MQA The Truth lies Somewhere in the Middle

[esldude]

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).  

[esldude]

So what was in the emails?  Lee or Chris?

 

Archimago is easily contacted as stated it is a pseudonym, not a hidden identity. 

 

These mysterious, but closely held emails don't sound like transparency.  What suddenly enlightening info do they hold, and why not put it out there?

[esldude]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

There was never "important information" sent to me. I was all debunked. If I had included this "important information" it would have looked like I was attacking MQA and trying to take them down. Honestly, I would have had to include both sides of that story. Bob's claims and the rest of the world's engineers debunking it. Imagine how biased they would have thought the presentation was after that. 

No one is more biased than the MQA cadre at your presentation.  Them thinking bias is limited very precisely.  If it isn't pro-MQA it is biased.  So that shouldn't have been a consideration to you.  

 

You would have been distributing truth.  Bob vs debunking world.  Bamboozle driven greed vs truth.  You were always going to be considered biased by the MQA people.  You should have let the truth fly, and let them deal with it. 

[esldude]

20 minutes ago, crenca said:

snippage...

I noticed you have yet to condemn those who shouted down a pro consumer viewpoint...

My impression of the MQA cadre when mentions of consumers, pro consumer view etc. was a total lack of reaction.  As if hearing the word "THE" in a sentence.  It was a placeholder of no meaning to them.  Consumers I bet are irrelevant to MQA.  They believe consumers via the label control of rights to music are a captive audience.  That they will reliably buy music in whatever form is put in front of them.  And therefore become a non-concern in the issue.  

 

The only concern is not to get negative press about MQA on the off chance it hurts selling it to record labels.  Record labels like the DRM like effects while being able to market superior sound, authentic sound etc without mentioning DRM.  MQA has no genuine concern in regard to consumers.  They are sheep to be taken as a given.  

[esldude]

16 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Hi Jud,

No,  not in the US - the UK. Since i used the internet for US law - i do not know whether we are stricter - but the UK ASA has reprimanded hifi retailers/sellers for false claims etc.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

That proves Jud's point.  I cannot imagine such a reprimand happening in the US market for hifi. 

[esldude]

3 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

The monolithic thinking about MQA being evil has united this place against anyone pointing out the positive aspects of MQA.

And those are what?

 

[esldude]

51 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

I suppose it is a rather foreign concept to you, but some people actually value an open discussion.  Too bad those who don't value honest inquiry need to shut such a thing down, Taliban style.

 

Chris is probably too close to see it right now, but really you clowns have inadvertently done him and CA a tremendous service by providing the perfect caricature of the evil corporate villains and a compelling counter-example of how to behave.  You create your own demise, not his.

 

The fact is very few people would have given MQA a second thought, one way or the other, were it not for your completely over-the-top intolerance and hysterics. No one would have been talking about Chris's presentation had he succeeded in charting the middle ground, resulting in a local love-fest.  

So right you are.  On other forums I've seen several people who watched the video, said they really had given no thought one way or the other to MQA, but now they are very unfavourable toward it just from the actions of MQA people in Chris' video. 

[esldude]

1 minute ago, Hugo9000 said:

Premium?  You can get it in that cheap-ass Meridian Explorer 2 for $200.  ?

The Premium isn't the equipment.  The extra Premium is to have Tidal light up MQA or some other service where you pay extra for MQA files.  You'll provide a little monthly income every month for MQA that way.  They'll probably give away Explorer's if you agreed to a two year contract with MQA enabled streaming. 

[esldude]

16 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

MQA has built time filters for most studio ADCs.  That took a while.  They now have an algorithm based on that data that can identify the right filter to use.

I'd like to see this tested.  My initial response is hilarious laughter. 

 

But I'd like to see it tested.  You give us a list of ADC's you have an algorithm for which can pick the right filter.  Let some third party provide some recordings using some of those on the list.  Let them go thru some normal processing, mastering and such.  Then see if your algorithm can determine which ADC was used back at the beginning.  This has to be automated if people are doing entire back catalogs.  A good first step.  We need not even consider what filters are chosen we just need to see if you can determine the initial ADCs. 

[esldude]

13 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

In my own studio experience, there is usually only 1 ADC per track and more commonly the same ADC per album.

Oh yes, hilarious laughter was exactly the appropriate response.  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

 

But okay let us just say it is hypothetically typically true.  You have some of the old mix tapes and master tapes (tape being tape or being digital).  Some processing was done maybe sending to outboard analog gear, and coming back in to the same ADC (we know they wouldn't use a different one right?  wink wink).  And you'll be able to determine if no notes were made which ADCs were used.   HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

[esldude]

13 minutes ago, opus101 said:

 

Its been a while since I've been in a studio, though I did for a while work for a console company. I recall that external effects boxes are sometimes used, nowadays seems likely they're going to contain ADCs and DACs. Presumably those converters won't be on MQA's list of studio ADCs?

