MQA is Vaporware

[The Computer Audiophile]

54 minutes ago, botrytis said:

A post from the Mod on that thread....

 

We have received the following statement from an 'MQA spokesperson':

"The technical claims presented by HIGHRESAUDIO are fundamentally incorrect and ill-informed. These assertions are consistent with the few we have seen from others who are uncomfortable with the concept of studio quality audio that is convenient for all."

Wow. 
 

Let’s see, what’s more convenient, the Tracy Chapman 44.1 master that’s encoded as FLAC/WAV/ALAC or the one that uses a proprietary scheme to remove data and requires a decoder on the users’ device. 
 

Bob Stuart, Mike Jbara, and Ken Forsythe are so transparent it’s not even funny. They should take up politics. Their answers fit much better in that space. 
 

 

[firedog]

1 hour ago, Currawong said:

GoldenOne has kindly shown me the files and their output after MQA processing. It's not so much of a surprise after Stereophile's JA verified the low-level signal distortion some time back, but it does prove unequivocally that they are neither "de-blurring" music, nor impulse responses (which are not music), either on the input side or the output side.

 

But also, for the MQA group to force the publisher to block him -- I don't think any more needs to be said about that, other than it's proof that they are desperate to hide the truth.

 

Oh, and http://www.hifiplus.com/articles/highresaudio-to-stop-offering-mqa/.

Except that the press release is 4 years old, and they've changed their minds' years ago and have been offering MQA ever since.

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, firedog said:

Except that the press release is 4 years old, and they've changed their minds year ago and have been offering MQA ever since.

Good eye. 

[JoeWhip]

I am beginning to think that MQA was developed by L. Ron Hubbard.

[The Computer Audiophile]

24 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

I am beginning to think that MQA was developed by L. Ron Hubbard.

Don't give them any ideas about claiming tax exempt status. Oh wait, a company has to make money in order to owe taxes. 

[FredericV]

9 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

HIGHRESAUDIO has stopped offering MQA. MQA is NOT lossless, the original signal is never recovered, estimate to recover at most 17bits (reduces the sampling rate), reduces the frequency range, SNR reduced by 3bit, aliasing with artifacts at 18kHz. MQA encoding filters manipulates drastically the original source. No analysis tools are available to verify the encoded MQA content. Therefore no quality control is possible. highresaudio.com stands for offering purity, original mastering source, none manipulated, tweaked or up-sampled content and codecs that are widely supported and offer use of freedom. ...

Lothar Kerestedjian,

Managing Director, HighResAudio

http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatures/mqa/1.html
 

 

Quote

On the technical side, we requested their decoder to develop proper unit-to-unit QC protocols as we have always done on our end. They only promised a few test tones. Those are insufficient to measure distortion, bandwidth, impulse response, linearity and noise to mention just a few. They seem to be very afraid to divulge more about their algorithm to us, their intended business partners. If we can't properly test our MQA-enabled product, how can we be confident to ship it around the world? Based on our listening tests, MQA can do well for cheaper converters. As converter quality increases, the need for MQA becomes less to eventually disappear. If your own DAC for example has perfect impulse response, MQA will only work 50% because now it needs to just correct on the recording end. Now the unfolding process is implemented simply to avoid copying and to create the profit model; not because it actually does anything. Had we seen the definitive contract upfront, we would never have wasted such a huge amount of money!"

I now understand who this partner is - and this hardware vendor is addressing the same issue but in a different part of the MQA ecosystem: MQA does not want their partners to measure it or do any QC on it. This partner is under NDA, so why doesn't MQA want to allow testing?

Probably for the same reason the files from GoldenOne which contained test tones, were deleted on Tidal.

Nobody is allowed to verify the end to end claim ...

Real audio signals can exceed the capture range of 192k samplerates:



https://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm

 

So MQA's 17/96 decimation via dithering will not be enough for real life signals.
Sampling at 24/352.8 will probably capture everything there is to capture, which MQA will decimate to 17/88.2 therefore throwing away all analog signals in the above plot above 44.1 kHz. Upsampling this back to 24/352.8 as done by the second unfold will not bring these original signals back.



  

[GoldenOne]

Just as an update, MQA did respond to my email (AFTER the posts about censorship were made here and elsewhere).
Most of the content in their response was either marketing talk, or easily counter-able (or outright easily disproven) claims. 

My video is done, including my response to their response. Its up on my patreon atm as I put things on there early but it'll be up on here as well as a written version very soon.

[FredericV]

In the not so secret group, people are waking up from those batch encoded files:

 

Peter Veth never doubts any claims, and looking at FB counting 17 comments but only showing 2 comments when selecting  "All comments" from the dropdown menu, we believe a lot of posts are being hidden or censored.

Not the kind of group you want to be in to learn anything new.

Curious how they will react when GoldenSound publishes their analysis - probably this content is never going to be allowed in the group or PV will revert to the GO LISTEN tactic.

