MQA: Benefits and Costs

Enough has been said by now about the technical details of how Master Quality Authenticated (MQA) works to fill several books. But the technical details are only part of the story, and probably not the most interesting part—and they're certainly not what provokes the extreme emotional responses of many to the format. So let's jump into the business and practical aspects of MQA to which so many audiophiles are reacting.

From the point of view of MQA Ltd., what might success look like?

"Success" would be achieved when MQA is used to master most, if not all, new releases and back catalog of recorded music for streaming, downloading, or other uses. The higher the percentage of recordings mastered and released MQA encoded, the better. Nor must MQA be restricted to recordings of music—all sound recordings, including podcasts and, eventually, audio accompanying all forms of video, would be likely targets. Low-resolution and multichannel versions of MQA are probably already waiting in the wings.

More recordings released in MQA means more money in licensing fees for MQA Ltd. And somewhere is the tipping point, when enough recordings have been released only in MQA and it becomes the de facto standard. Then, as other formats such as FLAC and WAV slip away, MQA's hegemony snowballs. When Spotify and Apple Music come aboard, game over.

How can MQA accomplish this?

To entice music stakeholders, MQA offers the record industry significant benefits. First, its clever lossy compression scheme reduces bandwidth overhead, which translates to lower costs to store and distribute files. Second, MQA combines multiple resolution payloads into a single package, thus reducing the need for multiple inventories—master once and off you go. And to seal the deal, a third and final benefit: Since the MQA file is a lossily compressed version of the actual master recording (albeit a very clever one employing crippleware, footnote 1), and not an exact reproduction of the master recording stored in the record label's vaults, no more releasing the family jewels straight to the public. Take that, pirates!

Once securely in place in the industry, MQA would be very difficult to dislodge, and its very dominance would deter the development of newer, possibly better formats—or even discourage the retaining of such current alternatives as WAV, FLAC, etc., as viable choices in the marketplace.

418awsi.2.jpg

What does all of this look like from the consumer's point of view? In a nutshell, allegedly better-sounding music in a reasonably small stream or file. But here the benefit gets tricky, depending on what type of consumer you are. MQA realizes this, and has added a spoonful of sugar to help the compression medicine go down.

If you're an audiophile who dislikes anything that smells of compression, MQA has added a "deblurring" feature. At the same time, they've sincerely done what I consider a good job of creating a compression scheme that looks transparent on paper, even at the high resolutions where audiophiles dwell.

There's one problem: We have no way of separating MQA's deblurring sweetener from its compression medicine, and thus no way to critically listen to and test each process in isolation from the other. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could hear and test each process under ideal conditions to assess what, if any, effect each has on the signal, and thus verify or refute the claims made for MQA?

Of course, that would open up a nightmare scenario for MQA Ltd.: audiophiles deciding that the deblurring is good and the compression is bad. We would then demand that the compression scheme be scrapped, and that deblurring be offered as a feature somehow attached to noncompressed files.

Gone, then, would be the benefits to record labels and streaming companies, and it would actually require even a new inventory SKU: MQA Deblurred, or something like that. MQA's crippleware aspect—partial resolution with non–MQA-licensed playback, full resolution with MQA-licensed playback—would also go out the window.

So MQA will bind compression to deblurring tighter than white on rice, and make it tough to objectively or subjectively evaluate the compression scheme. This makes the job of the rational reviewer impossible: If, in comparing MQA to non-MQA files made from the same master, we hear any differences, we won't know what has caused them. We will be forced to assume that any differences we hear are the results of the synergy between deblurring and compression.

In my book, that's not good enough.

There are two issues here, and with their PR campaign MQA Ltd. has done a great job of focusing our attention on one—sound quality—and not the other: the hazards of a format monopoly. If MQA succeeds, I predict that it will lock in for a decade or two, or even longer. That will mean that all high-resolution files from the major labels during those decades will be formatted in MQA. No alternatives.

Some smaller distributors will undoubtedly continue to offer old-fashioned uncompressed masters for sale in a variety of formats, perhaps even via a boutique non-MQA streaming service. But with the major labels committed to MQA, such efforts will remain at the margins.

Which brings us back to sound quality. A possible format monopoly is all the more reason we should be absolutely sure that MQA is a format whose sound quality we can accept for the long term. But without the ability to even evaluate the format's compression scheme separate from its deblurring component, I don't believe that, over the long term, MQA is in the best interests of audiophiles. I just hope it's not too late.—Jon Iverson



Footnote 1: Two earlier articles on this subject can be found here and here.

COMMENTS
dalethorn's picture

Addendum: After many comparisons with revealing tracks** and swapping DACs with sources etc., I don't find the updated DF Red inferior to my other budget/portable DACs. I think if some users are able to compare a few of these DACs side by side with/without the firmware update, they'd find one of them slightly brighter.

**I highly recommend the David Chesky track Girl From Guatemala (with Wonjung Kim) - at the 3:00 point there's a huge burst of high treble percussion that at least will reveal the limitations of your tweeters. If you could hear this with a Sennheiser HD800 and a good amp, you'd know what is possible. The track "The Waves Of Kilkee" by Rob Ickes (Blue Coast records?) is great for string tone.

allhifi's picture

Hi ds: It's unclear (to me) when you say:

" ...The new sound seems to be richer, even "thicker" in a way - less clarity and instrumental separation to some extent."

I know exactly the 'sound' you reference. If I were to guess, the sound described would be the MQA version?

If so, I'm intrigued that the general tonality (of MQA) remains whether portable DAC's/Headphones or table-top (full-scale) outboard DAC's/Loudspeakers are evaluated. Your SQ descriptions are most apt.
(Then again, if the "thicker" sound was non-MQA, a conundrum unfolds (pun recognized, not intentional).

Could you clarify your listening observations; indicating what DAC was responsible for the SQ described ?

Cheers,

pj

dalethorn's picture

My original impression was based on a particular track, and the "fuller, richer, possibly thicker" sound turned out to vary from track to track, but the differences are subtle for me. I did a lot of comparisons - some with high-res tracks and some 16/44 CD rips. The best I can say at this moment is the differences will vary, for reasons I can't guess because of the track contents and what the DACs are doing. I might have said this already, but what's needed (that I don't have) are identical DACs with and without the MQA firmware. The tests that need to be done first are for non-MQA music tracks played through each DAC. Tracks that are MQA'd are another issue that 100 or so experts should already be reporting on.

allhifi's picture

Hi ds: No offense, but a rigorous scientific evaluation is not what readers are expecting (I don't think -lol).

A general (your general) listening observation(s) should be easy enough to conduct -and report.

Simply state the DAC (and firmware upgrade/or not, and repeat with MQA tracks/music.

Something like this:

A) non MQA DAC (DF-1 'Firware ?) SQ Observations = ?

B) MQA DAC (DF-2 Firware ?) SQ Observations = ?

It should be realized that it's simply an initial impression (or one over the course of a day, week, or longer). What would be interesting would be your SQ observations (as above) as time passes, and whether consistent findings emerge.

Have some fun (and report, of course !),

Cheers,

pj

dalethorn's picture

When I get some time I'll add another chapter to my PDF describing that small experience. But, the entire point of the DAC report is the *non-technical* difference in sound between the before and after, and I can't properly address that point without a second copy of the DAC.

The DAC in question is only $200 USD, MSRP - and assuming I want to spend it to prove the unprovable issue, I might end up with the new DAC already updated with the new firmware.

dalethorn's picture

Oh, and which DAC was the MQA DAC, but because I can't compare before and after the firmware update directly, I'll have to defer judgement.

allhifi's picture

Hi DT: Understood. Looking forward to your evaluations.

Have a great day,

pj

dalethorn's picture

When you get a chance, look up the review of the Radka Toneff MQA album 'Fairytales' on this same page (page 4 on my browser). I bought a supposedly genuine MQA copy from iTunes, and while that might send up a few red flags, I found some very interesting things.

allhifi's picture

Hmmmm. Does that entitle you to Stereophile subscription discounts ?
(RE: "I consider Stereophile to be THE leading publication of audio journalism ....")

"... and especially because they have allowed a great deal of dissent"

(otherwise known as free speech, something the 'others' fail to uphold.)

The (our) basic rights of freedom (speech), quashed by none other than some other self-serving (mostly, if not entirely North American) publications is deeply disturbing.

The tenets of the Land of the Strong & Free should be respectfully practiced at ALL times.
To speak openly and freely is an essential component that must be firmly advocated, encouraged and quite frankly, demanded.

pj

dalethorn's picture

Stereophile is now the smaller and quieter discussion site for MQA. You might try another site to find statements like this one:

"I host the worlds largest anti-MQA threads and pay someone to write a front page article on the same topic and ...."

texanalog's picture

Jon,

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you for expressing the very concerns that other writers in the TEN network seem to have dismissed.

Jason Victor Serinus's picture

Simply because someone, in this case, me, consistently prefers the sound of MQA in products whose MQA implementation is superior does not mean that they've dismissed the concerns raised by Jon Iverson and others. Nor does it mean that Stereophile does not have a lot more to say on the subject, both pro and con. Presenting multiple viewpoints is what a magazine that's responsible to its audiophile readership must do.

For the record, I applaud Jon's AWSI, as well as the decision to publish it. As soon as I read it, I called Jon to thank him. Then again, I also applaud Jim Austin's equally cogent analysis, and the sound that reaches my ears.

miguelito's picture

Jason,

My experience in a post above (I use a Rossini+Clock). I do find that on average decoded MQA sounds better than non-decoded - of course - but it does have 2x more bandwidth requirement so it should.

I am interested in your comparison between high res and the MQA version of the albums, for whatever albums you've listened to.

My experience is that some sound different than their high res counterparts, never better.

dalethorn's picture

I'd interject the thought that since an MQA'd album is a separate mastering (yes?), then we would expect the MQA and non-MQA versions to sound very similar only when the same person does both masters, preferably at the same time, yes? I don't know how anyone would do a comparison when the masterings are separate in time and place, under unknown circumstances.

miguelito's picture

If an MQA album sounds better because it is a separate, newer, better mastering then this has most nothing to do with MQA and more to do with the mastering.

But most albums are not. There are about 8,000 MQA albums on TIDAL. If you had 10 teams encoding these, each team doing 1 album a day, working every day of the work week, you would need 3.1 years to do this job.

Most MQA albums have been encoded in a batch process from the same digital files used elsewhere in the distribution.

allhifi's picture

miguelito: Excellent reply. However when you (or anybody else )ask:

" ...I am interested in your comparison between high res and the MQA version of the albums, for whatever albums you've listened to."

I question the validity of any comparison when we are unaware of the comparator's sound system details -or their ability to both judge and report accurately.

This is more of a general question for all to consider.

For I have, time and time again, decade after decade now, noted that a simple, single cable change can impact SQ so profoundly that I question how anyone can offer meaningful comparisons (whether Red-Book, lower-rez or Hi-Resolution)?

I'd be interested how the Hi-Rez/MQA comparison were (or will be) conducted; Sreaming, NAS, CDP etc. Collectively, perhaps a valid consensus can be established.

Many thanks,

pj

miguelito's picture

I agree of course, except comparing MQA vs non-MQA is less biased by systems since in the comparison nothing else changes (DAC, cables, speakers, room, etc). Obviously you're still comparing what YOUR DAC does with/without MQA. Some DACs (even relatively high end ones) are leaving the MQA filter choice fixed even for standard PCM. That could give MQA an advantage right there.

allhifi's picture

miguelito: So true.

You mention some higher-end DAC's retain the Minimum Phase/Apodizing (MQA) filter for standard PCM?

Which ones ?

Why would any 'seasoned' audiophile accept a time/phase/amplitude impaired reconstruction filter as the standard PCM filter ? Most bizarre.

And why in the world would a DAC manufacture limit the sound quality potential that results?
(It may be a testament to designer/company's SQ ethos, but a highly questionable and limiting belief that's not likely universally shared.)

Very odd.

pj

miguelito's picture

My understanding is both Mytek and Aurender have this bug. They might argue it is complex to code a switching filter, but frankly my Dragonfly Red doesn't have this bug. My dCS Rossini doesn't either - it switches between filters based on the input signal.

allhifi's picture

Hi miguelito: Great to have such digital filter options.

I'd consider the Mytek/Aurender "stuck on MQA filtering" far more than a'bug'; it's something that should be investigated before purchase.
I'd caution anyone not familiar with LP/MP filters to consider a DAC that has at least one of each on offer -or multiple choices of each as is the case for modern DAC chips including the (soon to be?) ubiquitous ESS 9028pro and newer AKM offerings.

Once/if a firm opinion has been established, consideration of a DAC/CDP with a fixed filter may be considered more confidently.

pj

texanalog's picture

Jason, I did not have you in mind.

I should have written (to Jon, of course): Thank you for expressing the very concerns that another writer in the TEN network seems to have dismissed.

T.S. Gnu's picture

Mister Serinus, it is not as much a question of dismissing those concerns but, more a question of why these concerns were not raised earlier by aforementioned writers. Did these concerns not occur to you and your ilk? If they did occur, why were they not raised within these pages before they were raised in other venues?

The enthusiasm conveyed in your effusive writing is very enjoyable, but while you "applaud the sound that reaches your ears," have you eliminated the effects of different mastering, EQ, volume levels before you ascribe the "goodness" of what you hear to MQA itself?

allhifi's picture

T.S.Gnu: Great point:

" ..but, more a question of why these concerns were not raised earlier by aforementioned writers. Did these concerns not occur to you and your ilk? If they did occur, why were they not raised within these pages before they were raised in other venues?"

I'm mot sure where Mr. S. stands in the Stereophile hierarchy, but your question may be best answered my the top-tier dogs that prance around as authorities. But, I STRONGLY suspect those guys had no clue either until some actual experts took wind and responded.

That's likely your real answer (to a great question).

pj

allhifi's picture

Hi JVS: That's wonderful.

Please tell me (us?) if non MQA-molested Master files will remain available for distribution/consumption ? (Find out if you don't know)

Whether you (or I) like/love MQA matters not one iota. The questions remains, simply, whether the original recordings (with its inherently, overwhelmingly numerous flaws -lol- will remain available?

And you know, maybe those that don't care for it (for whatever reason) will come to be the saving grace for the music recording/ playback industry -moving forward.

If it wasn't for the one and only issue of MQA's Master file (encoding/recording) manipulation, I couldn't see such a fervent argument developing. It would simply be another codec; takeit or leave it.

BUT, since it has the real possibility to alter open-source (or redefine/eliminate the common practice of 'open-disclosure') concerns makes the discussion VERY relevant to all involved in the industry -including consumers.

Soooooo, use some of the resources available at Stereophile to ask that one simple question to the recording industry:
"Will non-manipulated Masters (recordings) remain available ?

Let's hope the answer is a resounding (and reassuring) YES.

Once that is answered, the discussion/concern (for many) ends. Mercifully.

pj

boulderskies's picture

Let me see if I have this straight:
1. The author is criticizing a business model & monopoly that may never happen.
2. The responders are criticizing something they've never heard.

Brilliant...

Archimago's picture

Considering MQA has been out for >1 year and there's a free trial of Tidal Hi-Fi available. I think many criticizing MQA *have* heard it and remain skeptical or found it to not have been beneficial on the whole.

boulderskies's picture

1. Less than five of all responders here mentioned actually hearing MQA with MQA gear. Maybe more have but didnt say so (and I'd expect them to if they had). The rest are criticizing based on pure opinion.
2. Yes the author is discussion a possible (the sky is falling the sky is falling) monopoly but who said anything about a monopoly besides the author? Whats being proposed is ANOTHER encoding scheme with distinct benefits all the way down the chain.

So to my way of thinking, the article and the comments are pre-mature.

T.S. Gnu's picture
Quote:

1. Less than five of all responders here mentioned actually hearing MQA with MQA gear. Maybe more have but didnt say so (and I'd expect them to if they had). The rest are criticizing based on pure opinion.

The problem with that statement is that you do not know the proportion of each of the two. Another problem is that some of the respondents are also including comments that include measurable quantities. A third problem is that comments by Lucey clearly stating that his mastered albums were NOT signed off by him are conveniently ignored.

To many other people's way of thinking, the article was long overdue. Refer also to Kal's most recent article on the same.

miguelito's picture

The author is criticizing a business model that has the potential to be all-monopolizing by construction - in fact that is the stated goal!

Meanwhile some other people are talking about the technical merits, many of whom have listened to MQA extensively (like me). A completely different dimension of the problem.

And to summarize my view:
- I disapprove behemently the monopoly aspect
- I find the technical claims disingenuous
- Having listened to it, I find that decoded MQA sounds better than redbook, most of the time, but you are using 2x the bandwidth so it must!
- Compared to high res it is same/different but not better in my experience

So on the whole do I like the improvement compared to redbook sound? Yes.

Do I want MQA to succeed and possibly become a burden on music production? No.

Do I think you could get the same quality with standard PCM? No doubt.

Archimago's picture

Yes. Well put.

allhifi's picture

pj

T.S. Gnu's picture

3. There hasn't been a demonstrated necessity for the thing to exist

Assuming that respondents have not heard the thing they are criticizing is a bit naive at best. It is possible to do both since they are not mutually exclusive. Any differences I have perceived in MQA vs FLAC (yes, heard) have not been attributable to the technology itself because of other confounding variables (mastering, EQ, volume levelling, or substandard filtering).

No brilliance here to be awed by. Just first principles at work.

dalethorn's picture

"Any differences I have perceived in MQA vs FLAC (yes, heard) have not been attributable to the technology itself because of other confounding variables..."

Which is why there hasn't been a demonstrated necessity for the thing not to exist.

allhifi's picture

BS:I don't think you have it 'right'.

