MQA trying to get the anti compression crew on side.

[firedog]

12 hours ago, LHC said:

To put it slightly differently they are positioning themselves for a future where the only formats of music are streaming and vinyl. Commercial optical discs like CD, SACD, DVD and Blu-ray could very well become obsolete. This is due to market forces, not MQA's doing. 

Disagree. The ultimate idea behind it (which both record label execs and MQA execs have confirmed) is for it to succeed as a format so they can remove actual hi-res masters (that haven't been MQA'd) from the market. It's what's been referred to by them as "protecting the crown jewels". This ambition has zero to do with streaming as a dominant market force. 

 

There isn't any real reason that MQA is needed for streaming. It's already been demonstrated that a a 24/96 master can, in most cases, with proper dithering,  be turned into an 18/96 flac file that contains more of the information in the original master than the MQA equivalent and yet  in spite of being less lossy - actually be a smaller file size than the MQA file. So the whole MQA argument that it is needed to save streaming bandwidth is false. 

Additionally, with bandwidth speeds today, streaming such files isn't an issue.

 

Finally, is there a big market demand for hi-res? The clear answer is no. There isn't even a big demand for CD quality streaming. If there was, Tidal would have stolen customers away from Spotify and other streaming sites-and it hasn't. The truth is that there isn't even much of a market demand for CD quality streaming. The part of the market that cares about it and is willing to pay for it is tiny. So if streaming hires was an issue a company like Tidal could charge a premium for it and probably most of the customers paying for their premium CD stream would be willing to pay a bit more for a hires stream. European companies are already streaming standard hires. There's no reason it can't be done. 

[davewantsmoore]

9 hours ago, Ittaku said:

No, that's the format the decoded MQA file ends up being. Your file is not lossless 24bit PCM data.

 

It depends on if you mean anything special by "lossless".

 

The file is 24bit PCM.   Anyone can see this when they open it an audio editor.

 

Of course, the bits quieter than level the encoder chose, are not the original ones.... they noise where the MQA data is encoded.

 

5 hours ago, Eggcup The Daft said:

so either the bottom four bits are dithered, or more likely given the other comments Stuart has made about resolution, the four bits below the x bits of the core are being dithered.

You seem to misunderstand dither (?!)    All of the audio is requantised using dither.

 

 

 

[Guest Eggcup The Daft]

12 minutes ago, firedog said:

Disagree. The ultimate idea behind it (which both record label execs and MQA execs have confirmed) is for it to succeed as a format so they can remove actual hi-res masters (that haven't been MQA'd) from the market. It's what's been referred to by them as "protecting the crown jewels". This ambition has zero to do with streaming as a dominant market force.

Not necessarily the case, as MQA actually are aiming for their end to end process: at that point the blue light (let's assume it works as intended by that time) actually would authenticate the master. The record company executives may see it that way though.

 

14 minutes ago, firedog said:

There isn't any real reason that MQA is needed for streaming. It's already been demonstrated that a a 24/96 master can, in most cases, with proper dithering,  be turned into an 18/96 flac file that contains more of the information in the original master than the MQA equivalent and yet  in spite of being less lossy - actually be a smaller file size than the MQA file. So the whole MQA argument that it is needed to save streaming bandwidth is false. 

MQA is also about resolving its problem (if it is one) of improving the impulse response; this becomes a battle between different losses. Most DACs out there won't play your 18 bit files either. MQA is also about compatibility with existing equipment. It plays on pretty much all modern equipment in some way, not withstanding the argument about control of the quality on non-MQA devices.

 

18 minutes ago, firedog said:

Additionally, with bandwidth speeds today, streaming such files isn't an issue.

You're obviously on one of the better performing parts of the NBN...

 

19 minutes ago, firedog said:

Finally, is there a big market demand for hi-res? The clear answer is no. There isn't even a big demand for CD quality streaming. If there was, Tidal would have stolen customers away from Spotify and other streaming sites-and it hasn't. The truth is that there isn't even much of a market demand for CD quality streaming. The part of the market that cares about it and is willing to pay for it is tiny. So if streaming hires was an issue a company like Tidal could charge a premium for it and probably most of the customers paying for their premium CD stream would be willing to pay a bit more for a hires stream. European companies are already streaming standard hires. There's no reason it can't be done. 

