Apple, in rolling out OS 11, may be the beginning of the end for MQA

[MQA Truth]

Ok guys, please re-read what I wrote...

I said "that I have NEVER stated --and boy I guess I have to continue to state this--that I was not impressed by the difference in SQ between the MQA file and the standard file at the demo".

Therefore, I WAS impressed and still remain consitant with that opinion...

Do you understand the premise of a "fixed" demo?

Was ANY commercially released material used to compare MQA? If this was like any of the other demonstrations, the
answer is NO.

Please remember one thing..there is ONE place and one place only to consume MQA, and that is Tidal, for $20 a month.

No Tidal, no MQA. They lost a total of $26 million between 2015 and 2016. I have not yet seen more recent numbers.

 

[PeterA]

Ok guys, please re-read what I wrote...

I said "that I have NEVER stated --and boy I guess I have to continue to state this--that I was not impressed by the difference in SQ between the MQA file and the standard file at the demo".

Therefore, I WAS impressed and still remain consitant with that opinion...

Thank you DaveyF. My mistake. Double negative makes a positive. You are the second WBF member who has pointed out that I am not a careful reader. I apologize.

 

[DaveyF]

Interesting. I don't recall having read a WBF post detailing the information about what they actually heard at that demo. I just read a wrap up report about the LA Audio Show in TAS in which the reviewers also described being extremely impressed by this Peter McGrath demo. This must be the same one that DaveyF attended.

Peter...No. The demo I heard was graciously incorporated into an introduction of the new Wilson Alexia v2's at our good friends Alex's place in La Jolla. AKA, Alma audio. The demo was indeed put on by Peter McGrath and for the record...again ( )...impressed the heck out of me.
The SQ difference between the standard file and the MQA file was easily heard by all present ( about 30 people I would estimate) with the MQA being far superior. Better imaging precision, better timbre reproduction, better bass definition, a general ease to the playing that seemed ( at least to my ears) to remove some of the digititis that I pretty much always hear with digital playback. The question that now looms is this....NOT that the SQ was better that night with the MQA files, BUT that the process of MQA itself is somehow a bit of a 'rigging' if you will of the file...that 'rigging' could be just as easily accomplished with a simple upsample of the standard file! Unless I am mistaken, MQA is not claiming that it is another upsample method. Instead, the files are supposedly somehow ( for want of a better term) " magically" transferred at Meridian into MQA.

BTW, I am not so sure that I would agree with MQA Truth that what we heard would be defined as a "euphonic sweeting". This would imply a probable loss of information and high end detail....none of which was the case.

 

[microstrip]

Do you understand the premise of a "fixed" demo?

Was ANY commercially released material used to compare MQA? If this was like any of the other demonstrations, the
answer is NO.

Please remember one thing..there is ONE place and one place only to consume MQA, and that is Tidal, for $20 a month.

No Tidal, no MQA. They lost a total of $26 million between 2015 and 2016. I have not yet seen more recent numbers.

It was correctly pointed out by WBF members that we can download the same files in MQA and other formats from several sites. This could allow direct comparison and would supply facts to this thread.

 

[MQA Truth]

It was correctly pointed out by WBF members that we can download the same files in MQA and other formats from several sites. This could allow direct comparison and would supply facts to this thread.

Care to provide an album count? 99.9% of MQA is on Tidal. That is a fact.

It is a further fact that 99% of commercially available music are produced in studios, with multiple ADCs, and numerous post production stages,
unlike the 2L and McGrath recordings.

 

[DaveyF]

Do you understand the premise of a "fixed" demo?

Was ANY commercially released material used to compare MQA? If this was like any of the other demonstrations, the
answer is NO.

Please remember one thing..there is ONE place and one place only to consume MQA, and that is Tidal, for $20 a month.

No Tidal, no MQA. They lost a total of $26 million between 2015 and 2016. I have not yet seen more recent numbers.

Agreed, it was "Fixed". The only question..and surely you would have to agree with this as well...is whether Peter McGrath believed for one second that the whole demo was somehow 'fixed'!
I would prefer to believe that Peter and Alex both were so impressed by the SQ difference between the standard file and the MQA file that they wanted to show the audience this major ( and don't think it was not )
difference! The ramifications of how MQA adjusted the files was not ( at least I choose to believe) so high on their priority list.
What does concern me now is the impact on the artist, the consumer and the manufacturer by the closed source aspect of MQA. OTOH, I'm not so sure this is any different than what Apple has been doing for ever, and in audio what was done when HDCD was introduced or what Dolby tried to do as well ( and still does). ( Not that this is much of a justification). However, the biggest concern ( at least to me) is that the whole thing ( MQA) is nothing more than a simple upsample that any consumer could accomplish with an up sampling DAC.

