And by the way, what does opposition to MQA have to do with preference for a somewhat "disembodied" sound, as Karen suggests? If your non-MQA digital produces such a sound, rather than an earthy one (unless that is not in the recording), your digital is in a world of trouble, and you have to try to fix it.
SPACE: THE FINAL FRONTIER
- Thread starter Karen Sumner
- Start date
You are of course entitled to your opinion. Perhaps you have outlined the technical basis for your opinion in detail elsewhere. As a stand alone statement, however, what you have said is an ad hominem attack, not only of Bob Stuart, but anyone in the industry who hears MQA as a step forward in digital sound reproduction.
As far as PRaT is concerned, I agree with you that it is only partly descriptive of what is important in home music listening experiences. Thank you all who are still using the phrase and its acronym for fleshing out a definition. If the term works for you, use it, but I think that for anyone who has become interested in high end audio over the past 20 years, it's etiology misses the mark. We could serve these more recent acolytes better by providing actual descriptions of what we hear that helps us suspend our disbelief and invites us to engage more emotionally with music at home.
Last edited:
These are not incompatible opinions. MQA is not "lossless" (as was originally stated) nor is each file or album "authenticated" (as was originally stated) - even MQA now admits both those statements are not actually true. It is still quite possible for an "MQA album" to sound better than other versions of that album, either despite or because of the MQA filters.
There are numerous resources on the web about this, for example the links below.
Benchmark Audio has a technical paper here:
Is MQA DOA?
Is MQA Dead on Arrival? The truth is that we may eventually add MQA to the list of audio formats that have come and gone. This list includes HDCD, DVDA, and DSD. All three of these claimed to deliver some sort of sonic improvement, but all three have suffered from a lack of content. HDCD and the...
benchmarkmedia.com
And here is an interview of digital designer Andreas Koch (he does not mince words):
The technical problems are further summarized here:
MQA: A Review of controversies, concerns, and cautions
Editor's Note 1: MQA ltd was sent a copy of this article several days prior to the scheduled publication date. The company requested a phone conversation, which took place earlier this week. MQA was encouraged to write a response for inclusion with the article below, but it respectfully decline t...
audiophilestyle.com
MQA may actually *worsen* transient performance:
MUSINGS/MEASUREMENTS: On "blurring" and why MQA probably worsens transient smearing.
A blog for audiophiles about more objective topics. Measurements of audio gear. Reasonable, realistic, no snakeoil assessment of sound, and equipment.
archimago.blogspot.com
"MQA Really Is A Fraud!":
MQA Really Is A Fraud! – Real HD-Audio
www.realhd-audio.com
See also the numerous links in the article for further information.
I hesitate to use the term fraud. However, I have posted the technical argument on this forum. I also think MQA has admitted it is not "lossless." Individual opinions about its' sound quality notwithstanding.
So MQA had the expertise to develop the end-all beat-all of audio formats yet they could not discern that MQA was not lossless - well... until years later after they got caught with their pants down?
How about their claim that, regardless of the listening equipment or caliber thereof, for the first time ever we could hear exactly what the engineers heard in the studio - provided the little blue light illuminated?
IMO, they counted on the majority's inability to discern / interpret what we hear. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, they literally banked on our biggest weakness. Might that be why a couple of editors-in-chief's performance endorsements where so critical? Might that be why their endorsements were so frickin' over-the-top outrageous?
Can it possibly get more comical (sad) than this?
Even now 8 years later, many cannot grasp what they attempted to accomplish.
This is always the most fascinating part of fraud.
Last edited:
These opinions are mainly on semantics. What MQA mean by lossless is that after decoding the file we get exactly the data as intended by the rights owner. IMHO considering it a fraud with this basis is like considering that people releasing a redbook file transcribed form a DXD master are committing a fraud because they are not releasing the HiRez master to consumers, preventing us from listening with full quality.
MQA is much more than a compression algorithm - it has several steps of processing to overcome digital problems during recording phasis - but they keep this information proprietary.
Ignoring the trade and ethical aspects associated with proprietary standards my main concern with MQA was if it sounded good according to my preferences - it is a very secondary format for me, Qobuz streams mainly redbook and HiRez . A few MQA files I own sound really great in my system, I was happy with it. A few of my audiophile friends who listen to TIDAL prefer the MQA files, saying they sound better than regular files.
BTW, Tidal is responsible for disseminating a lot of misinformation about MQA - their FAQ's on the subject are often misleading. Please read ://www.mqa.co.uk for genuine information on it.
I was not the one calling it a "fraud" (although I do feel it is a "scam", in the sense that the advertising copy - including the original white paper - is intentionally misleading); my comment was meant to indicate that calling it a fraud is not inconsistent with some listeners' opinions that it provides better sound.These opinions are mainly on semantics. What MQA mean by lossless is that after decoding the file we get exactly the data as intended by the rights owner. IMHO considering it a fraud with this basis is like considering that people releasing a redbook file transcribed form a DXD master are committing a fraud because they are not releasing the HiRez master to consumers, preventing us from listening with full quality.
