MQA is Vaporware

[MikeyFresh]

6 hours ago, ARQuint said:

Is Archimago suggesting that there's an important difference between "unattributed" and "anonymous"? Our Product of the Year Awards are actually written by the person who wrote the full review, even though his name or initials aren't given. But the issue number is provided in the blurb so you can find out who it was. Look, I'm no partisan when it comes to the MQA debate but I continue to detect a double standard when it comes to public discussion of this technology. Engineers who have anything good to say about MQA are either unqualified or shameless shills; engineers who condemn it are courageous truth-tellers. The dynamic, unfortunately, parallels the tone of the discussion with far more critical issues of the day—vaccination, climate change, election integrity, and so on.

Andrew Quint

Senior Writer, TAS

Another ARQ drive-by, replete with revisionist history, and false equivalencies intended to deflect the real issues at hand. In other words, more from the very same tired old playbook.

[Archimago]

12 hours ago, ARQuint said:

Is Archimago suggesting that there's an important difference between "unattributed" and "anonymous"? Our Product of the Year Awards are actually written by the person who wrote the full review, even though his name or initials aren't given. But the issue number is provided in the blurb so you can find out who it was. Look, I'm no partisan when it comes to the MQA debate but I continue to detect a double standard when it comes to public discussion of this technology. Engineers who have anything good to say about MQA are either unqualified or shameless shills; engineers who condemn it are courageous truth-tellers. The dynamic, unfortunately, parallels the tone of the discussion with far more critical issues of the day—vaccination, climate change, election integrity, and so on.

Andrew Quint

Senior Writer, TAS

 

Hi @ARQuint,

First, let's talk about "double standards".

 

If I were to present my ideas as a standard subjective reviewer, then don't you think it's important to have a relatively clear idea of who the person(s) is(/are) and why they feel the way they do? For example, if I just wrote a subjective review about TIDAL, then it would be nice to know who I am (clear attribution, even if anonymous) and whether I've tried other streaming services to recognize that I've explored the field of options and can declare one to be better. 

 

In the case of the What HiFi? review of TIDAL, they do the usual thing with touting mQa and use descriptions like "Masters tracks increase the level of insight again, prizing open the soundstage and giving the bare acoustic strumming in Christopher Stapleton’s A Simple Song greater freedom of movement". Sure. And as an observation, as per @R1200CL's comment that there's no name attached to the review, we can't be sure who it is that thought the above subjective impression was true, hence as a critical reader where one has to determine how much faith we attribute a subjective opinion, it does make it harder. Hence my agreement with R1200CL and the question as to why this is so...

 

As for objective reviews, things are a little different isn't it? If we know what the test/measurement is, how the process is done, what was found, then lack of attribution doesn't actually make the finding incorrect if others can replicate (as @The Computer Audiophile indicated). Sure, it would be nice to attribute the content to someone, but the veracity of the data can stand on its own and either replicated (true) or found to be inaccurate (false).

 

Double standard? I don't think so, just different standards. It's just the fundamental nature of the framework of the claim: "Master tracks increase the level of insight" (to someone) versus "This mQa encoded track uses filters with low passband attenuation, hence increased ultrasonic imaging artifacts in the FFT" (verifiable by anyone). Each comment must be judged differently.

 

Wow. You're paralleling "vaccination, climate change, election integrity, and so on" with the mQa debate? Who are the anti-vaxxers here? Who's the climate denier? Who's questioning election integrity? Which "side" in the mQa debate is providing data, replication with multiple devices, and even provided opportunities for the others to respond (for example Chris sending my review article to mQa to refute prior to publication in 2018)?

 

This goes back to the days when some were claiming that those with a more objective mindset were "Flat Earthers" (as discussed here).

 

"Engineers who have anything good to say about MQA are either unqualified or shameless shills; engineers who condemn it are courageous truth-tellers." I'm not actually interested in who the engineers are (as above, subjective opinion is not all that interesting to me after all these years of testing mQa).

 

What data are you referring to to suggest that mQa has better resolution (than true lossless 24/96 for example), proves "de-blurring", or shows that it authenticates the sound "as the artist intended"? I am happy to accept facts if there are any in support of mQa claims.

[Archimago]

10 hours ago, ARQuint said:

But the What Hi-Fi? award is to TIDAL, not to MQA. MQA Ldt touts TIDAL in their promotional material (as expected, as no other streaming service has taken them on.) What I see is that What Hi-Fi? is considered in the thread as worthy of scorn because they like TIDAL, and TIDAL is worthy of scorn because they offer MQA. It's all so tribal...

 

Andy

 

 

I think you're being too sensitive here @ARQuint.

 

I don't think there's anything wrong with questioning which streaming company What Hi-Fi? awards as its "best" given some of the factors discussed above and also worth keeping in mind that this is a UK magazine (mQa being UK). Just one of a number of factors that readers can consider. This is all just an opinion anyways...

 

TIDAL is worthy of criticism (not necessarily scorn) because they are, within the English-speaking world at least, the only company that utilizes mQa to a large degree. If I think mQa is bad for music encoding, then TIDAL is also bad for music streaming and allowing their library to be contaminated with a needless tax on the consumer as it currently stands.

 

I've said that I would happily subscribe to TIDAL if they can get rid of mQa from their 16/44.1 lossless tier so that I can at least achieve consistent CD quality. I like their TIDAL Connect feature, compatibility with many platforms, and appreciate that they're here in Canada. I trust there's nothing inconsistent about that.

[botrytis]

I think we are raining on MrQuint's money maker by bashing mQa. 

 

If mQa would just show data but of course since they patented it, all the data HAS be in the patent. The patent shows how the system works and it is crap.

[Archimago]

2 hours ago, botrytis said:

I think we are raining on MrQuint's money maker by bashing mQa. 

 

If mQa would just show data but of course since they patented it, all the data HAS be in the patent. The patent shows how the system works and it is crap.

 

So sad if the "high end" audio magazines are dependent on stuff like mQa for making money! Speaks poorly for the niche for putting so much emphasis on what amounts to pulling wool over consumers' eyes...

 

Also to correct something above: "This mQa encoded track uses filters with low passband stopband attenuation, hence increased ultrasonic imaging artifacts in the FFT".

[Currawong]

23 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 Engineers who have anything good to say about MQA are either unqualified or shameless shills

 

Engineers (recording and mastering, rather than real engineers) who have anything good to say about it were given music that had had the "white glove" treatment, so don't realise that the majority of MQA music has been batch-processed and a lot of it, as a result, sounds noticeably worse than before. Neil Young figured that out pretty quick.

 

20 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 

But the What Hi-Fi? award is to TIDAL, not to MQA. MQA Ldt touts TIDAL in their promotional material (as expected, as no other streaming service has taken them on.) What I see is that What Hi-Fi? is considered in the thread as worthy of scorn because they like TIDAL, and TIDAL is worthy of scorn because they offer MQA. It's all so tribal...

 

Andy

 

 

The award was given because, to quote the article, "Tidal's expansive, accessible and hi-res-inclusive catalogue remains the best option for streaming-savvy audiophiles." That mentions a "hi-res-inclusive catalog" which is based on MQA, which is, arguably, not really high-res as most people understand the term.

 

However, in your effort to jump on the criticism of the review, you completely ignored a valid counterpoint, which is that other reviews of the 2021 award winners are written by "What Hi-Fi" and don't have an author name.

[JoeWhip]

While I try to stay out of the MQA debate generally, that What HiFi piece read like a press release written for the MQA folks.

[botrytis]

9 hours ago, JoeWhip said:

While I try to stay out of the MQA debate generally, that What HiFi piece read like a press release written for the MQA folks.

 

Honestly, all the other audio magazines seemed to do the same thing.

[firedog]

6 hours ago, botrytis said:

 

Honestly, all the other audio magazines seemed to do the same thing.

Soundstage - for the most part - and a few  others (small ones) didn't.

[botrytis]

7 hours ago, firedog said:

Soundstage - for the most part - and a few  others (small ones) didn't.

 

THANK YOU for the correction - I appreciate it.

