MQA is Vaporware

[MikeyFresh]

1 hour ago, GUTB said:

Setting aside whether or not MQA sounds better, it seems that everyone who has actually listened to MQA through a MQA DAC reports that it can sound very different.

False. See the McGill study.

 

1 hour ago, GUTB said:

As Jim Austin -- a PhD in physics -- over at Stereophile commented that the only way to test the time domain claims is with the participation of MQA Ltd.

Oooh, a call to authority. Maybe with Jim and MQA's help we can birth a new world too.

[KeenObserver]

3 hours ago, GUTB said:

So, you don't care about sonic benefits. Your difficulty with MQA seems to be philosophical or ethical. I can't argue against that.

 

Sonic benefits is exactly why those opposed to MQA are opposed.  We want to preserve the availability of quality music, now and in the future.

As far as ethical reasons, the way MQA has proceeded from day one has left a very bad taste for many.

[KeenObserver]

2 hours ago, GUTB said:

I'll drop by Archimago's site at some point. I was very unimpressed by his earlier anti-MQA hobbyhorse and responded to it in detail which went without substantive answer, I'll see what he's come up with now.

 

Weather or not MQA's time domain is fakery is not something which can be determined by looking at a frequency plot of a rendered MQA file. As Jim Austin -- a PhD in physics -- over at Stereophile commented that the only way to test the time domain claims is with the participation of MQA Ltd. No one here, and not Archimago, has the ability to do so.

 

Setting aside whether or not MQA sounds better, it seems that everyone who has actually listened to MQA through a MQA DAC reports that it can sound very different. Many albums I could detect no difference. Many albums I could detect only a slight improvement. Some albums have shown a huge difference, the first one such I was immediately suspicious that there were EQ-ing going on. I have since then begun to suspect this perception of increased volume, or forwardness, as if one were leaning into the mic, is an illusion from improved time domain performance. I noticed that in my vinyl system, many of my records displayed a clear and obvious improvement of dynamics over the digital versions of the same album. This is what has sent me chasing after a digital solution to this gap for the last few years. I wonder if what I was actually hearing in the records was the correct time domain information. You can't blame different masters either. Hit up Tidal for Confederation:

https://tidal.com/browse/album/50641444

This is a Sheffield Lab direct-to-disc recording, the album was directly transcribed to wax in real time with the performance. Completely analog to start to finish. The Tidal version is essentially a needledrop done by a professional mastering engineer. Now when you listen to this album, you'll probably find nothing wrong with it. It sounds fine. Except you have no idea what the record from 1977 sounds like. It's a different experience. It may give the impression of being more forward, but in reality, it's the sense of reality, of higher highs and deeper dips, that dynamic power and contrast which is so pleasing and life-like. Everyone knows that vinyl is nosier, more distorted, has less (usable) bandwidth, etc. So what is it? What if it just boils down to the lack of timing errors endemic to digital? What if Stuart's theory is correct and it's this timing information what actually makes hi-res sound better than Redbook?

 

 

I put as much credence in these observations as I have put in every observation you have made in the past.*

 

*When I have not had you on ignore.

 

MQA is not allowing independent comparison of their product for the alleged reason that  they are protecting intellectual property. They are not allowing independent comparison of their product because they are protecting the very carefully constructed illusion that MQA provides a benefit to the music consumer.

MQA is terrified of independent examination of their product because the truth would come out.  Much of the truth has already come out and MQA is scrambling to cover up the truth.

[GUTB]

1 hour ago, MikeyFresh said:

False. See the McGill study.

 

Oooh, a call to authority. Maybe with Jim and MQA's help we can birth a new world too.

 

Well, you've responded to all listener critiques with citing this McGill study. I'll go check it out and see why it substitutes the need to listen to MQA.

[GUTB]

6 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

 

I put as much credence in these observations as I have put in every observation you have made in the past.*

 

*When I have not had you on ignore.

 

MQA is not allowing independent comparison of their product for the alleged reason that  they are protecting intellectual property. They are not allowing independent comparison of their product because they are protecting the very carefully constructed illusion that MQA provides a benefit to the music consumer.

