Further thoughts on MQA....is it all it seems???

[DaveyF]

Today, I had a very enlightening conversation with a former WBF member, who one might consider an expert in the digital audio field.
After a lot of discussion about the MQA format on other threads...and after I had defended the format due to my listening experience with it, this discussion came as something of a mind bender!!!

Is MQA all that it seems???

My fellow ap'hile friend brought up some very good points that have me asking.....is MQA nothing more than an elaborate SCAM!!!

Yes, you read that right...a SCAM!!!

Here was the gist of the conversation after I had opined that the MQA demo that I heard was incredibly impressive..

My expert friend asked me an interesting question....( and after he had learned that the demo was put on by Peter McGrath and utilizing the Wilson speakers and the latest MSB Select 11 DAC)...
the question was: how were the original files recorded...and to my recollection, the answer to that was at the standard 16/44 process. I'm fairly certain that Peter had mentioned this, due to the fact that the files he was
using were a) proprietary for his use and an early recording that he personally did and b) said files were given to Meridian/ MQA for the processing of the software conversion ( IOW from 16/44 to the new MQA sample).

Upon hearing this, my friend stated that something was a little odd here?? He stated that basically any file could be up sampled to a mathematical extension of 16 and 44...meaning that the sample could be at 256 or 96 or whatever and this would very well account for what he felt were the " euphonics" introduced into the sound to give the effect that I had heard that evening!! So, IOW, the basic aspect of MQA is a phony! The processing is basically no different than any other upsample in the digital realm....and in some ways worse as the format is 'lossy"
Could this be a explanation for the SQ that the whole group heard that night??? very possibly so, and one that would not sit well with me as I am not one that enjoys being duped!

Along with the explanation, my friend stated that it is apparently well known that MQA is based on faulty science....and that Bob Stuart is in fact in dire straits with his company- and therefore looking for any opportunity to 'score'!!

Interesting scenario indeed....................


So, IF Peter McGrath and others ( I'm thinking of JA here) are indeed 'shilling' for Bob and Meridian---well let's just say that would be --------------------------------------------

OTOH, what i heard is what I heard..and there were several other real techies in the audience that night; all of us were very impressed. Leading me to question whether this is one very sophisticated "pull the wool over the eyes" or
maybe...MQA is the real deal. Time will surely tell, but for now, i am holding back on my thoughts....at least in regards to the MQA DAC question.

Here's another question....and one that is perhaps not that easy to answer, IF MQA is in fact just another upsample that allows for an "euphonic" effect ( but one that is certainly (In my very humble opinion) favorable to the music) is the secrecy and marketing shadiness necessary?? Or, would it be more acceptable ( and more ethical) to call it what it is and let the chips fall where they may....Your thoughts???

 

[awsmone]

Today, I had a very enlightening conversation with a former WBF member, who one might consider an expert in the digital audio field.
After a lot of discussion about the MQA format on other threads...and after I had defended the format due to my listening experience with it, this discussion came as something of a mind bender!!!

Is MQA all that it seems???

My fellow ap'hile friend brought up some very good points that have me asking.....is MQA nothing more than an elaborate SCAM!!!

Yes, you read that right...a SCAM!!!

Here was the gist of the conversation after I had opined that the MQA demo that I heard was incredibly impressive..

My expert friend asked me an interesting question....( and after he had learned that the demo was put on by Peter McGraph and utilizing the Wilson speakers and the latest MSB Select 11 DAC)...
the question was: how were the original files recorded...and to my recollection, the answer to that was at the standard 16/44 process. I'm fairly certain that Peter had mentioned this, due to the fact that the files he was
using were a) proprietary for his use and an early recording that he personally did and b) said files were given to Meridian/ MQA for the processing of the software conversion ( IOW from 16/44 to the new MQA sample).

Upon hearing this, my friend stated that something was a little odd here?? He stated that basically any file could be up sampled to a mathematical extension of 16 and 44...meaning that the sample could be at 256 or 96 or whatever and this would very well account for what he felt were the " euphonics" introduced into the sound to give the effect that I had heard that evening!! So, IOW, the basic aspect of MQA is a phony! The processing is basically no different than any other upsample in the digital realm....and in some ways worse as the format is 'lossy"
Could this be a explanation for the SQ that the whole group heard that night??? very possibly so, and one that would not sit well with me as I am not one that enjoys being duped!

Along with the explanation, my friend stated that it is apparently well known that MQA is based on faulty science....and that Bob Stuart is in fact in dire straits with his company- and therefore looking for any opportunity to 'score'!!

Interesting scenario indeed....................


