As We See It

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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".

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

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.

....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.

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

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.

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."

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'.

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.

Heh heh.

... 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...

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