MQA is Vaporware

[mansr]

25 minutes ago, Jud said:

[Emphasis added.]

 

Right - were you distinguishing SACDs from "DSD content"?  I wasn't, which is one reason I asked if there were sales figures on this (the other reason is because I'm just curious to know).

Ok, I shouldn't have said "most" without having figures to show. If I instead say "lots of" it doesn't change the point I was trying to make. That said, when shopping around for music, I personally come across far more downloads than SACDs.

[Jud]

Just now, mansr said:

Ok, I shouldn't have said "most" without having figures to show. If I instead say "lots of" it doesn't change the point I was trying to make. That said, when shopping around for music, I personally come across far more downloads than SACDs.

 

I look for downloads first as a matter of convenience, as well as supporting several vendors I like in the process.

[ron spencer]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Your argument is like me saying Tesla is vaporware because I can't purchase one that accepts diesel. MQA is a streaming format first and foremost. Who knows if you'll ever be able to purchase and download any additional format of your music in the future? Maybe the days of purchase and download formats are over. Perhaps we won't see another purchase and download format because FLAC is fine. 

 

Your side of the argument isn't difficult for me to see. I have an open mind. In fact, I see it as my job to see both sides of MQA and try to bring out these arguments for discussion. 

 

Interesting....your outcome of not being able to download and only have streaming available is interesting.

 

Perhaps you should do a poll:

 

"Would you be willing to give up having any physical possession of media/files if MQA is implemented?"

 

If the resounding answer is no and people want to "own things" then there is no reason for those same people to want MQA in the world where it replaces the "ownership of things"

 

I for one, love my files....

[crenca]

58 minutes ago, jhwalker said:

 

Why?  If the MQA version sounds better (still under debate, but a lot of people say it does), why would you want the original, inferior version?  Makes no sense.

 

What makes no sense is this flat world, only one aspect (to the exclusion of all other aspects) thinking.  Let's (for arguments sake) say that MQA is unquestionably the superior sounding format compared to all other existing formats including high sample rate PCM/DSD.  Would I want to "own" or possess it, or even use it?  Well here are some of the things that come into play:

 

1)  High sample rate PCM/DSD (heck, even 16/44) sounds pretty good and might very well exceed even the most expensive electronic systems ability to fully bring out its existing and inherent SQ.  What is the value of an almost-as-good format that can still be significantly improved upon with future innovation?

 

2)  MQA has IP, DRM, and playback chain limitations that can not be overcome (its very existence depends on limiting the rights of the end user) - what is the value of it's superior SQ compared to open format's which can and do sound "almost" as good?

 

3)  Why not just be patient and wait for a better mouse trap to come along (as it inevitably will)  that gives us all the benefits of MQA without any of the downside?

 

That's just three off the top of my head...

 

 

 

 

 

[crenca]

14 minutes ago, ron spencer said:

 

I for one, love my files....

 

 

That's right - not because you are hopelessly sentimental and a Luddite.  Rather, you see the value of your existing digital ecosystem and the consumer value of the status quo.  

 

Not everyone sees this however - Chris is "ok" with a fundamental change (say, to cloud based music and all that entails) or is at least stoic about it (i.e. believes that it is inevitable and there is nothing to be done and we should just get used to it).  I don't agree in that it is neither inevitable nor does it provide anywhere near the value of our current ownership ecosystem...

[andifor]

22 minutes ago, ron spencer said:

 

Interesting....your outcome of not being able to download and only have streaming available is interesting.

 

Perhaps you should do a poll:

 

"Would you be willing to give up having any physical possession of media/files if MQA is implemented?"

 

If the resounding answer is no and people want to "own things" then there is no reason for those same people to want MQA in the world where it replaces the "ownership of things"

 

I for one, love my files....

 

highresaudio has some MQA on download, you can search for them: https://www.highresaudio.com/en/search

 

Leave all the fields blank and just select "Format = MQA" and hit "search" => currently "252 results". Some of the albums are even available as MQA and FLAC. I have no clue how they compare SQ wise, neither have I a highresaudio account nor an MQA DAC.

