My new article series on MQA.

My point is entirely about content. Please do not distort my point. I don't care how you write it. I only ask that you research objectly and share what you learn. Also please explicitly explain in future articles if your source of information was under an NDA that might limit what technical information was shared which would create a bias in the information presented

I look forward to future articles were you delve into the technical merits of MQA and correct your earlier claim of MQA being lossless.

I also look forward to your listening sessions and your explanations of how MQA makes a track sound better.

When can we expect the second article?

 

If it cannot be turned back into the original digital PCM stream, it is lossy. If the audio can be identified as different from the source, it is lossy. Wrapping intentional audio manipulation into the format, claiming it "sounds better", is obfuscation of the fact that this doesn't deliver the original to the listener, which besides the intrinsic digital rights management, is probably just what the record companies want.

 

Thanks Mal. I think your point on where a new approach takes over, it can be hard to shift mindsets using older frameworks. We see that all the time with analytics projects.

 

It is been surprising how vicious and ill-informed the discussion over there is. Very inexperienced people with no recording background who are trying to analyze things in a mind set of "the labels should just release hirez downloads." Anyone with half a brain would understand my first article explained why that doesn't work. Sadly, many on CA don't have half a brain.

 

I have not seen any solid evidence so far that it can't be turned back to the original source. Also, your bias shows in saying there is "audio manipulation". MQA has been upfront about using digital filters to eliminate pre and post ringing, two of the biggest causes in why digital sounds bad. Our brains simply don't like pre/post ringing. This deblurring is necessary for better sound.

 

I can tell you as one who has recorded over 200 session in hirez and 16/44, this is a problem. Bob Stuart's solution, while not perfect, does make sense as it addresses the timing issues.

 

You obviously did not read or understand my article. The problem and solution provided by MQA should be obvious.

 

Kyhl,

You are not my editor so I am not bound by these requests. I publish on my own schedule and my content will be issued as I see fit. I have not signed any and I don't operate under NDA agreements on this topic.

It's become clear to me that you dismiss my writing simply because it expresses an opinion that you don't agree with.

The truth here is that you and the other armchair critics don't really matter as the labels are doing what they believe will gain acceptance. MQA is releasing millions of hirez tracks and streaming is happening. With all the majors on board, the war is already over.

You should celebrate if you like good sound as mainstream hirez is happening now.

 

Cool. I will check it out.

 

After spending a couple of hours reading up on MQA I think you have your work cut out for you. That is unless there is a notable improvement in sound quality that is easily recognizable. The whole thing reads like a cash grab by MQA. Manufacturers of equipment have to pay licensing fees, studios get to hold true copies of the Master's in reserve and DRM can be anything they want it to be at a later date. If it's not a money grab by the companies involved it sure comes across as one and they should can their PR people.

I hope you will ask specific questions relating to licensing fees, DRM, and the lossy conversion process.

Here is a question I have. Why are all these studios getting behind this? What's in it for them? Have any of the contracts these studios are signing with MQA been released to the public?

I will hold off on making any final judgements till I can hear some music that I listen too regularly in MQA. Of course how will anyone be able to tell if there is any difference in sound considering the fact that you will have to buy new hardware that is compatible with the format. Surely you can't make any real judgement playing a non MQA file over a DAC that is optimized for MQA? So that means you must use a different DAC. Who's to say where the difference lies? Especially if those differences will be described as subtle.

 

One way to address that would be for audiophile recordings to state what type of digital filter the recording is recorded with, mastered with, and optimized for. The recording could state somewhere that it's optimized for playback using a linear phase filter, or a minimum phase filter, or some other type of filter. I've never seen an audiophile recording, or any recording, state that. That would be useful info to help address some timing issues at playback. Won't be as good as MQA in reducing timing issues, but it's better than nothing.

 

This is a completely sincere question. Where is all this mainstream hirez music? The two dozen or so hirez files I have have come from HD Tracks and Acoustic Sounds. Also is Tidal the only streaming service?

 

Any good business model has each participant in the ecosystem getting paid. Again, this is a strength of MQA, not a weakness. If everyone gets paid, then it will have legs.

What's in it for the studios? Did you read my article? I plainly explained that.

The DAC issue is not a problem: Audioquest Red for $200. Soon it will be on your Astell & Kern player. It's no different from new DACs playing hirez versus older DACs topping out at 16/44. Technology moves fast.

