MQA is Vaporware

[GUTB]

Here's the deal. I'm already upsampling high-resolution music through HQPlayer. I've listened to both Tidal software MQA decoding and "full" decoding via an Explorer 2 and Node 2. Although there is a clear improvement with MQA vs non-MQA through Tidal, streaming music can't -- and probably will never -- equal the quality of  upsampling PCM to DSD through a SDM DAC. Why? The benefit of skipping the SRC stage and using high quality filters from HQPlayer have a large sonic sonic improvement, an improvement that MQA can't benefit from and can't match.

 

Ladder DACs that support MQA might be a different matter, but those (ie, MSB DACs) are on a different magnitude of price.

 

Building a HQPlayer setup and pairing it with an appropriate DAC isn't exactly cheap, but it's bottom-budget affordable compared to building a streaming solution with MSB hardware.

 

The Node 2 was pretty good for the price, but simply not competitive with my reference HQPlayer chain.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

13 minutes ago, GUTB said:

Here's the deal. I'm already upsampling high-resolution music through HQPlayer. I've listened to both Tidal software MQA decoding and "full" decoding via an Explorer 2 and Node 2. Although there is a clear improvement with MQA vs non-MQA through Tidal, streaming music can't -- and probably will never -- equal the quality of  upsampling PCM to DSD through a SDM DAC. Why? The benefit of skipping the SRC stage and using high quality filters from HQPlayer have a large sonic sonic improvement, an improvement that MQA can't benefit from and can't match.

 

Ladder DACs that support MQA might be a different matter, but those (ie, MSB DACs) are on a different magnitude of price.

 

Building a HQPlayer setup and pairing it with an appropriate DAC isn't exactly cheap, but it's bottom-budget affordable compared to building a streaming solution with MSB hardware.

 

The Node 2 was pretty good for the price, but simply not competitive with my reference HQPlayer chain.

Fine.  No one has a gun to your head. 

 

I live in my own weird niche, too. I love, love, love what hi rez Mch can do, but also what DSP Room EQ can do, just like Kal.  So, for the moment, MQA is not something that works for me, personally.  But, if it could work, like Kal, I would be most interested, because I have heard some real potential here.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

3 hours ago, mansr said:

At least one 2L album (2L-038) has been remastered for MQA.

We did not listen to that particular album in either the 2006 or 2016 versions, if they are even available on Tidal.  

 

Yes, 2L created a new series of downloads - an "album" - in various formats/resolutions that they clearly say is a remix of a 2006 album. The MQA and numerous non-MQA versions of the new mix appear to be available for download at their site.  

 

It seems to me, no one should be confused by this or make an invalid comparison.  All versions of this 2016 remastering should be from the same mix and master, both MQA and non-, if my eyes do not deceive me as I read the description on their site.

 

BTW, I am well acquainted with 2L, and I have quite a number of their discs.  They have among the highest sonic engineering standards in the world, they strongly support hi rez audio, and they are very innovative.  I also find them to have extremely high credibility and integrity.  That they have adopted MQA is quite a meaningful endorsement of the concept.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[crenca]

9 minutes ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

 

BTW, I am well acquainted with 2L, and I have quite a number of their discs.  They have among the highest sonic engineering standards in the world, they strongly support hi rez audio, and they are very innovative.  I also find them to have extremely high credibility and integrity.  That they have adopted MQA is quite a meaningful endorsement of the concept.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That, or it negates their "credibility and integrity".

 

What ever the truth of MQA (a small SQ tweak that in no way justify's its DRM/format/end-to-end baggage) what it really does for small labels such as 2L is raise their (desperately low) $profile$.  Let's save the sales rhetoric for the show floor...

[Sal1950]

20 hours ago, mrvco said:

7 hours ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Yes, I think you are misunderstanding. I see no actual evidence or even the possibility that MQA can so monopolize the global recording industry consisting of many separate, independent companies, its formats and distribution channels, such that that the "discouraging position" to which you refer has the remotest chance of occurring before our eyes as we sit powerlessly by.  It seems like a paranoid, trumped-up conspiracy theory to me.

