "discrete" because it used sets of matched transistor pairs on the same die (even though the transistors aren't electrically connected). I replied that, if you go by that logic, then any product using a 1-piece rectifier bridge couldn't either, and they deleted my post and warned me. 😆