My new article series on MQA.

A lot of science published today isn't science at all, it's glorification of pet theories through the judicious application of bias selection, observational studies, questionnaires, teleanalysis and cherry picking facts and studies for further meta-analysis.

Anyway after venting some steam, lets get back to the subject. What I really don't like about MQA is the intrusively exclusive nature of its audio path. I think, although Lee did neither deny nor confirm it, that computer users that like to tweak their settings are going to be in for a rough surprise, because if like me you want to tweak your audio settings for up-sampling, dithering, sound leveling or any other DSP, you are not going to like what MQA brings to the table.

In one master stroke I will be relegated, together with thousands of other music lovers, to some kind of second grade citizenship. I'll be forced to use specific software, which I may not like at all, because otherwise I'll be restricted to less than CD quality audio.

 

That is a great point that I think @Ham Sandwich brought up earlier, not being able to tinker with the data. Add to the list my latest pet peeve, absolute phase. Issues of absolute phase flipping mid album drives me crazy. I started adding notes to inner sleeves of records and plan to flip the phase in the digital files to correct tracks that I find out of polarity. Flipping them will change their values and completely screw up MQA if it is ever implemented.

Want to add replay gain to the files? Good luck with that.

 

Aha!! Why you no like our phase music? You bad man, no MQA for you!

 

All in good humor. My point was more about the rise in rhetoric as people dig in their heels on one side of an issue or another and I hope that was conveyed. My pet knowledge is limited to that of being a happy dog owner.

 

Also, MQA just doesn't sound as good as what's now available.

 

I'm on the side of the MQA skeptics in this argument, but let's also note that the devaluation of expertise (and credentials) is not always good, and somewhat a negative trend encouraged by the internet. now everyone thinks they are an expert because they can read something online, and there is a distrust of true, deep knowledge. The truth is in the middle.

 

I agree and the best defense is asking for proof, validations and the good old "show me how you did it". I must note that the side of MQA is sorely lacking on all accounts.

 

yup, and good science is always able to provide those things.

 

That is a ridiculous statement for many reasons which should be obvious.

For OP that is an excellent article. It points out well what many people seem to miss about MQA which is streaming.
The "debate" about MQA isn't surprising as audiophiles tend to be get off my lawn types who don't like anything new but a lot of the commentary is by people who obviously haven't heard it.

 

Why don't we ask Bob Stuart himself if MQA is lossless? He must know, right?

A Comprehensive Q&A With MQA's Bob Stuart

What do you think happened next?

Or...

Well, guess what, Bob?

That's all we want to do.

 

5G is here now and streams high res.

there is no benefit to MQA as far as I can see (I mean to the consumer - obviously Lee is getting benefit as a PR flack)

 

Except audiophiles have welcomed SACD/DSD and DVD-A/high-res PCM. My recollection is that they also welcomed HDCD too, and the issues with it were not treated with nearly the passion or hostility as MQA has received.

So either in the last 2-3 years audiophiles have changed significantly in their attitudes; or else something about the claims, marketing, and transparency level of Meridian/MQA is different than those previous phenomena. It's not hard to figure out which possibility is more likely.

As for streaming, I would agree with you except to say that as Lee Scoggins himself has said from the outset - in fact his whole argument depends on it - the streaming market is not a high-res market. Even lossless redbook is not nearly as plentiful as lossy in the streaming world, and future increases in lossless (or high-res) streaming will be about bandwidth, not market-driven sound-quality demands.

So - for the umpteenth time - the question returns to @LeeS 's claim that MQA's business model will have the side benefit of making more high-res music available for the audiophiles who care about that sort of thing. And that brings us right smack back into the technical question of whether or not an MQA high-res file (locally stored or streaming) is a satisfactory and useful product for audiophiles, especially compared to high-res PCM or DSD.

There's simply no escaping this last question. What your comment seems not to account for - and what Lee's numerous comments seem to refuse to acknowledge - is that this question is the basis of the claimed value of MQA for audiophiles.

And just to be 100% clear, it is Lee who set the argument up this way.

 

I'd also like to pose a question here to the group: Lee's repeatedly made the claim that only the same old classic rock back-catalogue titles are getting released in high-res format, and that MQA will remedy that, resulting in the release of more modern music in high-res, and the release of more back-catalogue stuff in high res.

Here's my question: Am I the only one who has noticed that more and more somewhat high-res music seems to be available over the past 2-3 years? Specifically, I see tons of 24-bit digital files of new and alternative rock, pop and other music available for purchase via HDTracks/Qobuz/etc, and also sometimes directly from the artists' and or labels' web sites. Just to pick a few random examples, albums from Fleet Foxes, The Shins, Johnny Marr, and Wolf Alice all circulate in 24-bit digital form (and that's putting aside the wide availability of high-res versions of music from more famous/big post-classic-rock acts like The Smiths, Prince, Depeche Mode, The Clash, and 100s of others).