[The Computer Audiophile]

I’m sure this will be hard hitting journalism. 
 

 

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I’m sure this will be hard hitting journalism. 
 

 

 

 

Softball journalism at it's finest.

 

 

I remember reading somewhere that BS was interested in Psycho-acoustics, so I am wondering if that is what MQA is all along. If they make something that uninitiated feels it sounds better, unconsciously they will pick that file over and over. Just thinking out loud.

 

[Fast and Bulbous]

18 minutes ago, botrytis said:

Softball journalism at it's finest

Really? Looks like a great opportunity to hear about how wonderful MQA is from a really insightful, technically well informed and objective publication, conducted by an interviewer who is authoritative in the field. What's not to like?

[The Computer Audiophile]

39 minutes ago, Fast and Bulbous said:

Really? Looks like a great opportunity to hear about how wonderful MQA is from a really insightful, technically well informed and objective publication, conducted by an interviewer who is authoritative in the field. What's not to like?

I love her unhealthy obsession with pizza. My type of person. Not sure about her digital signal processing or fraud investigation chops though. 
 

 

 

[JoeWhip]

I have seen her on the Beeb. I don’t think this interview will even rise to the softball level. Maybe wiffle ball.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, JoeWhip said:

I have seen her on the Beeb. I don’t think this interview will even rise to the softball level. Maybe wiffle ball.

I'm sure she is talented and an interesting person, but the fact that Bob selected her as his PR outlet is very telling. 

[botrytis]

Maybe a nerf ball interview.....

 

Well, in thinking about it, maybe it it is my untrusting nature of snake oil salesman, but I think BS is trying to sell MQA to an unsuspecting audience. Ones that never heard of MQA and like MP3's. 

 

Am I reading too much into it?

[GoldenOne]

I've made a long video exploring MQA using files I had published, in MQA, on Tidal.
I'll be writing up a written article this evening to post here and will include the original masters, MQA encoded versions, and unfolded MQA versions so that anyone else can look at them and test further.

MQA did respond to me and their response is discussed at the end of the video (timestamps in playbar/description)
 

 

[botrytis]

@GoldenOne Thank you for explaining to luddites like me.

[manisandher]

I choose lossless flac on TIDAL whenever I can. It simply sounds better. Up until recently, I haven't really been bothered by MQA because TIDAL pretty much offered both MQA and lossless flac. But the choice is getting less and less, with the vast majority of the music I stream from TIDAL now only available in MQA.

 

So, I just wrote this to TIDAL:

 

Hi,

I've noticed that you're increasing the number of MQA albums/tracks and reducing the number of lossless flac albums/tracks available for streaming. After a number of years listening to MQA now, it's clear that it is DETRIMENTAL to the sound.

I do not want to listen to MQA. I want lossless flac. If you continue with your MQA push, I will cancel my TIDAL subscription. I am active on a few well-known hifi forums. I will advise that others also cancel their TIDAL subscription.

Stop this MQA nonsense. Lossless flac is plenty good enough for us audiophiles.

Cheers, Mani.

 

 

[JoeWhip]

Joined your discord golden one Sure 

 Better than flat earth!

[bambadoo]

Just fantastic work GoldenOne!

Spread the word

[botrytis]

I see on the HiFi Plus article Helpful Dad is there spewing his nonsense....

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 hours ago, GoldenOne said:

I've made a long video exploring MQA using files I had published, in MQA, on Tidal.
I'll be writing up a written article this evening to post here and will include the original masters, MQA encoded versions, and unfolded MQA versions so that anyone else can look at them and test further.

MQA did respond to me and their response is discussed at the end of the video (timestamps in playbar/description)
 

 

This is amazing.

[kumakuma]

55 minutes ago, botrytis said:

I see on the HiFi Plus article Helpful Dad is there spewing his nonsense....

 

He certainly does blather on about topics that he doesn't fully understand...

 

 

[botrytis]

6 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

He certainly does blather on about topics that he doesn't fully understand...

 

 

 

He certainly assumes he knows more than anyone and he really doesn't understand. I think many people like that react more like audio is a religion, then a hobby or just fun. I am agnostic when it comes to that. If I learn I am wrong, I rethink and move on with what I have learned. I guess it is the scientist in me that always thinks there will always be people who know more than you, learn from the experts.

 

I learn something new every day. When I stop learning, I will be dead.

[kumakuma]

6 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

He certainly assumes he knows more than anyone and he really doesn't understand. I think many people like that react more like audio is a religion, then a hobby or just fun. I am agnostic when it comes to that. If I learn I am wrong, I rethink and move on with what I have learned. I guess it is the scientist in me that always thinks there will always be people who know more than you, learn from the experts.

 

From the man:

 

Quote

I drive Lyft...

 

Perhaps driving Lyft is the 21st Century version of working at the Patent Office in Bern.