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

[Archimago]

9 hours ago, FredericV said:

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:

 

 

 

Good job on the refutation FredericV.

 

Listening to Hans, I get the idea that he's probably a nice guy and "means well". But man, talking about MQA like this and sitting behind him is his oscilloscope as if to imply measurements inform his claims / opinions is simply too much!

[Archimago]

7 hours ago, guymrob said:

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? 

 

Yup. Good to see this change in message from JI and later on Kal Rubinson seriously reminding audiophiles that MQA files cannot be fully accessed for room correction:

"I don't see a need for it, therefore, and I hope it doesn't force the elimination of high-resolution, non-MQA downloads."

 

Whether sudden change of heart leading to a position many of us have been saying all along or just a bump in the road, we shall see. I presume Jim Austin still has more to say as does John Atkinson, even though I can appreciate his openness to have this AWSI published.

 

BTW: There's also a good "Letters" from Grammy winning classical audio engineer Tony Faulkner... Surprise, surprise... He's not thrilled about MQA:

"High-resolution audio is about high sampling rates, minimizing filtering, minimizing processing, and being lossless. MQA delivers none of the aforementioned."

 

Indeed... Can't get more direct than that!

 

[Archimago]

28 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

 

Avionics Weapons System Integration?

 

 

Yes. (As We See It)

[Archimago]

4 minutes ago, beetlemania said:

 

Now we know that no less than Faulkner and Hansen were PMing Atkinson for some time re: MQA. I get that JA thinks his personally recorded files sound better via MQA but it mystifies me why he dismissed the many criticisms out of hand (I'm too lazy to find the relevant posts on AA). Regardless, kudos to John Atkinson for allowing Iverson to dissent from his view.

 

Any idea when the McGill study will be finished and published?

 

I'm sure we're all waiting with bated breath for the McGill results.

 

However, I would not be surprised if we never see anything come of it other than the tease...

[Archimago]

31 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

I have not yet read anything that would convince me to change my mind. Much of the most virulent criticism comes from non-technical people and where it comes from technically astute commentators, I have serious issues with much of what is written. But something that I might have to rethink is the sound of undecoded MQA datastreams, which is what Tony Faulkner was discussing in his Strreophile letter. I admit that I have done very little auditioning of undecoded MQA data and need to do more.

...

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

[Archimago]

8 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

 

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

 

True, and I don't not give him credit. I appreciate he's even here. It's great that there are various voices being represented in Stereophile as I noted in a previous comment that this is a good start.

 

But what Mr. Faulkner says seems pretty clear...

 

[Archimago]

3 hours ago, MikeyFresh said:

 

No, it is not even a thing. It's sheer nonsense.

 

Yeah, that's what I thought... Someone should let Hans know.

[Archimago]

2 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

For once agreeing with mansr,  ...

 

LOL.

 

John, I think you and Mans have quite a bit more you'd agree on if we were talking real engineering instead of a questionable "product" like MQA... 

[Archimago]

28 minutes ago, Doug Schneider said:

 

When I got deeper into this whole MQA thing and started talking about it with writers from other publications, almost all would get defensive, but the only thing they could use as their defense would be things like: "Well you know what Bob says" or "I think Bob knows more about digital audio" or "I don't know, Bob says" or some other derivation with the name Bob in it. That's all any of them had -- Bob, Bob, Bob. They also had interviews with Bob and mile-long quotes from Bob. The MQA website has "Bob Talks." It's all about Bob.

 

Meanwhile, you have guys like Rob Watts (Chord), Charles Hansen (Ayre), Mike Moffat (Schiit), Bruno Putzeys (Mola Mola, Hypex) and numerous others, not so much downplaying MQA as giving giving "sound" technical explanations why none of this is a good idea -- yet there words weren't given the time of day against Bob, Bob, Bob. Pretty foolish when you look back at the whole thing.

 

Doug Schneider
SoundStage!

 

For a product to be hinged on the "cult of personalities" - in this case of a single personality with subservient audiophile writers below him in the hierarchy is unstable. Loss of faith threatens the mini-pyramid and cannot be tolerated of course.

 

[Archimago]

2 hours ago, wdw said:

 

I tend to agree with this but would really like to know if this guy, Stuart, is so nefarious or is their marketing strategy just simply bone-headed?

