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

[John_Atkinson]

3 hours ago, Pete-FIN said:

Mr. Atkinson, can you please answer this: Is it going to be an article about MQA deblurring, or an article that talks about many things including MQA deblurring?

 

 

I was intending to examine the deblurring. Recreating the audio origami on its own without access to MQA's own encoder, to determine the audibility of any artefacts, would mean reinventing the technology and I have neither the talent nor the time for that.

 

Quote

The way I see it, here is the moment when Stereophile can show that they can do proper and unbiased investigative journalism.

 

Thank you for your comment. But I fail to comprehend what the problem has been so far with our coverage of MQA, other than the fact that some people disagree with our conclusions. Consider the leaky nature of the MQA reconstruction filter, which has been raised as a criticism by Bruno Putzeys and others. We have examined the poor image rejection of this filter at length in the magazine. See, for example,  take a look at figs.10-22 at https://www.stereophile.com/content/aurender-a10-network-music-playerserver-measurements

Jim Austin, who has written the first 3 articles on MQA  for Stereophile, examines the DRM issue with MQA in our May issue and returns to the behavior of the MQA reconstruction filter in our June issue.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

[crenca]

7 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

I was intending to examine the deblurring. Recreating the audio origami on its own without access to MQA's own encoder, to determine the audibility of any artefacts, would mean reinventing the technology and I have neither the talent nor the time for that.

 

 

What can you contribute then?  If you can not examine MQA (through access that Bob S provides - to encoder, etc.)  and will not examine it ( by reverse engineering it), then what exactly are you "examining"?  MQA marketing materials?

[Doug Schneider]

32 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

But I fail to comprehend what the problem has been so far with our coverage of MQA, other than the fact that some people disagree with our conclusions.

 

IMO, MQA wouldn't have had any traction anywhere had a couple (or few) print and online magazines so enthusiastically promoted it at the beginning. IT types dismissed it, recording engineers had no clue what it was, but a few hi-fi reviewers went so over the top with their praise without even knowing what it really was, it managed to gets some wind in its sails. If the latter hadn't happened, we wouldn't be talking about it today. I firmly belive that. With that in mind, the magazine that did go so over the top wasn't yours -- in fact, it's not even discussed her. Charley Hansen -- the most vocal anti-MQAer there was -- wouldn't even discuss them because, in his words, "they are a lost cause." To many, ComputerAudiophile.com was lumped in that camp. What helped shake that was Chris's insistence not to pull down the "MQA is Vaporware" thread, which, for the longest time, gave the hi-fi world the most in-depth look at another side to a story that most of the print and online press was pretending wasn't there. I know that some wanted to see it gone, but it's there. I just looked -- that thread was started January 2, 2017. Not as long a go as I think it should've started -- January 2, 2016 would have been more like it -- but it's been well over a year now, so credit for that. In the last week, we now have Archimago's article, which is having an enormous impact. 

 

That initial time for MQA promotion began about 3 years ago. You cite recent and current examples of taking a more critical approach. But do you think the first 2.5 years of coverage helped contribute to what Jon Iverson just wrote in your magazine: "I just hope it's not too late"?

 

I know you'll make up some excuse why you won't answer, but I'm sure others will.

 

Doug 
SoundStage!

[Archimago]

33 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

I was intending to examine the deblurring. Recreating the audio origami on its own without access to MQA's own encoder, to determine the audibility of any artefacts, would mean reinventing the technology and I have neither the talent nor the time for that.

 

 

Thank you for your comment. But I fail to comprehend what the problem has been so far with our coverage of MQA, other than the fact that some people disagree with our conclusions. Consider the leaky nature of the MQA reconstruction filter, which has been raised as a criticism by Bruno Putzeys and others. We have examined the poor image rejection of this filter at length in the magazine. See, for example,  take a look at figs.10-22 at https://www.stereophile.com/content/aurender-a10-network-music-playerserver-measurements

Jim Austin, who has written the first 3 articles on MQA  for Stereophile, examines the DRM issue with MQA in our May issue and returns to the behavior of the MQA reconstruction filter in our June issue.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

So... After 3 years of debates, evidence, and ideas by many - named or otherwise - are we then going to slowly see a shift in Stereophile over months towards Jon Iverson's stance of: "I don't believe that, over the long term, MQA is in the best interests of audiophiles"?

