Jump to content
IGNORED

MQA is Vaporware


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, mansr said:

 Some things I don't like about MQA:

  • It uses lossy compression. While the losses in the audible range are probably small, there is simply no need for lossy compression these days. We're streaming 4K video ffs.
  • It forces use of minimum phase filters. The pros and cons of linear vs minimum phase filters are debatable, but as long as differences of opinion exist, removing the choice is a bad thing.
  • The filters it uses are incredibly leaky with lots of aliasing/imaging. This precludes any possibility of accurately restoring the original signal.
  • Being a proprietary format, it requires proprietary software and hardware to decode. Should such software cease to be developed in the future, existing files will become inaccessible (less applicable to streaming). This has happened in the past, and it will happen again. Does anyone remember RealAudio/RealVideo? Good luck finding official software for playing such files today.
  • It makes most uses of DSP impossible. While there is some support for doing simple EQ, more advanced uses like speaker crossover filters (including plain old bass management with subwoofer) are impossible.
  • By requiring DAC certification, it places an artificial barrier for entry into that market, should it become a must-have feature. This is bad for innovation.

And I haven't even mentioned DRM.

I don't think anyone will come to my house and delete the files I already "own." However, there is a possibility that new music will not be made available in open formats. That's what people are afraid of, and rightly so.

 

Thanks or the comments. They go a long way toward a good discussion. I like that you really haven't speculated about the world coming to an end because of this. 

 

I don't like lossy compression either. However, we've all managed to accept the lossy CD quality music for years. Not many recordings were made at 16/44.1. Anything made above that and delivered on CD should be considered lossy. I don't believe there is a need for lossy compression either, but I wish I had some facts to support my belief (bandwidth and data plan cost globally etc...). The 4K were are streaming is incredibly lossy and via wired connections. 

 

I'm with you on the filtering, if this is 100% true. 

 

Yes, in the future there will be no way to play MQA with official hardware of software. It's not a question of if, but when. 

 

The DSP issue is one that I'd like further info on. I've been told that companies just need to work with MQA to solve the issue, but this information comes from MQA.

 

Bad for innovation right now, I agree.

 

 

 

I think the reasons for supporting MQA are much more flimsy and subjective from the consumer side of things. Then we get into speculation that it may be good for the rights holders and if it's good for them does it have to be bad for us? Most people believe that if something is bad for artists it's bad for us, so does the reverse hold true? There are tons of unknowns. 

 

 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
58 minutes ago, Jud said:

To me, MQA presents a much less than compelling technical argument (anyone who likes the way it sounds, peace, I have no quarrel with your taste) and a very tiny likelihood of monopolizing the market so thoroughly as to exclude any room for technically superior open formats.

 

What would present a more interesting question to me is if the rumors about Apple lying in wait with millions of 24/96 files came true.  Would you jump on the bandwagon with Apple's enormous market share and the possibility for it to effectively take over the hi res download and streaming markets in return for convenient reasonably priced access to open format 24/96 files?

 

I stand by my prediction that Apple wont' get into this game - https://www.computeraudiophile.com/ca/bits-and-bytes/High-Resolution-Audio-Isn-t-Coming-Soon-From-Apple/

 

 

 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
12 hours ago, crenca said:

 

Ok, so Merlin is the middle man/agent - still, the substance of the deal/contract flows in opposite direction that I first assumed.

 

As far as the market/financial realities, are you saying that artists could care less - or really are on board with a DRM mechanism...yep, that is what you are saying I think ;)

 

This says nothing that we have not already discussed - that the consumer really only has himself to rely on here.  Everybody, from the artists to the label's to most in the industry and at least 90% of the press thinks MQA (or something like it) is a wonderful thing.  Nothing new here of course but since consumer's current enjoyment of open digital formats is the "problem" it will be solved one way or another, sooner or later...

 

Under the current financial setup for artists there is no point in making anything higher resolution than redbook. An album is just a marketing tool to get you to concerts. Streaming does nothing for a band’s cash flow in 98% of the cases. And even the top 2% complain the payments aren’t adequate. In this financial environment bands aren’t discussing high resolution albums or DRM. They are talking about not signing with labels and all-inclusive contracts where the label gets part of your concert revenue.