No presumably from what we've been told by Lee, as he runs bravely away, is sure almost any ADC is on the list.  

[esldude]

2 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Why not? I have published letters very critical of MQA, and have expressed my own criticisms and reservations. However, the author would not be able to hide behind an anonymous handle or a pseudonym. And they would have to fully disclose their professional affiliations.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

You've had a long long time writer who hid behind a fake pen name his whole career.  Tom Gillett I believe it was. Used a pen name of Sam Tellig.  Something most reading your mag didn't know for more than 20 years. 

[esldude]

38 minutes ago, cookiemarenco said:

You guys are pretty funny!  and what gives you the idea I fold my laundry?  LOL 

 

Here's something to piss everyone off... a $12 single.  An credible live performance of I'm on Fire... amazing.  Recorded live, without overdubs to DSD256... Meghan Andrews..  the guitar sound is heaven.

https://bluecoastmusic.com/meghan-andrews/fire-single

 

Or... how about this... Devil Dub....   Reggae dub from 20 years ago remastered for today.

https://bluecoastmusic.com/devil-dub/devil-dub

 

Coupon code

DUB20

for a 20% discount.

 

Enjoy!

and oh... I have no opinion on MQA...  I can't find anyone to actually encode our music to test what it does. 

 

Cookie Marenco

Blue Coast Music

I take they might tell you if you sign an NDA.  

 

You bring to light an excellent point.  They claim to want producers and artists and engineers to get the sound they sign off on.  Yet you can't get encoding to see if you'll sign off on it or not. 

[esldude]

1 minute ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Read postings from earlier today in this thread and enlightenment shall be yours.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

Yes I posted a reply before reading to the end.  Used a pseudonym to do it too!  That way you'll not know I'm a long time subscriber to your publication.  

[esldude]

9 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

..at least Chris's wife did not sell ads for 20 years...which your wife did for Strereophile as you were editor...

I'm not sure I see a problem with this assuming it is true.

[esldude]

25 minutes ago, adamdea said:

 

 

Thanks both- am I right in thinking that in the case of the Beyoncé and Bruno Mars tracks they are just 44.1 recordings which are lazy upsampled by MQA to 24/96?

A total mis-characterization of the MQA process.  They have been de-blurred correcting deficiencies of the original ADC filters, and authenticated to be of better quality.  That such an "improvement" includes adding ultrasonic noise, distortion, and aliasing not present in the original might be surprising, but just ask Bob and we can trust this is better and the way it should be.  Not that asking Bob has gotten us answers about these matters as he sidesteps such questions.  But come on.....who you gonna trust if you can't trust Bob?  He used his real name. (well okay his real name is Robert as Bob is just a nickname, but still his credibility is simply too high to ignore no matter the facts)

 

Or ask Beyonce and Bruno about their feelings when they heard the MQA versions and signed off on it.  I'm sure as big an improvement as it was there are interviews somewhere in which the subject is discussed.  

[esldude]

1 hour ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

What they did was enlist the label staff.  The new innovation was they put the encoder in the cloud so the labels can encode the tracks themselves.

Is this the SoundOnSound article you refer to in the video?

 

https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/mqa-time-domain-accuracy-digital-audio-quality

 

[esldude]

1 hour ago, Lee Scoggins said:

snip...

 

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.

 

snip.....

This is the prototypical description of every advance in digital audio.  Whether we are increasing bit depth, increasing sample rate, swapping out the latest USB cable, changing clocks, DACs ad nauseam.  And of course the ever popular IT WASN"T SUBTLE.

 

Now Lee, you clearly don't mind acting as the MQA spokesman.  Can you tell us why this not subtle difference you hear has not been demo'd.  Heck if I had a great new format that was NOT subtle, I'd never miss an opportunity to play un-encoded versions verses encoded into MQA versions.  So that hundreds and in time thousands of people could go tell everyone about the not subtle difference MQA makes.  Doubly-triply so on something already as well done as Peter McGrath's recordings.  MQA should just pay McGrath $1 million for just demo rights.  Everywhere 3 or more audiophiles show up, play this devastating unsubtle clear cut tremendous demo of how much improved MQA is vs no MQA.  If MQA did this, audiophiles would be lobbying labels to get with the program and get their catalog into MQA.  

