MQA The Truth lies Somewhere in the Middle

[firedog]

4 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Thanks for the shout out! Would love to be there, but have other obligations...

 

Not sure I'm liking your new avatar. Nadal is a lot better looking.

[firedog]

40 minutes ago, esldude said:

Something to ask about.  Ran across an iFi Nano I-one DAC  review which has firmware that when MQA is enabled, SPDIF output is disabled.  This is whether the input is MQA or anything else. 

 

https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/review-and-measurements-of-ifi-nano-ione-dac.4754/post-106158

 

It also then prevents filter choices that were available with this device unless you roll back to previous firmware and forego MQA. 

 

https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/review-and-measurements-of-ifi-nano-ione-dac.4754/post-106160

 

So this device which could be used to feed USB to an SPDIF output on this device loses functionality if it is MQA enabled.  How nice of the MQA to do this for owners of that DAC.  Prevent hardware capabilities from functioning that the owner paid for.  

 

But no DRM here.  Maybe more like HRM (hardware rights management).  

I own one of those but run it on the previous (5.2) firmware which is non MQA.  I asked iFi about this. It isn't the fault of MQA or HRM, per se. The device doesn't have the capacity to do both MQA and also act as a USB>SPDIF converter. To allow it to do MQA, they need to devote one of the cores to it, and they sacrificed the core that previously did SPDIF. They therefore give users a choice: one firmware version without MQA and with the SPDIF out, and another with MQA, but the SPDIF out is eliminated. 

 

Here's their actual response:

Just to be clear, yes, there are insufficient resources on the 8-core devices to run MQA renderer AND SPDIF out. This is what is fitted, so there is no debate why it is not there.

 

If there was an SPDIF out, it would just be the same signal as the MQA core decoder in the software decodes. The same is true for any other SPDIF out under MQA.

 

In other words, it would be the same as loading firmware 5.2 (no MQA) and setting the software (Tidal, Roon, Audirvana) to output the first unfold digital signal (88.2/96kHz).

 

The device fed via SPDIF would then require an SPDIF based MQA renderer component to perform the rest of the MQA unfolding in the DAC fed via SPDIF.

[firedog]

Wow, Chris. 

CEO of MQA hit you with marketing speak and dared to say he is "all about facts". And they are hung up on Archi's identity, but refuse to actually deal with what he wrote. 
The best part was Mike complaining that you used an actual MQA logo with "lossless"  and simultaneously claimed that they hadn't said they were lossless because they no longer say they are lossless. 

[firedog]

1 hour ago, rwdvis said:

The fact that you failed to consider the possibility that manufacturers are more likely hearing from MQA PR/marketing, posing as customers; or that manufacturers are simply lying about “customer demand” in order to take advantage of MQA early adoption discounts, tells me that you’re not sufficiently skeptical to become a respected writer in this industry.

I don't think it means they are lying. I think it means they are using anecdotal methods like email to  determine "customer demand"; in other words,  coming to a conclusion of high demand when what they really have is a small, very interested subgroup. 

[firedog]

Just now, Jud said:

 

Can you tell me what exactly about the measured frequency response of a piece of music is up for “honest debate,” and how knowing the given name of the person who performed the measurement affects the ability to say whether it is accurate or inaccurate?

My guess: you will continue to get evasive non-answers on this one. 
And again, Lee, where are those measurements you talked about?

[firedog]

15 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

2.  I personally felt it was heavily slanted against MQA, such as the point on DRM.  So that is why I asked if there was even one instance of a file having DRM.  Chris was gracious and agreed with me on that point.  So I give Chris credit on that.

 

3.  Ken has an issue with Archimago being anonymous.  I am less bothered by this but I feel he has a good point.  Hiding behind a user ID is unnecessary and cowardly when good people are trying to have an honest debate.

 

"DRM" - MQA and some of their supporters incorrectly define it as meaning "copy protection", and then claim it isn't there and won't be there. The rest of us  understand that DRM can mean many things, and that MQA was designed  so that all sorts of protections/limitations on how files can be played back can be added at any time. You can only say it "isn't and won't be" DRM when you incorrectly limit the definition of DRM to copy prevention. 
 

The whole Archimago is "anonymous" argument is a red herring thrown into the argument in order to avoid answering his actual claims and making the argument an ad hominem one. 
Nothing is preventing MQA or the others who objected to Archi's info in the slides from showing us the mistakes in his analysis.
 

Yet somehow the fact that he uses a pseudonym prevents them from showing us the holes in his arguments.

 

I'd also add that as far as I remember, Archi has said he uses an alias b/c his non-audio day job could be endangered if he didn't. Sounds perfectly legitimate to me. 

[firedog]

2 hours ago, Shadders said:

Hi Jud,

So scams are legal in the US. Live and learn i suppose.

EDIT :

I checked this on the web :

https://www.quora.com/How-illegal-is-scamming

Is MQA lying to the customers if they claim it is what the artist intended or heard, when it is not ?. This would be illegal. Hence criminal.

 

My interpretation is, if MQA have lied about any of the claims etc., then they have broken the law.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

 

"artist" is a word open to lots of interpretation. You could more or less legitimately assign it to anyone involved in a meaningful way in the recording, mixing, and mastering of an album. 
Many musicians have little or zero input about what happens once they've played their bit in a studio and you could debate who the "artist" is who is most responsible for the final product released to the consumer. 

[firedog]

11 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 Their customer is the label, producer, and artist.

Amazing how in your whole post you don't mention the consumer/music listener as a shareholder. That says a lot about where you are coming from and why you are such an MQA proponent. The listeners don't matter....only the label, producer, artist and MQA. 

[firedog]

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

This is all MQA. You can buy the original PCM as 24/44.1 from HDtracks. That’s the resolution of the recording. MQA is adding the noise and decoding it to 88.2. 

And this is exactly the point that Lee and others have often said isn't true. Lee will now deny it, I suggest he look back at previous writings and posts before he does. 

We all understand that MQA files have no content above 48k and everything above that is upsampling. They are basically  "fake hi-res"  for any file above 96k. Calling them "192" as MQA does is a lie. This case is more of the same, except it's an extreme example of their lack of honesty about what their product is and does. 

[firedog]

4 hours ago, Fokus said:

MQA has the capability of passing a 2x file through a 1x channel more or less unscathed. This has been proven, no-one tries to deny that.

 My understanding is that when MQA encodes a file that is higher res than a 24-48, it only encodes material up to 48k, and throws the higher frequencies away as "perceptually lossless".  That's one of the reasons it is "lossy". So for a 88, 96,176, 192,etc., it is discarding material above 48k if it is there. 

[firedog]

15 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

This is the Zapruder film of MQA RMAF.

I haven't watched it....did someone's head get blown off? 

[firedog]

2 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

That's what was good about this demo.  It was just the encoding.

And as in all MQA "demos" you are probably told beforehand which recording is which, and which one sounds better. No chance for bias creeping in there....

And btw, the Mytek DAC plays back all material with MQA filters once MQA is activated, unless you manually go in and switch the filtering each time. So did you do that, or did you cripple the demo of the non-MQA files by playing them back with the inappropriate MQA filters? 

[firedog]

8 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

Chris, of course I wasn't at the recording as these were Peter's files as I mentioned earlier.  It's a simple and obvious A/B comparison.  The MQA file was clearly superior across the board.  The quick dismissal and ridicule of any subjective test that dares to find benefit in MQA shows the inherent bias against the format on this board.

 

What I will do soon is get my own recordings encoded and then I will report what I hear on the raw vs. encoded file with knowledge of the live event.

 

By the way, the accuracy comment is taken out of context by you.  I was specifically responding to the idea that there was an increase in phase distortion suggested by Shardone.  In fact, the timing accuracy was better in the MQA file.  You hear that manifest in transients and overall clarity.

 

And I ask again:

And as in all MQA "demos" you are probably told beforehand which recording is which, and which one sounds better. No chance for bias creeping in there....

And btw, the Mytek DAC plays back all PCM material with MQA filters once MQA is activated, unless you manually go in and switch the filtering each time. So did you do that, or did you cripple the demo of the non-MQA files by playing them back with the inappropriate MQA filters?  And if you manually switched, was it a "blind" switch, or were you aware of it?
 

Sounds like you conducted a classic biased test, which is a "simple and obvious A/B comparison" of no value as it is inherently and fatally flawed. 

 

The only objective comparison test we know of so far of MQA is the McGill study, which concluded listeners couldn't differentiate between MQA and non-MQA files. And yes, I know there are problems with the McGill test methodology, but it is a much more convincing body of data than all the anecdotal MQA "demos" designed so that the listener concludes MQA sounds better. 

 

The "quick dismissal and ridicule" of tests such as those at MQA demos is totally legitimate.  Your refusal to acknowledge that shows your inherent bias and lack of objectivity, not that of posters here. 

[firedog]

40 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

I think what you are missing here is how MQA is trying to create an ecosystem of players in hirez.  The premium allows the systemn to work by creating financial incentives to do it.  The filters add improvements to sound meant to entice some portion of music consumers. The authentication provides a way to make sure everyone is doing a good job.  The hardware insignia provides an incentive to bring in hardware manufacturers and to sell more things like DACs.

 

In the end of it all, we wind up with more hirez files to play.

 

No, we end up with more MQA files to play. Altered hi-res, altered by a secret process that doesn't ask me if that's the sound I want. 
 

 The improvements to sound are dubious at best, backed up only by sighted and flawed demos.  The only objective test of MQA so far (McGill) showed no improvement was discernible.
The authentication is fake, as we already know any record company flunky who is authorized to do so can authenticate - it has nothing to do with the artists involved in the original creation in most cases.  And the files can be altered and still "authenticate" at the DAC.
MQA is not trying to create an ecosystem of players in hi-res. We already have that, and there is nothing preventing the labels from releasing more hi-res that isn't MQA. The real goal is not an ecosystem of players, but a closed ecosystem of oligopoly profits that can't be raked in without market manipulation and control.

38 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

And yet, many more mastering engineers were given these demos and found value in MQA.  So it's one opinion out of many on MQA.  Also, the labels have all tested very thoroughly the MQA process and have certified it is legit

You have no basis for this statement. Have you done a well planned survey of mastering engineers on the topic? Are you aware of the many people in the industry who have told Chris they don't like MQA but can't speak up for all sorts of reasons?

And "all" the labels haven't tested and found it legit. Another distortion by you.

And the big labels? Wow, I really think they have SQ issues at the top of their list of concerns - NOT. They couldn't give a whit. Who do you think is responsible for and perpetuates the "loudness wars"? If MQA clearly sounded like shit and they somehow thought it would make them money, they'd line up to market it and tell us how great it is. There are many examples of this in audio history. Remember "flexi-disc" LP's? Just sayin'. 

 

And for the third time, you still refuse to respond how your listening demos with Wilson were done: Did Wilson  tell you which tracks were MQA and which not? Did you know that the Mytek DAC plays PCM back only with MQA filters once an MQA track is played - unless you manually switch it back (which also tells you which type of track is being played)? Let's face it: your demo in all likelihood was a flawed demonstration designed to bring out expectation bias in favor of MQA tracks.

The simple truth is that the benefits of MQA are at best small, and at worst it is detrimental. There's no obvious across the board increase in SQ - and we know that because many listeners don't hear it. If it was so fantastic, everyone would notice the improvements, and they don't. MQA provides zero benefits that we can't achieve without it and  it's closed, monopolistic format. 

[firedog]

11 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Chris, what claims did you find could not be supported?

Basically, everything they say about their product is, and this is being generous, PR speak that has a limited connection to the actual truth.

[firedog]

9 hours ago, ARQuint said:

Who can blame the MQA faction if, after reading the Vaporware thread for the past nine months, they decided to attend your seminar, take a similar slash-and-burn posture, and rudely shout you down?

Doesn't fly. Those people at the seminar were executives at MQA and other industry leaders, in a face to face presentation with Chris. They weren't posters on an internet forum (where all you have to do is put a poster on your ignore list and you don't see his/her posts). 

 

So the situation in not comparable. 

 

Plus those people at the seminar were simply rude, unprofessional, and didn't actually try to refute any of Chris' points - they just made ad hominem attacks and screamed about how Archi's claims couldn't be correct b/c they didn't know his identity. 

[firedog]

4 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

I don't think this is a fair characterization of Stereophile's efforts on MQA.  Stereophile has done some excellent investigative work through Jim Austin's articles and John in my view has been quite open-minded on the negative aspects of MQA to the point of publishing an As We See It detailing some concerns.

But they continually quote MQA people like Bob Stuart and accept his statements as fact. Even when some of them have been proven to be at best exaggerations and obfuscations of the truth. "Investigative work" means being skeptical even of Bob Stuart, and not just Archimago.

[firedog]

1 hour ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Doesn't this prove MQA works?  Bob is saying his test proves no difference in the files.  So MQA compressed a file and Carver finds no sound quality loss?  Isn't that demonstrating the value of MQA?

 

It is truly amazing how your endless fanboy approach to MQA blinds you even to simple reading comprehension.
 

You and others have claimed that MQA sounds better than hi-res and better than Redbook (for Redbook, just unfolded, without an MQA DAC).

 

Bob Carver is proving you incorrect. It is proving that MQA adds nothing audible, in spite of your claims resulting from sighted, prejudiced evaluations. 

So it adds nothing of benefit for the consumer. Tell me again why we need a closed, proprietary system that needs specialized HW, and is built with the potential for DRM (and please don't respond by saying it has no copy protection, that is irrelevant). 

[firedog]

7 hours ago, semente said:

Are people still buying music, or have most resorted to streaming?

And if so, what is the point of DRM?

A system like MQA can be setup to do various DRM functions even over streaming: e.g., regional restrictions, downgraded playback quality if you don't have an MQA approved DAC, etc., etc. 
I also buy music from artists I like so they will be properly compensated. The record labels have used the new format of streaming to dictate miniscule royalties to artists. 

[firedog]

4 hours ago, mav52 said:

 

I buy music each week.  CD's, SACD's and LP's.  Why not.  I own it not rent it.

 

I still buy. I control the tagging that way, I still claim some of my bought files sound better than the streamed ones, and I don't worry that the label won't end the streaming rights to the music (which has happened to me for a few albums). 

[firedog]

1 hour ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

McGill does good work but the problem with DBTs is often you test the audience' critical listening skills more than you do the actual sound difference.  I'm pretty confident in the subjective value of deblurring based on the material differences I heard on Peter's recordings.  The acoustical recordings are often the best way to hear sonic differences.

Again, you trust the sighted comparisons setup to induce expectation bias in favor of MQA versus an objective test. And again, you ignore the claims by you and MQA about how MQA is a superior sounding format - which except for those in sighted evaluations - isn’t apparent to listeners. 

You’ve been asked multiple times here to answer direct, specific questions about how you and Peter conducted your listening “test” - and you repeatedly ignore those questions. So the answer must be pretty clear- you and Peter conducted a biased test, using a DAC which employs MQA filters is such a way as to make almost any test using it invalid. 

[firedog]

12 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Here’s the music distribution patent. 

 

https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2014125285&tab=PCTBIBLIO&office=&prevFilter=&sortOption=Pub+Date+Desc&queryString=FP%3A(Stuart+Craven)&recNum=14&maxRec=52

That technically is a Meridian patent. Hasn’t MQA claimed that they didn’t deploy this techology (yet)?

[firedog]

10 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Again, this is a mischaracterization of Stereophile's view.  They have raised concerns.

They haven't raised concerns about how it sounds or done proper comparisons. Just relied on sighted improperly setup demos. 

[firedog]

8 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

that could create momentum among some for better quality 16/44 files that people would pay extra for..

What are you talking about? MQA has zero advantage for 16/44 files. 
And as we see with Tidal, the real consumer demand (shown by willingness to pay) is close to zero when compared with the numbers willing to pay for 320mp3.

[firedog]

8 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

That creates more money for the labels and services and also a path to solve the serious problem of needing to provide more $ to the artists.

And what makes you think the labels have any intention of more money going to the artists? So far they've only used streaming platforms as a way of taking almost all the money involved for themselves. Why should this change with MQA as opposed to any other platform streaming CD quality today?