Article: MQA: A Review of controversies, concerns, and cautions

[firedog]

6 hours ago, labjr said:

I just quoted exactly what he said was the reason they don't have MQA in their DACs.  

And you apparently still don't understand it.

[firedog]

14 hours ago, mitchco said:

 

Unfortunately, for rock, pop, blues and most anything not classical, this will not be the case. As an ex-recording/mixing engineer, I can say that tracks are already compressed before even being recorded. Meaning, most mixing consoles have compressors/limiters on every channel strip. More often than not, compression and limiting is applied on the way to the multitrack recorder (analog or digital). More often than not, during mixdown, not only possible on individual tracks, but absolutely on the stereo master bus before hitting tape or digital. Finally, applied again during the mastering process.

 

Speaking with one of the engineers that did the mass majority of HDTracks transfers, more often than not, receives whatever is provided by the publishing company, and more often than not, it is a "safety" master is provided, which is an already compressed mixdown on tape or digital. The best the engineer can do is eq the master and add some stereo processing, depth, maybe add a bit of reverb...

 

Finally, virtually all music has passed through the device before it even reaches your ears. The simple reality is that we have all heard the sound of this device since 1967 – that’s 50 years ago folks. In fact, if you are listening to mainstream music right now, it is likely that you are also listening to the sound of this device. If you look at how the  Universal Audio 1176LN Peak Limiter works, it can substantially alter the music waveform in a way that there is no coming back, regardless of anything MQA can or cannot do.

 

Not to paint the bleakest picture :), the likelihood of uncompressed tracks being in vaults, is about 0. Given the ubiquity of "studios in a box" and access to everyone, proper professional recording, mixing and mastering is becoming (or has become) a lost art...

 

If the consumer audiophile industry wanted to really do something, demanding better recordings, mixes and masters is where we would see real audible sonic improvements. Sorry Arch, did not mean to single you out, just a PSA.

But it's also a question of how much compression/limiting is added and when. AFAIK, the Beatles at some point started running everything through a limiter b/c they liked the sound. But there was  generally still a good amount of dynamics left in the final master .

Compare the 67 Sgt. Pepper to the 2017 one. I love the new remaster, but it is a lot more volume compressed than the original. 

[labjr]

5 hours ago, firedog said:

And you apparently still don't understand it.

I understand exactly what I heard him say. And you're trying to tell me he meant something else. 

[miguelito]

20 hours ago, labjr said:

I just quoted exactly what he said was the reason they don't have MQA in their DACs.  

To be honest, this is a pretty weak reason. You could have the MQA filter implemented and fixed, and implement whatever other filters you would implement be completely separate from the MQA filter you have. I see no limitation here - and btw this is how it works in the dCS case, which is also an FPGA DAC.

[firedog]

10 hours ago, miguelito said:

To be honest, this is a pretty weak reason. You could have the MQA filter implemented and fixed, and implement whatever other filters you would implement be completely separate from the MQA filter you have. I see no limitation here - and btw this is how it works in the dCS case, which is also an FPGA DAC.

When it was said above that it took dCS "thousands" of hours to implement their solution, how is this a weak reason? That seems like a pretty strong reason to me. dCS made a decision that they wanted to add MQA and found a way. PS Audio decided they didn't really like MQA anyway, so they didn't want to invest the initial and ongoing  resources (it isn't a once done, you never have to touch it again situation) to fully implement it. No different from several other manufacturers who've decided it isn't in their interest to make MQA certified DACs.

 

Every company has to decide what's best for it. 

[mrz80]

I  thought this was a VERY well done article. I did get rather a sour chuckle from your suggestion that the audiophile press ought to have some inkling of an interest in objectivity. Objectivity, when most of the high end industry butters their bread on every side with unprovable bald assertions of golden eared smug superiority, and anyone who dares to say the words "level matched double blind" or trot out an RTA or 'scope is roundly excoriated? The ghost of Peter Aczel would have to stop spinning in his grave long enough to laugh, so I laugh for him.

Honestly, if MQA would mean a steady stream of planned - or engineered-obsolescence requiring a steady march to the audio salon to purchase more and more new MQA-ed gear, the Pearsons of the world would HAVE to fall all over themselves talking it up, because after all, more sales means more advertising, and more advertising means more fancy zeros at the end of the magazines' balance sheet numbers, right? Or is that too cynical even for me?

Ebenezer Pearson?!?? I am the ghost of Nyquist past!

