MQA is Vaporware

[esldude]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

By the way, MQA doesn't require the use of its own filters. Some DAC manufacturers will benefit from MQA's filter while others do it better themselves. 

Would that not automatically mean it fails as Authenticating anything if you don't use their filtering? 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

Would that not automatically mean it fails as Authenticating anything if you don't use their filtering? 

 

Contrary to popular belief, no it doesn't fail authentication. 

[mansr]

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

By the way, MQA doesn't require the use of its own filters. Some DAC manufacturers will benefit from MQA's filter while others do it better themselves. 

As a consumer, you still have no say in which filters get used. The encoding side is what it is, and even if DACs differ, the choice there is limited to whatever MQA has certified.

[The Computer Audiophile]

11 minutes ago, mansr said:

As a consumer, you still have no say in which filters get used. The encoding side is what it is, and even if DACs differ, the choice there is limited to whatever MQA has certified.

 

Not entirely true. 

 

It's not totally unlimited and wide open, but there are some choices. 

[mansr]

9 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Not entirely true. 

 

It's not totally unlimited and wide open, but there are some choices. 

At least agree that the encoding filter is fixed for any given MQA file (the producer might have options). On the playback end, please tell me how to choose upsampling filters on, say, an Explorer 2. You're also skirting around the fact that without MQA, there wouldn't have been any resampling at all.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

At least agree that the encoding filter is fixed for any given MQA file (the producer might have options). On the playback end, please tell me how to choose upsampling filters on, say, an Explorer 2. You're also skirting around the fact that without MQA, there wouldn't have been any resampling at all.

 

Dude, I'm not skirting around anything. I just offered information that wasn't available previously and you're jumping all over me because it doesn't fit your narrative. 

 

Consumers never have a choice of encoding filter of the recording. That's the engineer's choice.  

 

On some DACs you'll be able to select filters. And the manufacturer won't have to use the MQA filter.

[mansr]

13 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Dude, I'm not skirting around anything. I just offered information that wasn't available previously and you're jumping all over me because it doesn't fit your narrative. 

 

Consumers never have a choice of encoding filter of the recording. That's the engineer's choice.  

 

On some DACs you'll be able to select filters. And the manufacturer won't have to use the MQA filter.

If we buy the studio master, no encoding is performed and thus no filter needs to be chosen. MQA adds a pointless downsample/upsample step, and we have little or no (depending on the DAC, per your revelation) say in the filters used here. When we have the original master, there is rarely any reason for us to downsample it at all. If we do choose to resample before the DAC, we have complete control over the process. I don't see why you feel the need to dismiss this as a "narrative."

[Melvin]

13 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

Is that a position you really want to find yourself in, take it or leave it as there's no other choice?  That's the whole point of trying to stop this before that can happen.

 

Sal .. do you honestly believe the audiophile community can stop this MQA juggernaut? I do not. All this gnashing of teeth over MQA seems much ado about nothing for audiophiles who are moving past music acquisition and into streaming. For those folks who still want to purchase premium-priced high-res music beyond what they already own, yes, it may be a concern. Maybe. Seems to me the big music labels couldn't care less about audiophile wants/needs and see their future in streaming. MQA allows for them to produce 1 file for distribution (streaming, downloading, and MQA CDs) for all types of music lovers from audiophiles to casual listeners. From my perspective it seems to be a good business decision for them and plenty of audiophiles like what they hear. Like it or not I think it's here to stay.

[Jud]

13 hours ago, mansr said:

Do you also want a "balanced" discussion about climate change or evolution vs creationism? You are more and more, as facts about MQA emerge, resembling the science deniers on those topics.

 

12 hours ago, esldude said:

The thing that bothers me besides possible DRM like characteristics of MQA is what it really is.

 

The name was Master Quality Authenticated.  It was supposed to tell us when we are getting the actual bits fully decoded to best possible effect under the MQA system.  Instead you have variations and layers of decoding, and filter adjustment.  Though there are two possible indicator lights that is nowhere near enough to tell the whole story.  Quite often I suspect you will simply get an MQA encoded file that other than being wrapped in that container is little different in quality or provenance.  So on the face of it MQA mostly fails to live up to its name.  All that is left is some file size reduction, and the fact if you don't decode at some level your undecoded file is a slightly adulterated version of a redbook quality file. That is not something I see as a step forward. 

 

Stewart et al have been slow to dribble out details of what is really being done in MQA and are at fault for the rocky reception it has had in some circles.  Promises were made that seemed unlikely and in fact turned out not to be so just as suspected.  Something of a minor bait and switch with a promise to just trust us it will be good.

 

An example of a pejorative comment that doesn't provide information about MQA, and an unpejorative critical comment that does.  (And yes, my own comment here provides no new information.  )

[Jud]

1 hour ago, Melvin said:

Sal .. do you honestly believe the audiophile community can stop this MQA juggernaut? I do not.

 

I think it is far, far from a juggernaut, and yes, I think we can help to stop it by getting good, reliable information out to the press and the majority of prospective purchasers.  Everybody wants something that's better; no one wants to be duped.  I think many people tend to (at least I do) tune out something that comes across as shouting, as some sort of impassioned screed with an agenda.  Give me the facts (@mansr and @Miska's work on what the filtering actually does, and the non-necessity for the lossy compression) in a way that doesn't have to be technical (as @esldude does in his recent comment) and trust me to make a good decision.

 

Edit: Oh and yes, the DRM potential (please not in a way that tries to convince me the barbarians have already broken down the gates, but lets me know the trebuchets are designed and can be built in an instant if need be).

[rickca]

I posted this in another thread, but I think it belongs here.  @PeterSt please comment, thanks.

 

Can't the filter be customized by the DAC manufacturer implementing MQA?  For example, Berkeley plans to offer MQA on the Alpha DAC Reference Series 2 in 2Q2017.  It will be an MQA renderer.  I can't believe Berkeley is going to use some awful filter on their $19,500 DAC just so they can tick the MQA box in their specs.

 

I know every implementation needs to approved by MQA.  I can imagine the DAC manufacturers just love that part. 

[Melvin]

33 minutes ago, Jud said:

I think it is far, far from a juggernaut, and yes, I think we can help to stop it by getting good, reliable information out to the press and the majority of prospective purchasers.  

 

Well, the content partners listed on the MQA website suggests differently IMO.

 

[Solstice380]

2 minutes ago, Melvin said:

 

Well, the content partners listed on the MQA website suggests differently IMO.

 

 

They signed on for HDCD, too.  

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

If we buy the studio master, no encoding is performed and thus no filter needs to be chosen. MQA adds a pointless downsample/upsample step, and we have little or no (depending on the DAC, per your revelation) say in the filters used here. When we have the original master, there is rarely any reason for us to downsample it at all. If we do choose to resample before the DAC, we have complete control over the process. I don't see why you feel the need to dismiss this as a "narrative."

 

I don't dismiss what you say. Your anti-mqa narrative would never allow you to say there are filtering options. 

 

People believe less of what they read from extremests versus people who can talk about both sides of issues. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

39 minutes ago, rickca said:

I posted this in another thread, but I think it belongs here.  @PeterSt please comment, thanks.

 

Can't the filter be customized by the DAC manufacturer implementing MQA?  For example, Berkeley plans to offer MQA on the Alpha DAC Reference Series 2 in 2Q2017.  It will be an MQA renderer.  I can't believe Berkeley is going to use some awful filter on their $19,500 DAC just so they can tick the MQA box in their specs.

 

I know every implementation needs to approved by MQA.  I can imagine the DAC manufacturers just love that part. 

 

Bingo. 

[Sal1950]

1 hour ago, Melvin said:

Sal .. do you honestly believe the audiophile community can stop this MQA juggernaut? I do not.

I don't know and fear you may be right.

But I for one refuse to sit back quietly while Meridian and the labels collude to lock down digital distribution with a form of DRM they think we won't see and not object to. They use claims of improved sound quality over a high sample rate pure pcm file of the original to get those who care about SQ on board.

So now we have a situation where many are listening to a file that sounds "different" and applauding like trained seals over something that sounds different and ignoring the handcuffs locking around their wrists. At my age I'll probably be dead before MQA can make any difference in the big picture

BUT,

 

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

[The Computer Audiophile]

48 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I think it is far, far from a juggernaut, and yes, I think we can help to stop it by getting good, reliable information out to the press and the majority of prospective purchasers.  Everybody wants something that's better; no one wants to be duped.  I think many people tend to (at least I do) tune out something that comes across as shouting, as some sort of impassioned screed with an agenda.  Give me the facts (@mansr and @Miska's work on what the filtering actually does, and the non-necessity for the lossy compression) in a way that doesn't have to be technical (as @esldude does in his recent comment) and trust me to make a good decision.

 

Edit: Oh and yes, the DRM potential (please not in a way that tries to convince me the barbarians have already broken down the gates, but lets me know the trebuchets are designed and can be built in an instant if need be).

 

So much of this is in the delivery of the message. 

 

[Jud]

13 minutes ago, Melvin said:

 

Well, the content partners listed on the MQA website suggests differently IMO.

 

 

Let's see how it sells.  (And inform the purchasing public.)

[Jud]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

When we have the original master, there is rarely any reason for us to downsample it at all.

 

But we so rarely have "the original master" in today's market.  We so much more often have Redbook or even mp3/AAC.

 

I dunno, you think it would keep people from spending their hard-earned money if we accurately said this (MQA) is an attempt at a "better" version of mp3/AAC (i.e., better perceptual encoding/lossy compression), but is perhaps not even as good quality as CD (for the same master)?

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, rickca said:

I posted this in another thread, but I think it belongs here.  @PeterSt please comment, thanks.

 

Can't the filter be customized by the DAC manufacturer implementing MQA?  For example, Berkeley plans to offer MQA on the Alpha DAC Reference Series 2 in 2Q2017.  It will be an MQA renderer.  I can't believe Berkeley is going to use some awful filter on their $19,500 DAC just so they can tick the MQA box in their specs.

 

I know every implementation needs to approved by MQA.  I can imagine the DAC manufacturers just love that part. 

 

Maybe Chris can tell us how it's done because it seems he has heard things which are hidden for others.

 

Let me pose another one, which may help you in the right direction :

Audirvana can decode MQA, right ? Many love the filtering of iZotope, correct ? Now try to combine both.

Or did you already notice that once MQA is decoded that iZotope is not active ?

I did not follow the Audirvana thread but at some stage could easily see that people take that for granted while they actually can't understand the reasons behind it. With "can't" I mean : how would they be able to know. But some do and those same see how pittyful this all is.

 

What this indirectly is about, is that those who love the iZotope filtering, or worked a year on "their" settings, can forget about them when their DAC starts supporting MQA. OK, things will change because of that anyway, but forget about iZotope from that moment on.

 

We could also ask people how many of them these days play without the in-software filtering, be it iZotope, HQPlayer's filters or my own and all what further exists.

 

Different subject but very much related :

 

What's implied (a bit by Chris's responses about this - not quoted by me) is that I as a DAC manufacturer must suddenly be involved with whatever stuff I don't want to know about, to SHUT OFF a filter I did not ask for. That's how it is. This is about the practice which is totally different from what any of you can know. Chris, this includes you, unless you are building DACs by now. 

What you can't know is how in fact easy it is to decode and render MQA in-DAC, which almost is a job of connecting an expansion board - done. One small problem : now we listen to MQA's filters and I guarantee you that everybody who likes to listen to HQP's (et al) filters, does NOT want that. Berkeley or not.

I summarize : connect that expansion board takes a virtual 1 hour. To shut off that filtering (AND REPLACE WITH YOUR OWN IN THAT UNKNOWN ENVIRONMENT) takes ? ... ages. You are completely on your own without examples. Thus, easy to draw in a schematic that it is possible, or say that "of course it is possible", but now I like to see how it's done; That it has been done by someone; which may include MQA herself.

And all this struggle for something which already worked to satisfaction (iZotope, HQP, etc.).

 

Very same thing with the digital volume;

Doing that in software (decoding) is fine. Thus, use your software player to control the volume is OK. Not so when a MQA hardware decoder is hooked up because then this is regarded mangling and no blue or green leds will come on (the data now has been changed preceding the decoder).  All clear and all understood. But how now the volume is supposed to be controlled is something else. This too can be done in the very same fashion as mentioned above and sadly with the very same struggle. Simple task with an example. Quite undoable without example. This is all about which (API) routine to call when, and what is and what is not allowed, WHILE the docs tell that it is also allowed during software decoding. So you see, you're on the wrong foot always, because what you hear(-say) is supported by schematics.

Try it.

 

 

[Sal1950]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

I think it is far, far from a juggernaut, and yes, I think we can help to stop it by getting good, reliable information out to the press and the majority of prospective purchasers.

So glad to hear your joining the light side of the force. 

[Jud]

22 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Audirvana can decode MQA, right ? Many love the filtering of iZotope, correct ? Now try to combine both.

Or did you already notice that once MQA is decoded that iZotope is not active ?

 

Interesting, will take a look.

[The Computer Audiophile]

I've been digging for information. That's how I found out companies can avoid using MQA filters. I just wish more information was made public. 

 

Hopefully we'll see support for more DSP in the near future. 

[crenca]

17 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I've been digging for information. That's how I found out companies can avoid using MQA filters. I just wish more information was made public. 

 

Hopefully we'll see support for more DSP in the near future. 

 

I would be surprised if MQA does not in the coming short/medium term make more and more concessions to DSP (of all kinds).  I would suspect that this is probably what they get feedback on the most from those who are willing to work with them.  As they quickly figured out that software decoding was their ticket to streaming, they adapted.  Without real concessions in this area they have no real hope breaking into the surround/HT market and they won't be denied that.

 

Of course these changes erodes their sells pitch (i.e. end to end "as it is meant to be heard") but as MQA is not about SQ anyways such things are to be expected...

[Rt66indierock]

5 hours ago, Melvin said:

 

Sal .. do you honestly believe the audiophile community can stop this MQA juggernaut? I do not. All this gnashing of teeth over MQA seems much ado about nothing for audiophiles who are moving past music acquisition and into streaming. For those folks who still want to purchase premium-priced high-res music beyond what they already own, yes, it may be a concern. Maybe. Seems to me the big music labels couldn't care less about audiophile wants/needs and see their future in streaming. MQA allows for them to produce 1 file for distribution (streaming, downloading, and MQA CDs) for all types of music lovers from audiophiles to casual listeners. From my perspective it seems to be a good business decision for them and plenty of audiophiles like what they hear. Like it or not I think it's here to stay.

 

Melvin,

 

What MQA juggernaut?  There is no MQA music to buy in the United States. There is no evidence any significant or mainstream recording in MQA will happen in the next couple of years. None of the major streaming players (Spotify, Apple, Deezer) have shown any indication their subscribers want even CD quality streaming. And that is over 70% of the paid streaming market.

 

What you are seeing is a product trying to get a toehold in the audiophile market. After two and half years what have they accomplished? MQA has less than 3,000 albums on TIDAL a streaming service with 1% of the market. Licensing agreements with the major labels seem like a big deal but as I wrote last year if MQA was really something that would help them the majors would have crushed Bob Stuart like a bug.

 

MQA needs the labels and the mainstream distrusts labels. Audiophiles are arguing about the sound quality of MQA so why should the mainstream music buyer care about it. And finally the mainstream music buyers listen to music in ways that make any high resolution music a poor value.