This thread has been Moderated to remove posts that fell outside the guidelines as an ad hominem attack on another poster. Try to keep the discussion about the ideas rather than each other.
If you should ever have concerns that a poster is not being transparent by failing to disclose some industry association, then the appropriate course is to raise the issue with Mods/Admin.
Fair enough. Our bad. I was reacting to the statement that anyone who questions MQA is an extremist beyond reason.
Hilarious.
What I like about JIâs piece in Stereophile (besides being a basic pro vs con look - something Stereophile should have done from the beginning):
Is that it is a call of MQAâs bluff. Has Bob S and company really discovered something ânewâ in signal processing? Very unlikely. So what exactly IS âdeblurringâ? Probably just correction of phase distortion. Why tie it all up in a tidy âend to endâ, DRM format? Because âdeblurringâ is already known art, so that does them no $good$. They have to keep the package together because the only thing they can defend the patent is with the novel compression.
I really hope Roon is not putting real $dollars$ into their MQA effortsâŚ
I am ambivalent on this. I too think MQA may be a passing fad (and possibly a DRM wolf in sheepâs clothing), but I also think that Roon might get a really good bump out of all the promotional efforts the larger players are putting into MQA - they might just free-ride that promotion to a substantial number of subscriptionsâŚpeople wanting to hear MQA without buying hardware. From that perspective, it isnât about a long-term investment in MQA support but rather riding that wave while the wave is there to ride. Anything to bolster the stability of Tidal and Roon both.
If the attention to detail inherent in this response is indicative of those that vilify MQA then MQA will flourish. I too am uneasy, as with much digital transformation, that the businesses of good people can be wiped out by an Amazon or an Uber. If I could buy MQA files I would. Not because Tidal isnât good value, but because HD Tracks and Qobuz have served me well in recent years. I am not being fleeced; I am profiting from MQA, and as stated above I am âsaving a fortuneâ.
Disclaimer here for those with concrete thinking: I have no connection with MQA, have never received monies from them, yet hope we get more content.
But I so dislike the cheapened, gratuitous assault on Bob Stuartâs motives or personality. Many who do so have a staggering conflict of interest (see Hansen. C; Tiefenbrun. G) as I suspect do many who post anti-MQA content.
So, in short, I really like MQA. Itâs not perfect, but still the best thing to happen for a long time. Compared with Sonyâs SBM initiative of the 1990s(?) of SBMing all of their masters, this is genius.
Mr. Graham,
Allow me to perhaps give you a bit of perspective. Itâs just business. MQA has explicitly stated that they donât want to be just another audio product (say, a format among formats), but rather THE format. However on the consumer side this would be very very bad. When Jon Iverson or John Atkinson at Stereophile say that MQA is a âmonopolistic threatâ and compare such a thing to Net Neutrality, they are not saying this just for effect - these things are real.
Also, if you have a basic grasp of signal processing, NyquistâShannont, digital, and software (and thus IP/DRM) you see the extraordinary claims by MQA to be, well suspect to say the least.
You strike me as a man who does not have a grasp of these things and does not care to, and that is fine. Many (most) âaudiophilesâ donât, and thus the reliance on reputation and personality. Bob is a clever business man, and no doubt a fine upstanding citizen. That does not however mean that consumers can not reject his product, or do so out of ill will. No doubt there has been âgratuitous assaultâ on both sides, but so what? Time to move on and look at MQA as format at the bottom of our digital musical ecosystems. I say âno thanksâ and I say why.
Iâd love to have more customers like you, happy to pay for the same content over and over because I didnât give them the highest quality version the last time they bought it.
Every time I buy a CD and spend 10 minutes trying to peel off that anti-theft device at the top of the jewel case, Iâm glad Iâm just paying a streaming fee for the time being.
I really have no problems whatsoever paying musicians for their craft. But the record companies, sometimes it just feels like they are punishing us. I mean, who steals physical CDs in 2018? Yet this junk like those sticky protection devices persists.
And this is the potential of MQA, the digital equivalent of that stupid piece of sticky tape at the top of the CD case.
The sound is fine. The end-to-end business model requirement is bunk.
My reference to Amazon and Uber (attention to detail, again!), I believe indicated that I did understand how the digital economy has evolved, and how damaging that can be. But if you are sincere in your concerns, surely you should be campaigning against Apple, as I understand they will surpass Spotify this year in terms of paid subscribers with their âveryâ lossy codec? MQA is tiny in comparison, yet could be a healthy disrupter in the world of the big 4; it could raise standards.But no, you focus on a small company, and speculate on their motives to the point where they are believed to be facts. I guess Mr Trump might deem this activity the creation of âalternative factsâ.
I have stated before that I lived through many formats (even CDs were hated by some initially, perhaps still) and format wars, including the agony of Sonyâs cynical assault on DVD-Audio, through the introduction of SACD, Of course some prefer SACD and people like yourself can debate the value of either from a signal processing perspective, but a great format did not progress. I also remember the âwatermarkâ DRM discussions regarding DVD-Audio, and whether anyone could hear them. Quite a few MQA critics dismiss people who trust their ears (I think your dismiss them as naive âaudiophilesâ, who really should be guided by evidence from people like yourself?) complain bitterly that they hear the impact of DRM?
You miss understand, perhaps purposefully. The last thing we need is another format war. I believe sales of HD downloads are in decline, and that is clearly not because people are steaming MQA on Tidal. If I could use Qobuz Sublime+ with Roon, I might have an alternative to MQA, but I do not. I can pay for downloads, but the new releases seem to be dwindling. If someone could make FLAC sound as good as MQA can sound, I may have a further choice. You may note that I say âMQA can soundâ, and I would like to understand better the differences between great MQA and so-so; that is an area worthy of investigation to my mind.
So I say âyes pleaseâ and believe I have articulated why; for myself (acknowledging all of the confounding factors associated with that term) I believe MQA gives me the greatest possibility of getting closer to the music at home!
So more please! And I will continue to listen to MQA and non-MQA content, knowing that both can be wonderful and sometimes less than that.
Trust me, People will steal anything. More than once I have gone to buy a CD in a Charity shop only to find the disc missing. On discussion with the staff they assure me all the discs are checked before sale as part of the routine but discs are stolen. Even with a bit of tape to keep the box closed.
It is incredible but there we go.
Well said, but I fear the anti MQA people will not let up.
Back in the day if you wanted a record, you bought it. That was it. No choice DRM in an analog world lol You just bought the album.
It was compromised, it was Lossy it was all there was and the industry had something to sell.
Today we have the best sound quality in the history of mankind available. We should, perhaps always take a moment to appreciate that.
Then I hear that MQA will stop innovation, but I just donât believe it as the anti MQA technical experts are more than capable to innovate.
I for one look forward to the improvements they will eventually bring to the world. We need them to raise the bar and stop kicking someone elseâs bar down. In the meantime, I will enjoy the Music I have, MQA or otherwise.
Thanks Chris.
We seem to be of a similar eraâŚ
Perhaps the solution is to try and persuade MQA to always create a back-up, alternative âstate of the artâ master (some might say DXD?) so if MQA evolves, or something else emerges, an alternative archived master exists. But even master tapes go missing, and SACDs have been created from a CD copy - but then that was âperfect sound foreverââŚ
We have better, free technologies available.
Tidal is already using lossless, free FLAC codec. And Spotify is using free lossy Vorbis codec, both brought to you by same organization:
https://xiph.org
Amazon is using MP3, now free from patent license fees, all the relevant patents have expired.
Apple is using AAC which still has patents and requires license fees, but it is not a black-box codec, anybody can reimplement it based on public specifications, ratified by recognized standardization organization (ISO/IEC). So your content is safe, even if one of the companies providing implementation goes bankrupt, or decides that it is not anymore in their âbusiness focusâ. Apple also has lossless ALAC codec which is free too. They could any time switch to use it instead.
In addition, neither Amazon, Apple or Spotify try to have control over your playback chain. You are free to perform any kind of DSP processing you wish and play the content on any gear you wish, without need to have your playback gear approved and certified for playback by Amazon, Apple or Spotify for $$$.
Iâm happy DVD-Audio is dead. MLP codec (from the same guys that brought you MQA) is quite not as dead yet, but used under different disguise.
Where did you get that idea?
Huh? It doesnât seem so, following the highresaudio.com Twitter accountâŚ
It already sounds better, without that âon your face, Tupperware plastic soundâ that MQA has. Just try the same tracks in native hires FLAC format.
Oh, and you can do the âdeblurringâ without need of MQA. Apodizing upsampling filters have been in use for ages.
