MQA is Vaporware

[Lee Scoggins]

23 hours ago, firedog said:

Since having the Kii Three that has excellent AD and DA conversion and that converts everything to PCM, and since experiencing using HQP - I've come to the conclusion that I couldn't care a whit about which digital format I listen to. They all can sound good, and with well done conversion, even DSD keeps some DSD like qualities when converted to PCM. I try to find the best version I can, ignore the format, and just listen. 

 

I'm glad you have Kii3s.  I love that system and have written several glowing show reports on them at RMAF and Axpona.  I think that is a testament to the quality work of Bruno Putzeys.  And I believe there is still some value in hirez over 16/44.  At the end of the day, you end by agreeing with my statement to find the best version and just enjoy listening to it.

 

https://parttimeaudiophile.com/2017/04/29/axpona-2017-kii-audio-is-under-your-thumb/

[Lee Scoggins]

By the way, if anyone wonders what gear I use, here is an article from CNET.

 

https://www.cnet.com/pictures/lees-audacious-high-end-audio-system-blows-the-doors-off/?query=audiophiliac

[Lee Scoggins]

5 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I generally like seeing people's systems. It gives me ideas for setup and placement and once in a great while aesthetics.

 

I've got more car artwork coming.  Wish it had arrived for the shoot.  The biggest challenge is getting the right chair.  Many are too short or have backs that interfere with the ears or are not comfortable enough.

 

I have a large storage closet that houses the bulk of my CD, SACD, and LP collection.  My wife suggested not filling the room floor to ceiling with music to make it more inviting for guests.  I think that was a great idea.

 

Still looking for the right floor lamp though.

[Lee Scoggins]

1 hour ago, Kyhl said:

I do too, but in its own thread.  I enjoy audio porn.

 

I had a difficult time deciding if Lee was begging for attaboys here or trying to derail a thread that was mostly asleep. 

Either way, I was trying hard not to contribute to either of his motives and now look at me.  Ugh.

 

Not trying for either.  Just thought some here would find my setup interesting.  It's been a long journey to assemble so I am a bit proud of it.

[Lee Scoggins]

21 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Steve Guttenberg having nothing to say posts a bunch of pictures of Lee's stereo. 

 

Not a fair comment.  This is in addition to a daily video he shoots and several articles a week he writes.  He's got a lot to say and is very much in demand.

[Lee Scoggins]

34 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Color me cynical but it is hard to take you seriously when all of your posts in this forum up until now have been MQA propaganda.

 

So I guess CA has reached a point in the MQA debate where a dissenting opinion is labelled propaganda.

[Lee Scoggins]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

Actually, I do find your "setup interesting" Lee.  While you have obviously spent a lot of money on it (even considering promotional considerations), it is out of all proportion to the room.  I am also not seeing much in the way of acoustic tmts. either.

 

But this all belongs in a different thread.

 

Ralf, I use the Synergistic Research HFTs for room acoustics and it works well.  If you look closely, you will see them properly place in a grid patter on the walls, ceiling, and equipment & record racks.

 

I'm not sure what you are basing the "out of all proportion" comment on.  Peter said it was one of the better rooms had heard recently.  He is not one to make such comments lightly.

[Lee Scoggins]

3 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

We can certainly leave the pejoratives out of it. So I will just say your experience is at variance with mine.

 

@Rt66indierock's recent comment about changing the sound of the master might be a key here: I have heard MQA sound better than Redbook or hi res, but only where the master was obviously different.

 

But in my last two demos, there were no mastering differences and I heard a clear improvement.

[Lee Scoggins]

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Only for those of you who prejudge an entire site based on comments of a few. 

 

To be more specific, I like the site overall and enjoy reading it.  It's only the MQA threads I am meaning to reference in the prior comment.  I stated "in the MQA debate..."

[Lee Scoggins]

Just now, Jud said:

 

Yes, that's the part of your experience that's at variance with mine.  ?

 

Come visit in Atlanta and I can demo some clean tracks for an A/B.

[Lee Scoggins]

30 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

That really does sum it up.  I wonder if @The Computer Audiophilewould allow us to start a thread titled "Thimbles full of "nanotechnology", dick pill scams, boxes of rocks, and other things audiophiles fall for...."  You really can't make this stuff up ?

 

Do you have any first-hand experience with HFTs?

[Lee Scoggins]

20 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Let me tell you about a first-hand experience with Synergistic's description of one of its products, then suggest something you might do with the HFTs if you're interested.

 

On the Audiostream website, one of the Synergistic products was being reviewed and discussed in the comments by various people including one of the Synergistic principals.  Looking at the Synergistic website, I noted a description of one of their cables, saying that zapping it with a couple of million volts from a Van de Graaff generator treated the cable through "a process called quantum tunneling."