[ralphfcooke]

To be fair, I don't think HiFi News in the UK is particularly biased; their reviews do have attributions and test results.

[Archimago]

On 12/20/2021 at 8:20 AM, FredericV said:

Lot's of work, taking a small break now and noticing that the nr1 influencer is always referring to master tapes and the analog domain, even though we don't use those any longer since 201X - it's all digital now ....

https://www.monoandstereo.com/2012/08/interview-with-2l-morten-lindberg.html

2L.no does not use analog master tapes .... I'm betting everything is file based now and they probably have offsite backups. DAW's do not work with tape.

Furthermore he claims it is impossible to measure time smear, as answer on the question for any actual proof:




We have to revert to the 'GO LISTEN' argument now?

Let's deblur this: there is no proof, mQa has never shown any proof that it can correct time smear (all it has shown is upsample filters with one cycle of postringing, which is no proof that it corrects audible errors). Furthermore, the 'GO LISTEN' argument was already debunked by the McGill U mQa study.

 

Hey @FredericV... Fascinating that Veth is still around shilling.

 

I don't know what you guys think, but that Mono&Stereo site is just about the most pretentious thing I have ever seen online! You got ads all over the place to the point where they overwhelm any actual text. It's clearly all about luxury, not actually high-fidelity even though the text tries to convince us otherwise. Unbelievable. I guess advertising on that site must still work to sell some products otherwise why would companies presumably pay dollars to put banners up.

 

Yeah, 2L records everything as 24/352.8 PCM. No mystery about time or frequency domain characteristics. Their SACD/DSD stuff all converted from that original PCM.

 

As for mQa and time domain, maybe they can just show us what a square wave looks like comparing say an original 10kHz 24/352.8 and that same waveform having gone through the mQa meat processor down to a 24/44.1 file, then reconstituted back up to 352.8kHz using one of their filters. I can simulate this, but would much prefer to see the "real deal". Let's just say this ain't likely gonna be exactly the same. ;-)

 

Maybe Mr. Veth who seems to know a lot about mQa can do this for us and explain why the encoding is so awesome...

[Currawong]

1 hour ago, Archimago said:

As for mQa and time domain, maybe they can just show us what a square wave looks like comparing say an original 10kHz 24/352.8 and that same waveform having gone through the mQa meat processor down to a 24/44.1 file, then reconstituted back up to 352.8kHz using one of their filters. I can simulate this, but would much prefer to see the "real deal". Let's just say this ain't likely gonna be exactly the same. ;-)

A square wave is an out-of-band signal, so it's not a good example.  The ADC 2L uses is useless for encoding frequencies above 48 kHz as it outputs only noise. So, any of their music encoded above 96k is a waste of space.

[Archimago]

12 minutes ago, Currawong said:

A square wave is an out-of-band signal, so it's not a good example.  The ADC 2L uses is useless for encoding frequencies above 48 kHz as it outputs only noise. So, any of their music encoded above 96k is a waste of space.

 

Curious @Currawong, what ADC is 2L using!? Obviously many mics will not have much hi-res bandwidth, but the ADC itself limited to 48kHz capture while running at 352.8?

 

The square wave idea is just as a response to Veth's assertion that it's "technically impossible to measure time smear".

[firedog]

6 hours ago, Archimago said:

but that Mono&Stereo site is just about the most pretentious thing I have ever seen online!

 

It's an "audiophile porn" site. No actual info, just piectures to make you lust after very expensive HW. Click bait for the massive amounts of ads on the site.

[Currawong]

On 12/23/2021 at 1:23 PM, Archimago said:

 

Curious @Currawong, what ADC is 2L using!? Obviously many mics will not have much hi-res bandwidth, but the ADC itself limited to 48kHz capture while running at 352.8?

 

The square wave idea is just as a response to Veth's assertion that it's "technically impossible to measure time smear".

http://www.lindberg.no/english/recording.htm

 

If you look at any of the plots of anything recorded by 2L, you'll see the noise rising above 48 khz. Basically, that is sigma delta noise from the ADC. Even if there was any musical info there, assuming that the mikes used can pick up something to begin with, it has been drowned out by that noise.  