Until you end up dead in the water because someone decided that for business reasons they donât support decoding your old MQA content anymore.
Practically all the music up to date is already out there in a non MQA format. Iâm not sure how they will put that back in the box 
Also MQA is a long way from being ubiquitous. I mostly listen to new and upcoming artists that are well off the mainstream radar and non of this, IMHO The most exciting innovative and vibrant music ever, is in MQA although I look forward to the day it is.
The golden age of music is now, live and in small medium venues up and down the land. The record companies cannot pay these artists so they earn their monies playing live, but itâs a struggle. If MQA succeeds and companies can make money again, maybe artists will get long term backing to support their growth.
They should sell the DXD. No way I am going to buy multiple versions of the same content. If thatâs what record companies rely on, they are fools, broken business model. If they want to stay in business, they need to sell new albums, not the old ones over and over again. There are no âcrown jewelsâ to look after. Hires master that nobody outside their vaults have ever heard is worthless.
Richard, youâre lost in the details. Uber is not an audio company, and Amazon is not trying to promote a closed DRM standard. All those people, which is the vast majority of musical consumers, who willingly consciously apply a lossy codec (mp3/aac) to their PCM are doing so because again itâs an open standard.
I know you believe MQA get you close to the music, but it simply is not true. Lots of details, but no connecting the dotsâŚ
If I get lost in details, surely you ignore those that do not fit your beliefs?
I believe that consumers have suffered more than you do from pointless format wars. If MQA have been able to encourage many companies to come together to support what is, at this time, the best streamable HiRes solution, I think that is good. I donât believe FLAC is as good as many believe, and being free and open isnât always superior. I also own hundreds of 192kHz FLAC albums.
But I was curious about MQA and had to trust my ears; I have been impressed. If I just accepted what was said to be real and true on a forum I really would be in trouble; epistemic vigilance is all.
But for me the real surprise was when I played Roberta Flackâs (note, not FLACâŚ) âKilling Me Softlyâ with my wife in the room. She would acknowledge that she is not an audiophile, and can barely tell if something is in stereo. When Flack started to sing, she dropped her book such was the immediacy of the sound, image, and rich tone of voice. The rhythmic backdrop as the song progressed was hypnotic, and she listened to the end. As the final notes faded, she went âWow!â. Now I could have spiked her coffee, under the instructions of Bob Stuart of course, to obtain this response, and then asked her to post about this experience on Computer Audiophile. Sadly she hates social media and is of no value when it comes the creation of fake news, graphs, pseudonyms and inauthentic expressions of feeling. She just responds.
I have the HiRes FLAC version of this album via HD Tracks (I think)âŚnot as good. Itâs okay but that quality of something happening now, in the moment is not there. I could save myself ÂŁ20 per month in agreeing with you, but I think this possible experience is worth it. So whether Callas, Karajan, Queen or Bowie, I prefer MQA. Not all are as stunning as the Flack track was for us, but others exist. I would never have thought it possible, but that old school blast of fun from Queen, âSeven Seas of Ryeâ, bursts from my speakers and gets the foot tapping in a manner that I find jaw dropping.
So I find myself more deeply engaged in listening - a flow experience? - more likely to listen through to the end, and more satisfied by the conclusion. I then want to listen to more MQA and time passes. You wish to deprive me of that and I am not happy about it. So I think alternative views should be heard; you appear not happy about that and tell me my experience is not true. But please donât try persuading my wifeâŚit will not end wellâŚ
And I do understand the concerns about a monopoly. But as Chris stated above, if it ends up that there is to be only one format/choice, as we had with vinyl or CDs, MQA is far better than good enough for me.
âGood night and good luckâ
Richard
First there is no format War. It has been PCM and that is just about it besides a few niche players. For the vast majority of musical consumers they decided to compress their PCM, and good for them because theyâre playback chains do not resolve anything much more than about 200 kbs.
Besides, MQA since it is a DRM by design is the beginning of another format war.
As far as your subjective Impressions [Moderated]. Since mqa is not an advancement and signal processing, but just a collection of known art, then you just simply like the particular package. Thatâs fine but the costs to the consumer are far too highâŚ
But I will say this if mqa is about a âflow experienceâ, then mqa is nothing at all⌠
Mind explaining what your claim that FLAC âisnât as good as many believeâ is based on ? In what ways exactly isnât it âas goodâ ?