 

The sky is not falling, studios are not withdrawing all lossless files, and massive DRM is not being imposed throughout the Galaxy. Has anyone actually said they are withdrawing all their non-MQA recordings from CD, BD, streaming or downloading?  

 

if a streaming service like Tidal leverages MQA to save a little on their storage and bandwidth costs to deliver higher-res streams, then i don't really have a problem with that as long as they don't degrade below Red Book quality when not using an MQA DAC.  Ideally competitors will be able to choose to offer non-MQA Hi-Res streams.  At the end of the day I prefer competition so the market can decide rather than have the studios sold a bill of goods and be coerced into only releasing Hi-Res files in a single proprietary format (Which I do believe is the end-game that MQA is ultimately pursuing).

Fitz, you can handwave and make funny chicken little references but that doesn't change the point that many of us do believe there is a "end game" afoot. 

7 hours ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

has the remotest chance of occurring

Really, all the labels have to do is tomorrow,

1 Not release new music in any lossless format, after all why should they, makes no sense to dual catalog new releases, joe user will be getting the same thing in their eyes and never complain.

2 At some point replace the licensed files at HDTracks, etc; with MQA files.  Who's going to complain about that in any real numbers? So many in the audiophile community have drank the koolaid and are already on board proclaiming decoded MQA has improved SQ (without so much of a shred of evidence that they don't just sound different).

It will be an easy-peasy coup for the end of lossless.

If we don't raise our voice, in time the end result will be the end of lossless distribution, that only make sense from a number of angles without any wacky conspiracy theory. What sense will double or triple the storage needs make for anyone in distribution if MQA is all positives?

20 hours ago, mrvco said:

then i don't really have a problem with that as long as they don't degrade below Red Book quality when not using an MQA DAC.

I don't see how there can be any argument a undecoded lossy MQA file is degraded next to lossless RB. The only debate can be is if the degration is audible. But then I'm told here that "everything matters". 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

1 hour ago, Sal1950 said:

Fitz, you can handwave and make funny chicken little references but that doesn't change the point that many of us do believe there is a "end game" afoot. 

Really, all the labels have to do is tomorrow,

1 Not release new music in any lossless format, after all why should they, makes no sense to dual catalog new releases, joe user will be getting the same thing in their eyes and never complain.

2 At some point replace the licensed files at HDTracks, etc; with MQA files.  Who's going to complain about that in any real numbers? So many in the audiophile community have drank the koolaid and are already on board proclaiming decoded MQA has improved SQ (without so much of a shred of evidence that they don't just sound different).

It will be an easy-peasy coup for the end of lossless.

If we don't raise our voice, in time the end result will be the end of lossless distribution, that only make sense from a number of angles without any wacky conspiracy theory. What sense will double or triple the storage needs make for anyone in distribution if MQA is all positives?

I don't see how there can be any argument a undecoded lossy MQA file is degraded next to lossless RB. The only debate can be is if the degration is audible. But then I'm told here that "everything matters". 

Ok, but who is doing the hand waving?  You can believe whatever theories you want.  But, it is all pure speculation.  You've got no proof, Sal, of these dire consequences you are predicting.

[crenca]

58 minutes ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Ok, but who is doing the hand waving?  You can believe whatever theories you want.  But, it is all pure speculation.  You've got no proof, Sal, of these dire consequences you are predicting.

 

Proof, what does proof have to do with it?  Not everything is subject to syllogistic thinking. Most things are not. Heck, even Robert Harley and other supporters are honest enough about the industry trends, the perception of the "fix" for certain problems, and the motivations behind MQA (or anything like it).  But you keep selling the SQ aspect as perhaps there are those who have not heard about it.  

 

Yep, MQA is just "misunderstood"...you know, like a teenage girl 

[Sal1950]

1 hour ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

You can believe whatever theories you want.  But, it is all pure speculation.