1) "...criticizing a business model & monopoly that may never happen."
(Right. Throw a lion a piece of fresh, steaming meat, and hey, it may not devour it. Let's wait, and see. That's brilliant thinking! )
2) If it were a simple codec where one could take it/leave it, I have great doubt such a fervent argument would arise. I know I wouldn't be here/chiming in.
HOWEVER, I'm unaware of any other "codec" that demands access to the original master recording -in order to manipulate/alter it essentially favoring a specific DAC's digital filter implementation (and hence sound quality) -which would be MQA, by the way. A sort of "end-to-end" (complete some would say) manipulation that flatters a particular 'brand' -while others possibly (in fact will) suffer.

Yeh, nice deal. You're right; who should worry, or object ?
Brilliant !

pj

boulderskies's picture

"HOWEVER, I'm unaware of any other "codec" that demands access to the original master recording -in order to manipulate/alter it essentially favoring a specific DAC's digital filter implementation (and hence sound quality) -which would be MQA, by the way. A sort of "end-to-end" (complete some would say) manipulation that flatters a particular 'brand' -while others possibly (in fact will) suffer."

--I dont see what's wrong with this. Isnt the master what we're all after soundwise? Additionally, to me, its not "flattering one dac or another," its being included as firmware in whatever manufacturer's are willing to pay the licensing fee, just like Dolby and Audyssey and a host of other add-on features. What's wrong with that?

I say if a technology and get us closer to the master, bring it on.

allhifi's picture

Hi bs: When you state" "I don't see what's wrong with this", one must more carefully consider (including re-reading the quoted paragraph above) MQA's 'End-to-End' system.

Namely that (according to MQA), an entirely new ADC-recording-master algorithm is injected into a music file (in this case a MP filter) that Mr. Stuart tells us is essential to compliment at the DAC -with (you guessed it) a Minimum Phase/Apodizing digital filter, that if you are unaware, is also the filter type Stuart and company has endorsed with Meridian Audio (a private company) since its inception -and now with MQA.

The problem is (as XiVero.com correctly states), that both the compression and filter choice of MQA distorts the essential Time/Phase /Amplitude structure of the original signal.

In laymen's terms, shittier sound; a softened, more spacious appearing rendition lacking speed, definition/articulation and, well, directness.
(Keep in mind I'm using personal experience with LP and MP/Apodizing filters (mainly with CD replay) and draw no comparisons to the (End-to-End)architecture of full blown MQA -that I've yet to experience.)

But, as I also stated, even if I love MQA, that's no reason to subject other listeners or indeed the entire industry both past and future to the self-serving interests of one company -and its wares, and/or opinions regarding sound quality.

There is much to both fear and concern oneself with MQA's insistence (demand) to alter the critical, original music file for their interests -and absolutely NOBODY else's. That then requires THEIR "special/specific" digital filter profiles in order to get back to a 'bearable' sound that by no means is better (in fact very likely worse) than a standard 24/96-192 file (or perhaps even 16/44).

That dozens of hi-fi company's are alarmed -and post passionate responses- should also be recognized. The MQA 'Backlash' (as I see it now) is also supported by some bright digital (media) minds, including those of XiVero -and others no doubt.

In a nutshell, that is What's Wrong With That.

pj

boulderskies's picture

pj, You've crafted a very eloquent and articulate response, refreshingly free of argumentativeness. One concern I have is your statement that MQA end-to-end will change the master file; I dont believe this to be true. But if it is, then I share that one concern. The other fear I have is for you, that you have created a very effective defense against potentially liking MQA. Again, what if you actually LIKE how it sounds? Can you get past all your carefully constructed pre-conceived notions?

And as for "the market," yes, they seem quite happy with crappy sound. Good for them if it works for them. I'm not happy with it, neither or you but that doesnt translate into rejecting a new technology out of hand... But honestly its all they have in the current form factor that suits so many of their lifestyles. What if there were something better in the same form factor?

These two paragraphs sum up my entire position (ie: why cant we at least be OPEN to MQA?).

Scott

allhifi's picture

Hi Scott: Thank you for your reply. And perfect timing to boot: Honestly, it was only a few minutes ago when I thought, "Hmmmm, do I have this End-to-End thing straight?" I believe I do.

BUT, it was never mentioned anywhere that I'm aware -I've never read it anywhere. But I'll bet the 'End-to-End' system does in fact call for 'matching' filter profiles (Recording/ADC and Playback/DAC).
Why nobody (I'm guessing) has not clued into this is difficult to comprehend. Think about Mr. Stuart's statement: "For better sound we require an End-to-End'" approach.

What else could that possibly entail? In fact, now, just right now, at this moment, did I come to think of (for example) JVC XRCD's using a similar change of Mastering ADC algorithm that perhaps is partially responsible for its unique sound quality? (Above/beyond other mastering changes of course, as well as improved physical construction, packaging etc.)

If someone qualified for the job can track down this info. (if embedded/retrievable from the CD) and do some listening tests with DAC's that offer multiple digital filter choices -specifically Linear Phase and Minimum Phase/Apodizing. And listen. Compare. And report.

Perhaps that will offer up some fresh meat to chew on (to discuss in earnest. lol).

pj

boulderskies's picture

Hi pj,

For my money (ears and intellect), Robert Harley provides the most intelligent and insightful articles on MQA that I've seen. You might broach your filter questions to him. Some articles for your enjoyment:
http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/master-quality-authenticated-mqa-the-view-from-30000-feet/
http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/from-the-editor-mqa-on-the-threshold/

Scott

allhifi's picture

Hey Scott: It's a shame those referenced links ( TAS Jan & May, 2016) satisfied your intellect.

First of all, let me state I enjoy(ed?) Mr. Harley's professional demeanor. Yet, regarding MQA, where has he been the past two (2) years (24-months) with respect to the unfolding MQA drama that's evolved since -his enamored meeting with the legendary Mr. Robert Stuart?

And, I also take some exception to the author's assertion that:

" ...To summarize, the audible degradation in digital audio is largely caused by filters."

I didn't realize Mr.Harley has any expertise in this field ? Can somebody clarify?

Unless I've missed something, Mr. Harley's disappearance from evolving MQA talk (no contributing ink since 2016?), suggests to me that cowering within MQA shadows is not a sign of competence -or indeed accountability.

That's hardly (Harley -lol) something that fancies my intellect.

In fact, for such a prominent industry veteran, his eerie silence (on the topic) is rather conspicuous, perhaps even unsettling.

Maybe you can refer me to something more 'stimulating/ challenging'? In the meantime, let me offer up this to you:

https://www.xivero.com/downloads/MQA-Technical_Analysis-Hypotheses-Paper.pdf

https://www.xivero.com

Cheers,

pj

boulderskies's picture

Despite your rather arrogant first sentence, I do appreciate your thoughtfulness in fowarding the attached link. I am enjoying it to some extent but it sorta feels like I'm talking to you at a cocktail party, ie: carefully constructed, articulated assumptions.

As has should've been clear from my posts here, my number one interest is HOW IT SOUNDS for when I am "in session," the last thing on my mind is apodizing filters and termporal resolution. If the music sounds good to me thats what matters.

That is why someone's opinion of MQA who has actually listened to it is far more important to me.

That said, I will read the white paper you forwarded as I do enjoy reading everything I can about MQA.

Best regards, Scott

allhifi's picture

Hi Scott: Apologies if you were offended by my last reply.

I, for one are thrilled you are enjoying the experience.

But, it must be realized that Harley is no expert in such matters, and as I re-read the article, I'm quickly losing respect he's slowly earned over the years.
Again, referencing your link, here:

https://www.stereophile.com/comment/reply/238404/574047

Specifically, he goes on to say:

" ...The other problem with “high-resolution” digital audio is that it didn’t really solve the fundamental problem of why digital sounds the way it does—flat, congested, hard, and glassy".

His assertions are highly debatable. In fact, some of it is plain wrong. For example:

" .... didn’t really solve the fundamental problem of why digital sounds the way it does—flat, congested, hard, and glassy.

WHAT ? He even went on to include today's high-resolution dgital! And how many reviews has he conducted over the past 15-years (or more?) waxing poetic the beauty of this/that CD/DAC's sound quality? Likely hundreds. And now its been relegated to 'hard, 'glassy' and 'edgy' ?? What a crock.

But then he takes a gigantic leap of faith to inform us (in his wild imagination) it was the digital filtering all along. Like no other DSP-competent engineer's were available prior to Stuart/MQA (in the year 2016)? And that the problem resides in the Linear Phase 'Brick-wall filters that many of the finest DAC's he's praised (to the high heavens no less -think Schiit Yggy) employ.

And now, it's the genius of Stuart (and his MP/Apodizing filter that's been available for decades) that has now magically transformed the listening experience. What happened all of a sudden?