 

In the last paragraph you are taking an audiophile view. Try to take a little ok a lot broader view.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Under the current financial setup for artists there is no point in making anything higher resolution than redbook. An album is just a marketing tool to get you to concerts. Streaming does nothing for a band’s cash flow in 98% of the cases. And even the top 2% complain the payments aren’t adequate. In this financial environment bands aren’t discussing high resolution albums or DRM. They are talking about not signing with labels and all-inclusive contracts where the label gets part of your concert revenue.

 

In the last paragraph you are taking an audiophile view. Try to take a little ok a lot broader view.

 

Well, I consciously take a "consumers" view as that is what I am.  I find the artists perspective hard to grasp actually.  It is a strange industry, in that the normal business and even human perspectives don't seem to apply.  How and why do artists regularly sign contracts and purposely arrange their financial relations such that it is obvious to everyone that it is a "bad deal".  I have been in several business in my lifetime, and I don't recall ever even being tempted to sign such glaringly bad contracts.  If you can't "walk away" then you should never (ever ever) be in said business.  Yet, artists seem to be incapable of the most basic common business good sense, and thus they are universally taken advantage of.  Why?  Is it in the artists nature to have almost zero financial self preservation?  Is their "dream" (of making it big or whatever) a kind of drug that destroys the rest of their minds? :) 

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, mansr said:

That's a flawed comparison. Converting from hi-res to CD quality does two things: 1) limits the bandwidth to ~20 kHz, and 2) reduces the dynamic range to ~90 dB. While both of these operations discard some information, the loss is precisely defined, and if implemented properly, there is negligible effect on the remaining information content. In contrast, what is generally termed lossy compression (MP3, AAC, and indeed MQA) goes further and meddles with the entire bandwidth in ways meant to be minimally audible but with no hard limits on what it might do. For any such compression scheme, there exist inputs for which the compression algorithm breaks down more or less catastrophically with readily audible (if not outright terrible) results. When and how this will occur is difficult to predict, and if it does happen, there is nothing you can do about it. Simple bandwidth reduction does not exhibit any such unpredictable behaviour.

 

Many pages ago you argued for the fundamentalist approach to the definition of lossy. When it suits your interest, you argue that even though something is lost it shouldn't be called lossy. Hmmm. 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
12 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

A couple of quotes from Lucian Grainge CEO of Universal February 7, 2013

 

“The data shows and has proved that the enjoyment, the pleasure, the use, the interest in music has never been higher. Ironically, our ability to monetize that through distribution has never been lower.

 “Power is the ability to stop new services. Power is the ability to create new services.” 

 

MQA gives the major labels more ability to monetize distribution of music and more power. Neither is a good thing but you already knew that.

 

Yeah, what's up with those companies trying to make money?

David

Link to comment

You know what I bet?  I bet that the companies involved in utilizing MQA or even the company actually behind MQA has stopped reading this post a long way back. How many vocal detractors have piped in on this here?  Maybe....10, 20?  

 

David

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, realhifi said:

You know what I bet?  I bet that the companies involved in utilizing MQA or even the company actually behind MQA has stopped reading this post a long way back. How many vocal detractors have piped in on this here?  Maybe....10, 20?  

 

 

 

No doubt true - but there customers will continue reading... ;) (even if just a handful).

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, mansr said:

That's a flawed comparison. Converting from hi-res to CD quality does two things: 1) limits the bandwidth to ~20 kHz, and 2) reduces the dynamic range to ~90 dB. While both of these operations discard some information, the loss is precisely defined, and if implemented properly, there is negligible effect on the remaining information content. In contrast, what is generally termed lossy compression (MP3, AAC, and indeed MQA) goes further and meddles with the entire bandwidth in ways meant to be minimally audible but with no hard limits on what it might do. For any such compression scheme, there exist inputs for which the compression algorithm breaks down more or less catastrophically with readily audible (if not outright terrible) results. When and how this will occur is difficult to predict, and if it does happen, there is nothing you can do about it. Simple bandwidth reduction does not exhibit any such unpredictable behaviour.

 

11 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Many pages ago you argued for the fundamentalist approach to the definition of lossy. When it suits your interest, you argue that even though something is lost it shouldn't be called lossy. Hmmm. 

 

Maybe another way to think about it is that losses in conversion to CD are required to fit the product to an existing distribution network.  Same with MP3 and AAC.  MQA doesn't have to but does anyway, which is perhaps a greater "sin."

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

 

Maybe another way to think about it is that losses in conversion to CD are required to fit the product to an existing distribution network.  Same with MP3 and AAC.  MQA doesn't have to but does anyway, which is perhaps a greater "sin."

