Stereophile Series on MQA Technology

[crenca]

1 hour ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

I too, am interested in the reversal of dispersion that MQA claims to have perfected (we are told, we will be hearing it as per the mixing/mastering engineer, or artist).

 

If MQA have perfected the reversal of dispersion, then that patent alone is worth billions, and every communications entity (product makers and designers, suppliers, service providers, commercial, military, etc etc etc) will praise MQA for delivering the communications holy grail. Well done MQA.

 

Or it could be purposefully added distortion and equalisation, which everyone knows about.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

 

You know, I had a bit of a "doh!" reaction when I read this.

 

Anyone else want to chime in?  If MQA is truly doing what it claims to be doing, would it not be as impactful as Shadders says - IOW even an "end to end" takeover of the musical recording chain would be small potatoes next to its other industrial applications?

[GUTB]

1 hour ago, #Yoda# said:

 

I wonder why you use for you comparison explicit a quite cheap "mass market" DAC, very good for the price, no doubt, but sonically not on one level e.g. with the Mytek Brooklyn, that is for his part not even a "reverence" for digital/analog conversion.

Not really suitable to your self-expressed high end claim.

 

I need to evaluate MQA before I go all-in on a real DAC. My current reference is the Holo Cyan DSD, which is an excellent DAC with performance way beyond it's $900 price. I'll either have to spend a really good chuck of change on a competitive DSD DAC that ALSO supports MQA decoding -- or I'll get a "good" MQA DAC, preferably not a DS-style one, for MQA duties. Maybe a Metrum NOS unit which are supposed to support MQA soon.

 

Right now there isn't enough MQA content to make going all in on MQA a requirement.

[botrytis]

3 hours ago, GUTB said:

And yet—the Inconvenient Truth that MQA sound better is still with us. Last night I bough the 192 and MQA versions of the same album from hiresaudio and the MQA version is CLEARLY better. Since the booklet confirms that the album was mastered in multi-channel 24/192 with a stereo and MQA version also to be released (Japanese audiophile label UNAMAS) we are fairly well assured both versions are from the same source by the same engineer. This was on a Pro-Ject S2 that does native MQA full unfolding.

 

The difference was not small, and anyone with a native MQA DAC has had these experiences. What I’m really interested in knowing is if this is really the result of time domain deblurring or if there’s some form of EQ trick being applied. None of the MQA haters seem to be able to account for this and I hope Jim Austin can.

 

Can you prove they were from the same master? If you cannot - saying one is better than the other is basic nonsense. Just like 192 files can be made from CD masters, so can MQA files. Hence, we need verification BEFORE throwing more money down the rat hole, that is this hobby.

[rickca]

12 hours ago, FredericV said:

For Stuart, efficiency in the delivery of musical information is an aesthetic, even an ethical commitment.

So beautiful.  His motivation is pure as the driven snow. Makes my engineering soul soar.

[FredericV]

10 hours ago, rickca said:

So beautiful.  His motivation is pure as the driven snow. Makes my engineering soul soar.

So ethical to use crypto DRM.

https://media.ccc.de/v/34c3-9113-mqa_-_a_clever_stealth_drm-trojan

and not use "bit freezing" / entropy reduction, compatible with all exsting DAC's:
http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/MQA/cool/bitfreezing.html
https://www.xivero.com/xifeo/

 

MQA oh so fair

[Thuaveta]

16 minutes ago, FredericV said:

So ethical to use crypto DRM.

https://media.ccc.de/v/34c3-9113-mqa_-_a_clever_stealth_drm-trojan

and not use "bit freezing" / entropy reduction, compatible with all exsting DAC's:
http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/MQA/cool/bitfreezing.html
https://www.xivero.com/xifeo/

 

MQA oh so fair

 

So elegant as to require the replacement of hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of hardware to allow more efficient streaming when the average U.S household can already stream in better quality many times over, with the connections they already have, to gear they already own. 

 

MQA : let's elegantly reduce emissions by promoting coal rolling.

[firedog]

22 hours ago, Ron Scubadiver said:

With digital downloads there is no inventory.

