The AES has to be careful not to become a mere backslapping and sales support organization. I wonder if they understand, or care, that Bob S is using them for apparent (not that everybody is fooled by this) legitimacy?
Another example of my points about this supposed consensus… I was reading the user manual for a Universal Audio interface (quite a big name in the Pro Audio world)…
Here is their description in the glossary:
What about 24-bit 44.1kHz? What about 48kHz?
AES, Pro Audio world and those using it for marketing can all differ a little in their view of ‘high resolution’… per my examples of each.
So I’m not so sure about 'well understood as a digital term. It is simple"…
No, it is that simple. You can tweak it here and there, but the principle remains the same: > 16/44 and defined digitally, not on some other basis. RIAA, CEA, and others all do it the same way. Indeed, everyone did it the same way until Bob S and audiophile trade publications decided to make their own version up.
Bob’s purpose is to obscure the definition with what it has never meant: lossy encoding, “perceptual” psychoacustics, and the like. His goal is to $sell$ you his closed, DRM codec.
You can follow him down the rabbit hole of non-digital, perceptual “phsyacustics” if you want but neither consumers nor the rest of the industry will be following you there.
Bob S has lost this “debate” before he even started. He would be better off trying to convince the labels to restrict their streaming content to his DRMed SuperMP3 than trying to convince everyone that the blue sky is green…
Bob and MQA were nowhere mentioned in my post mate… very deliberately too…
I was very deliberately only talking about AES, Pro Audio and the marketing use of ‘high resolution’…
High resolution audio or ‘Hi-Res Audio’ logo means the audio signals have a frequency response beyond the CD range. It should be at least 30kHz and above. It doesn’t matter the bit depth, but at least 16 bit. SACD/DSD is in fact a 1 bit system samples at very high frequency and is certified by Japan Audio society (JAS) as Hi-Res Audio.
In fact 16 bit sampled at 88.2/96k is still considered Hi-Res Audio (minimum standard). MQA is around 17 bit 88.2/96kHz after it gets unfold, so it actually meet the minimum standard of Hi-Res Audio.
24 bit sampled at 44.1/48kHz is NOT Hi-Res Audio since the frequency response is similar to CD. You get additional dynamic range but not additional information in the upper range. So don’t get confused 
1 Like
It seems everybody is confused… 
Qobuz have 129,417 titles in 24/44.1kz… Add another 37,338 in 48kHz…
1 Like
This is marketing! Qobuz can use this logo as they have many 96k masters and above. Of course they do have 44.1 with 24 bit. They just lump them together
Oh it’s just marketing… I had no idea… 
2 Likes
While crenca has a clear agenda, I personally would not define his statements on MQA as propaganda. More of an attempt to counter MQA marketing, it seems to me. The arguments may get heated at times, but I’m sure the mods will keep an eye on the threads where necessary.
4 Likes
So I guess we just to have to wait and see. Chances are…
You can’t assumed when things does work in this way. After more than 4 years of it’s introduction, they are trying again and again… MQA is an end to end process which requires expensive upgrade/purchase to existing hardware as well software upgrades. Labels will dictate any form of streaming whether it is lossy MP3 and MQA or lossless CD or Hi-Res. They need to diversify their earnings in all form to maximize their profit.
Spotify and Apple music form a very large chunk of labels profit and it will continue to do so for a long long time. If you like MQA then subscribe to Tidal. For me Qobuz is my choice of streaming.
2 Likes
I’m not so sure Geoff…
Comments like this one, IMO, are illustrative of propaganda:
Factually, it is incorrect, and this misinformation is being used by him to push an agenda. MQA is not classified as a ‘SuperMP3’ (whatever that is?), and the DRM aspect of MQA is debatable, and not definitive.
IMO @crenca is clearly portraying MQA to be something it isn’t, and they are factually incorrect. Using this misinformation to attack MQA in this way is, IMO, simply propaganda.
2 Likes
If you control the hardware and/or playback modes for MQA files, it is by definition a form of DRM. DRM doesn’t just mean copy control.
4 Likes
The intention is clearly there (see the Spencer Chrislu / Jim Austin thing). That MQA Ltd. is failing at it is another matter entirely, and one we agree on.
Well, it bringing pretty much nothing at all didn’t stop Tidal from baking it into their Apple app. Because the masters are often different (and louder), and in combination with the way it’s marketed, it’s totally possible that in the unlikely event they care at all, the general public could perceive it as “superior” (“it’s louder and the dude with all the sound awards says it’s better so if the blue light’s on, it’s better” typathinking).
