MQA The Truth lies Somewhere in the Middle

[Currawong]

50 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Doesn't this prove MQA works?  Bob is saying his test proves no difference in the files.  So MQA compressed a file and Carver finds no sound quality loss?  Isn't that demonstrating the value of MQA?

 

Did you read it? That's not what he wrote about each of the files.

[MikeyFresh]

51 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

Doesn't this prove MQA works?  Bob is saying his test proves no difference in the files.  So MQA compressed a file and Carver finds no sound quality loss?  Isn't that demonstrating the value of MQA?

 

No, it means Master Quality Adulterated/DRM Ltd. brings nothing to the table excepting end-to-end licensing costs (which of course are passed on to the consumer), DRM, future limitation of format choice, limitation in DAC choice, and a whole lotta nothing important sonically.

[Nikhil]

1 hour ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Doesn't this prove MQA works?  Bob is saying his test proves no difference in the files.  So MQA compressed a file and Carver finds no sound quality loss?  Isn't that demonstrating the value of MQA?

 

Laughable conclusion on your part. 

It means exactly what he says it is - MQA is an elaborate scam.

 

And before you go off knocking down Bob's paper, mind you it is exactly the same conclusion as the McGill study.

It is just that Bob doesn't have to stand on formalities and calls out MQA as the BS that it is. 

 

[esldude]

12 minutes ago, Nikhil said:

 

Laughable conclusion on your part. 

It means exactly what he says it is - MQA is an elaborate scam.

 

And before you go off knocking down Bob's paper, mind you it is exactly the same conclusion as the McGill study.

It is just that Bob doesn't have to stand on formalities and calls out MQA as the BS that it is. 

 

The McGill study is a tricky one.  On the one hand it would show that MQA encoded to 48 khz size equals 24/96.  On the other hand it would show that deblurring isn't making for any improvements.  Of course we don't know if 24/48 or 16/44 would have been detected either do we?

[firedog]

1 hour ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Doesn't this prove MQA works?  Bob is saying his test proves no difference in the files.  So MQA compressed a file and Carver finds no sound quality loss?  Isn't that demonstrating the value of MQA?

 

It is truly amazing how your endless fanboy approach to MQA blinds you even to simple reading comprehension.
 

You and others have claimed that MQA sounds better than hi-res and better than Redbook (for Redbook, just unfolded, without an MQA DAC).

 

Bob Carver is proving you incorrect. It is proving that MQA adds nothing audible, in spite of your claims resulting from sighted, prejudiced evaluations. 

So it adds nothing of benefit for the consumer. Tell me again why we need a closed, proprietary system that needs specialized HW, and is built with the potential for DRM (and please don't respond by saying it has no copy protection, that is irrelevant). 

[firedog]

7 hours ago, semente said:

Are people still buying music, or have most resorted to streaming?

And if so, what is the point of DRM?

A system like MQA can be setup to do various DRM functions even over streaming: e.g., regional restrictions, downgraded playback quality if you don't have an MQA approved DAC, etc., etc. 
I also buy music from artists I like so they will be properly compensated. The record labels have used the new format of streaming to dictate miniscule royalties to artists. 

[Ralf11]

4 minutes ago, firedog said:

 

It is truly amazing how your endless fanboy approach to MQA blinds you even to simple reading comprehension.
 

You and others have claimed that MQA sounds better than hi-res and better than Redbook (for Redbook, just unfolded, without an MQA DAC).

 

Bob Carver is proving you incorrect. It is proving that MQA adds nothing audible, in spite of your claims resulting from sighted, prejudiced evaluations. 

So it adds nothing of benefit for the consumer. Tell me again why we need a closed, proprietary system that needs specialized HW, and is built with the potential for DRM (and please don't respond by saying it has no copy protection, that is irrelevant). 

 

It is not his lack of reading comprehension.

 

It is deceit. 

[firedog]

4 hours ago, mav52 said:

 

I buy music each week.  CD's, SACD's and LP's.  Why not.  I own it not rent it.

 

I still buy. I control the tagging that way, I still claim some of my bought files sound better than the streamed ones, and I don't worry that the label won't end the streaming rights to the music (which has happened to me for a few albums). 

[FredericV]

1 hour ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Doesn't this prove MQA works?  Bob is saying his test proves no difference in the files.  So MQA compressed a file and Carver finds no sound quality loss?  Isn't that demonstrating the value of MQA?

