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

[asdf1000]

Finally something on the 'front page', as opposed to buried deep inside the threads.

 

I hope MQA Ltd do respond eventually. They seem to be using Stereophile as their technical outlet recently, so we'll wait for a response over there I guess.

 

[asdf1000]

2 hours ago, FredericV said:

Here's how the GO LISTEN argument works, from their secret MQA group:

 

LOL your screenshots of the 'behind the scenes' of the secret MQA group provide a great laugh.

 

Is this the same FB group that includes Bob himself? Does he 'like' the posts and ideas that are thrown around in that group? 

[asdf1000]

2 minutes ago, botrytis said:

I think we need to put a nail in it's coffin. I don't want them trying to resurrect MQA at a later date when we forget about it. Archimago did a fine job of using  reason, proof of experiments, and concise arguments to de-bunk MQA. Now we just need to make sure it doesn't have 9 lives.

 

I also don't really want MQA being around.

 

But we are the 1%. The fate of MQA mostly lies in the hands of the labels... They aren't listening to us (the 1%)...

 

That doesn't mean 'the good fight' shouldn't keep going of course. There's a chance this debate spills out into the more mainstream (not audiophile) website one day, to get more of the label's attention.

 

[asdf1000]

57 minutes ago, HalSF said:

Tidal, the only hope for a modicum of mass-market success for MQA, is on thin ice. The tech world is dominated by audio skeptics who embrace 256 kbps AAC as a very high-quality standard (which it is) and who could care less about even 16/44 Red Book, much less high-resolution audiophile snake oil (as they see it). Ars Technica and Pitchfork looked at MQA and pronounced it meh. Any Google searcher exploring MQA quickly runs into Linn’s “Why MQA is bad for music” link and this forum’s “MQA is Vaporware” thread. 

 

The idea that record labels are going to give MQA a sustained and committed push seems highly doubtful to me. So far Apple and Spotify are giving it a hard pass. Four years of not gaining momentum and traction is an eternity in tech.

 

Yes but if DRM is what is attractive about MQA to the labels, none of any of this matters.

 

If the mass market users are forced to MQA by the labels (i.e. their current options disappear) for DRM purposes,  with no price increase to their current Spotify or Apple Music subscriptions, they (the 99%) probably won't care, as long as there is no price increase.

 

We (the 1%) will be the only losers in this 'dooms day' scenario.

 

Watch this interview where he jokes about the possibility of one day removing poorer SQ streaming as an option... 46min to 50min... he's not saying forcing MQA on everyone explicitly there.

 

But in another part of the interview he says Warner are fans of MQA.

 

So as I said, it's all in the labels hands. We (the 1%) don't really matter in the big picture. Especially if DRM is what attracts them.

 

In summary - I thought this dooms day scenario was a wild and improbable idea in my head , until I saw a label Exec joke about it :-)

 

 

[asdf1000]

13 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Probably good to point out I know him and he doesn't work for Warner Music Group anymore. He was out the door at RMAF 2017. 

 

Noted but that’s only relevant if we know he or Warner changed their position on MQA in the last 6 months, since that video.

 

Definitely possible, this is a very fluid/dynamic topic atm.

 

[asdf1000]

11 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

WMG isn't known for making good business decisions but any labels main focus is stars not formats. I'm not hearing much about anything related to quality lately except for the the guys whose job it is to promote hi-res. 

 

Do you work for any of the majors? Or is this based on 2nd hand news?

 

I don't mean that to insult either btw so please don't take offence. But something is either 1st hand news or it's not.

 

The source for my argument is a label exec (at the time) on video joking about the point I was making.

 

Absolutely nothing against him personally. It's a great video actually and he seems like a really cool dude. With a nice home system too, by the sounds of it. I don't want the focus to be on him personally because that's not fair, but instead on the label/s.

 

[asdf1000]

2 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

Well, I'm sure we're looking forward to your technical evaluation of MQA, @John_Atkinson.

 

As for Tony Faulkner's comment, it certainly does not seem like he was talking about only undecoded MQA. From the first sentence, he admonishes you to:

"Please edit the rubbish out of these pseudo-technical articles before publication."

 

The reader has to simply look at that letter and his various concerns to see that he was addressing all kinds of issues from the non-sense of MQA being the answer to "record company need stock only a single inventory" all the way to why MQA delivers "none" (his emphasis even!) of what he believe high-resolution audio is about!

 

When a man speaks like that and references the political context with his "Age of Trump" sentence and being "gullible 24 hours per day", I think it's pretty evident that he wants nothing to do with MQA decoded or not!

 

 

I'm no MQA fan and I like Kal's take in this latest issue (we don't need it) but I give JA credit for actually including that letter in the publication - he could have chosen not to include it.

[asdf1000]

11 hours ago, Doug Schneider said:

Plus, he has his archimago.blogspot.com, which lends credibility that he's a real person.

 

Hi Doug - just my humble opinion, but to be honest it doesn't matter if he's not a real person and his article (and blogs) was written by a computer.

 

The technical points raised in Archi's article, regardless if it were written by a human or a computer or a centipede, should be treated as technical points. If there's a response / rebuttal, then a response should be to the technical points, not to whoever/whatever wrote the article.

 

 

[asdf1000]

5 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

One other note about not engaging or not refuting data from an "anonymous" person, this is one of the first things Bob mentioned to me when he called.

 

Hi Chris, do you mean Bob didn't have an issue with this article from the "anonymous" Archi?

 

Or he did have an issue with it when he called you?

 

[asdf1000]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Yes, he has issues with it. 

 

That's rather unfortunate.