So, IF Peter McGraph and others ( I'm thinking of JA here) are indeed 'shilling' for Bob and Meridian---well let's just say that would be --------------------------------------------

OTOH, what i heard is what I heard..and there were several other real techies in the audience that night; all of us were very impressed. Leading me to question whether this is one very sophisticated "pull the wool over the eyes" or
maybe...MQA is the real deal. Time will surely tell, but for now, i am holding back on my thoughts....at least in regards to the MQA DAC question.

Here's another question....and one that is perhaps not that easy to answer, IF MQA is in fact just another upsample that allows for an "euphonic" effect ( but one that is certainly (In my very humble opinion) favorable to the music) is the secrecy and marketing shadiness necessary?? Or, would it be more acceptable ( and more ethical) to call it what it is and let the chips fall where they may....Your thoughts???

I do find it ironic that after I tried to start a rationale discussion on the science behind MQA not how it sounds
You blasted me about that... I might ad the same day I was due to meet with Meridian to demonstrate MQA

And now you turn around and have second thoughts ?

MANY of us have questioned the science behind it

It was noted that one of the files for comparison on 2l website that MQA claimed was from a 16 bit file appeared to actually be reshape from a 24 bit file

I have no doubt that a minimal phase long filter sounds very attractive sonically, I have demonstrated that to myself on many occasions as have others

But you don't need MQA for that

If you read the patent, which I have

The main aim has nothing to do with sonics which are secondary to the main aim

The main aim is to allow download sites to have one package that can be different things to different end users

So they don't need to duplicate downloads in different resolutions on their website dsd not withstanding

I am quite seriously a bit miffed by your behaviour to us trying to say" hang on a minute " about MQA ?

 

[awsmone]

Further

I suggest you reread everything JA has written about MQA as I have...before you make innuendo about him being a Meridian "schilling"

I have found his writing on the matter most balanced and with a fair degree of skepticism mixed with interest ....

Maybe then you might want to modify that statement

IMHO it's very unfair.......especially in comparison to your own enthusiasm on MQA based on one Demo!

 

[rbbert]

Further

I suggest you reread everything JA has written about MQA as I have...before you make innuendo about him being a Meridian "schilling"

I have found his writing on the matter most balanced and with a fair degree of skepticism mixed with interest ....

Maybe then you might want to modify that statement

IMHO it's very unfair.......especially in comparison to your own enthusiasm on MQA based on one Demo!

He might have been thinking about Robert Harley rather than John Atkinson. Harley has expressed no reservations at all about MQA. IMHO, Atkinson has not been skeptical enough, but he is clearly not as hogwild about it as Harley.

 

[awsmone]

yes easily confused JA and RH are right next to each other on QWERTY keyboard ........lol

 

[spiritofmusic]

Yep, I've often met these two at shows, called Robert, John, and John, Robert.
Embarrassing!

 

[awsmone]

Wasn't JR killed off in Dallas.....???

 

[spiritofmusic]

No, you got that wrong.
He WAS shot.
But you can never keep a good man down.
His irritating brother unfortunately died and came back to life.

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

There is something here that is to me heartening: Intellectual Honesty.

I congratulate DaveyF for having the courage to reverse or question his position. Something I would like see more in Audiophile debates..heck! in debates!
Here is a person that came off a demo that bowled him over and yet had the honesty to question his own findings. We haven't seen the likes of that here for a while ..perhaps .. ever.
as for MQA it seems to be an end-to-end process. IOW it must be present at the recording stage. Taking an RBCD file and manipulating to go through some MQA-ing is not what it is about or should be. That the files sounded different (If that was the case) could well be a case of a re-mastering. THe process of mastering can make an immense difference in the way a given piece of recorded music sounds.

As for the Hi-Rez issue ... I am waiting for some serious proof that we can hear through the air anything over 15 KHz .. The vast majority of people on this board (I would venture most of us are over 50 or getting close to 50), hears nothing above 15 KHz and I am being generous so whatever MQA would bring up there is for their dogs and eventual neighboring bats...

 

[awsmone]

Thats fine Frantz ...if he didn't bludgeon everyone in the mean time that they were wrong in questioning his original conclusion

He changed direction unapologetically ...thats my point !

I found his zealous attitude pretty objectionable, despite rationale entreaties by multi people on many occasions......

Your reasoning about hearing is actually irrelevant and covered multiple times.....its not about frequency response, but time domain and having enough frequency headroom, to use an appropriate "musical", or "perception appealing" filter

Hearing frequency is not the issue

MQA own specificatiions point to antialaising bleed thru in 0-7 kHz region, surely a hearing sensitive region even to people in their seventies?