Lots of Spotify customers are playing back on computer speakers or $50 headphones plugged into office computer audio output. They've heard of Spotify and their friends know what is there. That counts for more than anything else right now. Lossless will follow in time, possibly as part of the digital assistant war rather than for any reason concerning sound quality per se.

 

[firedog]

38 minutes ago, davewantsmoore said:

It depends on if you mean anything special by "lossless".

 

The file is 24bit PCM.   Anyone can see this when they open it an audio editor.

 

Of course, the bits quieter than level the encoder chose, are not the original ones.... they noise where the MQA data is encoded.

You still haven't understood. At least 7 bits of depth from the original file are gone. Don't exist. You get a fake hi-res playback that is a fake 24 bit file. I can do the same thing with a standard CD. It doesn't make it an actual 24 bit hi res file. It means it has been padded with ones and zeros that do nothing. 

Instead of arguing about it, figure out what you are so far unable to understand.

 

And by the way, it doesn't depend on what is meant by "lossless". Lossless is this context has always had one meaning only- that you can take the compressed file and reconstruct the full original file from the compressed version. That's why flac is called lossless and formats like mp3 aren't. Same for MQA - you cannot reconstruct the original file from an MQA file because bits have been LOST - not hidden, not turned into something else - LOST. Period. If you don't understand that you still have understood very little. 

Edited March 31, 2018 by firedog

[firedog]

1 hour ago, Eggcup The Daft said:

Not necessarily the case, as MQA actually are aiming for their end to end process: at that point the blue light (let's assume it works as intended by that time) actually would authenticate the master. The record company executives may see it that way though.

 

MQA is also about resolving its problem (if it is one) of improving the impulse response; this becomes a battle between different losses. Most DACs out there won't play your 18 bit files either. MQA is also about compatibility with existing equipment. It plays on pretty much all modern equipment in some way, not withstanding the argument about control of the quality on non-MQA devices.

 

You're obviously on one of the better performing parts of the NBN...

 

Lots of Spotify customers are playing back on computer speakers or $50 headphones plugged into office computer audio output. They've heard of Spotify and their friends know what is there. That counts for more than anything else right now. Lossless will follow in time, possibly as part of the digital assistant war rather than for any reason concerning sound quality per se.

 

I actually think all your points are irrelevant. 

MQA are aiming for their "end to end" process not for SQ reasons, but as a means for making the recording and distribution chain dependent on them, enabling them to collect royalties at every stage. If that wasn't true, they could sell software that would do all the unfolding, and not insist that it be done in the DAC. They've specifically said the will not do this. 

And it's not just record company execs who "see it that way". MQA and other industry people have confirmed that this is the goal - to take original hires masters off the market by convincing consumers that MQA versions are the masters or equivalent to the masters.

 

The blue light is BS, and has already been shown not to prove that anything is "authentic".  The whole "authenticated" master thing is also BS, as we already know that many MQA albums are "authenticated" by some record company paper pusher who isn't an artist of any type and had/has nothing to do with the making of the master. So it doesn't authenticate that you got the sound "the artist heard in the studio". It's just BS.

 

The 18 bit files I referred to could be played back the same way the MQA files that aren't actually 24 bit are:

For playback they are turned into fake 24 bit just like MQA is. No difference. No reason it couldn't be even more compatible with existing equipment - no magic MQA dac needed, just free software. And that's not really the point. The point was that it's possible to stream higher resolution files than Redbook without MQA, and not need additional bandwidth over MQA. 

 

 Your final point only proves my point correct. There's no demand. And if one develops, it will still be relatively small. No reason straight hi-res can't be accounted for in the market, either technically or as a higher priced tier for those who want it. And you don't need some super hi speed connection for it. How do you think Netflix gets streamed? Even a pedestrian ADSL line can handle it. Certainly 5G telephones will also be able to. 

Edited March 31, 2018 by firedog

[Guest Eggcup The Daft]

3 minutes ago, davewantsmoore said:

 

It depends on if you mean anything special by "lossless".

 

The file is 24bit PCM.   Anyone can see this when they open it an audio editor.

 

Of course, the bits quieter than level the encoder chose, are not the original ones.... they noise where the MQA data is encoded.

 

You seem to misunderstand dither (?!)    All of the audio is requantised using dither.

 

 

 

DIther is randomised or pseudo-randomised noise added at the lower bits of the audio signal, to improve signal to noise. Typically it's applied to the lowest one or two bits, to randomise errors into a random noise rather than an annoying audible artifact. Use more bits, and you can randomise the signal further: I don't pretend to understand that bit at all well, but as I vaguely  get it, using more bits makes the resulting randomisation less like a soundwave in itself and so can reduce the "audible" noise floor, at the expense of fewer bits of information. MQA uses proprietary noise shaped dithering, which means more bits used than the simple lowest bit randomisation used with 16 bit CD playback on most 16 bit DACs. Wikipedia has simple descriptions of normal audio dithering and noise shaped dithering, MQA is using a more complex (and undisclosed, as far as I can see) dithering technique.

 

The rest depends on what meanings we want to choose. I would say the file is in a proprietary encrypted format, that appears to be 24 bit PCM with what may be seen as randomised lower bit noise when sent to a non-MQA DAC. I can't see how that equates to an original, actually 24 bit PCM file, even though the lower bits may also be recorded noise.

[Guest Eggcup The Daft]

34 minutes ago, firedog said:

I actually think all your points are irrelevant. 

MQA are aiming for their "end to end" process not for SQ reasons, but as a means for making the recording and distribution chain dependent on them, enabling them to collect royalties at every stage. If that wasn't true, they could sell software that would do all the unfolding, and not insist that it be done in the DAC. They've specifically said the will not do this. 

And it's not just record company execs who "see it that way". MQA and other industry people have confirmed that this is the goal - to take original hires masters off the market by convincing consumers that MQA versions are the masters or equivalent to the masters.

 

The blue light is BS, and has already been shown not to prove that anything is "authentic".  The whole "authenticated" master thing is also BS, as we already know that many MQA albums are "authenticated" by some record company paper pusher who isn't an artist of any type and had/has nothing to do with the making of the master. So it doesn't authenticate that you got the sound "the artist heard in the studio". It's just BS.

 

The 18 bit files I referred to could be played back the same way the MQA files that aren't actually 24 bit are:

For playback they are turned into fake 24 bit just like MQA is. No difference. No reason it couldn't be even more compatible with existing equipment - no magic MQA dac needed, just free software. And that's not really the point. The point was that it's possible to stream higher resolution files than Redbook without MQA, and not need additional bandwidth. 

 

 Your final point only proves my point correct. There's no demand. And if one develops, it will still be relatively small. No reason straight hi-res can't be accounted for in the market, either technically or as a higher priced tier for those who want it. And you don't need some super hi speed connection for it. How do you think Netflix gets streamed? Even a pedestrian ADSL line can handle it. Certainly 5G telephones will also be able to. 

The raison d'etre for MQA is to improve sound quality - they want paying for that improvement. I don't get that the improvement is necessarily audible, important, or worth handing over that amount of money for. They want to make the MQA files the masters, and I'm sure that they like us understand the power that that would give the format owners, at least for the life of the patent.

 

I've been hammering on about the blue light for years here. All it proves at best, is that the file is regarded as one that has come out of an MQA codec. If you can alter the file, it makes it less relevant. I did qualify my comment that the blue light would have to be fixed to guarantee equivalence. The worst part of the blue light business is that it doesn't light if you play the actual, original master file. Yes, it's a "lie". That does not mean it won't be correct for new files in the future. It's not "authenticated" (with the light) by a person, it's authenticated by the encoder and checked by the decoder, by the way. You can feed any old crap in. MQA the company is trying to avoid that, or has tried up to now.

 

I see what you mean by the 18 bit file. But it wouldn't play if sent directly to most DACs, it would need something in the way. MQA does address that, in its own fashion.

 

There are people out there right now with VERY low ADSL and even FTTN playback rates, that won't handlebasic Netflix. I don't think the customer argument is about data rates, either. It's about price and available music. There is more music available on other formats compared to Tidal and some of the gaps are in popular music. And lossy compressed music that you can't tell the difference with is costs half the price, and there's the killer.

 

Regarding bandwidth costs, don't put yourself in the place of the consumer, put yourself in the place of the provider. They will be paying a lot of money for bandwidth and need more, and more storage, to play back higher quality files. Keeping people on MP3/AAC is in their interests. Who do you think was behind the stories that you can't tell the difference in the first place?