[miguelito]

On 3/30/2018 at 3:52 AM, firedog said:

When it was said above that it took dCS "thousands" of hours to implement their solution, how is this a weak reason? That seems like a pretty strong reason to me. dCS made a decision that they wanted to add MQA and found a way. PS Audio decided they didn't really like MQA anyway, so they didn't want to invest the initial and ongoing  resources (it isn't a once done, you never have to touch it again situation) to fully implement it. No different from several other manufacturers who've decided it isn't in their interest to make MQA certified DACs.

 

Every company has to decide what's best for it. 

What I argue is a weak reason is the argument that they don't want to compromise the DAC performance by adding MQA.

 

It is a perfectly fine reason to say:

1- We don't think it is meaningful to develop MQA-specified upsampling - we don't think it sounds better

2- We don't think our customers care

3- We don't want to pay MQA licensing fees

4- We would in principle like to add a feature that some users might want but the dev cost is very high and we deem cost-benefit not worth it

 

That's my point...

[crenca]

Based on speculation on this thread:

 

https://community.roonlabs.com/t/missing-advertised-mqa-support/40715/20

 

dCS/Roon (read the COO's description of their relationship) might be implementing post MQA DSP, possibly multichannel, in the future.  A dCS/Roon exclusive?  As I ask, what does this mean for MQA's marketing claims of deblurring SQ tweakiness?  Is there any substance to their claims at all?

[AMP]

18 hours ago, crenca said:

dCS/Roon (read the COO's description of their relationship) might be implementing post MQA DSP, possibly multichannel, in the future.  A dCS/Roon exclusive? 

 

Wow.

 

I can only hope that you were writing in the spirit of April Fool's Day.

 

I can assure you that your speculation is 100% incorrect on all counts. I can also assure you that I know little about Roon's MQA implementation and there's no exclusive partnership (secret or otherwise) between dCS and Roon.

[crenca]

4 minutes ago, AMP said:

 

Wow.

 

I can only hope that you were writing in the spirit of April Fool's Day.

 

I can assure you that your speculation is 100% incorrect on all counts. I can also assure you that I know little about Roon's MQA implementation and there's no exclusive partnership (secret or otherwise) between dCS and Roon.

 

 

Well, which is it?  Am I "100% incorrect", in which case you know quite a bit - enough to be "100%" confident....OR....do you actually "know little about Roon's MQA implementation" in which case you could not even be 50% confident, to say nothing of 100%?

 

Clearly, logic and the plain meaning of words informs us it can't be both - unless you want to claim some intuitive, mystical "100%" certainty 

 

As you the relationship between your company and Roon's, it was tongue in cheek (but at the same time truthfully indicating) what/how Danny Dulai, Chief Operating Officer of Roon describes the relationship between at least one employee of your company.  I quote from the link I posted:

 

"...Andrew is a trusted friend of the company....Andrew has had a long history with Roon, helping as an alpha tester and even some development tasks. For example, he shaved 90% of my dev time for getting Roon OS’s multichannel HDMI support done (on a Sunday evening!)....While Andrew is not employed by Roon Labs, I would gladly sit back and have him speak for the company. I have linked to his posts multiple times when his explanations are even better than what we could have said."

 

Oh wait, that's you!    Since you speak for them, I look forward to your clarification as to what Roon is going to be doing with MQA!!

 

 

 

[Otto Nikolaus]

On 02/04/2018 at 8:29 PM, AMP said:

 

Wow.

 

I can only hope that you were writing in the spirit of April Fool's Day.

 

I can assure you that your speculation is 100% incorrect on all counts. I can also assure you that I know little about Roon's MQA implementation and there's no exclusive partnership (secret or otherwise) between dCS and Roon.

My first post here. Just caught up with this very interesting thread (I've been following Archimago's own blog for a few years now, so I knew it would be worth reading). 

 

AMP, did you mean "I know *a* little"? Amazing the difference one tiny word makes!

[crenca]

3 hours ago, Otto Nikolaus said:

My first post here. Just caught up with this very interesting thread (I've been following Archimago's own blog for a few years now, so I knew it would be worth reading). 

 

AMP, did you mean "I know *a* little"? Amazing the difference one tiny word makes!

 

Seems like dCS/Roon would do well to come at this from a different angle.  They say they are working on something around MQA that is unique, but when customers (you know, the folks who you would think they would want to remain on good terms with) make rational, informed guesses as to what they could be (it's only audio - its not like they can go in that many directions) they are somewhat put off by the speculation, as if it is a surprise or something.

 

If I were them I would make a game of it - play Hot and Cold or the like.  Perhaps it is the mistake controversy in implementing MQA, in that they know that the tide of their consumer sentiment is against it and they are on the defensive?

[firedog]

Something unique with MQA could be multiroom- no one has done it yet, have they? It wouldn't have to be something like what you are speculating about. 

 

Well, which is it?  Am I "100% incorrect", in which case you know quite a bit - enough to be "100%" confident....OR....do you actually "know little about Roon's MQA implementation" in which case you could not even be 50% confident, to say nothing of 100%

 

Or he just meant that in relation to what dCS is planning you are 100% incorrect AND he also knows little about Roon's MQA plans. Those two aren't in contradiction with one another. 

[miguelito]

1 hour ago, crenca said:

Seems like dCS/Roon would do well to come at this from a different angle.  They say they are working on something around MQA that is unique, but when customers (you know, the folks who you would think they would want to remain on good terms with) make rational, informed guesses as to what they could be (it's only audio - its not like they can go in that many directions) they are somewhat put off by the speculation, as if it is a surprise or something.

 

If I were them I would make a game of it - play Hot and Cold or the like.  Perhaps it is the mistake controversy in implementing MQA, in that they know that the tide of their consumer sentiment is against it and they are on the defensive?

What is your source for this? 

[crenca]

26 minutes ago, firedog said:

Something unique with MQA could be multiroom- no one has done it yet, have they? It wouldn't have to be something like what you are speculating about. 

 

Well, which is it?  Am I "100% incorrect", in which case you know quite a bit - enough to be "100%" confident....OR....do you actually "know little about Roon's MQA implementation" in which case you could not even be 50% confident, to say nothing of 100%

 

Or he just meant that in relation to what dCS is planning you are 100% incorrect AND he also knows little about Roon's MQA plans. Those two aren't in contradiction with one another. 

 

11 minutes ago, miguelito said:

What is your source for this? 

 

Miguelito, there is a bit over-spill from that Roon thread (posted above).  Not sure if multiroom was mentioned - perhaps that is it!?   In any case I think Roon shut down that thread as they are apt to do.  I guess they don't want to play Hot and Cold 

[AMP]

On 4/2/2018 at 12:46 PM, crenca said:

Clearly, logic and the plain meaning of words informs us it can't be both - unless you want to claim some intuitive, mystical "100%" certainty

 

I really didn't want to get sucked into this, but since this particular brown paper bag filled with dog poo continues to smolder I guess I need to douse it before it turns into a full-blown fire.

 

OK, let's parse words:

 

On 4/1/2018 at 5:59 PM, crenca said:

dCS/Roon (read the COO's description of their relationship) might be implementing post MQA DSP, possibly multichannel, in the future.  A dCS/Roon exclusive?

 

Your use of "dCS/Roon" implies the relationship of "AND" between those two words. Could also be "along with" or "in conjunction with." This is a common interpretation of the slash in informal English writing and is also consistent with the entire message that you are attempting to convey.

 

So, I interpreted your statement as "dCS and Roon might be implementing post MQA DSP, possibly multichannel, in the future."

 

That statement is incorrect in its entirety. dCS and Roon are not collaborating on anything having to do with MQA, DSP, or multichannel. Nor are we collaborating on anything else at the moment. I have personally (not in affiliation with dCS or anyone else) assisted Roon with testing as well as some kernel tweaks to get multichannel to work over HDMI in Linux (which was subsequently released in RoonOS and/or ROCK)

 

As for your last statement I interpreted that as "A dCS and Roon exclusive?"

 

Again, an entirely false statement.

 

So, to spell it out clearly, your statements as interpreted by me (and hopefully any other sensible reader) are incorrect on both counts, which is .... wait for it.... 100% false.

 

46 minutes ago, firedog said:

Well, which is it?  Am I "100% incorrect", in which case you know quite a bit - enough to be "100%" confident....OR....do you actually "know little about Roon's MQA implementation" in which case you could not even be 50% confident, to say nothing of 100%

 

I wrote that your statements were 100% false and I think I've done a decent job of justifying that above.

 

As for my knowledge of Roon's MQA implementation I stand by my statement that I know little about it (which is true and factual). This statement was intended to reinforce that there is no MQA-related partnership between Roon and dCS. I know little about what Roon is doing, but I DO know a lot about what dCS is doing therefore I can say, with authority, that there's no MQA-related partnership between Roon and dCS.

 

5 hours ago, Otto Nikolaus said:

AMP, did you mean "I know *a* little"? Amazing the difference one tiny word makes!

 

Nope. I stand by my statement as written.

 

50 minutes ago, firedog said:

Or he just meant that in relation to what dCS is planning you are 100% incorrect AND he also knows little about Roon's MQA plans. Those two aren't in contradiction with one another. 

 

Here's someone who got it. Thank you.

 

2 hours ago, crenca said:

Seems like dCS/Roon would do well to come at this from a different angle.

 

First, Roon and dCS would need to be working together on "this" in order to come at it from a different angle.

 

2 hours ago, crenca said:

They say they are working on something around MQA that is unique,

 

No, "we" don't. Well, at least dCS doesn't and since we would be part of that "we" then "we" aren't saying anything of the sort.

 

2 hours ago, crenca said:

but when customers (you know, the folks who you would think they would want to remain on good terms with) make rational, informed guesses as to what they could be (it's only audio - its not like they can go in that many directions) they are somewhat put off by the speculation, as if it is a surprise or something.

 

I'm honestly not 100% certain what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that dCS and Roon (the "we" you're referring to -- already stated to be incorrect) are somewhat put off by "informed guesses" made by customers?

 

If that's the case then I can assure you that dCS is not offended or otherwise put off by speculation (from customers or otherwise). The issue here is the word "informed." Based on everything you've written regarding this topic your speculation is not based on factual information gained from a reliable source. It (everything you have written) is uninformed and that is something that I am put off by as I want the information regarding dCS and their products to be factually correct.

 

People can speculate all they like and it can be entertaining, but when one starts putting words into my mouth then I'm definitely going to get a bit "put off" by it.

 

43 minutes ago, miguelito said:

What is your source for this? 

 

Imagination? Seriously, I've read through the Roon thread multiple times as well as the comments in this one and I can't understand how he's making the connection he is, especially when every attempt has been made to provide correct and factual information.

 

 

 

[miguelito]

2 hours ago, crenca said:

Miguelito, there is a bit over-spill from that Roon thread (posted above).  Not sure if multiroom was mentioned - perhaps that is it!?   In any case I think Roon shut down that thread as they are apt to do.  I guess they don't want to play Hot and Cold 

I follow dCS because I am a customer. I have never read/heard anything even remotely close to what you're suggesting frankly.

 

dCS worked closely with MQA Ltd - not Roon - to implement MQA in their DACs (currently only Rossini, which I have). Perhaps this is the source of confusion?

[crenca]

1 hour ago, AMP said:

 

this particular brown paper bag filled with dog poo...

 

Imagination? Seriously, I've read through the Roon thread multiple times as well as the comments in this one and I can't understand how he's making the connection he is, especially when every attempt has been made to provide correct and factual information...

 

 

yikes, smelly.  

 

I already said "dCS/Roon" was a tongue in cheek based upon Danny's description of your relationship with his company.  It is HIS description, not mine!

 

I just read over the Roon thread again.  Here is what happened:

 

1) speculation about Roon's MQA implementation and AXPONA announcement/attendance

2) Danny says " our implementation has some interesting things not seen elsewhere. Anything more than that is either someone making stuff up or breaking an NDA."

3) I ask Danny about NDA "You seem to be indicating that you have your own relationship/implementation with MQA that requires a specific NDA. Am I reading too much into this?"

4) You answer (not Danny) "Am I reading too much into this?" (quoting me) Yes, you are. What @Danny means is that if anyone has heard anything about Roon’s MQA implementation beyond what he stated: Roon is going to implement an MQA solution That solution is going to include some features not seen in other products That means that they are either making it up or know something factual and by disclosing it are breaking their non-disclosure agreement with Roon Labs. 

5) I reply to you:  " Ah, he was referring to an NDA “with Roon Labs” and not MQA.  Perfectly understandable that I assumed the NDA in question was with MQA as these agreements have been central to whether MQA...Andrew, are you and/or dCS part of the Roon team/company in any way? I ask because you answer my question in a very confident way, so I assume you are involved in some way…

6) To which Danny answers, not you: " Andrew is a trusted friend of the company....While Andrew is not employed by Roon Labs, I would gladly sit back and have him speak for the company.

7) Thread is closed

 

So at the very least you two (Danny and you) answer questions put to the other like an old married couple 

 

But hey, you say there is no connection, and that "As for my knowledge of Roon's MQA implementation I stand by my statement that I know little about it" Ok, ok....

 

In any case, the limitations of a comment box I think have caused most of this misunderstanding.  No, dCS and Roon are not cordinating on Roon's "unique" MQA implementation and you don't know a thing about it, excepting of course exactly what Danny is talking about... 

