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

[Archimago]

View full article

[Archimago]

39 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

While I certainly wish "the consumer is always right", practical examples of consumer power are not as plentiful as this dogma would suggest.  Monopolies, oligopolies, and mostly unchecked corporate power have been steadily chipping away at the consumer's once formidable "power of the pocketbook".  The same record labels that scoff at audiophiles as insufficiently numerous to appreciably affect sales figures have all invested in MQA.  That single fact speaks volumes about what the labels believe MQA represents.  And because the labels are an oligopoly, consumers have no power to dissuade them from the folly of MQA.

 

IMHO, believing otherwise is demonstrably naive based on the well documented predation of the record labels and their seeming contempt for consumers of their product.

 

True, while they might ram through whatever they wish, I do have the hope that ultimately, we the consumers have a say... Hey, after all, it is the consumer's $$$ that they're wanting!

 

6 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

The labels haven't  invested a significant amount of money in MQA. How many times do I have repeat it?

 

Agree, in the big picture, this isn't a huge amount I suspect.

 

23 minutes ago, crenca said:

@Archimago,

 

Not sure if you meant to cite

 

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/master-quality-authenticated-mqa-the-view-from-30000-feet/

 

when you tilted your final section "The view from 30,000 feet and a birth of a new paradigm?"

 

Excellent summation and audiophile consumer advocacy!!

 

Ya got it, Crenca . It was an amalgam of that article title and the "paradigm" one by TAS... I was flabbergasted each of the times I read those articles! I was thinking to myself, "How in the world can anyone write this?" in a completely serious fashion without feeling a significant discomfort as to how it would be viewed by the readership!

 

[Archimago]

10 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Any idea of how much?  Just trying to divine the threshold of "significant" investment.

 

Maybe Rt66 has numbers which would be interesting... But the investment Warner (a company with $700M+ in revenue yearly) made towards MQA was said to be "speculative" in nature a couple years back.

[Archimago]

24 minutes ago, FredericV said:

Excellent article.

Regaring footnote 25:

 

 

This is indeed true for older Mytek Brooklyn firmwares. Using the latest firmware, the blue MQA dot will shine with original MQA files, and also with the sabotaged MQA files,  both showing 24 bit 352.8K in case of 2L.no demo files.

So the customer does not know if the file has been truncated or not. He does not know if he has a full first unfold, or partial first unfold.

Furthermore, when NOT truncating the file, only a small part is added back to the decoded output (light purple), compared to the spectrum that is generated by MQA's leaky filter (dark purple), which adds content above 20 Khz which does not even exist in the 16/44.1 file, due to aliasing.

As this small part is encapsulated in the lower  8 bits of the 24 bit distribution file as non-audio data, it does not compress with flac, making the flac size twice as large for a 24/44.1 MQA file vs 16/44.1 truncated MQA file in a 24/44.1 container.

 

Futhermore, sox filter settings exist which generate a very similar spectrum from a 16/44.1 MQA file:

 

Great work FredericV on that script and the experiments you did.

 

I must admit I was surprised that the MQA system did not account for or "authenticate" those last 8-bits considering that the information buried there are what ostensibly makes the whole system "hi-res" in the first place! Truly, the blue/green/whatever color light is meaningless...

[Archimago]

27 minutes ago, scan80269 said:

Bravo, Archimago, for this concisely well-written article!

 

For a number of years I've been a fan of linear-phase digital reconstruction filters.  My current DAC, the Auralic Vega, offers a linear-phase filter option that I use to the exclusion of other options.  Your article here, as well as postings on your site, have me thoroughly convinced of the sonic merits of linear-phase phase filters over all the other types.

 

I also recently did a speaker crossover shootout between IIR parametric filters and FIR linear-phase filters, at a retired colleague/friend's venue, and using a miniDSP 2x4 HD box to implement the crossover filters.  Guess which filter type came out on top?  Both filter sets have exactly the same frequency response, but the difference in phase response between the filters is clearly audible, at least within my circle of audiophile friends.

 

Thank you also for your "Audiophile Myth #260: The Detestable Digital Filter Ringing and Real Music...".  My friend and I resonate extremely strongly with this article.

