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

[beetlemania]

9 hours ago, Archimago said:

Are these the words of "true believers"?

Or the words of one with an all expenses paid vacation professional trip to Europe? Maybe not unlike the "news" readers on teevee that get paid $$$$ to repeat corporate and government propaganda.

[crenca]

1 minute ago, beetlemania said:

Or the words of one with an all expenses paid vacation professional trip to Europe? Maybe not unlike the "news" readers on teevee that get paid $$$$ to repeat corporate and government propaganda.

 

Here is the deal:  I would have more respect for TAS if they were being directly compensated for such uncompromising "true believer" copy.  The thing is they probably are not (and will defend their "integrity" like a mother bear). This means they are unaware that they are the targets of a confidence game, and that they are playing their role perfectly.  

[wdw]

19 hours ago, mitchco said:

snippet...............

When Archimago and I attended the Vancouver Audio Show to listen to MQA files, we had an expectation that we would be presented with some AB testing, so we could hear the difference, as the system was certainly resolving enough :-) However, there were no comparisons and instead listened to some gobbledegook from the MQA sales rep, then a few nice sounding recordings, but no AB comparisons.........snippet

 

I posted about a similar experience when my wife and I made the trip to the same Vancouver show specially to hear MQA.  We sought out and spoke to the sales rep prior to his presentation, asking about the technology as it was a still very much a mystery to us and the articles from Harley had been so overwhelmingly positive.  May have just been a bad day for him but he replied with a dismissive and snide arrogance.  Laughably he told us that one of MQA inc's biggest challenges, was to convince B. Stuart that he not simply "give" the technology away to the industry at large; Stuart's altruism and higher moral purpose as the guiding principal.

Nevertheless the sales rep, using a 200K system, played files purported to be MQA that were never followed with the non-MQA equivalent even when the audience spoke out loudly asking that they do so.

This, to me, suggests the essential dishonesty within the MQA rollout as it appears, from the cheap seats, that the audiophile press and the major labels are cajoled and coddled while the public appear to be "blown off" in a casual fashion.

Why the subterfuge?  

[kissov]

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

 

[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.

[crenca]

1 minute ago, kissov said:

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

 

 

Too bad much of what he says is false.  I bet he wishes he had used a pseudonym...

[Dr Tone]

7 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Too bad much of what he says is false.  I bet he wishes he had used a pseudonym...

 

The best part is when he says: "In my opinion, MQA has less loss than PCM and DSD".

[crenca]

Just now, Dr Tone said:

 

The best part is when he says: "In my opinion, MQA has less loss than PCM and DSD".

 

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

[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.

[Doug Schneider]

3 hours ago, wdw said:

Why the subterfuge?  

 

Simple: it's easier to make fantastic claims than to prove them.

 

Going back a couple of years now, this is what I've been harping on. And in case you think the press is treated differently -- they're not. Bob Stuart answered with the same kind of disdain when I asked for comparison at the Munich High End 2016 show. An unwillingness to prove should've been proof enough right from the start about what this is about. 

Doug Schneider
SoundStage!

[Ralf11]

On 3/7/2018 at 11:11 PM, 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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Shill Alert for IndyDan

 

[MarkS]

22 hours 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!

 

Such demos have been done.  I attended one Meridian did in NYC about 6 to 8 months ago at Innovative Audio.  Direct A/B's of a track, followed by that track MQA'd.

[Lobbster]

On 3/8/2018 at 11:13 AM, Archimago said:

"awesomifies"

 

The reference "a solution looking for a problem" reminds when Olympus introduced "Live View" in DSLRs in 2006. It seemed like such an obvious evolution. Instead the media (the WE make NEWS crowd) trashed the idea. Now it's ubiquitous. Guess someone got pissed it wasn't their idea first or backed by their big monied advertisers.

 

Conversely, MQA aims to improve nothing and reduce consumer choice. A solution looking for a problem indeed.

 

The music industry hasn't learned . I thought we were finally on the right path - make music accessible for a reasonable price and no one gives up the family jewels. Those who want more can pay more.

 

My fear is the tech hiway is littered with the roadkill of superior tech that didn't have marketing or business chops. MQA seems to have marketing backed by the "WE make NEWS" crowd. Please keep up the good work guys, you are providing music consumers a great service! 

 

Hmmmm, my Stereophile subscription is up for renewal. I'm getting the feeling if I really want to help the artists I should spend my money on the Spotify IPO or music festival tix (that Shaky Knees Music Fest looks very interesting and with a couple of my kids birthdays coming up, a good excuse to check out the new Michigan rockers Greta Van Fleet). Looking forward to more great reading guys. Thanks!!

[Doug Schneider]

18 minutes ago, MarkS said:

 

Such demos have been done.  I attended one Meridian did in NYC about 6 to 8 months ago at Innovative Audio.  Direct A/B's of a track, followed by that track MQA'd.

 

Let me guess -- MQA was always played second, right? I could go on about that (hint: if you play the same track twice in a row, the second time it always sounds "better"). But beyond that, was there any verification that it was from the same masters? This has been part of the problem all along -- no verification of source material.

 

Doug 

SoundStage!

[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.

 

[HalSF]

I just cant get with the paranoid view that MQA is somehow going to prevail and wreak all kinds of havoc on audiophile options and impose a degraded level of sound quality on listeners, especially if its most important potential customers continue to balk and demand a fair, open test of MQA’s claims. And if there continues to be a widespread perception that MQA is dodging such a fair, open test, and/or MQA fails to make a convincing case in the court of audiophile and AES opinion, I just don’t see the brand thriving.

 

The blowback to date has been brutal, companies hate controversy, and if things don’t somehow turn around in terms of convincing skeptics, MQA is doomed.

[kissov]

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

[botrytis]

3 minutes ago, HalSF said:

I just cant get with the paranoid view that MQA is somehow going to prevail and wreak all kinds of havoc on audiophile options and impose a degraded level of sound quality on listeners, especially if its most important potential customers continue to balk and demand a fair, open test of MQA’s claims. And if there continues to be a widespread perception that MQA is dodging such a fair, open test, or if MQA fails to make a convincing case in the court of audiophile and AES opinion, I just don’t see the brand thriving.

 

The blowback to date has been brutal, and if things don’t somehow turn around in terms of convincing skeptics, MQA is doomed.

 

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.

[botrytis]

4 minutes ago, kissov said:

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

 

The problem is we have ALREADY DISCUSSED, in another thread that video with the author of that video. We debunked him there also. I feel his video was disingenuous at best and blatant lies on the other hand. 

 

I guess you are one of the MQA groupies. I wonder which one you really are.

 

I want to ask, How can a file that is TRUNCATED to 16-17 bit depth at the most, sound BETTER than the original file which is 24 bit depth? During the processing, there is added noise and decreased dynamic range (among other issues). It can't.

[HalSF]

5 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.

The way I think about it, MQA doesn’t need to be destroyed, it needs to win or lose on the actual merits. And on that score it’s losing badly and is a tainted brand. If there was an Amazon MQA product page, it would feature nothing but a minority of five-star and a majority of one-star reviews — in other words, a sales nightmare.

[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.

 

[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.

[beetlemania]

13 minutes ago, kissov said:

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

 

Say more - what is your rationale? Why does his real name make any difference here?

[kissov]

"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."

 

I need to end this discussion, my apologies, I had no idea.

[HalSF]

34 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

 

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.

 

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.