Well, Stuart and company have now found a reason this shit-ball filter wasn't praised to those same high heavens since its inceptions nearly 20-years ago.
"Right then" (Stuart talking), we must now manipulate the recorded material (encode) with the same technically inferior filter in an end-to-end' orgy in order to sound its best. And this complex exercise simply to bring it back to an acceptable level! Not better than what was before. Not even as good some argue. Incredible.

And I'll bet that any LP/Brickwall filtered ADC using a similar digital filter at the DAC end will sound considerably better (even at 16/44) and absolutely trounce minimum phase filters at a wide open 24/96-192. For, although only early evaluations, the greater "ease" (mellowness/richness?)of MP filters comes at the great expense of definition and without question, dynamic contrasts (micro specifically). That all instruments lose its natural tonal characteristics is also readily apparent/noticeable -and seriously (musically) disconcerting. It's flawed. I realize it's not the full-blown MQA, and I may very well eat my words (regarding filter associations).

In any case, upon CD's introduction, CD replay improvements came painfully slow, yet by 1999/2000 (near two decades on) some musical-sounding player's -at affordable price points- emerged. The 'floodgates' swung open during the 2000's, whereby in /around the year 2010, CD replay could easily be compared (in fact exceed -arguably) the SQ of the finest analog. Some would argue even earlier. AND, if you can imagine, that was pre MQA!

What I learned in/around the turn-of-the-century (21-st -lol) was the enormous improvements to digital when fed with a very clean AC power source. It was, and remains, dramatic. An absolute necessity to experience digital at its best. Upon powering thus so, those Harley and oft used (non-flattering) SQ descriptors have vanquished; a combination of greatly improved digital design and AC power considerations.

That was near 20-years ago. And now Harley comes out in 2016 (after being smitten by Stuart's 'celebrity') to inform us about the reasons why CD replay remains so crappy and that MQA has arrived (just in time) to finally save the 'digital' day? Shameful. Laughable.

I realize the rant but his words and assumptions are offensive. I've heard some great sounding digital (CD) replay as far back as 2003 (15-years ago) and continue of course to this day, sans MQA - as apparently did Mr. Harley. Which come to think of it, for me will remain so; this MQA charade must end. And fast.

So Scott, I do apologize for the rant. But it must be said. And acknowledged.

I'm not sure if anyone (including myself -lol) has recognized that I have not even touched upon any monetary considerations -the fact we must all pay (extra!) for this inferior system. Don't know if I will laugh, or cry.

Ah'right then, time to think positive: So, when's the next MQA-bashing physical meet ? LOL. (Kidding)

Right then, carry on ... ("know what I mean know what I mean", wink-wink, nudge-nudge ...")

pj

boulderskies's picture

pj, Calm down my friend - its only apodizing filters and Robert Harley we are discussing, not world peace. :)

I wish I could reproduce the exchange I had with Robert, et. al in the Editorial Section of Stereophile about 5 years ago for you. My premise was, why were there never any negative product reviews, in ANY audio/video magazines? You would have loved THAT exchange. The lame response I got was that Stereophile reviewers are professional and have the lattitude to choose the equipment they review so they seldom choose "wrong." Of course I responded with, "Well if they choose the equipment, doesnt that make them biased right from the start? Damn you woulda loved it. They reprinted the entire exchange and dedicated the Editorial Section to it...I always respected that part.

Back to the issue: In my personal experience, with what I consider decent equipment (McIntosh, Bryston DAC, Paradigm speakers), I did find hi-rez (above 16-44) to be hard and glassy. I also found it to be a pain in the ass, cobling together just the right combination of software and settings for playback. And the filters that are so near and dear to your heart available on the Bryston and in the software never did a damn thing.

So I have come full circle: now I sit on my ass in my recliner, clutching my iPhone 6 with iTunes based music (Horrors!) and fire up HEOS which activates my Marantz SR5012 (with probably better DACs than the overpriced Bryston) and listen to "my" music through B&W 805s combined with a Rythmik sub and it sounds terrific to me. I can play most any song on the planet in the blink of an eye with great sounding results. And I dont care what filter or lack thereof is at play.

You see, for me, its about the MUSIC not the filter or the company or the company owner or the reviewer. So, yes, if MQA makes the MUSIC sound a little better, who gives a shit about those things?

Good debate!
Scott

allhifi's picture

Hi Scott: Thanks for the reply. It's funny, because if you'd know me -it appears I come across the same way in person! But, I remain very calm; blood pressure actually lowers -it was once measured when someone thought as you (i.e. rising blood pressure -lol).

It IS about music (its reproduction) entirely, I agree. The reason I reply as I do. And make no mistake, I'm thrilled you are enjoying that very music -played through electronic equipment.

I quite expected (and understood) the difficulties many undoutedly experienced with early high-rez SQ.
Funny thing is, while that early (hi-rez) nonsense was flying around, I was very pleased with my 16/44, experiencing GREAT sound quality -as I do now.
I wonder whether your early high-resolution 'experience' was even verified hi-rez?

In the end, as you correctly point out it remains simply about one's enjoyment of music replay.

Yet, your comment regarding the SR-5012's (Marantz) superior DAC's (over a respected outboard DAC) suggests to me you are one that does NOT subscribe to the "Using Better Cables" argument. Is that fair to say?

As I mentioned here (in this forum), MQA has indeed 'cleaned up' (to their mind -lol) high-resolution in offering verified 24/96 minimum file resolution; yet a little late to the party as those rogue ("Hi--Rez") suppliers have long since been exposed -and disappeared.
I also said as much, in another earlier reply -suggesting MQA could be authentically validate higher-resolution.

But better sound? -maybe, I've never heard it. But to even call it "Master Authenticated" -more specifically that it replicates the sound at the studio, is HIGHLY questionable, knowing what Minimum Phase MP) filters do to the original signal; phase/amplitude shifts/distortion.

OK then, where are we now? Oh yes, back to your sentiments (indeed finely articulated):

" ... I did find hi-rez (above 16-44) to be hard and glassy. I also found it to be a pain in the ass, cobling together just the right combination of software and settings for playback. And the filters that are so near and dear to your heart available on the Bryston and in the software never did a damn thing."

A couple things:

1) I can honestly see many having this issue early on (w/H-Rez):
" ...I also found it to be a pain in the ass, cobling together just the right combination of software and settings for playback."

2) But, I wonder how is it possible NOT to hear the (very obvious) SQ distinctions of a DAC's MP/LP Digital Filter setting?
(Scott, if you are using Radio-Shack cabling -please be honest and disclose- I can easily envision that scenario. Otherwise, perhaps some nasty AC power quality -feeding your gear?)

Continuing, you inform us :

" ..I can play most any song on the planet in the blink of an eye with great sounding results. And I dont care what filter or lack thereof is at play. You see, for me, its about the MUSIC not the filter or the company or the company owner or the reviewer."

Ask yourself: Is it really the great sound quality, OR the ease of which it is accessible -from your Lazy-Boy listening chair?

Regardless, at the end of the day, your parting words ring true:
" ... So, yes, if MQA makes the MUSIC sound a little better, who gives a shit about those things?"

And my final thoughts would be in answer to your opening remarks:

" ... why were there never any negative product reviews, in ANY audio/video magazines?"

My concern (in this debate) was that Robert Harley waxed poetic the many fantastic sounding DAC's/CDP's he reviewed FAR PRIOR TO MQA -and even citing the incredible SQ with 16/44 !
And now, years later (with MQA tickling his fancy's), all that went before is now relegated to "hard, edgy, glassy" sounding ?

You know, Harley's finely contrived style has grown a bit too dubious for me -much to my chagrin, but not surprise.

Wrapping up, I'll go on to say, "Scott: Buy some good cabling !"

Cheers,

peter jasz

allhifi's picture

Hey Scott: As I re-read your opening remarks (about my BP), I re-read my reply that initiated yours. lol

In any case, was your reference to my (high) blood pressure the result of my opening words to you? Which by the way, were these:

"Hi Scott: Apologies if you were offended by my last reply."

" I, for one are thrilled you are enjoying the experience."

Or was it :

" ...So Scott, I do apologize for the rant. But it must be said. And acknowledged."

OR, perhaps this:

" ...Ah'right then, time to think positive: So, when's the next MQA-bashing physical meet ? LOL. (Kidding)

Right then, carry on ...
("know what I mean know what I mean", wink-wink, nudge-nudge ...")"
Umm, this last 'line' was from a Monty Python skit from ions ago)

All-in-all, yeh, sounds like somebody really uptight about things !

Too funny,

pj

boulderskies's picture

Yes, too funny. And enjoyable. To address a couple of points:

1. Cables: Me to noobies: "Be prepared to spend at least 20% of your initial investment on cables." Does that answer your question? Specifically, I've spent at least that with dubious results. Consequently I end up with a variety of different manufacturers: Monster for speaker (as large guage as is will fit the connector); Audioquest for usb; Blue Jean, etc.
2.Yes, the "Lazy Boy Effect" is a definite plus in my enjoyment of my music. I used to be a club DJ and while it was fun to mix and match, in my Golden Years, sitting on my butt and doing pretty much the same thing is relaxing and adds to my experience.
3. I do have BP issues but take medication to combat it. :)

On a related note, would you mind sharing what equipment you have?

Scott

allhifi's picture

Hi Scott: Thank you for sharing.

Monster cable, really? May I suggest a very INexpensive alternative; Ethernet cable CAT-5 or CAT-5e -solid core (double -or triple- run). The results/comparisons vs. Monster will leave no room for uncertainty I assure you.

AQ -for USB is a good choice -preferably 'Carbon' -or higher.

Dispense with the BJ cable -whatever cable it is. For IC cable (and/or speaker wire, Wireworld offers some really good affordable Interconnects ($60-$80/1-metre). Try the WW Solstice-7 IC's -or model below).

I would never offer up a percentage-of-equipment formula for cable selection. Simply zoom in on whatever cable results in a considerable contribution to your enjoyment of music. And I assure you, such cables exist.

I'm not certain if this forum can forward you my personal email, but I'd be more than happy to share further (hard-earned) recommendations.

Some of my hi-fi includes; Cambridge Audio, Classe, Blue Circle, Gustard, Reference 3A, Roksan, Schiit and cabling from Acoustic Zen, Audioquest, JPS Labs, M.I.T, Shunyata Research, Wireworld and XLO.

Be well,

pj

allhifi's picture

Hi Scott: I just noticed that you missed several of my previous posts that speak to 'my thoughts (whatever they may be) regarding MQA sound quality', and the reason it matters not one iota of what I, you (or any other MQA advocate) feels, there are those that won't (for whatever reason).

Therefore, their access (including/specifically recording engineer's and/or artists keen on the SQ aspects of their recordings) must have access to either original masters (non-manipulated/MQA'd) and/or the right to choose freely with new recordings.

pj

hellrider77's picture

I am keen on logic so I get sore eyes when reading pro and con comments posted here.

Leaving aside the shady interests of the Industry:
- Most listeners made their MQA vs non-MQA comparison using Tidal services. Non_MQA Tidal SQ is not up to audiophile standards to begin with. I fail to understand how critical listeners could bear listening to Tidal. Having this in mind, it is normal that MQA Tidal to sound better than non MQA Tidal, it wouldn't be to hard to achieve. But, I strongly believe that AAC+ compression would give much better SQ than MQA streaming, just head over to some serious online radios that stream in AAC+ 96kbps or higher and you can judge for yourselves (Radio Swiss Jazz that can be listened here http://www.radioswissjazz.ch/live/aacp.m3u is a fine example).

- what if we compare rendering of music on hardware that introduced MQA unfolding via firmware upgrades? Well, when I first upgraded my Aurender to MQA capable firmware, the first thing to notice was a general drop in SQ on non MQA material. Tried MQA and seemed to sound better than local 16/44.1 but still nowhere close to 24/96 or higher (please consider that I was expecting to love MQA). Downgraded to the factory FW and everything sounded better.

When making MQA vs non MQA comparison, please make sure that hardware/software is not biased towards MQA material. All measurements of MQA capable hardware here on Stereophile have shown that manufacturers made a "mistake" and applied MQA filters on non MQA material. (Aurender A10, Mytek). Some comments even said that applying a specific set of filters on non MQA content is part of certification requirements and cannot be bypassed by manufacturers.

I could understand MQA in the streaming context or for people that consider mp3 listenable. I would go even further and say that when it comes to modern-day mainstream recordings, they are so poorly mastered that it doesn't even matter the format, mp3 would do just fine.

Pop in an XRCD rip and there is no contest. Compare Tidal MQA with above mentioned radio station that streams AAC+ and prepare to be amazed.

miguelito's picture

Overall my experience with TIDAL redbook quality is excellent. I have done many comparisons of TIDAL redbook vs ripped CD (using XLD) vs downloaded files (PCM or DSD) vs ripped SACDs (via PS3). TIDAL def holds itself in most cases. In some XRCD cases the CD comes from a completely new mastering (eg Bill Evans's "Everybody Digs Bill Evans") in which case yes, the XRCD rip beats TIDAL.

allhifi's picture

hellrider77: Beautifully said -on all counts!

I find your comments and comparisons very illuminating -invaluable really.

Specifically:

" ... Well, when I first upgraded my Aurender to MQA capable firmware, the first thing to notice was a general drop in SQ on non MQA material. Tried MQA and seemed to sound better than local 16/44.1 but still nowhere close to 24/96 or higher (please consider that I was expecting to love MQA). Downgraded to the factory FW and everything sounded better."

BINGO ! An actual user who cared to evaluate -and of course share here. I have not had the opportunity to listen/evaluate MQA, but your findings do not surprise me at all. In fact, it makes complete sense: MQA says an 'end-to-end' approach is demanded to realize 'better sound'.

That tells us that the encoder (recording) manipulation (that likely involves MP filters/algorithms) would be best served by a complimentary MP filter at the DAC. And of course not any ol' generic MP filter. Oh no, a specific MQA-flattering one, perhaps several are on offer (complimentary to the MQA encoding), and voila, a BS (oh, Bob Stuart) sanctioned rendition is made available to 'wanting' ears !

That hellrider77 offered this up to us is something that's been sorely lacking in discussions thus far (that I've read, here and elsewhere).

Here's a guy to openly and honestly not only invest significant sums, but has the honesty/openness to reveal his findings.

As hellrider77 (correctly) points out, there are some really incredible sounding ACC+ streams (and my own recording format comparisons also reveal shockingly capable 96Kb/s ACC+ SQ) but I'd caution a direct comparison (to radio streams) since we do NOT know what DSP the radio station has employed -and I suspect some type is used, in fact, you can almost bet on it.

Thank you for the radio station link.

(Radio Swiss Jazz that can be listened here http://www.radioswissjazz.ch/live/aacp.m3u is a fine example).

Now, more hellrider77-type listening sessions/evaluations would be most welcome. Much needed. And meaningful.

peter jasz

hellrider77's picture

Paul McGowan:

min 1:07 - "We support MQA in our products (...), we don't do it in our DAC's, we do it in our streaming things, because MQA requires changes to our D/A converters, that we are not willing to make because we don't want to compromise their performance or their sound."

https://youtu.be/xl3LDwQ1pVs

allhifi's picture

hellrider77: Perfect !

pj

boulderskies's picture

What about today's market and how people actually listen to music? What about them? The issues surrounding MQA do not affect "audiophiles" exclusively. You all will always be able to tinker with your playback mode, cobbling together multiple software installed on over-priced gear. Great, if that's what you enjoy, go for it.

But the overwhelming majority of consumers do not want to do that. They want good SQ delivered in stream-sized data packages, played on reasonably priced gear. They dont care about record label shareholder stakes in MQA, fantasy monopolies that never happen, the Nyquist theorum - they just want their music in a digestible form factor. This translates into streaming from a mobile phone perhaps utilizing MQA components.

Gumbo2000's picture

The fallacy of your argument is that, as you say "consumers want good SQ". The overall market proves you wrong. MQA is nothing.

boulderskies's picture

Are you saying the overwhelming majority of consumers do NOT want good sound quality? So they want bad sound quality? Makes sense...

People are listening to what YOU consider less than par sound quality because its convenient and inexpensive. But its been shown in recent studies that millenials are willing to pay more for better sound quality but they're not going to pay a lot and they're not sitting around in their sound rooms auditioning expensive equipment.

As far as "MQA is nothing," there is nothing in that statement to respond to.

T.S. Gnu's picture
Quote:

Are you saying the overwhelming majority of consumers do NOT want good sound quality? So they want bad sound quality? Makes sense...

That is a strange vantage point to assume. By that logic you are implying that if you do NOT want a good smack on the head, you actually want a bad smack to the head. You might consider the more obvious third option that perhaps the majority don't really care for or much about sound quality. This is particularly true once a certain threshold has been met. Binary thinking doesn't lend itself to reaching logical conclusions in complex scenarios, and also often in simple ones such as the one you chose to rebut.

boulderskies's picture

I was responding to the "The fallacy of your argument is that, as you say "consumers want good SQ".

T.S. Gnu's picture

And I am agreeing that it is a fallacy to think that the average consumer wants good SQ. I am, however, also saying that calling it a fallacy doesn't imply that the average consumer wants bad SQ (which you attemted to associate that statement with).

I will, however, reiterate here that history shows that the average consumer cares not one whit about SQ (beyond a certain minimum threshold which appears to have been reached as far as their needs are concerned).

The last statement by gumbo2000 Makes more sense when taken in context with the title of his post. If people are happy streaming/downloading MP3, and while there is a slim chance that they MAY be persuaded to do likewise for 16/44 FLAC, the actuarial analyses by the content providers doesn't appear to support that although the relative gains in SQ at that point are tremendous going from 256MP3 to 16/44FLAC.