[crenca]

36 minutes ago, Jud said:

...but what happens if they become the only game in town?  If, as with so many other areas of commerce, the industry grows to love the idea of content you can never stop paying for?  (Thank you, cable TV or whichever industry spawned this model.) ...

 

This.  The data/computer industry has been selling this model for years.  How does Microsoft even out its cash flow and not have to rush new versions of Windows/Office out every year?  The subscription model.  Apple largely avoided this by marking profit in hardware -the software being and integral part of the hardware and user experience but not the source of Apple's $profits$.  

 

Streaming is a subscription model - but many consumers are "ok" with it for all sorts of reasons.  They undervalue their current digital musical systems and/or think they are a hassle and value the subscription model more.

 

So when MQA comes along and promises better SQ - they have trouble grasping why others would not value it as much as they do...

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, crenca said:

...Chris is "ok" with a fundamental change (say, to cloud based music and all that entails) or is at least stoic about it (i.e. believes that it is inevitable and there is nothing to be done and we should just get used to it)...

 

Hey, don't put words in my mouth :~)

 

If anything, I feel resigned to my fate as a consumer of music. Two of the three largest labels are owned by public companies, while the third one is owned by a holding company. I don't believe we as an industry have any clout or ability to influence without authority. 

 

Maybe I'm feeling a bit negative about it all :~|

[Jud]

6 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

This.  The data/computer industry has been selling this model for years.  How does Microsoft even out its cash flow and not have to rush new versions of Windows/Office out every year?  The subscription model.  Apple largely avoided this by marking profit in hardware -the software being and integral part of the hardware and user experience but not the source of Apple's $profits$.  

 

Streaming is a subscription model - but many consumers are "ok" with it for all sorts of reasons.  They undervalue their current digital musical systems and/or think they are a hassle and value the subscription model more.

 

So when MQA comes along and promises better SQ - they have trouble grasping why others would not value it as much as they do...

 

MQA is completely unnecessary to accomplish what we are concerned about, which is my basic point.  Folks are wasting too much time worrying about MQA, which is, relatively speaking, at the "demonstration project" stage, while streaming, arguably equally or more more destructive to the goals of sound quality and consumer choice, is the largest segment of the music industry already and growing fast.

[crenca]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Hey, don't put words in my mouth :~)

 

If anything, I feel resigned to my fate as a consumer of music. Two of the three largest labels are owned by public companies, while the third one is owned by a holding company. I don't believe we as an industry have any clout or ability to influence without authority. 

 

Maybe I'm feeling a bit negative about it all :~|

 

Well, your summation is exactly what I mean (you have said as much before).

 

Usually, I would be with your assessment on an emotional level because I probably lean toward the "glass-half-empty" side of things usually.  However I suppose when it comes to music  and the surrounding industry I am more positive.  I think the fact that the industry does not have the lobbying clout to pull off what Hollywood did around video through congress is significant - it points to a more balanced consumer vs. industry equation.  I also like the fact that the industry is so fragmented.  Fact is, if a streaming and/or MQA like format was the only thing available from the major labels I could live happy ever after with my current collection and whatever I can get from independents (e.g. Bandcamp) that were streaming/DRM free.  

[crenca]

5 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

MQA is completely unnecessary to accomplish what we are concerned about, which is my basic point.  Folks are wasting too much time worrying about MQA, which is, relatively speaking, at the "demonstration project" stage, while streaming, arguably equally or more more destructive to the goals of sound quality and consumer choice, is the largest segment of the music industry already and growing fast.

 

Say more say more!  Start a thread or write an article.  Why do you believe that streaming is more threatening?  Why is it still more significant even if/when MQA (or something like it) becomes more than "a demonstration project"?  

[Norton]

7 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Streaming is, by actual numbers, taking over the marketplace from downloads.  As it does, the availability of artists many of us like but who weren't hugely popular in their day, and the availability of masterings with reasonable DR levels from artists who *were* hugely popular, fades away.  Good luck looking for reasonably priced used CDs at local shops or on eBay, Amazon, etc.

