MQA: Why We Should Resist It

[Audioraven]

Originally Posted by PHC1

I'm listening to whatever my mood tells me to listen to.

Amen!

[Still-One]

Originally Posted by FreddieFerric

I’m afraid I must respectfully disagree with that sentiment.

As I indicated, audiophiles will have no say as to whether MQA grows and expands. Here are comments from a TAS summary from Munich.

MQA Updates
MQA put on a unique demonstration of the technology’s ability to deliver studio-quality sound to listeners via streaming. A live musical performance was streamed in real time to selected exhibitors in Munich’s MOC convention center—in full high-resolution quality. As a small jazz group played in a London recording studio, the stereo mix was converted to digital at 192kHz/24-bit (a bitrate of 9.2Mbs), and then encoded in MQA on the fly. The 1.1Mbs MQA signal was streamed over the Internet to about ten participating exhibitors who had MQA decoders in their exhibit rooms. The streamed MQA signal was “unfolded” to the original 192/24 signal and converted to analog in the MQA-compatible DACs in the rooms of participating exhibitors. I happened to listen to the demo in dCS’s room, decoded by a dCS Rossini sitting on HRS racks and wonderfully reproduced by a pair of Wilson Alexia Series 2 speakers. The whole thing was a bit of a stunt, but nonetheless drove home MQA’s remarkable ability to deliver true high-resolution studio sound quality via streaming services.

In other MQA news, ESS Technology, maker of the popular high-end Sabre DAC chip, announced that it will soon release a DAC chip with integral MQA rendering. This new chip will make it easier and less expensive for manufacturers to include MQA compatibility in their products—no additional DSP required. Note that the ESS chip performs just the second step of MQA decoding, called “rendering”; the signal must first be unfolded to an MQA Core signal, but that unfolding technology is readily available in Tidal, Roon, Amarra, Audirvana, and many other music players. ESS’s announcement has implications far beyond getting MQA in more high-end DACs; this new Sabre chip will bring MQA to other applications including active headphones, smartphones, tabletop systems, and more.

[1KW]

If a conservative doesn’t like MQA they don’t listen to it while if a liberal doesn’t like MQA they want it abolished , sign of the times. ....Just kidding around.

[JBT]

A Conversation With Mark Waldrep



https://hometheaterhifi.com/features...-mark-waldrep/

[Poppyhome]

Originally Posted by JBT

A Conversation With Mark Waldrep



https://hometheaterhifi.com/features...-mark-waldrep/

An excerpt -

CL I mean there is no question that you have strong opinions about various, and sometimes controversial audio subjects. Yet you go to great lengths to back up what you believe and why. And all of it is derived from your experience and supported by grounded, factual knowledge.

MW Well look, it’s just not worth it to visit a blog and start ranting and raving against others with different perspectives. Because, ultimately, when people come down to that pissed-off, walk away point in those conversations, ninety percent of the time what you’ll hear from a subjectivist audiophile is “it just sounds better. I like it, so go away!” I certainly appreciate that people are going to like what they’re going to like and that’s going to affect a lot of things in their life including their audio preferences. But, if you’re a DSD guy for example, I’m going to want you to know how limited a 1-bit encoding system really is. So, running around saying that this is the newest “analog-like” digital format that’s going to take over the world because it sounds so much better, is just not factually true. The same thing is true for the new MQA format…

CL (Laughs) I was going to ask you about that later but, go ahead, tell me how you really feel!

MW People need to realize, first and foremost, the music industry is a business. It’s a business for Robert Stuart of Meridian and MQA, it’s a business for Synergistic Research and AudioQuest, it’s a business for all these people that show up at the trade shows. And while it may be a fun thing to be involved in, at the end of the day companies need to return a profit or they’re out of business. With that in mind, if I can sell you something that you believe is an enhancement to your system or is something that you enjoy, all while allowing me to make a profit, then so be it. But we have to address the science or technology behind new approaches or formats. And you have to survey experts and researchers and arrive at your own conclusions. That’s what I tried to do by including a lot of the back-and-forth with people who have challenged my positions over the years. I talk to people like John Siau of Benchmark Digital, who is an absolutely brilliant analog and digital design engineer. I listen very carefully to other folks as smart as him. I know and have been friends with Robert Stuart for years, but the realities of what he’s trying to pull off with MQA just don’t add up for me. So, drawing on my own experience plus what a number of others who are smarter than I am are saying, it appears that MQA is more of a business play than exciting new audio format. I believe it solves a problem that doesn’t exist.

CL So, you think it’s more of a Digital Rights Management/licensing scheme?

