• Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

MQA: A Review of controversies, concerns, and cautions

Status
Not open for further replies.
Something that confirms what I was suggesting about existing non-high res content being MQA-i-fied:
Many of these studio masters are high-resolution files the label has already created. Some are just 16/44 but even there MQA applies Bob Stuart’s temporal de-blurring filters that eliminate one of the biggest monsters of bad digital: pre and post ringing.
And I was wrong about the big two record companies: it's the big three:
All three major labels have signed on. Warner, Universal, and Sony are onboard. Merlin, which represents the independent community, is also on board.

And the paltry amount of MQA content that dooms it to insignificance?
All three labels and the independent community have signed a contract with MQA. That contract has terms that require a full catalog conversion to MQA.

...So think about all the tracks the four major labels have committed to… that must be millions of tracks, right? Yes. Millions.
https://parttimeaudiophile.com/2018...the-big-labels-are-converting-their-catalogs/
 
TIDAL surely just delivers MQA - it doesn't decode it..? If that was the case, we could have 'room correction' and DSP crossovers today just by directing TIDAL's output to the appropriate driver...?

The high res digital stream stays inaccessible until final decoding in a chip, surely..? Isn't that the big deal about "end-to-end"? It may not be MQA's chip, but they could ensure that licensees use secure, approved hardware..?

(I may be missing something about how the scheme works...)
Yes, you are missing quite a few things on MQA, but I don't think it is easy to get an objective, open minded education on it amid the tribal warfare, including speculation offered as inevitable fact. You will have to dig much deeper than the superficial impressions that you appear to have.

Tidal supplies MQA files for streaming. It also supplies a personal computer app to interface with those files and play them decoded up to the first MQA unfold, which is up to 88/96k sampling rate. Yes, the unfolded, decoded digital output from the app can undergo DSP and use a conventional, non-MQA DAC connected to the streaming computer.

Bob Stuart has also said that compatibility with DSP for the higher resolutions also supported by MQA is "in the works" from a number of MQA licencees. Allegedly, Meridian's latest active speakers supposedly have MQA capability along with DSP.
 
Yes, the unfolded, decoded digital output from the app can undergo DSP and use a conventional, non-MQA DAC connected to the streaming computer.

Curiosity:
With the software unfold, how many of the 24 bits are 'music' and how many are still 'code'?
 
Yes, you are missing quite a few things on MQA, but I don't think it is easy to get an objective, open minded education on it amid the tribal warfare, including speculation offered as inevitable fact. You will have to dig much deeper than the superficial impressions that you appear to have.
Why not let us into some of the insights you have gleaned? (Note to self: never ever hint at being self-deprecating in forums...)
Tidal supplies MQA files for streaming. It also supplies a personal computer app to interface with those files and play them decoded up to the first MQA unfold, which is up to 88/96k sampling rate. Yes, the unfolded, decoded digital output from the app can undergo DSP and use a conventional, non-MQA DAC connected to the streaming computer.

Bob Stuart has also said that compatibility with DSP for the higher resolutions also supported by MQA is "in the works" from a number of MQA licencees. Allegedly, Meridian's latest active speakers supposedly have MQA capability along with DSP.

OK, so they are ensuring that people - for now - can believe they are getting an intermediate level of quality improvement even without buying the extra hardware. A reasonable marketing ploy. And they are successfully heading off the criticism about DSP filtering, etc. but I suspect the tiny number of people who really care about it (like me) still won't like it.

It is also something that Bob Stuart a year ago described as an "absurdity". If the idea is that the final filtering operation after the DAC is part of the MQA end-to-end solution, then providing a stream to feed to a conventional DAC is pandering to the notion of MQA being just a data compression system, rather than a holistic "de-blurring" process that improves upon the original file.
 
Last edited:
Curiosity:
With the software unfold, how many of the 24 bits are 'music' and how many are still 'code'?
I believe that 15 bits are "in the clear", uncoded and unencrypted and compatible with regular RBCD playback. The rest convey the metadata to expand that in both sampling rate and S/N.
 
Why not let us into some of the insights you have gleaned? (Note to self: never ever hint at being self-deprecating in forums...)


OK, so they are ensuring that people - for now - can believe they are getting an intermediate level of quality improvement even without buying the extra hardware. A reasonable marketing ploy. And they are successfully heading off the criticism about DSP filtering, etc. but I suspect the tiny number of people who really care about it (like me) still won't like it.

It is also something that Bob Stuart a year ago described as an "absurdity".
Look, I am not in any hurry to jump on the MQA bandwagon myself. It is just not in my plans. Nor, do I need to convert anyone else to my viewpoint or anyone else's. Nor, do I endorse it or claim to have all the answers. I have even listened to it under reasonably, though not perfectly, controlled conditions. Frankly, it is not exciting enough for me in terms of sonic bliss creation. So, I will just remain on the sidelines, thanks.

