Stereophile Series on MQA Technology

[Rt66indierock]

29 minutes ago, KingRex said:

Through a million dollar setup, some guest enjoyed the Redbook better than the high resolution.  Through a DC 

 

I heard a demo through a DCS stack and had to plug my ears on the MQA playback. It has a glassy, clear, introspective quality, but it hurt to listen to for any time.   On a million dollar system some people with "good ears" preferred good old Redbook to high Res DSD.  For figure.  They said it was just enjoyable. 

I think to many people get caught up in the technology and forget to relax and listen.  A ton of McIntosh equipment is bought and sold.  I know 2 people who found one of those amps and that was it.  End of the road.  Done.  No more looking, why?  Its not accuracy or perfection,  its just musical and pleasant to listen to. 

 

You can have too much resolution to enjoy a system for long periods. And good Redbook can be very good.

[Ron Scubadiver]

1 hour ago, crenca said:

 

True, the labels have an interest to foil DRM on an unsuspecting consumer, but even they have to see value and I don't think MQA offers it.  They can just as easily DRM their streams without MQA.  

 

In any rational market, MQA dies rather quickly. Not that irrational forces could prevail but I suspect (this is all crystal ball stuff) MQA time to stick against the audio wall has come and gone...

 

I hope you are right.  Replacing the 24/96 and 24/192 true high res downloads we have now with 24/48 MQA would be a disaster for the audiophile community.

[mansr]

1 hour ago, Ron Scubadiver said:

I am starting to think that unfortunately MQA is here to stay.  It allows streaming delivery of higher quality than would ordinarily be available from a 24/48 stream

No, it doesn't.

[knickerhawk]

17 hours ago, crenca said:

 

Unfortunately, the "other" legals aspects are both obvious quite impactful on the consumer.  For example, by agreeing to the license of MQA, I am giving the licensor the ability to encrypt, phone home, change (in some future version, say MQA 2.0) what equipment I can play my file on, etc. etc. etc.  I am granting none of these rights to the licensor when I purchase an "open" format such as PCM.  In other words, while copyright is relevant in both cases, the legal and technical methods of both "digital products" could not be more different...

But what you are referring to as “legal aspects” are actually technology aspects. As I’ve explained, the dispositive legal driver here is copyright law and the associated interpretations (primarily related to the concept of fair use) of the limited license you are granted when you purchase a disk or download a file. Those legal drivers are not substantively changed by MQA compared to PCM or other “open” formats. You still have a fair use right to copy the file and you are no more limited from doing so than you are with the “open” formats. What you ARE limited from doing (thanks to underlying DRM tech) is creating a digitally identical copy that ensures endless format/playback options without degradation, which is basically how things stood in the pre-digital era when the fair use exemption for personal copying of this kind of IP was established in the first place.

 

You are not now and never have been in a position of “granting...rights” to the licensors or withholding them. That upside down perception is a side-effect of the digital era in which perfect file copying is feasible and even easy and has become so ingrained in consumers’ minds that this narrow exception to copyright law has morphed into a proclaimed “right”. It’s the digital equivalent to gun activists who insist that any limitation whatsoever on their “rights” are unconstitutional and the first step to tyranny. Sorry, but those rights were never absolute, just as your “right” to perfect, painless fair use copying of IP you’ve licensed is not absolute.  For a couple of decades now the technology has tilted in favor of the consumer being able to take advantage of an old physical ownership model. That’s rapidly changing. Get ready! They’re coming to pry your PCM files from your cold dead fingers! 

[Ron Scubadiver]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

No, it doesn't.

So, are you saying categorically MQA fully unfolded does not sound better than a straight 24/48 stream?  Perhaps you could elaborate, because this is no better than anyone else's naked opinion that MQA does sound better.

 

I should have worded my post a little differently because it comes off as if I am making a claim, but it is too late to change it.  Taken in context with everything else I have said about MQA a careful reader would realize I meant that MQA allowed it's proponents to claim their product sounded better than a straight 24/48 stream.  

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, Ron Scubadiver said:

So, you are saying categorically MQA fully unfolded does not sound better than a straight 24/48 stream?  That might be true and I should have worded my post a little differently because it comes off as if I am making a claim, but it is too late to change it.

