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

[botrytis]

54 minutes ago, realhifi said:

Fiction writers do. 

 

So do non- fiction writers.

[Pete-FIN]

New video from Paul McGowan, PS Audio:

 

[mansr]

3 hours ago, Pete-FIN said:

New video from Paul McGowan, PS Audio:

 

I stopped listening at "my friend Bob Stuart."

[miguelito]

49 minutes ago, mansr said:

I stopped listening at "my friend Bob Stuart."

I watched it and it is not bad... Also wonder what is Bob Stuart's involvement in Meridian anymore? Given the poor implementation of MQA on Meridian products (it is truly a mess) I wonder if he left the company in bad terms...

[firedog]

58 minutes ago, mansr said:

I stopped listening at "my friend Bob Stuart."

Too bad. He said it was lossy and that it robs music of something, of ״quality״. And that he doesn’t like it. But he’s clearly trying not to be controversial and not insult his friend Bob. Says he put it into his equipment b/c customers want it and many like the sound.

[mav52]

4 hours ago, mansr said:

I stopped listening at "my friend Bob Stuart."

You really missed the good stuff towards the end. 

[crenca]

5 hours ago, firedog said:

Too bad. He said it was lossy and that it robs music of something, of ״quality״. And that he doesn’t like it. But he’s clearly trying not to be controversial and not insult his friend Bob. Says he put it into his equipment b/c customers want it and many like the sound.

 

2 hours ago, mav52 said:

You really missed the good stuff towards the end. 

 

 

He says 70 to 80% of his customer's "like the sound", but why?  I think it is in the main because they have been told to like the sound (bias) - they have been sold the idea. So he gives them what they want...but why not give them an MQA "emulator" - a DSP package that shapes the sound similarly to (not identically to - IP and all that) to MQA?  The answer is of course because they have not been sold on that idea, rather the idea that MQA really is "master" sound.

 

Thankfully, the mass of "average" musical consumers are not audiophiles and will not be sold on MQA so it has no real future...

[Don Hills]

3 hours ago, crenca said:

... Thankfully, the mass of "average" musical consumers are not audiophiles and will not be sold on MQA so it has no real future...

 

The "average" consumer will reject it if it costs them more. And it will, I don't see the labels cutting into their already meager profits to subsidise MQA long term.

[Archimago]

15 hours ago, Pete-FIN said:

New video from Paul McGowan, PS Audio:

 

 

Thanks for that link.

 

Clearly Mr. McGowan is watching his words and covering his bases there. He admits it's controversial but pays tribute to people like Stuart and has "ultimate of respect" for Robert Harley. At least he acknowledges:

1. It's lossy.

2. "I am personally not a fan of MQA... It always robs the music of something that is near and dear to me."

3. Implemented because of customers.

4. Bandwidth not issue these days. (I don't know why people still insist it's the same as 16/44... I think a minimal 30% increase to at least 24/44 bitrate is pretty significant if you're streaming data to stuff like cellphones if there's a data cap.)

 

Hmmm... Will see what happens with that AVTech acquisition of the TEN "assets"!

 

 

 

[labjr]

So basically, Paul McGowan says it's lossy, he can hear the difference and doesn't like it,  won't  use it in his DACs because MQA forces you give them an unfair advantage in your own product, but it is in his streaming products because it makes them sell better. 

[firedog]

2 hours ago, labjr said:

So basically, Paul McGowan says it's lossy, he can hear the difference and doesn't like it,  won't  use it in his DACs because MQA forces you give them an unfair advantage in your own product, but it is in his streaming products because it makes them sell better. 

He didn't say unfair advantage. He said b/c they sell upgradeable FPGA based DACs, and not chip DACs, it would interfere with their business model which is based on owners downloading updates to the OS.

And because he said 70-80% of his users like it and  want it.

 

I don't see anything wrong with that. 

 

Several years ago there were  manufacturers that were against USB inputs or DSD compatibility for either SQ or technical reasons or both. They later made products including both because customers wanted those features. 

[miguelito]

3 hours ago, labjr said:

So basically, Paul McGowan says it's lossy, he can hear the difference and doesn't like it,  won't  use it in his DACs because MQA forces you give them an unfair advantage in your own product, but it is in his streaming products because it makes them sell better. 

Couple of things... He might not like it and I think it is great he says so. In fact most of what he said was quite factual (to my limited knowledge). 

 

On the implementation on streaming DACs, it follows a very similar approach to dCS's. That is, the first unfold is done on the network card portion, and the rendering filters are programmed on the FPGA DAC.

[miguelito]

On a loving note to MQA...

 

There are some releases, most of them cases where the original release is not pristine, where the "MQA treatment" is beneficial. I was listening to Amy Winehouse's "Back To Black", and the MQA version is definitely better than even the 24/96 version I purchased not long ago from HDTracks.

 

If Bob Stuart and Co are sitting down and correcting what is a truly godawful production job, I for one by all means will purchase those releases... On the flipside, some godawful production jobs stay that way even in MQA form - eg Morrisey's "Viva Hate" ... A shame really.

[FredericV]

On 3/25/2018 at 3:21 PM, mansr said:

I stopped listening at "my friend Bob Stuart."

He does not fully understand MQA. He believes MQA can uncompress back to 24 bit 192 Khz, not realizing it's never going to be better than something like 17 bit 96 Khz upsampled to whatever the DAC is lying about on the display.

[Dr Tone]

2 hours ago, miguelito said:

I was listening to Amy Winehouse's "Back To Black", and the MQA version is definitely better than even the 24/96 version I purchased not long ago from HDTracks.

 

In what way?  Amy's stuff has alway fatigued me because of the brick wall compression.

[miguelito]

1 hour ago, Dr Tone said:

 

In what way?  Amy's stuff has alway fatigued me because of the brick wall compression.

It just sounds better to my ears. I would say it is slightly less distorted and a bit warmer. Must the the MeQA applied.

 

Yes, compression is terrible on hers and many others productions. Too many to count.

[Archimago]

6 hours ago, miguelito said:

On a loving note to MQA...

 

There are some releases, most of them cases where the original release is not pristine, where the "MQA treatment" is beneficial. I was listening to Amy Winehouse's "Back To Black", and the MQA version is definitely better than even the 24/96 version I purchased not long ago from HDTracks.

 

If Bob Stuart and Co are sitting down and correcting what is a truly godawful production job, I for one by all means will purchase those releases... On the flipside, some godawful production jobs stay that way even in MQA form - eg Morrisey's "Viva Hate" ... A shame really.

 

As you say, if Stuart and Co. actually did the job of fixing poorly produced and mastered albums into something sounding better, it would be worth it. Of course a good remastering is just that and doesn't need to be wrapped up in MQA whatsoever!

 

It would be interesting if anyone could analyze that MQA version of Amy Winehouse's "Back To Black" and see if this is actually a different mastering job with changes in dynamic range, peak levels, maybe even different overall EQ.

 

[WiWavelength]

11 hours ago, miguelito said:

I was listening to Amy Winehouse's "Back To Black", and the MQA version is definitely better than even the 24/96 version I purchased not long ago from HDTracks.

 

4 hours ago, Archimago said:

It would be interesting if anyone could analyze that MQA version of Amy Winehouse's "Back To Black" and see if this is actually a different mastering job with changes in dynamic range, peak levels, maybe even different overall EQ.

