MQA is Vaporware

[andifor]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

You're supposed to sit in front of the loudspeakers :~)

 

You clearly have no clue about MGAs filtering!

 

;o)

[The Computer Audiophile]

32 minutes ago, andifor said:

 

You clearly have no clue about MQAs filtering!

 

;o)

Ha!

[The Computer Audiophile]

 

[PeterV]

17 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

You're supposed to sit in front of the loudspeakers :~)

Haha, no, this strange position of the chair wa caused due to a recent upgrade to cat&m gigabit ethernet router switch and 75 cm of Audioquest Diamond ethernet cable (2nd hand lucky purchase) for the last bit towards the streamer/DAC.

 

Usually, the audio gear is located in the centre and my chair right before it for non-listeneing usage. But when I dive into the sweetspot, I know where to sit :-)  But interestingly enough, most of the times I just lie on the bench nowadays and especially when I relax and not tease my brain pinpointing too much, I really enjoy the music especially when the MQA versions are played.  But again: this is my personal situation. I cannot compare with audiogear costing 10 times of what I have collected over the last years.  The NAD DDFA technology captured me when I read the review of the M2 at the time. But it was too expensive for me, so the 390DD was a perfect replacement for the Krell 300i. The Watt Puppies are second hand and I paid 4.500,- euro for them. The woofers needed to be repaired and this was done professionally with the required rubber rings. Step by step the sound improved, and I now appreciate these loudspeakers a lot, it might be part of the reason why I am able to distinguish the Time Coherency improvement by MQA, since Wilson Audio teached us years ago the importance of Time- and Phase Coherent design of loudspeakers. This pays of now with MQA I suppose.. 

[PeterV]

18 hours ago, jabbr said:

I’m just tryin to learn, so would MQA (if it did YouTube) convert:

Into: 

? 

Or vis versa

??

Hi Jabbr,

 

Please understand that it is not up to MQA to decide which albums by which artists will be remastered using MQA, but it is up to the record companies Warner, Sony and all others who meanwhile incorporated MQA for current and future streaming services.

 

The process of remastering albums to MQA is described here:  http://bobtalks.co.uk/blog/provenance/provenance-series-introduction/

[firedog]

1 hour ago, PeterV said:

 

The process of remastering albums to MQA is described here:  http://bobtalks.co.uk/blog/provenance/provenance-series-introduction/

Actually, this tells you almost nothing about how MQA albums are remastered. It picks 3 famous albums and tells us how they decided what source to use for an MQA version. Nothing more. It's an exercise in PR disguised as some kind of "deep information" about MQA.  

Do you think when they are trying to remaster thousands of albums for release in MQA they are going to painstakingly go thru the archives and provenance of every tape and digital file given to them? If you do, you are either exceedingly naive or you haven't been paying the slightest attention about how the record industry operates. Hell, for lots of albums they don't even know where the original master is or how it was made. Even within the three listed examples they acknowledge they don't know some of the pertinent recording details, and can only make an educated guess. 

[FredericV]

18 minutes ago, firedog said:

Actually, this tells you almost nothing about how MQA albums are remastered. It picks 3 famous albums and tells us how they decided what source to use for an MQA version. Nothing more. It's an exercise in PR disguised as some kind of "deep information" about MQA.  

 

For the Led Zeppelin example, they also state that they already took an existing remaster, which they used for the MQA encode. So 'MQA remaster' as claimed by Peter V is a little bit misleading:

"For the MQA release, the 12th July 2016 96 kHz/24 transfer was chosen as the best asset in the archive; it had been remastered....."

So far only with 2L.no we are sure the MQA versions come from their existing DXD 24/352.8K masters, which makes the comparison fair. On these files I had a lot of fun with wave editors to see what each stage of MQA does.

Most other examples where a claimed sound improvement is heard with the MQA version, a different master was chosen.

[Don Hills]

11 hours ago, firedog said:

...

Do you think when they are trying to remaster thousands of albums for release in MQA they are going to painstakingly go thru the archives and provenance of every tape and digital file given to them? ...

 

This. Very much this. How much time do you think has been spent doing this per album converted so far? For the vast majority, I'm betting on some semi-automatic profiling of the frequency response of what they are given, to pick a set of filters that provide the maximum aliasing ("time domain optimisation") with acceptable distortion. And as Mans has shown, most of them end up with the same filter.

[tmtomh]

15 hours ago, firedog said:

Actually, this tells you almost nothing about how MQA albums are remastered. It picks 3 famous albums and tells us how they decided what source to use for an MQA version. Nothing more. It's an exercise in PR disguised as some kind of "deep information" about MQA.  