 

I've been very satisfied with the sonic performance of my Auralic Vega, but if I'm to contemplate moving to another DAC, it will definitely need to have FIR linear-phase filter as a user option.  A DAC without linear-phase filter support will never get my money.  DACs featuring MQA will fail to make my list to begin with.

 

Congratulations, again!

 

 

Thanks for the note Scan. I certainly would not have said it years ago when I first started writing about this stuff, but it is fun putting ideas and articles out there with the hope that they resonate and can be useful for others as these ideas and tests have been useful for my own listening and understanding...

 

Yeah, I'm not surprised of the results with your work on your friend's miniDSP system. I'm sure @mitchco also has had a lot of experience with these configurations and getting the time-domain "just right".

 

21 minutes ago, skikirkwood said:

Thought I'd post a screenshot of my posting here before my comment is deleted and I get banned from Audiostream tomorrow morning.

 

skikirkwood: Good luck on both counts! :-)

[Archimago]

8 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.

 

Fascinating comment! A few thoughts...

 

1. Is it not even a little amazing that MQA is described with all kinds of superlatives; at least ones I have never seen before presented by the media? Comments like "MQA is the most significant audio technology in my lifetime" (Harley), "I come away feeling that I was present at the birth of a new world" (Atkinson). There's more, but you get the idea. Is this not even a little "pushy" in the sense of a rather strong promotional effort? These are seasoned audiophile magazine writers and editors saying these kinds of statements in the mature world of 2-channel audio reproduction after generations of advancements including vinyl, CD, SACD, DVD-A...

 

2. I think I've said what I need to say about anonymity. The core of what I write is not about who I am or what qualifications I claim I have. Rather it is about the objective facts presented and logical arguments. If I am wrong, the community of "peer reviewers"  will present other facts and data to disprove my claims. If my opinions are unbalanced, rude, unfounded, I am sure audiophiles will be happy to criticize me harshly. In fact, being anonymous makes it even more likely that I be judged without the benefit of a doubt. Over the years I have argued that this hobby is not a "faith" - there are no "high priests" or "gurus" to be found in the press. Debates about what is true or factual need not depend on who a man/woman is, but what he/she does and how he/she thinks.

 

3. I'm not entirely happy with the state of computer audio. There is of course much in the way of software improvements to look forward to - like more transparent ways to integrate PCM and DSD, ways to incorporate multi-channel for those of us interested, and advanced DSP methods to improve quality. I've in fact written about these things... You see, if MQA as an "innovative solution" were truly "innovative" and provided better resolution, why would I complain!? My point is that MQA actually provides essentially ZERO benefit for the consumer (and much to be cautious about). Yet is being portrayed in the press as some kind of "paradigm" shift in quality! Unless there is some evidence of benefit for audiophiles, then how can anyone looking at the facts speak favorably about this?

 

4. Internet blind test as an "insult to our intelligence". Well, let's talk intelligently and not make blanket statements. What else would you do? What have you done? How have you tested the claims in a controlled fashion with attempts at being unbiased? I certainly am not claiming that it is the end all and be all of MQA testing... This is why I'm also curious about the McGill study.

 

5. IMO if MQA fails, it would be a blessing to true innovators and entrepreneurs. The industry will realize that you can't simply "razzle dazzle" the consumer and get away with it. One has to be transparent with intentions and anything claimed to be an "advancement" must be intelligible. A true innovation will be rewarded because the consumers are able to differentiate between products and not just waste money indiscriminately. Just like the market will award good products with success, it must also decline those that provide no benefit.

 

I believe MQA is a "genuinely inferior product". If you believe otherwise, show me why. Not with just opinions or pointing to some other "authority" and his/her opinions. Show me the facts surrounding MQA's superiority - then tell me why you like it...

 

 

[Archimago]

2 hours ago, randyhat said:

