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

[botrytis]

WOW, great article. I can understand why MQA didn't want to respond back. What could they say to debunk this article, w/o sounding like they are putting out more nonsense?

[botrytis]

4 hours ago, Chiger Yelam said:

It always worries me when I see rhetorical tricks being used to enhance an argument. I see no reason to mistrust the audiophile press on this issue as it is their job to give informed and unbiased reviews and there are clear attempts in this article to undermine trust in these reviews. Claiming that past or previous links to the industry in someway mean that they are incapable of doing their current jobs professionally strike me as a stretch. As to whether they "push" (author's quotes) MQA, well only in so much as they "push" any other product they give a good review to. Additionally just because the author has no industry affiliations does not make him/her somehow more trustworthy or unbiased; personally I trust someone more if they make their name and resume known rather than hiding behind anonymity.

If the author is entirely happy with the recent state of computer audio playback then fine, many of us are not and welcome innovative solutions which offer greater choice. This is my main objection to this article. If I want higher resolution sound and am sensible enough to ask my local HiFi retailer to audition new equipment (and can be trusted to make up my own mind) before I buy then what is the problem? The "internet blind test" put forward as evidence by our author is an insult to our intelligence.

I don't see MQA taking a monopoly position here, legacy codec will still be available and alternative improved products may emerge. If MQA and like minded innovators are undermined and ultimately fail then I fear we will be left with genuinely inferior products.

This is the problem with many audiophiles think they cannot be lied to by the press. They can and have been lying to us. That is the point, if MQA is as good as they say, why aren't they crowing to rafters? It is not better. It is a way to go end round and get an inferior product in which can be used to control what and how we listen. 

 

A blind test IS NOT DISINGENUOUS, your comment about the test it is. This test was one of the only times that the SAME MASTER and resultant MQA vs. non-MQA was actually listened to and then analyzed. For what the test looked at, it cannot be overlooked as anything other than another nail in the MQA coffin.

 

If you want to be a blind audiophile sheep, then listen to the press. If you want to be informed as to what is actually going on and what MQA is really selling, then Archimago and CA has done a service for us.

[botrytis]

6 hours ago, Chiger Yelam said:

It always worries me when I see rhetorical tricks being used to enhance an argument. I see no reason to mistrust the audiophile press on this issue as it is their job to give informed and unbiased reviews and there are clear attempts in this article to undermine trust in these reviews. Claiming that past or previous links to the industry in someway mean that they are incapable of doing their current jobs professionally strike me as a stretch. As to whether they "push" (author's quotes) MQA, well only in so much as they "push" any other product they give a good review to. Additionally just because the author has no industry affiliations does not make him/her somehow more trustworthy or unbiased; personally I trust someone more if they make their name and resume known rather than hiding behind anonymity.

If the author is entirely happy with the recent state of computer audio playback then fine, many of us are not and welcome innovative solutions which offer greater choice. This is my main objection to this article. If I want higher resolution sound and am sensible enough to ask my local HiFi retailer to audition new equipment (and can be trusted to make up my own mind) before I buy then what is the problem? The "internet blind test" put forward as evidence by our author is an insult to our intelligence.

I don't see MQA taking a monopoly position here, legacy codec will still be available and alternative improved products may emerge. If MQA and like minded innovators are undermined and ultimately fail then I fear we will be left with genuinely inferior products.

Archimago does not have any dog in the show. I mean he is a hobbyist, not a 'professional' reporter. This is what makes the MQA situation so irritating. It is obvious the professionals just swallowed the MQA information hook, line, and sinker. As was pointed out, only one reporter had any skepticism of MQA. 

 

Obviously, you like drinking the kool-aid from the Audiophile press. I have had a huge amount of skepticism for a long time. 

[botrytis]

8 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

You omitted a fourth possibility: that the magazines' writers honesty report what they hear.

