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

[firedog]

4 hours ago, kissov said:

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

 

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.”

[Ralf11]

Who are you Mr. Kissoff?

 

Do you get paid by any MQA affiliated entities?

[mansr]

8 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.”

Or both.

[crenca]

39 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.

 

When you put it like that, what chance does MQA have?  The labels could decide to "switch on" MQA and only release new product in this format.   They would figure that the vast majority of their customers (i.e. the "audio skeptics") are just going to keep doing what they have been doing for the last almost 20 years and rip it to 256 (or less)...

[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 :-)

 

 

[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!

[mansr]

1 minute ago, Archimago said:

Well, in the video he states he's not supported by MQA. Not reason to question that...

He has a price list. Of course, we don't know whether MQA has paid him, but the possibility is quite real.

[Rt66indierock]

1 hour ago, Em2016 said:

 

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 :-)

 

 

 

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. 

[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.

 

[Rt66indierock]

9 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

 

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.

 

 

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. 

[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.

 

[Rt66indierock]

2 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

 

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.

 

 

I'm on the artist and studio side of things from a professional point of view to directly answer your question.  So I interact with A&R people but it isn't the main focus of what I do professionally. I'll have more first hand information this summer after I hit a few festivals.

 

But in all honesty most people in the music business want to talk to me about golf.

[astromo]

6 hours ago, Archimago said:

 

"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 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

Quote

Claims both published and anecdotal are regularly made for audibly superior sound quality for two-channel audio encoded with longer word lengths and/or at higher sampling rates than the 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD standard. The authors report on a series of double-blind tests comparing the analog output of high-resolution players playing high-resolution recordings with the same signal passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz “bottleneck.” The tests were conducted for over a year using different systems and a variety of subjects. The systems included expensive professional monitors and one high-end system with electrostatic loudspeakers and expensive components and cables. The subjects included professional recording engineers, students in a university recording program, and dedicated audiophiles. The test results show that the CD-quality A/D/A loop was undetectable at normal-to-loud listening levels, by any of the subjects, on any of the playback systems. The noise of the CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels.

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:

Quote

As a licensor asserted in these pages [1],
A long-term audiophile criticism of the CD has been that it lacks the resolution to reproduce all the detail in a musical performance. ... High-quality audio practice now recognizes the CD channel as a "bottleneck" ... Higher resolution audio promises better sound than the CD, and the potential for this has already been demonstrated in carriers that permit a wider frequency response ... and greater dynamic range. ... [E]x-perience shows and anecdotal evidence suggests that higher sample rates "sound better." Typical observation are that with higher sampling rates the sound is clearer, smoother, has improved low-frequency definition, and is more "natural." In the author’s experience higher sample rates can lead to better fore-ground/background discrimination. "Objects" are better separated from the acoustic and therefore sound clearer and more "complete."

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:

Quote

The author uses auditory modeling to illuminate the discussion in this paper, the background for which is fully
explained in [7] and [12].

 

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):

Quote

With the help of about 60 members of the Boston Audio Society and many other interested parties, a series of double-blind (A/B/X) listening tests were held over a period of about a year. Many types of music and voice signals were included in the sources, from classical (choral, chamber, piano, orchestral) to jazz, pop, and rock music. The subjects included men and women of widely varying ages, acuities, and levels of musical and audio experience; many were audio professionals or serious students of the art.

 

Most of the tests were done using a pair of highly regarded, smooth-measuring full-range loudspeakers in a rural listening room with an ambient noise floor of about 19 dBA SPL, all electronics on (see Fig. 2). We also took the test setup to several other locations: a Boston-area mastering facility with very large four-way studio monitors; a local university audio facility, again with large high-powered monitors in a custom-designed listening space (the subjects for this test were students in the recording program); and a private high-end listening room equipped with well-reviewed electrostatic loudspeakers and very expensive electronics and cables. In all venues we performed informal tests of the subjects’ upper hearing limits to see
whether there was a correlation between this parameter and the audibility of differences.