 

But this gives some credence to the wholesale redefinition of "lossy".  ALL recordings (no matter what the encoding method) are "lossy" in that wrong use of the term to refer to the fact that all recordings and equipment are not perfect reproductions of the original signal/impulse.  Who cares - that is not what MQA/Bob was referring to and that is not how the term is defined/used...

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, realhifi said:

 

Yeah, what's up with those companies trying to make money?

 

The major labels want to control distribution of music. They want to control more than their artists which is bad for artists and consumers. Make all the money you want on your stuff but I want less not more middlemen in the music business. 

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, crenca said:

I don't think so - I recall the definition of "lossy" being debated only by those who want to move the goal posts (i.e. change the definition).  Lossy is a term that has had the same meaning for quite a while now (well, since the beginning) - referring to the "pyschoacustic" renderings/encoding methods and not bandwidth/sample rate reduction within the mathematical confines of PCM itself.

 

If this is "fundamentalist" then where do I buy the t-shirt?

What he said.

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

But this gives some credence to the wholesale redefinition of "lossy".  ALL recordings (no matter what the encoding method) are "lossy" in that wrong use of the term to refer to the fact that all recordings and equipment are not perfect reproductions of the original signal/impulse.  Who cares - that is not what MQA/Bob was referring to and that is not how the term is defined/used...

 

Sure, we can use the proper mathematical definition.  Every CD is lossy then, because it comes originally from an SDM-encoded bitstream in an ADC that is almost certainly converted (in a lossy, irreversible conversion) to PCM at some resolution.  Every edit, effect, and all PCM conversions done thereafter (except if the latter would be done using a closed form filter, which no one uses) are mathematically irreversible and thus lossy.  Inside your DAC there are more mathematically irreversible and thus lossy conversions (again unless you are using a closed form filter for PCM conversions).

 

What MQA does is add a lossy *compression* step to these dozens of lossy conversions, in contrast to, for example, FLAC, which uses *lossless* compression.  So dozens of lossy steps versus dozens plus one.  Obviously a huge qualitative distinction!  ;)

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Jud said:

What MQA does is add a lossy *compression* step to these dozens of lossy conversions, in contrast to, for example, FLAC, which uses *lossless* compression.

That's the only place were the terms lossy and lossless have ever been discussed.

Link to comment
Just now, mansr said:

That's the only place were the terms lossy and lossless have ever been discussed.

 

Strange, since I've been part of discussions of those terms in other places.  :)  (Thus the references to PCM sample rate conversions via closed form filters.)

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
Just now, Jud said:

Strange, since I've been part of discussions of those terms in other places.  :)  (Thus the references to PCM sample rate conversions via closed form filters.)

Are you a professional codec developer? Perhaps you should listen to those who are (or have been) instead of making a fool of yourself.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, mansr said:

Are you a professional codec developer? Perhaps you should listen to those who are (or have been) instead of making a fool of yourself.

 

You might want to advise Mike Moffat, who invented the DAC as a separate piece of equipment (and perhaps Miska, though I may recall that incorrectly), who I've been "listening to," that he's getting it all wrong.

 

But in any case, before we went off on this tangent about definitions, I was saying MQA's use of lossy compression was unnecessary.  Do you think it audibly degrades quality?

 

(Edit: Substituted "compression" for the incorrect "conversion.")

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
45 minutes ago, realhifi said:

You know what I bet?  I bet that the companies involved in utilizing MQA or even the company actually behind MQA has stopped reading this post a long way back. How many vocal detractors have piped in on this here?  Maybe....10, 20?  

 

 

Unlikely given the way others are reporting about MQA.

 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Jud said:

You might want to advise Mike Moffat, who invented the DAC as a separate piece of equipment (and perhaps Miska, though I may recall that incorrectly), who I've been "listening to," that he's getting it all wrong.

 When have either of those discussed compression algorithms? Their products do not even use them.

2 minutes ago, Jud said:

But in any case, before we went off on this tangent about definitions, I was saying MQA's use of lossy conversion was unnecessary.  Do you think it audibly degrades quality?

I think there's a chance that it might for some inputs. Since I haven't listened to every available MQA track, I can't say whether it has happened yet.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Perhaps you're in you're codec cave and need to step outside once in awhile. The topic has been discussed many times. 

Words have meanings. Why is it so hard for you to accept that?

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...