I am just trying to remain somewhat objective. I think in order to do that, one needs to look at at understand the original premises, research papers and other documents supporting the idea, as well as counter arguments from credible sources. Those are not likely to be found directly in online forums, though their may be links to the more pertinent stuff - the news rather than the fake news. There is also plenty of marketing hype favoring it, much of it encouraging justified skepticism. Online postings by amateurs is often just speculation, at best, if it has not descended to far worse mob rule, as internet postings often do, even here.

So, if you have a burning desire to dig into it, avoid the tribal Internet chatter and go deeper yourself while trying to keep an open mind. I have tried to do this myself. If I were to align myself with any one point of view, right now I would say Amir comes closest to my own.
 
... They simply see it as a way to bringing streaming of high-res content to users. They hope this means more royalties as distributors license high-res content in the form of MQA.

MQA does not deliver high res content to users. What comes out, even after full decode, is barely above CD resolution. The labels want us to believe that it is high res (even better than the master because it's "deblurred") so that...
- they can charge more for it because we believe it's higher res, and...
- they get to sell us the content all over again.
 
I am not sure what you would do with 4 bits ...

You would have a low-resolution preview of the content. Why include the capability if it makes no sense? There will be a reason behind it. We know the story MQA are selling to the consumer side. We know quite a bit about the technical side. What we don't know is what story the labels were sold.
 
MQA does not deliver high res content to users. What comes out, even after full decode, is barely above CD resolution. The labels want us to believe that it is high res (even better than the master because it's "deblurred") so that...
- they can charge more for it because we believe it's higher res, and...
- they get to sell us the content all over again.
Current implementation as part of Tidal provides MQA title for free. So they have not gotten "us" to do anything. Yesterday we didn't have MQA. Today we do.

But sure, high-res has some market value and labels have a fiduciary duty to their talent to maximize their copyright value.
 
You would have a low-resolution preview of the content.
With 4 bits? I don't think so.

Why include the capability if it makes no sense?
What capability? That someone thinks they have figured this out from binaries of something doesn't mean they got it right.

But let's say they have. ALL content released where the baseband signal is free of this will remain free of this forever. No one is under any obligation to update their players to enable it to screw up the baseband signal if that is their means of forcing such a change. And if that is not the mechanism, then there is nothing that can impact the installed base.

Once they hand me such a file as is today, I can decode it out of flac container and do with it as I please with full fidelity. There is nothing MQA can do whatsoever to impact the distributed content.

So whether it is there or not, is not a consideration now. It will be part of a new offer where the baseband is orders of magnitude worse than cassette tape. In that case they have lost a big value proposition of MQA and heaven help them with adoption.

Remember again, there is no evidence whatsoever that labels care about copy protection.

There will be a reason behind it. We know the story MQA are selling to the consumer side. We know quite a bit about the technical side. What we don't know is what story the labels were sold.
The story to labels is quite obvious: a way to get high-resolution streaming to listeners and with it, get them to subscribe to services like Tidal HiFi. A way to increase revenue above and beyond lossy 256 kbps services from Amazon and the like. This is what they are executing against and the evidence is very clear. There is absolutely nothing there to say the labels want to put the genie back in the bottle with respect to copy protection. That is simple FUD campaign by people who don't like it. They certainly don't have a single shred of evidence to support such fear campaign.
 
As much as I hate to say it, the owners of the music property can choose how and by whom it is sold and distributed.
 
Look, I am not in any hurry to jump on the MQA bandwagon myself. It is just not in my plans. Nor, do I need to convert anyone else to my viewpoint or anyone else's. Nor, do I endorse it or claim to have all the answers. I have even listened to it under reasonably, though not perfectly, controlled conditions. Frankly, it is not exciting enough for me in terms of sonic bliss creation. So, I will just remain on the sidelines, thanks.

I am just trying to remain somewhat objective. I think in order to do that, one needs to look at at understand the original premises, research papers and other documents supporting the idea, as well as counter arguments from credible sources. Those are not likely to be found directly in online forums, though their may be links to the more pertinent stuff - the news rather than the fake news. There is also plenty of marketing hype favoring it, much of it encouraging justified skepticism. Online postings by amateurs is often just speculation, at best, if it has not descended to far worse mob rule, as internet postings often do, even here.