 

I came back to Audiostream, and in the comments section noted that quantum tunneling occurs an uncountably infinite number of times in every tiniest bit of the universe every tiniest fraction of a second, and that zapping something with a Van de Graaff generator makes no difference to that.

 

The next time I came back to the Synergistic website, the copy read that the cable was treated by the Van de Graaff generator through "a process we call quantum tunneling."  Clever, eh?  Just appropriate an actual term from quantum physics and make it say whatever you want.

 

This has made me a bit skeptical - well, extremely skeptical, really - of other claims by Synergistic.

 

Now, the suggestion about the HFTs: Unlike potentially subtle variations of noise and timing within a DAC, for example, changes in the frequency and/or timing response of a listening room are liable to be fairly large and readily measurable with calibrated mics and room response measurement software.  Perhaps you'd like to do before and after room measurements with and without the HFTs?

 

Jud,

 

I would be interested in reading the Audiostream article...do you have a link?  Do you know what SR product they were reviewing?

 

I know the new editor (ex-Part-Time Audiophile) Rafe Arnott is a fan of the HFTs.  There are two ways to use the HFTs: stand-alone and with an "Atmosphere" tower.  The tower transmits waves that apparently excite the HFTs in a way to be more effective.  Ted has promised to send me one to try.  What I can tell you is that with careful placement, the system has more clarity and airiness in the highs with a room of HFTs.  there are three types of standard HFT and a new "wider-angle" HFT which uses a different cone geometry.  

 

As for the zapping, I visited the factory earlier in the year and listened to a zapped and un-zapped cable.  The zapped cable does sound better.  Here is a photo of the Tesla Coil they use to send 2 million volts through the cable.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

12 minutes ago, mansr said:

The thing about those thimbles is, due to their size, they can't have any effect on frequencies below about 25 kHz. At higher frequencies their effect is also practically nil since they occupy only a very tiny portion of the total wall area. As scams go, it's hard to find one more obvious.

 

You know this is total bullshit coming from an engineer.  If you were the least bit curious, you would buy or borrow some and play around with them and you would indeed find that they do work.  Not everything that works is obvious based on simple physics.  Have a more open mind and get first-hand experience before pontificating on things you know nothing about.

 

As the saying goes, a man with experience is not at the mercy of a man with an opinion.

[Lee Scoggins]

3 hours ago, Indydan said:

 

Lee has also bragged about knowing people like the Cheskys. He also let us know that the Cheskys are millionnaires...

 

That's not accurate.  I mentioned the Cheskys because we were talking about my recording background and my experience at Chesky Records was relevant.  The topic also came up in discussions of download and streaming sites.

[Lee Scoggins]

4 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Paging @Lee Scoggins. Need we say I told you so?

 

Is this a big deal?  2L has historically been a label like Channel Classics that attracts hirez fans globally.  Is losing a form of redbook an issue?  I have lots of 2L recordings from Morten Lindberg and redbook from them has never even crossed my mind.  Maybe Morten found that they weren't selling.

[Lee Scoggins]

12 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

There is no such thing as “a form of redbook.” There is only 1 redbook standard. We’ve lost redbook on a single service. It isn’t possible to stream non-MQA anything from 2L on Qobuz. 

 

Sugarcoat it all you want, most of us don’t purchase 2L recordings. Now many are left with MQA or nothing. 

 

As the lossless audio dominos fall, I can’t wait to read your latest justification. Your acceptance of lossy mediocrity is quite surprising given your long time interest in this hobby. You even seem like a “straight wire with gain” type of guy, but your support for lossy audio origami just doesn’t make sense to me. 

 

 

 

So I reached out to Morten and learned a few things. He messaged the following:

 

Quote

For two years now we have distributed MQA16 in WAV 16-44 to all services limited to CD-quality like Spotify, Apple, and low-tier Qobuz, simply because it sounds way better than regular RedBook. For true HiRes download and streaming services we provide both MQA24 and straight PCM up to and including our DXD source without MQA. I believe in full transparency and for our customers to make their own choice with premium subscriptions.

 

So I think Morten just feels MQA files of 16/44 are better for his customers.  Everything else seems to be available without MQA.  This seems a reasonable position to me.

 

Morten goes on to say that 2L uses MQA in their 16/44 process. So it seems it was a matter of offering customers better sound quality, not about restricting customer choice.

 

And given that you said "most of us don't purchase 2L recordings", it seems this isn't likely to impact many, perhaps not any.  

[Lee Scoggins]

12 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

If you do Norwegian things and I do the only 2L recordings I own are 16/44.1. The only MQA files I own or will own are for testing. MQA files are not and will never be part of my music library.