 

It doesn't seem you read my article at all so this will be my last response to you. Millions of tracks are being mastered and 10K are already out. The label contracts require the labels to release the entire back catalog.

 

Agreed but the labels simply do not put out this information. It's sad they don't but I doubt they care enough about audiophiles to spend any time or money doing this.

 

You are making bold claims here. Where is your evidence that the audio cannot be turned back into the original PCM file?

 

HA! You wish. Some of us read the Emperor's New Clothes in nursery school. We've heard it all before...

 

Wow Lee. You actually think a 24/96 source encoded into 24/48 MQA can be reconstituted with their "origami" unfolding back to the original 24/96 it came from exactly!?

You better ask your MQA sources if this is possible... Seems like a rather straight forward "yes / no" answer, right?

Please let us know.

Maybe you want to read my article on the blog this week about ringing and think about what you're saying or think that MQA is saying about this. Sure would be nice for MQA to give some examples of this "ringing" and how they're remedying the situation with actual music... (Especially hi-res music!)

 

Hi, it seems you've been indoctrinated by well rehearsed marketing with your defensiveness - step back and be an objective reporter without bias.

The evidence would be applying sound logic (and the experience of 25+ years in digital and pro audio, along with perceptual coding systems, computer sound, encryption and rights management as they have evolved...) to information released and discussed about the format previously. One can confidently make these claims, although both of my statements were "if", providing clarification for you to re-examine what a lossy format is.

A much clearer counterpoint: HIGHRESAUDIO to stop offering MQA

FLAC is near state-of-the-art in lossless compression, usually near 60% the original file size. If digital audio could be made smaller without discarding data, it would already be done.

 

Are we still banging on with wild generalisations from, ahem, journalists that "digital sounds bad"? Seriously?

No wonder audio journalism lost its credibility years ago. Dire.

If you are doing this properly, explain which aspects of the medium are a problem, given the breadth of coverage. That informs people. Your article doesn't, but it does cover the MQA marketing checklist.

It helps no one, least of all your cause, to use absolute terms that ultimately don't stack up in the real world.

 

Lee. You're seriously suggesting we need to replace our perfectly good DACs to embrace a closed-loop and claim-dubious format that has yet to convince anyone who appears to have trialled it objectively (ie doesn't appear to have a vested interest)?

Moreover, it really does seem as if MQA has been thrust out to manufacturers and audiophiles alike on the 'Get on board or miss out' rhetoric; with its proponents adopting an evangelical, zeal-esque approach. You must see that's off-putting.

Am I right in thinking non-oversampling DACs (also) eliminate pre- and post-ringing?

 

Music needs another proprietary hoop to jump through like Stevie Wonder needs 4K TV. I'm not interested. Furthermore I feel like their real goal is to install tools at every stage in the music making process to extract fees all along the way. That's ultimately going to be bad for music fans. I can only hope that it fails.

 

Thanks for all the replies Mal, LeeS, and others. Great thread. Can't wait for part II.

"HIGHRESAUDIO has stopped offering MQA. MQA is NOT lossless, the original signal is never recovered, estimate to recover at most 17bits (reduces the sampling rate), reduces the frequency range, SNR reduced by 3bit, aliasing with artifacts at 18kHz."

Ouch! My Benchmark DAC can read deeper than that. A step back for music?

 

Hi, where is this shown please? Just checked their website and MQA titles are still available. Nothing in their social media Twitter account either.

 

The obvious problems with MQA have been apparent for several years now, and have been noted in websites and blogs from any number of industry professionals (although it hasn't stopped this debate). The objections are both technical and commercial. The main technical ones are that it is lossy (although not in the audio range, one of Meridian's and Bob Stuart's primary goals, stated at the time of MQA's introduction) and that it locks hi-rez into one fixed format, one not amenable to any further advances in D to A conversion and filtering that might be developed by other designers and engineers. The main commercial ones are that Meridian reaps huge financial benefits at the expense of the rest of the digital hardware industry and that it makes life even harder for recording and mastering engineers (since much of that will now be done only by "MQA engineers"). It's fairly obvious that benefits to us, music listeners and purchasers, are either limited or non-existent.

And although the claim is made that this offers consumers more music in hi-res, that claim is yet to be proven, several years now after MQA's introduction.