Whither MQA

[Gregadd]

The answer is that I never believed in caveat emptor or market correction. How many people get ripped off before that happens? There is a fundamental difference between claiming The Worlds Best Pizza ( a subjective opinion) and falsely claiming you only use real cheese.
You are right about one thing. There is no reason for me to continue to beat this dead horse.

 

[Lee]

" I can't believe it's not butter." It is okay to say it tastes like butter. You just can't claim margerine is butter. First of all I don't think "audibly or perceptually lossless" is a thing. But just dig a little deeper. That argument is clearly debunked in the first part of the video I posted above. The more you struggle the tighter the constrictor gets.

No, it’s definitely real. The triangular encoding process is below our hearing range. Spectral levels to -120db.

MQA Time-domain Accuracy & Digital Audio Quality

Even at high sample rates, standard PCM audio ‘smears’ important timing information. A new digital format, MQA, promises vastly improved time-domain accuracy — without the huge file sizes.

www.soundonsound.com

 

[Elliot G.]

The answer is that I never believed in caveat emptor or market correction. How many people get ripped off before that happens? There is a fundamental difference between claiming The Worlds Best Pizza ( a subjective opinion) and falsely claiming you only use real cheese.
You are right about one thing. There is no reason for me to continue to beat this dead horse.

agreed , excellent post. Its time to bury Seabisquit!

 

[Gregadd]

No, it’s definitely real. The triangular encoding process is below our hearing range. Spectral levels to -120db.

MQA Time-domain Accuracy & Digital Audio Quality

Even at high sample rates, standard PCM audio ‘smears’ important timing information. A new digital format, MQA, promises vastly improved time-domain accuracy — without the huge file sizes.

www.soundonsound.com

Epitaph-I can't beleive it's not butter may be good it's just not butter.
I's like Tom Bradys' retirement I mean it this time.

 

[thedudeabides]

I have been a fan of MQA since hearing Peter McGrath’s recordings. The MQA encoded tracks sound significantly better than the unencoded versions. What Stuart and Craven created was innovative.

Hi Lee,

Assuming you are correct (have no reason to doubt) why did it fail? Another format that noone wanted, vodoo science that noone understood, folks disagreeing with your assertion (seem to be alot on this forum), Stewart negative bias, not enough manufacturers buying in, corporate mismanagement, licensing fees, other mysterious hi end audio forces?

Seems like Tidal adoption would have been a huge asset to sustain MQA. Cannot believe
some comments, way over the top for me. Confused.

 

[Yahooboy]

No, it’s definitely real. The triangular encoding process is below our hearing range. Spectral levels to -120db.

MQA Time-domain Accuracy & Digital Audio Quality

Even at high sample rates, standard PCM audio ‘smears’ important timing information. A new digital format, MQA, promises vastly improved time-domain accuracy — without the huge file sizes.

www.soundonsound.com

Lee this article might be of interest, remember it's no shame to ask for help

Denial

Denial is a defense mechanism in which an individual refuses to recognize or acknowledge objective facts or experiences. It’s an unconscious process that serves to protect the person from discomfort or anxiety.

www.psychologytoday.com

 

[AudioHR]

Hi Lee,

Assuming you are correct (have no reason to doubt) why did it fail? Another format that noone wanted, vodoo science that noone understood, folks disagreeing with your assertion (seem to be alot on this forum), Stewart negative bias, not enough manufacturers buying in, corporate mismanagement, licensing fees, other mysterious hi end audio forces?

Seems like Tidal adoption would have been a huge asset to sustain MQA. Cannot believe
some comments, way over the top for me. Confused.

An excellent observation and subsequent questions. What happened?

 

[Rexp]

An excellent observation and subsequent questions. What happened?

Since Tidal apparently already have a hi-res FLAC offering good to go, I'd guess Tidal pulled out.

 

[GSOphile]

I am not an expert on this, but from what I read:
1. Tidal's adaptation of MQA, while important to some of us, is a pimple on the elephant's a$$.
2. The real money was in getting the music companies to sign up for the licensing fees associated with new music and especially remastering/re-releasing a large portion of their existing music catalogs.
3. The reduced bandwidth and storage requirements for high resolution justification has largely been made irrelevant with the widespread deployment of more cost effective storage, fiber networks and cell technology.
4. The superior audio quality aspect is questionable and also largely irrelevant to the masses who stream.
So I think MQA was, as many have said, primarily a money grab now backed by an evaporating business case.