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.

[firedog]

2 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.

The Meyer Moran study has been fairly thoroughly discredited. Even one of the authors said he no longer stands by the conclusions. 

One of the big problems with the study was that they didn't find out the provenance of SACDs they used, and several of them were produced from upsampled Redbook. I wouldn't exactly call that testing "rigour". 

 

 So their study wasn't comparing hi-res recordings to Redbook at all in those cases, it was comparing Redbook source to Redbook source. And somehow they got to the conclusion that there was no discernable difference between Redbook and hi-res.

 

There were also some statistical issues with the study that put the findings in doubt. 

And as far as studies go, see this: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=18296

And that meta-analysis rejected the Meyer-Moran results for inclusion as being statistically suspect, i.e.,  results appearing to not be statistically random.

 

I'm not actually arguing the point of whether hi-res is audible - I'm just arguing that the Meyer - Moran study isn't where you should go if you want scientific proof it isn't. 

[FredericV]

8 hours ago, Archimago said:

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.

I already busted Hans for spreading misinformation. He is one of the key opinion makers and just takes their marketing BS for granted, copying it into video's and website articles.
 

 

Those who understand MQA's bit allocation, will know this is a lie:

 

 

[FredericV]

11 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

New Shill Alert for IndyDan

 

 

How many CA accounts are in sleeper mode, to be used after a long time?

 

• Content count

  1

• Joined

  December 14, 2016

• Last visited

  Thursday at 04:43 PM

[mansr]

1 hour ago, FredericV said:

How many CA accounts are in sleeper mode, to be used after a long time?

It's probably possible to sell old accounts to troll/shill farms.

[guymrob]

Here is a quote from the latest Stereophile April 2018 issue:

 

...I don’t believe that, over long term, MQA is in the best interest of audiophiles. I just hope it’s not too late — Jon Iverson, “As We See It”

 

Sudden change of heart? 

[astromo]

3 hours ago, firedog said:

The Meyer Moran study has been fairly thoroughly discredited. Even one of the authors said he no longer stands by the conclusions. 

One of the big problems with the study was that they didn't find out the provenance of SACDs they used, and several of them were produced from upsampled Redbook. I wouldn't exactly call that testing "rigour". 

 

 So their study wasn't comparing hi-res recordings to Redbook at all in those cases, it was comparing Redbook source to Redbook source. And somehow they got to the conclusion that there was no discernable difference between Redbook and hi-res.

 

There were also some statistical issues with the study that put the findings in doubt. 

And as far as studies go, see this: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=18296

And that meta-analysis rejected the Meyer-Moran results for inclusion as being statistically suspect, i.e.,  results appearing to not be statistically random.

 

I'm not actually arguing the point of whether hi-res is audible - I'm just arguing that the Meyer - Moran study isn't where you should go if you want scientific proof it isn't. 

Thanks for pointing this out. Looks like I've got some reading to do.

 

From a quick squiz, this fella Josh Reiss has done a comprehensive piece of work. It provides an example for those pushing MQA to think about.

[maxijazz]

On 3/8/2018 at 12:50 AM, ednaz said:

Watching the arguments of what's kept versus thrown away, what's real and what's invented, is it debarring or blurring, is it just upsampling, wait is that noise, brings to mind something from another domain - photography.

 

When printing digital photographs at display sizes - 16x20 inches, 20x30 inches and larger - professional printers, the type that would print images for a gallery or museum show, do a couple of tricks to every image, just before printing. (Learned these working for a famous NYC fine art printer.)

 

First, they apply an unsharp mask to increase the apparent sharpness (de-blurring), which paradoxically works by applying a mildly blurred image as a mask on to the original image. De-blurring by adding a mask of blurring. It raises the apparent sharpness of the image. Done well, it's not noticeable. Done poorly, you get visible halos in the image. Note that even done well, there are halos - the unsharp image absolutely makes them, but they're below your ability to see them - a pixel or two wide. (I learned to do this in film days. Much easier in digital.)