Theory and speculation?

More like 1+1=2 math.  Who's going to continue in the long term to store and distribute both a lossless and lossy format if you can sell the clients the lossy one with completely unsupportable claims of improved SQ?

 

 

[Rt66indierock]

On 4/28/2017 at 9:05 PM, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

 

Why don't you ask some manufacturers. 99% of them will tell you they are working on it. 

 

There was huge announcements at CES with respect to content. I expect Munich to be similar. Announcing an MQA DAC really isn't news. 

 

The hold up with hardware releases is the MQA certification. It takes quite a while. 

 

I have reported several times that DAC manufacturers couldn’t get information about MQA, twice on this site November 6, 2016 and December 23, 2016. MQA was announced in December of 2014 and there are how many manufacturers certified to make MQA DACs? Fourteen manufacturers are certified according to their website which is one every two months. I saw faster turtles on the golf course today.

 

There may have been huge announcements at CES 2017 about MQA content but here we are in late April and we have no content. Let’s say Sony announces they have licensed MQA at Munich. You will be all excited but there will still be no content.

 

As for me asking some manufacturers for this and future discussions you can safely assume my contacts in the audio industry are at least as good as yours in my primary audio agenda item high performance systems costing $3,000 or less, better in the computer industry and better in the music business.

[Rt66indierock]

10 hours ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

You are completely distorting what Kal said in his review.  Elsewhere In the review, he says (unquoted by you), "...I am confident in saying that MQA, played through Mytek's Brooklyn DACS, made a real and consistent improvement."  It is no secret that Kal's approach is one of understatement, which I find refreshingly honest, personally.

 

He likened the improvement as similar in magnitude to, but quite different in sonic effect from what can be achieved by DSP Room EQ.  That is to say DSP EQ also, like MQA, is not a "blatant" improvement, but one must listen to it by paying close attention.  That is true for much of audio today - amps, DACS, hi vs. low rez, even speakers.  However, if you had been reading Kal's column for the last two decades,  as I have, you would understand that he considers DSP Room EQ an essential, very high priority in his system.  

 

That it is a substantal improvement is not inconsistent with the need to listen to it carefully.  It would take 30, 60 seconds or even more of careful comparative listening for me to determine if someone had switched my EQ off while I was out of the room.  Yet, like Kal, I consider DSP EQ to be a huge sonic performance breakthrough I would never part with.  That Kal considers MQA sonically of the same order of magnitude an improvement is high praise indeed, contrary to your interpretation of his review.

 

So, have you, yourself carefully listened to well set up DSP EQ vs. no EQ?  Have you yourself compared the MQA vs. non-MQA versions of the same recording? That might help you better understand.

 

 

 

What I quoted from Kal is consistent with John Atkinson’s reporting on MQA (remember the four out of seven blind test he did). The difference between MQA versions and non MQA versions is very small.

 

I have listened carefully to well setup DSP EQ vs. non DSP EQ. If DSP makes a big difference then you have the wrong speakers for that room and or they placed improperly. See Art Dudley’s Listening 166 for my discussion with John Atkinson about improper speaker placement as an example of messing up sound. And I have setup a few systems with DSP. I don’t personally use it because I don’t find it necessary.

 

I stated in the original post when I will test MQA myself and as of today only one album has been converted to MQA. I will buy a DragonFly Red when the first bug fix to the desktop software is released out of curiosity and listen to TIDAL.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

12 hours ago, crenca said:

 

Proof, what does proof have to do with it?  Not everything is subject to syllogistic thinking. Most things are not. Heck, even Robert Harley and other supporters are honest enough about the industry trends, the perception of the "fix" for certain problems, and the motivations behind MQA (or anything like it).  But you keep selling the SQ aspect as perhaps there are those who have not heard about it.  

 

Yep, MQA is just "misunderstood"...you know, like a teenage girl 

Well, if we really want to eventually get to the truth about something, which is not always easy, we can guess, make stuff up, speculate and believe all we want.  But, that does not make it so.  Maybe Harley does that, maybe I do that, maybe Sal and you do too.