MQA is terrified of independent examination of their product because the truth would come out.  Much of the truth has already come out and MQA is scrambling to cover up the truth.

 

So, what are your listening impressions? Do you find an improvement in sound and your criticism is philosophical / ethical? Did you find it sounds worse? Some combination?

[KeenObserver]

7 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

So, what are your listening impressions? Do you find an improvement in sound and your criticism is philosophical / ethical? Did you find it sounds worse? Some combination?

 

I do not have any MQA music and I do not have any MQA equipment.  I will never have MQA music and I will never have MQA equipment.

I will trust other's carefully constructed , double blind , independent testing.  If a significant number of people say that MQA does not provide any benefit, then it makes absolutely no sense to buy into all the BS and expense that MQA entails.

[wklie]

5 hours ago, lucretius said:

One file (44.1k-16bit-MQA44.1k), three different displays of sample rate and bit rate:

 

44.1k-16bit (MQA 44.1k)     ->  Core Decoder (Roon) ->  Non-MQA DAC          ->  88.2k-24bit

 

44.1k-16bit (MQA 44.1k)     ->  Core Decoder (Roon)  ->  MQA Renderer DAC ->  44.1k – 24bit

 

44.1k-16bit (MQA 44.1k)     ->  MQA Decoder and Renderer DAC                      -> 44.1k – 16bit

 

 

This is by design.

 

1. With a non-MQA DAC, Roon correctly outputs 24/88.2kHz.

 

2. If you set in Roon your DAC as a MQA Renderer only, you force Roon to do MQA Core decoding, Roon correctly outputs 24/88.2kHz.  Your MQA Renderer correctly displays (not outputs) 44.1kHz.

 

3. If you set it as MQA Decoder + Renderer, in the absence of Roon DSP, volume leveling and multi-zone grouping, Roon will correctly leave the MQA signal unchanged.  This is similar to "MQA Passthrough" in Tidal desktop app.  Your MQA DAC displays (not outputs) 44.1kHz.

 

Part of the complication comes with Roon support for different types of MQA hardware, along with different users' needs for DSP, volume leveling and multi-zone playback.

[MikeyFresh]

51 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

I do not have any MQA music and I do not have any MQA equipment.  I will never have MQA music and I will never have MQA equipment.

Hear, hear... if everyone did this MQA would swiftly perish.

[MikeyFresh]

1 hour ago, GUTB said:

Well, you've responded to all listener critiques with citing this McGill study.

No I have not. However I've suggested that you need to give it consideration, and understand why your having bought an MQA enabled DAC (you are personally invested in MQA), and also bought into a bunch of pure BS marketing-speak from an entity that stands to benefit financially from this scheme (Uncle Bob and co.), and your quoting of the perceived higher authority of Jim Austin et al. means you've drank a healthy dose of the Kool aid, your expectation bias likely now drives what it is you think MQA sounds like.

 

But I'm not expecting much from you here GUTB, your past posts on this board and your recent dismissal of Archimago's very well informed/written 3rd party opinion on MQA that has never been successfully refuted or rebutted in any way, means you are very likely a lost cause. Ditto your infamous and fully uninformed stance on Class D amplification, as if all such designs are the very same thing, and equally bad. Thats scary dogma and willingness to retreat to a comfort zone supported by the old guard audio press.

 

So I expect you'll reject the McGill study too, but not by means of any informed or competent critique/rebuttal.

 

I now return you to the Ignored member list.

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, wklie said:

 

This is by design.

 

1. With a non-MQA DAC, Roon correctly outputs 24/88.2kHz.

 

2. If you set in Roon your DAC as a MQA Renderer only, you force Roon to do MQA Core decoding, Roon correctly outputs 24/88.2kHz.  Your MQA Renderer correctly displays (not outputs) 44.1kHz.

 

3. If you set it as MQA Decoder + Renderer, in the absence of Roon DSP, volume leveling and multi-zone grouping, Roon will correctly leave the MQA signal unchanged.  This is similar to "MQA Passthrough" in Tidal desktop app.  Your MQA DAC displays (not outputs) 44.1kHz.