 

Second, they add noise to the image. Everyone evaluates digital sensors based on their ability to produce an image free of digital noise... but completely noise free images look odd. In large areas with no detail - sky, a car fender, still water - they look artificial and plastic. The printer uses one of a number of techniques to generate digital noise that's similar to film grain, and blends it into the image. The size and frequencies of the noise are based on the size of the final print. Again, the goal is to have it be there and effective but not noticeable. (When I show people prints where I've done this, they have a hard time detecting it, even after being told what to look for.) That added noise does three things. It makes the image seem more real, and less digital. It reduces the visibility of actual digital noise from the sensor. And, it also increases the apparent sharpness of the image.

 

In photography - which is about capturing the most accurate renditions of light and color with a recording device and then reproducing them for viewing - adding information that was never there to begin with increases the perception of it being a more accurate and sharply rendered image of the real world.

 

I imagine that the same types of tricks, applied to audio files, may improve the apparent accuracy and crispness of the rendering of recorded sounds. After all, we see and hear with our brains, not our eyes and ears.

I don’t mind preference of others to be “cheated” to their liking (by “beautifying” music reproduction).

 

I demand “raw” music (lossless, bit perfect) for myself in a format, so I can “modify” it, if I am in a mood or need, to my liking. 

 

After modifications were already applied to source (in order to “cheat” statistically  average, typical taste), it is very hard, sometimes impossible, to undo them by consumer. And audiophile herds demand more than average or typical consumer.

[realhifi]

12 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

But in all honesty most people in the music business want to talk to me about golf.

Yes!  I would too!  This MQA discussion is going in circles. Wayyyy more interesting to talk about new irons, etc. 

[maxijazz]

On 3/8/2018 at 5:51 PM, ednaz said:

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.

Did you cheat test audience by showing them original photography and results of your processing against another, but similar, photography (because different source allowed you to obtain qualitatively better results)? 

Did you stear test audience by telling them what photography is original and what is result of your improvement process?

[ednaz]

I didn't invent this. It's standard practice among fine art photography printers, like Duggal Imaging in NYC and Nash Editions in CA. Has been for years (I apprenticed for a couple months at a couple of printers back in 2001 just to learn technique, and those guys had been doing it since professional digital cameras were 3 megapixels.)

 

The whole process of sharpening is  completely about adding artifacts, and that's been done ever since there was photography and a desire to create the impression of sharpness.

 

The brain sees things, not the eyes. Every one of those techniques is about changing how the brain perceives things. The same is true about sound - the ears capture but the brain hears. Hence psychoacoustics.

[miguelito]

3 minutes ago, ednaz said:

The brain sees things, not the eyes. Every one of those techniques is about changing how the brain perceives things. The same is true about sound - the ears capture but the brain hears. Hence psychoacoustics.

Very true. And we often are firstly drawn to over-sharpened, over saturated images - and one can similarly characterize this in sound. But all those artifacts get old because IMHO they don’t represent reality.

[ednaz]

48 minutes ago, maxijazz said:

I don’t mind preference of others to be “cheated” to their liking (by “beautifying” music reproduction).

 

I demand “raw” music (lossless, bit perfect) for myself in a format, so I can “modify” it, if I am in a mood or need, to my liking. 

 

After modifications were already applied to source (in order to “cheat” statistically  average, typical taste), it is very hard, sometimes impossible, to undo them by consumer. And audiophile herds demand more than average or typical consumer.

You do realize that most studio albums where some performers were in soundproof booths have reverb added? I've heard the raw tapes (a big part of my photography was for jazz and blues musicians for CDs and PR shots) in the studio. "Dry" sax or trumpet doesn't sound pretty.  I've watched the sound engineer add slightly different reverb to different instruments because just adding it overall sounds artificial.  And that's just one of the normal things done in the recording and production process.

I think the only place you'll actually get raw music is in the performance itself. And, most of what's done in production is to make it feel more real and more alive. Psychoacoustics is a real thing.