 

[Lee]

I am not an expert on this, but from what I read:
1. Tidal's adaptation of MQA, while important to some of us, is a pimple on the elephant's a$$.
2. The real money was in getting the music companies to sign up for the licensing fees associated with new music and especially remastering/re-releasing a large portion of their existing music catalogs.
3. The reduced bandwidth and storage requirements for high resolution justification has largely been made irrelevant with the widespread deployment of more cost effective storage, fiber networks and cell technology.
4. The superior audio quality aspect is questionable and also largely irrelevant to the masses who stream.
So I think MQA was, as many have said, primarily a money grab now backed by an evaporating business case.

1. Pure speculation. If MQA is a big draw for the Masters tier then it may be important to Tidal.

2. What’s wrong with Stuart’s investors making money? That how capitalism works. On one hand, the anti-MQA zealots make fun of MQA for having a paltry revenue stream. On the other hand, they claim they are raping people via licensing fees. Which is it?

3. That’s highly debatable as often bandwidth is not available. It certainly has gotten a bit better since but is still an issue at scale.

4. It’s not questionable. The apodizing filters work to reduce ringing.

Evaporating business case? Speculation. How do you know if the Scala 6 technology is worthless?

 

[Lee]

Hi Lee,

Assuming you are correct (have no reason to doubt) why did it fail? Another format that noone wanted, vodoo science that noone understood, folks disagreeing with your assertion (seem to be alot on this forum), Stewart negative bias, not enough manufacturers buying in, corporate mismanagement, licensing fees, other mysterious hi end audio forces?

Seems like Tidal adoption would have been a huge asset to sustain MQA. Cannot believe
some comments, way over the top for me. Confused.

My point is we don’t have all the information to determine there was indeed a “failure”.

The base technology for both MQA and Scala 6 could be valuable to a wide variety of players. Let’s see what happens when the administration reorg is finished.

As for folks disgreeing with my opinion, that happens a lot on forums. I think if I could get more folks over to hear the before/after encoding files then there would be more fans of MQA. A lot of commenters simply don’t the critical listening skill, resolving stereo systems, or open mind needed to do a proper evaluation.

If the MQA sound is not special, why did the engineers at all the major labels find it compelling after testing? These weren’t the money guys. Yet they felt it was valuable enough to pass the test.

 

[GSOphile]

1. Pure speculation. If MQA is a big draw for the Masters tier then it may be important to Tidal.

2. What’s wrong with Stuart’s investors making money? That how capitalism works. On one hand, the anti-MQA zealots make fun of MQA for having a paltry revenue stream. On the other hand, they claim they are raping people via licensing fees. Which is it?

3. That’s highly debatable as often bandwidth is not available. It certainly has gotten a bit better since but is still an issue at scale.

4. It’s not questionable. The apodizing filters work to reduce ringing.

Evaporating business case? Speculation. How do you know if the Scala 6 technology is worthless?

In the greater scheme Tidal is small potatoes, and other alternatives are available for high def streaming (see Qobuz, and apparently soon Tidal).
Absolutely nothing wrong with making money when you have a better mouse trap.
Actually high res audio does not require very high bandwidth. My bad. Probably should have confined my comment here to storage.
Certainly questionable in the minds of many who have done comparisons. From what I read, the results have been mixed. And I suspect that some of the improvements people hear with MQA have come from their more controlled and required remastering process rather than the technology itself.
Where did I say Scala 6 technology was worthless? That's TBD. My comments were r.e. MQA. (Interesting that Stuart has taken pains to name his new technology Scala 6 rather than a new version of MQA, which is beginning to look like a financial Scarlet Letter.)

 

[Lee]

In the greater scheme Tidal is small potatoes, and other alternatives are available for high def streaming (see Qobuz, and apparently soon Tidal).
Absolutely nothing wrong with making money when you have a better mouse trap.
Actually high res audio does not require very high bandwidth. My bad. Probably should have confined my comment here to storage.
Certainly questionable in the minds of many who have done comparisons. From what I read, the results have been mixed. And I suspect that some of the improvements people hear with MQA have come from their more controlled and required remastering process rather than the technology itself.
Where did I say Scala 6 technology was worthless? That's TBD. My comments were r.e. MQA. (Interesting that Stuart has taken pains to name his new technology Scala 6 rather than a new version of MQA, which is beginning to look like a financial Scarlet Letter.)

