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

[beetlemania]

So, did Brink get banned? Can't believe he hasn't chimed in here.

[jhwalker]

1 hour ago, iaval said:

Hi jhwalker,

I am rather unsure when exactly they started with development (considering they filled the patent in Dec-2013), however broadband 20Mbit+ dedicated fibre is a reality in most Eastern European countries since 2007. I had my 100/100 connection installed in Nov.2007 which should have no problem streaming 4,608 kbit/s for stereo 24/96.

As far as mobile data, where to this day (unless you're on unlimited data plan), you pay for every MB downloaded, MQA 24/48 container isn't really helping the situation much, in non-urban areas, you might be lucky to get 10Mbit/s on B20 LTE band (EU allocation), and yet the 10GB data package would be done for in just few albums. 

 

Opus should be the way to go for streaming IMHO. Personally, I don't stream at all - keeping everything local has its advantages when network drops out. 

 

I think we're saying the same thing - I'm sure MQA has been at least 10 years in the development, probably more.  It's a case of taking so long to get to "production" current events have rendered your product obsolete.

 

Of course, I came "of age" before personal computers were widespread (and certainly before the Internet was publicly available), but I remember in the early days of the Internet when tiny (postage stamp sized) "videos" on websites took minutes to buffer so you could watch them.  Last night, we watched one of the latest movies in Blu-Ray quality streamed (flawlessly) with no initial buffering whatsoever.  Amazing what a few years' progress can do!

[iaval]

8 minutes ago, jhwalker said:

 

I think we're saying the same thing - I'm sure MQA has been at least 10 years in the development, probably more.  It's a case of taking so long to get to "production" current events have rendered your product obsolete.

 

Of course, I came "of age" before personal computers were widespread (and certainly before the Internet was publicly available), but I remember in the early days of the Internet when tiny (postage stamp sized) "videos" on websites took minutes to buffer so you could watch them.  Last night, we watched one of the latest movies in Blu-Ray quality streamed (flawlessly) with no initial buffering whatsoever.  Amazing what a few years' progress can do!

In fact what's happening is technology becoming more available. 

You could get FullHD capable transport in 2002, 12bit CMOS sensors in 2005, etc. The technology was there, only difference being it wasn't mainstream and cheap like it's now. 

 

Yep I remember those tiny Quicktime-based preview videos on webpages that took ages to download (through high speed 56.6kbps of course). 

 

I can't see myself switching to streamed music anytime soon (5+ years) for portable use. Just the level of complexity it requires, somewhat feels redundant compared to local storage. But to each their own. 

Another point to consider when going outside is the ambient noise level, which in most urban environment won't go below 40dB SPL. Rural areas (especially at night) are much better in that aspect (avg. 6 to 20 dB SPL on my favourite spot ). In the city, even 16bit lossless streaming while mobile is really pushing it IMO. 

140kbit/s Opus would work wonders in that setup. 

[Fokus]

45 minutes ago, jhwalker said:

 

I think we're saying the same thing - I'm sure MQA has been at least 10 years in the development, probably more. 

 

Certainly not. There is very little of substance in MQA, and the origami ultrasonics folding idea already existed in Japan. I am certain that from the first bright bulb idea to a proof of concept prototype in software did not take longer than a few weeks.

 

If they spent a real effort, it was in politics and lobbying.

[miguelito]

On 3/3/2018 at 1:55 PM, John_Atkinson said:

You omitted a fourth possibility: that the magazines' writers honesty report what they hear.

Possibly... But I have listened to a lot of MQA (see my signature for my system, and it is very carefully set up) and I can tell you some is good, some the same. It is not a panacea or anything of the sort espoused by the audiophile press. Come listen if you like, I live in Chelsea, NYC.

[Don Hills]

3 hours ago, beetlemania said:

So, did Brink get banned? Can't believe he hasn't chimed in here.

 

He announced he wouldn't be posting any more and might return at a later date under a new userid.

[kumakuma]

14 minutes ago, Don Hills said:

 

He announced he wouldn't be posting any more and might return at a later date under a new userid.

 

I thought that was Beery. 

[Don Hills]

Oh yeah, you're right. Thank you. 

[kumakuma]

Just now, Don Hills said:

Oh yeah, you're right. Thank you. 

 

Maybe the MQA gang made Brinky an offer he couldn't refuse...

[tmtomh]

On 3/3/2018 at 2:50 PM, John_Atkinson said:

 

The 2014 article in which I used that phrase can be found at https://www.stereophile.com/content/ive-heard-future-streaming-meridians-mqa

 

I request that CA posters read the full text of what I wrote, in order to comprehend the context.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

 

Like others, I read the full article to comprehend the context, and by any rational accounting, @Archimago's use of the partial quotation is totally consistent with the context. In fact, Arch omitted some language in your piece, in adjacent sentences, that is even more over the top.

 

You can argue that your language was justified, but the notion that Arch quoted you in a way that made your comments sound more superlative than they really were, or that took your words out of context in some way, is mistaken.

[Doug Schneider]

BTW, one editor I believe deserves some praise is Paul Miller of "Hi-Fi News and Record Review." If you don't know HFNRR or Paul, I think you should -- for many years now, I've felt he has been producing the very best print magazine anywhere in the world. He's also now the president of EISA. The magazine really digs in deeply to the hobby, right down to historical articles (on equipment, too!).

 

I put this image file here because he allowed me to reprint it in one of my "SoundStage! Hi-Fi" MQA articles. I believe he was the first (only?) in print to expose the aliasing issues surrounding MQA. In fact, in their February 2018 issue, he does a similar thing again, but this time uses CD-quality material to expose the artifacts above the 22.05kHz limit. As far as I know, Paul didn't fall in early and took a careful look at what was happening before he put out his assessment, so I don't want that to be overlooked.

 

Doug Schneider

SoundStage!

[doctorrazz]

As always Archimago, your objective commentary rings true. Nice to hear commentary and clairvoyance on this topic. Thanks again. I think most of us want full PCM content streamed, until that point hits fruition then MQA Tidal  is still the high point in streaming audio. However Lossy MQA mastering is, it does provide a pleasant sonic experience on most content,  particularly older analogue  music files. As bandwidth expands, I think most audiophiles want to experience the original, as recorded format in the highest original format. The industry should give not give MQA the end game in content provided. Hopefully you insights will become mainstream. 

[james45974]

39 minutes ago, doctorrazz said:

The industry should give not give MQA the end game in content provided. Hopefully you insights will become mainstream. 

Given their history, should we as consumers trust anything the big record companies (industry) are doing in regards to MQA?  I think we should be very cautious.

[Doug Schneider]

Another BTW,

 

I was thinking of writing an article about MQA called "The Out-of-Touch Old-Man Syndrome," though I figured it would offend too many. It wasn't going to be about old men so much -- I'm 53! -- but that many old men are out of touch with the way modern technology and  how modern technology worker work. Take my father for instance -- vice-president of an enormous company in 1990, yet he never would accept having a computer on his desk. He retired without one, even though his son (me) was an IT guy and his wife could easily use one.

 

That said, the gist of the article was that from the outset, it was obvious to me that the MQA developers didn't have a historical aspect of how IT-type products work. When I saw their encoding scheme a couple years ago I thought:

 

-- How long until someone reverse engineers it? Like Mansr did...

 

-- How gone until some explains its implications in great detail? Like Achiamago did...

 

-- How long until some guy "clones" it with an algorithm of his own? (I'm actually surprised this hasn't happened yet, but it will. Just to be clear, I'm talking about someone writing an encoder that mimics it exactly. Some hotshot coder who catches wind of it and has a few days clear likely will.)

 

It was also apparent that they seemed painfully unaware that the bandwidth limitations they were trying to overcome weren't an issue. How did that get missed?

 

They also didn't seem to know that closed, proprietary systems don't work in the consumer world. Apple got away with it for a while, but like everyone else who tried, they're slowly opening their ecosystem up ... because they have to (one of the main drawbacks of their new speaker is close tie-in to Apple Music only).

 

They also didn't seem to be aware of places like this forum -- where people from around the world share information in an INSTANT and will break this thing apart and down from the word go.

 

If you ask me, it was pretty ill-conceived from the start -- but I don't think they had a clue.

 

Doug

SoundStage!

[mansr]

3 minutes ago, Doug Schneider said:

How long until some guy "clones" it with an algorithm of his own? (I'm actually surprised this hasn't happened yet, but it will. Just to be clear, I'm talking about someone writing an encoder that mimics it exactly. Some hotshot coder who catches wind of it and has a few days clear likely will.)

The only reason this hasn't happened is that there is zero interest.

[Doug Schneider]

3 minutes ago, mansr said:

The only reason this hasn't happened is that there is zero interest.

 

Exactly! If MQA was known worldwide by every music enthusiast (not a small group of audiophiles), not only would've someone mimicked it, they probably would've improved upon the idea with something much better.

 

Doug

[mansr]

10 minutes ago, Doug Schneider said:

It was also apparent that they seemed painfully unaware that the bandwidth limitations they were trying to overcome weren't an issue. How did that get missed?

I don't believe that was ever the actual goal. MQA is a hodgepodge of ideas, each appealing to a different target. The labels are promised DRM and protection for their "crown jewels." The streaming services are offered reduced bandwidth. The consumers are told they'll get the "sound of the studio," authenticated by the long-dead artist. All are being deceived. DRM doesn't work. There is no bandwidth reduction. MQA conversions happen without the approval of the artists or mastering engineers (as attested by Brian Lucey).

 

The real goal of MQA is to insinuate itself into every stage of the recording and playback chain, collecting royalties from each participant. As Jim Collinson of Linn put it, MQA is a land grab.

[Doug Schneider]

Mansr,

 

That could well be -- their compression not for actual bandwidth savings as much as for putting it into a lossy, so unrecoverable, format for protection and supposed promise of authenticity.

 

Doug

[Archimago]

2 hours ago, Doug Schneider said:

Another BTW,

 

I was thinking of writing an article about MQA called "The Out-of-Touch Old-Man Syndrome," though I figured it would offend too many. It wasn't going to be about old men so much -- I'm 53! -- but that many old men are out of touch with the way modern technology and  how modern technology worker work. Take my father for instance -- vice-president of an enormous company in 1990, yet he never would accept having a computer on his desk. He retired without one, even though his son (me) was an IT guy and his wife could easily use one.