Do you think when they are trying to remaster thousands of albums for release in MQA they are going to painstakingly go thru the archives and provenance of every tape and digital file given to them? If you do, you are either exceedingly naive or you haven't been paying the slightest attention about how the record industry operates. Hell, for lots of albums they don't even know where the original master is or how it was made. Even within the three listed examples they acknowledge they don't know some of the pertinent recording details, and can only make an educated guess. 

 

Yes, very good points. I do like that they are doing research to try to find the original/lowest-generation "finished" source for these albums - but as you say it is likely that this level of "provenance" searching is only being done for a relatively small number of high-profile releases, partially because of honest time and labor constraints, and partially as a PR stunt.

 

And, I hasten to add, this has very little if anything to do with MQA per se - all of these albums have multiple D-A-D (or A-D-A or A and D-D-A-D) steps in their lineage, and so MAQ encoding isn't capable of fixing anything - they're just transcoding digital high-res sources using a minimum phase anti-aliasing filter. It's BS.

[PeterV]

9 hours ago, Don Hills said:

 

This. Very much this. How much time do you think has been spent doing this per album converted so far? For the vast majority, I'm betting on some semi-automatic profiling of the frequency response of what they are given, to pick a set of filters that provide the maximum aliasing ("time domain optimisation") with acceptable distortion. And as Mans has shown, most of them end up with the same filter.

 

Well, that might be true, I do not know. And yes, it would be an enourmous job to do it like this. But that is the responsibility of the record companies I assume. Even if the MQA remastering proces is an automated form of reprocessing which includes fingerprint settings from the studio with regard to the sum of all applied A/D D/D or D/A processing used during the production of these albums and at the end this information is decyphered including compensation for that DAC performance at home, it is an excellent, indeed total time-smear reducing tool. Fact is that I hear the improvement on the spot, not only at home, but also during live A/B comparisons. It is very nice to notice that most classic albums from the label Deutsche Grammophon are being released on Tidal in both 16/44 and in MQA 24/96. Perfect comparison material. It will be interesting to compare Qobuz 24/96 flac with Tidal MQA. The audible difference will not nu huge I expect. So again: MQA is a no-brainer with regard to upgrading your streaming solution. What it does with a classic album like Crime Of The Century made a huge impact on me. It delivers the best sounding remaster with higher resolution than all other formats and knowing that the original album was recorded analog im 1974, it shows me that there is very much to gain with the technology  especially with older analog recordings, but also with transporting and presenting nowadays DSD or even DXD recordings at the highest (24/384) level and that via a streaming service...So what is there to complain about..? What is there to loose?  NOTHING!  There are only winners for those who enjoy it and those who do not: just proceed listening with what you have, WAV,  FLAC 16/44 sounds still excellent! Especially when the recording was done with great care. DSD and DXD sound superb. Maybe soon streaming of such formats will become available. But altogether it is just a niche market. I assume over 80% of streaming is still in AAC or MP3.. so..let's wait and see what will happen.

[Miska]

6 hours ago, PeterV said:

It is very nice to notice that most classic albums from the label Deutsche Grammophon are being released on Tidal in both 16/44 and in MQA 24/96. Perfect comparison material. It will be interesting to compare Qobuz 24/96 flac with Tidal MQA.

 

Why do you compare RedBook to hires and not original hires to MQA hires?

 

In addition, classical music is poor for these comparisons because there's only small benefit of hires there and very few if any transients that could have any blur...

 

So far I've purchased bunch of albums in both original hires and MQA hires, but don't really see much point in the MQA version, since it is 2€ more expensive than the original and so much more restricted use... In addition it reduces quality...

[PeterV]

2 hours ago, Miska said:

 

Why do you compare RedBook to hires and not original hires to MQA hires?

 

In addition, classical music is poor for these comparisons because there's only small benefit of hires there and very few if any transients that could have any blur...

 

So far I've purchased bunch of albums in both original hires and MQA hires, but don't really see much point in the MQA version, since it is 2€ more expensive than the original and so much more restricted use... In addition it reduces quality...

 

Hi Miska,  I agree that apples should be compared with apples. The point with MQA the way I use it now, is mostly related to the Tidal streams where you get with the HiFi subscription the FREE upgrade to MQA. As you will be aware, there are various MQA encoded albums which are unfolded into 24/44, 48, 88.2, 96, 176, 192 and even 384 bit/kHz.  In such a situation there is very much to gain with regard to sound quality when you can choose between listening to the 16/44 or MQA version on Tidal. I also purchased several MQA albums which I am able to compare while playing from the same source, which is in such cases direct from a high-speed 128 Gb USB stick which is plugged into the streamer. In my setup, almost every MQA album sounded better. 

