Archimago: Simply put, why I don't like MQA

[watchnerd]

This excerpt gives a good summary of his stance (one I find myself generally agreeing with):

"We have 2 options currently:

1. We simply downsample to 48kHz while maintaining 24-bit resolution and give up the ultrasonic frequencies above 24kHz = STANDARD downsampling.

2. We sacrifice 24-bit depth to "typically 15.85 bits" (Bob Stuart's words), and encode the ultrasonic frequencies from 24-48kHz in a lossy fashion = MQA encoding & decoding. [Throw in some stuff about "de-blurring" while you do this of course and claim you can recover everything else you "need" back to the "original" 192kHz. Turn on a LED/indicator telling us MQA decoding is happening, that there's no error in the stream and it's the "original" resolution (meaningless, but that's fine).]

Which of the 2 do you choose? Do you think there's going to be a massive difference in sound quality?

Personally, I think Option 1 is just fine and have said this from the beginning. Lossless 24/48 audio sounds great and in many cases would be easier to compress than MQA for streaming. Heck, we could zero out the last 4 bits and maybe compress a 20/48 stream for more data savings without worrying about anyone complaining. Plus, since time domain performance is linked with bit-depth, one could argue that maintaining true 24-bit resolution provides better time-domain performance below Nyquist. It will be "open" for easy adoption by manufacturers and not impose any licensing fee.

But TIDAL and MQA presents to us option 2. Here are my concerns..."

More at:

http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2017/10/mqa-final-final-comment-simply-put-why.html

 

[amirm]

I don't know what he is arguing for. There are two types of customers here:

1. What streaming companies want: they want better specs to justify higher subscription prices for "hi-fi content." MQA gives them that by far compared to 24/48 by advertising 24/192 post MQA decode.

2. What audiophiles want. Here, storage size and download time don't matter so getting the original master is what we should get. Again, not 24/48 Khz using who knows what scheme.

As I have said elsewhere if people want MQA to go away, they need to create an open solution for #1. Until they do, MQA will keep moving forward.

 

[watchnerd]

2. What audiophiles want. Here, storage size and download time don't matter so getting the original master is what we should get. Again, not 24/48 Khz using who knows what scheme.

How does MQA help with #2?

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding.

Ironically, the best sources of high-res downloads with full logs on the provenance of SRC, quality testing via spectrals, etc, are from private trackers.

 

[amirm]

How does MQA help with #2?

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding.

It doesn't at all. Downloads will continue as non-MQA as the dominant format. To that end his arguments on this front are immaterial.

Ironically, the best sources of high-res downloads with full logs on the provenance of SRC, quality testing via spectrals, etc, are from private trackers.

What is a private tracker?

 

[watchnerd]

What is a private tracker?

To put it the most positive light possible, it's an invitation-only website where users exchange files of known quality and standards using Bit Torrent. Most specialize in either audio or video, including some genres thereof (e.g. high definition audio).

 

[amirm]

Ah. I live a too clean of a digital life to know about such things.

 

[NorthSky]

High seas Audio pirates? ...From the original analog files...tapes?

 

[Old Listener]

My money is on MQA following the path of SACD and DVD-A. Lots of hype and very little impact in the real world. Then death.

 

[watchnerd]

High seas Audio pirates? ...From the original analog files...tapes?

In a few rare cases, yes...often bootleg live performances unavailable elsewhere.

There are some Dave Brubeck, Ray Charles, and others from similar era floating around.

 

[Blumlein 88]

The sad truth is more than 95% of music wouldn't exceed 32 khz/12 bit. Maybe like FM radio specs that would do for streaming broadcast.

Undecoded MQA is more like FM while pretending to be equivalent to highest quality hirez. Marketing BS.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

My money is on MQA following the path of SACD and DVD-A. Lots of hype and very little impact in the real world. Then death.

Not to get Mark Twainish about it, but SACD is far from dead, not yet anyway. True, it never had much to offer rock lovers, and it probably has even less in the big, popular genres today. It remains a small niche mainly for classical music fans, and also to the niche within the niche for Mch afficianados, as Kal and I can attest. It remains avidly supported by a small but dedicated group of mainly European labels with very high engineering standards.

In our internet connected world of global commerce today, niches can survive in the marketplace and persist, unlike earlier years when multiple formats sold mainly in brick/mortar stores did not stand much of a chance. The days of the single, almost universal standard to the exclusion of others - LP or CD - are over. I have no trouble finding out about the best new SACD releases from hraudio.net and buying them from Amazon or numerous other sites, both in the US and in Europe.

SACD has had huge and lasting impact on me and my listening and collecting habits. I have not bought a CD or 2-channel download in well over a decade. Even if the format eventually does go belly up, I will still have a very satisfying library of thousands of albums on SACD in Mch.

I don't know if MQA will survive, and it is not a life/death matter for me. But, it might as a niche, even if only for streaming on certain sites, though likely never for physical disc media.