 

I don't know if this is actually happening, but compared to the fuss about MQA, it's certainly a much more plausible concern that streaming will develop to the point where "possessable" media, along with the consumer choices therein,  are no longer available.

[Jud]

13 minutes ago, Norton said:

I don't know if this is actually happening, but compared to the fuss about MQA, it's certainly a much more plausible concern that streaming will develop to the point where "possessable" media, along with the consumer choices therein,  are no longer available.

 

And even "possessable" I wouldn't be so concerned with; it's more that what I've seen so far of the streaming world doesn't show me (1) many of the relatively obscure artists I love, especially new ones (that's why I dropped Tidal before picking it up again for A+ testing purposes - I found exactly one new artist I liked that I hadn't known about before during a several month long subscription); and (2) the best-recorded versions of the music I love.  That, ultimately, is for me the reason to be in this hobby at all: hearing the music I love at its best.  So if silver discs (likely) and even downloads (possible - their market share is diminishing every year) vanish, that's what I may stand to lose.

[mrvco]

1 hour ago, jhwalker said:

 

Why?  If the MQA version sounds better (still under debate, but a lot of people say it does), why would you want the original, inferior version?  Makes no sense.

 

When anyone says "MQA sounds better", the question that needs to be asked is "Sounds better than what, exactly?".

 

Typically what I've read is that unfolded MQA (~24/96) sounds 'better' than folded MQA (~16/44.1).  I tend to agree based on my listening to Tidal Masters using an Explorer2 DAC, but it is very subtle and I certainly wouldn't pay more than what I'm already paying Tidal to get it.  I am perfectly happy with Tidal HiFi lossless streams up-converted to DxD or DSD via HQ Player w/ my choice of filters.  Obviously the E2 doesn't support DxD or DSD, so no like for like comparison was possible, but I do have a MyTek Brooklyn on the way which does support DxD and DSD.

 

What I didn't hear with the Explorer2 is any difference whatsoever between like for like Hi-Res content.  Tidal MQA unfolded versus Hi-Res FLAC files (not up-converted).  Given the choice, I'll take the non-proprietary Hi-Res FLAC files all day every day since I don't want my personal 'owned' music library to limit my DAC options now or at any point in the future.

 

If MQA releases a file-based software unfolding application (as a part of a "Pono Promise" for MQA) that allows me to convert any purchased MQA files to non-proprietary Hi-Res FLAC files, then this whole MQA "good or evil" debate rapidly becomes more or less a non-issue for me.  As far as streaming services go, I'm ok with the software player unfolding to non-proprietary 24/96 streams so there is no DAC dependency related to MQA playback.

[Rt66indierock]

13 hours ago, Norton said:

 

Your take on MQA is hard to agree with because, on an audiophile site, you are offering a critique based on market considerations rather than SQ/listening experience and  a pretty idiosyncratic market analysis at that.  I have no interest in the music you list, while at the same time SACD (which I'm sure has been dismissed as a failed or dead format somewhere in the 2000 posts of your thread) provides me with music I'm interested  in and continues to do so with new releases.  I've been very happy to live with the "DRM" considerations of SACD, in return for top quality recordings at very reasonable prices.  If MQA delivered the same I would have no problem.  As an aside, based on the Linn and RR discs I own, HDCD is/was a great sounding format and something of a lost opportunity.

 

Norton,

 

I’m glad you’re back. My critique is based on market considerations for one reason. I can’t buy music I listen to in the United States in MQA. Take the six albums I listed, John Darko can buy them in Germany, I could listen to them on TIDAL but I can’t buy them. I have for the time being given up on any of my reference albums other than On the Border being available in MQA so the six I listed are albums I own in several formats so I could evaluate the sound quality. Taken together those six albums would tell me maybe half of what my reference albums would tell me.