At this moment, we don’t know what the value of MQA is. It could be quite valuable to several participants in music for varying reasons. There is a large catalog of music in the format already and the major labels have committed to creating more of it.

Scala 6 is a different technology than MQA so perhaps Stuart and team want to make that distinction. My understanding is that it has a different application as well.

 

[Lee]

In the greater scheme Tidal is small potatoes, and other alternatives are available for high def streaming (see Qobuz, and apparently soon Tidal).
Absolutely nothing wrong with making money when you have a better mouse trap.
Actually high res audio does not require very high bandwidth. My bad. Probably should have confined my comment here to storage.
Certainly questionable in the minds of many who have done comparisons. From what I read, the results have been mixed. And I suspect that some of the improvements people hear with MQA have come from their more controlled and required remastering process rather than the technology itself.
Where did I say Scala 6 technology was worthless? That's TBD. My comments were r.e. MQA. (Interesting that Stuart has taken pains to name his new technology Scala 6 rather than a new version of MQA, which is beginning to look like a financial Scarlet Letter.)

Regarding Tidal being small potatoes, on this we agree. We audiophiles exist in a world where small sound differences are important but it’s a niche within a niche in the larger music buying community and the average citizen just doesn’t care or isn’t even aware of it.

That said, if this is true then why are MQA critics so vocal? Why not live and let live? Where has Bob Stuart harmed us as music lovers?

 

[GSOphile]

Regarding Tidal being small potatoes, on this we agree. We audiophiles exist in a world where small sound differences are important but it’s a niche within a niche in the larger music buying community and the average citizen just doesn’t care or isn’t even aware of it.

That said, if this is true then why are MQA critics so vocal? Why not live and let live? Where has Bob Stuart harmed us as music lovers?

Lee,
My Esoteric player supports MQA, but being primarily into classical music and not being a Tidal subscriber, I really don't care much either way. As an audiophile I was interested in the topic several years ago, but today my view is strictly from the bleachers. My only possibly relevant complaint would be if MQA licensing and process requirements were to drive up the price of the music I like with questionable sonic benefits. To date, I do not perceive that it has, although if MQA were to be adopted by the music industry as the dominant standard, that would be another matter.
Peace, brother.

 

[Audire]

Lee,
My Esoteric player supports MQA, but being primarily into classical music and not being a Tidal subscriber, I really don't care much either way. As an audiophile I was interested in the topic several years ago, but today my view is strictly from the bleachers. My only possibly relevant complaint would be if MQA licensing and process requirements were to drive up the price of the music I like with questionable sonic benefits. To date, I do not perceive that it has, although if MQA with its were to be adopted by the music industry as the dominant standard, that would be another matter.
Peace, brother.

We also could care less about MQA. I have exactly 1 MQA CD - Raven. Fortunately it was given to us as the sound isn’t anything special. Our new DAC won’t be a MQA DAC. No great loss.

 

[Joe Whip]

Lee, please don’t tell folks that don’t want MQA that they can’t hear, or lack critical listening skills or do not have resolving enough systems, that is condescending and an issue I have with the high end audio press.

 

[AudioHR]

Lee,
My Esoteric player supports MQA, but being primarily into classical music and not being a Tidal subscriber, I really don't care much either way. As an audiophile I was interested in the topic several years ago, but today my view is strictly from the bleachers. My only possibly relevant complaint would be if MQA licensing and process requirements were to drive up the price of the music I like with questionable sonic benefits. To date, I do not perceive that it has, although if MQA were to be adopted by the music industry as the dominant standard, that would be another matter.
Peace, brother.

Great conversation by the way! Two different sides to the same coin being debated rationally. Well done!

 

[KeithR]

This is not an intelligent reply. All three of these folks are superbly talented folks with excellent critical listening skills. They found value in the sound quality of MQA. Just because it may have failed (we don't know this yet) as a business does not mean it doesn't add value sonically.

Al doesn’t even stream, Lee

 

[Rexp]

It will be interesting to see if any reviewers that have supported MQA like Jason Serenius come out and say Tidals new hi-res FLAC tier is inferior.