So, if you have a burning desire to dig into it, avoid the tribal Internet chatter and go deeper yourself while trying to keep an open mind. I have tried to do this myself. If I were to align myself with any one point of view, right now I would say Amir comes closest to my own.
I'm sure you're right, but in this case I think it is the marketing hype and online chat that is much more interesting than the technical details. I am not going to be spending much time on the low level details just as I have feel I can take a view on homeopathy without having to spend any time on learning 'how it works'. I think the interesting questions are:
  1. Could this system become universal in that all new music playing systems would be fitted with MQA chips ('gatekeepers')
  2. The record companies appear to have no interest in DRM says Amir. But why could they not change their minds on that, especially as everything becomes connected and DRM becomes more 'transparent' for the average, honest end user?
  3. Might there be a time when consumers don't get a choice in whether they get their music in pure PCM form but, for their own convenience and benefit, are only able to get it in MQA (possibly MQA processes will run through all recordings anyway, as producers will have to use the MQA leaky filters, etc. from the microphone onwards in order to qualify for the blue light).
The only reason I care is that I currently have a system that works for me, but I see a chance that it could be taken away through 'progress'!
 
Record companies have no interest in DRM and copy protection? Last time I looked, streaming services with an offline mode weren't giving me an unencrypted non-copy protected file to play with at my convenience.

The technical difference between streaming and downloading is very slim. Streaming is really just the DRM, copy-protected version of downloading. And guess what? Downloads are dying.
Sources within Apple suggest that the timeline for phasing out downloads is being brought forward, and that they could cease within a year (the original plan, apparently, was two years)....

...That's a market that's crashing. "Just five years ago, downloads accounted for 70% of global digital music revenues while streaming was only responsible for 18% – and now that ratio is reversed,"
https://www.techradar.com/news/will-2018-be-the-year-the-download-officially-dies

If, as looks quite likely, streaming takes over completely from downloading, then in a few years time there would be nothing to stop the service providers from starting to ramp up prices, offering price-per-play versions of their services, and of course downloads. As this happened, people might decide that 'piracy' became a more attractive option than it had hitherto. As things stand, with free and open formats, unrestricted hardware, etc. that would be feasible. But if the hardware players themselves all have a digital gatekeeper, piracy cannot even get off the ground..?

It plugs the analog hole.

All cassette machines had Dolby technology in them. Could MQA manage the same thing?
 
Last edited:
Didn't this all start to a lesser degree with Dolby Noise Reduction?

noise reduction though was a real concern with consumer tape speeds, and even pro tape speeds, you can hear tape noise of course. So, I would personally not even remotely connect dolby with MQA as first version dolby worked on solving a real audible problem (and yes dolby is somewhat lossy)

wow, this is a great thread by the way
 
Last edited:
There is absolutely nothing there to say the labels want to put the genie back in the bottle with respect to copy protection. That is simple FUD campaign by people who don't like it. They certainly don't have a single shred of evidence to support such fear campaign.
FUD, Nothing you say?
There are no current MQA CD's and hi rez downloads?

Without opposition in the end everything coming out of the labels will have the MQA stamp on it.
And I'll have the opportunity to say, "I told you so". ;)
 
Record companies have no interest in DRM and copy protection? Last time I looked, streaming services with an offline mode weren't giving me an unencrypted non-copy protected file to play with at my convenience.
That is a business issue. The royalties for streaming rights are a fraction of download/purchase rights. As such, the labels heavily resist blurring those lines without getting compensated for them. That said, both Amazon and Tidal let me download content to listen offline.
 
FUD, Nothing you say?
There are no current MQA CD's and hi rez downloads?
I have one such CD. And outside of L2 demo tracks, how much download MQA is there?

Without opposition in the end everything coming out of the labels will have the MQA stamp on it.
And I'll have the opportunity to say, "I told you so". ;)
You can wait 'till eternity and it won't happen. The main market is that of streaming lossy audio and MQA cannot and will not make a dent in that. The tiney audiophile market has also remained quite robust, continuing to produce more lossless downloads than ever. MQA's only win has been Tidal streaming which has been a free bonus offer.

You all significantly underestimating what it takes on to make a universal format against all the forces out there. MQA has no horsepower remotely to get there.

As my ex-boss used to say, "worry is an abuse of imagination!" So worry if you like. I won't. :)
 
Amir, appreciate you holding up the "other end" of this discussion. I will say one thing though, things can change maybe "relatively" quickly, example how cassette took down 8 track, and cd took down records, that is becoming atleast half of sales, ok, perhaps about a decade IIRC, but it was a logarithmic change though.
 
I agree. There is a saying that "we overestimate the nature of change in the short-term, and underestimate it over the long term."

I remember thinking youtube was a stupid idea and it would fold. :)
and a steady trend with YouTube videos is the slow growing vine of DRM steadily wrapping around the platform. Just a little tighter every year.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom