MQA The Truth lies Somewhere in the Middle

[Archimago]

Hey @The Computer Audiophile, hope there will be a Live Stream of your talk/discussion on YouTube like last year's Danny Kaey talk. I'm sure this will draw a good amount of interest online...

 

I'll certainly try to watch live if I can.

 

Considering the fact that this is the last presentation of RMAF 2018 and IMO perhaps even the last we might actually have an event dedicated to MQA discussions (I know, the fat lady hasn't quite sung yet), it really could be quite special and worth recording live - "raw" for posterity.

 

The MQA episode and its response marks an interesting opportunity for audiophiles to think about the hobby. Perhaps even more importantly, the role that audiophiles themselves play in shaping this pursuit in the 21st Century and the position of some traditional (and non-traditional) audiophile magazines in portraying and "selling" the "format". Where is truth to be found when so much of what is written is subjective with no evidence or even common sense much of the time? What roles are these magazines/sites supposed to play in advocating for consumers? And what of "objective-looking" graphs and figures presented by MQA in their press material that is then regurgitated to the public without apparent critical consideration by said press (they IMO should have known better if they are to be seen as journalists)?

 

Obviously you might not wander into these big and controversial topics that might get some folks in the Industry a little warm under the collar. But I believe these questions are important to consider if we desire honest discussion and a healthy hobby.

 

Anyhow, I hope you have a great session and have lots of fun with any debate that might erupt. I'm sure you'll keep it together nicely. Not expecting any news of the riot squad being called in Denver this weekend to break up a middle-age+ male geek squabble... But ya never know ?.

 

Cheers... And a happy Canadian Thanksgiving.

 

[Archimago]

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

There is a middle ground in everything where there are two sides. Extremists on the ends and somewhere between them is the middle ground. Middle ground shouldn't be confused with the dead center or as our President has said, "I'm sure there are good people on both sides."

 

The truth is not 100% of what has been said By MQA Ltd and the truth is not 100% of what has been said by those who hate MQA.  

 

Please don't think this title means I will try to persuade haters to like MQA and MQA to like the haters and have a big happy hug in the middle where we all decide MQA is benign and consumers can buy it if they wish. That's not my intention.

 

Agree Chris,

I'm totally fine with the title and I expect nothing less than balance from you. The fun stuff is what happens in the session!

 

Clearly, as in many things in life, balance does not mean 50:50. And some things are more true than others...

[Archimago]

3 hours ago, mansr said:

...

With MQA, every conceivable technical assessment finds it lacking compared to alternatives. The only thing it does uniquely is produce an "end to end" flow of cash into Stuart's pockets. All the alleged benefits to others are either false ("time domain" nonsense, etc.) or can be achieved more efficiently using royalty-free methods. Again, seeing the truth for what it is cannot be considered extremist.

 

If MQA actually delivered on even one of its claims, things would be different. Then it would be possible to consider a trade-off. As it stands, there is no trade in adopting MQA, only off.

 

This obviously correct from the perspective of what is factual.

 

I think the only "balance" to consider has actually nothing to do with the veracity of technical claims... It's about listening to the desires of the rights holders who champion this "format", and understanding the intent of the magazines and writers who likewise uncritically promote.

 

As a consumer, I'm more interested in what is good for the consumer and is there a "balance" that as a hobby should be struck? Clearly, from my perspective, MQA is overwhelmingly bad for consumers. But what are the desires of the Industry and at what point does advertising become so false that consumers have to literally dissociate their faith from traditional sources of (dis)information?

 

Don't know if Chris will enter into this much larger debate brought on by MQA. But it's what I'm most interested in these days which IMO is the twilight of this poorly conceived file "format".

[Archimago]

4 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

My goal is to stay out of the deeply technical weeds. I will touch on some of the stuff such as 18 bits, file sizes, etc... but will mostly look at this from a consumer perspective. Consumers are the audience at the show and the reason for the industry. I will talk to them and provide information they can use. 

