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

[The Computer Audiophile]

36 minutes ago, NOMBEDES said:

 

 

Ask the old, original bluesmen who don't even have a headstone how well artists have done against the music industry.  Theft, shit contracts, exploitation, streaming payments, MQA, ......... the artists, for the most part, is not going to do well.   If you want to be an artist, you would be well served to get a lawyer for your 16th birthday.   Or have Taylor Swift's parents.

At the same time the artists to blame for signing their rights away. Nobody is innocent in this business. 

 

A story for another day. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

22 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

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...

Is there any way to upsample a track and have it still illuminate the light?

 

im just thinking about ways unscrupulous people have sold music and things MQA says it prevents. 

 

If its possible to hack MQA into illuminating the light that’s one thing, but if standard nefarious methods can do the same, that’s a much larger issue  

 

Not a positive either way though. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hey @Rt66indierock - Anything in the latest trove of Spotify documents about MQA?

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, realhifi said:

Difference is that everyone and their brother knew who Sam Tellig really was. Not what I’d call a well kept secret. As far as I know it appears Mr. Archimago’s identity is a mystery. 

I had no clue Sam wasn’t his name until a couple years ago. 

 

Achimago isn’t a mystery to those who’ve met him and know him. It’s a mystery to those who could use his real information in unscrupulous ways. 

 

@mitchco  has met him. 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

14 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

With respect, yes, this is a core belief of mine, and has been since I worked in a research lab at the end of the 1960s. You have something relevant o say, hang it on the peg of your actual name. Just as I have done all my life - and even Doug Schneider has done! Until then, while I have read your article, and certainly have opinions on what you have written, I shall keep my thoughts to myself.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

 

Back in the 60s nobody tracked you down online, called your employer and had an impact on your livelihood because they disagreed with you in an online forum. This has happened a few times around here.

 

This article is objective. 

 

2+2=4 no matter your name, pseudonym, etc...

 

If someone thinks this article doesn’t add up, then prove it wrong. Make a fool of me for standing up for the author and using my name as a guarantee to the CA community.

 

I’ve co-signed this loan and have no worries about creditors coming my way. 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

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. I'm not saying that Bob is setting JA's agenda or giving him talking points, but I just don't see why JA is sticking to that argument so hard. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

 

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?

 

Yes, he has issues with it. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Who knew we’d hit 500 comments under an article about MQA :~)

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, Pete-FIN said:

 

Breaking news, the ownership of Stereophile has changed.

 

The news story is here:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/avtech-media-ltd-uk-acquires-home-tech-network-ten-publishing-media

 

AVTech Media Ltd (UK) has purchased the Home Tech Network...

 

The Home Tech Network's six brands including Stereophile, Sound & Vision, Shutterbug, AnalogPlanet, Audiostream, and Innerfidelity...

 

It will be interesting to follow if there is journalistic changes in Stereophile.

I can just see the war on pseudonyms beginning now :~) 

[The Computer Audiophile]

17 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

For atypical DAC varieties (eg. not the typical XMOS + ESS chipsets), there's going to be a bit of custom work to implement MQA. Not sure for example at what cost or who would do the work for a device like the PS Audio's DirectStream DAC itself. Also might depend on how close to the chest MQA likes to keep their source code especially given the secret "authentication" algos :-).

 

Yeah, sounds like the Bridge II card will just do the software decode for the network streams; although I see reports of it upsampling up to 176.4/192kHz presumably with their minimum phase slow-roll filter varieties.

 

You nailed it. Cost are high to do this because of the time it takes and skills required. It took dCS several thousand hours and unprecedented access to MQA to implement it as an option in dCS DACs. 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Investment, access to MQA ltd IP, and the skilled people to actually do it. 

 

Whether one likes it or not is another animal.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, crenca said:

 

Interesting.  Is there any other DAC manufacturer who has this kind of relationship with MQA that you know of?  Also, why dCS?  Often such things are forged personally, for example is the owner/principle of dCS a current or former employee/associate of Bob S?

Not that I know of, but that doesn't mean much. 

 

I think there is definitely a Cambridge connection between Bob and dCS. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Guys - Just a quick note from the High End show in Munich. 

 

I’ve run into several people here in Munich, from the most well known brands in HiFi, who thanked me for publishing this article and who passed it around to many other people in the industry. 

 

Thanks to @Archimago for delivering a well written and indisputable article. It has been noticed by nearly everyone. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, Sfellows331 said:

Without input from the artists themselves, discussions of MQA sound quality are perhaps missing the point. 

It most cases the artist has no idea what MQA is or has no input into the creation of the MQA content.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Sfellows331 said:

In most cases this is probably true. But among artists who are aware of the purported sonic benefits of MQA and have listened to their recordings in the format, and I am sure there are some, do they tend to like or dislike the result?  I haven't looked into this and you may know more than I do here.  

 

If an artist says that he prefers the MQA version over an uncompressed version of his music that's available to the public, should his view be taken seriously in the discussion of sound quality?   

All views should be taken seriously. I think the real test is with an artist who values sound quality creating a new recording. Which version comes closest to the product s/he has in mind or wants to release. To date I don't know of any unpaid or un-vested interests supplying such an opinion.

[The Computer Audiophile]

31 minutes ago, Sfellows331 said:

Hey milkeyfresh, mansr, and crenca...you need to look at your recent posts. It's groupthink with no diversity of thought. I agree with the concerns for monopoly but i also like the sound, not that it matters..

Hi @Sfellows331 - I understand you may reach this conclusion based on what you've read in their responses, but I encourage you to dig a little deeper into the examination of MQA done by @mansr from a technical perspective. He was digging into this years ago and has spent more time researching it than he probably like to admit. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, Sfellows331 said:

MQA is like a rising totalitarian government that promises good things. Then once fully in power everyone realizes they've lost their freedom.

And from the point of view of MQA Ltd they are just giving the record labels options. If the labels stop releasing non-MQA material then MQA Ltd can just say it isn’t their decision, it’s the labels’ decision. MQA Ltd can’t lose. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

26 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

You are forgetting the labels own enough of MQA Ltd to exert significant influence and I doubt the primary investor would disagree with them. 

I don’t see who there is to influence. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 minutes ago, HelpfulDad said:

So much discussion about theory but have all of you actually heard fully decoded MQA content?  The difference is dramatic.  I can understand discussion about whether that duffereosound is good or not.  But I can’t understand those who opine about quality without experience hearing it, or those who don’t know how it actually works.

I was skeptical til I heard it.  The time domain corrections are remarkable.  I think a professional drummer could discern specific cymbals used on tracks.  Cymbals from digital sources have always annoyed me

 

I don’t know why people think it’s a DRM scheme. It’s just clever digital signal processing 

 

Oh boy. 

 

We’ve all heard it. Using the same master it isn’t better. 

 

White glove remasters may sound good but MQA has nothing to do with that. It could be done better without MQA. There’s no way to remove data from the original and make it sound better. 

 

There is no such thing as deblurring. 

 

Here are a couple concise links. 

 

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/30381-mqa-is-vaporware/page/470/?tab=comments#comment-936690

 

 

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/30381-mqa-is-vaporware/page/485/?tab=comments#comment-938207

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

9 minutes ago, HelpfulDad said:

So much discussion about theory but have all of you actually heard fully decoded MQA content?  The difference is dramatic.  I can understand discussion about whether that duffereosound is good or not.  But I can’t understand those who opine about quality without experience hearing it, or those who don’t know how it actually works.

I was skeptical til I heard it.  The time domain corrections are remarkable.  I think a professional drummer could discern specific cymbals used on tracks.  Cymbals from digital sources have always annoyed me

 

I don’t know why people think it’s a DRM scheme. It’s just clever digital signal processing 

 

Oh yeah. Mansr found DRM inside when he tore it apart. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

11 minutes ago, HelpfulDad said:

Using that logic,  CD, Dolby B, SACD and cassettes are DRM schemes as well because we had/have to pay Sony and/or Philips to use those technologies.  Someday, a CD could include a content licensing scheme.  And, Neil Young, et al, found a way to enforce content licensing with PCM, so the ability to embed a scheme means nothing. 
 

MQA sounds most accurate, small files and most of the naysayers haven’t even heard it properly decoded, while artists who have verified it have agreed the sound is accurate.

 

Oh yeah, I forgot they’re in on it too.  Verifying accuracy because they want more money.  Some people just want to object for the sake of objecting.

Of the millions of batch processed Warner music, how many tracks were verified by the artists? What about the dead artists? 

[The Computer Audiophile]

@HelpfulDad by the way, you’re the one who said the following, correct?

 

 

On 4/25/2016 at 5:58 PM, HelpfulDad said:

the USB connection in a car from the lightning connector IS NOT A DIGITAL AUDIO CONNECTION

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

10 minutes ago, HelpfulDad said:

Great post and insight about a bunch of different discussions about it, hence irreconcilable.  Like arguing if Babe Ruth was GOAT with someone who thinks Jerry West was.
 

1) There’s a discussion about mathematical accuracy comparing a hi rez PCM stream befoe MQA processing and after.  I’m concerned with how it ultimately sounds and I can understand how various mathematical transforms can create a different bitstream that creates a more realistic analog reproduction so for me, I don’t care about this objection. It’s like trying to convince the Nyquist groupies that higher sample rates sound better.  I hear the difference, understand mathematics and signal processing to explain why what I hear is better so eh!