 

Whether Stuart is nefarious or not, I honestly don't care. I think the problem is that, in many ways like Neil Young before when they tried to sell us "high resolution" with Pono, this "cult of personalities" gets injected into the discussion unnecessarily. We can have celebrities endorse products, but to make it so overly attached to one individual is a disservice to the product and the hobbyists the product is advertised to. To make it so that this individual appears to be treated with reverence (notice the religious connotation) as to be more important than external validation is clearly wrong. I would not be surprised if Bob Stuart himself regrets being placed in the spotlight like so for the sake of his name and legacy.

 

When personalities become so important, we naturally also see the converse. This is demonstrated by the argument Stereophile (Atkinson) raises about this article being written by someone using a pseudonym. Are we arguing about something personal such that who "the man" is matters? Are we not all trying to discern facts and truths that apply to all, not just those who "believe" in the endorsement?

 

Someone else mentioned earlier on in these discussions to use the sports analogy and "play the ball not the man". I'm a big believer in this and I hope this can be reflected in the audiophile magazines as well. The "man" - Bob Stuart, Neil Young, etc... might be of interest from the perspective of biography in what they have done and how they have added value to the quality of life in this world and enhanced our hobby. We can appreciate that well known individuals endorse a product and if we respect this individual, we can spend a bit more time evaluating what they say... But ultimately the endorsement must be seen as superficial and takes a back seat once the data comes in and the facts can be seen as they are.

 

When that point is reached, honesty demands that we put the celebrities aside and evaluate whether the data is true. Let the endorsements then be judged in light of the truth, not the other way around as if truth is informed by those who say so.

 

[Archimago]

37 minutes ago, Doug Schneider said:

...

The problem in this instance is that the audio writers and pros who "fell" for that simple marketing tactic did so without questioning it, when they really should've had the chops to at least question it. They're not general consumers -- they are supposed to be above that.

 

...

 

Exactly why this chapter involving the romance between MQA and the audiophile press is so problematic. It is reflective of the immaturity and the naïveté IMO of many of those running the show as "journalists".

[Archimago]

1 hour 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

 

 

This is not the late 1960s nor a research lab. Almost 4 billion people are online these days - that is the "sandbox" in which we're having this discussion. Even if these were the old days and I sent in a Letter to the Editor at Stereophile, would it matter if I signed "Tom Jones of Vancouver", "Tom Jones of Kansas City", or "Tom Jones of Mexico City"?

 

People know from my blog that I live in Vancouver, have some gear in my basement, post about what I use, have a wife and kids, and are aware of my philosophical leanings as it pertains to audio (probably in greater detail than most of your staff). Many have PM'ed me here, know I don't work in the audio industry, and for 5 years, I've had discussions openly on the blog. Isn't that as "real" as it gets online?

 

What we "exchange" here in forums isn't "relationship" as in getting to know the "real person". Of course that can happen over time privately. This article is about MQA, how it was engineered and what it does. If you have opinions and ideas, why not freely share them in the forum as everyone else here does? What else do you "need" to know about me that somehow allows you to interpret the article any differently?

 

52 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

I wonder if the thing that it really comes down to is that a pseudonym is so counterintuitive in the confidence game you are a part of.  You can't wrap your head around that, and no matter what you will leverage it in your efforts to recover credibility.  If I were you, I would be explicitly asking/implying that whoever Archimago is, he is the one who is gaming your pyramid...

 

 

Yes. That is in fact the point. Just like the previous comments about the "cult of personalities" and why I think Bob Stuart should not have become such an entrenched spokesperson for MQA. Whether MQA as a technology is any good does not lie in the personhood of Bob Stuart (which is why I said I don't care whether he is "nefarious" or not).

 

It's certainly not lost on anyone that likely one of the reasons why much of the audiophile press has been so blind to the deficits of MQA is precisely because of their relationship to Bob Stuart, "the man".

 

Can the press as a whole now gracefully "play ball" and keep their eyes on the objective as independent journalists and evaluate the technology called MQA?

[Archimago]

 

Love the writing and humor @crenca.

[Archimago]

4 hours 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. 

 

Don't know if that's true (re: Tellig) since I never cared who the man was...