Characterizations like "drinking the kool-aid" and referring to people you disagree with as being "brain washed" only serve to further polarize people around this issue rather than inform.  I'm a MQA agnostic myself.  I am beginning to understand some of the technical issues and arguments and certainly the article by Archimago helped considerably in that understanding.  Likewise I think there have been listening observations and comparisons; the results of which are intriguing.  Is there no room for nuance when it comes to explaining and evaluating the listening preferences that have been expressed by people who have compared MQA to non-MQA music files?  Are all reviewers who have expressed a preference for MQA versions just lying to their readers?  Or, are ALL the tests contrived in a manner to favor MQA?  Or have they "just swallowed the MQA information hook, line and sinker?"  I tend to be skeptical of much of audiophilia, though I have indulged in more than my fair share of tweaks and voodoo.  I have a modest MQA capable streamer and have listened to MQA files over Tidal.  Some sound great, some sound pretty good and others not so much.  I have pretty much the same results with my CDs and LPs.  I suspect that if MQA has any long term success it will be far less than the hype that preceded it.  And it could become successful in-spite of it's technical shortcomings.  It wouldn't be the first time.  I kept a Beta video recorder in my system long after it was supplanted by IMO a inferior but more popular VHS format.  The consumer will have a final say in this debate.

 

Hello Randyhat,

 

I agree that there is a nuanced argument to be made here. I agree that I don't think all reviewers are lying or trying to deceive. When I did the "internet blind test", I described a subgroup who did consistently (at least with all 3 randomized samples) select the MQA version as preferable. While statistically, it wasn't remarkable, I can certainly believe that for some, it sounded "different" in a preferred way...

 

The issue for me is that while we can all choose what we prefer, taking a step back at evaluating whether MQA is an "advancement", represents "better quality", or is a "new paradigm" for our hobby, we need to understand whether the preference some people might have towards MQA is because MQA represents technical superiority or is it because of euphonic distortion. IMO, it is due to the latter. From what I can tell, MQA adds distortion like group delays, THD+N to the overall sound, and has its own form of dithering applied to however number of bits it's retaining. Some people can find this preferable but is this consonant with the audiophile pursuit? Do we want this "baked in" to all our music and DAC devices?

 

I would argue "no, I do not want these distortions/characteristics added as a default". To me, MQA is a "middleman" that reinterprets the sound to some nebulous "end-to-end" standard (and in the process adds in cryptographic signage, etc.). IMO, even if the "MQA sound" might be preferable for some, we should keep our music format as "high fidelity" as possible because the file format is the foundation from which all sound quality ultimately is derived not just today but going forward with whatever will come. If someone prefers and wants to add up to 1% THD+N, use minimum phase, slow roll-off filtering... then by all means choose devices from manufacturers that provide these options! But there's no need to impose this on everyone else or desire that the same type of processing be applied across the board and represent some kind of "standard" for future music encoding and DAC playback.

 

Yes, we could see MQA succeed despite technical issues as per Beta vs. VHS. But at least VHS had a clear benefit - recording time. MQA is larger than 16/44 lossless but does not clearly provide all the benefits of a true 24-bit file, download files are more expensive, the consumer needs to repurchase a DAC at least for full "rendering" (remember, Beta vs. VHS came at a time when consumers needed to choose something new for the purpose of home recording - we already own devices for music playback!)... What benefit is there for the consumer at all?

 

The way I see it, the only likely way MQA can succeed will be in spite of consumer protests, not because of consumer support.

 

[Archimago]

1 hour ago, HalSF said:

Thanks for pointing back to this original 2014 context. That context doesn’t really temper the possibly intemperate enthusiasm of that widely cited “birth of a new world” statement, but it does offer a retrospective summary of the early hope that profoundly innovative and beneficial things would flow from MQA.

 

Here’s my attempt at summarizing what you were proposing MQA might be:

 

— MQA will offer sonically uncompromised hi-res music via “lossless compression” for streaming delivery “without any increase in bandwidth” beyond current data rates.

— MQA will be a way for record companies and streaming services to offer high-resolution quality to everyone from “a single inventory [that] will serve both the general public and audiophiles."

— MQA will provide a sweeping improvement in digital sound, by eliminating audibly insidious “smearing,” and will do so “in a way analogous," as Meridian put it, “ to the processes expert antique picture restorers use to clean the grime and discolored varnish from an Old Master to reveal the original color and vibrancy of the work.' 

 

All of that does sound great! Where do I sign up?

 

And what’s the catch? My impression of what has happened since the initial MQA rollout is that the closer you look at those bright promises the more they become entangled in provisos, qualifications, complications, fine print, and cautionary warnings of potential side effects. A classic case of overpromising and underdelivering. 

