CA takes aim at MQA

dalethorn

Headphone user
Dec 9, 2012
476
7
18
63
Cleveland TN.
dalethorn.com
It seems to me the issues are: 1. Will MQA hegemony mean that other high resolution formats on download sites disappear ( ok for those who already have this content, but not newbies)
2. MQA will become defacto the only way to play back high resolution content as you need a compatible dac and it has DRM code
3. MQA SQ is subjective and track dependent( like most formats actually), from a technical stand point it is not a superior format, but an engineering compromise with some remastering effort, the amount of which is done is unclear. The compromise appears to be that they cut areas where there is little actual substantive musical content, and allow artefacts to be present in return for a small package size, and remastering and filtering SQ improvement, some of a measurable and others subjective manner.

From what I've heard so far, the risk of playing MQA files on non-MQA DACs is 50-50, in the sense that some sound brighter on an MQA DAC, and better in that sense at least on a non-MQA DAC. If that were to hold long-term (no assurance of that), then making sure to have a non-MQA DAC would offer some limited assurance against DRM.
 

rbbert

Well-Known Member
Dec 12, 2010
3,820
239
1,000
Reno, NV
It seems to me the issues are

1. Will MQA hegemony mean that other high resolution formats on download sites disappear ( ok for those who already have this content, but not newbies)
2. MQA will become defacto the only way to play back high resolution content as you need a compatible dac and it has DRM code
3. MQA SQ is subjective and track dependent( like most formats actually), from a technical stand point it is not a superior format, but an engineering compromise with some remastering effort, the amount of which is done is unclear. The compromise appears to be that they cut areas where there is little actual substantive musical content, and allow artefacts to be present in return for a small package size, and remastering and filtering SQ improvement, some of a measurable and others subjective manner.
This is a good summation, IMHO

From what I've heard so far, the risk of playing MQA files on non-MQA DACs is 50-50, in the sense that some sound brighter on an MQA DAC, and better in that sense at least on a non-MQA DAC. If that were to hold long-term (no assurance of that), then making sure to have a non-MQA DAC would offer some limited assurance against DRM.

This makes little or no sense from either a logical or practical perspective
 

dalethorn

Headphone user
Dec 9, 2012
476
7
18
63
Cleveland TN.
dalethorn.com
This makes little or no sense from either a logical or practical perspective

For a person like myself who is involved, it makes perfect sense. Maybe you have a specific question or issue?
 

Priaptor

Member Sponsor
Jan 28, 2012
929
19
0
FL
Well, so much for that idea. The very site where the infamous anti-MQA article is hosted is the same site that told me I could buy DSD/DSF files and "conversion would be easy". A week of work later, and JRiverMC unable to make a FLAC playable on Foobar2000**, and the whole effort was wasted. I had constant advice from a Stereophile editor, experts from CA, and experts from JRMC advising on the settings to make those conversions, and at the end of that failed process, persons at CA admitted that they also failed to get conversions playable on Foobar, and someone admitted to withholding key information.

**I have several hundred 24/88 through 24/192 FLACs from several high-res sites, and every one plays perfectly on Foobar2000, regardless of DAC. But the JRMC conversions not only didn't play, they fatally corrupted my Foobar install, so I had to start over several times, chewing up lots of time.

I must be missing your point. Someone asked where you could find MQA of the original as well as the original to compare and I mentioned 2L Nordic as a location where you can download both and compare:

https://shop.klicktrack.com/2l/?

Going to that site gives you a choice of all their downloads in MQA as well as their masters. Anyone wanting to compare, whether they like the music or not, this is a good site to do a comparison if one is willing to spend the money and they can do a good comparison. They also have samples for downloads in different formats (exclusive of DXD) including MQA for comparison at http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html?
 

dalethorn

Headphone user
Dec 9, 2012
476
7
18
63
Cleveland TN.
dalethorn.com
I must be missing your point. Someone asked where you could find MQA of the original as well as the original to compare and I mentioned 2L Nordic as a location where you can download both and compare: Going to that site gives you a choice of all their downloads in MQA as well as their masters. Anyone wanting to compare, whether they like the music or not, this is a good site to do a comparison if one is willing to spend the money and they can do a good comparison. They also have samples for downloads in different formats (exclusive of DXD) including MQA for comparison at http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html?

Yes, of course - there are other PCM files that are not MQA'd? I have been testing some of those, and while the results are mixed (some maybe a little better or worse), they didn't seem significant in listening.

I don't know if you're aware of it, but the Steve Reich CD and its equivalent 16/44 download from (Arkiv?) are MQA, with no notice on the order screen, the packaging, the liner notes, the CD itself, etc. So I have to ask, even if there is no answer - how many other titles on CD or downloads are MQA'd with no notice?

That last question isn't just a worry about stealth MQA or DRM, it's an expensive proposition if I'm buying albums out of pocket just to test them. So far, I haven't seen 24/88 to 24/96 FLAC downloads that are also MQA'd - I assume because MQA wants to sell only up to 24/48 resolution and have the rest unfolded by the software or DAC. Is that a safe assumption?
 

rbbert

Well-Known Member
Dec 12, 2010
3,820
239
1,000
Reno, NV
For a person like myself who is involved, it makes perfect sense. Maybe you have a specific question or issue?

