CES 2019

What a funny article. Most entertaining one of 2019 so far!

...that MQA is still fighting for a Life giving breath?

I somehow got the idea that Phono 33.3 was sucking all the available Audiophile Marketing Air, was I wrong?, again?

Has the Audiophile Press ( our lovely Mr.JVS ) discovered just exactly how much life is remaining in the MQA Concept acceptance?

I haven't heard somuchasa "peep" from the Multi-Billion Dollar Auto Industry Audio Component Designers. ( yet?)

Is it too early to toss MQA onto the back Closet Shelve ( next to 8-Track and little 45rpm records )? ( which is what I suspected when Stoddard & Moffat did their Darko Interview on the Subject )

or

Is Mr.JVS just being polite by giving Mr.MQA a little bit of face time as a consolation-reward for Exhibiting at CES. ( just showing up, for gods sake, alongside Mr.JVS )

Should we wonder if any other Bonafide Audiophiles were found wandering around ?

Tony in Michigan

ps. Thanks for the Report Mr.JVS, it seems you've captured the essence of the experience. On your return trip home, will you rejuvenate yourself with a BottleHead Visit?

says you can’t serve two (or more..) masters at the same time.

The comparison between lossless high-res on Qobuz and MQA on Tidal is carefully crafted to be literally true but misleading.

First, regarding lossless 192 KHz on Qobuz being in beta: The technology is not beta, just the US market access. Specifically, Qobuz has been offering lossless high-res in Europe for years, and the current offering of lossless 192 KHz streaming in Europe is not a beta. The only beta aspect is marketing to the US. Qobuz currently is offering accounts to only a limited number of US "beta" customers but plans to be open to all US customers in a month.

Second, Qobuz is offering lossless 192 KHz streaming now, whereas the MQA announcement merely says 384 KHz MQA encoding on Tidal is "enabled".

Third, the MQA process of downsampling 384 KHz to MQA and then "unfolding" it back to 384 KHz is not lossless — the 384 KHz output is not identical to the 384 KHz input. In contrast, the 192 KHz streams from Qobuz are genuinely lossless — if the source is 192 KHz, the 192 KHz output will be bit-for-bit identical to the source.

Max real resolution without upsampling with MQA is 24/96. The MQA encoding process doesn’t encode frequencies above any found in a 96k resolution master. Anything above that is thrown out by the MQA encoding process. So the “second unfold” of an original 24\384 is merely an upsample of the “first unfold” (which is only 24\96 actual resolution) to 24/384.

It isn’t in any way a “real” 24\384 file.

Qobuz, on the other hand, is streaming full fledged lossless 24/192, that unlike MQA, isn’t upsampled from 24\96.

ESS has omnidirectional loudspeakers ........ There are some favorable reviews on-line ....... May be Stereophile could review ESS speakers? :-) ..........

1) Do you find 24/192 music unsatisfactory?

2) As others have said, anything beyond 96 in MQA is merely upsampling. This has been proven by many fully qualified and competent testers. (It is quite simple to do given basic lab equipment.)
So why do you continue to perpetuate the myth that it is anything else?

3) Tidal. At present Tidal (to which I subscribe) provides less than 0.1% of its catalogue in MQA form.
And it constantly releases far more music in non-MQA form than it does in MQA form. As a result the percentage of MQA music on Tidal, already very small, is decreasing with time.

4) As has been said, the Qobuz 24/192 is not a beta. The only 'beta' part is the USA marketing.

We are not idiots.

Have great respect for your music reviews and your show reviews but why shill so transparently for MQA?
The post above correctly describes your writing to be “crafted to be literally true but misleading” and so it is a bewildering position for you to take and only serves to undermine your credibility. No respect for this. So, I ask why.

I had no intention to mislead anyone. I will agree, in retrospect, that my statement about Qobuz would have been better stated as "Tidal's potential rival in the U.S., the French company Qobuz, is currently beta-testing in the U.S. its own hi-rez streaming platform for Android, iOS, Apple, and Windows devices. The Qobuz hi-rez platform, which is live in Europe, is limited to 24/192 resolution." Rather than change the copy, which will remove the context for the critical comments above, I accept the criticism, and have stated the facts more clearly herein.

The position by those who oppose MQA appears to be that anyone who writes anything about it at all - most certainly anyone who likes how it sounds and dares to say so - is a shill for MQA. The basic message is, if you write about this, your credibility will be undermined.

In point of fact, my credibility is underscored by my intention to speak my truth. It is perfectly fine with me if others disagree with what I say. Those who need to resort to ad hominem attacks in order to silence me say far more about themselves than about me.

The other tactic used by diehard opponents of MQA is to repeat the same misrepresentations over and over again. There are numerous cases of alternate facts above. Stereophile has published a number of articles by John Atkinson and Jim Austin that address the technical aspects of MQA. Rather than get into back and forths, I'll let those articles speak for themselves. They are all available on this website.

Bob Stern is incorrect when he states that there are currently no MQA files of 352.8 and 384kHz sampling rate on Tidal. Here is a list of 24/352 MQA Eudora titles such as the one shown in the photo, all of which are available on Tidal in the US:
https://tidal.com/playlist/9eabdfe6-deea-45b6-9eb1-0026cfd32dec

Admittedly, it isn't a large list. But it's a start. Truth be told, not many labels release titles at such a high sampling rate. Eudora, Sono Luminus, and 2L are the exception.

BTW, the Sono Luminus and 2L titles I've reviewed for Stereophile sound exceptional. On a good system, the soundstage is boundless. 24/88.2 and 24/96 sound very fine, but 24/352.8 and 24/384 are something else entirely, especially when recorded with a process that simulates the 3D holographic experience. I especially like 2L's 24/352.8 MQA versions, which on my dCS gear, sound even more convincing than the non-MQA versions. Sound engineer Morten Lindberg sends them to me. Don't miss the Utopias recording.

Bob Stern is convinced that Qobuz hi-rez will launch in the U.S. in February. That would be lovely. In fact, I've been eagerly awaiting the time when portals for both Tidal and Qobuz hi-rez are available on Roon and dCS software, and I have the opportunity to compare their sound with the software I prefer. However, as a member of the press who has been twice led to believe that Qobuz's U.S. hi-rez launch was imminent - I even prepared a story about the launch which we had to pull at the last minute when the launch became a beta test - I'll believe it when I see it. I'm sure it will come, but exactly when...

My thanks to everyone who reads and appreciates my music reviews. It's time to get back to exactly that. In a week that includes two live performances in Seattle - back-to-back Seattle Opera and Seattle Symphony - multiple recording reviews, and two visits from manufacturers, I have just enough time to walk the dogs (who only care about MQA if it's edible) and, too infrequently, go to the gym.

Happy New Year, everyone, and happy post-Winter Solstice. When you live in the Pacific Northwest and walk three rabid terrorers morning day and night, every day of more light makes a difference.

jason

I'm interested in true information being given to consumers. Especially by pros in the audiophile press. That's my motivation.

Bob Stern is correct in saying there are no actual 352 or 384 MQA files. The MQA encoding process strips out any frequencies above what would be found in a 96k recording when it encodes a file greater than 96k sample rate.
On playback with an MQA DAC, the file is "unfolded" to 88 or 96k (its actual resolution after MQA encoding) and then UPSAMPLED to whatever the nominal resolution of the original source file was. This is also true for all the files of supposed 352 or 384 resolution you referred to.

This is not misinformation and has been confirmed in interviews by Bob Stuart and in material published by MQA. Nothing in JA's or Jim Austin's articles contradicts this. They can't because it is simply the truth about how the MQA algorithm works. That's one of the reasons that MQA stopped referring to their files as "lossless" and now says they are "perceptually lossless".

I'd suggest as a professional who writes about these subjects you need to be acquainted with the basic facts, and stop, even if unintentionally, promoting untruths.

I aslo, btw, much enjoy your music reviews and have bought several albums after being made aware of them by your reviews.

The original note by Jason implied/claimed that MQA files of supposed DXD resolution were somehow higher resolution than a 192 file from Qobuz.
This is patently untrue, as no MQA file has real resolution above that of a 24/96khz recording.
MQA max actual resolution is that of a 96khz file. It doesn't encode anything above that resolution. So yes, it doesn't encode signals above 48k. It's described by MQA themselves when they explain how their system works. I'm not making it up.

The rest of your post is irrelevant to the discussion. I'm not discussing whether hi res recordings have audible music signals or not. The supposed MQA DXD files Jason referred to are not acutal DXD files. The MQA decoding process upsamples them to that rate from 88 or 96k after the "first unfold". This is inherently different from what happens with an actual DXD rate file when sent to a DAC. If you think the "bypassing" of those stages in a DAC is important/worthwhile, you don't get it with MQA. You do get it if you have an actual DXD file. Get the difference?

The MQA filters are not special/unusual and not of particularly high quality. This has been specifically demonstrated by several tests of them that are available online. They are actually what is referred to as "leaky" filters with lots of aliasing artifacts in the audible range. That doesn't mean there is something wrong with them, but certainly they can't fairly be seen as some special kind of high quality filters.
Some people clearly like their sound, which is fine. But it is simply incorrect to say that they are special in some way or necessarily higher quality than other filters available in some other playback software. In fact, the opposite seems to be the case. Better quality filters are available for those who wish to use them.

“Anyone who remembers hearing the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Jefferson Starship, the Grateful Dead, Country Joe & The Fish, and the like through old JBL home, car, or studio speakers, including the 4310, please raise at least one of your hands now. Assuming you can do so without wincing in pain.”
Yes Victor, you and the Stereophile main writers are such spring chicken all right!
First, JBL is still producing some of the best professional drivers in the industry, period. Used in JBL designed professional grade speakers or as separate components, they certainly can make most of the units used in pricey audiophile gear blush. High efficiency, tonal quality, reliability, their presence is unmistakable.
Second, unreported here is the rising popularity of the Japanese site Kenrick Sound that is rebuilding some of the iconic JBL large studio monitors of the 43 and 44 series, to great demand as their products seem to be sold out as soon as they come out of the shop.
So sure, some designs may have been tuned for boomy disco results, but there is no need for smugness when professional products in use for years have set quality standards of sound reproduction. Try a Mercury Living Presence 45RPM of Ravel’s Alborada del Gracioso conducted by Paray on an active 4 way JBL pro system and cry for your $200,000 plus designer speakers…

Is there yet a phone that can wirelessly send full-on MQA or higher resolutions to speakers with built in DACs?

That would be a serious, exit-level system.

Two speakers and my phone would perfect.

My phone sends signals to some battery powered speakers I have and it ain't Hi Fi yet, but imagine if it could be!

I hear Nordost quaking in fear!

"...please raise at least one of your hands now. Assuming you can do so without wincing in pain."

Imprecise language leads to inferred conclusions.

Sorry, this comment was made in regards to a post you made above, not this post.

Flak, FLAC. I like all of it ...

Need to get a phone that has this built in. I love Tidal and it is here today.

..Starship!!??