My Questions and Answers (MQA): An Interview with Andreas Koch

[christopher3393]

Well, this pulls some of the MQA issues together well and Mr. Koch's position is crystal clear.

Some highlights:

 

If you see a new format emerge today, it is most likely motivated by a manufacturer's thirst for licensing revenue. If they market it cleverly, they could possibly count on some music label's support, because they always like to sell you their same existing recordings in yet a new format again...

 

Oh yes, the new format has to be proprietary and patentable so royalties can be collected. After all that is the entire reason to do it—selfish greed. As we have seen above, there is no other good reason, no customer benefit...

 

They are trained in creating a distortion field around reality by evading pointy questions and giving vague, imprecise, and inaccurate answers...

 

Most importantly, our scheme does not solve any problem that the world currently has right now. It is based on lossy algorithms and compressions that make assumptions about our auditory system. As history has shown with MP3 and others, the truth behind our claims about quality and high resolution of our new format will eventually come out. When that will happen is a fairly direct function of how well our marketing department will be able to hide the truth. In the meantime we just need to maximize our licensing revenue stream and then run...

 

Ultimately, a format war is decided in marketing, not engineering. We have made this experience all too often...

 

He does get into some specifics, but I don't want to run on too long here. For some this may just be a rehash, but it is well written. I found it worth a read.

[Samuel T Cogley]

URL please?

[audio.bill]

URL please?

MQA

[plissken]

That was a great read. Thanks for the post. I'm just peachy with PCM audio and FLAC'd streams.

[audiventory]

Any attempts compare high-bitrate MP3 vs. MQA vs. CD/FLAC stumbled on claims based on subjective perceptions.

 

If somebody claim that certain format sound better other, we can't dispute it even. We can't hear via ears of other person.

 

When I played in band, was days that sound was great. All members of our band listened is as great sound. It was not only my personal perception.

 

Next day we switch on apparatus. But sound was dull. Again for all. We are waiting time for apparatus warming. But without positive result.

 

It was periodical experience with group (not only personal) perception of sound.

 

Since that time I always doubt in ear perception.

[crenca]

MQA

 

Laughing....Out....Loud!

 

The best summary of everything we know about MQA so far - in a nice pithy "interview" format, no doubt to signal to the "audophile press" just to what extent they have been stooges for the (unfortunately legal) fraud that is MQA.

 

I liked how he pointed out (in a way I had not thought about) how the DRM that is MQA is (at this point, in the current version 1.1) directed at manufacturers of DAC's and how it controls/limits them as much as it does the consumer.

 

Much more could be said (and will be) but this I think is the best "journalism" done on MQA so far by a country mile...

[christopher3393]

URL please?

 

DOH! Here it is again: MQA

[jhwalker]

Laughing....Out....Loud!

 

The best summary of everything we know about MQA so far - in a nice pithy "interview" format, no doubt to signal to the "audophile press" just to what extent they have been stooges for the (unfortunately legal) fraud that is MQA.

 

I liked how he pointed out (in a way I had not thought about) how the DRM that is MQA is (at this point, in the current version 1.1) directed at manufacturers of DAC's and how it controls/limits them as much as it does the consumer.

 

Much more could be said (and will be) but this I think is the best "journalism" done on MQA so far by a country mile...

 

I don't know - I'd call it an "opinion piece", not journalism. Journalism would report the facts and let consumers make the decision.

 

This is definitely a "hit job" on MQA.

[crenca]

I don't know - I'd call it an "opinion piece", not journalism. Journalism would report the facts and let consumers make the decision.

 

This is definitely a "hit job" on MQA.

 

I see your point, but then he did in his own way report many a "fact" that have in fact gone unreported except on forums such as this. Besides, almost all the "reporting" as such on MQA has been just as much of a "hit job", just in a positive way for MQA (e.g. JA's "birth of a new world", etc.).

 

In the "journalism" environment that is high end audio, this is as good as it gets apparently...

[Ralf11]

who is he?

 

and what about the end-to-end effect of mqa?

[Jud]

who is he?

 

and what about the end-to-end effect of mqa?

 

Was in on the origin of DSD at Sony, IIRC, and currently is designer of very well regarded DACs for Playback Designs.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[crenca]

Was in on the origin of DSD at Sony, IIRC, and currently is designer of very well regarded DACs for Playback Designs.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

 

And to answer his second question, he addresses the "end to end" from the very beginning of the article, really the whole way through it. In other words, because of modern recording practices, the market, and the very design of MQA - the "end to end" is as much a part of the fraud as everything else...

[Axiom05]

who is he?

 

and what about the end-to-end effect of mqa?

 

His bio is at the end of the article.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[rickca]

I don't know - I'd call it an "opinion piece", not journalism. Journalism would report the facts and let consumers make the decision. This is definitely a "hit job" on MQA.

It's hard to find any journalism today that isn't strongly influenced by a political agenda. This piece offers a counterweight to the propaganda from MQA.

 

Audio journalists have to avoid being too critical about MQA. They can't afford to risk their insider status if they want invitations to product launches, product samples for reviews, beta code and so on. They also don't want to step on the toes of prospective advertisers. Andreas doesn't have these concerns, and he certainly has the technical background required for credibility.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

I think the article is well written, and it might for some clarify aspects of the intricate technology of MQA, though with a biased perspective.  Every time I think I understand it all pretty well, some new wrinkle pops up.  So, I learned a few new things.

However, one must always consider the source.  Koch has been and is a huge advocate for DSD, while Stuart et al have been major detractors of DSD for over a decade.  It is not just about commercial interests.  I think these guys are really dug deeply into their respective philosophies, aka, beliefs.

I also get the distinct impression that Koch wishes in the recesses of his soul that he had dreamt up MQA in the first place.

This "ideological" battleground is fascinating to watch, but the future of better audio is not in peril, however it turns out.  All audio is flawed.  Who is to say that MQA is more so than other approaches?  Well, certainly not Mr. Koch, given his commercial bias.

[mansr]

1 hour ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

However, one must always consider the source.  Koch has been and is a huge advocate for DSD, while Stuart et al have been major detractors of DSD for over a decade.  It is not just about commercial interests.  I think these guys are really dug deeply into their respective philosophies, aka, beliefs.

Where in the article does he promote DSD?

[Fitzcaraldo215]

31 minutes ago, mansr said:

Where in the article does he promote DSD?

He does not.  But, if you understand his background at places like Sony and Playback Designs, the picture becomes clearer.  

For Example, check this out:

http://www.audiostream.com/content/qa-andreas-koch#3W4VMkmY6ebX5v80.97

[mansr]

32 minutes ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

He does not.  But, if you understand his background at places like Sony and Playback Designs, the picture becomes clearer.  

For Example, check this out:

http://www.audiostream.com/content/qa-andreas-koch#3W4VMkmY6ebX5v80.97

So his arguments against MQA are somehow invalid because he has expressed pro-DSD views elsewhere?

[mcgillroy]

On 3/17/2017 at 9:59 PM, Ralf11 said:

who is he?

 

and what about the end-to-end effect of mqa?

The "end-to-end" effect or what MQA calls "authenticated" is the biggest BS of it all.

What does authenticated here mean? In the MQA-business-chain it means that a mastering engineer sends the file to another site where it gets encoded & encrypted in MQA format.

The MQA encoding process is lossy and in most cases does not happen in the studio where the mastering engineer made his sonic adjustments.

So the MQA file is actually “unstudioed”: it is not authentic anymore as it is a.) lossy, b.) not encoded in MQA by the original engineer and c.) not in the same room and on the same equipment where the original engineer worked.

The only thing that gets authenticated is the fact that somebody paid MQA-fees and the file can be “unfolded” on devices build by manufacturers that paid MQA-fees too.

MQA is a rent seeking business. Nothing more and nothing less. This is what Andreas Koch points out eloquently. He is not alone in his criticism - just check what Shiit, Linn or Daniel Weiss or Dan Lavry have stated about MQA. Basically every month another respected individual from the audio-industry speaks up and calls them out. Bob Stuart so far has not responded to any of these statements.

The big-brand audio-outlets like Stereophile bet the farm on MQA and fail to report on this. At the same time the smaller mags and sites become bolder and view MQA critique as an opportunity to generate traffic and actually do a better job to foster an informed discussion than their bigger competitors.

Fun times and it's nice to see how MQA marketing begins to crumble.

