My new article series on MQA.

Old news, Highresaudio retracted that statement shortly after making it and have been offering some MQA titles now for over a year

 

You still have not responded with any evidence about your claim. You are just posting an opinion piece here.

 

And I guess the opinion has changed.

 

Some of this is not correct:

MQA is a completely separate company from Meridian. Meridian only benefits from selling MQA DACs.

Also, MQA doesn't dictate what ADCs and DACs are to be used so it is not limiting advances there at all. And MQA could apply advances in digital filters as well.

Like any good business, MQA has overhead and R&D costs and labor so fees for the encoding and other things are collected by all participants in the system.

It does arguably hurt mastering engineers since they won't get paid multiple times for mastering for various digital formats.

And I think MQA benefits us greatly by making available a vast increase in hirez playback files as my first article explains.

 

The problem is a phantom construction made out of fairy dust. Measurable pre- and post-ringing an entire octave above the audible range? That is an inaudible problem - don’t ignore the reports on SHF by myself and others about their blind listening comparisons of identical-source MQA and non-MQA tracks. The chance of any listener identifying an MQA vs. a non-MQA was no better than a coin flip during my home testing sessions.

Suggesting in reponse, as some other pundits have pointedly done, that “a music listener who can’t hear a difference just doesn’t know how to listen” is only the most egregious of all the arrogant and supercilious defensive statements that the self-styled leaders in the audiophile media have made in recent years. We’re listening to the music, not straining to hear irrelevant nonsense that is beyond the ability of any human to even vaguely sense let alone actually hear.

It’s presumable then that MQA is now, based on your own commentary in this thread, trending toward an attempt to bring all the major labels onto a universal single format bandwagon? That’s seems somewhat implicit in some of what you’ve written here and elsewhere about MQA.

You’re posting about and writing about a problem that is inaudible to normal music lovers and audiophiles, i.e., declaratively inaudible to the vast majority of people. None of the music collectors, music lovers, audiophiles, audio hobbyists and music hobbyists with whom I’ve interacted during regular listening sessions and MQA listening sessions can hear Bob Stuart’s pre- or post-ringing in the first place on any of the dozens of different CDs and TIDAL streams we’ve used for comparison purposes, and that’s why in blind listening sessions MQA’s alleged elimination of the alleged pre- and post-ringing bogeyman has also been inaudible. Ocassionally, differences are heard but not improvements.

So where are your music files right now? I’m referring to the ones you previously mentioned (in this thread) were to be sent to the MQA gang for MQA processing. Have you not yet sent them to MQA? Have they not given you the go-ahead to send the files quite yet? Have you already sent the files but MQA has not yet processed them? The query is of interest to me and others because we’re mystified by the amount of time it takes for MQA to get back to any private individual who sends files (upon invitation to do so) for MQA processing. In one documented processing session, the MQA person/people did their thing behind closed doors during the course of a single morning or afternoon. The owner of the files seemed initially pleased at the results, but then his enthusiasm waned. In any event, he was not allowed to observe MQA vodoo in action. In another documented situation, the individual submitted his files at the appropriate time and in the appropriate way, but after a year of following up with the MQA people they still had not processed his files and had also ceased responding to his follow-ups.

TIDAL is the only truly massive CD-quality stream available in Canada and the U.S. TIDAL is sinking some significant amount of money into MQA. And TIDAL, exactly like all the other streaming services, hasn’t made a penny of profit siince its startup. I really, really hope that Bob Stuart’s MQA fantasy doesn’t end up contributing to the sinking of TIDAL. The alternative streaming services in Canada at least, are all 320 Kbps at best - over-compressed low-fidelity at best. Bob Stuart’s track record as a businessman, the major labels’ well-known propensity to chase down rabbit holes, and the fragility of the music streaming business are not a great combination, and they don’t collectively augur well for a successful outcome. I would not be posting this specific thinking if MQA had ever demonstrated even a shred of benefit during any home listening tests. If it had demonstrated a pervasive audible benefit - or any singularly noticeable benefit - I’d be wholly onboard.

Your untested MQA enthusiasm and your comments (perhaps inadvertently) leveled in part at your own readers - comments specifically about closed-mindedness on the part of some of your readers - are inappropriate for anything but product marketing. Unfortunately, more product marketing is the last thing this forum needs (IMO). What most of the SHF members whose posts I’ve read come here to do is cut through product marketing in order to get to a foundation of accurate information. I don’t think that effort is helped when audiophile writers spead product marketing at SHF at the same time as they offer only a reiteration of MQA marketing collateral in response to hard queries that absolutely require hard, testable answers. Why haven’t you organized your own home listening MQA tests to actually cut through the marketing and bias you’ve absorbed? I’d ask Robert Harley and others the same question. Neither you nor they have gone even to the moderate extent that I have or that @Archimago has to challenge the MQA assertions.

Once again though, the results of all of the home listening tests (using identical source comparison files - one MQA stream/one non-MQA stream, one MQA stream/one non-MQA CD, one MQA file/one non-MQA file, one MQA file/one non-MQA CD) describe MQA as a solution in search of a problem. The accuracy of the choices by home test listeners about which file or stream is which, amount to nothing better than a coin flip. All of the hype being promoted by MQA essentially disappears in the face of actual home listening tests. You know, the house, townhouse, cottage, apartment, condo, whatever, in which people actually relax and listen to their music. So how do you respond to that?

 

MQA creates filters for every step in the process. Why wouldn't they get paid for each piece they do? That's just capitalism to get paid for your work.

 

A couple of clarifications:

**I HAVE done several MQA/non-MQA comparisons and I hear benefits in terms of bass, clarity and presence with the MQA files.
**We are still selecting the tracks to send to Spence.
**Many have heard the MQA files in a fair comparison. You are biasing your view by only concentrating on the ones that heard no difference.

 

I really don't think replacing the DAC is a big deal for the following reasons:

1. There are several affordable DAC options from the $200 Audioquest Red to the Meridian Explorer, etc.
2. With any new format there is often new hardware needed so this is not new.
3. DAC technology degrades over time so there is a fast replacement cycle (one exception being the evergreen FPGA-updatable PS Audio DACs).

 

MQA and Meridian are owned by the same parent company, so perhaps I misspoke slightly. What is correct is that the owners of Meridian benefit.

MQA can't apply any different filters other than the ones they are using; it is part of the patent and indeed inherent to the process itself, as is the lossiness (admitted in the lengthy patent application, if you have the patience to read through it).

MQA has not yet made available that vast increase in hirez music. It may end up doing so, but MQA has been around for several years now without that happening (or at least not happening due to MQA)

 

Doesn't Chord also make FPGA-updatable DAC's? There may be others as well.

 

Actually this is provable. MQA contracts require encoding of the entire back catalog. And we are seeing well over 10K tracks now available but millions are coming due soon. It took, understandably, a while for contracts to be signed, encoders to be shipped, and the work to be done.

 

Sadly no. They don't have an updating process built-in. I spoke to Rob Watts about this and he said they liked the process of updating the units via new products. So if you want the latest and greatest number of taps, you have to buy the new device. That adds expense to the consumer but does allow for updating everything.

Still, I like the PS Audio approach better. The SD file transfer process is very smooth.

 

I'm not sure on your first and second points. I have to look into that.

But the third point is simply not true. I have talked to people involved and there is a boat load of new hirez coming. As I mentioned above, it takes some time to encode an entire digital catalog. Hang in there and you will see me proven correct.

 

Don't misunderstand me Rael. I was talking about it being bad in the context of not perfect; I believe great digital can sound great. I just think there is value in fixing these timing issues.

I recently heard the Wilson WAMM Chronosonics where Dave Wilson adjusted for very minute changes in driver alignment on the order of 5 microseconds. We did an A/B test and you could easily hear the smearing that resulted. So I am more aware of how timing is important to enjoying music.

 

As far as points 1 and 2, just ask Bob Stuart. He won't (can't) deny they are true, although he has sometimes answered questions by asking another question, rather than confirming or denying, a common avoidance technique.

As far as point 3, I can't look into the future any better than anyone else. But you can't deny that it hasn't happened yet, despite MQA being launched over 3 years ago.

I hate to say this, because I have thought better of your opinions and posts in the past, but this first in your series of articles on MQA seems very similar to rah-rah pieces in The Absolute Sound from a couple of years ago.

 

I am sorry you feel that way but I am doing my best in this piece to honestly evaluate the potential for MQA. I got genuinely excited when I learned that millions of hirez tracks were on the way.