 

Oh and we are back to the idea MQA improves upon even tremendously high quality recordings like McGrath's.  If that is the case, then why would any record company keep the originals.  Why they would be well advised to transfer the originals into the superior MQA format and use that for archival purposes.  Assuming we are to believe a lossy format, that is according to you inaudibly lossy, well actually no it is audible an improvement upon the original.  If they gave us the full set of family jewels we'd throw them in the trash because they are inferior to the MQA'd version and the level of inferiority is not SUBTLE.  

[esldude]

11 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Note..the author of this article has since expressed extreme skepticism about Master Quack Audio, and called out BS on "mastering tools" that were promised and never appeared. It is all in the forum.

 

From the author, 2016.

 

"Yes, to receive the full benefit of the MQA system you do need an MQA-equipped D-A converter, which makes demo examples impractical. We did try to persuade them to process a bespoke analogue recording of our own making, so we could then offer readesr examples of a the same material as conventional high-res digits, standard digits and an MQA file (which is still supposed to convey some timing benefits when auditioned on standard D-As)... But they didn't want to do that... "

 

and

 

"However, MQA encode and decode plugins are due by the end of the year, so well revisit this then and will hopefully be able to provide some audio demos."

 

Take a wild  guess if those MQA plugins every actually arrived...

 

https://www.soundonsound.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=52874&hilit=mqa#p502074

 

 

Come on man, I was waiting on Lee's confirmation, then I was going to drop the other shoe.  You didn't give me a chance. 

 

MQA does have this very poor record of delivery things like that don't they.  Hmmmmmm, wonder why that is?  I believe Mark Waldrep never got his MQA files either.  Its only been like 3 or 4 years.  Maybe they should have let him cloud encode a few. 

[esldude]

42 minutes ago, FredericV said:

Coming from an MQA spokesperson, this has zero value and it's off topic. Has the material been peer reviewed by third parties? Why can't research show the same conclusion?

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=19396

 

"Data shows that listeners were not able to significantly discriminate between MQA encoded files and the unprocessed original "

Fake news, fake news!

 

It should read, "Data shows that listeners found it was not subtle to significantly discriminate between MQA encoded files and the uprocessed original".  

[esldude]

42 minutes ago, FredericV said:

Coming from an MQA spokesperson, this has zero value and it's off topic. Has the material been peer reviewed by third parties? Why can't research show the same conclusion?

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=19396

 

"Data shows that listeners were not able to significantly discriminate between MQA encoded files and the unprocessed original "

Fake news, fake news!

 

It should read, "Data shows that listeners found it was not subtle to significantly discriminate between MQA encoded files and the uprocessed original".  

[esldude]

Lee was back and to the left.  Back and to the left.

[esldude]

12 minutes ago, Thuaveta said:

 

Please take into account the far sadder possibility that there might be no insertion, but instead an ideologue, who thinks highly enough of himself that he does not realise his own incompetence but sees himself as a true technical and intellectual match for the likes of Archimago, Barrows, Mans and Miska (to name a few).

No Lee's job is to sing mqa praise and have the excuse to ignore technical questions as being unqualified to answer.  That's not by accident. Then of course those who could answer never do.  They have no intention of response.

[esldude]

Yeah, who seems like they are hiding something important ? 

 

Someone posting under a pseudonym, while putting all the details of their testing so lots of people could try it for themselves to concur or disprove.  

 

Or a company, looking to be the default method of distribution (that is the entire reason for MQA's existence according to MQA) which sidesteps any details of what is going on and only lets people see what is really happening if you sign a restrictive NDA.

 

It was really cute to ask if Archimago was a competitor.  Yeah, that is right Archimago started a blog at least 6 years ago.  Has managed not to be uncovered as a competitor the whole time, and was planning on doing in MQA since before it was conceived.  He covered his tracks by having wide ranging blogs on all sorts of audiophile topics just to lay in wait to take out MQA.

 

We need to forget about his identity and get a hold of his crystal ball.  That or he is from the future.  

 

I suspect they feared his blogs because they catch MQA out, do so simply in a way lots of not highly technical people can easily understand and therefore are a threat.  The more technical detailed look into it by Frederic V, mansr, Miska and a couple others I'm forgetting is probably above the level most people want to delve into it and less of a threat to the mainstream of potential customers.  

[esldude]

25 minutes ago, Magnaryder said:

A little late to the party but some info from a guy who has the chops to make an informed opinion

 

 https://www.bobcarvercorp.com/resources

 

go to white pages section and find the "truth about MQA"

 

ray

I wonder where he got the information that early provided samples to reviewers had cross-talk cancellation in them?  That would be a rigged comparison. 

 

MQA ..............the more you know, the less of their claims you can believe.