 

That said, the gist of the article was that from the outset, it was obvious to me that the MQA developers didn't have a historical aspect of how IT-type products work. When I saw their encoding scheme a couple years ago I thought:

 

-- How long until someone reverse engineers it? Like Mansr did...

 

-- How gone until some explains its implications in great detail? Like Achiamago did...

 

-- How long until some guy "clones" it with an algorithm of his own? (I'm actually surprised this hasn't happened yet, but it will. Just to be clear, I'm talking about someone writing an encoder that mimics it exactly. Some hotshot coder who catches wind of it and has a few days clear likely will.)

 

It was also apparent that they seemed painfully unaware that the bandwidth limitations they were trying to overcome weren't an issue. How did that get missed?

 

They also didn't seem to know that closed, proprietary systems don't work in the consumer world. Apple got away with it for a while, but like everyone else who tried, they're slowly opening their ecosystem up ... because they have to (one of the main drawbacks of their new speaker is close tie-in to Apple Music only).

 

They also didn't seem to be aware of places like this forum -- where people from around the world share information in an INSTANT and will break this thing apart and down from the word go.

 

If you ask me, it was pretty ill-conceived from the start -- but I don't think they had a clue.

 

Doug

SoundStage!

 

Doug, thanks for your input and the shout out to Paul Miller and HFN&RR - it's unfortune here in N. America (at least locally here in Vancouver), I rarely find issues locally and the articles and opinions in there are not as well represented in discussions.

 

I was impressed and pleasantly surprised when I first came across your articles awhile back and your comments on AudioAsylum over the years also. I thought your comments were prudent and balanced. Hopefully there will be some changes in the world of audiophile journalism and favoritism... A true disservice to the hobby that thoughtful analysis should so quickly result in anyone be negatively labeled.

[guymrob]

I’m more concern that the DACs we buy today especially MQA ones may default to MQA filters(for whatever reasons) when playing back non MQA contents. It is through technical testing one can see the effect of aliasing and distortion patterns here. There’s no tool at the moment to access MQA encoders other than the music companies themselves. Because of this, it is difficult to fully test an MQA DAC without generating a test signal from the encoder. The only test at the moment rely on MQA music contents.

DSD and PCM have long been able to qualify technically with test signals for each hardware release from the manufacturers. This guarantees high standard of specifications and the rest is just listening.

[Oystein]

After reading this great article and much in dept technical details I found a similar conclusion on 6moons which also describes a way how to do without the MQA encoding and avoid their filter

 

It is published in the Keep it Honest chapter in cooperation with John Darko.

[Doug Schneider]

8 hours ago, Archimago said:

I thought your comments were prudent and balanced.

 

Hi,

 

Sometimes my comments can be off-the-wall, too! But in the case of MQA, the problem was that they stepped on some familiar turf to me -- just like they probably did with you. I worked in various aspects of IT from 1985 to 1998, before SoundStage! became full-time. Your must work  in a technical capacity, too.

 

As you know, you can't just put out blanket b.s. to technical people without something to back it up. If you claim something does something, then it better do it or your claim means nothing.  The folks at MQA haven't done a damn thing to prove any of their claims -- except put on ridiculous listening sessions that bamboozles certain type of people. They were also trying to pull the wool over people's eyes with their own definition of "lossless," for example, which a number in the press bought into. I believe the word lossless is exclusively an IT term and we all know what it means. Them trying to hijack the word and tack on their own definition was simply b.s. and cost them credibility -- among other things they claims.

 

Insofar as this whole thing goes, however, you and Mansr have done the best technical work on it. Your findings, coupled with what Bruno Putzeys wrote on Facebook in November, not only had everyone suddenly stand up and take notice -- it's left their supporters on shaky ground and right now doubting themselves. Charles Hansen must also be credited for being so damn persistent on this and taking people to task, even if it cost some friendships. He, too, knew what was right. So keep up the good work and keep even more stuff coming!

 

Doug

SoundStage!

[FredericV]

This screenshot shows the average technical knowledge level inside the secret MQA group:

"Archimago is quite good, but he really does not understand how MQA works."

 

-> please buy a mirror

This guy does not even understand the basics of sampling.

 

The same clueless members continue to claim the MQA train cannot be stopped. This is a very recent screenshot.

Our CA frontpage article was also deleted from the group.

I don't have a membership in the group, so they now must find their mole ....

 

and yes this internationalTV format was invented by our Belgian national television

[FredericV]

2 hours ago, Oystein said:

After reading this great article and much in dept technical details I found a similar conclusion on 6moons which also describes a way how to do without the MQA encoding and avoid their filter

 

It is published in the Keep it Honest chapter in cooperation with John Darko.

 

That's my own research. SoX can work very well with MQA files. No need for us to license anything from MQA.
Auralic also uses SoX.

 

 

[Oystein]

Ah .. I did not realize this ;-)

 

It's a small world after all ... haha.