 

Part of the complication comes with Roon support for different types of MQA hardware, along with different users' needs for DSP, volume leveling and multi-zone playback.

 

Thank you.  I take it that in 2 above (MQA Renderer only) and 3 above (MQA Decoder + Renderer), the DAC is simply displaying the source sample rate (and not the output sample rate).  But it's weird that in 2, the DAC displays "24 bit" and in 3, "16 bit" (Is that also by design?).   I'm guessing that in 2, where Roon is doing the decoding, the DAC first sees the 24 bit stream, displays "24 bit", and the subsequent rendering by the DAC does not change "24 bit" from being displayed.  OTH, for 3 above, the DAC first sees the 16 bit stream (undecoded), displays "16 bit", then the DAC's full decoder kicks in but does not change "16 bit" from displaying.  (This is very confusing for the end user.)

 

[R1200CL]

2 hours ago, wklie said:

3. If you set it as MQA Decoder + Renderer, in the absence of Roon DSP, volume leveling and multi-zone grouping, Roon will correctly leave the MQA signal unchanged.  This is similar to "MQA Passthrough" in Tidal desktop app.  Your MQA DAC displays (not outputs) 44.1kHz.

Good explanation. 
I tried to change my MQA settings. I still get 24/88.2 in Roon. So if we assume the render sees 16/44.1 as claimed, then Roon displays incorrect. (Or maybe I must remove HQPlayer in my chain in order to make Roon display 16/44.1 ? Or have a non MQA DAC attached?). 
 

Are you now also confirming Roon Core Decoder is performing upsampling ? (Depending on settings in Roon). 

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, R1200CL said:

Good explanation. 
I tried to change my MQA settings. I still get 24/88.2 in Roon. So if we assume the render sees 16/44.1 as claimed, then Roon displays incorrect. (Or maybe I must remove HQPlayer in my chain in order to make Roon display 16/44.1 ? Or have a non MQA DAC attached?). 
 

Are you now also confirming Roon Core Decoder is performing upsampling ? (Depending on settings in Roon). 

 

When Roon's MQA Core Decoder is engaged (Settings->Audio->Device Setup->MQA Capabilities = "No MQA Support" or "Renderer Only"), 24/88.2 (in the case of 16 bit MQA) is output to the DAC, i.e. the DAC sees 24/88.2 (not 16/44.1).

 

Let's assume your MQA DAC is setup in Roon as a "Renderer Only" and you are playing a 16 bit MQA file.  The DAC will display the source (pre-MQA) sample rate*, not the actual sample rate input to the DAC.  Therefore, when the pre-MQA sample rate is 44.1k (i.e. MQA 44.1k), then the DAC will display 44.1k.  Likewise, if the pre-MQA sample rate is 352.8k (i.e. MQA 352.8k), then the DAC will display 352.8k.

 

*This is hard-coded in the MQA control stream.

[Abtr]

I have a Tidal subscription and I'm thinking about switching to Qobuz. What I'm worried about however, is that the labels (Warner, etc.) will also provide Qobuz with MQA files which will subsequently be streamed without a 'first unfold', as 44.1K or 48K PCM with severely compromised sound quality (this can be clearly audible).

 

IIRC it was discussed and confirmed about a year ago in this thread that Qobuz was streaming a couple of MQA albums without indicating this or even being aware of it.. I'm not prepared to buy an MQA enabled DAC just to check if albums and tracks from Qobuz are genuine redbook files and not (undecoded) MQA. 
 

[John Dyson]

15 minutes ago, Abtr said:

I have a Tidal subscription and I'm thinking about switching to Qobuz. What I'm worried about however, is that the labels (Warner, etc.) will also provide Qobuz with MQA files which will subsequently be streamed without a 'first unfold', as 44.1K or 48K PCM with severely compromised sound quality (this can be clearly audible).

 

IIRC it was discussed and confirmed about a year ago in this thread that Qobuz was streaming a couple of MQA albums without indicating this or even being aware of it.. I'm not prepared to buy an MQA enabled DAC just to check if albums and tracks from Qobuz are genuine redbook files and not MQA. 
 

When I get my decoder perfected (it is getting closer), and they continue distributing recordings exactly like previous, then the decoder can partially overcome the distortions of MQA plus then some.   The decoder is an advanced expander which mimicks fairly closely the kind of compression applied to almost* every recording sold to consumers.   Even just now, on an ancient recording where I have master tape copies, I found the obnoxious compression added to it.   * I have found a few recordings that are either challenging or cannot be processed by the decoder -- but those are relatively few and far between.  The decoder is NOT for the faint of heart, and is more intended for those very, very focused and computer savvy audiophiles.   Once fully perfected, and I document the internals, the source will be available for plug-in developers to use.   Sadly, the software is far, far, far beyond a typical 'plug-in', but at least the technology will be there for the taking.

 

People are JUST NOT getting what they are paying for, whether it be MQA distorted materials or other previous schemes (since the middle 1980s.)   The music industry does NOT want you to have a pure copy of their 'family jewels', so they try to pawn off a somewhat damaged facsimile.

 

This whole thing is sad, whether it is MQA or the farse about 'remasters' which are seldom much better than the original, original digital release.   You probably have to go back to vinyl made in the 1970s to get good, undistorted quality.  Even then, the industry could take advantage of vinyl damage to keep the pure, accurate intellectual property out of our hands.

 

[Cebolla]

3 hours ago, Abtr said:

IIRC it was discussed and confirmed about a year ago in this thread that Qobuz was streaming a couple of MQA albums without indicating this or even being aware of it.. I'm not prepared to buy an MQA enabled DAC just to check if albums and tracks from Qobuz are genuine redbook files and not (undecoded) MQA. 
 

 

That discussion was specifically about the 2L label having provided MQA-CD content to Qobuz for 16-bit streaming, without having previously notified them about it. Qobuz did provide an official statement on the matter, saying that they would ask for the required extra metadata in order to be able to identify the MQA-CDs and provide an indication for their users:

 

[Cebolla]

9 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

When Roon's MQA Core Decoder is engaged (Settings->Audio->Device Setup->MQA Capabilities = "No MQA Support" or "Renderer Only"), 24/88.2 (in the case of 16 bit MQA) is output to the DAC, i.e. the DAC sees 24/88.2 (not 16/44.1).

 

Let's assume your MQA DAC is setup in Roon as a "Renderer Only" and you are playing a 16 bit MQA file.  The DAC will display the source (pre-MQA) sample rate*, not the actual sample rate input to the DAC.  Therefore, when the pre-MQA sample rate is 44.1k (i.e. MQA 44.1k), then the DAC will display 44.1k.  Likewise, if the pre-MQA sample rate is 352.8k (i.e. MQA 352.8k), then the DAC will display 352.8k.

 

*This is hard-coded in the MQA control stream.

 

Makes perfect sense for those that have bought into MQA, that the MQA DAC use the MQA control stream's ORIGINALSAMPLERATE identifier (or the DAC's max sample rate if the ORIGINALSAMPLERATE is too high) to display sample rate, rather than the actual sample rate of the PCM signal being input to the DAC that's normally used.

[Abtr]

1 hour ago, Cebolla said:

 

That discussion was specifically about the 2L label having provided MQA-CD content to Qobuz for 16-bit streaming, without having previously notified them about it. Qobuz did provide an official statement on the matter, saying that they would ask for the required extra metadata in order to be able to identify the MQA-CDs and provide an indication for their users:

 

 

OK, but what if the labels decide to provide only MQA to all streaming services, including Qobuz? I think that is the plan anyway.. Unless Qobuz agrees to buy an MQA license for doing the unfolding to 88.2k or 96k PCM, most of the Qobuz catalogue will be degraded to undecoded MQA instead of redbook.

 

Note that sound quality after the first MQA unfold is generally quite good and sometimes better than the latest re-remastered redbook version, e.g., if the MQA version is based on another mastering or even on the original release. (Of course MQA doesn't provide any information on what specific master was used for an MQA release, which is highly annoying/evil.)

[mevdinc]

If Qobuz or any other streaming services all end up having to use MQA format then I will simply stop using streaming services altogether.
I have enough of the music I love stored locally to last me for the rest of my life.

 

It will be a shame that I would be missing out on new music, but so be it. Music isn't like the movies, we can only watch our favourite movies two or three times some maybe even more but over so many years. Whereas, we can and do listen to our favourite music day in day out for ours on end. So, I am glad that I have hundreds of my CDs and thousands of music files.

[UkPhil]

16 hours ago, R1200CL said:

Good explanation. 
I tried to change my MQA settings. I still get 24/88.2 in Roon. So if we assume the render sees 16/44.1 as claimed, then Roon displays incorrect. (Or maybe I must remove HQPlayer in my chain in order to make Roon display 16/44.1 ? Or have a non MQA DAC attached?). 
 

Are you now also confirming Roon Core Decoder is performing upsampling ? (Depending on settings in Roon). 

Tried an old Meridian Explorer 2 which I had lying around and it lights up MQA "Green Dot" 44.1 

[lucretius]

8 hours ago, Cebolla said:

 

Makes perfect sense for those that have bought into MQA, that the MQA DAC use the MQA control stream's ORIGINALSAMPLERATE identifier (or the DAC's max sample rate if the ORIGINALSAMPLERATE is too high) to display sample rate, rather than the actual sample rate of the PCM signal being input to the DAC that's normally used.

 

We are not talking about the input rate, rather the output rate.  Presumably, the DAC's display of the source (pre-MQA) sample rate was to inform the user that they are getting such as the output.  And this does make some sense (at least in MQA mythology) where the source is MQA 88.2k and above.  However, for a source of MQA 44.1k and MQA 48k, the decoder actually outputs 88.2k and 96k, respectively, however, the DAC displays 44.1 or 48k.

[sandyk]

8 hours ago, Abtr said:

OK, but what if the labels decide to provide only MQA to all streaming services, including Qobuz?

 

 

Then perhaps it's time to forget streaming and restart listening to some of the huge variety of stuff that many members already have stagnating in local storage as mevdinc suggested! 😉

(P.S.  -  I hadn't seen his post until after I posted mine, and  before editing it.)

 

Perhaps some of you could even organise some kinds of catalogue and find a way to legally exchange music between themselves using physical copies if need be ?

[Kal Rubinson]

8 hours ago, Abtr said:

OK, but what if the labels decide to provide only MQA to all streaming services, including Qobuz?

 

31 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Then perhaps it's time to forget streaming and restart listening to some of the huge variety of stuff that many members already have stagnating in local storage as mevdinc suggested! 

Aha!   Go multichannel.  

[R1200CL]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

Perhaps some of you could even organise some kinds of catalogue and find a way to legally exchange music between themselves using physical copies if need be ?

That’s an interesting idea. But it should be cloud based. Everyone participates acts as an streaming service. And a subscription is required. And artist get paid. Authentication is maybe an issue. But thinking again artists don’t own rights to their music. Ops. 

[ShawnC]

6 hours ago, R1200CL said:

That’s an interesting idea. But it should be cloud based. Everyone participates acts as an streaming service. And a subscription is required. And artist get paid. Authentication is maybe an issue. But thinking again artists don’t own rights to their music. Ops. 

I think JRiver does this with their software and members.  Or something similar.  It's been awhile since I used this service.

[Dr Tone]

13 hours ago, mevdinc said:

If Qobuz or any other streaming services all end up having to use MQA format then I will simply stop using streaming services altogether.
I have enough of the music I love stored locally to last me for the rest of my life.

Same here.  And I won’t lie, if back catalogs eventually become unavailable for purchase in regular PCM or DSD, I’ll look for a pirated source.

 

Artists deserve our money, and we deserve the best copy of their music available.  Leaches like MQA Ltd and the Music Labels don’t.