And I also see the value in using the excitement around streaming as a way to smuggle in some better sound quality. Believe me, I wish SACD or DVD-Audio had been more successful but I think we have to be honest that the audiophile-based approach won't represent a big enough market for the majors to do entire catalogs for.

 

I think it says a lot about MQA (and not in good way) that more than 3 years after its introduction, and 2 years or more after the rah-rah pieces in TAS, Stereophile and other mags (print and on-line), it is still trying to justify its existence to the audiophile community

 

I don't see any evidence it is trying to "justify its existence" to audiophiles. I think they are focused on building the ecosystem and audiophiles don't really matter for that piece. The toughest customer is the record label and they got all of them.

Now they are going after the hardware makers.

My guess is the priority is:

1. Record label contracts to create the music libraries. Done.
2. Hardware vendors to create new playback revenue. Underway.
3. Streaming services to enable MQA file availability. Underway.
4. Non-audiophile customers who pay for the streaming service. Starting with Tidal.
5. Audiophile customers who pay for the hirez files. Starting with Tidal.

 

To me (and many others), hirez is DSD or 24/88.2 PCM (or better). MQA is neither of those, it is different; it will probably sound better than CD, but it's not "traditional" hirez audio.

 

And for non-biased observers to support this blatant cash grab is just plain depressing

 

It sure sounds good to my ears.

 

“. . . benefits in terms of bass, clarity and presence” is a generalization that sounds persuasive but says absolutely nothing specific about whether or not your listening was done without the biasing benefit of knowing which file you were hearing and without knowing the order in which files were supposed to be played.

Time pressures are real, no doubt. Schedules are packed these days. I wish I had five more hours in every day. Then again, the matter is currently hot in some circles.

In all of the unbiased comparisons I’ve read about or heard or organized or participated, ocassional differences have been heard. Differences are not improvements by definition. Ocassionally, an improvement was heard (as I have previously posted in other threads on the subject), but it was impossible to directly attribute the differences or the ocassional improvement to MQA processing.

What you may be missing when it comes to statistical significance is that all results have to be reported and calculated - the ones for and the ones against and the undecideds, etc., etc., etc. I’m not P-hacking, nor should you imply that I am. That’s how statistical significance, in part, is calculated. When some people in a listening group can only pick out an MQA-processed file between 20%-60% of the time over four listening sessions, it means they was guessing because their collective accuracy was no better than a comparative coin flip done at the same time! When others in the same group accurately picked the MQA-processed file 80% of the time in one session, but only 10% of the time in another session (using the exactly same comparative file set), it means they were guessing, essentially convincing themselves through no external means that one file in a session was “better” and that the same file was not better in another session.

The flaws in home listening sessions have nothing whatsoever to do with the analysis and reporting. The flaws have to do with listening variability, changes in mood, the effects of intersession conversation, and so on. We don’t hear with our ears - we only receive audible data through our ears. It’s our brains that process the data and provide the perception of hearing. MQA isn’t good enough - whatever its processing is doing - to provide anything obviously beneficial in any consistent manner to any of the friends, relatives and friends of friends with whom I’ve done listening sessions. MQA though, has given a whole bunch of those people (and me) an excuse to get together for music listening sessions, to discuss music and equipment, etc., etc., etc., not to mention sampling some really good Scotch. Those are the only benefits I’ve derived from MQA.

One listening session extended to 18 comparisons, but none of the results were changing. That’s what you have to get to in order to determine whether or not your group is not listening long enough and to enough variety. When the changes in results are reduced to inconsequential ‘needle’ blips, you can be assured that at least with the group you’re working with the results are reliable. I’m not doing it again. We had our fun. We discovered that MQA is a phantom menace.

Convincing major labels to jump on board the MQA bandwagonb is no boast. The major labels have made some dumber than dumb business decisions, from time to time, for at least three generations. Based on my listening sessions, there’s no reason to think the MQA decision isn’t yet another waste of money (for MQA fees) and anything other than yet another attempt to get my to buy or subscribe to half the music I’ve already got in my library all over again.

 

Oh dear.

Good luck Lee.

 

"Blatant cash grab"? If you really feel that way then no objective responses from me will persuade you.

 

This is a pretty good summary of the technical elements of MQA:

MQA Time-domain Accuracy & Digital Audio Quality |