[jhwalker]

13 minutes ago, mcgillroy said:

The "end-to-end" effect or what MQA calls "authenticated" is the biggest BS of it all.

What does authenticated here mean? In the MQA-business-chain it means that a mastering engineer sends the file to another site where it gets encoded & encrypted in MQA format.

The MQA encoding process is lossy and in most cases does not happen in the studio where the mastering engineer made his sonic adjustments.

So the MQA file is actually “unstudioed”: it is not authentic anymore as it is a.) lossy, b.) not encoded in MQA by the original engineer and c.) not in the same room and on the same equipment where the original engineer worked.

The only thing that gets authenticated is the fact that somebody paid MQA-fees and the file can be “unfolded” on devices build by manufacturers that paid MQA-fees too.

MQA is a rent seeking business. Nothing more and nothing less. This is what Andreas Koch points out eloquently. He is not alone in his criticism - just check what Shiit, Linn or Daniel Weiss or Dan Lavry have stated about MQA. Basically every month another respected individual from the audio-industry speaks up and calls them out. Bob Stuart so far has not responded to any of these statements.

The big-brand audio-outlets like Stereophile bet the farm on MQA and fail to report on this. At the same time the smaller mags and sites become bolder and view MQA critique as an opportunity to generate traffic and actually do a better job to foster an informed discussion than their bigger competitors.

Fun times and it's nice to see how MQA marketing begins to crumble.

. . . and yet it still sounds *really* good.  In my mind, often better than the lossless hi-res version of the same music

I really don't understand the sheer venom of the attacks against MQA.  It may not be everyone's cup of tea, but I also don't understand why it simply *must* be destroyed, crushed under the heel of audiophilia.

[mcgillroy]

5 minutes ago, jhwalker said:

. . . and yet it still sounds *really* good.  In my mind, often better than the lossless hi-res version of the same music

I really don't understand the sheer venom of the attacks against MQA.  It may not be everyone's cup of tea, but I also don't understand why it simply *must* be destroyed, crushed under the heel of audiophilia.

Nobody is arguing about the sound of MQA.

Any format involves decisions on how to design the intersection of technical, legal, business and quality requirements for delivering content.

MQA primarily gets discussed with regards to the technical and sound-quality aspects while little is being said about the legal and economic choices and implications.

Your answer is a nice example of this.

What skeptical people here and many industry-professionals like Andreas Koch point out, is that MQA involves questionable choices with regards to audio-quality while the legal and economic choices inherent to MQA certainly will have very profound repercussions for the music-industry.

These things deserve to be discussed and any attempt of drowning them in "listen-yourself" posts will not make the issues at stake go away.

Also: where is venom in my post?

[jhwalker]

3 minutes ago, mcgillroy said:

Nobody is arguing about the sound of MQA.

Any format involves decisions on how to design the intersection of technical, legal, business and quality requirements for delivering content.

MQA primarily gets discussed with regards to the technical and sound-quality aspects while little is being said about the legal and economic choices and implications.

Your answer is a nice example of this.

What skeptical people here and many industry-professionals like Andreas Koch point out, is that MQA involves questionable choices with regards to audio-quality while the legal and economic choices inherent to MQA certainly will have very profound repercussions for the music-industry.

These things deserve to be discussed and any attempt of drowning them in "listen-yourself" posts will not make the issues at stake go away.

Also: where is venom in my post?

If you can't see it . . . 

But as an example, you call it "BS", you say it's "rent seeking.  Nothing more and nothing less", and you indicate the marketing is "beginning to crumble".  Pretty venomous, in my view.  To be fair, though, there are other posters here who are *much* more transparent in their desire to crush it under heel

It just seems to me some are invested in the *idea* of having the "original master" (i.e., multi gigabyte PCM / DSD files) vs. a much smaller (and perhaps even better sounding!) file.  I understand the commercial concerns (e.g., worry that the original files will no longer be made available, etc.), I'm just not sure that's such a loss.

[mcgillroy]

53 minutes ago, jhwalker said:

If you can't see it . . . 

But as an example, you call it "BS", you say it's "rent seeking.  Nothing more and nothing less", and you indicate the marketing is "beginning to crumble".  Pretty venomous, in my view.  To be fair, though, there are other posters here who are *much* more transparent in their desire to crush it under heel

It just seems to me some are invested in the *idea* of having the "original master" (i.e., multi gigabyte PCM / DSD files) vs. a much smaller (and perhaps even better sounding!) file.  I understand the commercial concerns (e.g., worry that the original files will no longer be made available, etc.), I'm just not sure that's such a loss.

You may call it venomous but given the information available about MQA I'd call rent seeking a valid assessment. If you can point me evidence to the contrary I am happy to hear. It's likely that people like Andreas Koch, Dan Larvy, the Linn and Bifrost folks and many others would happily peruse such material too.

With regards to you other two points: the size-argument has been debunked thoroughly: neither bandwidth nor storage is a problem anymore. In this respect MQA is a solution in search for a problem.

But your point about the MQA file sounding better than the original file really is somewhat curious. Isn't the whole narrative of MQA that I get a "master authenticated" file as being heard in the studio?!

Now you are telling me the MQA file its sounding different which you subjectively perhaps regard as "better"?

That's like saying a Picasso looks better via an Instagram filter.

This is what I mean by crumbling marketing. If you can't even stick to your original story (pun intended) MQA really is in trouble.

 

 

[jhwalker]

5 minutes ago, mcgillroy said:

You may call it venomous but given the information available about MQA I'd call rent seeking a valid assessment. If you can point me evidence to the contrary I am happy to hear. It's likely that people like Andreas Koch, Dan Larvy, the Linn and Bifrost folks and many others would happily peruse such material too.

With regards to you other two points: the size-argument has been debunked thoroughly: neither bandwidth nor storage is a problem anymore. In this respect MQA is a solution in search for a problem.

But your point about the MQA file sounding better than the original file really is somewhat curious. Isn't the whole narrative of MQA that I get a "master authenticated" file as being heard in the studio?!

Now you are telling me the MQA file its sounding different which you subjectively perhaps regard as "better"?

That's like saying a Picasso looks better via an Instagram filter.

This is what I mean by crumbling marketing. If you can't even stick to your original story (pun intended) MQA really is in trouble.

 

 

No.  You've misunderstood the sound quality argument.  It is *not* supposed to be "as good as" or "the same as" the original studio master *as it currently available*.  It is supposed to make it better, by correcting any smearing in the time domain caused by the original analog to digital conversion, as well as improving the time domain performance in the receiving DAC.  So it's entirely possible for it to sound better than the currently available digital files, just like it's possible to improve a digital photo file by careful deconvolution.

And the size argument has not been "debunked" - it's ridiculous to think that everyone has the bandwidth (or cap allowance) to stream lossless files all day long, even in 2017.  Yes, *I* do here in the U.S. (300Mbps at home), but I certainly don't have it at my parents' house (10Mbps DSL), nor do I have it to stream via cellular, etc.  And in some other countries, the caps are much more aggressive, so that streaming lossless files for only a few hours could consume a month's allowance!

In any case, I respect others' (and your) opinions - it just seems there's a very aggressive anti-MQA movement underway, and I don't really recall seeing such with other new technologies - makes me wonder why.   Probably just me.

[Nikhil]

3 hours ago, jhwalker said:

. . . and yet it still sounds *really* good.  In my mind, often better than the lossless hi-res version of the same music

Just as an example - look up the Bughead software discussions on here.  BHE makes the sound glorious.  However it is based on adding among other things jitter to the signal to tune the sound.  The old CD marker tweak is another example of tuning the sound.  However none of these make claims of reproducing "Master Quality Authentication".

 

1 hour ago, jhwalker said:

No.  You've misunderstood the sound quality argument.  It is *not* supposed to be "as good as" or "the same as" the original studio master *as it currently available*.  It is supposed to make it better, by correcting any smearing in the time domain caused by the original analog to digital conversion, as well as improving the time domain performance in the receiving DAC.  So it's entirely possible for it to sound better than the currently available digital files, just like it's possible to improve a digital photo file by careful deconvolution.

Please take a look at Mitch's article on time aligning the speaker drivers in his setup.  The complexity of this problem and the software needed to work on this is not trivial (and he is talking about speakers only).  To talk of time aligning the signal is simply not possible in the way MQA describes it.  Andreas Koch pointed to a hole in their approach which you may not have appreciated  i.e. the time distortion in the ADC stage.  Fact is the signal is being smeared by the entire chain including the electronics (group delay).