Good article showing what a scam the MQA format is...

[FMiguelez]

The more I read about it, the more I see how this is a big-time scam. They want to EXTRACT revenue from all points in the music-distribution chain... With an inferior product that locks us in.
So they want to shove this new(ish) unnecessary format down our throats, even with its lies and multiple shaky issues. They "solve" a problem that does not exist!

I really hope this thing gets burried. It has the potential to change our music-listening experience for the worse. Oh, look! A closed system to make these corporations richer and give them more power over us. Yay!

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/ca/r ... ions-r701/

Greed in all its expression

[bayswater]

I think the jury has been out and is back in on this. I remember seeing something about it a while back and thinking it was from the 90s. "a method of digitally storing recorded music as a file that’s small and convenient enough to download, or even stream, without the sonic sacrifices traditionally associated with compressed files". Hasn't that been done?

As for copy protection, the metaphors overwhelm the field: the train has left the station, the genie is out of the bottle, and so on. If you can write software to protect a file, there are kids who can write software to hack it. We need another way to come at it.

A succinct critique is here.

https://www.linn.co.uk/blog/mqa-is-bad-for-music

[bonnieshona]

MQA has had a fairly negative reaction from audiophiles, and I have to admit that I find that puzzling.

As an engineer, MAQ seems to me a well-crafted approach to packaging high bit rate audio in a bandwidth-limited stream, and as an audiophile who subscribes to Tidal, I’m delighted that I’m now able to listen to albums without the severe sonic limitations imposed by the 44.1 kHz red book standard and the use of “brick wall” digital filters in recording equipment.

Full technical details have been scarce — at least, I haven’t seen them — but I gather from what I’ve read that they are using lossy encoding for the high frequency signal above 20 kHz, randomizing it, and placing it in the least significant bits of the data stream. Since virtually no commercial recordings use or require the full 24 bits, that doesn’t have a practical effect on the dynamic range or noise of recordings.

[mikehalloran]

MQA has had a fairly negative reaction from audiophiles, and I have to admit that I find that puzzling.

As an engineer, MAQ seems to me a well-crafted approach to packaging high bit rate audio in a bandwidth-limited stream, and as an audiophile who subscribes to Tidal, I’m delighted that I’m now able to listen to albums without the severe sonic limitations imposed by the 44.1 kHz red book standard and the use of “brick wall” digital filters in recording equipment.

Full technical details have been scarce — at least, I haven’t seen them — but I gather from what I’ve read that they are using lossy encoding for the high frequency signal above 20 kHz, randomizing it, and placing it in the least significant bits of the data stream. Since virtually no commercial recordings use or require the full 24 bits, that doesn’t have a practical effect on the dynamic range or noise of recordings.

About those severe sonic limitations imposed by the 44.1 kHz red book standard

https://opensource.com/article/18/11/hi ... lity-audio

i still have my few SACD CDs — and a SONY 5-disk CD/DVD/SACD changer that can play them. Long discontinued but absolutely worth the $25 I paid on Craigslist so that my wife can load 5 DVDs of The Gilmore Girls into it for binge watching (again? Really?) and not because I get any greater sonic enjoyment out of SACD over CD —the disks are backward compatible.

A well mastered CD sounds really good when one isn’t playing the loudness wars. HQ Digital sounds pretty bad when one is — format doesn’t matter.

Besides The Loudness Wars, the big sonic crime of the ‘80s – ‘90s was using stereo masters meant for vinyl and not understanding that we used to compensate for the final product (vinyl) when we made those tapes — we all did. I still have books on the subject. The recent trend of remastering those albums again has corrected most of the sins of the first wave. Good enough for me.

I get a fair bit of work remastering old projects but it’s for re-packaging such as box sets and fan compilations, occasionally re-do of vinyl or even cassettes… No one has ever asked me to master for an HQ release. I can do it if asked but no one has.

I agree with the LINN article. A lot of effort trying to solve problems that don’t exist — or can’t be done another way.

[FMiguelez]

MQA has had a fairly negative reaction from audiophiles, and I have to admit that I find that puzzling.

You mean they don't seem to have drunk the kool'aid? That would be a first...

But nothing surprises me anymore, especially when lots of "audiophiles" blindly believe marking their CDs with a green sharpie makes the music sound "clear and pristine" and using "cable risers" (so they don't touch the floor) makes an obvious improvement in the bass frequencies. Oh, and don't forget the special stones that make the music "vibrant"! So it might be mildly interesting to know WHY they've had a negative reaction and see what their arguments against it actually are.

As an engineer, MAQ seems to me a well-crafted approach to packaging high bit rate audio in a bandwidth-limited stream,...

What problem does MQA solve?
Why do we need it? How is it better than what we already have?
Is it something that benefits the users or does it only benefit some greedy lying corporation that wants us to repurchase our entire music catalogs for new out-of-the-blue profit?

and as an audiophile who subscribes to Tidal, I’m delighted that I’m now able to listen to albums without the severe sonic limitations imposed by the 44.1 kHz red book standard and the use of “brick wall” digital filters in recording equipment.

"SEVERE" sonic limitations imposed by the 44.1 KHz RB standard? Really?
Have you done proper blind tests to counter human bias? (i.e., blind, level-matched, and instantaneous change).

All things being equal, would a 13 KHz sine wave sound different than a 13 KHz square wave in "high-rez" MQA? If so, how? If it doesn't, I don't think there's much left to talk about...


How would having HF noise, which nobody can hear anyway, which almost no one has the required specialized equipment -throughout the full chain- that can handle it properly (lest the ultrasonic noise folds back into the audible range; I wonder if it's this aliasing what ultra high SR believers like?), make the music sound better?

It almost sounds to me like those people who believe 32bFP sounds so much better than 24 bits, failing to realize they've actually never heard a true 24 bit signal, let alone a 32 bFP one, with their 20-22 bit DACs

Even if MQA sounded obviously better (it doesn't), how is being locked into some greedy proprietary system a desirable thing?
OF COURSE there are people who would like us to buy our entire music catalogs again in some new format. That's more new money for them!

[bayswater]

It almost sounds to me like those people who believe 32bFP sounds so much better than 24 bits, failing to realize they've actually never heard a true 24 bit signal, let alone a 32 bFP one, with their 20-22 bit DACs

This argument always reminds me of conversations I used to have with telecom engineers working on circuits used in their business. When asked about 32 bit converters, they point out that even under ideal conditions, levels would start to dip to the level of background radiation (Big Bang) somewhere around bit 28, making it pointless, if not impossible to build.

[mikehalloran]

It almost sounds to me like those people who believe 32bFP sounds so much better than 24 bits, failing to realize they've actually never heard a true 24 bit signal, let alone a 32 bFP one, with their 20-22 bit DACs

This argument always reminds me of conversations I used to have with telecom engineers working on circuits used in their business. When asked about 32 bit converters, they point out that even under ideal conditions, levels would start to dip to the level of background radiation (Big Bang) somewhere around bit 28, making it pointless, if not impossible to build.

Hmmm... a Big Bang Converter… sounds like an idea for a Kickstarter campaign. “It sounds better because we say it does.”

[bayswater]

It almost sounds to me like those people who believe 32bFP sounds so much better than 24 bits, failing to realize they've actually never heard a true 24 bit signal, let alone a 32 bFP one, with their 20-22 bit DACs

This argument always reminds me of conversations I used to have with telecom engineers working on circuits used in their business. When asked about 32 bit converters, they point out that even under ideal conditions, levels would start to dip to the level of background radiation (Big Bang) somewhere around bit 28, making it pointless, if not impossible to build.

Hmmm... a Big Bang Converter… sounds like an idea for a Kickstarter campaign. “It sounds better because we say it does.”

I've filed the patent, but didn't trademark the Big Bang Converter brand. I guess you can have it.

[mikehalloran]

This argument always reminds me of conversations I used to have with telecom engineers working on circuits used in their business. When asked about 32 bit converters, they point out that even under ideal conditions, levels would start to dip to the level of background radiation (Big Bang) somewhere around bit 28, making it pointless, if not impossible to build.

Hmmm... a Big Bang Converter… sounds like an idea for a Kickstarter campaign. “It sounds better because we say it does.”

I've filed the patent, but didn't trademark the Big Bang Converter brand. I guess you can have it.

[FMiguelez]

It almost sounds to me like those people who believe 32bFP sounds so much better than 24 bits, failing to realize they've actually never heard a true 24 bit signal, let alone a 32 bFP one, with their 20-22 bit DACs

This argument always reminds me of conversations I used to have with telecom engineers working on circuits used in their business. When asked about 32 bit converters, they point out that even under ideal conditions, levels would start to dip to the level of background radiation (Big Bang) somewhere around bit 28, making it pointless, if not impossible to build.

Hmmm... a Big Bang Converter… sounds like an idea for a Kickstarter campaign. “It sounds better because we say it does.”

Yes, exactly!
I've heard there are supposedly 24 bit converters, or so the marketing departments say, but if you look closely at the specs apparently it's more like true 22 bits. Something about thermal noise with those pesky little atoms that won't stay put and keep moving as if they had Dengue!

Perhaps if we could bring down the temperature to -273 then we might be able to. Can you imagine the amount of energy required to operate such a DAC in our studios?

Perhaps when we have quantum computers we'll also get to have quantum DACs

[bayswater]

Something about thermal noise with those pesky little atoms that won't stay put and keep moving as if they had Dengue!

The problem is the pesky analog world. Far from being superior, it keeps us from audio nirvana. We have to replace our sensory systems with digital front ends so we can feed a 32 bit signal directly to the frontal cortex. And imagine the opportunities for content control.

Back on topic, I agree that poor sounding CDs are often the result of loudness competition. I had a chance to hear the first Dire Straits album (from a CD) on a national broadcaster's reference system in their recording studio, and I've never heard anything better. This was one of the first commercial all digital recordings, and 16 bit. If you look at the waveforms, unless it's some sort of "modern" reissue, you can see the dynamics.

[mikehalloran]

Something about thermal noise with those pesky little atoms that won't stay put and keep moving as if they had Dengue!

The problem is the pesky analog world. Far from being superior, it keeps us from audio nirvana. We have to replace our sensory systems with digital front ends so we can feed a 32 bit signal directly to the frontal cortex. And imagine the opportunities for content control.

Back on topic, I agree that poor sounding CDs are often the result of loudness competition. I had a chance to hear the first Dire Straits album (from a CD) on a national broadcaster's reference system in their recording studio, and I've never heard anything better. This was one of the first commercial all digital recordings, and 16 bit. If you look at the waveforms, unless it's some sort of "modern" reissue, you can see the dynamics.

When Brothers in Arms was released, one review (Rolling Stone?) declared: This is the album that the CD was waiting for. I bought the vinyl immediately was another three years before I bought a CD player and that Dire Straits CD.

Yep, I had to agree. That was the reason to buy a CD player.