 

If this is what is to come, on the one hand I applaud you and your magazine for being able to reconsider and shift with the evidence. But it is rather disappointing that the "professional" audiophile news media is so remarkably inefficient in "getting the scoop"! Disappointing leadership from those in the position of access to the companies and had the opportunity to ask potentially insightful, pointed and revealing questions, wouldn't you say?

 

Although chances were always low IMO, imagine if MQA actually were successful and became widely adopted already over the last 3 years based on the initial and continued hype... If this were to happen, would Stereophile still have the courage to turn the ship around as it seems to be doing even if "fringe" groups like folks here continued to argue against a successful "format"?

 

I don't expect an answer of course since we won't know. But this all continues to bring up the question of whether the audiophile press is truly capable of independent thought, with a healthy scepticism of so-called "revolutionary" claims from the Industry whether from companies with clearly bizarre ideas or those like BS who on the surface one hopes to be bringing intellectually sound and rigorously tested products.

 

Do you "fail to comprehend what the problem has been so far with our coverage of MQA" still?

 

[If this shift happens with Stereophile, it would be very interesting what happens with TAS's so far unwavering stance...]

[Fokus]

29 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

Jim Austin, who has written the first 3 articles on MQA  for Stereophile, examines ...

 

Jim Austin's articles contain factual errors that suggest that he does not quite understand MQA. Or signal theory, when you come to it.

 

I pointed out some of these in the comment sections. I don't think I ever got a decent reply.

[John_Atkinson]

6 minutes ago, Fokus said:

Jim Austin's articles contain factual errors that suggest that he does not quite understand MQA. Or signal theory, when you come to it.

 

In your opinion, not in mine. Otherwise I wouldn't have published Jim's articles.

 

6 minutes ago, Fokus said:

I pointed out some of these in the comment sections. I don't think I ever got a decent reply.

 

Under what name did you post to Stereophile.com? A quick search of the user database didn't find a "Fokus."

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

[Priaptor]

Well hopefully the following is NOT the future. 

 

One of my favorite recordings of all time is the redbook version of Radka Toneff & Dobroogsz "Fairytales" which just got Stereophile's Recording of the Month "award" (for whatever that is worth) as a new Original Master Edition (MQA).  Whether one likes the redbook recording is up to them; I love it; my concern is the method of remastering chosen for this amazing album.

 

I guess when it becomes available we can all compare it to the original

[beetlemania]

1 hour ago, Doug Schneider said:

the magazine that did go so over the top wasn't yours -- in fact, it's not even discussed her. Charley Hansen -- the most vocal anti-MQAer there was -- wouldn't even discuss them because, in his words, "they are a lost cause."

 

hehe, I wonder which magazine that would be?

[sullis02]

On 3/12/2018 at 7:59 PM, Kal Rubinson said:

Tellig ~ Gillet(e). Seemed obvious to me from the get-go.

 

But why would I even need to suspect he was using a pseudonym in the first place?   I don't recall a warning leaping out at me back in the days when i actually read his nonsense.

 

 (And really, reversing a name *and* removing a letter....that's your idea of 'obvious'?)  

[sullis02]

On 3/12/2018 at 9:29 PM, wdw said:

 

My young and dear hearted sales assistant was ernestly asking me why I was so interested in the product so I began by saying, well you know, Neil Young, but that wasn't working at all...so I regrouped and started in about levels of resolutions...but no further success.  She is taking music something at a local college but they haven't gifted her with any understanding of these very modest technical issues.

 

She's probably as conversant in the actual substance of them as Neil Young is.   There seems to be no audio flooby that old Neil will not embrace. Even though his hearing is surely shot even beyond the norm for his age.

[sullis02]

On 3/13/2018 at 5:38 AM, adamdea said:

The major flaw with Meyer and Moran was that it turned out some of the sacds were upsampled redbook and no one had noticed. IIRC people were just asked to bring their favourite sacds. So not really a great point for hi res proponents, if methodologically a definite flaw in the study.

 

 

This is more goalpost-moving. 

 

Subjects brought their  favorite SACDs (not always the case, btw), that typically were thought to sound better than CD *by virtue of being SACD*.  That was the point.

 

M&M also pointed out, quite rightly, that different mastering was a plausible reason for actual difference in sound between released CD vs hi-rez versions.   'OMG but you didn't use DDD recordings!" is a red herring.   Up to that point no one was saying you can only appreciate the benefit of SACD (or DVD-A)  if you audition DDD (no analog step) recordings.   No one.  