 

 

That is pretty much what I have reported in Stereophile, adding that I have not heard the MQA version sound worse than the PCM original.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

 

Mr. Atkinson,

 

I cannot borrow your ears, nor can you borrow mine so what you may like, I may find as an anathema to my ears. I have heard a few MQA tracks and came away unimpressed. Yet, I am interested in technical merits or demerits of the system.  That is what people want. Archimago has put up some very critical points about MQA, that should give all audiophiles pause. 

 

Your measurements of equipment and speakers are an invaluable resource, which I applaud. Doing as much to discern the positives and negatives of a new audio file encoding/decoding system should have as much in depth review and analysis. 

 

Currently, I find nothing positive about MQA or what is proposes to do for this hobby. If as you said, have not heard an MQA version that sounds worse than the PCM version, WHY WOULD I WANT MQA? No one has addressed it other than saying it is the next best thing to sliced bread. I am a very leery when someone says that.

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

[botrytis]

Mr. Atkinson,

 

And this one respond to what you wrote.

 

 

Both show how much noise is added to a file from the MQA filtering system.  This can cause audible sympathetic noise in the  audible part of the spectrum. Can that noise be considered warmth and tube-like? I am not sure but since it is not in the original file, that is not what I would think the recording engineers wanted in their masters.

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

 

[botrytis]

I am disheartened by the reaction on Stereophile, particularly Mr. Atkinson, as to Archimago and his pseudonym. I feel his reaction here, is one thing and then on Stereophile's site, it is another. 

 

I understand Archimago's reasoning about using the pseudonym. This is also a passion/hobby for him not his sole means of support. It seems since they cannot deflect, damage, or deny the science and thought behind the article, they deflect and go after the author. This is telling.

 

Dalethorn is also there throwing shade.

[botrytis]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

It's also a well-known logical fallacy.

 

This is what is going on now. Has Mark Waldrep seen or reacted to this article.? I think he would have some very salient points to contribute.

[botrytis]

4 minutes ago, james45974 said:

I like to think of the paper rags as the compact disc of audio journalism, dying a slow death.  Digital content is eating physical content's breakfast, lunch, and dinner, including magazines.

 

They are really looking desperate for their (BS) viewpoint to carry the day.

 

I still find them, somewhat valuable. I mean testing of equipment is valuable and a way to narrow to products of interest. But, the MQA fiasco really has cased me to pause and that is due to the idea that if they push an obvious nonsense here, what else are they doing it with?

[botrytis]

56 minutes ago, firedog said:

Where are these reactions?

 

"One thing that concerns me greatly, both as an editor and as someone who has always posted to the Internet under my actual name, is the anonymity of the author. Yes, CA's Chris Connacker explains why he felt it okay not to reveal Archimago's identity, but I strongly feel that writers should not hide behind anonymity. Readers are entitled to transparency, particularly when the subject is as controversial as MQA."

 From Atkinson - MQA conceptualized.

Chris - if this is too much quoted - just erase or edit as you wish.

 

[botrytis]

Dalethorn also posted there about it. It is how they are reacting now. 

[botrytis]

38 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

slight correction: "MQA Contextualized" by Jim Austin, in the comments

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-contextualized, comments from March 2 and following

 

Thanks.

[botrytis]

26 minutes ago, HalSF said:

This minor ad hominem carping about @Archimago using a pseudonym is the first time in the annals of MQA-gate I feel that @John_Atkinson has slightly lost his cool after showing a lot of grace under fire. Through his well-established and long-running blog and frequent posting on the Steve Hoffman and CA forums, I think that Archimago has earned his place in the hi-fi community as a voice of civility and integrity. Meanwhile, I still own several major components purchased because the pseudonymous Stereophile columnist Sam Tellig recommended them so eloquently back in the day. Mr. Atkinson says he inherited Tellig's byline and that the made-up name "never sat right with me." I think it was a  non-issue for Tellig then and for Archimago now.

 

Ironically I've just re-upped to Stereophile for two years after letting my subscription lapse for a fairly long period, and I did it despite my sense that the magazine is on the wrong side of history MQA-wise. But meanwhile the MQA saga has helped reawaken my interest in audiophile psychodrama and I've always thought that Stereophile's virtues and professionalism far outweigh its vices.

 

They can give good info but at the same time, being shills for the industry is not a good thing either. I mean, how do you know when it is just repeating the industry line or when it is good journalism. We need honest journalism more and more, not fake news (sorry, I had to go there ).

[botrytis]

     Well, if you follow the Stereophile comment section, of 'MQA Contexualized' there are two arguments being put forth against this article. 1. That Archimago, being a pen name, means that the article is false and should be ignored. 2. That music is art and therefore cannot be described by science. As far as the former, Archimago has a long list of articles on his blog that deal with testing and understanding of audio and video. THAT is what is important , not that he uses a pen name. Many authors use pen names as it helps to prevent issues in the currently connected world. I guess that means, Mark Twain is a fake as is any other that writes under a pen name. What an ignorant and salicious attitude to have. It is the idea of 'Shoot the messenger, not the message'. I wonder ihow the US founding fathers would have reacted if, at the Boston Tea Party, the British would have reacted, Well, they didn't throw our tea in the harbor dressed as themselves, so they are disengenuous. I realize I just put out a very silly argument but I am trying to get a point across.

      The second argument is even more ridiculous. People have studied how a Stradivarius Violin was made, to understand why it sounds the way it does. That does not preclude the enjoyment of music made with such a magnificent instrument. It does, in fact, make the appreciation even stronger. Digital music is just a digital file. It is digital information and as such, we can understand and study how the files are filtered, decoded, etc. It is easy to determine and to quantify. That doesn't lessen our ability to appreciate the music, in fact, accurate reproduction of the music has been part of the this hobby from the beginning. In fact, I will go farther, that the way the files are encoded and treated is important to accurate reproduction. MQA, based on Archimago's testing and others, does not do that. That is the important point.

     The last point I want to make,is, T.S. Gnu had some eloquent and salient points made in that thread. All John Atkinson said is he was close to being banned because he was trolling? Well, that IS MR. Aktinson's choice to believe so and he has the right to ban whoever he wants but we also have the choice to vote with our pocketbook. 

     Mr. Atkinson believes that his 'reputation' is more important than the truth, even if it is an 'Inconvenient Truth'. I believe he is squandering his reputation to protect a nonsense technology, meaning MQA. Mr. Atkinson, which side of this story do you want to be, MQA's or the Audiophile/Hobbyist side? Your reputation is based on helping the Audiophile/Hobbyist find the right equipment, but with MQA fiasco, yoour reputation is becoming more about the industry and less about the Audiophile/Hobbyist. One cannot simply rest on their laurels and expect people to always trust them.

[botrytis]

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.06890.pdf

 

A rebuttal to the 'Psycho-Acoustic' argument that is used in the MQA arguments. Pretty interesting, if you are a math geek

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, james45974 said:

can you translate for non math geeks?  

 

I was going to ask you to do it for us

[botrytis]

1 minute ago, tmtomh said:

 

I'm not a math geek and can't begin to explain it clearly using the actual math. But FWIW, here is my understanding of the core logic of what this rebuttal is saying. I am of course more than happy to be corrected if I've got it wrong.

 

1. Fourier Uncertainty Principle dictates that there's a limit to how accurate digital sampling can be when it comes to timing and frequency. In other words, there's always going to be some small, irreducible level of uncertainty, and therefore potential variation or inaccuracy in the digital sampling. Just for the moment, let's call that level of inaccuracy/uncertainty, which digital sampling cannot get beyond, "X." 
2. The original study tested human subjects, apparently by playing them three pulses that varied slightly in frequency and/or timing. It found that the humans could detect variations that were smaller than X.
3. On this basis, the original study claimed that humans can discern timing differences beyond what digital sampling is able to control for - in other words, very high sample rates are necessary in order to better compete with how good human timing hearing is.
4. This rebuttal article says the original article mis-used that X figure. They say that for the type of test the original researchers ran, the limits of Fourier Uncertainty are far smaller than X. Therefore, humans' ability to do better than X in that type of test does not in fact demonstrate that human timing accuracy is better than digital sampling can provide.

 

Thanks for translating for us non-math geeks. Even better, you made it understandable. 

 

cheers!

[botrytis]

9 minutes ago, james45974 said:

Yes, thanks!  

 

Does this relate to deblurring as claimed by MQA?

 

YES and Time Domain.

[botrytis]

6 hours ago, skater999 said:

There are only two reasons I can think of why  someone would  say that MQA is not the BEST sounding format. NO other format comes close to the sound of MQA files.

1) That streaming MQA files will cause your business to fail. No one needs to buy high Rez files which do not sound as good as streamed MQA.

2)  You have not spent enough time listening to live music.......and you have spent to much time listening to CDs....

 

Its about the timing,  MQA gets it right, all other digital doesn't...Its that simple...and because the timing is correct, you will recognize more information in the recording.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would hope you are joking. This Archimago post and others have shown that MQA is a joke and at worst a con job. Archimago has shown MQA actually increases timing issue not fixes them and MQA NEVER SHOWED WHAT timing issues they were fixing (and I mean actual proof). All they have done is statements and anyone can say that. 

 

What I recognize is, with MQA,  more noise, more problems and definitely NOT what was originally recorded.

[botrytis]

Manufacturers, except a few, are very agnostic. If they see something that a buyer wants, they will add it. I don't think it is anything more than that.

[botrytis]

1 minute ago, beetlemania said:

 

Linn and Schiit each put anti-MQA statements on their webpages. Charles Hansen lit every forum on fire with his disdain for MQA. MBL and Playback were more reserved publicly but still resolute. PS Audio came out anti but more recently added MQA. I guess that's your "very few" qualifier.

 

I was just pointing that out. Not really good or bad.

 

Don't forget, Linn also produces music and has a very fine label for it. I think that is WHY they were adamant about it. 

 

Benchmark also put out a scathing blog post on MQA but they also think nothing is needed beyond 96/24 (that is another can of worms).

[botrytis]

I know that is what dcs said, at the get together that Chris was at, last week (the Paragon SNS event). They put in MQA but they are being agnostic about it.

[botrytis]

1 minute ago, Doug Schneider said:

 

This is the way that the folks at MQA have been going at things since Day 1 -- and probably the biggest mistake of the audio press who praised what they heard not to actually mention. I sat in a press demo at Munich's High End where they played one MQA recording after another -- and nothing non-MQA. Total B.S. But the shocking thing was what I read afterwards from writers who were there, praising the sound yet never mentioning that no comparisons were done. They could've been listening to MP3s for all they new. What's probably the worst thing about all this is that the MQA folks still don't do demos today. In fact, when I mentioned that to one designer, he said, "That should tell you all you need to know, shouldn't it?"

 

Doug Schneider
SoundStage!

 

Interesting but not shocked Mr. Schneider.

 

I wonder if there will be any MQA talk at AXPONA this year? So far on the site, I see nothing.

[botrytis]

26 minutes ago, Doug Schneider said:

 

From what I can tell, MQA has been close to nonexistent at shows. I think they probably figured out it doesn't help their cause.

 

Doug Schneider

SoundStage!

 

Well, looking forward to AXPONA this year. I hope to people there

[botrytis]

@Kissov - it really doesn't matter if he uses his real name or not. The data is the data - period. It stands on it's own and can be reproduced.

[botrytis]

40 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

He must be a victim of the public schools.  Never got past long division...

 

Must have been home schooled.