I will admit that a significant fraction of the newer pop/indie music seems to circulate in 24/44.1k resolution rather than 48k or 96k. But still, it seems to me that the market already is ramping up to serve the niche market of audiophiles, and that the catalogues are diversifying significantly in that regard.

But perhaps my perception is skewed. Thoughts?

 

Bob's got you covered.

A Comprehensive Q&A With MQA's Bob Stuart

Of course, for 99% of the fans that Bob wants to help furnish with music, the 192kbps AAC audio they can get from YouTube sounds just great now, thanks anyway. (And is in fact audibly transparent in most cases.) If they're streamers as well as persnickety types like us, they can pay extra to Spotify for 320 or to Tidal for FLAC.

Pretty simple, really. No paradigm changing necessary.

Or was it the "my company doesn't get paid at every step of music distribution process" paradigm that he wanted to change?

 

Been lurking in this thread for awhile and, so far, these are the two (of three) points that I've seen brought up repeatedly.

1. MQA is perfect for streaming, even for non-audiophiles. Not sure if I'm considered an audiophile but I already use streaming services and have been for many years now. And of course if I wasn't interested in new shiny things I wouldn't be reading this very thread.

But, so far at least, I don't see how MQA adds anything substantial to the table with streaming. Outside of a lower packet requirement for Hi-Res of course, but given current unlimited data plans today and the move into 5G soon enough, Hi-Res lossy could easily work and possibly even lossless to a certain degree.

2. MQA gives the labels a reason to actually open up their vaults. Well, this could certainly be an accurate statement, but that's not necessarily a reason to actually use MQA, as a consumer. If the labels are going to do this anyway, why not offer an MQA option and a standard Hi-Res one and let the consumer pick which download they want? That's fine by me.

And the third point of course is the sound quality, which is probably the most difficult thing to really digest given the proprietary nature of the format. One would either have to hear a demo or I assume buy / trial a Hi-Fi TIDAL subscription.

 

I think this is probably true, and that the main reasons for the negative reaction are because it's a proprietary technology which controls or restricts what a user can do with the digital files in terms of manipulation. Also, there is skepticism about the theory behind the technology itself, which has not perhaps been explained to satisfaction, leading people to think it is simply a marketing swindle. Finally there is vociferous resistance to any new formats at this point. Many will not deign to actually listen if there is a semi-plausible argument circulating as to why it theoretically cannot offer improvement. In this sense, so-called "objectivists" in audio need not try it - they would considered it a waste of their time. (I consider myself partially an objectivist, or a conflicted one, if you will. I tend to be skeptical like a scientist or engineer, but also place some trust in my own hearing and perception.) Another thing that I have observed on this forum is that there is a love/hate relationship with companies that provide audio and music products. People want the stuff, but they harbor tremendous resentment for being "forced to buy." It's rather absurd, really, when you think about it. People have their sweet emotions stirred up by the music they love - in high fidelity - but then when it comes time to open their wallets, they feel abused by companies expecting payment for providing it. Then the emotions turn sour.

 

The phenomenon you describe does occur, but are you implying that it's a significant element in this thread? Your post could be read as suggesting that it is.

 

Darn kids and their new math!

 

Let's imagine Lee had come along and said "Great news, everyone! We've found a way to entice the major labels to release their entire back catalogs in high-res! It will be $30 for a DRM-free download."

The replies would range from "Hell's bells! Where do I sign up?!" to, at worst, "There are no audible differences between high-res and FLAC."

What you would not see are the kinds of hostile "Why are you shilling for a would-be monopolist?" replies he's actually gotten.

 

First, $30 for an album is about twice as bad as the $18-$25 now typically asked, non-sale priced, which is already too high, so I doubt there would be many posters applauding $30 per album. Second, even if we acknowledge that MQA sounds better than CD (and not everyone does, although what I have heard usually does), it is far from clear that it qualifies as “high-rez”.

 

It’s no more a ridiculous statement than saying ‘audiophiles tend to be get off my lawn types who don’t like anything new.’

 

7digital has a pretty good catalog of 16/44 and 24/96 FLAC downloads.

 

I just pulled a number out of a hat. Feel free to substitute another that would still count as "opening your wallet". Again, the worst he'd get is "The market does not support your pricing."

 

Yes, I think you both actually are in agreement here.

 

It came to mind, but occurred frequently in other threads I read had way before this one. I assume it's at play psychologically as one factor in the white-hot anger towards, and condemnation of, MQA, especially when it is described as part of an industry plot or collusion to extract more money from hapless consumer/victims by foreclosing options.