 

Geography and music is a funny thing. At the same time High End in Munich is taking place, I’m getting on a plane and flying 2,000 miles to see one of my favorite bands Amanda Ann Platt & The Honeycutters. In August they are playing 13 dates in the UK one of them is probably within 50k of your residence. You can buy Black Oak Arkansas and don’t want to. I want to and can’t.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

2 hours ago, mrvco said:

 

When anyone says "MQA sounds better", the question that needs to be asked is "Sounds better than what, exactly?".

 

Typically what I've read is that unfolded MQA (~24/96) sounds 'better' than folded MQA (~16/44.1).  I tend to agree based on my listening to Tidal Masters using an Explorer2 DAC, but it is very subtle and I certainly wouldn't pay more than what I'm already paying Tidal to get it.  I am perfectly happy with Tidal HiFi lossless streams up-converted to DxD or DSD via HQ Player w/ my choice of filters.  Obviously the E2 doesn't support DxD or DSD, so no like for like comparison was possible, but I do have a MyTek Brooklyn on the way which does support DxD and DSD.

 

What I didn't hear with the Explorer2 is any difference whatsoever between like for like Hi-Res content.  Tidal MQA unfolded versus Hi-Res FLAC files (not up-converted).  Given the choice, I'll take the non-proprietary Hi-Res FLAC files all day every day since I don't want my personal 'owned' music library to limit my DAC options now or at any point in the future.

 

If MQA releases a file-based software unfolding application (as a part of a "Pono Promise" for MQA) that allows me to convert any purchased MQA files to non-proprietary Hi-Res FLAC files, then this whole MQA "good or evil" debate rapidly becomes more or less a non-issue for me.  As far as streaming services go, I'm ok with the software player unfolding to non-proprietary 24/96 streams so there is no DAC dependency related to MQA playback.

I am not 100% sure, so do not get your hopes up.  But, that MQA "unfolder" to  normal hi rez format might possibly be on the horizon. However, I have no inside info, and I could be wrong.  If I am wrong, I believe that sooner or maybe later there will be an unofficial hack to do precisely that.  Actually, as you said, the capability already exists in Tidal's software app enabling people to access and play MQA files without MQA DACS, at least up to 96k.  It is just not currently for public consumption outside their subscriber base.

 

I also agree with earlier posters that MQA is, for now, joined at the hip to hi rez streaming, though not necessarily to hi rez downloading and certainly not to physical disc suppliers.  (MQA CD in a 44k/16-bit container is likely a cruel joke, in my opinion.)  For example, it has already made Tidal the first streaming vendor to be able to offer even a modest cross section of titles streamed in hi rez, as far as I know. More titles to come.

 

I know some would argue there is no need for greater efficiency in streaming hi  rez than the FLAC we have now.  But, with a decent background in IT myself, I think MQA offers considerable cost advantages beyond just bandwidth and/or disc storage to streaming suppliers in operating their services.  These benefits accrue to the customer as well as the supplier.

 

The other relevant question is does using a proper end-to-end MQA system improve SQ?  Many who have never heard it seem to wish that question would go away because they see some huge threat to their ripped or downloaded music libraries by changing the status quo in any way.  An SQ improvement could enable deeper MQA market penetration beyond just streaming. So, some may disingenuously argue the unimportance of SQ in any consideration or to deny there is any SQ improvement wrought by MQA.  

 

Sorry, I am not seeing that huge threat posed by MQA, not yet, anyway. All I see is a technology that can enhance streaming by efficiently delivering hi rez for now.  Hi rez to me is an improvement.  Maybe MQA offers additional improvement beyond that.  If MQA's SQ advantages are perceived as real and important enough even beyond hi rez to sufficient listeners, then obviously it is a new ballgame in other distribution channels than just streaming. Other channels will also want to offer MQA.   But, to me, that would be good news, if true, namely that many are hearing better sound via MQA.  But, that whole scenario is dead in its tracks if the SQ advantage is not suficciently convincing.  It might not be.  Time will tell.