Archimago's picture

This is Stereophile. Aren't we here to discuss, share about, and ultimately aim to enjoy the best sound we can get when enjoying our music?

As others have said, MP3 is the dominant file format in the consumer world. As audiophiles, yes, we can tolerate, even enjoy 320kbps MP3. But don't we typically advise friends and family to go lossless when they can as a matter of "best practice"?

So too with MQA. We know that this file type limits the actual bit depth of an original 24-bit master, adds ultrasonic frequencies that were not in the original during playback, and can recognize that the playback filters actually adds phase distortions. Furthermore, so far, the whole notion of "deblur" remains mysterious and there's no evidence that this is even anything.

In the face of this, why then should audiophiles advocate for this? The business model is suspect. The objective performance clearly is not better than 24/96 FLAC (remember, MQA only does one true unfold, claims of 192kHz performance is nonsense in the current state).

Jon Iverson is right on more levels than this article speaks of when he said "I don't believe that, over the long term, MQA is in the best interests of audiophiles".

dalethorn's picture

Actually, we are here to learn about good gear, good record albums, and other matters concerning the enjoyment of music listening - with the emphasis on listening. While your opinion on MQA is well known, I don't agree with it or the contention that you get to define what parameters constitute "objective analysis" of audio quality. In the mere two weeks I've been buying MQA albums, I've been pleased with the results, and so have many others. If you're trying to sway opinions in your favor here, the escalating negativity around your article and suppression of opinion is going to push people the opposite direction, as it has me.

Archimago's picture

Likewise Dale, I've seen your comments here and elsewhere, plus know of your recent YouTube Explorer2 videos.

Over the years, I have known of people who prefer high bitrate MP3 in blind testing. You are entitled to your listening preference to MQA as much as those folks are entitled to a preference in their MP3. Ultimately they are both compromises but in different ways of course.

By all means, you and "others" are free to buy and enjoy MQA. I am here to lend support to Mr. Iverson's sentiment and suggest that there are other rational reasons why he is correct.

"Escalating negativity around your article"?

"Suppression of opinion"?

I don't know about the former. But certainly the latter is not what I'm about. Sometimes, opinions are resisted because they're simply wrong in the face of actual facts.

allhifi's picture

Archie: Why don't you disclose your real name -for the record ?

You prance around like an authority/expert hiding under a pseudonym?

Talking on a first name basis to 'Dale' while you hide in the (mysterious) shadows?

Identify yourself for goodness sake.

peter jasz

allhifi's picture

Hey Archie: Is that the reason why I'm unable to post replies on Audiostream -because the latter is not what your about.

The latter would be " Suppression of opinion".

Care to explain, so all can understand who you really are, and what exactly you are "all about" ?

peter jasz

T.S. Gnu's picture

It would seem that the quote

Quote:

Aren't we here to discuss, share about, and ultimately aim to enjoy the best sound we can get when enjoying our music?

is pretty much what Stereophile is about. Straight from the pony's pouty-place(https://www.stereophile.com/about-us).

For your edification:

Quote:

According to editor John Atkinson, “Whatever the medium via which audiophiles choose to enjoy their music — be it two-channel or surround-sound,CD, SACD, DVD-A, MP3, LP or whatever — you will be able to read about it and how to get the best from it in Stereophile."

Besides the article (and a significant portion of the following discussion) is precisely focussing on "other matters concerning the enjoyment of music listening" with the appropriate term format monopoly to highlight those matters of concern.

Quote:

Actually, we are here to learn about good gear, good record albums, and other matters concerning the enjoyment of music listening.

While you have expressed your opinions and linked to them, you have yet to provide facts (other than non-contestable ones such as "I liked how it sounded" which factually state your opinion) despite having promised to do so. I look forward to reading them.

dalethorn's picture

I stated the only facts that matter. You haven't contradicted those actual facts. The alleged ancillary matters, be they hidden distortions or potential DRM etc., are only alleged.

T.S. Gnu's picture

There appears to be some miscommunication as to what the facts are, Thorn. Hence, the request for clarification, which is yet to be forthcoming.

As I understand, your opinion is that you like the sound of some MQA files you have compared to others (without any verification online of eliminating effects of mastering, EQing and filtering; please provide links to correct any misconception we may have on this).

There is no alleging involved. Simply a question of have you confirmed that you are comparing apples to apples. You haven't shown that to be the case, and until then it is an unknown and therefore questionable. This is not an unreasonable ask, since people have compared the Norah Jones SACD to the CD layer and found it better, despite it being the upsampled CD layer. The fact is, no one knows what two quantities you are comparing at the moment.

The only other fact is that you have an opinion about something. No one can contradict the fact that you like something over something else, and expectations of contradictions to that are going to be unmet.

dalethorn's picture

My opinion is based on actual comparisons of MQA'd and non-MQA'd versions of the same albums. Those are factual comparisons you deliberately ignore.

spacehound's picture

Are genuine ones. Any others are not 'facts' at all.

Here's four facts about MQA:
It discards much data that is in the studio master.
It adds distortions that were not in the studio master.
It has the potential for DRM.
Some of that DRM potential is already being used as you can't have the full effect of MQA without having an MQA DAC.

Being facts they are incontestable by definition. Thus "alleged" does not apply. So I do not understand why you are attempting to discuss them as such attempts are bound to fail.

dalethorn's picture

Every new master shares those "facts" or potential facts. Next?

spacehound's picture

Wrong.
Only masters that actually USE the MQA process to make the original recording.

And to date there is only one ADC in existence that can do that, it has only existed for a short time, and is not widely used.

And it will anyway produce a low quality master because of the things it loses and adds, so may not become widely used.

BTW: Tt is not necessary to put quotes around the work fact.

dalethorn's picture

Quotes around "fact" refer to the fact that what you state as a fact isn't necessarily a proven fact, instead it's an asserted fact.

BTW, non-MQA masters *might* have any of the problems that are attributed to MQA. It's the randomness of complex processes that can't always be predicted.

spacehound's picture

In that manner it's fine by me.

Though I am mildly (only mildly) curious why you should want to do that.

dalethorn's picture

"Deluded" is a false statement. If that's an example of your facts, then you have no facts. I got into this with an investigation buying a new DAC and several albums. I'm sure you're aware that the topics reporting my investigations got extremely suppressed on several sites. That tells me a lot, and tells others here too.

spacehound's picture

"aware" of you at all.

The only suppression I've ever seen is the refusal of Stuart and of some writers in US-based (only) magazines, both paper and online, to engage with the facts, probably because, being facts, they are indisputable.

BTW: I'm a mathematician by both qualification and occupation. MQA is pretty simple stuff and none of the measurements made on it are in any way difficult or esoteric. And as you seem unwilling to engage in meaningful discussion either, I, like Archimago, see no point in continuing this conversation with you so don't intend to.

dalethorn's picture

You haven't seen any suppression? How can you say that? The suppression by CA has been extremely well documented here, and you have been part of those discussions. Your entire participation here has been extremely negative, with many of your posts removed. BTW, I've been a member of the audio forums you post on, for years, always posting under my real name.

allhifi's picture

BS: What about the "Market' that couldn't care less (or notice a difference) between shitty, early MP-3 and high-resolution sound. You mean that Market ? lol

Anyone who is burdened by giving shelf and floor space to their beloved music (and equipment that reproduces it) doesn't give a fly'in crap about SQ. Drop some poop down under their noses and they'll gleefully rave "Yummy" -as they devour it. Gimm'e a break.

pj

boulderskies's picture

Are we any further ahead after reading the last 15 posts?

We learned that people cant have their own set of facts. We should explain that to the media and some other highly placed officials.

But what I came away with was the same thing I always come away with when I read circular discussions like the above: It is SO easy to mix objective with subjective. Objective means graphs & charts; Subjective means, "Does it sound good?" I think the above discussion was objective-based; I dont really care about objective and I dont care about "facts" in this one area of my life. And I sure as hell dont care about one persons' ability to see into the future and alert us that the MQA business model will be a bad thing.

I simply want to know if others think MQA sounds good or not. How hard can that be?

T.S. Gnu's picture
Quote:

I simply want to know if others think MQA sounds good or not. How hard can that be?

If all you care about is whether something sounds good to you, why would you care about what others think? Linn's tag-line is "Just Listen" for precisely that reason.

You also don't get to define your own terms. Objective doesn't mean "graphs & charts" unless one takes a very callow approach; it means "why does it sound good?" in response to the subjective "Does it sound good?" If all you care about is the latter, then by all means these discussions may be tedious for you.

However, the underlying issue that you appear to be ignoring is that the article and the discussion is not even there yet. There is still the problem of people actually not knowing what the "it" actually is when it comes to MQA.

dalethorn's picture

Disagree. I know exactly what the "it" is for MQA. I've read it in Bob Stuart's papers as well as other readings of it. I can also hear it, although the effect varies according to the mastering.

boulderskies's picture

Now there's a short, honest post: Dalethorn has spent the time to understand exactly what MQA is and to discover that its resulting SQ depends on the quality of the mastering. If we could filter out the posts of those that havent done this, we would save a lot of time and opinion postings.