 

[spiritofmusic]

Frantz, by yr definition MQA can only be kosher w new recordings that start w MQA in the studio/mixing desk?
This rules out ALMOST EVERYTHING already recorded.
If it's yet ANOTHER HiRez manipulation, count me out.
I'm with "You Can Call Me Al (M)" on this one.
What I want to know from the long term pro digital crowd of which there are many members on this forum, is since you were all so happy w digital as it improved thru the early days, and continually extolled its virtues over analog in the 80s and onwards, why the "need" to go Hi Rez, MQA etc? Are we saying it was ahead of vinyl in the 90s, and is even more superior now?
Or that indeed it wasn't QUITE so good, and needed improving to keep pace w good analog?
For my part w RBCD so comprehensively superb chez moi with rigorous attention to mains supply and noise reduction, I look at all this with a wry smile.
Now if MQA can unwind and reverse two decades of brick walling, cliff edge mastering, and Hot Mastering cultural vandalism, to make a butchered digital title sound as manageable as its superior vinyl equivalent, I'll sit up and take notice.
But please, audiophile quality Hi Rez v MQA comparisons are of no interest to me and the vast majority on this forum Ill venture to guess.

 

[PeterA]

FrantzM, I applaud intellectual honesty, and there have been examples of it here in the past, but I have to agree with awsmone on this one. DaveyF criticized all those who dared to offer comments about MQA on that other thread for not having heard it. DaveyF soundly rejected skepticism about the technology from those who had not yet actually heard a demo. And now suddenly simply discussing MQA with someone else who is an "expert" and skeptic is enough to have him second guessing the merits of the format? And even suggesting that it might be a scam?

If one is open to an honest discussion, which is what these threads should be all about, then one should respect opposing opinions from current WBF members based on the technology itself just as he respects the skepticism and explanation of the "expert" former WBF member. I wonder if that someone once went by the name of Blizzard or Amirm.

 

[PeterA]

Frantz, by yr definition MQA can only be kosher w new recordings that start w MQA in the studio/mixing desk?
This rules out ALMOST EVERYTHING already recorded.
If it's yet ANOTHER HiRez manipulation, count me out.
I'm with "You Can Call Me Al (M)" on this one.
What I want to know from the long term pro digital crowd of which there are many members on this forum, is since you were all so happy w digital as it improved thru the early days, and continually extolled its virtues over analog in the 80s and onwards, why the "need" to go Hi Rez, MQA etc? Are we saying it was ahead of vinyl in the 90s, and is even more superior now?
Or that indeed it wasn't QUITE so good, and needed improving to keep pace w good analog?
For my part w RBCD so comprehensively superb chez moi with rigorous attention to mains supply and noise reduction, I look at all this with a wry smile.
Now if MQA can unwind and reverse two decades of brick walling, cliff edge mastering, and Hot Mastering cultural vandalism, to make a butchered digital title sound as manageable as its superior vinyl equivalent, I'll sit up and take notice.
But please, audiophile quality Hi Rez v MQA comparisons are of no interest to me and the vast majority on this forum Ill venture to guess.

Good one Marc. I have asked this very question in the past of those who defend RBCD. Perhaps ever increasing bit rates and word lengths was an attempt to improve the sound of digital while we waited for the implementation of standard RBCD playback to improve. And the constant reference of "more analog like" is not lost on the analog crowd.

 

[Joe Whip]

Let me take a stab at that one. Note what has not changed is the CD or the data on it if ripped. Modern digital just does a better job in decoding it. The analog output stage of DACs has also improved. The Yggy has a darn good one for example. This is just like vinyl. The actual disc that is played on a TT doesn't change as you take it to better and better turntables. Seems like a red herring argument to me.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Absolutely Peter.
I have no axe to grind over digital anymore, I look fwd everyday to playing cds.
Digital is no slouch at all, even in comparison to stellar analog.
And IMHO, it's that digital is straying onto, and finally emulating, so many things that analog has always had sole preserve on, that is making me smile.
What I'm esp chuffed about is that I'm achieving this w good old RBCD.
Now this is a thread about MQA, I'll leave the MQA v non MQA comments to other threads.
But I find it a grand irony that my love for digital has finally come as it plays in analog territory, than in forging a massive superiority in terms I wouldn't hear from a good tt.
And in the pursuit of balance, I can now use my digital as part of the roadmap to even better analog regarding a tentative final tt/arm upgrade.

 

[microstrip]

Hi

There is something here that is to me heartening: Intellectual Honesty.

I congratulate DaveyF for having the courage to reverse or question his position. Something I would like see more in Audiophile debates..heck! in debates!
Here is a person that came off a demo that bowled him over and yet had the honesty to question his own findings. We haven't seen the likes of that here for a while ..perhaps .. ever.
as for MQA it seems to be an end-to-end process. IOW it must be present at the recording stage. Taking an RBCD file and manipulating to go through some MQA-ing is not what it is about or should be. That the files sounded different (If that was the case) could well be a case of a re-mastering. THe process of mastering can make an immense difference in the way a given piece of recorded music sounds.