 

I can do that with sox too, no MQA decoder needed:

https://darko.audio/2017/07/kih-46-mqas-missing-link/

 

When tested without the public knowing which version was sox upsampled MQA (the 24/44.1 MQA distribution files from 2L.no) and which was the real master (the 24/352.8K file used to encode MQA), nobody could hear the difference at the X-FI 2017 show. This system won "star of the show" at the-ear.net (translated: best of show).
 

But again you clearly did not understand Bob's article.
 

 

Why should we care about unfolding anyway, and pay for it (having to buy or license or rent some product with a decoder)? It's clearly inaudible, so do we care? Anyone can use the open source SOX method and do not care about licensing MQA.

[Nikhil]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

The McGill study is a tricky one.  On the one hand it would show that MQA encoded to 48 khz size equals 24/96.  On the other hand it would show that deblurring isn't making for any improvements.  Of course we don't know if 24/48 or 16/44 would have been detected either do we?

 

 

I think Bob Carver brilliantly cut through the BS.  In other words after all the silly "folding" hogwash the signal ultimately came out at the end of the wire with negligible difference at best.   All this after some poor soul(s) at <insert hardware manufacture here> has signed an NDA that now exposes them to some legal risk.  And you have all the silly hoops one has to jump through to gain access to the MQA file in the first place. 

 

 

 

[Nikhil]

10 hours ago, crenca said:

Bob Carver says this at the end of his essay on MQA:

 

"...MQA is a paradigm shift only in the sense that it allows Tidal to violate the listener’s privacy...."

 

What exactly is he referring in reference to end user privacy?

 

Excerpt from Bob's paper that is being referred to.

 

 

 

 

[semente]

10 hours ago, Hugo9000 said:

 

I don't personally know anyone else who buys music, either on physical media, or even downloads.  I don't even know anyone who uses a streaming service, other than free youtube.

 

My music is too important to me, so I've always bought physical media.  LPs and cassettes as a child and teen, then CDs, and now CDs, SACDs, and the occasional Blu-ray audio disc.  I was the same way with movies and favorite tv shows, buying them on VHS, then DVD, and then Blu-ray.  I'm glad I chose that path, although it's been very expensive over the years, because so many recordings and movies I love are no longer available.

 

I don't like renting.  Renting/streaming are for "music discovery" for me, and if I like it, I'll buy it.  I don't like downloads, either, because I don't have the patience any longer for backups of backups, after discovering random tiny glitches in various FLAC files after all the time I spent painstakingly ripping and tagging hundreds of classical CDs in my collection about 8 or 9 years ago (EAC test and copy losslessly, my own accurate custom tags with full information on complex classical releases--it took forever!).  Ugh.  Never again.  I've never had CD rot, if that's even a real thing, after buying thousands of CDs since 1987.  CD may not be Perfect Sound Forever, but it has been closer for me than anything else so far hahaha!

 

DRM on physical media, even in the most restrictive sense of copy prevention, doesn't worry me as long as the format is something that will last, both in terms of the media and the playback hardware.  All of my SACDs are hybrid, so even if the hardware goes away completely one day, I can still play the CD layer, and can make a physical backup of that layer as well, so I didn't have a problem with those purchases.  But I will never buy a download that has any sort of copy prevention, or the risk of it being implemented in the future.  I have one movie I bought from Apple that I can't watch, because I don't remember the user name, password, email, or anything from the account I used when I bought it.  I save that unviewable file as a reminder.  hahaha!

 

10 hours ago, Jud said:

 

I have always bought music up until now. Qobuz Sublime+ may change that to a mix with a lot of streaming and selected purchases.  Listening with Audirvana+ on Windows upsampling to DSD512, and nearly everything sounds pretty terrific.  (The new Kurt Vile at the moment.)

 

10 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

I buy.  Streaming services don't really have what I want, and I also do not patronize Rent-to-Buy furniture stores.

 

AFAIK, Streaming is for Millenials.

 

 

I do "stream" in the sense of using YouTube somewhat.

 

I also buy, but the rest of my family streaming.

But I was talking about the consumer slice that really matters to labels, not the minuscule audiophile market.

If the masses are streaming what's the point of having DRM?

[Shadders]

6 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Doesn't this prove MQA works?  Bob is saying his test proves no difference in the files.  So MQA compressed a file and Carver finds no sound quality loss?  Isn't that demonstrating the value of MQA?

Hi,

The null test resulted in the MQA file being different to the CD file. If the two files were exactly the same, bit perfect, then the null value will have been -200dB or whatever the software treated as negative infinity.

 

This was not the case with the Bob Carver test. The null was -70dB, and from the article text was the analogue output of the DAC which was recorded.

 

What the Bob Carver test seems to be doing is comparing the CD version with the MQA CD version and the LPCM high resolution with the MQA high resolution version.

 

He does not state what the -70dB null test is referring to, but one must assume it is the difference between the CD 44.1kHz/16bit and the MQA equivalent. As such, the -70dB means there is a difference. What Bob Carver is saying is that he cannot hear it.

 

What we do not know is whether this difference is due to the "claimed" changes that MQA processing does to the audio, or it is the lossy encoding artefacts.

 

The test that does need to be done, is the comparison between an MQA CD and the original CD version - so we can see that if MQA CD's become the only CD available, and we assume that everyone on the planet does NOT purchase an MQA DAC, what the impact is to those people in terms of sound quality degradation due to MQA. Don't forget, we lose 3 bits for the MQA encoding - and this will automatically degrade the S/N for CD from 96dB down to 78dB.

 

My opinion is that everyone will NOT purchase a new DAC, or whatever the device is they play music back on, just because the labels and MQA are forcing them to, else they will forever more have a degraded sound. MQA is a pernicious attempt to force people to buy a new DAC or other to pay MQA Ltd royalties else ruin the sound for everyone if you do not comply.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[sandyk]

33 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Don't forget, we lose 3 bits for the MQA encoding - and this will automatically degrade the S/N for CD from 96dB down to 78dB.

 

 If that is correct, then it's completely unacceptable !

[psjug]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 

 If that is correct, then it's completely unacceptable !

The 13 bits is for MQA-CD, right?  Sure you get less SNR in the audible, but on the other hand I'm sure the 3 bits give really great ultrasonics.  It's something like this:

 

MQA: Here's MQA

Consumers: How stupid do you think we are?

MQA: Here's MQA-CD

[james45974]

6 hours ago, Nikhil said:

 

 

I think Bob Carver brilliantly cut through the BS.  In other words after all the silly "folding" hogwash the signal ultimately came out at the end of the wire with negligible difference at best.   All this after some poor soul(s) at <insert hardware manufacture here> has signed an NDA that now exposes them to some legal risk.  And you have all the silly hoops one has to jump through to gain access to the MQA file in the first place. 

 

 

 

I am not aware of the ins and outs of NDA's, would the MQA NDA be any different in general to what might be signed for a manufacturer to incorporate Dolby Atmos in their product line for instance?  Seems like there is a lot of hiding behind the NDA.

[Shadders]

7 minutes ago, psjug said:

The 13 bits is for MQA-CD, right?  Sure you get less SNR in the audible, but on the other hand I'm sure the 3 bits give really great ultrasonics.  It's something like this:

 

MQA: Here's MQA

Consumers: How stupid do you think we are?

MQA: Here's MQA-CD

Hi,

For MQA CD. despite it degrading sound for everyone on the planet, unless you purchase the MQA DAC, it also essentially becomes a monopoly.

 

Which is either MQA are going to degrade your sound, or you have to pay them for a new DAC to get close to what CD was in the first place.

 

I wonder if the EU are aware of the monopoly intentions of MQA Ltd, should the labels force MQA CD's being the only offering. Would it be difficult for it to be proven that the labels and MQA Ltd are working together to create a monopoly ??.

 

I think it would be easy, since the major labels are shareholders in MQA Ltd. So forcing MQA CD's upon everyone would mean the labels get a cut of the hardware sales. Very uncompetitive.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Samuel T Cogley]

9 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Doesn't this prove MQA works?  Bob is saying his test proves no difference in the files.  So MQA compressed a file and Carver finds no sound quality loss?  Isn't that demonstrating the value of MQA?

 

 

Quote

 

hang·er-on

/ˈˌhaNGər ˈˌän/

noun

noun: hanger-on; plural noun: hangers-on

a person who associates with another person or a group in a sycophantic manner or for the purpose of gaining some personal advantage.

"he was a hanger-on who used to come around and drink with Ken"

synonyms:follower, flunky, toady, camp follower, sycophant, parasite, leech, bottom feeder

 

 

[mansr]

38 minutes ago, james45974 said:

I am not aware of the ins and outs of NDA's, would the MQA NDA be any different in general to what might be signed for a manufacturer to incorporate Dolby Atmos in their product line for instance?  Seems like there is a lot of hiding behind the NDA.

I have seen an NDA for evaluation of MQA. That one has nothing unusual in it. There is probably a different NDA to be signed if should you wish to proceed with integrating MQA in a product. The terms might also vary between customers.

 

The NDA document I obtained does, however, contain this interesting bit (emphasis mine):

Quote

1. The parties to this Agreement wish to discuss and exchange information in the general area of streaming or downloading, encoding, re-coding or decoding of high-resolution music, rights management, encoding and quality authentication. MQA also wishes to describe confidential information relating to proprietary coding under the descriptive umbrella of the MQA Technology. That evaluation is hereinafter called “the Purpose”.

 

Are we still supposed to believe MQA has nothing to do with DRM?

[jabbr]

9 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Doesn't this prove MQA works?  Bob is saying his test proves no difference in the files.  So MQA compressed a file and Carver finds no sound quality loss?  Isn't that demonstrating the value of MQA?

 

No that makes MQA entirely irrelevant to companies like Apple and many others who have developed their own, or incorporated standard, lossy compression techniques that they have show have no sound quality loss. Indeed one could rather easily obtain a 320kbps mp3 of a particular audio file and compare to a lossless version and not be able to distinguish, this has been shown time and time again ... not saying that ALL 320 kpbs mp3 is equal to ALL lossless, but one can easily provide an example that is indistinguishable... we aren't stupid.

[Magnaryder]

9 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Doesn't this prove MQA works?  Bob is saying his test proves no difference in the files.  So MQA compressed a file and Carver finds no sound quality loss?  Isn't that demonstrating the value of MQA?

No it puts a point on the scam. 

 

ray

[Shadders]

Hi,

Did a search on Amazon to see if there are any MQA CD's. There are now a few more :

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Espresso-MQA-Bob-James-Trio/dp/B07FDKXD1C/ref=sr_1_2?s=music&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1539801387&amp;sr=1-2&amp;keywords=mqa

 

The product description states :

MQA is an award-winning technology that delivers the sound of the studio. Imagine being present at the original studio performance of your favourite recording artist. Every nuance, every subtlety, every tiny drop of emotion delivered to your ears. MQA CD plays back on all CD players. When a conventional CD player is connected to an MQA-enabled device, the CD will reveal the original master quality.

 

What the product description does NOT state is that when playing an MQA CD through a CD player or streamer that is NOT MQA enabled, that the sound is degraded compared to a normal CD (that is S/N=78dB as opposed to S/N=96dB for normal CD).

 

I think that this aspect should be noted for every MQA CD sold, and if people do not have the MQA enabled DAC that they should purchase the non-MQA CD ?

 

What laws cover this in the requisite countries ?

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[tmtomh]

14 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Doesn't this prove MQA works?  Bob is saying his test proves no difference in the files.  So MQA compressed a file and Carver finds no sound quality loss?  Isn't that demonstrating the value of MQA?

 

MQA "compressed" a 24/192 file into 24/96 by downsampling it (aka throwing away 1/2 the samples), then compressed that 24/96 result into something that's somewhat smaller than a 24/96 file and somewhat larger than a 24/48 file, and which allegedly sounds no different than a 24/48 or 24/96 file, and which costs more than either one, and which adds a layer of DRM by restricting the consumer's ability to play the full-resolution version on any device, and to copy, modify, or apply their own processing to the full-resolution file.

 

So yes, I guess it works if the objective is to extract further profits from the recording, production, mastering, equipment-production, streaming-subscription, and file-purchasing links in the chain, while bring DRM back from the dead.

 

If those are objectives you think are good, @Lee Scoggins, please say so. If not, then we're back to your seeming inability to make a logically coherent argument and your trouble with the accepted definitions of basic words.

[Lee Scoggins]

In reading Bob's "paper", I don't see a peer-reviewed-like description of his test method.  Lots of details are missing.

 

Whereas Bob Stuart's work is detailed in peer-reviewed publications.  Shouldn't Bob Carver be held to the same standard?

[semente]

1 minute ago, Lee Scoggins said:

In reading Bob's "paper", I don't see a peer-reviewed-like description of his test method.  Lots of details are missing.

 

Whereas Bob Stuart's work is detailed in peer-reviewed publications.  Shouldn't Bob Carver be held to the same standard?

You sound like a Brexiteer... In spite of all the evidence, you carry on unfazed.