It’s also important to keep in mind that no one outside of a relatively small group of anoraks is going to bother with external MQA-compatible dacs for their cellphones. Whether the next generation of mobile dacs (outside of the already-released ESS, I’m thinking “whichever dac Apple uses”, because that’s all that actually matters), or possibly headphones have baked in MQA functionality is unknown at this point.
2 Likes
Your definition of Hi-Res Audio is not the official one:
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), in cooperation with the Consumer Electronics Association DEG: The Digital Entertainment Group, and The Recording Academy Producers & Engineers Wing, formulated the following official definition of high-resolution audio in 2014:
“lossless audio capable of reproducing the full spectrum of sound from recordings which have been mastered from better than CD quality (48 kHz/20-bit or higher) music sources which represent what the artists, producers and engineers originally intended.”
https://www.riaa.com/high-resolution-audio-initiative-gets-major-boost-with-new-hi-res-music-logo-and-branding-materials-for-digital-retailers/
2 Likes
This is not ‘baking’ into Apple ecosystem but rather offer as an app based which includes MQA decoding without rendering. Apple don’t have any licencing fee with MQA instead Apple will charge Tidal if users uses Apple ecosystem to subscribe to Tidal.
Ironically, MQA decoding in both iPhones and Android using Tidal app is simply a white elephant. Reason to it, all smart phones to date actually sample rate to 48k internally, only some high-end like LG has a better DAC which support greater than 96k. Only a small audiophiles know the importance of having an external DACs. To the masses, they think they are getting ‘improved’ sound 
!
2 Likes
I believe what they meant are the masters, 48kHz is a shine away from CD 44.1k. 20 bit will probably gives better dynamic range but I can hardly call it as Hi-Res Audio. May be it should be called High Def (HD) sound?
That is exactly what my point was
Going from undecoded MQA to decoded MQA, when you’re sitting in public transportation, a crowded office or a moving car, and playing back to a pair of Beats or a decent in-car system amounts to pretty much nothing as an improvement… I’d be surprised if, in those types of environments, there was a demonstrably perceivable difference on even a decent pair of noise-cancelling headphones.
1 Like
Perhaps it’s just because I haven’t had my morning coffee today, but I’m feeling pessimistic.
You guys who think HD downloads will be around forever are dreaming. Streaming is clearly in the ascendancy. And the music industry has nothing to gain by giving you pristine copies of the music which you can then play whenever you want without paying more money. The future model of “own” for music is the same as with the Kindle and books – the music you’ve paid for (either by subscription or by “purchase”) will live on a server and be streamed to you in some DRM-protected format when you ask for it (and the server controller is of the mood to honor your request). Sure, there might be local caches, but they will check back to their true master before disgorging “your” content to you. And, sure, there will be lower-quality analog versions like vinyl which you can actually play without permission.
So, it seems to me that Bob Stuart, regardless of the merits of his format, is a forward-thinking and perceptive guy. He’s positioning MQA to be the delivery format of the future, for the only future that will count, streaming. This is not about the “music” part of the music business, it’s about the “business” part.
7 Likes
Not in the least. Hi Res has always been > 16/44. RIAA and CEA’s definition is the usual. Bob S himself is not confused, rather he wants to obscure and change the meaning so he can $sell$ his DRMed superMP3. Unfortunately, only audiophiledom is particularly very susceptible to such obfuscation…
1 Like
Nope. MQA begins and ends with DRM, and this is even admitted by them and some of their supporters such as Robert Harley (editor of TAS). The obfuscation of what DRM is - the straw man of “DRM = copy control” which is followed by “MQA has no copy control, therefor MQA is not DRM” which is pure marketing speak meant for audiophiles who don’t know better.
The only agenda I have is factual: MQA begins and ends with DRM, it is a lossy SuperMP3, and is sold with intentional and misleading marketing speak such as “perceptually lossless”, the pinnacle of Hi Res audio (even though it is not Hi Res at all), and it even helps save the planet! The quantity of the lies is only exceeded by their quality.
Your agenda @Martin_Kelly is rhetorical - you focus on the man, myself - oddly, when you should focus on the charlatan Bob Stuart since his blog is the subject of this thread. You also are confused as to what is a fact and what is your rhetoric and opinion about me. What is it you British say, you have a “bee in your bonnet”. This is ok however! If you want to keep talking about me I will just refer it to MQA, and this only helps get the word out to consumers who otherwise might be snookered by it!
2 Likes