As for the Hi-Rez issue ... I am waiting for some serious proof that we can hear through the air anything over 15 KHz .. The vast majority of people on this board (I would venture most of us are over 50 or getting close to 50), hears nothing above 15 KHz and I am being generous so whatever MQA would bring up there is for their dogs and eventual neighboring bats...

I would say Intellectual Ignorance ... We are mostly speculating on our own ignorance, nothing else, bipolar behavior is a consequence ...

BTW, JA measured the spectral content of his own files before and after MCA and concluded that they were not remastered.

Considering Hi-Rez IMHO you are taking the wrong approach focusing on the characteristics of the subject hearing and ignoring that Hi-Rez in part of an implementation of sound reproduction. It seems that by any reason we do no know exactly, the extra information encoded in the Hi-Rez files allows high-end designers to implement a better sounding system. This is what matters, IMHO the challenge is trying to find what is this reason. But yes, audiences love nice sentences about dogs and bats ...

And surely I will stay silent on subjective MQA until DCS releases the MQA upgrade.

 

[metaphacts]

My expert friend asked me an interesting question....( and after he had learned that the demo was put on by Peter McGraph and utilizing the Wilson speakers and the latest MSB Select 11 DAC)...
the question was: how were the original files recorded...and to my recollection, the answer to that was at the standard 16/44 process. I'm fairly certain that Peter had mentioned this, due to the fact that the files he was
using were a) proprietary for his use and an early recording that he personally did and b) said files were given to Meridian/ MQA for the processing of the software conversion ( IOW from 16/44 to the new MQA sample)..

Peter McGrath's (and it is McGrath, not McGraph) files come from a wide variety of recording equipment over a time period back to his earliest recordings. Some are 16/44 but many are at higher res than that. I cannot speak for which ones he chose to play when you were in the room. However I would be surprised if there were not a number of recordings that were not originally 16/44. That would be a first and to do so would eliminate much of his catalog of recordings.

 

[Ken Newton]

Setting aside any discussion of MQA's business strategy, below is my perception of MQA's audio performance strategy.

First, let's briefly review the performance strategy of RBCD. Recall that RBCD is a frequency-domain optimized format. The specification maximizes audio signal bandwidth carried within the available information channel capacity. RBCD's channel bandwidth capacity (the Nyquist frequency) is 22.05kHz, and the audio signal bandwith bumps right up to that capacity. To prevent aliasing artifacts, which would occur should the signal violate the closely spaced channel bandwidth capacity, the CD format necessitates brickwall filtering of the signal band. Such brickwall filtering allows the signal to be accurately captured and reproduced (as far as frequency-domain parameters, such as frequency response) right up near the limit of CD's 22.05kHz channel. However, brickwall filters also smear any time-domain information carried by the signal. Audio doesn't only carry frequency-domain information it also carries time-domain information, the sensitivity of human beings to which is debated.

From what I've been able to conclude from reading MQA related papers, MQA is intended to offer an time-domain optimized format. The primary performance objective being the minimization of time-domain information smearing. The key to optimizing for the time-domain is to have a channel capacity much greater than the signal bandwidth, on the order of multiple octaves. This 'overly' wide channel enables employment of gently sloping anti-alias filters, thus minimizing time-domain smearing.

High-Rez digital is very capable of providing a time-domain optimized performance itself, and at much lower levels of quantization noise than MQA. The problem is that there is no industry requirement for that. This digital audio industry is focused around frequency-domain optimization. That's why the High-Rez focus on what ultrasonic content is present, or not, from music and on whether we can perceive that even if it is present. This is where MQA comes in. It provides an time-domain optimized recording through replay performance standard. Of course, all of this assumes that RBCD's lack of consideration for the time-domain is a major factor contributing to unsatisfying 'digital sound'.

 

[asiufy]

Davey,

Your friend took one too many hits on the Kool Aid, it seems, as his premise is faulty. We didn't play anything 16/44, everything was 24/48 or higher.

And again, no upsampling can do what the MQA processing does/did to those files.

So, sorry, but your friend is operating on faulty premises...


cheers,
alex

 

[ack]

Davey, congratulations on being so open and honest about a potential change of heart - not too many are brave enough to do this. I'll just briefly repeat what I said in other threads:

1) I was not as impressed during my recent MQA demo of original hi-rez material from 2L on the Berkeley Ref2 a couple of weeks ago, as I was with top plain RBCD from dCS and Spectral last year, with effectively the same rest of the hardware, if not a later/better revision of the Cygnus speakers in the MQA audition

2) It still seems to me MQA is meant to be nothing more than "great sound for the streaming masses". We audiophiles have true hirez, if we need it, albeit the wasteful data sizes