 

The files on the server are the inventory.

Do you think there is no cost involved in maintaining and distributing a  library of tens of thousands (or even millions) of files for download (including duplicate/redundant servers) and efficiently serving them to customers (which includes server and bandwidth costs)? Or for the record labels in storing and maintaining them? 

 

There are albums that appear in the high -res download sites in 6-8 versions in various types of hi-res. Some of them are quite large in size. One of the attractions of MQA for the industry is that if it becomes the standard, your inventory would be one file instead of those multiple files you store and sell today 

[Ron Scubadiver]

7 minutes ago, firedog said:

 

The files on the server are the inventory.

Do you think there is no cost involved in maintaining and distributing a  library of tens of thousands (or even millions) of files for download (including duplicate/redundant servers) and efficiently serving them to customers (which includes server and bandwidth costs)? Or for the record labels in storing and maintaining them? 

 

There are albums that appear in the high -res download sites in 6-8 versions in various types of hi-res. Some of them are quite large in size. One of the attractions of MQA for the industry is that if it becomes the standard, your inventory would be one file instead of those multiple files you store and sell today 

It isn't inventory because it is intangible personal property.  Inventory is required to be tangible.  The costs of distributing digital downloads are miniscule.  Even now, the same file is offered in multiple formats.  If you are a fan of MQA please accept my condolences.  You are definitely not one of my fans.

 

I do view the hi-fi industry with skepticism.  Is that bad? 

[Miska]

16 minutes ago, firedog said:

There are albums that appear in the high -res download sites in 6-8 versions in various types of hi-res. Some of them are quite large in size. One of the attractions of MQA for the industry is that if it becomes the standard, your inventory would be one file instead of those multiple files you store and sell today 

 

How would MQA help that? They could as well just sell one version - the original. Instead of multiple versions. There's no point in selling anything else. For selling the original, MQA doesn't help.

 

I never understood point in selling multiple non-original versions  of the same.

[Miska]

1 hour ago, Thuaveta said:

So elegant as to require the replacement of hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of hardware to allow more efficient streaming when the average U.S household can already stream in better quality many times over, with the connections they already have, to gear they already own. 

 

It doesn't even make the streaming more efficient, since equivalent resolution standard FLAC consumes less bandwidth. Not that bandwidth would be an issue in first place.

 

And I can stream even 4K video over 4G LTE data. And 5G networks are already being built. I have two fixed, unlimited data, 4G data links at home, 50 Mbps and 100 Mbps ones. Fixed connections are typically 100 Mbps - 1 Gbps speed. Streaming audio is certainly not an issue.

 

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, Miska said:

I never understood point in selling multiple non-original versions  of the same.

I can see the point in offering, say, the studio master, a CD-quality file, and even mp3 as a convenience for customers who need the lower quality versions for whatever reasons. Charging 4x more for the master file than the CD version is, however, ridiculous.

[Thuaveta]

7 minutes ago, Miska said:

Streaming audio is certainly not an issue.

 

My point exactly... I should've put quotes around "more efficient streaming".

[Miska]

8 minutes ago, mansr said:

I can see the point in offering, say, the studio master, a CD-quality file, and even mp3 as a convenience for customers who need the lower quality versions for whatever reasons. Charging 4x more for the master file than the CD version is, however, ridiculous.

 

Customer can always create lower quality versions from the original with standard tools if they need to. iTunes can do this too.

 

And any capable audio player can do rate conversions if necessary. And as a backup, such functionality is also included in all current operating systems, in the audio engine (when not bypassed). Including iOS and Android...

 

Buying just the original makes the investment future-proof.

[rando]

8 minutes ago, Miska said:

Buying just the original makes the investment future-proof.

 

I just heard the death knell.  

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, Miska said:

Customer can always create lower quality versions from the original with standard tools if they need to. iTunes can do this too.

The customer may not know how to do this, or may simply be too lazy. If offering an additional format increases sales, it makes sense to do so.

