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

[Sfellows331]

Yogi Berra also said, "It's deja vu all over again".  The way MQA has been promoted sounds strangely familiar to the "perfect sound forever" slogan promoting Cds back in the 80s. It eventually became clear the sound wasn't "perfect" (whatever that means) once the dust settled although the sound quality of Cds and digital has greatly improved over the years.  

 

Btw, I have 2 cd rips with MQA: 'Playing Favorites' (Meiko) and 'The Raven' (Rebecca Pidgeon).  Comparing the sound of the rips with MQA off versus on, the latter has an immediacy that the former lacks, something like walking down the sidewalk and hearing the sound of a piano or trumpet coming thru an open window of a house and you know it's a real instrument and not a recording. The ear can be a very sensitive instrument. This is where a music artist's opinion would matter. MQA is, of course, not this realistic but I do prefer it on the rips. And there is no listening fatigue like I heard listening to Cds back in the 80s.

[MikeyFresh]

20 minutes ago, Sfellows331 said:

Btw, I have 2 cd rips with MQA: 'Playing Favorites' (Meiko) and 'The Raven' (Rebecca Pidgeon).  Comparing the sound of the rips with MQA off versus on, the latter has an immediacy that the former lacks, something like walking down the sidewalk and hearing the sound of a piano or trumpet coming thru an open window of a house and you know it's a real instrument and not a recording.

 

Fascinating... tell me please, what do I need to to do in order not to miss out any further on audio treasure like this?

 

22 minutes ago, Sfellows331 said:

The ear can be a very sensitive instrument.

 

Right, but only readily apparent when listening to MQA-CD rips I suppose? With all other formats the ear becomes altogether less sensitive then?

 

24 minutes ago, Sfellows331 said:

And there is no listening fatigue like I heard listening to Cds back in the 80s.

 

Brilliant, but what about when listening to CDs in the 90s, or in the 21st century? Does MQA-CD's ultra realism thrash that experience too?

 

[Sfellows331]

Relax. It seems we are going to have to 'agree to disagree' on some matters. Regarding the sound quality of current Cds I especially enjoy, 'The Gershwin Moment' (2018).  It's not MQA but I enjoy the sound better than either of the 2 MQA rips mentioned above.  Listen to this cd, it's great music and it will make you feel better.

[mansr]

9 hours ago, Sfellows331 said:

Excellent article (read it first today) but one thing absent that I would like to have seen, if just briefly, regarding the sound quality of compressed MQA is what do the artists think of their work being played back in MQA? If a singer says that MQA presents a more accurate representation of her music and conveys the emotion better than an uncompressed file, is she "wrong" and her opinion too subjective? Without input from the artists themselves, discussions of MQA sound quality are perhaps missing the point. 

I tried reaching Jim Morrison for a comment, but he has not yet replied.

[Rt66indierock]

On 12/30/2018 at 5:17 AM, mansr said:

I tried reaching Jim Morrison for a comment, but he has not yet replied.

 

Ray Manzarek hasn't gotten back to me either.

[miguelito]

On 12/22/2018 at 7:46 AM, firedog said:

Objective answer: you need to find a way of comparing to decide for yourself.

In addition,  a few things you should take into account:

1) MQA source masters may not be the same as another master you have access to, even on Tidal. Thus whatever difference you hear may be  mostly to do to the different masters and not MQA. 

Very important point and I agree - most cases where there is a notable difference it is due to remastering. I don’t know this for a fact, but I would bet this is the case as I would classify MQA releases as those that sound a little “different” (sometimes not different at all) vs a few that sound a lot better (very few).

 

On 12/22/2018 at 7:46 AM, firedog said:

2) Many think that to get most of the “benefit” or “difference” wrought by MQA you really only need the “first unfold” and not the full process in the DAC. You can get the first unfold from some playback software, but AFAIK, none of the playback softwares with the first unfold are free, other than the Tidal  PC app.

I would agree with this.

 

On 12/22/2018 at 7:46 AM, firedog said:

3) Most MQA DACs implement an easy and inexpensive implementation of MQA that means that even non-MQA files are processed with MQA filters. Only a few expensive ones don’t do this. So that also means when using most of  them you aren’t fairly comparing the MQA and non MQA files. 

My comparisons are with a dCS Rossini + Rossini Master Clock. It implements MQA “properly”.

 

On 12/22/2018 at 7:46 AM, firedog said:

Personal, subjective answer: I don’t hear any real benefit to MQA. A few files sound a bit better, a few a little worse, some the same, and others just different. In terms of sound, certainly no big improvement as claimed by some. And this is without getting into non-sound aspects of MQA and whether we want it or not. 

My impression exactly as well. MQA seems to add some eq to the music most of the time, like adding MSG to food, and at times I enjoy the result. One example I found recently: Joan Baez’s “Joan Baez” album: I purchased the 24/96 from HDTracks, but I still think the MQA version on TIDAL has a slight edge in the color of her voice, IMSTME (In My System To My Ears).

 

On 12/22/2018 at 7:46 AM, firedog said:

So my advice would be to get the best most suitable DAC you can, and don’t worry about MQA. That will make more of a positive difference to your results than whether the DAC does MQA or not. 

I completely agree. Getting a DAC that doesn’t wing it by making all filters the MQA filters (when MQA is enabled) will cost you dearly and frankly for no great reasons. First unfold is all you need and that can be done in Roon or Audirvana or the TIDAL native app.

 

I wish MQA had never showed up! What a waste of time.

[miguelito]

3 minutes ago, miguelito said:

My impression exactly as well. MQA seems to add some eq to the music most of the time, like adding MSG to food, and at times I enjoy the result. One example I found recently: Joan Baez’s “Joan Baez” album: I purchased the 24/96 from HDTracks, but I still think the MQA version on TIDAL has a slight edge in the color of her voice, IMSTME (In My System To My Ears).

BTW... I wish someone would figure out what this “MSG” eq is and create a filter to apply it to standard files. My impression after a lot of listening is that it is a fairly standardized filter they are applying, not something that’s tailored to each file.

[crenca]

26 minutes ago, miguelito said:

BTW... I wish someone would figure out what this “MSG” eq is and create a filter to apply it to standard files. My impression after a lot of listening is that it is a fairly standardized filter they are applying, not something that’s tailored to each file.

 

My assumption has been that this "MSG eq" (good analogy) was the HF noise and/or aliasing artifacts that is a product of the slow roll off filtering had the total effect of adding energy to the playback (as compared to a more standard playback of the 16/44/hi res equivalent).  Just an assumption...

[MikeyFresh]

4 hours ago, miguelito said:

it is a fairly standardized filter they are applying, not something that’s tailored to each file.

 

Nor correcting for each specific ADC's supposed flaws, eh?

[miguelito]

7 hours ago, MikeyFresh said:

Nor correcting for each specific ADC's supposed flaws, eh?

?????????

 

What a load of BS!

[miguelito]

11 hours ago, miguelito said:

?????????

 

What a load of BS!

That was meant to be laughter... Meant “What a load of BS from BS”

[miguelito]

On 12/29/2018 at 6:34 PM, Sfellows331 said:

Excellent article (read it first today) but one thing absent that I would like to have seen, if just briefly, regarding the sound quality of compressed MQA is what do the artists think of their work being played back in MQA? If a singer says that MQA presents a more accurate representation of her music and conveys the emotion better than an uncompressed file, is she "wrong" and her opinion too subjective? Without input from the artists themselves, discussions of MQA sound quality are perhaps missing the point. 

This is all such bull... Do you really think that the artist is sitting there doing A/B and saying “Yeah the MQA version is better”? For one, the MQA version is created in post processing and apparently by a specialized MQA team - just so noone runs a delta function through the encoder and records the result! There is so much debunkable bull in the whole thing I just don’t know where to start!

[crenca]

4 minutes ago, miguelito said:

This is all such bull... Do you really think that the artist is sitting there doing A/B and saying “Yeah the MQA version is better”? For one, the MQA version is created in post processing and apparently by a specialized MQA team - just so noone runs a delta function through the encoder and records the result! There is so much debunkable bull in the whole thing I just don’t know where to start!

 

Assuming @Sfellows331is not an astroturfer (always a distinct possibility with MQA), he might have been caught up in the reasonable sounding marketing speak coming from both MQA and their lapdogs in the trade publications (i.e. Stereophile, TAS, most webzines, etc.).  Music lovers want to believe in an "artist" oriented recording/mix/release process, even though the reality is much different...

[mansr]

1 hour ago, crenca said:

Assuming @Sfellows331is not an astroturfer

How many people have signed up for the sole purpose of defending MQA and not turned out to be some kind of shill?

[MikeyFresh]

8 hours ago, crenca said:

Assuming @Sfellows331is not an astroturfer

 

I assume the opposite.

 

6 hours ago, mansr said:

How many people have signed up for the sole purpose of defending MQA and not turned out to be some kind of shill?

 

None that I'm aware of.

[Sfellows331]

There are 2 concerns about MQA: potential for monopoly and sound quality. Regarding the latter it was mentioned here late last month that if an artist said MQA expressed his/her music better than uncompressed music, this opinion couldn't really be trusted since the artist has a financial incentive with MQA. But if MQA becomes the norm, costs for the consumer will probably rise (see Linn article). The computer audiophile [including myself] therefore also has a financial incentive for cheaper, uncompressed music over MQA. The argument cuts both ways. My music collection are cd rips and a couple high-rez downloads. But with the limited MQA rips I have listened to thus far, i do like it but don't always prefer it. 

[Sfellows331]

Hey milkeyfresh, mansr, and crenca...you need to look at your recent posts. It's groupthink with no diversity of thought. I agree with the concerns for monopoly but i also like the sound, not that it matters..

[mansr]

Just now, Sfellows331 said:

Hey milkeyfresh, mansr, and crenca...you need to look at your recent posts. It's groupthink with no diversity of thought. I agree with the concerns for monopoly but i also like the sound, not that it matters..

That settles it. You're either a shill or a sock puppet.

[The Computer Audiophile]

31 minutes ago, Sfellows331 said:

Hey milkeyfresh, mansr, and crenca...you need to look at your recent posts. It's groupthink with no diversity of thought. I agree with the concerns for monopoly but i also like the sound, not that it matters..

Hi @Sfellows331 - I understand you may reach this conclusion based on what you've read in their responses, but I encourage you to dig a little deeper into the examination of MQA done by @mansr from a technical perspective. He was digging into this years ago and has spent more time researching it than he probably like to admit. 

[MikeyFresh]

1 hour ago, Sfellows331 said:

It's groupthink with no diversity of thought. I agree with the concerns for monopoly but i also like the sound, not that it matters.

 

It really isn't, as stated above Mans and others have researched this thoroughly, and the technology behind MQA has been debunked, period. There has been no credible response or rebuttal to those findings. None.

 

My own personal opinion, while guided somewhat by the above, has really to do with the last thing you touched on, that being the overall anti-consumer aspect of the play MQA is trying to make in concert with the record labels.

 

In that sense I couldn't care less what it sounds like, though that too is dubious at best when looking broadly at reports of MQA's sound quality.

 

But you are free to enjoy lossy encoding with upsampling and poorly implemented digital filtering, accompanied by a little blue LED for reassurance of Master Quality Adulterated.

[crenca]

1 hour ago, Sfellows331 said:

Hey milkeyfresh, mansr, and crenca...you need to look at your recent posts. It's groupthink with no diversity of thought. I agree with the concerns for monopoly but i also like the sound, not that it matters..

 

To build upon what The Computer Audiophile said, there are reasons why you "like the sound".  Since Bob S and company have not discovered anything fundamentally "new" in digital domain sampling/playback, they just have packaged previously known art (or more accurately, preferences) into a proprietary DRM package.  Ok, you like the sound of slow roll off (and thus high IM distortion) filters.  Why would you not use filters in software that have no IP/DRM for the music file itself?  If that sounds complicated and a hassle, why would you not purchase one of the many available non-DRMed DAC's that allow you to apply such filtering (and many other kinds besides) with a mere push of a button?

 

The only real "groupthink" around MQA is (and increasingly "was") within the Audiophile trade publication/review worlds that parroted the MQA marketing claims (such as no DRM, it's the "sound the artists intended", etc.) without critical examination...

[MikeyFresh]

49 minutes ago, crenca said:

The only real "groupthink" around MQA is (and increasingly "was") within the Audiophile trade publication/review worlds that parroted the MQA marketing claims (such as no DRM, it's the "sound the artists intended", etc.) without critical examination...

 

Well said, any examination of apparent "groupthink" really needs to start right there.

[Sfellows331]

MQA is like a rising totalitarian government that promises good things. Then once fully in power everyone realizes they've lost their freedom.

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, Sfellows331 said:

MQA is like a rising totalitarian government that promises good things. Then once fully in power everyone realizes they've lost their freedom.

And from the point of view of MQA Ltd they are just giving the record labels options. If the labels stop releasing non-MQA material then MQA Ltd can just say it isn’t their decision, it’s the labels’ decision. MQA Ltd can’t lose. 

[Rt66indierock]

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

And from the point of view of MQA Ltd they are just giving the record labels options. If the labels stop releasing non-MQA material then MQA Ltd can just say it isn’t their decision, it’s the labels’ decision. MQA Ltd can’t lose. 

 

You are forgetting the labels own enough of MQA Ltd to exert significant influence and I doubt the primary investor would disagree with them.