 

By the way, I am not selling anything.

 

Sure everybody has heard ABOUT it.  But, have you actually heard it?  What do you think about how it sounds?  Sal?  Anybody?

[daverich4]

8 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

 See Art Dudley’s Listening 166 for my discussion with John Atkinson about improper speaker placement as an example of messing up sound. 

 

Is Listening 166 the right one?  There doesn't seem to be anything about speaker placement in it. 

 

http://www.stereophile.com/content/listening-166#igqoZEI3p20MLqEZ.97

[Fitzcaraldo215]

11 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

Theory and speculation?

More like 1+1=2 math.  Who's going to continue in the long term to store and distribute both a lossless and lossy format if you can sell the clients the lossy one with completely unsupportable claims of improved SQ?

 

 

Gosh, I must have flunked math.  Just kidding.  But, it is not a math question.  It is a business and economic question.

 

So, with a fragmented recording industry of many big and small firms, a fragmented Internet streaming and downloading industry, a fragmented industry of DAC manufacturers, MQA is going to achieve your worst fears by imposing its monopolistic will on every single one of those separate and independent economic interests?  Hey, Sony with its huge size, industry clout and marketing muscle could not even come remotely close to making that happen for SACD/DSD.  But, miniscule by comparison MQA is going to pull this off?  That does not add up, my friend.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

9 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

What I quoted from Kal is consistent with John Atkinson’s reporting on MQA (remember the four out of seven blind test he did). The difference between MQA versions and non MQA versions is very small.

 

I have listened carefully to well setup DSP EQ vs. non DSP EQ. If DSP makes a big difference then you have the wrong speakers for that room and or they placed improperly. See Art Dudley’s Listening 166 for my discussion with John Atkinson about improper speaker placement as an example of messing up sound. And I have setup a few systems with DSP. I don’t personally use it because I don’t find it necessary.

 

I stated in the original post when I will test MQA myself and as of today only one album has been converted to MQA. I will buy a DragonFly Red when the first bug fix to the desktop software is released out of curiosity and listen to TIDAL.

Well, disagreements will always abound between audiophiles about what sounds good,  the magnitude and significance of differences, etc.. 

 

Also, believe what you wish about what others who have heard MQA think about it.  I do not think your characterization of Kal's opinion, or Atkinson's is accurate.  It seems you are interpreting their writings so as to confirm your own pre-existing biases.

 

Your opinion about DSP EQ, is not shared by Kal, by me or many others.  But, believe as you wish. The DSP EQ comparison is not really relevant to MQA, anyway, except for the issue Kal raised about interoperability with current DSP EQ tools. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rt66indierock]

30 minutes ago, daverich4 said:

 

Is Listening 166 the right one?  There doesn't seem to be anything about speaker placement in it. 

 

http://www.stereophile.com/content/listening-166#igqoZEI3p20MLqEZ.97

 

See the comments in #166.

[daverich4]

22 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

See the comments in #166.

 

Got it. Thanks. 

[Sal1950]

1 hour ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Gosh, I must have flunked math.  Just kidding.  But, it is not a math question.  It is a business and economic question.

 

So, with a fragmented recording industry of many big and small firms, a fragmented Internet streaming and downloading industry, a fragmented industry of DAC manufacturers, MQA is going to achieve your worst fears by imposing its monopolistic will on every single one of those separate and independent economic interests?  Hey, Sony with its huge size, industry clout and marketing muscle could not even come remotely close to making that happen for SACD/DSD.  But, miniscule by comparison MQA is going to pull this off?  That does not add up, my friend.

I don't know if they'll be able to achieve it bro, but to me it's as plain as the nose on your face that's their goal, and that's why I object to it.  SACD may have failed (and good thing too)  in a large part due to its DRM like lockdown of the data, still extremely difficult to rip. 

 

1 hour ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Sure everybody has heard ABOUT it.  But, have you actually heard it?  What do you think about how it sounds?  Sal?  Anybody?