 

And the thing I find most frustrating is that there still appears to be no clear simple path for all of us who have a burning curiosity and concern about MQA, whether we’re simply open-minded audiophiles or total skeptics, to actually *hear” MQA in a way that gives it a fair and honest shot, letting the chip fall where they may. But this clarifying reckoning never arrives. Instead the sound I hear is the sound of people arguing about MQA and of MQA people temporizing.

 

Any new thing that makes music sound better, I want it to be real and I want naysayers to be wrong. It’s depressing to think that MQA is actually a dead end, and we’re all stuck at an impasse.

 

Good summary HalSF,

 

Let's strip MQA of all the hype. Forget claims that it's "revolutionary", never mind any stuff about it somehow surpasses sampling theorem, ignore various claims of "analog-to-analog" or "end-to-end", don't be impressed about claims of "de-blur"...

 

What do we have?

A software technique that keeps about 16-bits of audio data and hides some lossy sparsely sampled data from one octave above down to 24-bits + cryptographic signature + a way to play this using a certain type of upsampling filter.

 

If MQA had wanted us to hear the difference MQA makes, they could have done so years ago. And likewise, I believe the audiophile press already knew this by 2015. @John_Atkinson, I would actually be disrespectul of your knowledge and experience if I doubt that you must have already had suspicions about this early on!

 

Basically, if MQA wanted us to hear for ourselves what the process did, they could have just released some 24/192 samples that had gone through the MQA encoding/decoding/render process and let us compare with the original 24/96 file without MQA "deblurring", upsampling, and filtering. Heck, release some 24/384 if this makes a difference! Back in 2015/2016, there were already many good DACs capable of 384kHz playback and would perform better than low-end MQA devices like the Dragonfly or Meridian Explorer2 DACs. Audiophiles with high quality gear would have been more than happy to sample the MQA effect and report back whether it sounded at least the same or "better".

 

Instead, IMO, they kept things secretive. They maintained the mystique and fed the "friendly" audiophile press with listening sessions and at least encouraged unbelievably positive articles. For example, one needs to ask why Mark Waldrep who clearly has genuine high-resolution recordings from AIX Records, was not provided with MQA encodings of his submitted music.

 

The secrets, mystique, exaggerations, etc. do not play well in this age of interconnection and communication where many audiophiles obviously possess knowledge beyond the mainstream press. And when truth comes out, there will be "blowback".

 

The "sound of people arguing" I believe is the unfortunate side-effect of the chaos created by MQA's strategy in promoting their "format". This is why my essay is >7000 words! It's not difficult to get a good grasp of what's going on. The problem is that audiophiles who are trying to understand what is happening here have been made to jump through hoops to address the claims one by one without the assistance of the mainstream press - the ones we should hope are working for audiophiles as partners in truth, clarity, and education.

[Archimago]

Just now, rickca said:

Kind of utopian.  It clearly doesn't work this way.  Did it ever?  We are on our own.

 

True. Utopian. But if we cannot desire, ask, or hope for something better in the form of a higher standard of journalism in the audiophile press... Then we might as well just see the audiophile media as pure advertising.

 

As much as I criticize what I've seen from the press, I do believe that things are not irremediable and wish for something better than this from John, Jim, Jason, Michael, Steve, and yes, even Mr. Harley, et al.

 

[Archimago]

15 minutes ago, mansr said:

I like to think that my reverse engineering efforts contributed in some small way.

 

Absolutely @mansr!!!

 

You work laid bare the suspected emptiness of claims.

[Archimago]

47 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

...

 

But I don't think Chris realized the trouble we were causing until he got a second call from an MQA representative early in 2017 complaining or in Bob's case being vague. 

 

Damn audiophiles!!! Trouble makers!!!

 

(Good job for the perseverance Rt66! Some things just needed to be said... Some questions just needed to be asked...)

[Archimago]

9 hours ago, FredericV said:

Remember the GO LISTEN argument? Most arguments of MQA opinion makers fall into one of these pre-defined categories:
 

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

The post opened with "Oh boy here we go again". I removed all names from the post and replies. Screenshot used under fair use.

When they no longer have any argument left, they always revert to the GO LISTEN argument. So this is why we have articles like this one, and several MQA topics, which counteract such non-critical thinking.

They basically throw away all our research. Which means they know it's true. If there were mistakes in our research, they would attack them. They can't. So all they have left is their GO LISTEN fallback argument.

 

 

Thanks for the screen shot. It is interesting seeing how the FB group is responding "internally", @FredericV.