 

Well you are missing out on some great sound.  Many MQA files on Tidal and elsewhere sound fantastic.

[Lee Scoggins]

3 hours ago, firedog said:

I just switched my streaming subscription from Tidal to Qobuz. Nothing directly to do with MQA. But as a side effect, I'm happy to vote with my money and not give my support to MQA. Qobuz doesn't seem to be "supporting" MQA-they are giving us full hi-res - they just seem to have been caught unawares by a tricky bit of marketing by 2L.

 

@Lee Scoggins : why is it a big deal? First, it's deceptive by 2L. Audiophiles who see 16/44.1 believe they are getting a standard Redbook file. MQA isn't that, and it also isn't a full 16/44.1 file. Even Qobuz wasn't aware 2L had sent them "MQA-CD" (itself a deceptive term) instead of actual Redbook.
Second, ever since MQA hit the market, many of us have said that one of the reasons we don't want it to succeed is that the time would come when only MQA versions of albums would be available. MQA, you, and the other MQA fanboy/apologists told us this wouldn't happen. MQA means more choice...blah, blah. This deceptive move by 2L shows us that we probably were right, and can only wait for actual hi-res versions of albums to disappear, and only fake hi-res distributed by MQA to remain.

And please don't tell me again that I should be happy about this b/c MQA sounds so good, is good for the "industry", etc. None of that means anything to me.

 

I like Qobuz but after playing with it for several months, you should be aware that many albums are only offered in 16/44.  I don't blame Qobuz for this as they are at the mercy of what the labels give them but I have been disappointed at times that we don't have hirez files for some popular albums like Dark Side of the Moon among others.

[Lee Scoggins]

4 minutes ago, mansr said:

You really need to look up the words "better" and "choice" in a dictionary.

 

Morten went on to say:

Quote

There is absolutely no proprietary limitations or DRM to our distributed 16/44 WAV files. Just the added bonus of a potential unfold to those customers who use Roon, Audirvana, Amarra and/or an MQA enabled DAC.

 

So in that respect it is enabling choice.

 

As for better, the temporal improvements cover that.

[Lee Scoggins]

24 minutes ago, wdw said:

 

 

Lee,

As per the post on the MQA CD thread, you are selectively quoting from a form letter from 2L...see full letter below.  

 

Hi #####!

For two years now we have distributed MQA16 in WAV 16-44 to all services limited to CD-quality like Spotify, Apple, and low-tier Qobuz, simply because it sounds way better than regular RedBook. For true HiRes download and streaming services we provide both MQA24 and straight PCM up to and including our DXD source without MQA. I believe in full transparency and for our customers to make their own choice with premium subscriptions.

 

We use MQA technology as an embedded tool in our mastering process for 16/44 WAV, just like any other sonic tool used for a mastering process to produce the intended sonic delivery. There is absolutely no proprietary limitations or DRM to our distributed 16/44 WAV files. Just the added bonus of a potential unfold to those customers who use Roon, Audirvana, Amarra and/or an MQA enabled DAC.

To be precise: What streaming customers at Qobuz now experience is our 16-bit 44.1 WAV with embedded MQA-technology, not our dedicated 24-bit MQA encoded masters. For HiRes download service Qobuz have our 4*fs FLAC without MQA, but due to the migration from Phonofile to The Orchard I believe Qobuz is now in a limbo with our HiRes FLAC files only available for download but not for streaming.

 

Morten Lindberg

 

Actually I was quoting relevant parts of our facebook messaging last night.  I was hoping to clear things up a bit here.

[Lee Scoggins]

45 minutes ago, wdw said:

 

Lee,

The salient point is that you were simply quoting from a form letter but implying, with the use of selective quoting, that you have the skinny on this one and can report from your position of a more significant relationship with the industry, a pose you are often inclined to affect.  

The primary concern with MQA is exposed very clearly with this debacle with 2L.  They are releasing MQA only in varying levels of resolution.  The fear is this will perminate the industry as a whole.  At that point the very real possibility of tiered access via DRM will have arrived but like so many frogs in the warming water we never truly noticed.

 

I had not seen that form letter before today.  I only had a facebook conversation with Morten.  Perhaps he copied some of the content for convenience.

[Lee Scoggins]

1 hour ago, KeenObserver said:

It's like saying "Beetlejuice".

 

Say the name and a Principal Director of (employer removed - editor) appears!

 

Mentioning the employer is going way over the line.  This is the third time this has happened.  I am considering leaving the forum.

[Lee Scoggins]

7 hours ago, firedog said:

Lee does much more than simply say he likes the sound.

He defends MQA at every turn, avoids answering questions dealing with it's acknowledged technical issues, tells us how MQA is designed to be  "good for us" as consumers, tells us that MQA will save the recording industry from financial ruin, and insists that his personal sighted listening tests of MQA "prove" it's superiority.
I don't agree with the insults thrown his way or the work related comments, but even though I believe he is telling us his actual opinion, he comes off as a fanboy who is unable to objectively judge the issue, and as a committed defender/apologist for both MQA/Bob Stuart and the record labels.

 

As far as your other point, a few examples:
 

1. TAS (RH) called MQA a  revolutionary scientiific concept on the level of the discoveries of Copernicus...

2. Both magazines repeatedly called MQA lossless until audiophiles like some of those at this forum showed it to be lossy. Shouldn't the "professionals" at the magazines been able to figure that out? We are still told that MQA is superior to standard hi res  formats and that it is the equivalent of 4X and 8X high res formats. Because of our criticism, we now  hear MQA callled "perceptually lossless" which is a fake technical term made up by MQA Ltd, and is just marketing bunk. They have zero actual research behind their claim that it is "perceptually lossless"-it's just a marketing claim.

3. JVS recently wrote a column saying Qobuz streaming was inferior to Tidal MQA streaming b/c MQA streaming gave us streaming of DXD resolution, as opposed to Qobuz, which maxes out at a "mere" 24/192. Several posters commented pointing out to him that by definition, the actual resolution of MQA files maxes out at about 17/96, and that all that extremely high "resolution" is just upsampling performed as part of the "unfolding" and conversion to analog. Thus his negative comparison to Qobuz 24/192 streaming was false as a matter of fact. He refuses to acknowledge this fact and insists that MQA streaming is providing a  real DXD level of resolution.

4. Multiple reviews/show comments  in both magazines have referred to non MQA devices as obsolete; or implied that devices that aren't MQA ready are inferior.
 

I could go on endlessly with more similar examples from the past several years and up till today.

So it's not surprising that we react that way to the magazines. They may not plug MQA at every turn, but they haven't fully acknowledged many of the shortcomings or possible downsides and continue to pass off MQA marketing terminology (read: deceptive use of language) as "fact". The conclusion most of us draw from this unprofessional behavior is that there is some kind of fix or groupthink going on intended to push us into accepting MQA - both in HW and as a music file format. I don't think there is an actual conspiracy, but the behavior of the magaznes is the same as if there was one.

 

 

Firedog, 

 

I think you have some of the more rational comments here so I will make a few responses in the hope of clarifying my view:

 

1. I do hear some sonic improvement from MQA and I have heard it across different tracks and different systems.  The tracks I hear the improvement on most are those with acoustic instruments in small to medium sized ensembles.

 

2. I have defended the business model because I have seen the value of "data ecosystems" and as someone who has worked on recording session with musicians, I see it as a possible path to getting folks to pay more for premium music which in turn could lead to more revenue for the artist.  I am historically not a fan of record labels or how they have been managed.  That view is well documented on the Steve Hoffman forum.

 

3.  We may disagree with the sound quality of MQA but I think many, because of that, will dismiss their business model out of hand.  I think the intellectually curious will at least give credit to Stuart for what he is attempting to do in terms of aligning incentives for the participants in the ecosystem.

 

4. I personally don't believe MQA is superior sonically to hires formats...each has its own advantages.  It does offer some bandwidth advantages.  It's certainly not "4X and 8X" hirez formats.  I think there is value in the apodizing aspects though.

 

5.  I don't believe non-MQA DACs are obsolete.  The Benchmark DAC3 was in for review last summer and it sounded really excellent and several pro engineers I know are a fan of its performance.  In house here, I own several DACs, only one is MQA which is the network bridge II card in my PS Audio dac.  I do have a Mytek Brooklyn+ in for review and it does MQA in the upstairs system.  Having a dac with MQA decoding gives you more options for playback but it's not needed.  I have often recommended the sound of the Yggdrasil and the Schiit folks don't like MQA to put it kindly. 

 

So I hope that clarifies my view a bit for you and others.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

3 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

Cui Bono

 

Chris set up a seminar that would examine MQA in a neutral, honest fashion.  That would benefit everyone.  Everyone, except perhaps MQA.  Chris was beset by MQA advocates in a less than neutral manner.

Mike Jbara is the CEO of MQA.  As such he can be expected to be less than neutral.  His company stands to make significant financial gain from the adoption of MQA.  Jbara's previous employment with Warner MAY lead one to speculate on who else would benefit.  Jbara's previous employment with Andersen Consulting MAY lead one to speculate how MQA would promote itself.

 

Anderson was far back in Mike's resume (before 1996).  I really doubt it has anything at all to do with the MQA business model.

[Lee Scoggins]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

It can actually do the opposite if the DAC forces MQA filters on non-MQA material. 

 

Yep, that could happen.