[mrvco]

I have no doubt that someone will eventually crack Utimaco's encryption keys and build a file-based software unfolding application.  It will be interesting to see how MQA reacts to what is inevitably a clear violation of the DMCA.

 

I need to find an album that has been in the MQA pipeline from beginning to end.  I was hoping that was what the "MQA Studio" light meant on the E2 DAC, but apparently not... every MQA encrypted song, new or old, that I've streamed from Tidal has lit the blue "MQA Studio" light on the E2 DAC.  Not once has a song only lit the green "MQA" light.

[Rt66indierock]

9 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Your argument is like me saying Tesla is vaporware because I can't purchase one that accepts diesel. MQA is a streaming format first and foremost. Who knows if you'll ever be able to purchase and download any additional format of your music in the future? Maybe the days of purchase and download formats are over. Perhaps we won't see another purchase and download format because FLAC is fine. 

 

Your side of the argument isn't difficult for me to see. I have an open mind. In fact, I see it as my job to see both sides of MQA and try to bring out these arguments for discussion. 

 

No my argument is saying for about twelve years I wanted a Ford Focus RS and couldn’t buy one in the United States. Just like MQA my European friends could. Now I can go to my local Ford dealer and pick one out.

 

You offer one explanation that the market has changed and MQA is a streaming format first and foremost. Let me offer an alternative explanation. Warner Music Group and MQA Ltd don’t have the right to distribute MQA versions of albums in the United States as downloads.

[The Computer Audiophile]

If they wanted the rights and there was money to be made, they'd have them. 

[Jud]

11 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

If they wanted the rights and there was money to be made, they'd have them. 

 

Or to to get even more specific, if they thought they could make enough money on MQA's licensing terms.

 

I'm guessing they'll see how it goes for the current licensees before deciding (unless they've decided not to give MQA leverage over both streaming and downloads).

[Rt66indierock]

5 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

If they wanted the rights and there was money to be made, they'd have them. 

 

I believe you are correct, there isn’t any money to be made in MQA downloads in the United States. After all high resolution audio is itself a very tough sell. And there are contract issues that make who has what rights and where in the distribution channels about as clear as mud.

[Don Hills]

21 hours ago, mansr said:

Most likely, these CDs are simply the usual MQA data with the low 8 bits removed. These bits contain the compressed high frequencies while the 9th bit, which becomes the LSB in 16-bit format, carries the authentication signatures and some kind of peak extension data (similar to HDCD).

 

If the patents are any indication, they lossy compress the information above 22 KHz and store it in the lowest 3 of the 16 bits. So an undecoded MQA CD is 13/44.1 audio - OK for modern overcompressed music, not so good for orchestral.

 

 

[Teresa]

On 4/30/2017 at 7:51 PM, esldude said:

Sort of like all those HDCD DACs and discs that were available and now that company, Pacific Microsonics are no more.  Bought up by Microsoft and shut down.

 

Are you sure Microsoft shut down HDCD? Did this happen recently? I ask because my 3 year old Blu-ray / SACD Universal player decodes HDCDs and Reference Recordings is still releasing HDCDs, including this upcoming release Doug MacLeod: Break The Chain! It is being released on compact disc with HDCD, as high-resolution and conventional downloads and later, as a premium 2-LP set.

[mansr]

1 hour ago, Don Hills said:

If the patents are any indication, they lossy compress the information above 22 KHz and store it in the lowest 3 of the 16 bits. So an undecoded MQA CD is 13/44.1 audio - OK for modern overcompressed music, not so good for orchestral.

The bit allocations mentioned in the patents are just examples. The actual decoder supports other values as well.

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

Are you sure Microsoft shut down HDCD? Did this happen recently? I ask because my 3 year old Blu-ray / SACD Universal player decodes HDCDs and Reference Recordings is still releasing HDCDs, including this upcoming release Doug MacLeod: Break The Chain! It is being released on compact disc with HDCD, as high-resolution and conventional downloads and later, as a premium 2-LP set.

 

Anyone can make an HDCD album if they have a Pacific Microsonics Model 1 or 2 analog to digital converter.