I'm saying that a) you don't need MQA to deliver higher quality than 24/48, and b) MQA being higher quality than 24/48 is debatable, it having somewhat better high-frequency extension but lower bit depth and added ultrasonic noise.

[semente]

3 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

You can have too much resolution to enjoy a system for long periods. And good Redbook can be very good.

 

I don't agree with the first sentence. It's either something wrong with the system or with the recording (tonal balance?, close mic'ing?). There's no such thing as too much resolution.

 

P.S.: but yes Redbook can be very good.

[Rt66indierock]

22 minutes ago, semente said:

 

I don't agree with the first sentence. It's either something wrong with the system or with the recording (tonal balance?, close mic'ing?). There's no such thing as too much resolution.

 

P.S.: but yes Redbook can be very good.

 

Actually to much resolution causes fatigue. A reason a lot of people like vinyl which is about 14 bits, and people like CDs with no more than 16 bits when listening for long periods.

 

Don't get me started on hot top ends and the fatigue that causes. 

[semente]

16 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Actually to much resolution causes fatigue. A reason a lot of people like vinyl which is about 14 bits, and people like CDs with no more than 16 bits when listening for long periods.

 

Don't get me started on hot top ends and the fatigue that causes. 

 

That's what I meant.

Properly recorded music will not cause fatigue or produce "clinical" sound; close mic'ing and tonal balance problems such as exaggerated treble do.

Those problems have no relation with resolution.

 

The same is true for the system with its many potential causes for fatigue.

Identifying (and dealing with) them is in my view the greatest and also the most interesting challenge in the practice of audio.

[tmtomh]

21 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Actually to much resolution causes fatigue. A reason a lot of people like vinyl which is about 14 bits, and people like CDs with no more than 16 bits when listening for long periods.

 

Don't get me started on hot top ends and the fatigue that causes. 

 

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. "Resolution" does not cause fatigue. Digital bit-depth is purely about signal-to-noise ratio, and CDs have a noise floor that's well below the noise floor of the original recording equipment (if it's an analogue recording), many electric instruments/amps/mic preamps, the listening room, and often the listener's equipment.

[Dr Tone]

30 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

Actually to much resolution causes fatigue

 

No it doesn't.  A little too hot in the top by design speakers/system or a reflective room or brutally mixed/mastered recordings causes fatigue.

 

I do think MQA is designed for the persons with self proclaimed "very resolving" systems.  The same systems that make my tinnitus act up if I listen to them.

[Rt66indierock]

7 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

 

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. "Resolution" does not cause fatigue. Digital bit-depth is purely about signal-to-noise ratio, and CDs have a noise floor that's well below the noise floor of the original recording equipment (if it's an analogue recording), many electric instruments/amps/mic preamps, the listening room, and often the listener's equipment.

 

Sorry signal to noise ratio and resolution are essentially the same thing. See the sidebar to The Absolute Sound's review of the Benchmark amp by Paul Seydor for a short explanation by Robert E Greene in the April 2016 issue.  

[crenca]

2 hours ago, knickerhawk said:

But what you are referring to as “legal aspects” are actually technology aspects..... Sorry, but those rights were never absolute, just as your “right” to perfect, painless fair use copying of IP you’ve licensed is not absolute...

 

Um, no.  You make several errors, including confusing lisensor with licensee (or your sentence is off).  Besides, you said it yourself - "copying" or cracking, or  in any way technically "getting around" IP "is not absolute".  Why?  Not because it can't be technically done, rather because I am legally prevented from doing so. DRM, IP, etc. etc. - these are first and foremost legal realities that are then "managed" through technical ways.  It is not all about copyright - rather, it is about the legal (and technical) burdens placed on the consumer over and above copyright...

 

 

[Miska]

5 minutes ago, Dr Tone said:

No it doesn't.  A little too hot in the top by design speakers/system or a reflective room or brutally mixed/mastered recordings causes fatigue.

 

I do think MQA is designed for the persons with self proclaimed "very resolving" systems.  The same systems that make my tinnitus act up if I listen to them.

 

I know precisely what you are talking about! In addition leaky filters combined with metal dome tweeters with resonance peak just at or above audio band (usually around 24/25 kHz) makes the resonance ring like crazy. And it can be easily +20 dB compared to overall level.

