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

[FredericV]

Can MQA come up with a study where 90% prefers MQA over the real studio master?

Archimago's CA article is being systematically removed by Peter Veth from the closed MQA group.

In this reaction to someone posting the Archimago article (apparently it's being posted several times, and deleted by PV), he clearly hints that I am the mole ( I have a product with 432 Hz conversion, I am the only manufacturer of streamers who has such a plugin ). But I am not the mole, but there are several moles in the MQA group, who spontaneously share posts with me. Good luck Peter for the mole hunt.

 

PV learns nothing, as we already proved to PV we don't pitch shift in our product. But PV is always repeating the same refuted arguments like a good troll.

We did our own test long before we had an actual product ( at the time I was an IT consultant, and did not even consider going in the computer audio business ), with 60 persons, and 58 preferred the 432 Hz version over the bitperfect original. We used foobar at the time and the soundtouch plugin to do this test.
 

And yes there's a study from Maria Renold with 2.000 test persons which proves 90% prefers 432 Hz.

MQA can't even provide such test score. Archimago's test showed that the MQA effect is much smaller than a 90% pro vs 10% con distribution. Our own testing comes very close to Maria Renold's test results.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

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

[Kal Rubinson]

48 minutes ago, crenca said:

 MQA is just software, math.  What evidence do you have that it's "deblurring" marketing claims have any truth to them?  If you don't have any, that is fine - or if you do but can't discuss them (as a signator to MQA's NDA), that is fine but perhaps you can tell us about your NDA commitment.  If you do have evidence, then show us the math.

I have not made any such claims, so I have no need to defend them  Also, I have no NDA nor any other arrangement with MQA.

51 minutes ago, crenca said:

Well, since Aristotle at least.  Besides, your changing the subject. 

It is you who is conflating one subject with another.

[crenca]

5 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

 

It is you who is conflating one subject with another.

 

Yep, I got crossed up - you were not responding to mav52 like I thought...

[steve21]

The best description of MQA to date for me.  The quote by Spenser Chrislu about 24/192 being the crown jewels that are not to given away speaks volumes about motive for MQA. If the current 24/194, or variations of, are better or the same as MQA then how much will all this matter when Spotify and Apple Music manage to capture 90 percent (or more) of the streaming market in the coming years?   Those of us who want more will resort to our playing our own downloaded file or ripped files and isn't that where we are at right now?

[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. 

[crenca]

4 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

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. 

 

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...

[botrytis]

8 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

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. 

 

We can ALWAYS discuss cable *DUCKS*

[astromo]

6 hours ago, Thuaveta said:

 

With respect, I generally trust the quality of the reporting in The Economist more than I trust Stereophile, as do I have more faith in The Economists' integrity and independence. Yet...

Thanks for that link.

 

I've always wondered why the Economist didn't run bylines. Now I know and the rationale and the approach has its place.

[rickca]

27 minutes ago, crenca said:

Not a chance

When you go all-in 'birth of a new world',  you can't back out.  The cheerleaders are going down with the ship if it sinks.

 

I don't even think Iverson's point about being unable to evaluate deblurring and compression independently is a strong argument.  You first need to ask exactly what deblurring means in the first place and whether MQA actually does what it claims to do.

[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*

 

[crenca]

9 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

I see it man...

 

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

 

 

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...

[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. 

[adamdea]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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

Chris- I've heard about this amazing new format called MQA. I just can't understand why it doesn't get any coverage on Computer Audiophile. Perhaps everyone here is too polite to express their opinion. 

[eclectic]

 

The Malaysians should sue.

[miguelito]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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

It's like in the Young Frankenstein movie when someone says "Blucher"... 

[adamdea]

18 minutes ago, eclectic said:

 

The Malaysians should sue.

Mauritius too

http://www.mqa.mu/English/Pages/default.asp

[realhifi]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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

? you should be hoping this controversy lasts awhile longer. 

[firedog]

1 hour ago, eclectic said:

 

The Malaysians should sue.

there goes the Malaysisan market...

[botrytis]

Could also be Medical Quality Assurance, also.

[Doug Schneider]

3 hours ago, rickca said:

I don't even think Iverson's point about being unable to evaluate deblurring and compression independently is a strong argument.  You first need to ask exactly what deblurring means in the first place and whether MQA actually does what it claims to do.

 

When I wrote my first article about MQA on www.SoundStageHiFi.com, back in April 2016, I brought this up. It was obvious to me looking at their compression and supposed "deblurring" that they were independent things. Obviously, you can have one and not the other. As with Chris Connaker, Bob Stuart wanted to talk to me on the phone before the article went public, with the obvious intention that I would back off publishing it (which I didn't). I brought this part up to Bob during that call and he told me that they weren't interested in selling software tools (i.e., their supposed deblurring as plug-in or something).

 

Doug Schneider
SoundStage!

[james45974]

14 minutes ago, Doug Schneider said:

 

When I wrote my first article about MQA on www.SoundStageHiFi.com, back in April 2016, I brought this up. It was obvious to me looking at their compression and supposed "deblurring" that they were independent things. Obviously, you can have one and not the other. As with Chris Connaker, Bob Stuart wanted to talk to me on the phone before the article went public, with the obvious intention that I would back off publishing it (which I didn't). I brought this part up to Bob during that call and he told me that they weren't interested in selling software tools (i.e., their supposed deblurring as plug-in or something).

 

Doug Schneider
SoundStage!

IMO, I had not really heard or paid attention to Bob Stuart before MQA, but hearing about the guy over the last few years of the MQA debate doesn't make me want to trust my musical enjoyment to him at all!

[John_Atkinson]

5 hours ago, astromo said:

11 hours ago, Thuaveta said:

 

With respect, I generally trust the quality of the reporting in The Economist more than I trust Stereophile, as do I have more faith in The Economists' integrity and independence. Yet...

Thanks for that link.

 

I've always wondered why the Economist didn't run bylines. Now I know and the rationale and the approach has its place.

 

My thanks also. I have been an Economist subscriber for 4 decades and while I respect their policy, as an editor I don't agree with it. On the other hand, I got an email a while back from the Economist's Letters page editor in which he offered positive comments about my editing of Stereophile, so I can't be doing too much wrong :-)

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

[kumakuma]

3 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

On the other hand, I got an email a while back from the Economist's Letters page editor in which he offered positive comments about my editing of Stereophile, so I can't be doing too much wrong :-)

 

Did he use his real name?

[John_Atkinson]

5 hours ago, rickca said:

I don't even think Iverson's point about being unable to evaluate deblurring and compression independently is a strong argument. 

 

The latter is a benefit to the record industry, as I mentioned in my 2014 "birth of a new world" essay and the subsequent discussion; the former is a purported benefit to the consumer, the sugar to make the medicine go down, as Jon Iverson describes it.

 

5 hours ago, rickca said:

 

You first need to ask exactly what deblurring means in the first place and whether MQA actually does what it claims to do.

 

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