 

Apart from the "GO LISTEN" argument, maybe close cousins "TIN EARS" or "GEAR NOT GOOD ENOUGH" or perhaps  other argumentum ad hominmen style attacks ("the dude's ANONYMOUS", "BOB is the AUTHORITY"), the fact that they have nothing else intellectually sound for a debate is telling.

[Archimago]

2 hours ago, Doug Schneider said:

Another BTW,

 

I was thinking of writing an article about MQA called "The Out-of-Touch Old-Man Syndrome," though I figured it would offend too many. It wasn't going to be about old men so much -- I'm 53! -- but that many old men are out of touch with the way modern technology and  how modern technology worker work. Take my father for instance -- vice-president of an enormous company in 1990, yet he never would accept having a computer on his desk. He retired without one, even though his son (me) was an IT guy and his wife could easily use one.

 

That said, the gist of the article was that from the outset, it was obvious to me that the MQA developers didn't have a historical aspect of how IT-type products work. When I saw their encoding scheme a couple years ago I thought:

 

-- How long until someone reverse engineers it? Like Mansr did...

 

-- How gone until some explains its implications in great detail? Like Achiamago did...

 

-- How long until some guy "clones" it with an algorithm of his own? (I'm actually surprised this hasn't happened yet, but it will. Just to be clear, I'm talking about someone writing an encoder that mimics it exactly. Some hotshot coder who catches wind of it and has a few days clear likely will.)

 

It was also apparent that they seemed painfully unaware that the bandwidth limitations they were trying to overcome weren't an issue. How did that get missed?

 

They also didn't seem to know that closed, proprietary systems don't work in the consumer world. Apple got away with it for a while, but like everyone else who tried, they're slowly opening their ecosystem up ... because they have to (one of the main drawbacks of their new speaker is close tie-in to Apple Music only).

 

They also didn't seem to be aware of places like this forum -- where people from around the world share information in an INSTANT and will break this thing apart and down from the word go.

 

If you ask me, it was pretty ill-conceived from the start -- but I don't think they had a clue.

 

Doug

SoundStage!

 

Doug, thanks for your input and the shout out to Paul Miller and HFN&RR - it's unfortune here in N. America (at least locally here in Vancouver), I rarely find issues locally and the articles and opinions in there are not as well represented in discussions.

 

I was impressed and pleasantly surprised when I first came across your articles awhile back and your comments on AudioAsylum over the years also. I thought your comments were prudent and balanced. Hopefully there will be some changes in the world of audiophile journalism and favoritism... A true disservice to the hobby that thoughtful analysis should so quickly result in anyone be negatively labeled.

[Archimago]

4 hours ago, Doug Schneider said:

 

Hi,

 

Sometimes my comments can be off-the-wall, too! But in the case of MQA, the problem was that they stepped on some familiar turf to me -- just like they probably did with you. I worked in various aspects of IT from 1985 to 1998, before SoundStage! became full-time. Your must work  in a technical capacity, too.

 

And it's important that we can all see that of ourselves sometimes! As passionate and obsessive audiophiles, we might say things that in other contexts could be seen as irrelevant or worse even off-the-wall. However, speaking for myself at least, I hope never to lose insight and be so "out in left field" as to be seen as insane .

 

Indeed, technically minded folks who have experience in IT and have at least a sense of how computer technology works would instinctively scratch their heads with these claims.

 

4 hours ago, Doug Schneider said:

...

Insofar as this whole thing goes, however, you and Mansr have done the best technical work on it. Your findings, coupled with what Bruno Putzeys wrote on Facebook in November, not only had everyone suddenly stand up and take notice -- it's left their supporters on shaky ground and right now doubting themselves. Charles Hansen must also be credited for being so damn persistent on this and taking people to task, even if it cost some friendships. He, too, knew what was right. So keep up the good work and keep even more stuff coming!

 

Doug

SoundStage!

 

I certainly thought of Charles Hansen (RIP) and his outspoken dislike of MQA when writing the article and in discussions with the collaborators. I'm sure if I ran this article by him before publication, he would have had a thing or two to add...

 

[Archimago]

4 hours ago, FredericV said:

This screenshot shows the average technical knowledge level inside the secret MQA group:

"Archimago is quite good, but he really does not understand how MQA works."