 

6 minutes ago, Miska said:

And any capable audio player can do rate conversions if necessary. And as a backup, such functionality is also included in all current operating systems, in the audio engine (when not bypassed). Including iOS and Android...

A lot of people still use older devices or ones with limited storage capacity.

 

6 minutes ago, Miska said:

Buying just the original makes the investment future-proof.

Not disagreeing with that.

[semente]

2 hours ago, Thuaveta said:

 

So elegant as to require the replacement of hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of hardware to allow more efficient streaming when the average U.S household can already stream in better quality many times over, with the connections they already have, to gear they already own. 

 

MQA : let's elegantly reduce emissions by promoting coal rolling.

 

Sponsored by Trump?

[Rt66indierock]

On 1/7/2018 at 5:13 AM, Shadders said:

Hi,

I did not read the articles, but did search for "blur" in each. Not one mention of temporal blur.

 

I thought that temporal blur (dispersion) was the crux of MQA - else it is a lossy encoding of the master.

 

So, do we get to read how MQA de-blurs the file (which will be interesting, since it is impossible)

 

Regards,

Shadders.

 

As part of my research I've been looking for when this blur idea came up. So far the earliest I've found  is in dCS white papers referenced by Andrew Hon in a Fall 2000 UC Berkeley paper. The paper also cites John Atkinson's "Whats Going On Up There?" from October 2000.

[GUTB]

Why is it hard to comprehend that bandwidth is a major concern for distributors?

[mansr]

16 minutes ago, GUTB said:

Why is it hard to comprehend that bandwidth is a major concern for distributors?

Why is it hard to comprehend that MQA does nothing to reduce bandwidth requirements?

[GUTB]

21 minutes ago, mansr said:

Why is it hard to comprehend that MQA does nothing to reduce bandwidth requirements?

 

That’s false on its face.

[Ron Scubadiver]

Allowing only part of the "unfolding" to take place in software is a gimmick to increase royalties by roping hardware manufacturers into the scheme.  I bet it could all be done in software if allowed.  Eventually, someone is going to hack this.

[mansr]

17 minutes ago, Ron Scubadiver said:

Allowing only part of the "unfolding" to take place in software is a gimmick to increase royalties by roping hardware manufacturers into the scheme.  I bet it could all be done in software if allowed.  Eventually, someone is going to hack this.

I already did.

[Miska]

3 hours ago, mansr said:

A lot of people still use older devices or ones with limited storage capacity.

 

iTunes is simplest in this when syncing to iOS devices, you have simple checkbox to select conversion when syncing to the device. And you can optionally configure target properties to some extent.

 

[Miska]

2 hours ago, GUTB said:

Why is it hard to comprehend that bandwidth is a major concern for distributors?

 

Compared to it's resolution, MQA actually wastes bandwidth. Because it is commonly put into FLAC container and the encrypted part looks like noise to the FLAC encoder which compresses poorly. Completely same way as if you take a text file and compress it with ZIP it compresses nicely, but if you encrypt it and then attempt to compress it with ZIP it won't compress because the data has become random.

 

Much more cost effective way is to use equivalent resolution standard FLAC. Smaller files / lower bandwidth consumption than MQA and completely standard. No need to pay MQA anything.

[firedog]

4 hours ago, Ron Scubadiver said:

It isn't inventory because it is intangible personal property.  Inventory is required to be tangible.  The costs of distributing digital downloads are miniscule.  Even now, the same file is offered in multiple formats.  If you are a fan of MQA please accept my condolences.  You are definitely not one of my fans.

 

I do view the hi-fi industry with skepticism.  Is that bad? 

Your first few points are all incorrect, especially about costs.

Offering multiple formats is clearly a cost. If you can use MQA and then only offer one      

File instead, it saves money. That’s one of the reasons the labels like it. 

 

I’m not sure how any of this translates to me being a fan of MQA -seems like you are making all sorts of assumptions based on your own preconceptions, but not based on any facts. 

 

In spite of that, I probably agree that I won’t be a fan of yours.

 

Nothing bad about skepticism, as long as it doesn’t develop into weird conspiracy theories and the like.