MQA Users & Discussion Thread

[tripitaka]

6 minutes ago, LHC said:

I would argue it is Google and Youtube. Bob in the latest interview with What Hi-Fi, he talks about moving MQA into video streaming at 17:00 min mark.

 

A gem at the 20:50 min mark: Lucy Hedges: "Absolutely, MQA domination, broadcast video, ... " Bob: "Well, yes, except we're not trying to dominate. We're just trying to make sound better whenever we can make it better."

 

 

 

 

Let's hope not, but yes I suppose its easy to forget just how small the main streaming services are in the grand scheme of things

[Stereophilus]

21 minutes ago, Snoopy8 said:

It is interesting that there are quite a number of pro MQA "audiophile influencers"  :  Amir at ASR, Hans Beekhuysen, John Darko,  John Atkinson (Technical Editor, Stereophile). No wonder MQA has generated such momentum among consumers. Articles exposing MQA flaws by Archimago at AS and now GoldenOne (AS & ASR) have galvanised the opposition. 

 

But are the consumers the key here?  Or is it the record labels, with Warner leading the MQA charge?  Or is it the music streaming services that will determine MQA's fate?  Tidal has doubled its bets on MQA, but so far, none of the others, Spotify, Apple, Amazon, Pandora, Deezer, Qobuz have adopted it. 

 

I think music streaming services will determine MQA's fate... 

I haven’t seen anything “pro” MQA on Darko Audio....  He’s interviewed Bob Stuart, but he’s also interviewed Jason Stoddard + Mike Moffat (Schiit Audio) to give the opposing view.  Hans and Amir (the latter quite bizarrely IMO) are definitely in the MQA camp.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Stereophilus said:

I haven’t seen anything “pro” MQA on Darko Audio....  He’s interviewed Bob Stuart, but he’s also interviewed Jason Stoddard + Mike Moffat (Schiit Audio) to give the opposing view.  Hans and Amir (the latter quite bizarrely IMO) are definitely in the MQA camp.

What about this?

https://darko.audio/2016/06/an-inconvenient-truth-mqa-sounds-better/

[Stereophilus]

A 2016 article... with a qualifier... The hardware you could buy – but before you venture an opinion on how MQA sounding better on a non-MQA DAC cannot possibly be true, ask yourself: do you have access to these same MQA files? Conversely, we don’t yet know if other MQA files will sound as good as the sample set provided to me by Bob Stuart via Dropbox.

More lately, ie 5 years after the article you quoted, his view is best summed by this comment... 

Considering all of the above, is it any wonder that newcomers run for cover and seasoned audiophiles find themselves worn down by the ifs, buts, maybes, format-first thinking and drama-drunkards to renew their commitment to good old lossless/CD-quality audio?

Lossless/CD-quality streaming doesn’t have us hunting and pecking inside the Tidal app to find the right version, fussing over the light colour on our DAC, wondering if our playback system needs software to execute the first unfold or if our MQA source file has been ‘white-gloved’. Everything is available in lossless/CD-quality and any DAC + software combination will handle its playback. We simply find the album we want to listen to and hit play. Now that’s joy.

To be clear, I’m not arguing that we should settle for CD-quality 16bit/44.1kHz audio or call off attempts to improve source file quality but given hi-res audio’s small library size (on Tidal and on Qobuz), its minor audible lift over CD quality and (biggest of all) the disproportionately large slice of hi-fi community attention that it eats, the argument for hi-res audio’s broader adoption needs a shot it the arm. It needs 1) greater clarity (especially from Tidal) and 2) to be much more compelling, especially in the wake of the next-big-thing hi-res audio formats of yesteryear like SACD, DSD and Blu-Ray Audio where promises to early adopters of ‘much more content to come’ ultimately proved empty. Three times bitten, six times shy.

 

[LHC]

IMO that is exactly the correct POV on MQA. It is not a fraud; it is not an anti-competitive dominance conspiracy; it is another format of broken promises. 