 

 

[miguelito]

@crenca

 

You said dCS/Roon, not MQA/Roon.

 

It is true that MQA/Roon are working together on the MQA implementation is Roon, and it could possibly be more feature rich than Audirvana's or TIDAL App's for example (hence the NDA Danny is talking about).

 

It is also true that dCS/MQA worked together on the MQA implementation for dCS.

 

You seem to be implying that:

 

dCS/MQA * MQA/Roon = dCS/Roon

 

But that is not true.

 

(Sorry I could not help it...)

[crenca]

2 hours ago, AMP said:

 

If that's the case then I can assure you that dCS is not offended or otherwise put off by speculation (from customers or otherwise). The issue here is the word "informed." Based on everything you've written regarding this topic your speculation is not based on factual information gained from a reliable source. It (everything you have written) is uninformed and that is something that I am put off by as I want the information regarding dCS and their products to be factually correct.

 

 

 

 

Also, which is it?  Are you put off by speculation (which by definition is not completely "factual" or "informed") or not?

[crenca]

3 minutes ago, miguelito said:

@crenca

 

You said dCS/Roon, not MQA/Roon.

 

It is true that MQA/Roon are working together on the MQA implementation is Roon, and it could possibly be more feature rich than Audirvana's or TIDAL App's for example (hence the NDA Danny is talking about).

 

It is also true that dCS/MQA worked together on the MQA implementation for dCS.

 

You seem to be implying that:

 

dCS/MQA * MQA/Roon = dCS/Roon

 

But that is not true.

 

(Sorry I could not help it...)

 

 

Well like I said it was tongue in cheek based on Danny's description of their relationship -  a relationship so close, tight, and trusted that he Danny (and I quote) "would gladly sit back and have him speak for the company"

 

That said, I admit to not being convinced that the relationship between the 3 companies (i.e Roon, dCS, and MQA) has some kind of real "chinese firewall" between them.  Anyone in business understands that there is very often unstated (often even explicitly denied for various investor/legal reasons) relations, quid pro quo, etc. - a kind of underground "you scratch my back and I will scratch yours" cooperation.  Roon has some UK presence, or at least the principles are formal Meridian employees/contractors no?  Did you and the CA not speak of a "Cambridge" relationship between dCS and MQA (going from memory here)?  

[miguelito]

@crenca Oh please give it up! You make absolutely no sense - and implied that dCS did not care to tell customers the truth.

 

Read what you wrote sweetie. You speculated that dCS and Roon where working on some magic together, and that dCS was not being forthright with their customers about it. There is absolutely no basis for your speculation! Lunacy!

 

Seriously.

[crenca]

1 minute ago, miguelito said:

@crenca Oh please give it up! You make absolutely no sense - and implied that dCS did not care to tell customers the truth.

 

Read what you wrote sweetie. You speculated that dCS and Roon where working on some magic together, and that dCS was not being forthright with their customers about it. There is absolutely no basis for your speculation! Lunacy!

 

Seriously.

 

Now that you and I (apparently) are tight like Andrew and Danny...honey...seriously, what are the working on together??   

[LawrenceDavid]

Hey All- Long time listener, first time caller. Before this turns into a full blown dumpster fire, I wanted to throw my straw man hat into the mix. 

 

Isn't MQA for better or worse essentially just math? And aren't the folks at dCS super good at math? Ya know, with all those FPGA's and what not? Now, I'm no scientist... I bet there's a lot of math in Roon too... 

 

All of these people who do math working together.. Sounds very much like collusion to me. 

.. Also, I don’t know this Bob Stuart guy, but I heard he invented math.. so I sure as heck don’t trust him.

 

See what I did there?

 

[crenca]

28 minutes ago, LawrenceDavid said:

Hey All- Long time listener, first time caller. Before this turns into a full blown dumpster fire, I wanted to throw my straw man hat into the mix. 

 

Isn't MQA for better or worse essentially just math? And aren't the folks at dCS super good at math? Ya know, with all those FPGA's and what not? Now, I'm no scientist... I bet there's a lot of math in Roon too... 

 

All of these people who do math working together.. Sounds very much like collusion to me. 

.. Also, I don’t know this Bob Stuart guy, but I heard he invented math.. so I sure as heck don’t trust him.

 

See what I did there?

 

 

Yep relationships matter.  When it comes to MQA these relationships seem to matter a lot.  My sweetie @miguelito seems to be a bit upset at me for being a little naughty, but it's not like mqa has some sort of moral high ground ?