 

Furthermore, for example old CD version of Pink Floyd DSOTM has proper roll-off from 20 kHz to 22.05 kHz. While the newest remastered version uses modern aliasing type of filter, so there's the spectrum runs to full 22.05 kHz... These modern problem ones can be fixed at playback time with correct upsampling filters though.

 

MQA seems to have sometimes a bit of EQ that boosts top end a little, makes it sound like "more resolution" for untrained listener.

 

I personally avoid both, metal dome tweeters and leaky filters...

 

[tmtomh]

9 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Sorry signal to noise ratio and resolution are essentially the same thing. See the sidebar to The Absolute Sound's review of the Benchmark amp by Paul Seydor for a short explanation by Robert E Greene in the April 2016 issue.  

Yes, I know resolution (more accurately, bit-depth) and signal to noise are essentially the same thing. That's exactly my point. And the signal to noise ratio of "merely" 16 bits on CD is not less fatiguing than higher-resolution digital.

[Miska]

Reading latest Stereophile, there is also one of the major problems of MQA-style content-based DSP approach highlighted by Bob Stuart himself in his response:

"Over the last two years we have steadily improved the encapsulation and deblurring stages to best match the various converter designs, and in the case of 2L, several albums have been re-encoded where [2L recording engineer] Morten [Lindberg] and we felt it was advantageous."

 

This is one of the major reasons why I prefer to do any DSP on the player during playback time. As algorithms improve, there's no need to re-encode, re-download or worst - repurchase content to get the improvements. After software update all content plays through latest version of the algorithms...

 

[knickerhawk]

24 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Um, no.  You make several errors, including confusing lisensor with licensee (or your sentence is off).  Besides, you said it yourself - "copying" or cracking, or  in any way technically "getting around" IP "is not absolute".  Why?  Not because it can't be technically done, rather because I am legally prevented from doing so. DRM, IP, etc. etc. - these are first and foremost legal realities that are then "managed" through technical ways.  It is not all about copyright - rather, it is about the legal (and technical) burdens placed on the consumer over and above copyright...

 

 

It’s usually a good idea when pretending to know what you’re talking about to at least spell the terms correctly. It’s “licensor” not “lisensor.” And, no, my sentence is not “off” and I have not confused who is the licensor and who is the licensee in the kind of IP licensing scenario being discussed here. My law school contracts, property, commercial law and IP law profs would be rather disappointed to learn that, nearly 40 years later, I still hadn’t got it right. My former clients for whom I negotiated numerous  software license agreements would be lining up to sue me as well.

 

As for the rest of your insights, well...I’m just not motivated enough to walk you through the basics that you’re struggling to absorb from my prior posts. I’d rather relax by listening to some MQAs streamed on Tidal.

[crenca]

20 minutes ago, knickerhawk said:

It’s usually a good idea when pretending to know what you’re talking about to at least spell the terms correctly. It’s “licensor” not “lisensor.”

 

Ah, you see there, you get an F in internet comment box community standards.  

 

Look if you like MQA that is fine

 but I will not be buying it, nor can you obscure the legal reality of D......R.....M.  ?

[FredericV]

3 hours ago, mansr said:

I'm saying that a) you don't need MQA to deliver higher quality than 24/48, and b) MQA being higher quality than 24/48 is debatable, it having somewhat better high-frequency extension but lower bit depth and added ultrasonic noise.

 

And this extra ultrasonic noise doesn't seem like a problem for Stereophile:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-tested-part-2-fold

(c) Stereophile, used under fair use

They tried hard and could not hear MQA's higher noise floor (compared to the studio master in DXD) which is hardly any better than redbook. It's 20dB higher than DXD. So if you can't hear the noise at all, why not cut it out? What's the purpose of the first unfold anyway?

When capturing actual concert halls, like I did in deSingel in Belgium with K's Choice in choir, a full 240 piece choir with band singing at full volume vs the three band leaders singing a song a capella unamplified (which was quiet), all these variations fit nicely in 16 bit dynamic range as captured by my camera. We recorded the hall a second time with a professional 4 channel surround recorder which has much better microphones that my Nikon D750, studied the dynamic range, and again, 16 bits was more then enough. This was from the 7th row in a 940 seat hall.
 

The RT60 of this concert hall is about 2 seconds, which is the time going from a crescendo back to background noise. In some MQA talks it is said that you need an extra 10dB of headroom for details buried in the background noise, so 70dB range should do the trick for this hall, which is about 12 bits.

So if MQA can do somewhere around 15 to 17 bits, they have some extra headroom and more than what is needed for most situations, but they basically debunk the need for 24 bit highres, as they use 24 bit flac for other reasons, mainly to bury their secret DRM lossy non nyquist data in the noise floor.

So what is the real purpose of the first unfold, if a higher noise floor in the ultrasonics is not being detected by the reviewers anyway except in a plot, but not by their hearing ?

[Dr Tone]

1 hour ago, Miska said:

This is one of the major reasons why I prefer to do any DSP on the player during playback time. As algorithms improve, there's no need to re-encode, re-download or worst - repurchase content to get the improvements. After software update all content plays through latest version of the algorithms...

 

That’s brutal, now it’s a moving target of “sound quality”.  You certainly don’t want to purchase your MQA content.

[asdf1000]

49 minutes ago, FredericV said:

So if MQA can do somewhere around 15 to 17 bits, they have some extra headroom and more than what is needed for most situations

 

Following on from this, I'm definitely not a fan of MQA quality becoming our only option in future but based on the above, shouldn't we put MQA and it's limited ~ 14-17 bits, aside? If that's enough to dynamic range for most music?

 

Is there any album that truely has 24 bits of dynamic range (over 144dB !)?

 

I ask genuine questions  - I'm not trying to be a smart a$$

 

 

3 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

Actually to much resolution causes fatigue.

 

Not sure I understand this at all.

 

2 hours ago, Dr Tone said:

No it doesn't.  A little too hot in the top by design speakers/system or a reflective room or brutally mixed/mastered recordings causes fatigue.

 

My ears agree with this.

 

[asdf1000]

5 hours ago, knickerhawk said:

For a couple of decades now the technology has tilted in favor of the consumer being able to take advantage of an old physical ownership model. That’s rapidly changing. Get ready!

 

Again I'm not a fan of MQA but I feel the above is what mostly interests the labels about MQA.

[mansr]

42 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

Is there any album that truely has 24 bits of dynamic range (over 144dB !)?

No, there isn't. Even if it were physically possible to record such a thing (creating it synthetically is of course an option), no playback equipment has thatt kind of dynamic range. Besides, if the softest sounds were audible, the louder parts would be seriously painful if not outright hazardous.

[crenca]

2 hours ago, Dr Tone said:

 

That’s brutal, now it’s a moving target of “sound quality”.  You certainly don’t want to purchase your MQA content.

 

MQA has been a moving target since the beginning.  Is it about a SQ tweak for Audiophiles, the only people with playback chains that can take advantage of anything over 320 mp3/AAC?  Is it about DRM and the legal/technical protection of the "crown jewels" of the labels original masters (no matter what the resolution is)?  Is it about an "end to end" recording and delivery chain enforcement of standards that can then be "authenticated"?  Today, @Lee Scoggins is saying it is about "cleverly using a convenience-driven audience to drive better sound quality adoption."  I appreciate his honesty (and his naivete about it's real SQ, DRM, and market aspects) - at least he is admitting that the vast majority of musical consumers are just fine with 320 (their playback chains can't do anything with higher quality encoding) and that they have to be manipulated into it for...what, exactly?

 

Our host Chris Connaker noted 3 years ago (going from memory) that MQA was "a solution looking for a problem".  I still believe Robert Harley of TAS got it right in his "MQA from 30,000 feet" article when he admitted that what MQA is really about is piracy (what "the industry" blames their decline on) and protection of the only thing of value the labels have.  In other words, MQA is from beginning to end about DRM and controlling the consumer.  All the rest is simply a sales job - a hook at best, but now we are into the 3rd year of debunking it is all proving to be a sleight of hand - repackaged existing tech in an IP/DRM package...

[GUTB]

Looks like Part Time Audiophile is also a part of the MQA shill community:

https://parttimeaudiophile.com/2018/01/09/mqa-a-fresh-take-why-the-big-labels-are-converting-their-catalogs/