 

-> please buy a mirror

This guy does not even understand the basics of sampling.

 

The same clueless members continue to claim the MQA train cannot be stopped. This is a very recent screenshot.

Our CA frontpage article was also deleted from the group.

I don't have a membership in the group, so they now must find their mole ....

 

and yes this internationalTV format was invented by our Belgian national television

 

"The mole" LOL .

 

I think it's interesting that they prefer to see the "name recognition" as a good thing. Any news is good news? Not sure I agree that it works like that in the public eye.

 

We'll have to see what the "mainstream" audiophile magazines and blogs have to say about this - if anything. What would be most interesting to me is if they can mount a relevant debate about *why* technically they feel MQA is still worth defending... Beyond name calling, appealing to authority, attacks on anonymity, "just listen", "your equipment isn't good enough", "you don't have golden ears", "I don't care, I just enjoy" statements.

[Archimago]

22 minutes ago, Doug Schneider said:

 

I talked a lot on the phone to Charles last year and knew all his thinking on this (at least what he gave to me -- which was hours and hours of it). He felt that there was really nothing new about any of it, that it was a mix of questionable ideas, that it was being completely misrepresented by its creators, that certain people promoting it were corrupt and flat-out bought off, while others were simply naive and uninformed and in no position to make the judgments that they were making. You left all the latter of your article, so he might've wanted you to add all that. As for the technical side, I'm sure he would've been happy with all the points you made.

...

 

Yeah, I'm sure Charles would not have minced his words... 

[Archimago]

11 hours ago, FredericV said:

New fallback argument on the secret MQA group: person X does not understand MQA.

Archimago does not understand MQA
AIX records does not understand MQA
and so on ....

Now they are attacking AIX:

 

How ironic, as MQA does not have more resolution than 24/96. Everything above that is upsampled in the renderer with leaky filters.
MQA at best is something like lossy 17/96.

A lot of MQA encodes are based on masterings for redbook. The admin of the group debunks MQA by his own logic.

 

Indeed - MQA is unable to maintain the full resolution of a 24/96 file. Absolutely ridiculous to criticize AIX, a studio that actually produces some excellent "audiophile demo" quality recordings with high resolution and natural dynamics.

 

I'm curious @FredericV, did the traffic in that group increase or change over the last few days? Other than attacking the person(s), are there actually any arguments at all of relevance to debate with these people? Is there even any apparent thoughtful discussion given the years of criticisms happening in that group or is it truly a matter of "I heard this - it's great!", and "I believe that cuz MQA said that!" kind of chatter?

[Archimago]

2 hours ago, ednaz said:

JPG = MP3

 

RAW = DSD

 

TIFF = FLAC

 

I agree with the others, we need to be cautious. So in this analogy, what do you make of MQA?

[Archimago]

3 hours ago, ednaz said:

Not an insult at all, but a statement of fact. Most people don't do cross-analogy thinking very well. After 35 years of leading teams in neuro-science, computer code reverse engineering, photography, drug discovery, entity analytics, cryptography, human systems analysis, and more, I think I have a good perspective on that. There's a well documented phenomenon of "expert blind spots" - the deeper an expert someone becomes, the more certain they are about every aspect of their discipline. I'm a professional "dumb question" asker. Fun way to make a living, never bored. Particularly for a musician and theater major.

 

Interesting career ednaz.

 

I'm not sure we need "cross-analogy thinking" here though. Might be fun as a thought experiment, but ultimately it won't capture the full essence of the amount we already know about MQA. Like Mans, I was thinking that if MP3 is JPEG, then MQA must be something like JPEG2000... Some kind of a "SuperMP3" incorporating lossless baseband or conversely a FLAC+ (baseband FLAC + sub-band lossy ultrasonics and crypto that presumably the Industry wants).

 

Quote

People claiming they can detect jpg vs other file captures remind me of people who say they can always tell lossy compressed music files from non-compressed. I can with a lot of music, but when you get Alabama Shakes running a DR of 3... can't any more. I think that may be part of what's going on in the MQA arguments, and is a variable I can't remember being explored. People say that sometimes they sound better, sometimes just not worse, sometimes worse.  

 

When doing listening comparisons, of course if it is "garbage in", then also GO. Which is why the "Internet Blind Test" used tracks from 2L instead of something like Beyonce's Lemonade. And back in 2016, when comparing analogue output, a true hi-res track was used; nothing equivalent to "DR3" stuff.

