More on Lenbrook's plans for MQA

[Fidji]

MQA v1.0:
- lot of press hype
- big labels support - Warner, Unoversal + niche like 2L
- inrastruture - Tidal
- existing device ecosystem with lot of devices with MQA capabilty

Failed miserably on all fronts

MQA v2.0
- support from Lenbrook, that is rather irrelevant player on all accounts
- nothin new from product perspective and no unque capability [anybody can do impulse correction nowadays via filter]

Curious how this ends.

 

[Nutul]

It may not harm the sound quality (so, why use it, as we already have good transports); but it may drain some bucks from your pockets... for no benefit.
Now, this is the question: would this convince you that MQA is marketing BS oriented towards making money out off a meaningless patent...?

 

[pkane]

If I took two recordings, one processed with and without MQA and people failed to discern a difference in blind testing, would that convince you that MQA was not harmful? One might argue that there would need to be more test tracks.

Wouldn't be a very convincing argument for MQA, I'm afraid. I can say the same about audiophile fuses, AC cords, cable lifters, Mpingo discs, etc. They all don't harm the sound yet I wouldn't invest a single penny into any of these.

If I took two recordings and the MQA track was universally preferred in blind testing, would that convince you that MQA was not harmful? One might argue that there are other remastering tweaks that result in two different recordings…

If I could fly, I could be convinced to step off a ledge of a high-rise building. Yet I can't, so I don't.

But if I point out that there are some MQA exclusive content, implying marketing dollars being directed, how is MQA different from iMovie/Final Cut Pro as MacOS exclusives or Mario Kart as a Nintendo exclusive?

I've yet to find any MQA content that I'd be willing to pay for and a big part this is that I simply don't trust the product or the people pushing it. The checkered history of this technology, the frequent misdirection and the outright marketing lies just don't sit well with me. Objectively, none of these products have produced the claimed results, and so far, no evidence has been provided that MQA products, as newly repackaged by Lenbrook, ever will.

 

[mns3dhm]

I thought it was weird when the Lenbrook Group acquired the rights to MQA; they are now obviously trying to find some way to get a return on that investment. I worry that the baked in cost of that acquisition will find their way into NAD electronics, PSB powered speakers and Bluesound products.

 

[IPunchCholla]

Personally, I think that tie ins (having to buy one thing in order to buy another thing) are fundamentally against a free market. As far as is practicable, all things should be fungible, for that type of thing. A record should work on all players, a game be playable on all devices.

Without this one product is always relying on another product often of a different market to bolster its ability to compete. Nintendo should be competing on how well its console performs, Apple on how consumer friendly iMovie is, MQA on how well their filters work. Anything less is harm to the consumer.

Now that isn’t absolutely practicable from a first amendment, technological, or rarity perspective, but the consumer should always desire fungibility for the product category they are buying as much as possible.

 

[GXAlan]

Wouldn't be a very convincing argument for MQA, I'm afraid. I can say the same about audiophile fuses, AC cords, cable lifters, Mpingo discs, etc. They all don't harm the sound yet I wouldn't invest a single penny into any of these.

Agree about that. I have blurred MQA and QRONO unintentionally.

I wouldn’t pay extra for either, but I would not penalize a Lenbrook product for having the forced MQA filter if the rest of the feature set is good. I have yet to see a requirement to “invest” in QRONO -- as the only MQA product I have is the Node Icon, which is the only option with the feature set I'm looking for.

I've yet to find any MQA content that I'd be willing to pay for and a big part this is that I simply don't trust the product or the people pushing it. The checkered history of this technology, the frequent misdirection and the outright marketing lies just don't sit well with me. Objectively, none of these products have produced the claimed results, and so far, no evidence has been provided that MQA products, as newly repackaged by Lenbrook, ever will.

Fair enough.

 

[Mnyb]

I think they are trying to do a ”dolby” or THX currently the pathway to the consumer for music is basically license free , just publishing some flac files and no one earns any extra money leaching the delivery chain ?

Hometheater on the other every thing from disc to formats is proprietary and licensed.

But your actually getting something for it , 7.1 ch or atmos .

With this the consumer gets nothing or something that can be solved by going 24/96 flac ?

So the whole purpose is to be a parasite in the supply chain ?

 

[xanalog]

Should I have dialed-down my sentiment a few bits?

 

[staticV3]

If I took two recordings and the MQA track was universally preferred in blind testing, would that convince you that MQA was not harmful?

No.

Encoder harmlessness is proven using Null tests. Not blind listening tests.

A codec with built-in mild and barely detectable bass+treble boost would likely be universally preferred in a blind test. Would still be harmful.