MW Yes, and more. When I see MQA being adopted by Universal and by Sony and being used by various hardware manufacturers, it’s protectionism. These companies are reticent about giving you the ultimate listening experience from their masters, they’re giving you the MQA version which they claim will provide a better listening experience than what you’re getting now. The labels love it because they get to sell you a new version of something you probably already own in several different iterations. MQA loves it because they charge a royalty fee on every step of the production process — through hardware and software. And consumers are left unconvinced through a sort of Shock-and-Awe campaign. MQA proponents will say “Doesn’t this sound great?” Well okay, sure it does but play me the original version because that sounded great, too. MQA’s ability to stream high quality audio through a low bandwidth device and have it sound as good as AIX’s original hi-res stuff would be great. But it doesn’t do anything for popular music from Bruce Springsteen, or Beyoncé or Kanye. All of their tracks don’t have anything in them that benefits from being folded into MQA’s “Music Origami” compression scheme. It’s a closed system that can be accomplished by other non-exclusive means.

CL To this day, I have yet to hear an A-B comparison of an MQA encoded track versus a non-MQA version so that I could make a proper judgement for myself. I’ve heard plenty of MQA material at audio shows, in absence of anything to compare them to, they sounded fine.

MW Four years ago, I had lunch with Bob Stuart and he asked me to send him some tracks which he said he would encode with MQA so that I could make my own comparison. I sent him the tracks. I know he’s got them, he was very complimentary about their sound quality. I’m still waiting to get the MQA versions back. Anyhow, it’s four years later and I’ve stopped asking about them.

CL What do you think you would find if you ever did get those encoded tracks?

MW If got them back and I was able to analyze A (MQA encoded) vs B (original) I would find that one was lossy where the other was not. The encoded file may have less bandwidth for easier streaming, but we can currently use FLAC to do streaming unfold/decoding and maintain the same quality at the receiving end that I’ve got in the original, without using his new expensive method.


Ron

[Antonmb]

Originally Posted by 1KW

If a conservative doesn’t like MQA they don’t listen to it while if a liberal doesn’t like MQA they want it abolished , sign of the times.

Dave, I don’t think this discussion needs to be framed in political terms. I don’t want to see it abolished, I just don’t want to see it become universal so I have to pay for it if I don’t want it. And that’s what Bob Stuart is advocating, universal inclusion - not just streaming, which I think is fine, but also in all downloads and CDs. Once the major labels encode all their music with MQA, then we all have to pay for it, from artist to consumer, whether we want to or not. I think it makes sense for streaming to allow higher res in reduced bandwidth rates, but am unconvinced of its value in high res downloads or CDs. I think some lose sight of the fact that this isn’t just about Tidal streaming, but potentially about all recorded music. So let tidal stream MQA and all who want to have it, can - but leave it out of other formats unless both MQA and non-MQA will be made available.

[FreddieFerric]

Originally Posted by Poppyhome

An excerpt -

CL I mean there is no question that you have strong opinions about various, and sometimes controversial audio subjects. Yet you go to great lengths to back up what you believe and why. And all of it is derived from your experience and supported by grounded, factual knowledge.

MW Well look, it’s just not worth it to visit a blog and start ranting and raving against others with different perspectives. Because, ultimately, when people come down to that pissed-off, walk away point in those conversations, ninety percent of the time what you’ll hear from a subjectivist audiophile is “it just sounds better. I like it, so go away!” I certainly appreciate that people are going to like what they’re going to like and that’s going to affect a lot of things in their life including their audio preferences. But, if you’re a DSD guy for example, I’m going to want you to know how limited a 1-bit encoding system really is. So, running around saying that this is the newest “analog-like” digital format that’s going to take over the world because it sounds so much better, is just not factually true. The same thing is true for the new MQA format…

CL (Laughs) I was going to ask you about that later but, go ahead, tell me how you really feel!

MW People need to realize, first and foremost, the music industry is a business. It’s a business for Robert Stuart of Meridian and MQA, it’s a business for Synergistic Research and AudioQuest, it’s a business for all these people that show up at the trade shows. And while it may be a fun thing to be involved in, at the end of the day companies need to return a profit or they’re out of business. With that in mind, if I can sell you something that you believe is an enhancement to your system or is something that you enjoy, all while allowing me to make a profit, then so be it. But we have to address the science or technology behind new approaches or formats. And you have to survey experts and researchers and arrive at your own conclusions. That’s what I tried to do by including a lot of the back-and-forth with people who have challenged my positions over the years. I talk to people like John Siau of Benchmark Digital, who is an absolutely brilliant analog and digital design engineer. I listen very carefully to other folks as smart as him. I know and have been friends with Robert Stuart for years, but the realities of what he’s trying to pull off with MQA just don’t add up for me. So, drawing on my own experience plus what a number of others who are smarter than I am are saying, it appears that MQA is more of a business play than exciting new audio format. I believe it solves a problem that doesn’t exist.

CL So, you think it’s more of a Digital Rights Management/licensing scheme?

MW Yes, and more. When I see MQA being adopted by Universal and by Sony and being used by various hardware manufacturers, it’s protectionism. These companies are reticent about giving you the ultimate listening experience from their masters, they’re giving you the MQA version which they claim will provide a better listening experience than what you’re getting now. The labels love it because they get to sell you a new version of something you probably already own in several different iterations. MQA loves it because they charge a royalty fee on every step of the production process — through hardware and software. And consumers are left unconvinced through a sort of Shock-and-Awe campaign. MQA proponents will say “Doesn’t this sound great?” Well okay, sure it does but play me the original version because that sounded great, too. MQA’s ability to stream high quality audio through a low bandwidth device and have it sound as good as AIX’s original hi-res stuff would be great. But it doesn’t do anything for popular music from Bruce Springsteen, or Beyoncé or Kanye. All of their tracks don’t have anything in them that benefits from being folded into MQA’s “Music Origami” compression scheme. It’s a closed system that can be accomplished by other non-exclusive means.

CL To this day, I have yet to hear an A-B comparison of an MQA encoded track versus a non-MQA version so that I could make a proper judgement for myself. I’ve heard plenty of MQA material at audio shows, in absence of anything to compare them to, they sounded fine.

MW Four years ago, I had lunch with Bob Stuart and he asked me to send him some tracks which he said he would encode with MQA so that I could make my own comparison. I sent him the tracks. I know he’s got them, he was very complimentary about their sound quality. I’m still waiting to get the MQA versions back. Anyhow, it’s four years later and I’ve stopped asking about them.

CL What do you think you would find if you ever did get those encoded tracks?

MW If got them back and I was able to analyze A (MQA encoded) vs B (original) I would find that one was lossy where the other was not. The encoded file may have less bandwidth for easier streaming, but we can currently use FLAC to do streaming unfold/decoding and maintain the same quality at the receiving end that I’ve got in the original, without using his new expensive method.


Ron

Originally Posted by Antonmb

Dave, I don’t think this discussion needs to be framed in political terms. I don’t want to see it abolished, I just don’t want to see it become universal so I have to pay for it if I don’t want it. And that’s what Bob Stuart is advocating, universal inclusion - not just streaming, which I think is fine, but also in all downloads and CDs. Once the major labels encode all their music with MQA, then we all have to pay for it, from artist to consumer, whether we want to or not. I think it makes sense for streaming to allow higher res in reduced bandwidth rates, but am unconvinced of its value in high res downloads or CDs. I think some lose sight of the fact that this isn’t just about Tidal streaming, but potentially about all recorded music. So let tidal stream MQA and all who want to have it, can - but leave it out of other formats unless both MQA and non-MQA will be made available.

Thank you for these replies gentlemen.

[1KW]

Originally Posted by Antonmb

Dave, I don’t think this discussion needs to be framed in political terms. I don’t want to see it abolished, I just don’t want to see it become universal so I have to pay for it if I don’t want it. And that’s what Bob Stuart is advocating, universal inclusion - not just streaming, which I think is fine, but also in all downloads and CDs. Once the major labels encode all their music with MQA, then we all have to pay for it, from artist to consumer, whether we want to or not. I think it makes sense for streaming to allow higher res in reduced bandwidth rates, but am unconvinced of its value in high res downloads or CDs. I think some lose sight of the fact that this isn’t just about Tidal streaming, but potentially about all recorded music. So let tidal stream MQA and all who want to have it, can - but leave it out of other formats unless both MQA and non-MQA will be made available.

I was kidding around

[Antonmb]

Originally Posted by 1KW

I was kidding around

It's all good, I just got a little wound up - I'll go back to the music now.

[JBT]

Originally Posted by Antonmb

Dave, I don’t think this discussion needs to be framed in political terms. I don’t want to see it abolished, I just don’t want to see it become universal so I have to pay for it if I don’t want it. And that’s what Bob Stuart is advocating, universal inclusion - not just streaming, which I think is fine, but also in all downloads and CDs. Once the major labels encode all their music with MQA, then we all have to pay for it, from artist to consumer, whether we want to or not. I think it makes sense for streaming to allow higher res in reduced bandwidth rates, but am unconvinced of its value in high res downloads or CDs. I think some lose sight of the fact that this isn’t just about Tidal streaming, but potentially about all recorded music. So let tidal stream MQA and all who want to have it, can - but leave it out of other formats unless both MQA and non-MQA will be made available.