 

Quote

Wouldn't it be interesting if, instead of challenging their hearing or expertise, someone tried to understand it? Took awhile before someone noticed that the volume levels of files, and pitch, influenced how people heard them.

 

Posts on MQA have. For example, when Tidal first released MQA, I made some comparisons to make sure the Tidal MQA decodes were of similar/same mastering as some hi-res files from HDtracks I had available. Although in that comparison, most tracks compared well, I did find that Joni Mitchell's Blue looked like it had been changed significantly compared to the usual HDtracks "studio master". This is indeed a warning that if one were to compare, it's essential that one checks the Tidal/MQA file first to make sure it is not of a different master or had some kind of other processing applied.

 

Quote

I've long wondered if DR=3 versus DR=15 might be part of that. Alabama Shakes at high bit MP3 doesn't sound much different to me than 24/96. Are people arguing about MQA missing a GIGO problem?

 

 

The issue is not simply about GIGO. It is that MQA processing changes the sound with distortions that would not have been in the original high resolution master. This file format both adds anomalies (errors of commission) and is incapable of "containing" all that was fed into it (errors of omission).

[Archimago]

2 hours ago, ednaz said:

I'm a process guy. I can get better performance out of people than I could ever give myself. There's a whole profession of that. Also helps to be good at exotic math.

 

Your last paragraph is exactly my point when I compared to photography. I make photographs feel more real, and more natural, by adding distortions that aren't there in the original image. Some it is adding artifacts and noise. Some of it is excluding information. The image is qualitatively improved by quantitatively degrading it.

 

When I read comments from people who like MQA and think it improves things, and then I see the data you presented, that's what comes to mind. Your examples (or maybe it was in one of the articles linked) of a DAC that takes the pitch of A up a bit higher (welcome to the 1960s pitch wars), of the files being a bit louder, of noise showing up quantitatively that isn't there in a non-MQA file, and the filter being limited to post-ringing, all felt to me like engineering for psycho-acoustics and not accuracy.

 

That's why the McGill study will be interesting.

 

 

That's fine ednaz. If the process is representative of some kind of subjective auditory "exciter", "awesomifies" the sound or "spatializing" DSP to make it sound more "real", "focused", "deblurred", then truly this is something I hope MQA sells to the pro audio world as an effect that the artist/audio engineer can incorporate. I agree, if in doing this there is a bit of noise added, etc... then that's fine.

 

If utilized like this, I don't think anyone would deny that the final output is "as intended" by the studio. But the idea of incorporating the DSP effect into all releases, claiming that this is the "studio  sound" (when it looks like it's just a batch conversion not actually involving the artist/original engineer for the most part) and packaging it all with the other bits and pieces of encoding, "origami", and "authentication" is a bit much IMO.

 

Yes, I look forward to what the McGill folks have to say.

 

[Archimago]

Just cleaning out photos from my cell phone tonight and ran into 2 shots from late last year. A few months ago, I was perusing the magazine stands and ran into the TAS "Ultimate Guide to Headphones & Personal Audio 2017-2018" (came out in November 2017 I think). I saw these 2 pages on MQA:

 

 

Amazing just how far they would go to promote this product:

 

Once you threw MQA into the equation, I have to say, "Game over" for any DAC that can't keep up.

 

THE HOLY GRAIL of consumer-audio formats has been to deliver to the listener the same sound quality that the artists and engineers heard in the studio. In the past all formats have fallen far short of that lofty goal - until now.

 

My goodness. How can anyone say these things with a straight face? Are these the words of "true believers"?

[Archimago]

3 hours ago, kissov said:

Here is a link to an adult talking about MQA who uses his real name.

 

 

"Lossless music registration"? Anyone use this kind of terminology? Is this even a "thing"?

 

Clearly this man has not explored or understood the issues with MQA. Furthermore he has not understood nor does he seem capable of showing that which he speaks of - whether in the "diminished transient response" or his belief in what kinds of "errors in the clock signal (that) cause jitter". He has talked about this as if with authority in the past.

 

All kinds of confusion and conflation to make comparisons that are inappropriate.