 

[GXAlan]

Analysis of MQA/non-MQA recordings through QRONO d2a

Content: Chesky Ultimate Demonstration Disc, original CD and MQA-CD versions; HDTracks version of The Raven Source: Bluesound Node Icon Recorder: E1DA Cosmos ADC, default digital filter, 24/88.1 kHz recording 1. Comparison of Source Files (CD vs. MQA-CD) 2. Comparisons of Analog...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[MaxwellsEq]

I'm pretty confident most studios are smart enough to avoid having their content corrupted (watermarked) and having their b#lls held by MQA.

I'm not. Content owners (as in the huge "brands" that pay creators to make content) have fallen foul of promised benefits of this type over and over and over again. They are easily marketed to by "labs" that offer some form of traceability. They don't care about sonic improvements and actually don't care too much about mild sonic degradation.

 

[Snoopy]

I don’t see anybody supporting this expect people that seem to have invested in the NAD/Bluesound ecosystem .. in the end I only see Lenbrook and Chinese DAC manufacturers supporting this.
Maybe we will get more MQA CDs out of Japan as well.

 

[Monster]

..........
I'm pretty confident most studios are smart enough to avoid having their content corrupted (watermarked) and having their b#lls held by MQA.
Similarly, audio interface manufacturers should be smart enough to avoid MPRO ADCs.

.

Tidal fell for it.

 

[Mart68]

Tidal fell for it.

Possibly they thought it would give them a USP amongst the service providers? Doesn't matter if it actually did anything or not as long as punters think they are getting something better.

Lots of companies jumped on the MQA bandwagon last time, possibly because they did not want to be left behind if it took off. Like trying to sell a tape deck without Dolby.

Second time around it may be they won't get fooled again.

 

[Palladium]

I don’t see anybody supporting this expect people that seem to have invested in the NAD/Bluesound ecosystem .. in the end I only see Lenbrook and Chinese DAC manufacturers supporting this.
Maybe we will get more MQA CDs out of Japan as well.

Spare a thought for the guys who care about MQA that can be counted with like 2 hands please!

 

[TCD333]

Tidal fell for it.

I thought Tidal had parted ways with MQA?

 

[Matt_Holland]

I thought Tidal had parted ways with MQA?

Fell past tense

 

[TCD333]

MQA FOQUS (ES9823MPRO only)

The ES9823MPRO is the world's 1st ADC to incorporate FOQUS by MQA Labs®. FOQUS introduces an innovative
approach to decimation in ADC chips, featuring a compact, minimum-phase response that stays below the human
sensitivity threshold. Its unique architecture is linear and low complexity, performing just a single dithered quantisation step.
This makes FOQUS the most transparent decimation process available today.

Using FOQUS with ESS' MQA DAC renderer enabled devices, such as the ES9039PRO, allows for an MQA analog to
analog connection. For more information, visit MQA's website: mgalabs.com.

Source: ES9823PRO/MPRO datasheet.

Thank God ESS is so smart! They produce ES9823MPRO and ES9823PRO (without M) ADC chips. ESS won't be suckered (locked-in) into the MQA nonsense.

If the main use case of ES9823MPRO is to provide "MQA analog to analog connection" in NAD devices, then all is good. Hope MQA just stays within the Lenbrook ecosystem. And I sincerely hope they don't try to poison the general music production chain.

I'm pretty confident most studios are smart enough to avoid having their content corrupted (watermarked) and having their b#lls held by MQA.
Similarly, audio interface manufacturers should be smart enough to avoid MPRO ADCs.

.

Most studios I work with don't even know what MQA is. In the modern recording chain there are often a few AD / DA conversions depending on their chain. Mastering labs would likely be their main targets but same applies. Whatever damage it supposedly fixes has already been done.. often multiple times.

 

[Nutul]

Most studios I work with don't even know what MQA is. In the modern recording chain there are often a few AD / DA conversions depending on their chain. Mastering labs would likely be their main targets but same applies. Whatever damage it supposedly fixes has already been done.. often multiple times.

I am still utterly confused at what do they want to fix / improve, at the recording / mixing stage; as that would never, NEVER sound the same in any room, other than the studio where the thing was recorded (and listened to).
Please, do correct me if i'm wrong; I'm all ears.

P.S. i am still glad to hear that those studios don't even know what MQA is... luckily, they'll never adventure into it.

 

[qirex]

The original point was to get people to pay more for digital audio files and equipment. That's it. It was a lossy codec that made specific LEDs light up on equipment that paid Bob Stuart money.

The current stuff Lenbrook is pushing is, in my opinion, just trying to get some kind of brand differentiation into digital audio using some what appear to be useless filters, although they may actually be harmful and there doesn't seem to be consensus yet. A lot of what sells high end gear is "mystique" or "brand heritage" (ignoring that pretty much all the heritage brands are now owned by private equity firms that do not give a toss about audio) so I don't blame them for attempting it, I just wish I could have a FOQUS/QRONO-free experience. It's put me off them so bad I shelved my plans to buy a Node Icon and some Bluesond speakers.