[asdf1000]

2 hours ago, miguelito said:

I am fairly convinced at this point that “deblurring” refers to the use of very slow rolloff filters on rendering. Until proven otherwise...

 

Like this?

 

"This “slow roll-off” filter reduces the time smear by a factor of ~20x compared to conventional digital filters. The net result is a much more musically natural sound, as the ear-brain is very sensitive to time-related distortions. This filter provides an outstanding compromise between frequency response and transient response, and for ten years was the mainstay of Ayre’s digital audio filters."

 

https://www.ayre.com/pdf/Ayre_MP_White_Paper.pdf

 

 

[asdf1000]

2 hours ago, beetlemania said:

With Roon 1.5 I am able to do a valid comparison between Mqa and PCM 24 bit. The only caveat is I have no idea if the master is the same.

 

This question of 'is it the same master' is important but as you say, can be difficult to know sometimes.

 

But if they're from the same master, the 1st MQA unfold (not looking at anything other than the 1st unfold) is pretty close to the FLAC 24/96kHz (example only) you'd purchase from HDTracks or Qobuz etc etc.

 

@Archimago even said so himself:

 

"Objectively with the songs I examined, the software decoder works well to reconstruct what looks like the equivalent 24/96 download."

 

and

 

"Bottom line: TIDAL/MQA streaming does sound like the equivalent 24/96 downloads based on what I have heard and the test results"

 

https://archimago.blogspot.hk/2017/01/comparison-tidal-mqa-music-high.html

 

So if you don't like the MQA version's 1st unfold (again only looking at the 1st unfold) it's probably a good guess that it's because you don't like that actual master that was used, more than not liking the MQA folding and 1st unfold.

 

This is another way of saying, it's still the mixing/mastering that's most important. 

 

There are also other concerns that Archi raised in this article (no need for me to repeat) but my points above are only related to the 1st unfold.

 

[asdf1000]

2 hours ago, firedog said:

Overall, sounds like a new remaster -  I might like it, I might not.

 

Yep right above your post I said the exactly same: "So if you don't like the MQA version's 1st unfold (again only looking at the 1st unfold) it's probably a good guess that it's because you don't like that actual master that was used

 

This is another way of saying, it's still the mixing/mastering that's most important. "

[asdf1000]

2 hours ago, FredericV said:

Alpha-audio, one of the Dutch sites specialized in streaming, now also mentioned this translation on their frontpage:

https://www.alpha-audio.nl/2018/06/mqa-ter-discussie-fake-bestandsformaat/

which means "MQA up for debate: fake file format?".

 

If they specialise in streaming, then looking at Tidal + MQA which involves the 1st unfold (up to 24/96) I wonder if they investigate what Archimago has said about the 1st unfold?

 

I've said before I'd prefer MQA go away and we all know 16/96 will likely achieve the same SQ with the same bandwidth.

 

But I don't know if based on what Archimago has said if we can call the 1st unfold  a "fake file format?" Especially if it's equivalent to the 24/96 that can be purchased, if both are from the same master.

 

This is what @Archimago said:

 

"Objectively with the songs I examined, the software decoder works well to reconstruct what looks like the equivalent 24/96 download."

 

and

 

"Bottom line: TIDAL/MQA streaming does sound like the equivalent 24/96 downloads based on what I have heard and the test results"

 

https://archimago.blogspot.hk/2017/01/comparison-tidal-mqa-music-high.html

 

I've mentioned this before but it seems people still don't believe what Archimago has said about the 1st unfold? And I've verified myself using Audio Hijacker on Mac OS and Spek analyzer.

 

It's quite easy to verify yourself at home...

 

Again, while I'd prefer MQA go away, I can't objectively call the 1st unfold a "fake file format".... Now, beyond the 1st unfold, we have different story which has been discussed and analysed to death already.

 

But if these guys specialise in streaming, I hope they can show how the 1st unfold (streamed over Tidal) is fake?

[asdf1000]

4 minutes ago, Archimago said:

I have much more trouble believing in the whole "deblurring" thing whether as a DSP during encoding or if they're claiming it's performed by those filters. Plus the nonsensical need for "authentication" and of course all the silly hype perpetuated over years...

 

Thanks Archi

 

All this stuff I've quoted is all the 'stuff' that applies after the 1st unfold right? If so, I agree with you, we don't need it.

 

I was only talking about the 1st unfold, which isn't better than 16bit/96kHz as we know but it isn't that bad either in the technical sense. The potential for DRM in the future is of course a worry.

 

[asdf1000]

50 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

Correct.

 

IMO, if we just focused on a 1st unfold as done by the software Tidal decoder to 88.2/96kHz is all that's needed with these files. The rest of it is just for show. 

 

 

Definitely agree.

 

The funny thing (and the only point I was making earlier) is that people without MQA DACs are commenting  about how the Tidal 1st unfold doesn't sound good. 

 

In reality it's the actual master they're not liking... not the 1st unfold itself.

 

That's from my own looking at Hi-Res 2L material that also streams on Tidal (like the Magnificat album), using Spek analyzer.

 

Anyway I don't want to get too repetitive. I'm glad you see that point and we agree on everything after the 1st unfold.

[asdf1000]

1 minute ago, firedog said:

So if you don't like the sound of the first unfold, it may be because of the changes introduced by MQA. 

 

Sigh. The below is very easy to verify yourself too.

 

"Objectively with the songs I examined, the software decoder works well to reconstruct what looks like the equivalent 24/96 download."

 

and

 

"Bottom line: TIDAL/MQA streaming does sound like the equivalent 24/96 downloads based on what I have heard and the test results"

 

https://archimago.blogspot.hk/2017/01/comparison-tidal-mqa-music-high.html