 

Sounds good Chris... From a "pro" vs. "con" technical perspective, there really would not have been much to say on the "pro" side because Stuart and MQA have essentially disengaged from technical discussions for more than a year! No new information or data to address in support of MQA; not even from the McGill listening study which I believe they supported.

[Archimago]

Wow, had to do a double take this AM. Looks like subjective folks including Hans Beekhuyzen is now claiming that "often the linear phase version sounds the best - at least to my ears" (7:47):

 

 

Hmmm, minimum phase Meridian / MQA / Ayre / Pono filters on the way out? Is he about to jump on the Chord linear phase 1M tap filter bandwagon?

 

As the world turns ?.

 

[Archimago]

9 hours ago, FredericV said:

OMG did he had a bad day? He repeats the same sentence "and since ...." at around 05:00 in the video

And what about 88.4 (it should be 88.2) and 176.8 (it's 176.4) ... sorry Hans but do your research better ...



Common  PCM sample rates are all multiples of either 44.1 or 48 Khz.

Now back on topic:

The best filter to my ears is your intermediate phase filter:

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2018/01/musings-more-fun-with-digital-filters.html

I actually put it in our own product and gave it away as a free software update

http://432evo.be/sqi

I also put in the MQA alike filter with one cycle of post-ringing which you can find in my signature here at CA, but it can't beat the intermediate phase filter. The MQA alike filter just kills the decay of instruments. No thanks. Nice with EDM as it makes the kick very tight, but it ruins voices. The decay and post-echo in voices is reduced by MQA alike filters. It does not sound organic.
...
 

 

Cool implementation man ?... Will have to give it a listen at some point.

 

8 hours ago, FredericV said:

 

And first he says he likes linear phase the most on dacs with selectable filters, and then he contradicts himself he likes MQA a lot, which does not implement linear phase but a modified minimum phase filter which messes up the frequency domain:

...

 

LOL. I didn't even realize HB dragged out MQA later because I couldn't bear to finish watching it until I read your message.

 

"But even non-MQA files clearly benefit from these MQA filters according to me and some colleagues." (~11:00)

 

Yeesh...

 

Can't wait for his part 2 video on jitter...

[Archimago]

6 hours ago, james45974 said:

what I find interesting is that MQA has become nothing more than an punch line.  Maybe the question should be asked at the forum: "why should MQA be taken serously?"

 

At this point, I think it's just stating the obvious for folks here following along why MQA is so disliked. I know Chris wants to keep the discussions open and "balanced" but the word "controversial" IMO doesn't even really describe the issues here! "Deceit", "fraud", "lies", "deception" are perhaps more apt, but since many of us are more gentlemanly, we might not use these words as freely.

 

Having said this, I do believe this talk will be important as a document of record that is more likely to bookend the latter days of MQA than the "birth of a new world". And I think Chris will do a great job as someone who has been open with allowing the community to express the major concerns while listening to the "pro" side since Chris did also publish a Q&A with Bob Stuart in the early years.

 

For the general audience that might not know of CA or these threads, I think there are some issues that can be brought out in this "presentation of record" which I hope will eventually end up on YouTube for all to see whether broadcast live or not on Sunday...

 

1. A discussion that MQA is clearly not "lossless". Lossless codecs recover exactly the same signal/data that was entered into the system. A 24/192 WAV/FLAC/AIFF/WV/APE, etc. sent to MQA for encoding is not recovered as the exact 24/192 signal on the other end. MQA must "square" with this fact... The fact that at the start they called it "lossless" and they used the word "exact" when advertising this to audiophiles. IMO this is dishonest and while we can try to be "fair" and "balanced", in my books, that already inevitably brings into question the values of MQA as a company and their agents.

 

2. Where are the technical merits for MQA?

     a. Is the first "unfolding" with a lossy technique supposed to be beneficial? (Remember, this covers the 22/24-->44/48kHz spectrum.)

     b. How does the system impact even the most significant 16 bits of the audio data? Is it still "high res" if even a full 16 bits of the original audio data can be "molested"?

     c. Are these "leaky" filters (extracted with Mans' reverse engineering and thanks to the Audioquest Dragonfly) beneficial? Where is the evidence? With kind of research did they use to derive this?

     d. In concert with (b), can the "pro" side provide evidence that there are time-domain benefits? With what evidence did MQA promote to audiophile magazines that MQA was "better than high-res" (as per TAS) - generally said to be because of this time-domain benefit?

     e. How can MQA-CD be justified? Only 16/44.1 to work with! What is the definition of "high resolution", again? (Just like what is their definition of "lossless"?)