[muon*]

But hasn't it been indicated that MQA possibly fits this in the context of the definition of fraud?

"n law, fraud is intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain"

 

Like in market share if not monetarily.

Edited May 9, 2021 by muon*
typo

[Mickstuh]

I've always liked Auralic's straight shooting in their Lightning DS software, where they talk about MQA: " FLAC in the MQA format is compressed and lossy ... MQA has a degraded dynamic range compared to the non-MQA file if you play it on a non-MQA dac... " Lightning DS converts the MQA files, and Auralic says it does so via its own 'proprietary decoding and deblurring method... this process is not an MQA-created or MQA-licensed process'. 

[davewantsmoore]

On 08/05/2021 at 4:58 PM, Snoopy8 said:

Interesting response from Hans...

 

He argues that all that matters is what people hear (he likes it!) and Bob Stewart and people at the company should be given the benefit of the doubt because of their previous scientific endeavour.

 

I don't think he's necessarily wrong.   The format is (cam be) lossless where it matters.... and there is arguably some merit it what they are doing (although the minimum/mixed-phaseness of it does look great on a measurement chart).

 

... but do we want all sources of content to be replaced by MQA?..... do we want all original recording (by the artists) to be replaced by MQA (so there is never a non-MQA version ever)?

 

... do we want a third party to be able to insert themselves in between the content and the content consumer.... and be able to dictate the terms and the cost of how content is accessed?     This potentially includes between the content and the content owner.
 

If I record my next album in (only) MQA.... then I need to pay for a MQA decoder to continue to decode the "full resolution".    How much would I pay to not have my access to my own content reduced to telephone quality?.... if and how the decoder works, and how much it costs for me to use ....can be custom tailored to my situation.
 

[davewantsmoore]

On 01/05/2021 at 9:20 AM, Eggcup the Dafter said:

MQa’s developers will probably be set to work on producing demonstration recordings and trying to do the “from the mic” stage of the process, while the big investors who know how to fleece us get on wth the rest.

 

They're one and the same thing....  in fact the "from the mic" part is bigger.

 

Adoption by some in the last mile... is good... but it's not the way to "fleece us"..... it's the loss leader, if anything.... simply to bring awareness and acceptance.... and pave the way for the main gig to go smoothly.

 

Once recordings are born in MQA .... and MQA is shown to be superior quality (it is possible by "unfair" mechanisms) ..... then what choice do the other content distributors have?.... hardware manufacturers.... software authors, etc.

 

Perhaps the "show superior quality" step will even be an optional step for them.

[davewantsmoore]

10 hours ago, Snoopy8 said:

But are the consumers the key here?  Or is it the record labels, with Warner leading the MQA charge?  Or is it the music streaming services that will determine MQA's fate?  Tidal has doubled its bets on MQA, but so far, none of the others, Spotify, Apple, Amazon, Pandora, Deezer, Qobuz have adopted it. 

 

I think music streaming services will determine MQA's fate... 

 

All are important..... 

 

Step 1... Gain acceptance by consumers.   This doesn't mean prove superiority..... just acceptance that "this is a thing now" (both content and platform support)

Step 2.... Get more content distributed in MQA preferentially  (strike deals with content owners/distributors to do this)

Step 3.... Drive adoption into the vast majority of hardware/software

Step 4.... Incentivise content to be created in MQA..... and close the loop tighter.

[davewantsmoore]

Quote

I would argue it is Google and Youtube.

 

Yes.... they will never "adopt MQA" out of the goodness of their hearts  ... as they know what is up.

 

BUT ... .once content they want on their platform exists in only MQA...... then it becomes a simple commercial decision for them.    They either use the free part of the audio, or pay for the higher quality part....  that going to depend on what the quality differential is (and MQA can be "flexible" on this.... there is no inherent guarantee that the free part is "cd quality", or anything close).

 

They'll surely be able to strike some deal to get the quality they want (which won't necessarily be the "full quality..... just "enough" ...... at a workable price.

 

All just "taxes" levied by who's in charge.