 

"Rehab" (Tidal HiFi):

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 Left              Right

Peak Value:      0.00 dB   ---      0.00 dB   
Avg RMS:        -5.87 dB   ---     -5.76 dB   
DR channel:      5.04 dB   ---      4.93 dB   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

"Rehab" (Tidal MQA, soft decode, 96 kHz):

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 Left              Right

Peak Value:     -0.08 dB   ---     -0.04 dB   
Avg RMS:        -6.87 dB   ---     -6.76 dB   
DR channel:      5.61 dB   ---      5.70 dB   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

CD:

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/119843

 

HDtracks:

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/91566

 

AJ

[Dr Tone]

21 hours ago, miguelito said:

On the implementation on streaming DACs, it follows a very similar approach to dCS's. That is, the first unfold is done on the network card portion, and the rendering filters are programmed on the FPGA DAC.

 

I'm pretty sure PS Audio stops at the first unfold.  Doing the renderer requires giving Bob intellectual property that some manufacturers simply don't want to let out of the bag.

[miguelito]

40 minutes ago, Dr Tone said:

 

I'm pretty sure PS Audio stops at the first unfold.  Doing the renderer requires giving Bob intellectual property that some manufacturers simply don't want to let out of the bag.

Ok, understood. This is in line with their initial reasons NOT to incorporate MQA at all. 

[bikeman]

Did you guys see this MQA: Benefits and Costs from Stereophile?! Its the most balanced MQA article I've seen so far from the mainstream audiophile press. Apologies if this has been mentioned before.

[miguelito]

37 minutes ago, bikeman said:

Did you guys see this MQA: Benefits and Costs from Stereophile?! Its the most balanced MQA article I've seen so far from the mainstream audiophile press. Apologies if this has been mentioned before.

Yes... It is discussed in a large portion of this thread. Not blaming you for not seeing this, this thread is 28 pages long!!!

[labjr]

On 3/26/2018 at 1:12 PM, firedog said:

He didn't say unfair advantage. He said b/c they sell upgradeable FPGA based DACs, and not chip DACs, it would interfere with their business model which is based on owners downloading updates to the OS.

And because he said 70-80% of his users like it and  want it.

 

I don't see anything wrong with that. 

 

Several years ago there were  manufacturers that were against USB inputs or DSD compatibility for either SQ or technical reasons or both. They later made products including both because customers wanted those features. 

 

He didn't say anything about FPGA's  or their business model.

 

He said: 

 

"MQA requires changes to our D to A converters that we are not willing to make. Because we don't want to compromise their performance or their sound." 

 

 

[Archimago]

22 hours ago, WiWavelength said:

 

 

"Rehab" (Tidal HiFi):

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 Left              Right

Peak Value:      0.00 dB   ---      0.00 dB   
Avg RMS:        -5.87 dB   ---     -5.76 dB   
DR channel:      5.04 dB   ---      4.93 dB   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

"Rehab" (Tidal MQA, soft decode, 96 kHz):

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 Left              Right

Peak Value:     -0.08 dB   ---     -0.04 dB   
Avg RMS:        -6.87 dB   ---     -6.76 dB   
DR channel:      5.61 dB   ---      5.70 dB   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

CD:

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/119843

 

HDtracks:

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/91566

 

AJ

 

Looks like the MQA version soft decoded is a little better just by the numbers. My CD version is exactly the same as the Tidal HiFi.

 

Either way, at DR <6, this is nasty. 

[Archimago]

1 hour ago, labjr said:

 

He didn't say anything about FPGA's  or their business model.

 

He said: 

 

"MQA requires changes to our D to A converters that we are not willing to make. Because we don't want to compromise their performance or their sound." 

 

 

 

For atypical DAC varieties (eg. not the typical XMOS + ESS chipsets), there's going to be a bit of custom work to implement MQA. Not sure for example at what cost or who would do the work for a device like the PS Audio's DirectStream DAC itself. Also might depend on how close to the chest MQA likes to keep their source code especially given the secret "authentication" algos :-).

 

Yeah, sounds like the Bridge II card will just do the software decode for the network streams; although I see reports of it upsampling up to 176.4/192kHz presumably with their minimum phase slow-roll filter varieties.