 

2) Another discussion is that DRM is why MQA exists.  Stuart has taken an egregious approach to getting paid for his technology, but it’s no different than paying Dolby a license to use their tech in hardware, the 1¢ we spent on cassettes for Philips, or what we pay Sony/Philips for each CD so again, who cares?  MQA is not some way to prevent archiving or prevent playing the content when you pay for the HW/SW license.
 

MQA is so much for than Dolby, so I can see why its handled by Engineers and can’t be encoded by HW alone but people fear what they don’t understand hence all the angst.
 

3)Another discussion is about MQA decoded to 96k from a 48k file doesn’t sound as good as source or even straight 96k PCM.  In every one of these objections I’ve responded to, they don’t fully decode MQA.  They do the first step or two to get 96k or 192k, but not the last step. So again, it’s probably true for partial decode, but who cares?  If you’re not going to apply all the math, it’s like recording Dolby C, then applying Dolby B on playback and complaining.  Don’t dismiss the codec if you’re not going to apply it. The only reason you’d do this is to save money on a DAC. Again, who cares?

 

4) Another discussion is that It is different than the Master.  If it’s authenticated as MQA Studio, that means the creative team who produced the Master has participated in the authentication and, at times, were able to correct hardware errors in the analog source or in the sampling. If Chris Squire, Eddy Offord, Steve Howe, Jon Anderson listen to Yes Fragile after it’s MQA encoded/decoded and they all agree and sign off that it’s what they were trying to do in the first place,  I’d feel confident that the codec is reproducing music that is an accurate representation of the album.  
 

5) My favorite discussion is “MQA is lossy”.   Digital audio is lossy compared to live or even analog,  No matter how quickly you sample, nothing captures what’s happened between samples.  The Nyquist groupies will tell you it doesn’t matter, because humans can’t hear above 20khz so it’s not lossy. But, MQA cleverly tosses unused bits outside the content’s dynamic range, and thats called lossy. This confusion seems to stem from describing anything below the noise floor of the content as not audible.  Sadly,MP3 devotees say that the part of the music that is lost to compression is inaudible. The difference is MQA loses no content, it tosses unused bits. Big difference. 
 

I’ve given up convincing all but those who haven’t actually heard quality MQA studio recordings fully decoded. Don’t let intellectuals stop you from hearing it.  Even the stereo store guy. They usually have axes to grind and may not even know how MQA works and how to properly decode it. 
 

Do yourself a favor, learn what hardware is necessary to get MQA Studio fully decoded, make sure the hardware and software is properly configured for your audition.  Make sure you’re listening to a good, hi rez PCM recording that was MQA Studio encoded (Abbey Road, Fragile, to name two) .  Don’t trust the stereo guy.  Ask questions and be sure you’re seeing the MQA DAC showing MQA Studio on the indicators as it plays back.  Sit back and enjoy.  It’s much more pleasant 

 

Just so we’re straight, you’re the guy claiming that iPhones with no analog output are outputting analog via the digital only lightning connector? And, you want people to believe you understand how MQA works?

 

Its all been debunked. 
 

I’ve listened to tons of MQA fully decoded. It’s different. It isn’t better. Yet, you pay for the privilege of different. 
 

Which albums have been signed off by the production teams? It’s very close to zero. I know people on production teams that found out their content was available in MQA only once it was on Tidal. One example of an artist who found this out recently is Neil Young, who then said it was worse and pulled his MQA music from the service. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

As MQA is the grift that keeps on grifting, I should add that I couldn't care less if people love MQA and want to listen to it all day every day. That's their choice. The other side of this coin is that I don't want them telling me what I can/can't listen to. Unfortunately, this is what MQA was designed to do. Bob Stuart has said it many times, including in the first MQA panel that I moderated at RMAF. Bob said the goal is a single deliverable (file) to replace all other formats. 

 

That's my issue. I have no problem selecting DACs, music, and services that don't charge me the MQA tax. However, as MQA content replaces pure PCM on Tidal, some people have had their access to non-MQA music removed. That's not cool in my book. If this happens on the other lossless services, it will be a shame. Removing choice is never a good thing for consumers. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

11 minutes ago, MikeyFresh said:

MQA is lossy, even BS has been forced to admit that, and the organization was forced to stop using their original logo which included the word lossless in it.

 

If nobody had spoken up, do you think this would still be the MQA logo? Absolutely 100% it would be the MQA logo. Those who think it's lossless, should ask themselves why MQA no longer uses this logo.