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

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Awesome. Many of us have been waiting years for this. Post a link please. 

 

There is none or he will say that he has an NDA. Many NDA's are totally unenforceable as they are written. Look at Trump's? They were all thrown out.

[HelpfulDad]

1 minute ago, botrytis said:

 

Then why wasn't I enamored when I heard the McGrath MQA files at AXPONA? They were golden gloved and sounded horrible.

 

Just remember you cannot change digital sampling theory, unless you change you how the specific piece of music is sampled. Since MQA uses PCM, you cannot change the theory, that it is based on. Or are you like Trump and his followers who think now that all the UFO reporting's are to take the focus off the stolen election from Trump. It seems you are a very 'Q' person.

What on earth do politics have to do with this?  I wasn’t at AXPONA to hear what you heard, nor would I know anything about the setup or content you heard.  MQA can’t fix issues with those things.  But someone who throws in a credibility attack with politics has an emotional issue with MQA that makes him feel the same way as he did with Trump and makes him feel that politics is relevant.   
 

Sounds like your hatred of MQA has more to do with your expectation bias based in those emotions than anything.

[botrytis]

1 minute ago, HelpfulDad said:

What on earth do politics have to do with this?  I wasn’t at AXPONA to hear what you heard, nor would I know anything about the setup or content you heard.  MQA can’t fix issues with those things.  But someone who throws in a credibility attack with politics has an emotional issue with MQA that makes him feel the same way as he did with Trump and makes him feel that politics is relevant.   
 

Sounds like your hatred of MQA has more to do with your expectation bias based in those emotions than anything.

 

It is the attitude you have. It is similar to what is out there with MQA mavens. I believe in research and education. Spouting the same marketing speak is not science, it is marketing.

 

No, I went and did a blind test at a dealer, where I used to live, and we were, 'Let's see what the big deal is about'. Well, there was nothing big about at all.

 

Read the patent on MQA. You will find it is more about DRM, than anything else. That is what MQA is.

[HelpfulDad]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Awesome. Many of us have been waiting years for this. Post a link please. 

Here’s the most compelling reality to support the reduction in “bit depth” of samples to make for less data. 24 bit allows for 144 db dynamic range. Recorded music is less than half of that, so tossing 12 wasted bits per sample doesn’t affect the accuracy of the individual sample.  Can you cite any recorded music that actually needs 144db or even 96db of dynamic range(16 bit)?  The so called “lossy” description of MQA is akin to cutting the blank top and bottom margin of a typewritten page and claiming that the text is compromised.  
 

It does require advanced signal processing transform mathematics to accomplish this, but these sorts of transforms are common in electronics mathematics for various reasons, so the claim that nothing necessary is lost is completely reasonable and similar to other transforms like a Laplace transform from time to frequency domain for more efficient analysis in control theory.  Mathematics provides the ability to do these sorts of things.  Fourier transform is another.  Before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, MQA mathematics do something completely different than either of these transforms, but the point is that it’s not some new, hairbrained mathematics technique, its just another one for a specific purpose: to reduce storage while retaining information.  It is proprietary so why would he explain the details of it?  So someone can copy it for free?  Sony and Philips get paid for every SACD and CD, but nobody cares about that.

 

There are also recording engineers like Bob Ludwig, et al who have actively endorsed the sound as a better representation than any other digital content.  MQA does themselves a disservice but not publishing the provenance of the “Studio” encodings.  Or does everyone believe that MQA, Ltd is just “making it up” when they cite the content as accurate as per the band members and/or engineer?  Particularly when there are plenty of people who hear the realism as the one who validated for MQA.
 

This hatred of MQA is almost a replay of the SACD haters vs. DVD-Audio haters and the Nyquist groupies with their “anything above 44.1khz is snake oil” stance.  All that hating is a contributing factor to neither hi-res disc format being successful when it mattered and recording masters of the 1980s and early 1990s being recorded at 44.1/16.  
 

And, for those who insist MQA is about DRM, a negative can’t really be proven, so what’s the evidence that there is DRM in MQA encoded content that will prevent playing the content unless you have license to do so?  If you’re saying patent royalties are DRM, then why is paying Bob Stuart for the technology to encode or decode the content such a problem?  Are you so naïve to think there are no patent owners being paid when you buy a CD or any piece of electronic gear? Yet this is cited as DRM.  

But, I’m sure none of this is considered evidence because, other than my mathematics jag, I’m repeating what’s already available.  What I, and others who appreciate technological improvements, are perplexed about is what possible improvements in digital sound will ever be accepted by the contrarians who make up a huge portion of us in this hobby?  A good portion of you argue that 44.1/16 is “perfect sound forever.”  Why do those who think that way feel a need to sidetrack a topic about higher sample rates or MQA with why we’re ignorant for not seeing it their way? Not necessarily this topic, but it’s nearly impossible to open a topic in any forum on any site to talk about MQA or hi-res without someone side-tracking it with why it’s a useless discussion because MQA is BS or 44.1/16 is perfect sound forever.  

 

It seems to be rooted in emotion.  I have my own “armchair psychologist” theories why they do it, but it’s just my opinion.  I’m glad that there is so much MQA out there and hope that more becomes available.  Specifically the Columbia catalog.  But they’re invested in DSD, so that’s unlikely.  Yet, there are many who vehemently argue that even DSD is a trick and we’re all getting fooled, except them because they only THEY know that 44.1/16 is perfect sound forever. We’re just gullible tools being soaked for nothing. Our “expectation bias” lining the pockets of the charlatans selling DSD, hi-res PCM, and MQA.

 

I just hope this nonsense doesn’t stop the encoding to MQA because, IMHO, it’s one of the best developments in digital audio since higher sampling.  I like nearly my whole music catalog on my iPhone or streaming over cellular without sucking down my entire data plan and then playing it back as a realistic session of music squeezing out every bit of performance my system can deliver.  But, just like anything in this hobby, MQA isn’t magic and there is bad-sounding MQA content for whatever reason.  That doesn’t indict the codec as bad any more that 44.1/16 upsampled to 192/24 and sold as hi-res indicts 192/24 as bad.

 

Come on!!! How can anyone who brings up Donald Trump as relevant to a digital codec be taken seriously?  Similarly, how can anyone who tells me that I’m not hearing what I say I’m hearing be taken seriously?  I believe you when you say you don’t hear a difference, but to tell me I’m fooling myself when I hear what Bob Ludwig, Jimmy Page, et al hear is silly at best and actually offensive. 
 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, HelpfulDad said:

so tossing 12 wasted bits per sample doesn’t affect the accuracy of the individual sample.

 

We already have 16 bit audio and it requires no proprietary decoder. 

 

4 minutes ago, HelpfulDad said:

There are also recording engineers like Bob Ludwig, et al who have actively endorsed the sound as a better representation than any other digital content.

 

With all due respect, some engineers will endorse a vacuum cleaner if it helped them. Ask around about Bob. 

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, HelpfulDad said:

Or does everyone believe that MQA, Ltd is just “making it up” when they cite the content as accurate as per the band members and/or engineer?

 

How many of the millions of batch converted tracks do you think were signed off by the original team who signed off on the original album, or signed off by anyone for that matter?

 

 

7 minutes ago, HelpfulDad said:

All that hating is a contributing factor to neither hi-res disc format being successful

 

Show me a single fact based anything that proves this. The market didn't want SACD or DVD-Audio, that's why they failed, not because some haters. 

 

 

 

10 minutes ago, HelpfulDad said:

I believe you when you say you don’t hear a difference, but to tell me I’m fooling myself when I hear what Bob Ludwig, Jimmy Page, et al hear is silly at best and actually offensive. 

 

What about Neil Young saying mQa sucks?

 

What about the McGill study?

 

 

 

 

11 minutes ago, HelpfulDad said:

 I like nearly my whole music catalog on my iPhone or streaming over cellular without sucking down my entire data plan and then playing it back as a realistic session of music squeezing out every bit of performance my system can deliver.

 

How are you decoding mQa in your car? Your car has quite a bit of DSP that isn't compatible with mQa and would perform much better with pure PCM files. 

 

 

[firedog]

13 minutes ago, HelpfulDad said:

There are also recording engineers like Bob Ludwig, et al who have actively endorsed the sound as a better representation than any other digital content.  MQA does themselves a disservice but not publishing the provenance of the “Studio” encodings.  Or does everyone believe that MQA, Ltd is just “making it up” when they cite the content as accurate as per the band members and/or engineer?  Particularly when there are plenty of people who hear the realism as the one who validated for MQA.

This is all useless appeals to authority. BL is a great mastering engineer, but there are other big time engineers who disagree with him, so it's just dueling experts. Means nothing. Proves nothing.

 

And yes, I do think MQA often "makes it up" as far as provenance. They can't "authenticate" a lot of 50-70 year old recordings and no principal is around to do so. Even on modern recordings, we have multiple instances where the the principals involved all say they had nothing to do and no input into the MQA version. Neil Young is just one example of many. That's why he demanded that Tidal take down the MQA'd versions of his music - They weren't "autheticated" by anyone  with any authority to do so. Get it? MQA just "made it up".

 

This is why your position doesn't hold water. You automatically give MQA all sorts of undeserved credit. They've proven repeatedly they are charlatans and liars and don't deserve it.

[firedog]

22 minutes ago, HelpfulDad said:

but to tell me I’m fooling myself when I hear what Bob Ludwig, Jimmy Page, et al hear is silly at best and actually offensive. 

No, just realistic. Much of audiophilia is based on biased listening like yours. No one actually has those "golden ears" they think they do, including you, Bob Ludwig, and Jimmy Page. Money is a great driver of expectation bias. 

And again, your name dropping is BS. There's a big list of famous people who don't like MQA. It's all dueling experts who cancel ech other out and it proves nothing. 

[botrytis]

19 minutes ago, firedog said:

No, just realistic. Much of audiophilia is based on biased listening like yours. No one actually has those "golden ears" they think they do, including you, Bob Ludwig, and Jimmy Page. Money is a great driver of expectation bias. 

And again, your name dropping is BS. There's a big list of famous people who don't like MQA. It's all dueling experts who cancel ech other out and it proves nothing. 

 

So true. Not a fan of ASR but this image is amazing....

 

Cognitive bias is used constantly but MQA. They tell you what you are going to hear, at listening sessions, and then your brain does the rest. The characteristics they describe may or may not be there, if not your brain fills it in for you.

 

 

[botrytis]

Overcoming bias about music takes work: New research gives insight into how the brain judges music quality -- ScienceDaily

 

Another....

 

Research: Publication bias and the canonization of false facts | eLife (elifesciences.org)

[MikeyFresh]

7 hours ago, HelpfulDad said:

I can go further than MQA can in evangelizing because I won’t be subject to legal challenges that would be costly in terms of expensive and revealing proprietary information.  

Nonseniscal.

 

7 hours ago, HelpfulDad said:

There is more than adequate evidence to support MQA claims on top of the vast improvement in realism over straight PCM.

There just isn't, and I join Chris in asking you to point us in the direction of it, just on the off chance we've missed it (Hint: we're not referring to glowing praise from the trade press, or self proclaimed BS from Bob Talks).

 

7 hours ago, HelpfulDad said:

If you say you don’t hear a difference

The McGill study says no one heard any meaningful or decisive difference for the better.

 

7 hours ago, HelpfulDad said:

I, for one, am very happy that Stuart figured out how to jettison millions of unused bits and improve sound and don’t mind paying him for that.  

You should mind because you are being fleeced, he did not figure out how to jettison anything while simultaneously improving the sound, thats just false, there is no improvement except in the fantasy land of jaw dropping whole new worlds being birthed. Thats what created your expectation bias.

 

[HelpfulDad]

4 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

We already have 16 bit audio and it requires no proprietary decoder. 
 

Even 16 bits for 96db is overkill and nice to jettison the unused bits or use them for something else.

 

With all due respect, some engineers will endorse a vacuum cleaner if it helped them. Ask around about Bob. 

 

Agreed absolutely and to answer about Neil Young, he’s still crying about Pono’s failure and he, along with Metallica protect their $ at all costs.  He doesn’t care what benefits music lovers, only where their money goes

 

 

How many of the millions of batch converted tracks do you think were signed off by the original team who signed off on the original album, or signed off by anyone for that matter?

 

Good question:  Not all MQA is “Studio” authenticated by the artist/engineer.  Hence the “green light”.   But, if an artist/engineer hears enough of their session to be convinced, must every moment f every track be auditioned?  I’d say no.  Let me ask you: do you think MQA is making it up?  Since nothing is perfect, I’m sure some don’t listen/care and sign off just to sell yet another copy.  But, that doesn’t disqualify MQA as a better representation of the original.  And,  FYI, they all didn’t magically appear.  Some I waited years to hear MQA. Furthermore, there are plenty of known artifacts and predictable errors in the A-to-D process from certain hardware.  If these artifacts can be removed from the PCM, how is that an issue?  There are plenty of “approximation” filters to do just that on most DACs.  If the error correction can be specifically addressed in the PCM before distributing it, why is that a bad thing?

 

Show me a single fact based anything that proves this. The market didn't want SACD or DVD-Audio, that's why they failed, not because some haters. 

 

Many of us lived through DVDA/SACD and it became cost prohibitive to have a player for both  and you had to have both to hear all your music.  That made hi-res a non-starter.  BluRay/HD-DVD could have gone the same way but Sony made BluRay playback cheap

 

 

What about Neil Young saying mQa sucks?

Neil young wouldn’t let his mother make a nickel off of his music. 

Quote

 

What about the McGill study?

Haven’t read it.

Quote

 

 

 

 

 

How are you decoding mQa in your car? Your car has quite a bit of DSP that isn't compatible with mQa and would perform much better with pure PCM files. 

 

How do you know I have it in my car?  I use a ProJect PreBox S2 plugged into the aux port.  Great little overachiever BTW.   I use Onkyo HF on iPhone and it has this PCM to DSD converter that against all my expectations makes a big difference

 

[HelpfulDad]

3 hours ago, firedog said:

No, just realistic. Much of audiophilia is based on biased listening like yours. No one actually has those "golden ears" they think they do, including you, Bob Ludwig, and Jimmy Page. Money is a great driver of expectation bias. 

And again, your name dropping is BS. There's a big list of famous people who don't like MQA. It's all dueling experts who cancel ech other out and it proves nothing. 

It’s not name-dropping. It’s citing individuals who are on record about it so it’s not just some guy, like me, who hears it.  While there are those who don’t like it, there are plenty who think all digital is garbage, so do we stop using digital?
 

 

[HelpfulDad]

The thing I really don’t understand about you MQA haters is why do you give a sh!t why we like it so much you want to kill it?  It meets a need.  

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, HelpfulDad said:

The thing I really don’t understand about you MQA haters is why do you give a sh!t why we like it so much you want to kill it?  It meets a need.  

Because it removes options for people. Tidal has removed pure PCM for many albums because of mQa. In Canada, they can’t get Qobuz. They are stuck with Tidal if they use something like Roon. 
 

mQa is a solution in search of a problem. 

[HelpfulDad]

5 hours ago, MikeyFresh said:

Nonseniscal.

 

Notice the emotion in every MQA haters approach?  Always start with impugning the supporter, followed by a platitude. They seem such an unhappy lot.

 

There just isn't, and I join Chris in asking you to point us in the direction of it, just on the off chance we've missed it (Hint: we're not referring to glowing praise from the trade press, or self proclaimed BS from Bob Talks).

 

The McGill study says no one heard any meaningful or decisive difference for the better.

 

You should mind because you are being fleeced, he did not figure out how to jettison anything while simultaneously improving the sound, thats just false, there is no improvement except in the fantasy land of jaw dropping whole new worlds being birthed. Thats what created your expectation bias.

 

 

[firedog]

4 hours ago, HelpfulDad said:

It’s not name-dropping. It’s citing individuals who are on record about it so it’s not just some guy, like me, who hears it.  While there are those who don’t like it, there are plenty who think all digital is garbage, so do we stop using digital?
 

 

It's totally name dropping, when you use famous engineers to try and backup your position. If it wasn't you'd say,  my wife, my buddy, etc.

[firedog]

4 hours ago, HelpfulDad said:

The thing I really don’t understand about you MQA haters is why do you give a sh!t why we like it so much you want to kill it?  It meets a need.  

What need?

• It doesn't really reduce streaming bandwidth - in the lower res versions it actually takes up more bits than standard PCM; in any case that's not needed.
• There's no basis other than sighted listening that it sounds better - and even that has people saying it sounds worse. If it was clearly better, we'd all hear it.
• They bastardize masters and alter them with MQA processing WITHOUT the permission of the artists involved. 

Kill it? Because, 

• It adds costs  that are passed on to consumers. When manufacturers and suppliers have added costs, they are passed on to you, whether you see it or not. And now you will be paying more for it on Tidal.
• MQA/Tidal is removing non-MQA masters from the market, limiting choice.
• It's based on lies and falsehoods, and people who market that kind of product shouldn't profit.