Whither MQA

[Al M.]

The reality is that MQA is absolutely not a perfect reproduction of the digital master.

Of course not. But hey, it is "not lossy" . Apart from that, they batch process files at/for Tidal, which does not take into account the particular ADCs with which a given recording was made, and thus there is no proper "deblurring", a feature claimed to be central to MQA.

 

[Gregadd]

Yes, they are a technical fraud. I posted the proof, and they admitted it. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing. Whatever else you may think of their work notwithstanding.
Yes, it is lossy.

 

[Joe Whip]

Really, everything MQA does can be accomplished with filters found in many audio software platforms.

 

[bryans]

Im definetly a QOBUZ guy and to be honest only use tidal if I can't play it on Qobuz

Nothing wrong with that. That's the point of having multiple sources of music. Why would anyone not want this?

 

[bryans]

Lee, in debating circles, what you described in regards to Messrs Stuart and Craven is an appeal to authority fallacy. it is not really a good argument. You love MQA. Others don’t. The fact that you have to repeatedly chime in anytime anyone disagrees with fellow members of the audio press doesn’t help your argument.

Isn't this the same argument for people who keep saying how much they hate MQA? Love it or hate it is a personal choice.

I'm more amazed as topics like this seems to nothing more than people wanting to get likes/agreements with their views.

 

[firedog]

This is not an intelligent reply. All three of these folks are superbly talented folks with excellent critical listening skills. They found value in the sound quality of MQA. Just because it may have failed (we don't know this yet) as a business does not mean it doesn't add value sonically.

Harley compared MQA favorably to Copernicus' ideas as a scientific revolution.
That's all anyone needs to know.

 

[Al M.]

Harley compared MQA favorably to Copernicus' ideas as a scientific revolution.
That's all anyone needs to know.

Oh yeah, forgot about that one!

Thanks for the reminder

 

[Ian B]

Of course not. But hey, it is "not lossy" . Apart from that, they batch process files at/for Tidal, which does not take into account the particular ADCs with which a given recording was made, and thus there is no proper "deblurring", a feature claimed to be central to MQA.

To be fair, the apodizing filters in most DACs don't take into account the recordings ADC either.

 

[Ian B]

Really, everything MQA does can be accomplished with filters found in many audio software platforms.

This isn't strictly true. You might be able to implement a software apodizing filter, but at the DAC nothing else uses their triangular filter spline, and good luck achieving that level of slow roll off with regular PCM without turning into a distorted crisp of aliasing.

 

[Al M.]

To be fair, the apodizing filters in most DACs don't take into account the recordings ADC either.

Sure, they don't. But "correction" was the promise of MQA.

 

[Gregadd]

OK I'll bite what were they "correcting?"

 

[firedog]

This isn't strictly true. You might be able to implement a software apodizing filter, but at the DAC nothing else uses their triangular filter spline, and good luck achieving that level of slow roll off with regular PCM without turning into a distorted crisp of aliasing.

Yeah, but it's all BS. Their system doesn't in the end do anything special.
You can turn 24 bit flac masters into dithered 18/96 flac and it is no larger than an MQA file - more or less the same resolution and essentially sounds identical to the master - pretty much no actual audible material is lost.
This involves no closed proprietary system and no special HW and no added costs.

There's no evidence nor is there anything close to a concensus that MQA "sounds better" than the alternative.
So no actual reason for MQA to exist.

 

[Al M.]

OK I'll bite what were they "correcting?"

They claim that they were correcting the timing smear of the ADC used in the recording (what they call "deblurring"). But then, knowledge of which particular ADC is (or ADCs are) used for any given recording (or for conversion of any given analog recording) would be necessary. This need for actual research is overridden by the practiced batch conversion of files, which doesn't care about such details.

 

[Gregadd]

"Trust but verify." I am not going to pretend I understand that.

 

[firedog]

OK I'll bite what were they "correcting?"

They claim to be correcting "blurring" which they say is timing errors. But they never clearly defined what the deblurring actually is, nor did they ever show proof it actually does what they claim. It was all based on their descriptions and claims, and them saying "trust us".
In fact, third party testers showed that the MQA filters on the user end actually increased timing errors and aliasing in the results.

 

[gadawg58]

So I hate to see any option in our fairly small hobby go away and Bob and team are really smart guys for sure. They truely understand the engineering that most of us only talk and argue about with our google engineering degrees me included!

That said, in several demo’s I never did hear any difference with MQA vs without so for me I just kind of forgot about it. I always did wonder though that if their main benefit was correcting something that was going wrong in the digital process … why make it lossy also? Why not make the corrections on the full size file? I never looked deeply into the tech since I never heard any difference but seems that if there was real sonic benefit to the tech it might have been more apparent on full resolution files? That leads me to wonder if they were truly trying to correct for issues in the digital domain or just trying to come up with a way to compress the audio that served more commercial purposes (storage space and bandwidth) more so than any real audio benefit. I wish them well and just because I never heard a difference doesn’t mean no one else did … just didn’t chin the bar for me.

George

 

[Gregadd]

I suggest a more a sinister motive as have others. Claiming their process was unique so that they could charge a licensing fee. There is nothing wrong with making a profit as long as you deliver on your claims.

 

[Joe Whip]

This isn't strictly true. You might be able to implement a software apodizing filter, but at the DAC nothing else uses their triangular filter spline, and good luck achieving that level of slow roll off with regular PCM without turning into a distorted crisp of aliasing.

Like the leaky MQA filters don’t do the same thing, in some cases worse.

 

[firedog]

So I hate to see any option in our fairly small hobby go away and Bob and team are really smart guys for sure. They truely understand the engineering that most of us only talk and argue about with our google engineering degrees me included!

That said, in several demo’s I never did hear any difference with MQA vs without so for me I just kind of forgot about it. I always did wonder though that if their main benefit was correcting something that was going wrong in the digital process … why make it lossy also? Why not make the corrections on the full size file? I never looked deeply into the tech since I never heard any difference but seems that if there was real sonic benefit to the tech it might have been more apparent on full resolution files? That leads me to wonder if they were truly trying to correct for issues in the digital domain or just trying to come up with a way to compress the audio that served more commercial purposes (storage space and bandwidth) more so than any real audio benefit. I wish them well and just because I never heard a difference doesn’t mean no one else did … just didn’t chin the bar for me.

George

They wanted a proprietary closed coding and decoding format that they could control and porfit off of.

 

[Lee]

Seems like there are several possibilities for the future:

1. MQA goes bankrupt because they cannot find a buyer.

2. A strategic buyer like Tidal or Apple or Spotify (maybe a label too?) emerges to capture the existing MQA algorithm (Keep the Tidal Masters revenue going perhaps) or the new SCL6 algorithm for Bluetooth or both.

3. MQA gets a new investor or Bob Stuart who is independently wealthy makes an investment.