When Google or Amazon decide "you can hear the difference" with lossless, because it becomes a weapon in the Alexa/Assistant war and profit is to be had for the expense, then you'll see it break out. Maybe we'll even see more of the MQA blue light assuring their users they are getting... well, something. Perhaps.

 

Edited March 31, 2018 by Eggcup The Daft

[firedog]

8 minutes ago, Eggcup The Daft said:

The raison d'etre for MQA is to improve sound quality - they want paying for that improvement. I don't get that the improvement is necessarily audible, important, or worth handing over that amount of money for. They want to make the MQA files the masters, and I'm sure that they like us understand the power that that would give the format owners, at least for the life of the patent.

We will have to agree to disagree on this. I don't think it actually has anything to do with SQ. That's the stated reason for PR reasons, not the truth. It's a cynical ploy by MQA that appeals to the record labels because it gives back control and market power (read "more money") to them. I've seen zero evidence in the last 20 years that the major labels care at all about SQ. See the loudness wars for one example. I think MQA could sound demonstrably worse and they would also promote it exactly the same way. Lots of people would still go for it. Expectation bias goes a long way. 

And again, if it was really about SQ they could market it in a totally different way that still made money for them and didn't involve control over the whole recording and distribution chain. 

Edited March 31, 2018 by firedog

[Guest Eggcup The Daft]

44 minutes ago, firedog said:

We will have to agree to disagree on this. I don't think it actually has anything to do with SQ. That's the stated reason for PR reasons, not the truth. It's a cynical ploy by MQA that appeals to the record labels because it gives back control and market power (read "more money") to them. I've seen zero evidence in the last 20 years that the major labels care at all about SQ. See the loudness wars for one example. I think MQA could sound demonstrably worse and they would also promote it exactly the same way. Lots of people would still go for it. Expectation bias goes a long way. 

And again, if it was really about SQ they could market it in a totally different way that still made money for them and didn't involve control over the whole recording and distribution chain. 

In this regard I see MQA as somewhat schizophrenic. Certainly I'm convinced that its genesis was in techniques and ideas about source guarantees aimed at improving sound quality, but as I've pointed out before a key investor is the luxury goods/watch manufacturer Richemont, and I don't see them in it for philanthropic reasons. So we get to the point of the marketing and promotion, and that is as you see it. It's not disagreement about the current situation, just the past.

 

The change they are promoting actually requires sufficient input to the whole recording chain that they can guarantee overall authentication end to end. They can't not appear to be seeking to "control" the process. Indeed I see MQA in the minds of the initial developers, as trying to become the guarantors of sound quality by being in there all the way through. But they want paying for it - that's capitalism for you. A proper standards process could do as much, without needing that impulse response technology that has yet to be proven as important to sound quality. If it was kept to. And, as it happens, the rights holders' interests will always win out.

 

The loudness wars were about making money from lower quality audio in a failing market. Capitalism, again, combined with a change in the way most of us "used" music.

 

Even if MQA turn out to be "good guys", what happens when the patent expires? Who gets control at that point?

[eltech]

25 minutes ago, Eggcup The Daft said:

I'm convinced that its genesis was in techniques and ideas about source guarantees aimed at improving sound quality

Why do you believe this?

You must have believed the marketing about "deblurring"?

 

I don't believe in deblurring. I think it's BS too.' I've said so before. I don't believe there is any timing problems with PCM.

 

So if we rule that one out, all we are left with is lossy audio that plays worse through a non mqa DAC, I heard it for myself, and a 24 bit container which doesn't contain the same bits as the original 24 bit master file. Therefore it is all marketing spin. It fails on all of its claims. 

I agree completely with firedog that it's about NOT giving you the 24 bit master.

 

 

[rantan]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

We will have to agree to disagree on this. I don't think it actually has anything to do with SQ. That's the stated reason for PR reasons, not the truth. It's a cynical ploy by MQA that appeals to the record labels because it gives back control and market power (read "more money") to them. I've seen zero evidence in the last 20 years that the major labels care at all about SQ. See the loudness wars for one example. I think MQA could sound demonstrably worse and they would also promote it exactly the same way. Lots of people would still go for it. Expectation bias goes a long way. 

And again, if it was really about SQ they could market it in a totally different way that still made money for them and didn't involve control over the whole recording and distribution chain. 

Does anybody here( repeat anybody ) think that MQA is actually about enhanced sound quality or better sound for the masses?.... and does anybody here actually disagree that this is nothing other than a proprietary scheme designed  for making super profits for large corporations?..... just as it is with plant variety rights and hybrid seeds ( Monsanto ).

Two very different areas but very similar motives.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 31, 2018 by rantan

[firedog]

50 minutes ago, Eggcup The Daft said:

The loudness wars were about making money from lower quality audio in a failing market.

Maybe. But once it got pushed to the extreme, it could have been limited or rolled back part way if SQ was a factor at all. If they cared about SQ, why do they also market legacy album remasters in hi-res with extreme volume compression? No one who buys a hi-res remaster of a classic album recorded to tape is looking for it to be volume compressed  to the level of a modern hip hop recording. People buying those hires remasters have in home systems and  know how to use a volume control. 

 

There are a few examples of artists who have sold mp3 remasters with very strong volume compression, but left the hi-res audiophile version  of the same remaster with much less. Unfortunately, too few of those. One of the many reasons I don't think SQ is anywhere on the radar of the big 3 labels. 

Edited March 31, 2018 by firedog

[Guest rmpfyf]

5 minutes ago, rantan said:

Does anybody here( repeat anybody ) think that MQA is actually about enhanced sound quality or better sound for the masses?.... and does anybody here actually disagree that this is nothing other than a proprietary scheme designed  for making super profits for large corporations?..... just as it is with plant variety rights and hybrid seeds ( Monsanto ).

Two very different areas but very similar motives.

 

No doubt about profitability - I think you've undersold the sneakiness inherent.

 

It's possible to use is as a good thing for SQ/digital experience though the licensing model makes the likelihood of a decent catalogue of music + suitable devices taking full advantage to be very unlikely.

[LogicprObe]

6 minutes ago, rantan said:

Does anybody here( repeat anybody ) think that MQA is actually about enhanced sound quality or better sound for the masses?.... and does anybody here actually disagree that this is nothing other than a proprietary scheme designed  for making super profits for large corporations?..... just as it is with plant variety rights and hybrid seeds ( Monsanto ).

Two very different areas but very similar motives.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's right.

Are we going to see MQA encoded vinyl next?

What is Felix going to say about those phono stages?

[LHC]

On 3/30/2018 at 2:42 PM, rantan said:

@LHC

 

Lost your sense of humour mate?

 

1 hour ago, rantan said:

Does anybody here( repeat anybody ) think that MQA is actually about enhanced sound quality or better sound for the masses?.... and does anybody here actually disagree that this is nothing other than a proprietary scheme designed  for making super profits for large corporations?..... just as it is with plant variety rights and hybrid seeds ( Monsanto ).

Two very different areas but very similar motives.

 

The problem I have with some of the regulars of the political threads is they are using the same treatment and tactics in discussing MQA. Take for example this question asked in the political threads: "Does anyone here wants to defend Donald Trump? Anybody?" See the similar leading questions? It is all one dimensional egoistic tribalism and there is no humour about it. 

 

FWIW I do believe MQA tries to serve multiple purposes; and maybe they bit off more than they could chew. One of the purpose is enhanced sound quality as stated in their patent. Of course anyone can disagree about the outcome, either on technical grounds or subjective listening, but on what ground could anyone question an intent? Don't forget this is not a political thread.

 

As for profitability that is without question. Why on earth would anyone invest so much intellectual and technical investment for no return? Don't forget this is not a political thread, and there is no equivalent of equal distribution of wealth and serving the socialist ideals. So naturally there is a component of profit for large corporations (is Mederian that large?), is there a problem with that? 

 

I do not see any reasons why the two motives cannot coexists; although there remains the valid question of "does the masses actually want greater quality of music?". So in that sense a common description of MQA as a "solution looking for a problem" does have some truth. 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 31, 2018 by LHC

[rantan]

@LHC

 

Thanks so much for describing my honest opinion as egoistic tribalism.  I was making an emphasis for a sincerely held opinion but I will refrain from being dismissive of yours.

 

Oh yes, one more thing. I am not a regular on politics threads, in fact I don't post in them and have not done so for some time.

 

MQA is nothing more than a means to control and licence an entire industry for very questionable ( if any ) benefit. My opinion has not and will not, change so you had best deal with that fact.

[LHC]

8 minutes ago, rantan said:

MQA is nothing more than a means to control and licence an entire industry for very questionable ( if any ) benefit.

 

That may be true, or may turn out to be true. But there are objective ways to discuss this, post by @firedog, @davewantsmoore and @eltech are good examples, as well as others too. 

Edited March 31, 2018 by LHC

[rantan]

Just now, LHC said:

 

That may be true, or may turn out to be true. But there are objective ways to discuss this, post by @firedog, @davewantsmoore and @eltech are good examples. 

So you select ONE of my posts and then proceed to lecture me on appropriate ways to discuss the topic.

 

This may be a surprise for you but I don't need or require your approval.

[sir sanders zingmore]

2 hours ago, Eggcup The Daft said:

a key investor is the luxury goods/watch manufacturer Richemont,

Given the price of high-end components these days, it makes perfect sense for a luxury-company to get involved. 

A $100k amp isn't just competing with other audio gear, its competing with watches and diamonds and cars 

[LHC]

2 minutes ago, rantan said:

So you select ONE of my posts and then proceed to lecture me on appropriate ways to discuss the topic.

 

This may be a surprise for you but I don't need or require your approval.

 

Yes, I do feel there are appropriate ways to discuss MQA (not a political topic). These are:

• Technical criticisms of how it work; or technical explanations of how it could achieved its stated aims (this thread is about compression after-all)
• Subjective listening outcomes, whether they sound better, the same, or worse than their counterparts
• Exposing holes in its marketing or any misinformation
• The practical aspects and implications of its licencing arrangement

I think when posts start questioning the morals and ethics of MQA and the people behind them, it crosses a line. 

 

[rantan]

1 minute ago, LHC said:

 

 

I think when posts start questioning the morals and ethics of MQA and the people behind them, it crosses a line. 

 

 

100% wrong.

I will continue to post along these lines as I see fit, because their ethics are highly questionable.

[sir sanders zingmore]

3 minutes ago, rantan said:

 

, because their ethics are highly questionable.

 +1

[LHC]

8 minutes ago, rantan said:

 

100% wrong.

I will continue to post along these lines as I see fit, because their ethics are highly questionable.

 

Such discussions belong in the Chill Out Room, IMO. It is totally not fair to the OP if this thread ends up there; there have been some very useful technical discussions so far, and should stay that way. 

Edited March 31, 2018 by LHC

[rantan]

7 minutes ago, LHC said:

 

Such discussions belong in the Chill Out Room, IMO. 

Wrong again. Just because you wish a thread to go a certain way does not mean that it will ( or should )

 

Can you also please cease being so didactic? It really does nothing  to enhance your posts, nor does it advance the topic under discussion. In fact, it is a diversion for which you are responsible

Edited March 31, 2018 by rantan

[MLXXX]

1 hour ago, rantan said:

Does anybody here( repeat anybody ) think that MQA is actually about enhanced sound quality or better sound for the masses?.... and does anybody here actually disagree that this is nothing other than a proprietary scheme designed  for making super profits for large corporations?..... just as it is with plant variety rights and hybrid seeds ( Monsanto ).

Two very different areas but very similar motives.

 

I suspect many people who have casually perused this thread would be undecided.  They might be suspicious of the commercial motives, but might nevertheless accord the benefit of doubt (unless and until ever coming to a concluded view).

 

There is another proprietary niche distribution format (for which players are still sold), ostensibly aimed at higher sound quality, that appears to fail to deliver audibly better sound quality in careful listening tests. Despite that, it has many audiophile supporters. Being a proprietary format there are profits from licensing.  (I have in mind here the stereo SACD format.)

 

And we often read claims that 96/24 stereo gives audibly superior sound quality to 44.1/16 stereo, despite the paucity of controlled listening tests to support such claims.

 

The audiophile community is full of people who either accept at face value claims that certain formats provide audibly superior quality, or who remain undecided. 

 

It would be unrealistic I would suggest,  to expect readers of threads such as this one to all be of the opinion that an audio format marketed as being for the purpose of enhanced sound quality is not at least in part for that purpose.