...Please read ://www.mqa.co.uk for genuine information on it.
I find the patent documents to be more informative than the website (although much technical information is still hidden - proprietary)
I assume these questions are rhetorical. What boggles my mind is the length to which people go to defend MQA. Even in the face of their own admission. Whether MQA is lossless is factual. Whether MQA "sounds good" is an opinion. Right or wrong, as my signature line states, "the error of opinion must be tolerated."
I appreciate that the error of opinion ought be tolerated to one degree or another. But we also need to bear in mind that errors of opinions can often times be costly, devastating, and even deadly. Especially when we take into consideration the potential of one's error and not just the actual.
The error of opinion with MQA has already been extremely costly to enthusiasts and mfg'ers in both time and money. If/when MQA succeeds, it would continue to be extremely costly from a time and money perspective but also devastating from a performance perspective.
Hopefully nobody died yet from one's opinion of MQA.
Obviousl MQA had no right to lie. I refer to the opinion of how it sounds. Many are of the opinion that it sounds like lossless. That may be true and based on fact. I have heard good mp3.
There was a time when the Federal Trade Commission had teeth. They would have sanctioned such behavior.
It wasn't just a lie. It was fraud through and through and not just Stuart fulfilling his childhood dream, but everybody associated with MQA and its promotion inclduing a couple of record labels and of course a couple of wholesale sell-out editors-in-chief. And from what I hear the fraudulent venture ain't dead yet.
I too was referring to those who opined about MQA's sound. Make no mistake, if our collective listening skills were a bit more up to speed as we pretend them to be, the MQA idea probably never would have been conceived or at least never made it past the drawing board. IMO, anyway. IOW, I'd venture it was our naivete that provided the furtile soil for others to take advantage.
Bear in mind that it was not the high-end audio sonic performance-oriented enthusiasts who took the wind out of MQA's sails. We failed misereably and many of us even embraced MQA as superior. Rather, it was the science-minded, even the pseudo-science-minded measurement types that dove into the bowels of MQA and came back saying MQA was full of crap. All the while the supposedly performance-oriented music loving types were begging manufacturers to add MQA to their list of compatible formats. From my list of limited sources, many manufacturers wanted nothing to do with MQA because they were already convinced it was inferior. But it was either give the masses the MQA they were crying for or risk going out of business. So many mfg'ers caved.
There was a time when such types would have been prosecuted and incarcerated. But these are days of lawlessness and getting worse. Remember, this was no nickel and dime slight of hand. We're talking the entire music industry globallly is what they were seeking to monopolize. Ultimately, we're talking potentially Bernie Madoff type of amounts.
Regardless, we are to blame for this fiasco. For allowing ourselves to be such easy prey by not doing our homework or performing due diligence. Except maybe talk a big game.
And all who did lost some of my respect. And of course, the development work to make their gear "compatible" obviously has to be paid by their customers, one way or another.
There are those who withstood: Ayre, Linn, Schiit (the manufacturer of my Yggdrasil DAC), Benchmark and maybe a few others. Kudos to them.
"Lie? Fraud through and through? Prosecution? Incarceration? Bernie Madoff?"
Did you go to law school over the weekend?
You may disagree with the description of the MQA technology. You may disagree with the people who think that it sounds better than Redbook CD.
I think you're posted characterizations are grossly overwrought.
You don't disagree with facts. You disagree with opinions or interpretations thereof. My point is there is enough truth in MQA claims to avoid prosecution. Mot scams contain some truth. Even snake oil has some medicinal benefits. It just never was the panacea some claimed it to be.. Remember it is primarily a compression codec. I recall even Michael Fremer claiming he would not commit to a dac unless it supports MQA. If you are a manufacturer you don't want your dac left on the shelf because it does support MQA.
steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
Can we get this thread back on topic please. Enough said about MQA
The last I looked, Karen's thread topic was
I encourage all contributors to stick to the original topic. This MQA topic does not IMO belong in this thread Let's get back to the interesting thread topic rather than this ugly commentary about MQA in Karen's thread.
Thank you for understanding
The last I looked, Karen's thread topic was
SPACE: THE FINAL FRONTIER
I encourage all contributors to stick to the original topic. This MQA topic does not IMO belong in this thread Let's get back to the interesting thread topic rather than this ugly commentary about MQA in Karen's thread.
Thank you for understanding
Karen herself was the one who brought up MQA in post # 143, and responses evolved from there.
Yet I am ready to move on from the topic, thanks for the reminder. I assume everyone else is ready to move on as well.
Similar threads