No I haven't heard it, and I've never debated how it may or may not sound except to point out that the changes reported are simply based on "sounds good" subjective reports with zero supportable evidence that it's somehow closer to real.  We could offer up DSP or even a simple parametric modifications that many might report as "sounds good" too when given a subjective listen, you know that.

 

The point is not being debated over SQ, but over it's business model, and the intent both from Meridians pov and the record labels pov. Neither of which are based from a "whats good for the consumer" aspect.

[The Computer Audiophile]

20 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

zero supportable evidence that it's somehow closer to real

 

Regardless if it's MQA or traditional FLAC, how would one find evidence that either is closer to real? Honest question. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

12 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

I have reported several times that DAC manufacturers couldn’t get information about MQA, twice on this site November 6, 2016 and December 23, 2016. MQA was announced in December of 2014 and there are how many manufacturers certified to make MQA DACs? Fourteen manufacturers are certified according to their website which is one every two months. I saw faster turtles on the golf course today.

 

There may have been huge announcements at CES 2017 about MQA content but here we are in late April and we have no content. Let’s say Sony announces they have licensed MQA at Munich. You will be all excited but there will still be no content.

 

As for me asking some manufacturers for this and future discussions you can safely assume my contacts in the audio industry are at least as good as yours in my primary audio agenda item high performance systems costing $3,000 or less, better in the computer industry and better in the music business.

 

More speculation and refusal to see any other side to this. 

 

[andifor]

18 hours ago, crenca said:

 

That, or it negates their "credibility and integrity".

 

What ever the truth of MQA (a small SQ tweak that in no way justify's its DRM/format/end-to-end baggage) what it really does for small labels such as 2L is raise their (desperately low) $profile$.  Let's save the sales rhetoric for the show floor...

 

I think, Apple and others stumbled over DRM and had to release their music as mp3. This as the format for compressed music.

I hope, others will stumble over the same DRM for highres music. I have to admit, I can't remember, why the music industry stumbled over DRM. Was it hardware manufactures? Customers? Music industry to get a bigger share of the money?

 

MQA has to make sure, not to make the same errors and enemies and they might succeed. Not that I wish them good luck...

[Sal1950]

47 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Regardless if it's MQA or traditional FLAC, how would one find evidence that either is closer to real? Honest question. 

????

FLAC doesn't claim any audible changes.

A original pcm file can be measurably compared to a flac coded/decoded file

FLAC is open source software and the code can be read by anyone with the knowledge to read it. We know exactly what is being performed.

 

MQA is none of the above.

But you know all that and much more.

Sorry Chris but as I've pointed out before I find it sad you've put the weight of CA behind supporting MQA and it's digital data lockdown.

This is not what is best for the consumer.

[andifor]

54 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Regardless if it's MQA or traditional FLAC, how would one find evidence that either is closer to real? Honest question. 

 

What question is this? Everybody can create a FLAC and check how close it is. How do you do this vor MQA. Honest question.

[The Computer Audiophile]

21 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

????

FLAC doesn't claim any audible changes.

A original pcm file can be measurably compared to a flac coded/decoded file

FLAC is open source software and the code can be read by anyone with the knowledge to read it. We know exactly what is being performed.

 

MQA is none of the above.

But you know all that and much more.

Sorry Chris but as I've pointed out before I find it sad you've put the weight of CA behind supporting MQA and it's digital data lockdown.

This is not what is best for the consumer.

 

 

Evidence of this support please. 

 

I thought you were talking about files being closer to the real thing, as in the actual music. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

20 minutes ago, andifor said:

 

What question is this? Everybody can create a FLAC and check how close it is. How do you do this vor MQA. Honest question.

 

You can't measure how close any format is to the original performance. 

[andifor]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

You can't measure how close any format is to the original performance. 

 

Can't I play some electrical instrument, record it over a ADC and save the file as FLAC? I have to admit, I'm neither a musician nor a sound engineer.