 

3. Beyond technical arguments, definitions, and "truth". What was the point, honestly?

     a. Was it data compression for streaming? We can handily already say that lossless techniques like 18/96 FLAC already can do what MQA does in bitrate with >16-bit resolution and no need for "leaky"/imaging/"aliasing" filters. We also know that other companies already can demonstrate lossless 24/96+ streaming (eg. Qobuz). So in 2018, will MQA concede that their compression is not needed (even if it were technically decent)?

     b. Was the real purpose the protection of "studio master" assets all along? Maybe the companies just didn't want their full 24-bit/96+ masters out in the wild anymore so they needed people to believe that a 24/48 (or 44) MQA file was just as good - for now of course, until the next remaster from the true "crown jewels" and the sonic mystique of these said "jewels" further revealed ad infinitum with each remaster.

     c. Was it for some kind of weak DRM with the crypto signatures which we know don't even really work to "authenticate" the lossy ultrasonic portions?

 

I'm sure you guys can think of more... I do hope that a representative for MQA is on hand to answer for some of these rather straightforward questions/issues even if a bit uncomfortable as they may arise!

 

3 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

What would "The Death of MQA" MEAN, other than an opportunity for a few audiophiles to dance on its grave?

 

Some things deserve to be terminated because they were not conceived with truth and honesty in mind. I think there is cause for celebration sometimes. To see the end of MQA is a "win" and a vote from the audiophile community that "you can't fool everyone all the time"... And that maybe audiophiles are not all audiophools who can be taken for a ride no matter how good the propaganda and perceived power of the "official" audiophile press. There are in fact facts that must be taken into consideration no matter what some "respected", or "golden eared" individual or elder statesman (ie. Bob Stuart) says.

 

It "MEANS" companies like MQA should be developing worthwhile technology and not depend on their advertising departments to deliver questionable expectations to participants in the hobby and be rewarded. It means that a company cannot hold a fancy party at The Shard and think that satisfying those invited (presumably power brokers and influential journalists) will achieve much.

 

It also means that mouth pieces (eg. certain cheerleaders, shills, online sites strongly influenced by the Industry, and the "mainstream" audiophile magazines) are weak. Not just to audiophiles at large but also to the Industry they serve. It's a wake-up call... Time to act like actual journalists. Time to discern truth not by repeating or offering mere opinion. Time to serve the hobbyists by providing education, and insightful critical thought. Look at the comments people leave on web sites like TAS when they post a review... It means it's time to rekindle respect.

 

[Archimago]

46 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

One of the first things I did after conceiving the idea for this seminar was to invite Ken Forsythe from MQA to attend.   I have nothing to hide and am not out to take down MQA. I’m out to provide information. However painful that may be to some on all sides.

 

After all, if you have cancer you want the doc to tell you the truth so you can make an informed decision on whether or not you want to live with it or fight it. 

 

Cool. Hope Mr. Forsythe agrees to attend. Even better if he brings some information to present that might help us understand what we might be missing with this "elegant" codec.

 

[Archimago]

Yeah...

 

Whatever the hell MQA is doing in the time domain, it doesn't seem to work and should be taken as such until they prove something of value!

 

Where's Bob Stuart when we really need him?! ?

 

[Archimago]

7 minutes ago, PorkChop said:

They were so rude to you with the interrupting!  The audience shouldn't have live mics and be able to do that.

 

Agree.

 

Classic example of the way this operates. Never deal with the facts. Not once did they acknowledge that the FFT shows something is wrong. No explanation for the crypto. Just attack the guy.

 

Looks like Chris didn't get to see the chat on YouTube. Christoph was there as well.

 

 

[Archimago]

28 minutes ago, Don Blas De Lezo said:

I think I might know who Archimago really is ....... he is Banksy !   

 

Joking aside though ,  the behavior of the MQA guys made me dislike/distrust MQA more than I already do.

 

LOL. I wish I had 1/1000th the artistic skills of that dude.

 

Seriously, does it matter who I am? Chris brought out Mans' name as well who actually reverse-engineered the MQA "rendering" system and they didn't get all heated about this! A simple FFT showing the frequency anomaly is the easiest thing to capture and as Chris said, it was actually first brought out by others on Youtube. Fascinating how they made this into some kind of controversy!

 

Disgusting example from the MQA folks of how not to debate rationally and the frank inability of MQA to deal with fact. Whether it's "attacking the man" or bringing up Bob and referring to whatever statement he made as having truth... Would have been fun to see Ken Forsythe / Mike Jbara get up there and present why they think MQA improves time-domain performance, could be defined as "lossless", doesn't restrict bit-depth, how it's "better than hi-res", and tell us why crypto was embedded into MQA.

 

Take heart Chris. I think the presentation came off as a desire to discuss facts, but was shouted down by bullies...

[Archimago]

53 minutes ago, barrows said:

While I agree with this sentiment, and I certainly oppose MQA generally, boycotting of manufacturers which do allow for MQA functionality will not achieve the result you desire and most certainly will damage manufacturers who are trying very hard to produce the best possible products.

Please understand the pressure which customers are exerting on manufacturers: there are a lot of customers out there who will not purchase a new DAC if it does not support MQA.  Many manufacturers are anti MQA themselves, believe me, at the same time, very few, if any, manufacturers can afford to offend even a single potential customer and there are many, many (albeit less well informed than us) customers out there who are buying products and demanding MQA.  Many of these manufacturers, even making excellent products offering good performance and value, are hanging on to economic validity by a thread.  As long as a manufacturer allows for the MQA filter to be defeated, there is no disadvantage to them including MQA compatibility.

 

To oppose MQA, demand genuine, non-MQA, non compressed, high resolution, content from the content providers.  That is where  the real battle lies, as if MQA gains a strong hold with content providers, it may well do so at the exclusion of being able to purchase un-adulterated high resolution of our favorite musics.  Whether it be download, disc, or streamed, demand non MQA content.

 

Although I think @barrows and I would very much have disagreements in many ways ?, I agree with what he's saying. The hope as audiophiles desiring the "best possible" music for our enjoyment is to maintain the availability of lossless high-resolution and that one cannot beat that "studio master". MQA's propaganda to assert themselves as "exact" or "lossless" or "better" is the problem. Especially when they create this impression and expect to be further financially rewarded along the way.

 

I certainly hope folks would not shun good hardware simply because of MQA compatibility, just as they should not avoid MP3 compatibility advertised on a box. I know for a fact that some companies are incorporating MQA compatibility out of that perception of consumer pressure to tick off all the boxes. But the engineers behind the scenes are far from impressed by the "technology" itself. Remember that there are NDAs signed and many who are able to speak about MQA are not at liberty to divulge their opinions.

 

[Archimago]

27 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

 

....in fact, the savage, as i have been proudly dubbed, will re-double his efforts to destroy MQA's credibility with the facts at hand..because that is all you need. Clearly the company employs low lifes who have no use for the truth and can't prove their "product" has any value what so ever with actual facts.

 

 

LOL. Love the spirit, man!

 

IT'S ON!!!

[Archimago]

Just now, Derek Hughes said:

So Chris, here’s where your site fails on this subject. Brinkman Ship says I should be ashamed and I know that if I engaged in a debate with him or others I would receive a shit storm. 

 

Shit storm? Not necessarily, Derek. In which way and at what point do you think Chris characterised MQA in an unfair way?

[Archimago]

1 minute ago, austinpop said:

 

Glad you liked the Constellation/Rockport room. And great to meet you, @barrows

 

I was thinking of posting a day 3 report, but it looks like this has now become an MQA thread.

 

A 3-day report sounds interesting @austinpop. Certainly deserves its own thread if not a front page article with pictures!

[Archimago]

23 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

 

I don't normally disagree with Archimago but I will here.  MP3, AAC and the like are not the equivalent in the market for several reasons.  Manufacturers of DAC's are unfortunately in a bad position in that they are being leveraged by others in "the industry" into helping position MQA.  As a consumer, MQA is so bad for my interests and niche Audiophiledom as a whole, they can not be left off the hook as  innocent "victims" of market forces.  Don't get me wrong, I really believe they are "innocent", but they are casualties so to speak.  Don't blame consumers for rightly eschewing otherwise good products which happen to include the really bad "feature" of MQA.  

 

If other parts of "the industry" has leveraged you into signing an NDA and including functionality you know is garbage and bad for the consumer, well then that is on you - own it.  If you go out of business because of MQA, or in spite of it, well that is the dog-eat-dog of world of business and consumers have no obligation (moral or practical) to support you either way.

 

Consumers self interests and moral obligation is to a marketplace that supports their interests and needs and MQA is decidedly against that... 

 

I certainly can appreciate that sentiment Crenca. There is something to be said about being part of the collateral damage by "virtue" of association.

 

31 minutes ago, Hugo9000 said:

The marketing person at MQA has a degree in criminology lol

 

 

Color me unsurprised... 

[Archimago]

4 hours ago, Sonicularity said:

Archimago should have sat next to Chris in a Daft Punk outfit to remain anonymous.

 

LOL. Maybe next year at the new date and venue... That would be really cool. ?

 

Would be surprised if anyone cares about MQA by then though.

 

Curious for the people at RMAF, was there much interest in the MQA Live event. Obviously they're looking for niches to claw back some revenue like the patently ridiculous MQA-CD and now this "MQA Live". I see Audio Bacon put up a video of the event in the Revel/Levinson room.

[Archimago]

13 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

Sooo....I had an interesting evening.  I bought a pair of Wilson Audio Alexia 2 speakers about four months back.  Today Peter McGrath came by and we meticulously set them up and the sound quality rose dramatically.  This took around four hours.

 

Where it gets real interesting, is that Peter is a world-renowned recording engineer who makes some of the finest classical recordings.  He had some new tracks that had been encoded in MQA by either Spencer Chrislu or Bob Stuart himself.  I had a Mytek Brooklyn+ DAC in for review and we brought that into the listening room and ran USB to a Berkeley Alpha USB to convert to SPDIF.  We ran the SPDIF into the SPDIF 1 input on the Mytek.  Peter just got a new 15" macbook pro and connected a Lacie hard drive with his music files and we were off to the races.

 

We listened to orchestral works, choral works, and string ensembles.  Peter's recordings are really excellent without the MQA encoding but the MQA encoding made a pretty noticeable difference.  With the MQA encoding, the sound of the room became much more clear.  There was more fullness in the mids and bass and transients seemed more lifelike.  It seemed like the soundstage got both wider and deeper.  It wasn't subtle.  The MQA files sounded much better and more natural like live music in a real space.

 

Peter's view on MQA was not going to save a bad recording but that it made his good recordings great.

 

That's nice @Lee Scoggins. I recall Mr. McGrath has demo'ed his recordings over the years with MQA - each time supposedly to good effect at least as written of by the media.

 

So when can the hoi polloi get hold of these? (Ideally as standard hi-res and presumably 24/48 MQA.)

[Archimago]

18 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

I think release of the recordings is up to Peter.  You have to ask him about that.

 

Unbelievable!

 

You're a journalist, right? How can you not ask the most basic of questions knowing that that's what the readership would want to know when sharing this information among music lovers?

 

If McGrath has a great new recording of a favourite piece, that's fantastic and worth celebrating. Hopefully it'll be released at some point.

 

What composer, conductor and orchestra?

[Archimago]

Some thoughts...

 

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2018/10/musings-on-rmaf-2018-mqa-talk.html

 

I don't think I have much more to say for awhile...

 

[Archimago]

6 hours ago, mansr said:

He isn't even the one they should be going after.

 

Probably best not to give them too many ideas, Mans ?...