 

[Steve Williams]

Ok guys, please re-read what I wrote...

I said "that I have NEVER stated --and boy I guess I have to continue to state this--that I was not impressed by the difference in SQ between the MQA file and the standard file at the demo".

Therefore, I WAS impressed and still remain consitant with that opinion...

I'm totally confused Davey

Like PeterA I thought you felt the MQA files sounded better

 

[MQA Truth]

Agreed, it was "Fixed". The only question..and surely you would have to agree with this as well...is whether Peter McGrath believed for one second that the whole demo was somehow 'fixed'!
I would prefer to believe that Peter and Alex both were so impressed by the SQ difference between the standard file and the MQA file that they wanted to show the audience this major ( and don't think it was not )
difference! The ramifications of how MQA adjusted the files was not ( at least I choose to believe) so high on their priority list.
What does concern me now is the impact on the artist, the consumer and the manufacturer by the closed source aspect of MQA. OTOH, I'm not so sure this is any different than what Apple has been doing for ever, and in audio what was done when HDCD was introduced or what Dolby tried to do as well ( and still does). ( Not that this is much of a justification). However, the biggest concern ( at least to me) is that the whole thing ( MQA) is nothing more than a simple upsample that any consumer could accomplish with an up sampling DAC.

There are many similarities to HDCD, and other closed proprietary technologies.

You keep repeating this notion of "upsampling". That is just part of it. I have posted here numerous times they also apply a proprietary
filter Stuart CLAIMS compensates for issues with the original ADC and fixes "temporal blur", and his based on his studies of "psycho-acoustics".

It is so far fetched and beyond the pale, that many very important figures in the industry immediately looked behind the curtain.

That is how Merdian's financial statements came to light, and other nasty facts about MQA.

No time to go into it here, but if MQA was so superior, why not have public demonstrations with WIDELY KNOWN recordings?

This has not happened once, ever. A small cabal of reviewers have done this on a very small scale in their homes without any outside
verification what so ever.

I strongly suggest you go on Computer Audiophile and Audio Asylum and search posts by luminaries who have uncovered MQA's
so called technology and show it to be lossy, 13 bits average, with tremendous inaccuracies in the frequency domain. Plus it
is DRM, and it forget sampling rates over 96Khz.

 

[DaveyF]

I'm totally confused Davey

Like PeterA I thought you felt the MQA files sounded better

Steve, I still think that the MQA files sounded better...that night at that demo. Consistent and persistent....that's me, in regards to the SQ difference between the standard file and the 'modified' MQA file...at that particular demo.
I think the confusion is arising here because I have changed my mind on the MQA value to the consumer. Initially, I believed that anyone who would buy any new DAC that was not MQA compatible was making a mistake. Now, I am not so sure...
Here's why---- I am not so sure that the standard files could not be up sampled to a higher sampling rate and not elicit the same kind of improvements that the group heard that evening. No real need to buy into the mQA platform...which MQA Truth and others has pointed out is not good for the music industry in general ( and this is a MAJOR factor to me as I am still involved in the artist side) and also for the consumer due to the 'locked down' aspect of the MQA payment path. GREAT for Bob Stuart, not great at all for just about everybody else. Please read the excellent Linn article here: https://www.linn.co.uk/blog/mqa-is-bad-for-music

 

[asiufy]

This has not happened once, ever. A small cabal of reviewers have done this on a very small scale in their homes without any outside
verification what so ever.

I did A x B of MQA x non-MQA early this year, during the LAOC's meeting we sponsored. I picked 2 or 3 tracks, then I let people pick 2 or 3 others.

And I've invited anybody to come and do the same in our store too.

I agree the early "no AxB" policy was dumb, but there's nothing like that going on now, and there's no reason to, given that people with $99 to their name can buy an Audioquest Dragonfly and do the comparisons on their own.

Just FYI.

 

[DaveyF]

There are many similarities to HDCD, and other closed proprietary technologies.

You keep repeating this notion of "upsampling". That is just part of it. I have posted here numerous times they also apply a proprietary
filter Stuart CLAIMS compensates for issues with the original ADC and fixes "temporal blur", and his based on his studies of "psycho-acoustics".