 

It's another reason that there's no 2nd or 3rd unfold other than up-sampling: There's nothing to unfold except noise generated by the ADC.

 

The only benefit, IMO, to high sample rates is bypassing the filters in a DAC to varying degrees, to push the transition band thoroughly out of audible range.

[FredericV]

MP3 uses floating point for efficiency, so ....

why not recycle this technique used by lossy codecs, and rebrand it to "fractional bits" to make it sound special

more special

I had to google to find the quote in this canned mQa article from 2016:

https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/beyond-high-resolution

 

Is there any new research? Any new ADC's which use this sampling kernel? Guess not ...

 

[Archimago]

3 hours ago, FredericV said:

MP3 uses floating point for efficiency, so ....

why not recycle this technique used by lossy codecs, and rebrand it to "fractional bits" to make it sound special

more special

I had to google to find the quote in this canned mQa article from 2016:

https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/beyond-high-resolution

 

Is there any new research? Any new ADC's which use this sampling kernel? Guess not ...

 

 

Yup, I think you're right, likely just referring to mQa encoder operating in 32-bit floating point, hence the "fractional" adjective. All rather silly and seems to be just semantics with a bit of voodoo/exaggeration/hype mixed in... A bit like what "lossless" means to these people.

 

That Veth is something else! I hope he gets paid well for talking like this.

[StephenJK]

On 12/20/2021 at 9:30 PM, botrytis said:

I think we are raining on MrQuint's money maker by bashing mQa. 

 

If mQa would just show data but of course since they patented it, all the data HAS be in the patent. The patent shows how the system works and it is crap.

I disagree.  Having been involved with more than one patent application, my understanding is that the goal is to give enough information so that it will protect your idea, but not enough so that it can be slightly modified and circumvented by others.  That's why patent attorneys exist - they walk that fine line between protecting an idea and not disclosing too much.  

[botrytis]

31 minutes ago, StephenJK said:

I disagree.  Having been involved with more than one patent application, my understanding is that the goal is to give enough information so that it will protect your idea, but not enough so that it can be slightly modified and circumvented by others.  That's why patent attorneys exist - they walk that fine line between protecting an idea and not disclosing too much.  

 

Well, having written a patent or two and going through classes on patents, in the US one has to give all the information on how the particular item works, built, etc. Basically, a patent is the government giving exclusive rights to the company who owns it. No one else can produce it.

 

Now IP, or intellectual property, while a patent is one, another is internal secret.  That is like the Coca-Cola formulation, only a few people know that secret. That is the other part.

 

Many of the patent lawyers, I know, are pretty clueless.

[KeenObserver]

I find this all incredible. After MQA has been exposed as nothing more than a scheme to extract money from the music consumer, there are still people that want you to believe that MQA performs "magic".

Are these publications and blogs trying to prove that they are not a complete farce?

Are these publications and blogs trying to prove that they still have the "power" to influence music consumers?

 

My wish for the New Year is that this complete waste of time and energy known as MQA goes off into the oblivion where it belongs.

[Archimago]

3 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

I find this all incredible. After MQA has been exposed as nothing more than a scheme to extract money from the music consumer, there are still people that want you to believe that MQA performs "magic".

Are these publications and blogs trying to prove that they are not a complete farce?

Are these publications and blogs trying to prove that they still have the "power" to influence music consumers?

 

My wish for the New Year is that this complete waste of time and energy known as MQA goes off into the oblivion where it belongs.

 

Humans, our psychology, the things we put our faith in are some of the wonders of the universe ;-).

 

mQa is but one of many bad ideas (IMO).

 

Have a wonderful Christmas and Happy New Year everyone!

 

[mrjktcvs]

I'm not sure who else distributes MQA-processed files besides Tidal, but technical discussions are a non-starter for me when they have holes in their catalog. What other ubiquitous music service doesn't have Samantha Fish's Wild Heart album, published in 2015? I'm with deezer, thanks.

[JoeWhip]

Interesting snide reference to MQA by Michael Fremer today on his site.

[Archimago]

8 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

Interesting snide reference to MQA by Michael Fremer today on his site.

What did he say?