 

The crux of the argument for him is essentially this:

"So, like conventional PCM and DSD, MQA is not without losses but to my experience suffers from less loss than regular PCM and DSD, DSD being second best to my ears and over my equipment."

 

Yeah... Real scientific there. His ears. His equipment. How would he know there was "less loss"? I've never seen him give an example of what song or piece of music he's referring to to make such a comparison.

 

One obvious and gross error (along with a jab):

"The technical difference for techies without ears is that where in regular PCM - once digital - every bit remains intact, MQA uses a lossy compression for the signals above 48kHz."

 

Sorry Hans - pardon me if I think that the ears/brain of many of the tech folks including mine might be a tad more perceptive, if not at least younger with better frequency response. Major error there dude setting 48kHz as the boundary!

 

And how does he know that:

"The MQA circuits used in MQA DAC's does even sound better when non MQA sources are used."

 

What "MQA circuits" are you talking about? Again, clearly this man doesn't understand the system itself.

 

Fascinating that he lists a number of negatives about MQA in the latter part of the video, but just lets these issues pass... Seriously, it's not about the "angry mob who don't want to pay the license fee" that's a problem. It's the fact that MQA is not what he thinks it is and the fact that he says these erroneous things in support of folly that (at least personally) creates a sense of disgust ("mad" is not the correct emotional label when I listen to the claims such as the ones in this video these days).

 

So he wants audiophiles to spread the word about his channel at the end so he can keep people "informed". Apologies if I stay away from my PayPal account and Patreon as I have no desire to support misinformation.

 

[Archimago]

7 minutes ago, kissov said:

Your response to the Beekhuyzen video is exactly why you should keep your idenity a secret. 

 

What's that supposed to mean?

 

Like I said in the past, there are other roles I have to play in this world (not in the audio domain of course) and it's good to keep boundaries between them.

 

Mr. Beekhuyzen needs to be clear about what he's talking about before misinforming the public.

[Archimago]

22 minutes ago, firedog said:

Uh, I think you meant to write, “an adult who should be embarrassed to use his real name because now everyone knows he is either ignorant and doesn’t know what he is talking about, or just a shill for MQA who will say anything, true or not.”

 

Well, in the video he states he's not supported by MQA. No reason to question that...

 

It is a rather compelling audition nonetheless if MQA did want to support some promotion in the future!

[Archimago]

11 hours ago, astromo said:

@Archimago thank you for the "cut through". You saved me the effort of pointing out the flaws that I could spot in the HB presentation. Leaves me at this point with the thought of "bring on the McGill Uni study".

 

If the analytical work by Meyer and Moran are any guide:

Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback

we'll see confirmation of the ABX work you've reported on in your blog.

 

Interestingly, the Meyer Moran paper points to this commentary from another AES Journal Paper as part of the motivation for their study, dating back over ten years now:

The similarity of language used to describe MQA by it's co-inventor with the description above is no coincidence (but it's certainly amusing to reflect upon). I've not fully read the paper that the above quote is extracted from yet but a quick skim made me notice this comment:

 

From my own technical background, I know that modelling can only take you so far (George Box's advice is often quoted, "all models are wrong, some are useful" or something along those lines). Without empirical testing and validation, theory and models can quickly lead you down the garden path to leave you dancing around the magic mushrooms with the pixies and the fairies. To take Box's point, if you don't test your models empirically, it's not possible to understand the strengths and weaknesses and ultimately their reliability.

 

If MQA had been subjected to the rigour that Moran and Meyer applied (here's the testing detail from their paper that the abstract above alludes to):

We would already have an answer that would put all this angst and debate from the last couple of years beyond doubt to even the greatest proponents of the format.

 

Thanks again for your efforts.

 

A pleasure @astromo. As some of the respondents noted, unfortunately the M&M study unfortunately did not take into account the provenance of those SACD / DVD-A samples they used, thus although we can say perhaps the results could apply to those albums, one has to look elsewhere at test that utilized true hi-res audio to tease out the audibility compared to standard CD.

 

By the way, over the years, I've added to a list of SACDs I've found that were simply PCM usamples here.

 

Regardless of M&M, you're right though... It would have been interesting if MQA did subject the codec to some kind of blind study right from the start as evidence instead of vague opinions in the audiophile press - assuming that these voices experiencing MQA in an uncontrolled fashion were credible enough to satisfy audiophiles !