[Steffen]

20 minutes ago, davewantsmoore said:

 

The format is (can be) lossless where it matters...
 

 

Surely, that’s weasel words, or marketing speak. The same can be said for MP3.

[davewantsmoore]

7 hours ago, muon* said:

But hasn't it been indicated that MQA possibly fits this in the context of the definition of fraud?

"n law, fraud is intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain"

 

Like in market share if not monetarily.

 

I don't think so.... deceptive marketing at the biggest stretch.

 

"Fraud" will depend on what the contracts  say.  

[davewantsmoore]

4 minutes ago, Steffen said:

Surely, that’s weasel words, or marketing speak. The same can be said for MP3.

 

Not really.... it just depends on the definition of "matters" and "loss".

 

They're not (necessarily) "discarding" anything above the noise floor below 20khz....  and while they're using filters with time properties that look bad .... this doesn't necessarily make it sound bad.

 

I don't think what they're doing with that is a good idea ..... but I think if that's the primary angle that its being assessed from, then that's a big trap.... because it won't cause enough of a quality degradation (and could even improve the sound) for it to end up in the bin of "MQA doesn't sound good enough, let's avoid it".

 

The only people who will end up thinking that are oscilloscope wielding audiophiles.... who a) might be wrong about whether it sounds worse.... and b ) do not make up enough of the market influence.

[frednork]

27 minutes ago, davewantsmoore said:

The only people who will end up thinking that are oscilloscope wielding audiophiles.... who a) might be wrong about whether it sounds worse.... and b ) do not make up enough of the market influence.

 

Yet but isnt it mostly these pointy headed audiophiles that are "supporting" this (maybe unwanted) technology at this stage through Tidal.

 

Is it impossible for this group to coordinate between the various forums/interest groups a simple strategy on how to approach MQA?

 

?ie Demand choice in Tidal or leave and be vocal regarding the reasons why. Similar approach to other encroaching issues if they exist. 

 

A shared approach and strategy and an easy way for people to get maximum impact with minimal effort will mean more do it. 

 

Any proprietary (and monetizable)  stage between the music and the listener which is not clearly and easily demonstrated to be highly superior surely must be rejected by most and the people who think its better can pay a premium for it. Even if it is demonstrated to be clearly superior the same should apply.

Edited May 9, 2021 by frednork

[Telecine]

1 hour ago, davewantsmoore said:

 

Not really.... it just depends on the definition of "matters" and "loss".

 

They're not (necessarily) "discarding" anything above the noise floor below 20khz....  and while they're using filters with time properties that look bad .... this doesn't necessarily make it sound bad.

 

I don't think what they're doing with that is a good idea ..... but I think if that's the primary angle that its being assessed from, then that's a big trap.... because it won't cause enough of a quality degradation (and could even improve the sound) for it to end up in the bin of "MQA doesn't sound good enough, let's avoid it".

 

The only people who will end up thinking that are oscilloscope wielding audiophiles.... who a) might be wrong about whether it sounds worse.... and b ) do not make up enough of the market influence.

 

It is a fact that MQA is a lossy format, some information is being lost. It has been repeatedly suggested that the sound may be improved in some way. The only way that the sound can be improved is to alter the data. 

 

That leaves consumers in the situation that they either have to trust MQA or trust their ears, neither of which would seem to produce any objective proof of the true situation. 

 

The primary beneficiary of the MQA lossy compression would appear to be the streaming companies, who save bandwidth, although there is a use case for mobile users who may save data charges.

 

If data charges are not an issue, why would anyone want it if they could have the lossless format instead?

Edited May 10, 2021 by Telecine

[Satanica]

3 hours ago, davewantsmoore said:

 

I don't think so.... deceptive marketing at the biggest stretch.

 

"Fraud" will depend on what the contracts  say.  

 

It's the first I've heard that a contract needs to be in place for fraud to have been committed. Fraud is defined as deliberate and deceptive behaviour to gain an advantage. IMO they have deliberately deceived audiophiles into thinking that MQA is the best, the superior codec/method to all others. 

Edited May 10, 2021 by Satanica

[zippi]

Whether or not it qualifies as a fraud - I think it definitely is a money grabbing cancer that brings nothing to the table and in turn demands the lot.

[davewantsmoore]

1 hour ago, Satanica said:

It's the first I've heard that a contract needs to be in place for fraud to have been committed.

 

It wasn't trying to say it doesn't ....   However fraud as a tort, is "intentional misrepresentation or concealment of an important fact upon which the victim is meant to rely".

 

... and I think that you'll find that MQA are not doing this in a way which would be found for "general consumer" .... and for someone with a bigger damage (let's a say a Tidal, or a record label) ..... then if you read any "terms and conditions", I'd be pretty surprised if all bases weren't covered.

 

It (any wiggle room for a case) will almost certainly come down to whether someone thinks that the process they're doing which preserves and or improves the quality of audio .... does actually do that.    The law is never going to treat this as anything other than subjective.... and plenty enough will line up on the MQA side, to make the matter of "fraud" unfounded.

 

Unless there is some evidence (like an internal MQA document or something) which says "hahaha, we just made up a bunch of lies to get good bank".

 

1 hour ago, Satanica said:

Fraud is defined as deliberate and deceptive behaviour to gain an advantage. IMO they have deliberately deceived audiophiles into thinking that MQA is the best, the superior codec/method to all others. 

 

"Proving fraud in a court of law is often said to be difficult as the intention to defraud is the key element in question".

 

So you don't think that they honestly believe that MQA isn't the best?!.... or is it that you don't agree with their justification for it  (big difference).   You have to show that they don't agree with their own justification.... ie. they're lying and they know it.    Getting someone to say that BS is wrong about his paper which show that MQA is "the best".... doesn't prove "fraud".... it doesn't even prove false advertising (in the past) .... it might get them directed make less claims in the future.

[davewantsmoore]

5 hours ago, frednork said:

Yet but isnt it mostly these pointy headed audiophiles that are "supporting" this (maybe unwanted) technology at this stage through Tidal.

 

Nah... none of those people are what I'd call "oscilloscope wielding, etc."

 

5 hours ago, frednork said:

?ie Demand choice in Tidal or leave and be vocal regarding the reasons why. Similar approach to other encroaching issues if they exist. 

 

I think Tidal, etc. know that this would only ever be a tiny portion of their users....and that most don't know/care and "just want music" .... and many more will become aware and just listen to the marketing and think "MQA, great".

 

Nobody will do anything until they start to become negatively impacted.... and the whole concept is to make them feel that they are NOT being negatively impacted.    It will be demonstrated to consumers that using an MQA decoder is the superior way to listen, but also optional  <danger>

 

This can be done by nefarious means.... but also in a way which avoids fraud.    Just start dropping the verbiage that the free part definitely contains CD quality (and just that it is capable of storing cd quality).

 

5 hours ago, frednork said:

surely must be rejected by most

 

I'd hope so .... but that's the trick.  I don't think it will be demonstrated to be clearly inferior.

 

MQAs play is the recording artists ... and I think that's where it is best argued.    As if it is lost there, MQA get there way where there is no non-MQA in existence.

[Satanica]

42 minutes ago, davewantsmoore said:

So you don't think that they honestly believe that MQA isn't the best?!.... or is it that you don't agree with their justification for it  (big difference).

 

I believe they have always known at the very least that MQA is not superior yet they have deliberatley attempted to mislead that it is. Why? To gain a financial advatange which has been achieved.

[davewantsmoore]

56 minutes ago, Satanica said:

I believe they have always known at the very least that MQA is not superior yet they have deliberatley attempted to mislead that it is. Why? To gain a financial advatange which has been achieved.

 

Sure... I can see how someone might believe that.

 

.... but for there to be fraud prove,  would have to present evidence that MQA know it isn't "better" (ie. what BS wrote in his paper he knew to be a "lie") .... and then people who have been damaged, can get that assessed /  fixed.