With classical music it is important to know the album you are comparing with also very well is my experience. But my personal taste is more 70's - 00'albums like Supertramp Crime Of The Century and some recent albums like Yello Toy. Both sound (very!) much better in MQA, even the 24/192 HD download version of COTC sounds not as good as the Tidal MQA 24/192 version.  Yello Toy also surprised me a lot.   So I would advise you to try 1 Month Tidal MQA for free. There are thousands of MQA albums available and it is a superb bonus :-)

[mcgillroy]

9 hours ago, PeterV said:

 

Even if the MQA remastering proces is an automated form of reprocessing which includes fingerprint settings from the studio with regard to the sum of all applied A/D D/D or D/A processing used during the production of these albums and at the end this information is decyphered including compensation for that DAC performance at home, it is an excellent, indeed total time-smear reducing tool. 

Pete you still haven’t visited a mastering studio or seen a record companies offices from the inside?!

 

Else this level of nativity towards the processes involved, their complexities and trade offs would not be present here.

 

The very idea that there is any kind of documentation of the converters and processing chains of a recording is delusional.

 

Beyond that MQA so far has failed to provide any evidence that their technology includes any device specific adjustments. At the same time available evidence strongly suggests the opposite.

 

Last not least their challenge to signal-theory and claim of “time-blur” remains frivolous and unproven.

 

Whatever your ears tell you: nobody is disputing MQA can sound different. Maybe better to you ears and that’s ok. But the systemic approach and benefits you see in MQA is a marketing induced redshift from the real systemic approach this DRM-Trojan entails.

 

Do yourself a favor go sit in a mastering studio, talk to record company people, call your next colleges EE-Prof or talk to an IP-lawyer.

 

You might not like what you hear but it’s the sound of MQA with a different filter, deblurring some of their BS.

[Miska]

1 hour ago, PeterV said:

As you will be aware, there are various MQA encoded albums which are unfolded into 24/44, 48, 88.2, 96, 176, 192 and even 384 bit/kHz.

 

Well, MQA contains only max 96 kHz sampling rate worth of content, but not even that properly that as the response is notably rolling off already at ~25 - 30 kHz. Further "unfolding" is just upsampling with crappy leaky filter. And they cut a lot of bits out to do that for content that actually contain some high frequencies in order to get space for the stupid "folding".

 

1 hour ago, PeterV said:

With classical music it is important to know the album you are comparing with also very well is my experience.

 

It doesn't matter, because audio analyzer easily tells what there is and there isn't.

 

1 hour ago, PeterV said:

So I would advise you to try 1 Month Tidal MQA for free. There are thousands of MQA albums available and it is a superb bonus

 

I'm a long time Tidal subscriber. Luckily there are only very few MQA albums for the music I listen. I rather listen RedBook properly processed than MQA-crappified version.

[mcgillroy]

Judging from the reports published so far there seems not to have been much excitement about MQA at RMAF.

 

Deliberate decision after their panel-trainwreck or just vendors not so hot about MQA anymore?!

[crenca]

10 hours ago, mcgillroy said:

Judging from the reports published so far there seems not to have been much excitement about MQA at RMAF.

 

Deliberate decision after their panel-trainwreck or just vendors not so hot about MQA anymore?!

 

 

What happened to the panel?  It was off, then it was on (Chris C was going to livestream it).  Did it actually happen?  If so who in the end was on the panel and did the Parasound principal (can't remember his name) moderate it?

[firedog]

2 hours ago, crenca said:

 

 

What happened to the panel?  It was off, then it was on (Chris C was going to livestream it).  Did it actually happen?  If so who in the end was on the panel and did the Parasound principal (can't remember his name) moderate it?

There was (don't know if it is still there) a stream available. IMO, you didn't miss anything. 

[Rt66indierock]

22 hours ago, mcgillroy said:

Judging from the reports published so far there seems not to have been much excitement about MQA at RMAF.

 

Deliberate decision after their panel-trainwreck or just vendors not so hot about MQA anymore?!

 

There wasn't a lot of enthusiasm for MQA anywhere I saw. I interrupted a conversation between an MQA rep and the Roon people trying to get a coke. He told they were trying to do business here. Really? I talked with Andrew Quint of The Absolute Sound. He and Robert Harley were not happy with the 300 negative responses to their articles. And my part of it of course.

 

Now some in the press probably would have liked to talk about MQA in some of the seminars but didn't. Maybe because I was sitting in the second row.

[crenca]

6 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

I talked with Andrew Quint of The Absolute Sound. He and Robert Harley were not happy with the 300 negative responses to their articles.

 

 

Just "unhappy".  Did they say why?  Was it just some complaint that they have not been able to control the narrative.  Do they have any (no matter how small) sense that the problem is their understanding of MQA, digital, IP, DRM, software, market & "end to end" format takeover, etc. ?  

[Rt66indierock]

9 hours ago, firedog said:

There was (don't know if it is still there) a stream available. IMO, you didn't miss anything. 

 

Well I'm going to write a post about MQA and leverage marketing. And one about churning customers since Danny Kaey brought it up.

I knew they were doing it from the beginning but I never thought someone would actually get up and say it publicly. 

[Indydan]

44 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

There wasn't a lot of enthusiasm for MQA anywhere I saw. I interrupted a conversation between an MQA rep and the Roon people trying to get a coke. He told they were trying to do business here. Really? I talked with Andrew Quint of The Absolute Sound. He and Robert Harley were not happy with the 300 negative responses to their articles. And my part of it of course.

 

Now some in the press probably would have liked to talk about MQA in some of the seminars but didn't. Maybe because I was sitting in the second row.

 

Did you run into the gentleman from Berkeley Audio, who wanted to know who you were in the TAS comments section? 

[Rt66indierock]

17 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Just "unhappy".  Did they say why?  Was it just some complaint that they have not been able to control the narrative.  Do they have any (no matter how small) sense that the problem is their understanding of MQA, digital, IP, DRM, software, market & "end to end" format takeover, etc. ?  

 

Didn't ever see Robert at the show and I got a ticket to the awards presentation even. Andrew was upset with me because I said his listening evaluations were faulty. He also asked if I felt any responsibility for the negative tone of the responses and I told him no I'm only responsible for mine. But I want to thank everyone for their negative comments and the next time anybody writes about MQA feel free to "go negative" it gets their attention.

 

I didn't get the feeling the supporters understand the issues surrounding MQA. You should seen the looks on peoples faces when I said we had cloned MQA and hacked a decoder. The supporters of MQA don't like that the opponents of MQA have better technical information than they do.

[crenca]

9 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Didn't ever see Robert at the show and I got a ticket to the awards presentation even. Andrew was upset with me because I said his listening evaluations were faulty. He also asked if I felt any responsibility for the negative tone of the responses and I told him no I'm only responsible for mine. But I want to thank everyone for their negative comments and the next time anybody writes about MQA feel free to "go negative" it gets their attention.

 

I didn't get the feeling the supporters understand the issues surrounding MQA. You should seen the looks on peoples faces when I said we had cloned MQA and hacked a decoder. The supporters of MQA don't like that the opponents of MQA have better technical information than they do.

 

 

Interesting.  They are really paddling up the de-nile then.  They simply are not listening to what those with a critical point of view have to say.  This just tells us how flawed the culture that they try to maintain is...

[Rt66indierock]

2 minutes ago, Indydan said:

 

Did you run into the gentleman from Berkeley Audio, who wanted to know who you were in the TAS comments section? 

 

I plan to call him next week.

[FredericV]

On 10/10/2017 at 8:08 PM, Miska said:

 

Well, MQA contains only max 96 kHz sampling rate worth of content, but not even that properly that as the response is notably rolling off already at ~25 - 30 kHz. Further "unfolding" is just upsampling with crappy leaky filter. And they cut a lot of bits out to do that for content that actually contain some high frequencies in order to get space for the stupid "folding".

 

I was just chatting with Hans Beekhuyzen, a well known reviewer. Hans does not understand MQA. He says the difference between upsampling MQA files and MQA decoding, is that MQA "saves" everything above 92 Khz (he probably meant 96 Khz).

 

This group "streaming audio" is a public group.

It's not the first time that Hans is wrong:
 

 

 

Quote

 

 

It doesn't matter, because audio analyzer easily tells what there is and there isn't.

 

Indeed, so I showed Hans the following:

 

First is the original DXD from 2L.no, then first unfold, then second unfold. While this DXD file did not have any real content above 22.5 Khz except noise, that noise is completely gone in the first and second unfold.

The red part in the original DXD file is gone in the fully unfolded MQA version:



Even better would be a DXD file from 2L.no with actuel +48 Khz content (which MQA can't describe) and compare the spectrum of DXD vs 1e vs 2e unfold. I believe Mansr knows a public 2L.no file with such content, that has harmonics above 48 Khz.

The above example is not the best, as it does not show what the first unfold can do, as there's no music content just above the audible range. But it show the second unfold does not recover entropy that was in the original.