• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. 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.

solderdude

Grand Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
15,891
Likes
35,912
Location
The Neitherlands
Easier to see with the exact same scales and overlayed or animated gif and alternate them.

If Indeed (as I suspect) they create new and perhaps technically better masters (no loudness compression and enough headroom to allow for intersample peaks and stay clear of 0dBFS then there could be merit to MQA.
To bad they don't release the same 'improved' master in 24/192 or 96/24... but then the light will not come on and they won't make much money.

I also think there are 2 ways to earn money... sell a LOT for less profit or very little with a LOT of profit.
Bob S may be doing both ... earn money by selling a lot of licenses and sell very expensive stuf..
Clever guys...

Still think the encoding 'trick' is not really needed any more. Think of Video 2000 and DCC. Both technically interesting and good 'solutions' but much too late. By the time it hit the market others already owned that market. May be the same for MQA.
The vigorous advertising, secrecy and 'myths' is what keeps interest going ... there is talk about it.
 

Thomas savage

Grand Contributor
The Watchman
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
10,260
Likes
16,298
Location
uk, taunton
Easier to see with the exact same scales and overlayed or animated gif and alternate them.

If Indeed (as I suspect) they create new and perhaps technically better masters (no loudness compression and enough headroom to allow for intersample peaks and stay clear of 0dBFS then there could be merit to MQA.
To bad they don't release the same 'improved' master in 24/192 or 96/24... but then the light will not come on and they won't make much money.

I also think there are 2 ways to earn money... sell a LOT for less profit or very little with a LOT of profit.
Bob S may be doing both ... earn money by selling a lot of licenses and sell very expensive stuf..
Clever guys...

Still think the encoding 'trick' is not really needed any more. Think of Video 2000 and DCC. Both technically interesting and good 'solutions' but much too late. By the time it hit the market others already owned that market. May be the same for MQA.
The vigorous advertising, secrecy and 'myths' is what keeps interest going ... there is talk about it.
In the unlikely event this happened ole Bob S would become my hero, he’d rescue generations of music and mankind would be forever in his debt.
 

solderdude

Grand Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
15,891
Likes
35,912
Location
The Neitherlands
I secretly hope that he does (become your hero for aformentioned reasons) but suspect he is only after people's money.

If Watchnerd is correct* he may be his hero for that particular album already . ;)


*
MQA vs FLAC:
100% success rate (so far)


P.S. I take it most have read Archi's response to the video already
 

restorer-john

Grand Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
12,579
Likes
38,280
Location
Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
Amir's quote: I also think PCM format is very wasteful. And that a perceptual coder which reduces bandwidth requirements especially when it comes to high-resolution content very valid.

Perceptual encoding = lossy. Perceptual encoding is where someone thinks they know what I hear and throws away what they think I can't/don't hear. Therein lies the flaw. How you can champion measurements on one hand and throwing away valid sampled audio data on the other hand is beyond me.

Think of Video 2000 and DCC.

DCC, that was a joke. I've still got someplace all the released industry papers on that silly format. Went to some Philips sponsored 'do' and listened to the presentation back in 1990/91ish. Played with the machines- even had a few in the shop at one point. Admittedly, PASC (precision adaptive subband coding IIRC?) was an early attempt at lossy encoding algorithms, but it was simply horrible. It was unlistenable and alongside DAT, it was hilarious. Thin film multitrack heads in a linear tape based package, typical Philips crap error correction and terrible analog performance on the 'legacy' playback on the deck when using analog cassettes. Nobody wanted, needed or bought that junk.

One day, I'll dig out the glossy presentation folder and papers out of the storeroom- it might be fun to post it here.
 

solderdude

Grand Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
15,891
Likes
35,912
Location
The Neitherlands
Yes DCC was a nightmare, and above all (which was my point) too little / too late.
But it was a format that came (equipment and tapes were marketted) and disappeared again as it did not take off like they hoped it would.
I suspect that when they could/would have launched it 10 years earlier (same as with V2000) it could have gotten a big chunk of the market.
'backwards compatible' with compact cassette would have been a real selling point when the DAT and minidisc weren't around yet.

The guys at Philips weren't that smart all of the time when one considers they even took the 'Jan Sloot' story serious.

Now .... back to MQA again ... and hoping it ends up like DCC as well.
Unless they become your heros..
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,386
Location
Seattle Area
In other words, you're an admirer of Bob Stuart and allowed yourself to be suckered by his bullshit.
Admirer? I admire Einstein. Should we dispense with theory of relativity too on that basis?

But no, I don't admire Bob. He is one of our luminaries in audio and deserves respect, not rocks thrown at him by uninformed. Here are his credentials as listed on AES:

1539541421193.png


1539541494083.png


His publications in peer reviewed journal of AES are superb.

1539541667540.png


He has earned his status in Audio Engineering and Research. Sure as heck I am not going to apologize for providing due respect to him and assume very high level of competence in what he does.

You are welcome to disagree with his technical points but don't go standing on high horse that anyone who respects him must be blinded by love or something.

It is this kind of emotional rant that substantially reduces the validity of the arguments put forward. Instead of taking the high road, sticking to data and facts, we have these kinds of remarks to deal with. :(
 

mansr

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
4,685
Likes
10,700
Location
Hampshire
Amir's quote: I also think PCM format is very wasteful. And that a perceptual coder which reduces bandwidth requirements especially when it comes to high-resolution content very valid.

Perceptual encoding = lossy. Perceptual encoding is where someone thinks they know what I hear and throws away what they think I can't/don't hear. Therein lies the flaw. How you can champion measurements on one hand and throwing away valid sampled audio data on the other hand is beyond me.
Accepted perceptual models say we can't hear anything not captured by plain CD quality, so why bother with high-res at all?
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,386
Location
Seattle Area
Amir's quote: I also think PCM format is very wasteful. And that a perceptual coder which reduces bandwidth requirements especially when it comes to high-resolution content very valid.

Perceptual encoding = lossy. Perceptual encoding is where someone thinks they know what I hear and throws away what they think I can't/don't hear. Therein lies the flaw. How you can champion measurements on one hand and throwing away valid sampled audio data on the other hand is beyond me.
This is not your old lossy format. When we dump everything above 16/44.1 Khz, we are performing perceptual, lossy compression. It is done with a sledgehammer of course, assuming we don't need better dynamic range or bandwidth. But it is done nevertheless.

What MQA attempts to do is to code what is above 16/44.1, while using very little bandwidth. That way the sampling rate and bit-depths can be preserved to some extent. In that regard, it is a worthwhile effort to the extent we think there is value above 16/44.1.

So if you are a typical objectivist, you better be very much in favor of MQA. You can't say MQA is no good and in the next breath say CD rate is all we need.
 

mansr

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
4,685
Likes
10,700
Location
Hampshire
What MQA attempts to do is to code what is above 16/44.1, while using very little bandwidth. That way the sampling rate and bit-depths can be preserved to some extent. In that regard, it is a worthwhile effort to the extent we think there is value above 16/44.1.
The most obvious problem with that argument is that standard FLAC compresses better than MQA at equivalent quality.
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,386
Location
Seattle Area
The most obvious problem with that argument is that standard FLAC compresses better than MQA at equivalent quality.
You say that based on how many files encoded with identical originals?
 

sergeauckland

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,440
Likes
9,100
Location
Suffolk UK
So if you are a typical objectivist, you better be very much in favor of MQA. You can't say MQA is no good and in the next breath say CD rate is all we need.

Sorry, but why isn't CD rate 'all we need'? It may not be enough for original recording, mixing and editing, but I maintain it's quite enough as a distribution format. What's needed is for RBCD to be done properly, not compressed to buggery, rather than so-called HD, MQA or whatever that hardly anybody can hear anyway.

What is there above 20kHz that anyone can hear? (or even is worth hearing) What is there below -90dB other than aircon noise, traffic noise and SMPS whistle? (Which incidentally needs 96k or more to capture).

Every single classic recording done on tape, from the late 1940s onwards, has been limited to 15-20kHz bandwidth and a S/N ratio of perhaps 70dB with Dolby, 60dB at best without. Even today, the sort of microphones most praised for their sound, like large capsule condensers are dead by 18kHz, with some small, capsule mics like Schoeps going a bit higher but not a lot, so what actually needs more than a 20kHz bandwidth?

Specs are all very well, but like distortions of 0.001% rather than 0.1% the better specs don't actually result in better sound.
S
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,386
Location
Seattle Area
Sorry, but why isn't CD rate 'all we need'?
It might be but there is market demand for higher sample rate so tech companies rise up to support it. Blu-ray format for example supports high-res for that reason.