 

As Chris said earlier, from this site, I've hung out with Mitch @mitchco at the Vancouver Audio Show in 2016 (he actually posted on this a few pages back) and I've visited him at his beautiful home in the Sunshine Coast last year.

 

Notice that in many of my posts, I collaborate with others... They of course know who I am. It's always good to have others look over the stuff...

 

LOL, missed Mitch's comment above .

[Archimago]

25 minutes ago, wdw said:

 

I am concerned that we may just run John A. outta town if we continually post strong negatives about him and his magazine.  Consider that he is posting here and we should welcome his participation whereas R. Harley or any of his group of writers would never dare show up to debate any of these issues.  

 

Very true @wdw, Harley has not availed himself over the years other than on the TAS website as far as I can tell.

 

@John_Atkinson - I'm certainly appreciative of your presence here. While we might not agree on many things, I personally do wish to see success in the audiophile press. Journalism plays an essential role in public discourse. It's good to hear of new products, see pictures of the gear, read interesting stories of the music and designers, consider opinions, etc... Guiding and growing the hobby is an important mandate.

 

While perhaps harsh at times, I think the criticisms are written in the hopes of changing the "culture" rather than malicious intent on the individual. Fairly worded or not, I think it's obvious that many believe that a change is needed. Personally, I would like to see more advocacy and education on behalf of the consumer and part of this is more objective adjudication and understanding of the science/technology/engineering.

 

Helping the consumer with a truthful, sober assessment of claims for something as foundational as a file format like MQA would have been an obvious role for the press given the years of controversy. It does get rather frustrating when something as obvious as the concerns around MQA get side-stepped time and again.

 

[Archimago]

7 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

@Doug Schneider and @ArchimagoI appreciate the irenic nature of your posts, but @wdw concern is not grounded in reality in that @John_Atkinsonhas already explicitly stated he is not here to engage the substance of MQA, or your summary of it, or any of the threads and purpose of forums such as this one.  He is here only to correct what he sees as misstatements of fact, and to occasionally advertise an upcoming article in his trade publication.  Remember, we (i.e. "audiophiles") are the product that he sells - we are units of manipulation in a game of confidence.  He has nothing to gain by a substantive discussion

 

In other words he is not really here at all - not in the spirit of the forum.  As he says, he only engages substance on his forum - his turf only.

 

Perhaps someone remembers which thread he says this in and post a link, not that it is really needed because every post he makes confirms the above, save for the occasional slip up...

 

Yeah, I hear what you're saying @crencaand hope JA changes his perspective on his intent in commenting here...

 

Nonetheless, I still wanted to present a comment on behalf of certain members of The Audiophile Consumer and Technical Union (TACTU) that hopefully reflects an olive branch of sorts .

[Archimago]

5 minutes ago, botrytis said:

@Archimago- does that mean you are going to be the TACTU president or technical advisor? Chris could do TACTU thru CA......

 

Thank you for a great technical article - @Archimago

 

LOL. No, I'm happy to let the politicians manage TACTU .

 

[Archimago]

9 hours ago, motberg said:

I do not understand your comment above....

 http://archimago.blogspot.com/

I would think this generates revenues?

 

 

So as to make sure there are no misconceptions, I do not own Madrona Digital (mentioned earlier and edited) - that is Amir of Audio Science Review.

 

Yeah, the blog does generate a few bucks in revenue from some Amazon links basically and Google AdSense. It helps buy a few CDs and inexpensive gadgets :-). Let's just say the income is nothing compared to the day job...

 

[Archimago]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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

 

I think audiophilia could get kinda boring once this brouhaha dies down. 

 

Imagine how little discussion there would be and how slow it would take back in the day if we had to simply rely on print media and snail mail!

 

For those not already thoroughly saturated and looking for more MQA-related reading material in this drama, Jon Iverson's As We See It is up now... Make your thoughts heard before the 1st 100 comments are in and it spills into the next page. 

[Archimago]

2 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Just got mine in.  Like I said, an "interesting angle" (i.e. the linking of lossy compression with "deblurring" being problematic).  Also, it was the trade publications and industry insiders who were bamboozled by MQA's PR campaign.  We here at the Consumer Audiophile and Technical Union were asking the hard questions about DRM/IP, monopoly, and rather "deblurring" is anything more than known art (leaky filtering, etc.) from the very beginning.   Will these Trade Publications admit their hand has been forced?  Not a chance...

 

I see it man...

 

TACTU (The Audiophile Consumer and Technical Union) will need a "visioning" meeting after this to figure out what's next... 

 

5 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

We can ALWAYS discuss cable *DUCKS*

 

[Archimago]

4 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Count me in.  As my wife will tell you, I am "an idea man", a big picture kind of guy.  When it comes to the "doing" side of things, not so much...

 

Cool then. I think we've found the inaugural president of the Union. 

[Archimago]

1 hour ago, John_Atkinson said:

...

The audio origami is impossible to examine on its own. But an examination of the "deblurring" is something I am working on for an article to be published in the July or August issue of Stereophile.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

 

I'm sure many will be looking forward to your July / August issues for the article then.

 

Ultimately, whether you write it, another of your writers, or even ghostwritten by Bob is not that important. Let's see how it's tested and whether it can be replicated and "deblurring" represents anything worthwhile.

 

[Archimago]

10 minutes ago, botrytis said:

I stand corrected 

 

What do you think about the idea that it is just a compression with a key?

 

Yes. "Compression with a key" sounds apt.

 

Either way (decoded or non-decoded), the source audio data is altered by the loss in bitrate (compression) - supposedly in a "good", "deblurred" way. And with the "key" (proper software / DAC / "authentic" MQA file), one "unlocks" some potential bit-depth and lossy content in the first and only unfold.

 

Important to remember FredericV's experiments showing the "key" mechanism only looks at the top 16-bits. MQA files can be easily altered in the lower 8 bits and still be seen as "authenticated" by the DAC.

[Archimago]

1 hour ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

One small correction. I have not "attacked" Archimago. I have explained that I disagree with Chris Connacker's decision to keep his identity a secret.

...

 

1 hour ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

... I have been an Economist subscriber for 4 decades and while I respect their policy, as an editor I don't agree with it...

 

Okay, I think we get it. You disagree with other editors' decisions about allowing "secret identity" writers whether it's in the pages of The Economist or Chris Connaker's website.

 

I trust we can move on now to other material discussions?

[Archimago]

1 hour ago, botrytis said:

 

He already said he won't discuss other things BECAUSE of that fact, which is nonsense to me. As I said, being a scientist, the data is the data. I don't think we will get anything more from Mr. Atkinson.

 

I trust he doesn't just think an article written in The Economist is not worth discussing because the person was either anonymous or used initials like B.S. right?  Rather double standard for someone who subscribed for 4 decades!

 

I can appreciate if he comes here just to make sure that inaccurate perceptions around Stereophile are corrected. Bring up anonymity once or twice, remind people he's just monitoring and will not participate and move on...

 

I wonder... Suppose this article were written anonymously and the results were in favour of Stereophile's listening reports (JVS, ML, JA), "birth of a new world" ideas, and thought that Jim Austin was the wisest audiophile around in his foresight around needing to make the Industry happy by everyone getting on board the MQA-train. Heck, maybe the article even referenced the genius of Mr. Harley's appropriate use of the Kuhnian Paradigm Shift.

 

Suppose my objective results again confirmed how awesome the minimum phase, slow roll-off impulse response looked and continued to perpetuate the idea that this represented time-domain performance that sounds "ideal". Maybe even show how impressed I am that unfolding a 192kHz "studio master" results in a smorgasbord of 16 super-duper-time-domain-beautiful filters baby!!! Furthermore, suppose I agreed that we can't hear better than 17-bits dithered resolution so there's no issue at all! Thus MQA is capable of encoding everything human beings can possibly hear! A true masterpiece of engineering that elegantly and efficiently "encapsulates" any potential qualitative joy a human being could possibly appreciate through his/her auditory facilities!

 

Obviously many of you would be unhappy, calling Chris an Industry shill, the worse editor ever, etc... But I wonder what kind of defense would also be mounted by the audiophile press referred to in the article and MQA Facebook page participants in support of the anonymous author? Maybe even congratulated Chris' courage to allow an anonymous voice to be heard knowing all the opposition he/she would be expecting! Most importantly, would this article still be unworthy of discussion because of anonymity? We would never know I suppose...