 

Where's the evidence?.... and what's the damage? (to who?)

 

Everyone getting a refund for the MQA albums they bought is far beyond a long shot...    

Edited May 10, 2021 by davewantsmoore

[Guest]

17 hours ago, Stereophilus said:

I haven’t seen anything “pro” MQA on Darko Audio....  He’s interviewed Bob Stuart, but he’s also interviewed Jason Stoddard + Mike Moffat (Schiit Audio) to give the opposing view.  Hans and Amir (the latter quite bizarrely IMO) are definitely in the MQA camp.

OK, agree Darko is neutral.  Hans, Amir and John (Stereophile) have 1 thing in common.  They all admire Bob Stuart for his distinguished career in audio.  Bob in turn, is exploiting that and using his grand fatherly looks to come across a a benign figure...   

 

17 hours ago, LHC said:

I would argue it is Google and Youtube. Bob in the latest interview with What Hi-Fi, he talks about moving MQA into video streaming at 17:00 min mark.

 

A gem at the 20:50 min mark: Lucy Hedges: "Absolutely, MQA domination, broadcast video, ... " Bob: "Well, yes, except we're not trying to dominate. We're just trying to make sound better whenever we can make it better."

I agree Youtube is the key, and that is why Bob mentioned it.   Music videos viewed, by far, exceed the number of streamed music listened.  If MQA gets YouTube, it is likely game over...

 

------

Darko did a web survey (with all its weaknesses, but still provides some info).

https://darko.audio/2021/02/global-feedback-mqa-in-2021/

 

Claimed to have almost 10,000 responses, it showed that anti-MQA was 11%, Pro-MQA 14%.  34% will listen to MQA sometimes, and 40% do not know what it is.  It is the last 2 groups that will be critical.  MQA will be relying on those 2 groups to "not care". 

 

To date, the anti-MQA group consists of concerned audiophiles.  GoldenOne's video excited many of us, but will hardly be of interest to the 3/4 of the market.  To succeed, the message must go further to the masses, but there is yet to be something which can catch fire. 

[davewantsmoore]

To prove that MQA is an "elaborate sham" (ie. why do they do all this research, etc.) .... takes extraordinary proof.

 

Not just .... "we think they just did it all for the money".    All business just does it just for the money. 

 

The basic things is that a lot of what MQA are banging on about, does actually have some merit  (mixed/minimum phase filters, which could sound better, but not measure better compared to the original).

 

They will be able to stand up straight in court and say "we've got this thing, which we think sounds improved, and we're trying to deliver it to everyone".    Like I said, unless there is some smoking gun, that shows it to be a ruse  (which there might  very well be, who knows?!) .... then "fraud" is an insane stretch.

[davewantsmoore]

1 minute ago, Snoopy8 said:

If MQA gets YouTube, it is likely game over...

 

They could "get" everyone .... in a way which wouldn't necessarily require them/youtube to distribute MQA encoded files at all.

 

License an MQA decoder to youtube that gave them potato quality (or even higher quality, whatever it takes).    As long as this meets YouTube quality requirements.... now,  youtube isn't standing in the way of files being authored in MQA.

 

Cos' the one barrier to getting creators to working in MQA, will be if they can't send the work places (ie. interoperability barriers).

 

I can't upload it to youtube?  No dice.    I can upload it to youtube? ... Ok fine (youtube don't access the full quality? Meh, I don't care .... cos I didn't think they preserved quality properly before anyways).

 

 

1 minute ago, Snoopy8 said:

To succeed, the message must go further to the masses, but there is yet to be something which can catch fire. 

 

I remain unconvinced (unfortunately, because I think it's a sad truth).

 

The vast majority of people (regardless of what they "say")..... will use a streaming service if they want the music that is on there, and there is little alternative.   The protest vote is very small.... and at the end of the day, the strategy isn't "consumer lead adoption" .... it's artists and labels, so the protest vote may have little choice, aside from at the edges.