Involved with what, exactly? Playing MQA files on a non-MQA DAC, with neither hardware nor software unfolding, should sound just like a 24/48 PCM file with no processing, but of course it doesn't. And if the only alternative to MQA is 16/44.1 Redbook or lower res MP3/AAC, then you are screwed no matter what, assuming you want (or believe in) better than CD quality digital. So where is any assurance against DRM?
 

dalethorn

Headphone user
Dec 9, 2012
476
7
18
63
Cleveland TN.
dalethorn.com
Involved with what, exactly? Playing MQA files on a non-MQA DAC, with neither hardware nor software unfolding, should sound just like a 24/48 PCM file with no processing, but of course it doesn't. And if the only alternative to MQA is 16/44.1 Redbook or lower res MP3/AAC, then you are screwed no matter what, assuming you want (or believe in) better than CD quality digital. So where is any assurance against DRM?

My major concern over the past several days and hours of tests is whether an MQA music player can force the correct MIDI settings on my Macbook, so the MQA lights light properly. I do know how to get the correct playback manually with non-MQA software on the full-up MQA DAC, but not one person who's been commenting on ALL of these forums can answer that question - will an MQA player be able to get the correct playback indicated by the correct lights by forcing whatever setting is necessary, or not? Nobody knows, and that's not a good sign I don't think, for a tech forum anyway.

My opinion of the mess I see in these topics is that the folks who are expressing so much angst are getting way ahead of everyone and losing lots of audiophiles who should also be involved. These people who are so concerned need to start over and test each important parameter as you suggest, then get others involved to validate what they hear, one step at a time, one album at a time. Open non-DRM music could be lost forever in all of the shouting and hate going around. If those angry types want to stop the corporate greedmeisters on this issue, they'd better start cooperating sooner than later.
 

rbbert

Well-Known Member
Dec 12, 2010
3,820
239
1,000
Reno, NV
Again, I don't understand what you mean. I think it's safe to say that nearly 100% of tech savvy and/or tech trained audiophiles are anti-MQA for any number of reasons, many or most of them mentioned in Archimago's CA guest article. Therefore I don't find it surprising that you aren't getting much help from them in your quest to determine the appropriate Mac Mini settings, they just don't care.

The "pro-MQA" group of audiophiles appear, for the most part, not to care about the monopolistic practices and DRM potential of MQA. they just like being able to listen to it for $20/mo on Tidal HiFi. So most of the group concerned about open access to non-DRM music doesn't care how MQA subjectively sounds, because it doesn't matter. No matter how good it sounds, it is a proprietary, closed loop, DRM system, which also essentially denies any future improvements in digital playback technology.
 
Last edited:

Indy

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2014
59
1
138
I can't defend MQA on any of those technical claims, and in fact I wouldn't defend it in light of concerns about putting proprietary code into my music files. But when it comes to the sound and any claims that "MQA sounds worse", I ask for a simple example -name an album available as a download in MQA and non-MQA that sounds worse in MQA, and I will buy them and test them. That's simple enough, now where are the examples?


Here Dale. The MQA version of this album sounds much worse than the non MQA version.

R-6114327-1411412230-5095.jpeg.jpg
 

andromedaaudio

VIP/Donor
Jan 23, 2011
8,350
2,730
1,400
Amsterdam holland
Quit a few dutch names on" the list."
From Charles Hansen.
Hmm i always liked dvd audio for whatever reason.
Plus some CD exeptions. Mostly simple focussed recordings
 

dalethorn

Headphone user
Dec 9, 2012
476
7
18
63
Cleveland TN.
dalethorn.com
Dalethon , what speakers do you use to evaluatie ?

Headphones only. The action that most critics are pointing to is in the highs, which headphones resolve well. The other aspects such as imaging or whatever I leave to others, since we've had issues there before MQA, especially with headphones.
 

Pb Blimp

Well-Known Member
Oct 30, 2017
518
25
140
USA
Given MQA's dubious superiority from an SQ perspective, I am not that worried about DMA restricting access to the consumer's format of choice. The market is too sophisticated and IMO market forces will playout in time. If MQA has no real SQ benefit and the Big 3 are in fact attempting to implement a defacto DRM scheme, demand will still exists for high res files amongst a subset of the market (where SQ matters most) and competition will enter (even amongst the titles of the big three) to meet that demand. In the short run, it may be more of a price issue than availability and, in the long run, if MQA has no real value-added ,as opinions solidify, it will eventually fail.
 

dalethorn

Headphone user
Dec 9, 2012
476
7
18
63
Cleveland TN.
dalethorn.com
Given MQA's dubious superiority from an SQ perspective, I am not that worried about DMA restricting access to the consumer's format of choice. The market is too sophisticated and IMO market forces will playout in time. If MQA has no real SQ benefit and the Big 3 are in fact attempting to implement a defacto DRM scheme, demand will still exists for high res files amongst a subset of the market (where SQ matters most) and competition will enter (even amongst the titles of the big three) to meet that demand. In the short run, it may be more of a price issue than availability and, in the long run, if MQA has no real value-added ,as opinions solidify, it will eventually fail.

Agreed.
 

rbbert

Well-Known Member
Dec 12, 2010
3,820
239
1,000
Reno, NV
Given MQA's dubious superiority from an SQ perspective, I am not that worried about DMA restricting access to the consumer's format of choice. The market is too sophisticated and IMO market forces will playout in time. If MQA has no real SQ benefit and the Big 3 are in fact attempting to implement a defacto DRM scheme, demand will still exists for high res files amongst a subset of the market (where SQ matters most) and competition will enter (even amongst the titles of the big three) to meet that demand. In the short run, it may be more of a price issue than availability and, in the long run, if MQA has no real value-added ,as opinions solidify, it will eventually fail.
I hope you are right, but the music industry has a solid history of shooting itself in the foot and then being bailed out by (essentially) accidents of technology and mankind’s long-teem love affair with music, so I won’t hold my breath.
 

awsmone

Well-Known Member
Apr 6, 2014
1,616
513
435
Canberra Australia
Given MQA's dubious superiority from an SQ perspective, I am not that worried about DMA restricting access to the consumer's format of choice. The market is too sophisticated and IMO market forces will playout in time. If MQA has no real SQ benefit and the Big 3 are in fact attempting to implement a defacto DRM scheme, demand will still exists for high res files amongst a subset of the market (where SQ matters most) and competition will enter (even amongst the titles of the big three) to meet that demand. In the short run, it may be more of a price issue than availability and, in the long run, if MQA has no real value-added ,as opinions solidify, it will eventually fail.

Point taken Paul....

What I find a little concerning is how did they remaster so many titles so fast

Knowing how long it can take to master a title in the first place, how much time was spent relistening? After the MQA processsing

It would seem to me this has to have been a semi automated process and the amount of listen checks not substantial given the speed of MQA encoding.

The idea of ‘Deblurring’ sounds exciting and I imagine given the common ADCs used a file of common ADC corrections could be achieved overtime leaving a cache of obscure ADC where little is known or some experimentation, required.

I am wondering given this ‘deblurring’ is proprietary, if this could be recreated, this “ deblurring engine “ as freeware?

Frequency correction is unnecessary this can be done already by end users , but phase/timing, noise and sundry artefact correction should be possible much like non Riaa correction for pre RIAA records ....hmmm
 

Dr Tone

Member
Apr 24, 2016
52
4
8
Point taken Paul....

What I find a little concerning is how did they remaster so many titles so fast

Knowing how long it can take to master a title in the first place, how much time was spent relistening? After the MQA processsing

It would seem to me this has to have been a semi automated process and the amount of listen checks not substantial given the speed of MQA encoding.

The idea of ‘Deblurring’ sounds exciting and I imagine given the common ADCs used a file of common ADC corrections could be achieved overtime leaving a cache of obscure ADC where little is known or some experimentation, required.

I am wondering given this ‘deblurring’ is proprietary, if this could be recreated, this “ deblurring engine “ as freeware?

Frequency correction is unnecessary this can be done already by end users , but phase/timing, noise and sundry artefact correction should be possible much like non Riaa correction for pre RIAA records ....hmmm


I’m going to say it’s automated and no time is spent listening post or tweaking. There simply isn’t enough time.

Deblurring is more marketing than anything, it’s the secret sauce that requires the MQA files be created up front to require licensing later. How are they debluring multitrack recordings with a hodge podge of ADCs or tracks created digitally?
 

rbbert

Well-Known Member
Dec 12, 2010
3,820
239
1,000
Reno, NV
I’m going to say it’s automated and no time is spent listening post or tweaking. There simply isn’t enough time.

Deblurring is more marketing than anything, it’s the secret sauce that requires the MQA files be created up front to require licensing later. How are they debluring multitrack recordings with a hodge podge of ADCs or tracks created digitally?

Well this has been brought up repeatedly, and (surprise) it turns out that that is exactly the case. There is a "one-size-fits-all" encoding algorithm (admitted by Bob Stuart and Spencer Christgau) which is now used for essentially all the big label MQA titles. Wilson Audio gets a unique filtering solution, and the handful of demo titles used early on also had some more care paid to them, but otherwise it's clearly just a way to implement DRM and monopolize the hi-rez digital format.
 

awsmone

Well-Known Member
Apr 6, 2014
1,616
513
435
Canberra Australia
i dont suppose u have the reference?
 

rbbert

Well-Known Member
Dec 12, 2010
3,820
239
1,000
Reno, NV
i dont suppose u have the reference?

Not handy, sorry, I read it in one of the many many interviews that are online. It's actually possible that it was in one of the YouTube videos that have been transcribed. But as I posted, it's not really a secret, so it shouldn't be too hard to track down if you really care.
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing