Pros and Cons of MQA

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Guys - I'm trying to accomplish the impossible I know. The debate about MQA is lengthy, confusing, and full of emotion. I want a straight forward list of pros and cons. Here is my attempt to start such a list. I will try to curate this thread to weed out arguments, as we have plenty of those in other threads. 

 

Please post your Pros and Cons in simple lists. I hope we can make this work, but I have my doubts. 

 

Here is a list from the "vaporware" thread that @mansr just posted. I think it's a good start, even though it contains only cons. 

 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, mansr said:

• It uses lossy compression. While the losses in the audible range are probably small, there is simply no need for lossy compression these days. We're streaming 4K video ffs.
• It forces use of minimum phase filters. The pros and cons of linear vs minimum phase filters are debatable, but as long as differences of opinion exist, removing the choice is a bad thing.
• The filters it uses are incredibly leaky with lots of aliasing/imaging. This precludes any possibility of accurately restoring the original signal.
• Being a proprietary format, it requires proprietary software and hardware to decode. Should such software cease to be developed in the future, existing files will become inaccessible (less applicable to streaming). This has happened in the past, and it will happen again. Does anyone remember RealAudio/RealVideo? Good luck finding official software for playing such files today.
• It makes most uses of DSP impossible. While there is some support for doing simple EQ, more advanced uses like speaker crossover filters (including plain old bass management with subwoofer) are impossible.
• By requiring DAC certification, it places an artificial barrier for entry into that market, should it become a must-have feature. This is bad for innovation.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

 

Pros:

- Some MQA music I've heard sounds fantastic, but I can't definitively say MQA is the reason for this sound quality.

- Some people I respect have been extremely happy with the sound of MQA music in their homes.

- Possible financial benefit for the rights holders of the music, but this is wild speculation based on the fact that some have signed contracts to support MQA. 

 

 

Cons:

- Some MQA music I've heard doesn't sound any different from the standard PCM version.

- Several people I respect have told me privately that the MQA music they've listened to at home sounds worse than the standard PCM version. 

- Certified hardware required for full decoding.

 

 

Not a conclusive list. It's a work in progress. 

[plissken]

Cons:

 

YAF (Yet another format). You get to purchase remastered PCM into MQA all over again.

 

You have to have a blessed application. Either on your DAC or on your Computer.

 

There is no such thing as an 'MQA DAC'. It's a software layer.

 

'Unfolding' is a marketing trick to get you out of the mindset that it's actually lossy compression.

 

Pros:

It can sound good but it's a product of mastering.

 

It certainly has smaller file sizes

 

You get to see audiophiles talk about how good tape masters with 12 bits of equivalent resolution suddenly sound hi-def.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[crenca]

Pros:

     - A might be asubjective, small SQ tweak (somewhat analogous to flavors of NOS tubes) that some might enjoy but is subjective and controversial (and is small - as in not big at all  )

    -  As a phenomenon it reveals the extent of the collusion (whether intentional or not) between "the industry" and the "audiophile press" 

 

Unfortunately, I can't think of any other "pros" 

 

Cons (in addition to the ones already listed upstream):

  - MQA is in it's current form (v1.2 I think it is) DRM all day, every day and this has negative consumer consequences

  - As an IP product at the base format level, besides the standard DRM cloud it also stifles innovation  This is somewhat true even if it never becomes a wide scale "standard" as it causes other innovators to spend time and money covering their asses.

 - As is so common in this industry/hobby, MQA is built on the myth's and half truths.  MQA/Bob has been caugth red handed lying about the lossy and DRM facts of the encoding - what else are they lying about?

[mansr]

4 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Here is a list from the "vaporware" thread that @mansr just posted. I think it's a good start, even though it contains only cons. 

You asked me specifically what I objected to. Not that I can think of anything positive.

[loop7]

Con: Re-encoding millions of tracks suffering from a remastering process which removed dynamic range is problematic. I realize MQA can reduce fatigue but it wouldn't undo the damage.

 

Con: A single private entity can create a juggernaut and control the market.

 

Pro: Stellar new market dynamic for manufacturers.

 

Pro: Provides audio/music journalists and readers with intriguing topics and discussion. 

[Don Hills]

3 hours ago, mansr said:

You asked me specifically what I objected to. Not that I can think of anything positive.

 

I encourage you to post what you see as positives.

[mansr]

9 minutes ago, Don Hills said:

I encourage you to post what you see as positives.

Sorry, I've got nothing.

[bobbmd]

@The Computer Audiophile(Chris): it just sounds nice better fuller ie EQ (with my ME2 and DF RED) but so does my non MQA Gungnir and I don't really give a rat's ass about DRM, loosey, DSD, up or down sampling and everything else everyone seems to hear or not hear.

All I know music sounds wonderful be it MQA/non MQA all because of my DACs and ROON and TIDAL and A+3.

Some of this 'stuff' is almost as funny or absurd as cable/ethernet breakin silver cables and vampires werewolves and Orson Welles wine commericals.

All I know I have waited 50+ years for music to sound this good and be so available and mega dataed.

MQA is not 'vaporware'-hope people are nicer to you and to each other than in  other threads

bobbmd

[mrvco]

MQA is a proprietary format owned exclusively by a private, for-profit corporation with an opaque business and licensing model.  Negative to most, but a positive to more folks than you would expect.

[crenca]

Based on AudioQuest/Gordon's responses in the AudioQuest Dragonfiies thread, I am going to add to the list of cons:

 

 - MQA is a polarizing product that allows manufactures (who are willing to do this) to hide behind IP and claim that those who question MQA and their products implementation of it are "spreading misinformation".  IP being what it is, there is no way to verify their claims.  MQA is a wedge between customers and manufactures because they overestimate their customers willingness to "just trust" them...

[PeterSt]

Con : Its a con.

Oh - oops.  

[PeterSt]

Seriously ...

 

Con :

It is based on the same sh*t of so-called hires as the existing hires. Heck, I even build in a spectrograph generator (in XXHighEnd) that automatically fires after a decode. I didn't find a single real hires, or it were very noisy tape-re-digitizings. Or there's so much noise from the process itself that you can't even judge.

 

Anyway, because it is all (?) based on the existing hires misery, there can't be a pro for me.

I surely tried.

[PeterSt]

Con :

There is no possibility to check for the quality of your own process of decoding etc. which is allowed to include your own upsampling. I am not the first one who expresses about this lack of quality control (of your own stuff) but I think I was the first who notices. You can't go anywhere with it.

 

But wait ...

[PeterSt]

Con :

You can add your own upsampling ?

Forget it. This can only be done in hardware (core decoder), and with that no software decode can exist.

Aha ...

 

It is do or die.

And in this world of explicit software upsampling it is thus die.

[PeterSt]

Con :

 

To discover a thing like what's in my previous post, you first need the hardware decoding. Without that you are in the blind. The real message is though : you're put on the wrong foot until you finally find out yourself.

 

And there it stops.

And I REALLY tried.

[PeterSt]

Con :

 

Nobody is supposed to talk about these things. This is why you will never hear the truth.

 

A cause of not expressing negatives is a good cause. Hey, I am on the side of MQA. Yes I am.

But how actually can I be, when in the end I can't develop any real product in a real life environment which 2017 just is.

MQA, do you listen ?

[PeterSt]

Con :

 

I think I never ever experienced such a constraining situation in not being able to get help. I mean : sharing. What I am doing here is on the very edge of borderline trespassing. Remember, I am not negative. But this does not mean I can use some help here and there. Talking and talking back does help often.

No talking is allowed here, though.

 

If I - and many others ! - would be allowed to openly express about the problems we run into, I am sure solutions would be provided by the fine MQA people. No typo there.

But it is all so constraining that nobody even dares thinking about putting out a question or maybe doubt of the solution, to the public.

The effect ? no solution.

 

It will be very hard to believe, but I am not even able to listen to the real deal, because parts of what is needed can not be implemented, or are not allowed to be implemented. In itself it is to be respected that some "rules" exist. But it really goes too far if I can only listen at full volume (-0dBFS) or when it requires a pre-amp (which was maneuvered out 10 years ago by me) so we can listen to full blast MQA.

 

This part of the story is not new to MQA. But it isn't solved either. Or it requires help which is (too) difficult to provide.

[mcgillroy]

Pros:

 

might be audible and regarded as "better" in some circumstances

 

Cons:

 

lossy.

 

MQA alters signal and hence un-studios the master: MQA is not what the artist head and intended in the studio.

 

hence yet another proprietary format marketed with hyperbole.

 

unclear and possible dangerous licensing situation putting MQA in the position of a rent-seeker.

 

unnecessary DRM component restricting freedom of audio-vendors and eventually of customers.

 

 

 

[rickca]

5 hours ago, PeterSt said:

There is no possibility to check for the quality of your own process of decoding etc. which is allowed to include your own upsampling. I am not the first one who expresses about this lack of quality control (of your own stuff) but I think I was the first who notices. You can't go anywhere with it.

I'd really love to understand what you are saying here.  Can you please try expressing this more clearly/explicitly?

[NOMBEDES]

Mansr's point about DSP (Supra) is very important.   I believe DSP will become a critical aspect of future audio enjoyment.  If MOA cannot fully support DSP - that is a problem.

[semente]

The only thing that comes to mind is "what's wrong with CD"?

[PeterSt]

15 hours ago, rickca said:

I'd really love to understand what you are saying here.  Can you please try expressing this more clearly/explicitly?

 

When I would be building a MQA compatible D/A converter, I'd need several test signals and set ups otherwise, so I can check the quality of the signal. This signal does not only comprise of the tecnnical (electrical) route from PC (where it all starts) to D/A conversion via output stage (where this route ends), but also of :

- In-player software filtering (or DSP if you want);

(but which is not even possible, as per one of my posts)

- USB signal quality, which virtually ends after the in-DAC receiver;

(which can't be judged on its own because some unknown (!!) aspect behind it influences (the MQA decoding and rendering)

- All what I'd do in-DAC for filtering;

(which again can't be judged because behind that is again the MQA rendering of unknown quality whch *also* depends on the applied properties for the ADC (as ever back used for the recording))

- The test signal itself which I can not create with encoded MQA.

 

The latter is quite crucial;

I can set up a test signal all right, and I can judge it for its own merits and all what the DAC is further now not doing to it regarding MQA (MQA is not operative), but here again a few downsides exist :

- I have no way of seeing what will happen to my test signal where it is going through the MQA paths;

(I just can not create a test signal doing that)

- I have no way of influencing the hardware path taken, which in the end is firmware in a chip.

 

The latter includes what others already have said : MQA uses filtering of a kind we may not like (OK, which I very explicitly do not like and want to shut off because I have my own filtering).

 

Clear a little ?

[PeterSt]

Pro ? :

 

(Someone may correct me when I am wrong)

 

One of the explicitly expressed benefits of MQA is the "deblur" facility, or what I tend to translate into "less ringing".

My own proprietary filtering (Arc Prediction) does not ring at all.

Of course, one can debate the legitimacy of this, but so do we about the opposite (say how MQA is doing it). In the end we like to choose what's best for us, through our ears and further equipment etc.

But with MQA we can't choose. That leaves me (and customers) with something that does ring more than we like and originally chose for.

 

So a con.

 

PS: An additional con seems to be that it is quite vague to see how this filtering can be counter-attacked (eliminated and replace with your own). So yes, this can officially be done. But no, this can not be done in software, although the promise is it can. Disclaimer : might you ask, the answer is Yes. But it almost requires complete determination of patents and all to come yourself to the conclusion that it can't. Only in hardware.

The how is up to you. And this is how one starts to give up.

[esldude]

17 hours ago, NOMBEDES said:

Mansr's point about DSP (Supra) is very important.   I believe DSP will become a critical aspect of future audio enjoyment.  If MOA cannot fully support DSP - that is a problem.

I agree, and to me this inability to DSP for other reasons upon playback is more concerning than anything else.  Whether MQA is used like DRM in the future or not doesn't matter.  It is preventing you from your own room correction or other DSP right now unless you don't decode it which results in a lesser quality signal to start with.  Any positive difference it makes pales in comparison to how useful playback DSP is in improving real performance in my home.

 

MOA-Missing On Arrival??  I kinda like it.