It is so far fetched and beyond the pale, that many very important figures in the industry immediately looked behind the curtain.

That is how Merdian's financial statements came to light, and other nasty facts about MQA.

No time to go into it here, but if MQA was so superior, why not have public demonstrations with WIDELY KNOWN recordings?

This has not happened once, ever. A small cabal of reviewers have done this on a very small scale in their homes without any outside
verification what so ever.

I strongly suggest you go on Computer Audiophile and Audio Asylum and search posts by luminaries who have uncovered MQA's
so called technology and show it to be lossy, 13 bits average, with tremendous inaccuracies in the frequency domain. Plus it
is DRM, and it forget sampling rates over 96Khz.

Fixing temporal blur is a very poor descriptor, IMO. I agree with you 100% that the 'psycho-acoustic' aspect of the recording fixed by a proprietary filter seems more than far fetched.
The fact that the demo did not use a widely known recording is interesting, but would not sway me that much from questioning the SQ result that was heard. OTOH, it is certainly possible that the
original file was somehow 'modified' to sound worse and this would concern me....not saying that is what happened.

Your points are certainly contributing factors as to why I started the thread that I did on MQA....
There are certainly a lot of ???'s that do need to be answered.

 

[MQA Truth]

I did A x B of MQA x non-MQA early this year, during the LAOC's meeting we sponsored. I picked 2 or 3 tracks, then I let people pick 2 or 3 others.

And I've invited anybody to come and do the same in our store too.

I agree the early "no AxB" policy was dumb, but there's nothing like that going on now, and there's no reason to, given that people with $99 to their name can buy an Audioquest Dragonfly and do the comparisons on their own.

Just FYI.

So you think the best way for audophiles to evaluate a new supposedly ultra fidelity "format" is with a $99 DAC?

Is that the way folks were told to evaluate hirez when it first appeared vs Redbook, and later on DSD?

Are you also aware the DragonFlys do not do a final MQA unfold? They contain a "de-blurring" filter.

To do proper comparisons, a user would have to have access to a Tidal stream, and purchased a corresponding, high resolution
album known to be from the same master.

It is clear, the goal was to market this nonsense with as much confusion, mysticism, and pseudo techno babble as possible.

I am not blaming you for this, so do not take it as an attack. This all belongs to Bob Stuart.

 

[DaveyF]

I did A x B of MQA x non-MQA early this year, during the LAOC's meeting we sponsored. I picked 2 or 3 tracks, then I let people pick 2 or 3 others.

And I've invited anybody to come and do the same in our store too.

I agree the early "no AxB" policy was dumb, but there's nothing like that going on now, and there's no reason to, given that people with $99 to their name can buy an Audioquest Dragonfly and do the comparisons on their own.

Just FYI.

Alex, are you saying that the differences that we heard that night would have been as pronounced if we were using any old files that the audience could have picked at random ( and then AB'ed against the same files on MQA--assuming of course that said files were indeed available) as to the files that Peter supplied??

 

[MQA Truth]

Fixing temporal blur is a very poor descriptor, IMO. I agree with you 100% that the 'psycho-acoustic' aspect of the recording fixed by a proprietary filter seems more than far fetched.
The fact that the demo did not use a widely known recording is interesting, but would not sway me that much from questioning the SQ result that was heard. OTOH, it is certainly possible that the
original file was somehow 'modified' to sound worse and this would concern me....not saying that is what happened.

Your points are certainly contributing factors as to why I started the thread that I did on MQA....
There are certainly a lot of ???'s that do need to be answered.

Do you know that I can have any of my recording engineers take a 16 bit master file, run it through a DAW,
with all sorts of embellishments, and spit out a 24 bit file that would know your socks off? Would it any way
be an accurate rendering of the master file? No. Would you pay for that?

Roon's powerful DSP suite can give you the power you need to "fix" any recordings you like or change the sound
your room. All built in.

 

[DaveyF]

Do you know that I can have any of my recording engineers take a 16 bit master file, run it through a DAW,
with all sorts of embellishments, and spit out a 24 bit file that would know your socks off? Would it any way
be an accurate rendering of the master file? No. Would you pay for that?

Roon's powerful DSP suite can give you the power you need to "fix" any recordings you like or change the sound
your room. All built in.

That's very interesting.. Would I pay for better SQ...i guess I would.
If the master file can be improved so much that the SQ is far superior, I fail to see what is wrong in that. You may say that we have just put lipstick on a pig, and you would have a point, but just from a pure a'phile standpoint, any increase in the ability of the playback chain to sound more 'real' is something that we generally value. Unfortunately, and my experience with DSP comes into play here..as I have used it in the pro world for years, is that the result is nowhere near "blowing my socks off". Instead I hear far more of the digital processing effects and overall digital nasties than I would like to. IOW, the file has now gone in the other direction from the master file....towards an obvious dupe that is severely lacking. YMMV.

 

[asiufy]

So you think the best way for audophiles to evaluate a new supposedly ultra fidelity "format" is with a $99 DAC?

Is that the way folks were told to evaluate hirez when it first appeared vs Redbook, and later on DSD?

Are you also aware the DragonFlys do not do a final MQA unfold? They contain a "de-blurring" filter.

To do proper comparisons, a user would have to have access to a Tidal stream, and purchased a corresponding, high resolution
album known to be from the same master.

It is clear, the goal was to market this nonsense with as much confusion, mysticism, and pseudo techno babble as possible.

I am not blaming you for this, so do not take it as an attack. This all belongs to Bob Stuart.

Where did I say that I thought the Dragonfly was "the best way"?
I explicitly mentioned the Dragonfly because 1) it's cheap, 2) it's widely available, 3) even with the partial unfold, people will hear a difference. That's all. Never claimed the Dragonfly is the be-all end-all of MQA devices.
I did compare a hi-res download to the MQA version of the same album. And again, I've welcomed people to do the same here in my store, and form their own conclusions. I've said repeatedly that I don't care either way, I'm here to show things as they are, and let the chips fall where they may. Last I remember, that's what dealers are for, to show people stuff and let them evaluate it.



cheers,
alex

 

[asiufy]

Alex, are you saying that the differences that we heard that night would have been as pronounced if we were using any old files that the audience could have picked at random ( and then AB'ed against the same files on MQA--assuming of course that said files were indeed available) as to the files that Peter supplied??

That's what we did at the LAOC meeting. I've picked 2 or 3 recordings, and the corresponding MQA versions. Then let the audience pick stuff, and searched Tidal for the corresponding non-MQA. And the did the AxB.

 

[MQA Truth]

That's very interesting.. Would I pay for better SQ...i guess I would.
If the master file can be improved so much that the SQ is far superior, I fail to see what is wrong in that. You may say that we have just put lipstick on a pig, and you would have a point, but just from a pure a'phile standpoint, any increase in the ability of the playback chain to sound more 'real' is something that we generally value. Unfortunately, and my experience with DSP comes into play here..as I have used it in the pro world for years, is that the result is nowhere near "blowing my socks off". Instead I hear far more of the digital processing effects and overall digital nasties than I would like to. IOW, the file has now gone in the other direction from the master file....towards an obvious dupe that is severely lacking. YMMV.

So you would pay one man, Bob Stuart, to decide how all your digital albums should sound?

 

[MQA Truth]

Where did I say that I thought the Dragonfly was "the best way"?
I explicitly mentioned the Dragonfly because 1) it's cheap, 2) it's widely available, 3) even with the partial unfold, people will hear a difference. That's all. Never claimed the Dragonfly is the be-all end-all of MQA devices.
I did compare a hi-res download to the MQA version of the same album. And again, I've welcomed people to do the same here in my store, and form their own conclusions. I've said repeatedly that I don't care either way, I'm here to show things as they are, and let the chips fall where they may. Last I remember, that's what dealers are for, to show people stuff and let them evaluate it.



cheers,
alex

Very simple question. Why has MQA not provided full albums in MQA and non MQA, offline for public demos at dealers at shows.

It defies explanation. But we know they have done everything in their power to prevent direct comparisons.

All distracts from the major issue, that the whole thing is a charade.

 

[MQA Truth]

Where did I say that I thought the Dragonfly was "the best way"?
I explicitly mentioned the Dragonfly because 1) it's cheap, 2) it's widely available, 3) even with the partial unfold, people will hear a difference. That's all. Never claimed the Dragonfly is the be-all end-all of MQA devices.
I did compare a hi-res download to the MQA version of the same album. And again, I've welcomed people to do the same here in my store, and form their own conclusions. I've said repeatedly that I don't care either way, I'm here to show things as they are, and let the chips fall where they may. Last I remember, that's what dealers are for, to show people stuff and let them evaluate it.



cheers,
alex

Why don't you ask Peter McGrarth to post a few of his files pre and post MQA for people here to download and compare?

Even 60 second edits would be good enough. Anybody with Audirvana etc can do this.