 

 

 

[sullis02]

On 3/13/2018 at 6:00 AM, Fokus said:

 

Another flaw, IIRC, was that they had people drive for hours (!), to an alien listening room (!), with an alien system (!), judge the sound in a fairly short time, and then drive back (possibly past the pub).

 

That might have been true for some trials, but it was not true for all.  Did you read the paper?  (And the supplements M&M posted online?)

 

 

On 3/13/2018 at 6:00 AM, Fokus said:

 

I know what my ears are worth after two hours in a car ...

 

 

Oh please.  Really.  Is *this* a thing now?  I can't say I've ever seen a research paper in psychoacoustics control for 'amount of time in a car to get to the research facility'. 

 

And think about all the reports from audio conventions where golden ears  reviewers ooh and ahh over the sound of systems they've never heard before....    

 

 

[sullis02]

On 3/13/2018 at 11:00 AM, Archimago said:

 

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.

 

That goof made me laugh.  Though you're both mainly interested in measurements, yours and Amir's online styles are *quite* different. 

[crenca]

2 hours ago, Doug Schneider said:

What helped shake that was Chris's insistence not to pull down the "MQA is Vaporware" thread, which, for the longest time, gave the hi-fi world the most in-depth look at another side to a story that most of the print and online press was pretending wasn't there. I know that some wanted to see it gone, but it's there. I just looked -- that thread was started January 2, 2017. Not as long a go as I think it should've started -- January 2, 2016 would have been more like it -- but it's been well over a year now, so credit for that. In the last week, we now have Archimago's article, which is having an enormous impact. 

 

That initial time for MQA promotion began about 3 years ago. 

 

I know you'll make up some excuse why you won't answer, but I'm sure others will.

 

Doug 
SoundStage!

 

Doug, 

 

As important as that thread is, this thread:

 

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/ca/ca-academy/A-Comprehensive-Q-A-With-MQA-s-Bob-Stuart/

 

Was posted in April 2016, and I recall we were asked to submit our questions well in advance - I am thinking fall of 2015 (could be incorrect).  As you say, IT, EE, and folks with digital experience/know how smelled a rat from the very beginning.  Despite CD and digital being around more than 30 years now, "Audiophiledom" in general, and these trade publications in particular are not up to speed on what digital really is (e.g. those who argue that cables can effect one part of a digital signal such that this or that USB cable "really nails the midrange").  MQA has shown us that Stereophile/TAS/and most other trade publications (including most webzines) don't really understand software, digital, DRM, etc. even just a little bit.  I give full credit to Bob Stuart for understanding this situation and taking advantage of it.  

[crenca]

4 minutes ago, crenca said:

oops...delete

[sullis02]

20 hours ago, james45974 said:

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!

Did you ever buy any DVD-As?  Or a BluRay disc with Dolby TruHD? Or a Meridian DAC?   Then you've bought one of his products.  (Those first two feature Meridian's lossless compression method for audio data , MLP) 

[james45974]

6 minutes ago, sullis02 said:

Did you ever buy any DVD-As?  Or a BluRay disc with Dolby TruHD? Or a Meridian DAC?   Then you've bought one of his products.  (Those first two feature Meridian's lossless compression method for audio data , MLP) 

I never got onto the DVD-A train.  I am not a movie or TV person so I don't have any BluRay videos.  I do have game systems so if Bob's technology is included there I guess I may have some.

[Norton]

3 hours ago, Doug Schneider said:

What helped shake that was Chris's insistence not to pull down the "MQA is Vaporware" thread,

 

This implies that Chris was asked to pull the thread by a party or parties with sufficient  clout to make this a real prospect.  Is this really the case and if so, by whom? I find it hard to believe, as I can't readily see who that influential  party would be, in terms of potential lost advertising or sponsorship revenue for example.

[wdw]

1 hour ago, sullis02 said:

 

......back in the days when i actually read his nonsense.

1 hour ago, sullis02 said:

......... seems to be no audio flooby that old Neil will not embrace. Even though his hearing is surely shot even beyond the norm for his age.

 

 

 

Oh boy, another one shows up.  

[sullis02]

5 minutes ago, wdw said:

 

 

Oh boy, another one shows up.  

 

I 'showed up' here in 2013.   Don't let the low post number fool you.

 

Do try to post an actual rebuttal,  though. Seeing someone defend Sam Tellig's and Neil Young's claims here would be at least entertaining (albeit a distraction from the MQA discussion).  

 

 

[wdw]

4 minutes ago, sullis02 said:

 

I 'showed up' here in 2013.   Don't let the low post number fool you.

 

Do try to post an actual rebuttal,  though. Seeing someone defend Sam Tellig's and Neil Young's claims here would be at least entertaining (albeit a distraction from the MQA discussion).  

 

 

Not attempting to defend anyone but I do not need to degrade someone to make my points.  There are a number of N. Young fans on this site although I am not one of them.  I enjoyed Tellig although never took it as anything other than entertainment.

[Pete-FIN]

4 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

I was intending to examine the deblurring.

 

Thanks for your answer Mr. Atkinson. I really hope you can overcome the technical difficulties and make this examination. This is one of the key claims of MQA so it's essential to examine it closely.

 

4 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

But I fail to comprehend what the problem has been so far with our coverage of MQA,

 

I'll tell you what the problem in your coverage has been. You have not investigated MQA's claim of 'recording studio sound'. MQA claims that their MQA-file can deliver 'recording studio sound' to peoples homes. MQA claims to be the only one capable of doing this, meaning all other file-formats fail to deliver studio sound. This claim is simply preposterous! Any audio publication who fails to question the sanity of this claim has done a large scale mistake. One does not need to be a recording engineer to understand that this kind of claim is simply voodoo intended to defraud people who buy music gear and music.

 

Now is a good time for Stereophile to prove that they can do investigative journalism. Start questioning preposterous claims!

 

 

Btw.Today I found interesting seminar video of MQA. Here:

.  What I mentioned above (studio sound claim) is also talked on the video, at 22min mark.

[John_Atkinson]

5 minutes ago, Pete-FIN said:

'll tell you what the problem in your coverage has been. You have not investigated MQA's claim of 'recording studio sound'.

 

 

In my interviews with Bob Stuart, he has told me that the intention is that the analog signal output by the consumer's D/A converter is identical to that output by the mike preamps (in a purist recording) or the mixing console (in a conventional recording).  That the A/D conversion, transmission, storage and D/A conversion be transparent, other than there being an ultrasonic rolloff equivalent to a signal path of a few feet in air. This has been written about in the magazine.

 

5 minutes ago, Pete-FIN said:

Now is a good time for Stereophile to prove that they can do investigative journalism.

 

 

It is MQA's time-domain behavior, the claimed 'temporal deblurring," that is fundamental to Stuart's explanation. And as I have said before,  that is what I will be investigating in a future article. Up to now, what we have investigated and written about is MQA's  frequency-domain behavior and MQA's societal and commercial aspects. I don't comprehend why you and other posters to CA don't regard that as journalism, investigative or otherwise. Unless you are confusing Stereophile with another magazine?

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

 

[Pete-FIN]

5 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

In my interviews with Bob Stuart, he has told me that the intention is that the analog signal output by the consumer's D/A converter is identical to that output by the mike preamps (in a purist recording) or the mixing console (in a conventional recording).  That the A/D conversion, transmission, storage and D/A conversion be transparent, other than there being an ultrasonic rolloff equivalent to a signal path of a few feet in air. This has been written about in the magazine.

 

I recommend you to watch 22 min mark on the video on my post. In just one minute it will tell you what the problem with this 'recording studio sound' claim is. People buying MQA enabled gear (or Tidal subscription) believe this marketing voodoo, in reality, it does not go like it is marketed. There are no MQA recording studio devices (like MQA-AD-converters) doing the conversions. There's just a software converting a perfectly good PCM to MQA. So all the MQA-songs that can be listened right now, do not bring anything more to peoples homes than 24/96 PCM studio master files would bring. Printing clearly false claims on a magazine without questioning them is just wrong.

 

30 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

It is MQA's time-domain behavior, the claimed 'temporal deblurring," that is fundamental to Stuart's explanation. And as I have said before,  that is what I will be investigating in a future article.

 

Really looking forward to this.

 

31 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

Unless you are confusing Stereophile with another magazine?

 

Nope. No confusion here. I just have high standards of journalism, and zero tolerance for b*** s*** marketing claims.

[beetlemania]

46 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

the intention is that the analog signal output by the consumer's D/A converter is identical to that output by the mike preamps (in a purist recording) or the mixing console (in a conventional recording). 

 

The mic preamp out is an analog signal as is the DAC output. But, in between, digital conversions are required. True fidelity seems a tall order, especially with a lossy codec. What am I missing? And how can MQA outperform the quad-rate sampling advocated by Charles Hansen?