MQA does that while retaining backward compatibility with in-the-clear PCM audio.
 

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
2,375
Likes
1,253
It might be but there is market demand for higher sample rate so tech companies rise up to support it. Blu-ray format for example supports high-res for that reason.

MQA does that while retaining backward compatibility with in-the-clear PCM audio.

You can’t compare blu-ray (if it’s HD television you’re talking about) with standard definition TV, can you?
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,386
Location
Seattle Area
You can’t compare blu-ray (if it’s HD television you’re talking about) with standard definition TV, can you?
No, i am not talking about that. I am focused on audio. I said that high-sample rate/bit depths were included in the BD spec to cater to people who want that. There, ironically Dolby TrueHD is used which is developed by Meridian/Bob Stuart's team ("MLP"). BDA did no testing to determine the "need" for high-resolution audio. It simply responded to the requests from labels/studios and consumer demand.
 

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
2,375
Likes
1,253
No, i am not talking about that. I am focused on audio. I said that high-sample rate/bit depths were included in the BD spec to cater to people who want that. There, ironically Dolby TrueHD is used which is developed by Meridian/Bob Stuart's team ("MLP"). BDA did no testing to determine the "need" for high-resolution audio. It simply responded to the requests from labels/studios and consumer demand.

OK, the Blu-ray consortium is a can of worms in my book.

From a consumer perspective, the blu-ray consortium is hardly an inspiring example for audio, is it?
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,386
Location
Seattle Area
OK, the Blu-ray consortium is a can of worms in my book.

From a consumer perspective, the blu-ray consortium is hardly an inspiring example for audio, is it?
How about the fact that every DAC chip produced today supports higher than CD sample rate and bit depth? They are doing so in the interest of meeting market demand. The logic is added to chip, likely increasing its cost.

They are also doing the same for DSD.

Every operating system plays high-res. Just about every DAC product you buy supports it.

Again, they do this because there is demand for it.
 

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
2,375
Likes
1,253
How about the fact that every DAC chip produced today supports higher than CD sample rate and bit depth? They are doing so in the interest of meeting market demand. The logic is added to chip, likely increasing its cost.

They are also doing the same for DSD.

Every operating system plays high-res. Just about every DAC product you buy supports it.

Again, they do this because there is demand for it.

My point was this:

WHAT DOES MQA BRING TO THE TABLE FOR THE CONSUMER (THAT WASN’T ALREADY THERE)?
 

Thomas savage

Grand Contributor
The Watchman
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
10,260
Likes
16,298
Location
uk, taunton
How about the fact that every DAC chip produced today supports higher than CD sample rate and bit depth? They are doing so in the interest of meeting market demand. The logic is added to chip, likely increasing its cost.

They are also doing the same for DSD.

Every operating system plays high-res. Just about every DAC product you buy supports it.

Again, they do this because there is demand for it.
No, they do it because there’s demand to sell ( design and manufacture) new chips, customers remain fairly ignorant of the chips in their gear but maybe a few get sucked into the numbers game and anxiety surrounding buying something not ‘ future proof’ .

There is no demand for hi res I know of nor is their a huge demand for DSD but again the sticker might help sell a DAC. So their in the shinny sticker game not the hires game.

Marketing can create a demand but so far not many are into hires , MQA might succeed but it won’t be for positive reasons it will be because they have convinced people they are at a loss without it. To do that they will have to bullshit like ,, schiit. Iv no clue why we are trying so hard to paper over things, MQA is a land grab. Clever men making money, the consumer does not need it nor will they benefit from it.
 

JJB70

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,905
Likes
6,148
Location
Singapore
I don't think the fact that there is a demand for something indicates anything positive about a product other than perhaps successful marketing. There is still a healthy (groan...) demand for cigarettes despite the fact that they are likely to give you cancer, emphysema etc and kill you. I take my hat off to the MQA people for creating a demand, and for getting the hifi press onboard but as a consumer I still haven't seen any good reason to buy into it.

If they fund proper re-mastering of classic recordings which dump the junk created by trash re-mastering over the last 20 - 30 years then I'll applaud them for that, but that wouldn't be a triumph for MQA as a format so much as it'd be a triumph for good re-mastering.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom