MQA is Vaporware

[yahooboy]

On 12/9/2021 at 7:45 AM, Fokus said:

You mistakenly thought MQA cannot pass on signal in the 24-48kHz band.

 

Anything above 24 kHz in an MQA file I have ever seen is simply a mirrored image (pivoted around 24 kHz if the original file comes from 48/96/192/384 originals)

It seems that You know MQA intimately, so I would love to see an example of any MQA file with any true music signal above 24 kHz (not a mirrored signal) Even though I spent a lot of time going through a lot MQA files a few years ago, I never saw any that wasn't just mirrored above 24k.

I would love to see this though.

[Cebolla]

On 12/8/2021 at 2:51 PM, yahooboy said:

I hope this clears up what I was (trying to) write. From what I read we are saying the same thing.

 

Unfortunately, your reply seems to completely ignore the part that includes the second image in my post, mentioning that MQA files can have true audio in the octave above 24kHz. I wasn't certain that this was the case, but your more recent replies to others have confirmed this, especially your last post. So, no, we are not saying the same thing.

 

 

1 hour ago, yahooboy said:

so I would love to see an example of any MQA file with any true music signal above 24 kHz (not a mirrored signal) Even though I spent a lot of time going through a lot MQA files a few years ago, I never saw any that wasn't just mirrored above 24k.

I would love to see this though.

 

Here is the part in my last post that you chose to ignore - it clearly shows no gap/mirroring in the 22-44kHz range. I remind you that the image is taken from the same YouTube 'gap' video showing the 2L MQA file track and the quote is the final part of Mans Rullgard's post in the YouTube video page, referring to the analysis of the 2L track in the video: 

 

The 2L recording originally has a high sample rate, and MQA preserves it reasonably well up to 44.1 kHz. If you did a playback and (analogue) capture through a certified MQA DAC at 176.4 kHz (or higher), you'd see similar mirroring in the 44.1-88.2 kHz range.

This is referring specifically to the 2L track in the video which has an original sample rate above 48kHz and notably does not have the ~22kHz gap:

 

Mans is saying that you will see mirroring with the 2L track similar to the Beyonce track if you were to capture the playback through an MQA DAC. However, it will be in the 44.1-88.2kHz range, ie, not 22-44.1kHz. Here, the MQA upsampling filter is applied in the DAC by the MQA renderer, not the MQA Core decoder.

 

In fact, this 2L track is the type of MQA file that @Focusis also referring to and ironically, Mans actually says something similar to what @Focusmentioned & you first took issue with - "MQA preserves reasonably well up to 44.1kHz"! 😀

[Archimago]

12 hours ago, yahooboy said:

Anything above 24 kHz in an MQA file I have ever seen is simply a mirrored image (pivoted around 24 kHz if the original file comes from 48/96/192/384 originals)

It seems that You know MQA intimately, so I would love to see an example of any MQA file with any true music signal above 24 kHz (not a mirrored signal) Even though I spent a lot of time going through a lot MQA files a few years ago, I never saw any that wasn't just mirrored above 24k.

I would love to see this though.

 

@yahooboy

While "lossy" reconstituted content, the decoded 24/48 MQA --> 24/96 is not always mirrored.

 

For example, here's Norah Jones' new Christmas album (I Dream of Christmas), 1st ten seconds of the track "Christmas Don't Be Late":

 

 

This is not a "true" hi-res album by any means. But we can see that the MQA decode above 24kHz isn't just imaging artifact. (I used Roon software decoding for the record.)

 

However, if we play this with an MQA DAC, then their filter will "mirror" from 48kHz up.

 

 

[Cebolla]

Having said that, can't really blame @yahooboy not finding similar examples on TIDAL - over two thirds of the MQA albums/EPs/singles listed on TIDAL are 16-bit and the vast majority of those (98%) MQA-CD!

 

Sourced from MQA list.csv file (2021-12-04 update) provided by:

The most complete list of MQA so far found on TIDAL

 

[yahooboy]

2 hours ago, Cebolla said:

Having said that, can't really blame @yahooboy not finding similar examples on TIDAL - over two thirds of the MQA albums/EPs/singles listed on TIDAL are 16-bit and the vast majority of those (98%) MQA-CD!

 

Sourced from MQA list.csv file (2021-12-04 update) provided by:

The most complete list of MQA so far found on TIDAL

 

Thanks @Cebolla, as I said it's been a few years since I made my "investigation"  I deliberately did not examine the 2L files back then, as I wanted it to be representative of the music found on Tidal. (had a suspicion that 2L's catalog had been whitegloved)

It seems that the ones I examined must have been misrepresented files, glad I learned something new.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just when you thought the defense of mQa could reach any lower, I direct you to this beauty from Dave Kelly - https://www.strata-gee.com/mqa-finale-both-anti-and-pro-forces-have-their-successes-and-failures/#comment-47519

[dmackta]

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Just when you thought the defense of mQa could reach any lower, I direct you to this beauty from Dave Kelly - https://www.strata-gee.com/mqa-finale-both-anti-and-pro-forces-have-their-successes-and-failures/#comment-47519

Chris I have bad news for you and your readers. Qobuz senior management in the USA are Jews. ;-)

[MikeyFresh]

53 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Just when you thought the defense of mQa could reach any lower, I direct you to this beauty from Dave Kelly - https://www.strata-gee.com/mqa-finale-both-anti-and-pro-forces-have-their-successes-and-failures/#comment-47519

 

Absurd beyond belief, and in a number of different ways.

 

Following that post's logic, you'd have been right back onboard with MQA the moment Jack Dorsey and Square bought TIDAL last March. Oh wait, that was actually many months before that idiotic post and innuendo was even made.

 

52 minutes ago, dmackta said:

Chris I have bad news for you and your readers. Qobuz senior management in the USA are Jews. ;-)

 

Huh? well now, that of course changes damn near everything! I think a full reconsideration is in order, good day sir. 🤔 🤪

[MikeyFresh]

I've completed my comprehensive review, and I'm sticking with Qobuz.

[Archimago]

Wow @The Computer Audiophile, that's indeed very much a new low.

 

A response to Dave Kelly which is currently being moderated:

 

Hello Dave,
I believe your statements and speculations are highly inappropriate and certainly can be viewed as offensive.

The criticisms against the technical merits of MQA started way before any announcement of adoption by TIDAL. As one who has explored the codec over the years, concerns were raised at the beginning since January 2015 (merely a month or so after the announcement in late 2014):
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2015/01/musings-miscellanies-on-audio-encoding.html

 

By the time TIDAL announced MQA adoption in January 2017, already there were many concerns about the "lossy" nature of the compression technique, questions about "de-blurring", and the necessity of such a scheme not just technically but also as a "tax" on the consumer and extra steps for hardware manufacturers. Comments such as this one:
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2016/10/an-opinion-about-audio-mqa-by-agitater.html

addressed what I think many audiophiles had already been concerned about with the audio magazines jumping on board without proper investigation.

 

In fact, your own statement:
"The highly accomplished Bob Stuart should not have to defend the many years of research and work his team put in to bring us better sounding music."

 

Is exactly the kind of nonsense at the heart of much of these discussions before TIDAL ever was in the picture! Why shouldn't Stuart have to defend his questionable claims?

 

Now as for your offensive speculations about racism, the early testing and data suggesting problems with MQA were based on decoded music from the label 2L such as this from January 2016:
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2016/01/measurements-mqa-master-quality.html

 

Morten Lindberg is not black. Are those critical of 2L for championing MQA also anti-Nordic people?

 

After TIDAL launched their streaming system with MQA in 2017, of course attention was directed to this music service! Since nobody else seriously wanted to touch MQA anywhere to the same extent. By association then, listeners used TIDAL to evaluate the sonic merits of MQA. And obviously anyone who felt MQA was suboptimal would also see TIDAL as a compromised form of hi-res audio streaming. This has nothing to do with anyone's race (on a side note, as I recall, I was more taken aback by the "leg-up" display from Madonna at the TIDAL signing ceremony than the color of anyone's skin).

 

I would happily sign up for TIDAL here in Canada if they dumped MQA, which I've also said publicly:
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2021/11/as-we-hear-it-2021-i-maurizio-c-on-mqa.html

 

At a time in history where there are real disparities and challenges in society, we must be careful to also keep our own fantasies in check. This comment IMO is one of those fantasies that will do nothing to improve understanding of the issues, nor foster open communications.

 

On a personal note, for what it's worth, I am a member of a visible minority as well. Furthermore, my daily work involves those in marginalized and underserved populations. I appreciate the importance as a society to be aware of such issues... MQA and its relationship with TIDAL are not issues to project such concerns into, IMO.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, dmackta said:

Chris I have bad news for you and your readers. Qobuz senior management in the USA are Jews. ;-)

Ha!

 

The Qobuz US team has won the award for best sense of humor 2021. So good. 

[Rt66indierock]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Just when you thought the defense of mQa could reach any lower, I direct you to this beauty from Dave Kelly - https://www.strata-gee.com/mqa-finale-both-anti-and-pro-forces-have-their-successes-and-failures/#comment-47519

I think the supporters of mQa can and will go lower in their desperation. The company has to see the writing on the wall, no market share. And supporters in the music and audio industry are finding their judgement questioned by their support.

[Archimago]

20 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

I think the supporters of mQa can and will go lower in their desperation. The company has to see the writing on the wall, no market share. And supporters in the music and audio industry are finding their judgement questioned by their support.

 

Desperation indeed. I don't know if this guy is a shill like Peter Veth but the comment is so off base that it deserves a response as to how ridiculous this is given the history around mQa even before TIDAL!

 

Just looks bad for the "pro" mQa side to produce such ideas. However, it does provide an opportunity to again refute mQa's value in the face of this "grasping at straws" including venturing into identity politics. Anything they can say of course except to show evidence of benefits to sound quality!

[Rt66indierock]

Dave Kelly sure sounds like a shill.

 

Just more evidence that there are no objective ways to support MQA. And subjective ways have failed as well.

[firedog]

5 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Just when you thought the defense of mQa could reach any lower, I direct you to this beauty from Dave Kelly - https://www.strata-gee.com/mqa-finale-both-anti-and-pro-forces-have-their-successes-and-failures/#comment-47519

I don't get that whole article. In an extreme attempt to be fair and objective, it seems to be another example of people who just accept MQA claims. "Blurring" and "Origami" may be acceptable as metaphors, but they also hide inconvenient facts for MQA:

"Blurring" hasn't ever been defined, and it hasn't been shown that MQA eliminates it. 

"Origami" in the real world doesn't make some of the paper disappear. The term disguises the fact that the medium is lossy.

And bottom line: the ongoing lie/deception about lossless (they've never stopped) shows a basic dishonesty. Why should anyone then believe anything they say?

[fas42]

I find the amount of energy wasted on this stupid MQA thing pretty amazing - to me, it has the importance of whether a car should have white wall tyres, i.e. MQA, or normal black ones. That is, it's about as close to be being completely irrelevant to the business of obtaining high quality reproduction of recordings, as the decoration of tyres is to how capable a vehicle is on the road.

[Archimago]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

I don't get that whole article. In an extreme attempt to be fair and objective, it seems to be another example of people who just accept MQA claims. "Blurring" and "Origami" may be acceptable as metaphors, but they also hide inconvenient facts for MQA:

"Blurring" hasn't ever been defined, and it hasn't been shown that MQA eliminates it. 

"Origami" in the real world doesn't make some of the paper disappear. The term disguises the fact that the medium is lossy.

And bottom line: the ongoing lie/deception about lossless (they've never stopped) shows a basic dishonesty. Why should anyone then believe anything they say?

 

Yeah, I agree @firedog.

 

Strange article.

 

Anyone can like anything and come up with an explanation of supposedly "why" they like it. If Bob Stuart wants to be proud of his baby, that's great for him, but he cannot decree that everyone must agree. If Bob Ludwig thinks it sounds good for a project, then go for it and I'm happy if he wins another Grammy. These things are peripheral to a simple central question of whether, especially in 2021, a rational list of benefits can be proposed to audiophiles.

 

If anything, IMO, that list of "benefits" which at one time might have included "data compression" has been reduced to a big fat ZERO.

 

I find this hilarious:

Quote

At the same time, the anti-forces have several really loud voices that have seemingly gone on to dedicate their lives to an obsessive mission of destroying MQA in any way that they can. They are indefatigable and trash MQA every opportunity they get. They have, in my opinion, gone beyond reason.

 

We're talking about audiophiles, right? Is "obsessive" not almost by definition a pre-requisite for being an "audiophile"??? ;-) Jeez, I'm sure the number of cable arguments after decades easily beats the number of mQa threads!

 

Then there's this:

Quote

Low-end audio is firmly rooted in science. Base performance is all about Ohm’s Law, internal component selection, and manufacturing quality. But when we get into the lofty realm of high-end audio, we are now approaching the juncture of art & science. We all need to consider the artists.

 

So measurements+science are for "low-end" and I assume "hi-end" must be freer to fantasize about "art"? I don't understand the implication here and what's so special about the "high end"... As usual, these kinds of comments are devoid of actual concrete examples and are just hand-waving gestures that something mystical exists within the soul of the audio gear or something.

 

As usual, disappointing "audiophile" article with no meat to the bones of the arguments; just a bunch of hearsay...

 

Oh yeah, I agree with one of the conclusions: "So while GoldenSound and others may want to see it on their scopes, sometimes – rather than seeing – hearing is believing."

 

Someone might want to remind the writer of the "hearing" study results from McGill University. What are we supposed to "hear" again in order to "believe"?!

 

Looking ahead, there's one thing I'm curious to see regarding mQa:

For TIDAL, how many subscribers actually stay with the more expensive "HiFi+" tier with explicit claims of mQa hi-res, instead of downgrading to the "HiFi" tier?

 

Already in this last month 3 audio lover friends I know who subscribe to TIDAL have already spontaneously told me that they've downgraded... This I think is the referendum result that will be meaningful for TIDAL and for mQa. Closing arguments have been delivered - doesn't really matter what anybody says at this point.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

“Origami" in the real world doesn't make some of the paper disappear.

Ha!

 

So true. 

[GregWormald]

7 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Just when you thought the defense of mQa could reach any lower, I direct you to this beauty from Dave Kelly - https://www.strata-gee.com/mqa-finale-both-anti-and-pro-forces-have-their-successes-and-failures/#comment-47519

So let me get this straight. Bringing race into the MQA defence when I haven't seen it anywhere near the MQA "attacks" is anti-racist?  Hmmm, not in my world—in my world that is racist in itself.

[kumakuma]

48 minutes ago, fas42 said:

I find the amount of energy wasted on this stupid MQA thing pretty amazing - to me, it has the importance of whether a car should have white wall tyres, i.e. MQA, or normal black ones. That is, it's about as close to be being completely irrelevant to the business of obtaining high quality reproduction of recordings, as the decoration of tyres is to how capable a vehicle is on the road.

 

Fortunately Chris has put a handy dandy "Ignore this topic" button at the top of the page for your use in situations like this...

[GregWormald]

7 hours ago, dmackta said:

Chris I have bad news for you and your readers. Qobuz senior management in the USA are Jews. ;-)

NO! They're actually LIZARDS!!!!!!!!!! and are taking over the whole world. HUMANS UNITE!

[fas42]

52 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Fortunately Chris has put a handy dandy "Ignore this topic" button at the top of the page for your use in situations like this...

 

Normally do ... but Chris contaminated this thread,

 

by pointing to an article on such - and everyone piled on ...

 

Something about "bad smells", and "getting everywhere", comes to mind ....

[The Computer Audiophile]

12 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Normally do ... but Chris contaminated this thread,

 

by pointing to an article on such - and everyone piled on ...

 

Something about "bad smells", and "getting everywhere", comes to mind ....

Feel free to ignore the site if you don’t like it. It isn’t for everyone. 
 

Posting a pro audio review in a pro audio review thread may be over the top for you, but I think it’s appropriate. 

[MikeyFresh]

2 hours ago, firedog said:

I don't get that whole article. In an extreme attempt to be fair and objective, it seems to be another example of people who just accept MQA claims.

I couldn't agree more and think this piece is a veiled pro-MQA stance, trying it's best to somehow sound fair, and provide some sort of claimed long hard hours research and analysis in a "civil" manner thats claimed to be otherwise lacking in everything from this forum, to GoldenSound's videos. Gimme a break.

 

Thats propaganda, and I've lost some respect for Bill Leebens in that regard. The call to authority of the various mastering engineers who stand to make money by kowtowing to MQA in hopes of being involved in their "white glove" efforts, as well as Bob Stuart himself, are just more of the same from that playbook. 

 

The piece looks to me like a blatant attempt at trying to repair MQA's image at this late date, knowing full well how badly they had shot themselves in the foot in the past at Chris' RMAF talk, and in other high-brow interviews too. Bob's retort to the RMAF incident that in hindsight they simply wouldn't have even attended is just more of the same again, acting above it all and not apologizing for the pathetic behavior of his senior management, and essentially taking the stance that they need not face any scrutiny at all.

2 hours ago, Archimago said:

Someone might want to remind the writer of the "hearing" study results from McGill University. What are we supposed to "hear" again in order to "believe"?!

 

I thought it ironic that Leebens felt the need to cite George Massenburg's teaching affiliation at McGill, but made absolutely no mention of the McGill study you cite.

 

I'll also admit that prior to today I had never even heard of Strata-gee, nor Ted Green, and while I appreciate the supposed mission of his site, I don't think this MQA piece/summation provides any unique insight or real value to readers.

[firedog]

11 hours ago, Archimago said:

Already in this last month 3 audio lover friends I know who subscribe to TIDAL have already spontaneously told me that they've downgraded... This I think is the referendum result that will be meaningful for TIDAL and for mQa. Closing arguments have been delivered - doesn't really matter what anybody says at this point.

I (and others) said when they announced the new pricing that it would be the nail in the coffin of MQA. There were supposedly only a total of a few hundred K subscribers to the "Masters" tier before. In other words, an insignificant amount not only in the audiophile/music lovers world, but a insignificant sliver of the total market. A fraction of  one percent. 

I'm guessing that number will actually decline. How many new subscribers will pay for MQA instead of the CD level tier? Probably close to none. 

 

Tidal will inadvertently prove that MQA has near zero market viability. And that will prevent anyone else from adopting it as a delivery medium. Tidal themselves will probably dump it after a while - whenever contracts permit and egg can be removed from face.