My new article series on MQA.

What would be great is if labels forgot about MQA entirely and focused on partnering with major ISPs to offer faster network speeds, and ditch the lame throttling that is already happening in some markets. That and get back catalog titles that are currently unavailable on digital music platforms for lossless purchase and streaming. Lots of major label owned releases that are OOP physically and not available to stream or buy in lossless either.

 

Mal, I think this is mostly right in terms of the filter goals "correcting" ADCs, etc. but is something I am still exploring for the second, more technical, article. However, post from tmtomh does not provide evidence that Stuart is saying it is lossless, only that is the Stereophile writer's opinion.

 

Spence has already agreed to apply the encoding to my own files that I recorded, know sonically, and can verify provenance of. So we will indeed hear our own work before and after MQA encoding.

 

That won't work from a business standpoint. That would be the path of greatest resistance as the ISPs would require labels to fund the infrastructure and there is not much money in the label bank accounts (many have been saddled with debt). The better path is create a format that the masses are likely to accept if only for convenience and let the whole ecosystem take care of the rest.

 

The sound improvements were pretty obvious to my ears on the Wilson Alexx system. There was more clarity and presence on the MQA files that Peter played. Did you not hear the difference?

 

Yeah, it probably won't happen. But I don't think MQA is the answer either. The masses are already hooked on lower bitrate lossy streaming and cheap earbuds, don't see that changing anytime soon either.

Honestly I would be bowled over if the majors just offered more OOP titles as lossless 16/44 via existing download stores at reasonable prices.

 

"So what if we could invent a digital format in higher resolution that goes everywhere?"
This is the crux of MQA to me. It's the answer to a question that no one has asked.
Should the end user pay for MQA if they do not care? The win is bandwidth saving
delivery in my weak understanding. Do I care if AT&T upgrades their backbone?
I only care if it improves my experience. I also care about the cost passed downstream to me.
If service providers provide a bigger pipe, MQA isn't needed is it?

"What if that format was attractive to non-audiophiles?"
Do non-audiophiles care about TCP/IP or some routing protocol?

"What if that format had a huge number of titles?"
No one cares about the "format" except the people who stand to make lots of money if
it is adopted.

Boy, I'd like to see some proof of this claim.
"MQA applies Bob Stuart’s temporal de-blurring filters that eliminate one of the biggest monsters of bad digital: pre and post ringing."

"So with MQA-enabled software apps, MQA converters, or both, we get mountains of catalogs in high-res? Yes.

Why all the controversy on the internet? MQA is a gift to audiophiles who are experienced enough to know the magic of a good high-res file."

Yes and the cost will be spread out among consumers whether they wanted it or not.

 

Labels jumping on MQA will see the potential of reselling the same titles over again in a new format.

Skeptical music buyers see a new format attempting to make their DAC's and music collection obsolete in some ways.

Can thought out filters make the music sound better using a smaller file, compared to uncompressed pcm, is on the surface, impossible. All the progress made producing quality DACs seems to be kicked to the curb in favor of an exclusive process.

 

Not sure where you got that TCP/IP (yeah you know me ) comment but I was referring to the attractiveness of streaming to non-audiophiles.

People care about a huge number of titles. Convenience of a music library in your pocket like the ipod ushered in many years ago.

Making lots of money. I hope Bob Stuart and the entire team makes a ton of money. That is free markets at work and it lends stability to the format. MQA gets a license fee from everyone involved. That's a good thing, not a bad thing.

We wouldn't expect Steve Hoffman to work for free.

Spotify the world with better sound quality = win.

 

Partially true I think. The labels will see value in selling all of their catalog titles to streaming services and perhaps get a little bit more for the higher resolution versions. So we spend $20 a month for Tidal Hifi. I like Tidal already but if I get a few million more hirez tracks then I am really happy to spend that $20.

 

In both demonstrations, I heard definite differences. But it didn't sound "better" to me. It just sounded like frequency response differences, more forward in a narrow range of midrange and brighter in the upper highs.

 

On the first point, I look at things a bit different. One could say, "oh my DAC is incompatible but now a cheap software app will do the first unfolding then I have hirez for a pretty low cost."

In most cases, new formats require a new DAC and DACs quickly become obsolete. Given that a $200 Audioquest Red does this, I don't see it as a burden on most audiophiles.

On the second point, the "exclusive process" is required to ensure the MQA files is done properly much like a "Mastered for iTunes." Having standards is probably a good thing. Remember, MQA won't prevent MFSL or AP from doing an old school mastering from tapes. No harm, no foul.

 

Okay, thanks. I found to be better in most ways. The elimination of pre and post ringing makes digital sound way more analog to my ears.

 

It's the internet. Anonymity and a lack of repercussions is apparently death on civility.