And to the person who simply wants to take issue with whatever I say, "Objective" most certainly does mean "charts & graphs." You might want to check your definition of callow. And as Dalethorn has pointed out, many people know (objectively) what MQA is. Its the ones that dont that cause all the opinions and circular discussions. And its the people like me who try and filter out one from the other.

spacehound's picture

No, he's just read 'papers' from Stuart, who hopes to make money out of it, and maybe some others. And some of Stuart's papers are simply untrue. At one point he attempted to re-define the internationally accepted and mathematically proved definition of 'lossy' for example.
And Stuart, in his own words, refuses to "engage" on some other problems, such as the always demonstrable and sometimes audible 'aliasing' that MQA adds to the studio master.

The 'not particularly difficult' measurements tell us EXACTLY what MQA is.

AFAIK Dale hasn't made any (if he has he seems reluctant to tell us what they were, despite being asked) so he is presumably relying on his personal preferences which may or may not be the same as anyone else's.

And taking measurements doesn't prevent you from listening.

dalethorn's picture

I'm certain you've seen my link to my tests. Perhaps you can tell us about specific albums you've compared and your listening results.

spacehound's picture

Other than being someone who posts occasionally on here I have never heard of you.

Albums? Only a few, and only on Tidal, which is the only significant source of MQA files at present. Though of course one cannot describe Tidal itself as in any way significant.
Anyway only 0.02% of Tidal's repertoire is MQA and they seem to be introducing new MQA ones less and less often.

In any case there is little point in 'testing' things that are demonstrated not to work as claimed. Maybe Tidal thinks the same.

What do I think subjectively? MQA doesn't appear to damage 44.1 files but it doesn't 'improve' supposedly high-res ones either, though on some music its distortions can produce a fake 'liveliness' that may appeal to some people.

dalethorn's picture

You've been informed of my tests, and rather than look, you just claim ignorance? Then why are you even arguing here? BTW, I post under my real name, and I've been doing so for a long time.

spacehound's picture

....is hardly of interest to anyone else. You aren't interested in them either.

And you have learnt that SOME people have their own set of 'facts'. Genuine facts are not 'owned' by anyone and they don't require 'belief' or human 'approval'.

Also "sounds good or not" is merely about personal preference and has ZERO to do with 'high fidelity" which is presumably what many of us pay for.
You say you want to know what others think. What for?

MQA. The facts are presented.
They demonstrate that an MQA file bears little resemblance to the 'studio masters' which are the best that we fairly easily have 'at home' access to. For example, HD Tracks and others have millions of them as most music is recorded in 96/24 or 192/24 PCM or sometimes DSD. To date the record companies don't appear to have done extra work 'messing' with them, though with the arrival of MQA some of the record companies appear to be half-heartedly releasing a few that MQA has messed with.

boulderskies's picture

But we pay for High Fidelity because it sounds good. At least I do.

Agree with your MQA paragraph.

spacehound's picture

We all have our preferences. Sometimes we CAN equate them to 'high fidelity' even though we may have never heard the musicians playing live.

For example. I have recordings of an orchestra that was recorded in DSD and PCM simultaneously.
The high-pitched solo violin sounds even more ear-splitting in DSD than it is in PCM. And as 192/24 PCM and 128 or 256 DSD are near enough distortion free in the audible band the PCM version HAS to be losing something :-)

dalethorn's picture

Science 101:

"Even fact can be proven false, in error, or wanting in some way. Science doesn't really prove things to be true, it just proves things to be false, leaving truth in the wake like an archer zeroing in on her target."

spacehound's picture

As least you appear to know what science is, unlike many non-scientists.

As you imply, it's a DISbelief system.

As for mathematics, it's not a science at all, it's basically a coherent human invented and constantly expanding 'game' with some practical applications, often in physics.

As for my area, few in 'pure' science or industry are practicing mathematicians. I'm not. I'm in the 'post electronic' age, our latest computers aren't even 'electrical' in the conventionally accepted meaning of the word. Everything has its time, from the steam engine, to electrics, to electronics. But while remaining in use all eventually pass as a 'main driver'.

dalethorn's picture

My fondest memories of math include plane geometry and the laws of logic, constructing 100 percent reliable formulae for measuring etc. Calculus only made things more fun. In computer science, the basic "truth tables" are essential to so many things that everyone should know, whether they use them or not. Just like an overview knowledge of cryptography and why forcing a user to have mixed case and symbols in a password is insecure (similar to the Enigma machine flaw).

People misunderstanding these basics could be a problem for them, but how would they know? I like being warned about the negative potentials in MQA, but I don't think we're doing that right because of the extreme behavior I've seen and documented on this topic.

allhifi's picture

Uhh, that should read:

" ...like an archer zeroing in on HIS target.".

What are you think'in man ?

pj
P.S. Come to think of it, it's the 'XX' take-over we should fear most -and more than before. lol

dalethorn's picture

We go into investigations without prejudice (according to science), yet we go in not with pure mental logic, but a body full of raging hormones that dictate the parameters of our inquiry to our flesh-and-blood brains. And so we write our findings, then go back and edit them, re-edit them, publish them, publish addendums, then 30 years later sit back and watch how the historical revisionists rewrite our findings.

allhifi's picture

There's that nasty 'science' word again.

Is there a physical logic as well ?

" ...but a body full of raging hormones (that would be the XX's) that dictate the parameters of our inquiry to our flesh-and-blood brains (that'd be us !)

" ...And so we write our findings, then go back and edit them, re-edit them, publish them, publish addendums (No need for all that) , then 30 years later sit back and watch how the historical revisionists rewrite our findings (Tis me job)

Glad I could help,

pj

allhifi's picture

I see your frustration bs. Or is that frustration with the BS?

Anyway, you ask for some (I'm guessing) experts to chime in when you say:

" ...We should explain that to the media and some other highly placed officials"

(Uhh, that appears to be the problem. A) There ain't none. 2) They're hiding like the terrified mice they are.)

Yet, I see your sensible question:

" ...I simply want to know if others think MQA sounds good or not. How hard can that be?"

Let me answer it: You may Love it. Others not.

The GREATEST concern (for those seriously involved in the hi-fi business) lies with whether MQA-manipulated Master files (with their self-serving algorithms) will be the defacto standard for all other music (Recording/Distribution/Playback) interests.

If it is NOT (i.e. wont be), I think many will lose interest in the fate of MQA rather quickly. in other words, couldn't give a damn.

BUT, as it sits, the future of recording/hardware/Software-DSP/ Playback interests NOT affiliated with MQA may be jeopardized. In which case they should, must and HAVE raised their (most serious) concerns.

pj

Archimago's picture

Well, interesting discussion between the definitions of objective and subjective...

In the interest of (hopefully) clarifying the ideas, here's a post today on my blog since much of this is really not about MQA at all:

https://archimago.blogspot.ca/2018/03/musings-quick-discussion-on-whats.html

Dale & Boulderskies: I trust you can accept this as an honest discussion. I am certainly not intending to "suppress your opinion", in fact I've linked to Dale's PDF in the post for others to consider. Rather I hope discussions can be approached using agreed-upon rationale and miscommunications clarified.

Cheers...

dalethorn's picture

I cut my teeth writing code for engineers using the HP67/41/71 and the workstations 85/87/9816/9817 (HP native and HPUX), then eventually moved to business apps such as MRP. So I have an interest in all aspects of what goes on in music production and coding, but as many people have said here already, we have only some MQA tech-test results showing "bad" things that aren't generally correlated with the sound.

On another forum, someone complained that even the compression aspects of MQA can't be inspected, validated, or otherwise examined technically separate from other issues. I suggested that from a lot of code I've seen, it might not be possible even with cooperation from MQA, unless that compression code can be run separately from the other processes. i.e., whatever the magic they do in that code, it doesn't necessarily mean that their software coders have the strictest standards for object independence.

I would add also as an analogy about proprietary/secret processes that the majority of people allow proprietary formulas of interesting stuff to be injected into their bodies uncritically, which by comparison makes MQA look like a walk in the park.

spacehound's picture

The 'political' parts of MQA, such as it not being 'authenticated' in the manner MQA falsely claim.

OF COURSE it can be "validated". It's called 'reverse engineering' - treat it as a 'black box', poke it with a stick, see what happens, and copy it.
That goes on all the time and is a widely used and perfectly legal method of getting around patents.
And many have done it for MQA.

As for your "compression" part, ignoring the non-existent 'deblurring' which is merely marketing gibberish, and fairly newly introduced marketing gibberish at that, compression is ALL MQA is. That's what it is FOR and what the original MQA claims stuck to. Though they have since gradually expanded their original claims into cloud cuckoo land.

But unfortunately for MQA, it is both lossy (which Stuart was eventually forced to admit) and no more efficient that the 100% lossless FLAC or AIFF.

So it is completely pointless from the end user's point of view.
All it's got is a crude form of DRM which might be useful to the record labels.

dalethorn's picture

I disagree with your reverse engineering. Complex processes that are intertwined in code can't always be separated. Poking the black box with a proverbial stick generates a *reaction* not a dialogue. Then again, nearly all of the anti-MQA postings here are reaction, not dialogue.

dalethorn's picture

Your desgnation of my PDF as purely subjective is false. Understand this: My opinion or judgement as to the meaning and value of my results is subjective, but my actual test results are objective.

Once again, while your charts and graphs represent objective data, your opinion of that data is subjective. My opinion of your data is: "Ehh, good to know, now let's listen."

Archimago's picture

Feel free to let me know which part of the PDF which leads to an opinion was not informed by subjective assessment?

dalethorn's picture

Your question is a diversion and a variant of the loaded question. Here is what you need to admit:

Your charts and graphs and their accompanying legends (if correct) are statements of fact. All of the rest of your article is your freeform text, interpreting your charts and graphs.

It's as simple as that. Your interpretations, which are plentiful, are subjective.

Archimago's picture

How can discussions be fruitful when you cannot be specific? Depending on the idea and context I might be referring to, both opinions and/or conclusions based on objective results may be expressed.

When you say:
"but my actual test results are objective"

I am curious as to what objective test you are referring to. If you are unable to discuss specifics whether in what I've said or what your're implying about your test, then I'm afraid there is nothing to address whether in agreement or to refute.

dalethorn's picture

Another diversion on your part. Let's start with your article before we continue with mine, since yours started all of this. Admit what I said about your article is true, then I will answer about my article.

Archimago's picture

Without specifics raised, I am unable to respond nor do I understand the logic and to what issue(s) you are concerned about.

Likewise since you are not engaging in the specific issue I quoted above, there's no discussion to he had.

You know where to find me if you would like to speak about anything specific in some depth... Cheers.

dalethorn's picture

I do know one place to find you (CA), but they're mainly a gang of MQA-haters there, i.e. no discussion possible. If instead you're referring to your blog, I'm thinking "why bother?" Here at Stereophile is the most balanced** discussion on MQA that I've seen anywhere.

**Balanced in having fairly equal numbers of people from each extreme through to the center of opinion. Even your very technical article has seen a lot of light and discussion here. What more could you want?

mrvco's picture

I've owned Meridian and Mytek mqa DACs for a year now and have been a Tidal HiFi subscriber as well.

MQA is a big sonic nothingburger. I've found that Up conversion to DXD or DSD sounds better than MQA to my ears without all the baggage, licensing, pseudo-DRM or whatever.

All this money and effort being expended to force MQA on consumers makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

spacehound's picture

I have a dCS DAC. dCS made MQA available recently (easy for them as their DACs are firmware driven) but when asked what they thought of MQA they said they are not "advocating" it in any way, they just made it available as another 'feature' as some of their existing and potential customers might want it.

Re MQA itself, we not only have measurements from many sources, all of which agree on its 'bad' effects, we know that in actual practice its claims of 'authentication' are not happening in the real world as the MQA process is being 'added on' afterwards. Further, we have proof directly from studios and from the label's own admissions that this is happening to current material, not just older stuff.

In addition to measurements, studio evidence, and the label's admissions we have detailed analysis. The code is pretty simple as the process itself is simple. Basically it reduces everything to 16 or 17 bits, discards everything above 96, and puts the high frequency part of what's left in the space saved by the 24 to 16/17 bit reduction. That's the "first" fold and later unfold. "First" is just marketing hype, there aren't any others, the rest is just upsampling via 'weak' filters, as below.
At the end it upsamples to fool your DAC into putting on a totally false 192, 384 or whatever light when in reality it's just 96 with content-free fake samples placed between the genuine ones. That's done at the user's end.

There nothing 'hard' or 'sophisticated' about any of it and it's all been done before. Nobody thought it served any worthwhile purpose so it never appeared.
As for 'deblurring' it's just meaningless gibberish. MQA's timing has been measured by many people and found to be worse than regular PCM because of all this 'processing'.

digilog's picture

The "full-wave" mathematics of your a posteriori analysis confirms the null hypothesis. Indeed, it was argued decades ago, in that oft-cited AES paper from 1984 [ Lagadec, R. and Stockham, T.G.] that .... well ... the identification as well as the importance of the time-domain corollary ring "false" like a ... ahem ... Chebyshev.

boulderskies's picture

Yeah, but how does it SOUND?

allhifi's picture

Superbly articulated !

(RE: Submitted by spacehound on March 17, 2018 - 9:23pm)

pj

allhifi's picture

Excellent insight mrvco. Thanks for sharing.

Real user = Real thoughts = +2 non-MQA. Oh, and +1 (MQA)

pj
Love the description: " ... is a big sonic nothingburger." Priceless.

T.S. Gnu's picture

The inconsistency makes it difficult to ascertain

Allen Fant's picture

Enticing intro pic- JI
hope no one here starts withdrawls?

dalethorn's picture

Heh heh.

voxi's picture

very hot topic, it seems. I don't understand the fear behind this new tech. First there was shellac, then vinyl, cassette, then cd and sacd and now we live is itunes and similar times, then here is streaming and fortcoming mqa. Vinyl sales is in uptrend and even cassettes are resurrected. Audiophiles are suppose to be happy by the variety of formats. Like cd didn't destroy vinyl, that's how mqa won't harm especially when we talk about superior sound quality. The possibility to compare wit the original was never offered both with vinyl or cd and nobody even talk about it. maybe I'm wrong but the whole idea of hifi is to compare the record to the real event - not master with the original. mqa can or won't improve that fidelity impression and in that lies the potential success of the media/codec. if it doesn't make improvement then it will collapse like cassete, dat, minidisc etc. I think that the real issue is with streaming itself, not specifically mqa. It is like adobe, Microsoft and others switch from insallation on hdd to monthly subscription. But nowdays the trend is in streaming direction while the better recording becoming increaseingly more expensive - and that is because of streaming and demand for physical media is in decline. Mqa can. as a matter fact help to change that because you can and you all will be subscribe to one or another streaming service and if mqa succed it will collect enough money to offer the same media in physical formats for smaller price - as we already have at amazon.com when you buy a cd you get digital version of it. Nobody, on the other hand, says a thing about doubling the price of vinyl editions of contemporary albums without reason other than fashion since that editions does not offer better sq. To conclude: competition is good and I shouldn't explain that to the Americans. But left political branch start to suffer from saloon socialism while it takes all the benefits from the capitalism, starts to mumbling about injustice for this and that. It all smells at Marx and DP is full of the utopian ideas. MQA is good for several reasons and for me the main is that Bob Stuart have found what is wrong with digital concept of cd. If mqa doesn't make it, at least we have some new discovers about digital that could be implemented in future. The main problem is streaming not MQA. MQA can be implemented on disc as well. But when you stop paying your monthly subscription, all of your music is gonne, and that is typical mass consumer approach. Like Michael Framer says in his video on stereophile youtube channel - collect the music you like - and we cannot do that if we're limited to streaming. Finnaly, it will take a lot of time before all music will be converted to mqa and by that time - enjoy your music.

digilog's picture

... but ya might wanna hit the carriage-return a few times to make your run-on sandwich a bit more ... eh... edible.

On yer 'phone, it's dat key on da lower right...

voxi's picture

I don't care much about mistakes but thanks for the advice. Still I found my post much understanable than yours regardless how much mistakes I have done. Go save the world with qwerty!

mmole's picture

“But I don’t want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.
"Oh, you can’t help that," said the Cat: "we’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad."
"How do you know I’m mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn’t have come here.”

navr's picture

With blockchains like Hyperledger and its hyper fast GRPC binary protocol, the distribution will become a non-issue. It is not difficult to imagine a Hyperledger Aurender-like musical computer machine with 1000s of ledgers in hardware (not possible in general markets, but with deep pocket audiophiles, some say audiofools, it is quite possible) where the chaincodes are updated on the fly transparently, and all access rights forever protected as each song, whether delivered via MQA channel or FLAC or any other channel, will be treated as a digital blockchained asset with the complete history starting from the genesis block all the way to the current state of the asset. Any "touch" of the asset will be recorded in the distributed ledger. In this case, the digital asset is not the imprint of the MQA file, but rather the delivery of the copy. Smart contracts that run inside the musical servers will oversee anything related to this delivery. Any copying, any playing of the file will be recorded in the ledger. Because Hyperledger requires B2B, most likely there will be Spotify-like B2B hyperledger services (maybe even audio dealers as intermediaries) to B2C via concrete musical ledgerized computers sold to audiophiles.

navr's picture

MQA and permissioned blockchains are competing schemes and permissioned blockchains will definitely win down the road. Tidal and other streaming will become a thing of the past as the high resolution file deliveries via ledgers will become even more convenient and more secure than streams

Pages

X