Personally I'm fuzzy on the whole MQA thing and fairly skeptical, but that's just me I am a skeptic. I would love to see a bunch of new hirez albums appear but the problem is just because they are using MQA doesn't mean they can't Brickwall the crap of the new releases. Mastering will always be the most important aspect of releasing any album. Maybe that should be addressed first before these studios spend all this money on another expensive format.

I would also love to see more discussion and coverage of the mastering process and the loudness wars and which studios are attempting to address that particular problem in PTA and other publications.

 

I think it's good to be skeptical as long as you don't become entirely dogmatic about it. And I agree that mastering is important.

I will talk about the entire process in the next article.

 

The last two had a longer run...

 

Quite true!

Perhaps the last three?

 

...who's also a moderator on the (unaffiliated to) MQA developments Facebook page.

 

Bob Stuart's response to the question of whether MQA is lossy or lossless in the video I linked to is that it is 'both' (see here) - while I think I understand what he means, it is not particularly helpful.

In his defence, I think the subtlety of the purpose (ostensibly, at least) behind developing MQA (in a nutshell, attempting to ensure the best possible fidelity between audio capture and playback by means of correcting errors introduced by conversion steps, while simultaneously reducing data volume for hi-res files) makes it somewhat difficult to answer questions that assume a conventional approach to digital audio without losing the audience's interest by the time he has tried to explain how the question doesn't necessarily apply.

This also highlights where I think the main suspicions about MQA being a long con originate - it is hard to distinguish between real science and snake-oil when the real science involves a radically different approach that is not easily explainable in familiar terms. On the other hand, true scientific validity can be tested in the real world. Unfortunately, as audiophiles we are in the business of scrutinising the edge of reality - the noise-floor, the grey area boundary layer between the known and the unknown...

Lee, I applaud your willingness to get into the weeds on MQA, it can get pretty ugly in these discussions

 

Let me try again. What problems does MQA solve?
It gives "master engineer" quality sound without giving the master files to the end user?
O.K. I have thousands of LP's and hundreds of CDs. I have 14 MOFI and AF titles.
Offer up a non-copy version of the master files and I will buy the same two dozen titles again.
No need to have a MQA app or MQA on my DAC. O.K?

I don't need millions of MQA titles. I won't live long enough to hear them all.

MQA saves bandwidth?
That is what I was trying to do w/ my analogy. MQA is myopic to what is going to happen with
the internet. Who cares about delivery. Just give me the best sound possible on my two dozen
titles and I'm good. Send them snail mail. This speed of the internet will jump by orders of magnitude
for other reasons. Serving music isn't what will push the envelop. The bandwidth savings with MQA...

I'll leave the "better sound" via MQA to others.

 

It's a solution in search of a problem. Same ol' story. Let's me make some of that kale please oh lordy lordy....

 

Engineers have "deconvoluted" MQA to use its own terminology and shown that, without question, it lays the groundwork for DRM.
MQA is Vaporware

I realize that is long thread but any journalist needs to be aware of the technical findings before publishing something.


The Lossy-ness of MQA is not really the same as we usually think of and has to do with the manner in which some frequencies are processed, 'folded' and then packed into higher bit order 'spaces' -- I doubt anyone can hear the lossy-ness.

I am not opposed to DRM in theory. I have had my own intellectual property stolen before so understand the desire of an artist to protect their creation (or the desire of the artist's corporate overlord ot protect its profits...).

The real issues are two:
1. One issue with MQA is the problems that DRM can cause in its actions once it is implemented or turned on. Think back for why people hated copy protection so much - your choice of computer software or video.
2. The 2nd problem is why do we need MQA at all? It confers no advantage, given the rapid growth in storage capacity and transmission bandwidths. Maybe, just maybe, the 'end to end' control it entails can produce marginally higher SQ for new recordings compared with careful mastering and recording. It does nothing at all for the vast catalog of music recorded in the 20th Century however.

It saddens me to have to write some of the above as I've had a very positive view of Bob Stuart for decades now...

 

The significant claim is that MQA solves the issue of digital conversions (ADC and DAC) potentially damaging the fidelity of the original audio signal when compared to playback of a digitally encoded version of the original.

Some will argue that this is not an issue but I must say that in my experience, DAC playback is a compromise mainly due to the filtering chosen. If MQA, in the form of a standardised data pipeline from studio to consumer, can make this aspect of DAC playback effectively transparent, then it would have value. Add to that the promise of further improvement from the ADC correction and you have what is either the future of digital audio or a new Madoff Investment Securities in the making.

I can't see myself getting involved in MQA unless it becomes ubiquitous and unavoidable but it's an interesting concept, at least.

 

Ooops! I now see that the OP here is LeeS, which sounds a LOT like the Lee Scoggins who has been posting on CA, where people have been asking if he is ... well, I'll let the interested just read:
MQA is Vaporware

Is it true? is that you?

And how did you decide to write the article? Did someone ask you to?

 

Wow. That CA thread is nauseating. So many people with minds shut tight and opinions set in stone.