[Currawong]

I'm with you on lossless being better than mp3. It's very noticeable to me on my system.

 

[mammal]

I'm with you on lossless being better than mp3. It's very noticeable to me on my system.

I feel the same about bitrate reduction, which happens when playing music on Bluetooth. Will never understand why Hugo 2 and TT2 have Bluetooth in, haha.

 

[Currawong]

I feel the same about bitrate reduction, which happens when playing music on Bluetooth. Will never understand why Hugo 2 and TT2 have Bluetooth in, haha.

Convenience! If I family member who doesn't care about fidelity wants to listen from their phone, it's the easiest to set up. Anyway, we're heading off-topic.

Anyway, the situation of MQA music sounding weird through the Yggdrasil reminds me of Dolby B and C. I remember when we bought music on cassettes, and they were processed using Dolby B or C. You HAD to have a cassette deck with the Dolby system built in to adjust for the boosted higher frequencies. People talk about choice, but imagine that every manufacture had to sign up with MQA for a licence or regular streaming music would sound messed up through their DAC. Maybe it's not quite a fair comparison as the Dolby system had the good benefit of reducing hiss by quite a few dB.

 

[iFi audio]

I'm with you on lossless being better than mp3

I think that most of us can agree on that

 

[InvisibleInk]

I think that most of us can agree on that

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

 

[iFi audio]

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

 

[omegaorgun]

Here is the most technical (not) response from Bob I have seen to date. That MQA is more than just a codec, and it offers better clarity for listeners. This video is geared towards consumers, not diehards like ourselves. He said why use a case to hold wine when you can fit it in on bottle. I think MQA need to get technical, we are not dumb and some of us have technical/computer and engineering backgrounds.



After watching this it's becoming apparent that MQA was designed to save bandwidth and through some fancy firmware trickery they pack and unpack the music much like 7zip would decompress a file on your computer, cutting off the data that is deemed useless or no good. It seems to be an all encompassing, holistic approach from the studio, that special requirements be met by DAC manufactures and listeners subscribe to Tidal?

Can MQA files be purchased? I also wonder do MQA get a cut for each DAC sold or is there a set fee they must pay. Really MQA needs to demonstrate its superiority through a technical demonstration, not a video for the layman like above.
Bob seems to inadvertently give off the vibe like he has to dumb down his speech for everyone. I am sure he is pretty intelligent but let's see the goods, In an audio science world with so many experts I think we would welcome a technical video.

Never have I see a topic like this cause such division across the spectrum, It's a file type, it probably sounds good. If you are happy to use Tidal and MQA then good for you, that is cool. If MQA is more than just a way to cleverly reduce bandwidth then it's up to Bob and MQA to demonstrate that if they want to secure more of the audiophile market.

We now have HD music on Qobuz, Amazon, Deezer and eventually Spotify so there will be no shortage of Hi-Res music on demand. If Tidal continues to grow its user base then I think it will always have a portion of the market. There must also be a decent demand for it if many vendors have implemented it to the extent we have seen.
It's probably going to be around for a while. Ultimately it's a choice which the consumer can make for themselves.

 

[Redcarmoose]

 

[JES]

Poor Betamax :'(

 

[littlej0e]

Poor Betamax :'(

Agreed. Much smaller and more convenient than VHS. Just goes to show you the best tech doesn't always win.

 

[WaveTheory]

Here is the most technical (not) response from Bob I have seen to date. That MQA is more than just a codec, and it offers better clarity for listeners. This video is geared towards consumers, not diehards like ourselves. He said why use a case to hold wine when you can fit it in on bottle. I think MQA need to get technical, we are not dumb and some of us have technical/computer and engineering backgrounds.



After watching this it's becoming apparent that MQA was designed to save bandwidth and through some fancy firmware trickery they pack and unpack the music much like 7zip would decompress a file on your computer, cutting off the data that is deemed useless or no good. It seems to be an all encompassing, holistic approach from the studio, that special requirements be met by DAC manufactures and listeners subscribe to Tidal?

Can MQA files be purchased? I also wonder do MQA get a cut for each DAC sold or is there a set fee they must pay. Really MQA needs to demonstrate its superiority through a technical demonstration, not a video for the layman like above.
Bob seems to inadvertently give off the vibe like he has to dumb down his speech for everyone. I am sure he is pretty intelligent but let's see the goods, In an audio science world with so many experts I think we would welcome a technical video.

Never have I see a topic like this cause such division across the spectrum, It's a file type, it probably sounds good. If you are happy to use Tidal and MQA then good for you, that is cool. If MQA is more than just a way to cleverly reduce bandwidth then it's up to Bob and MQA to demonstrate that if they want to secure more of the audiophile market.

We now have HD music on Qobuz, Amazon, Deezer and eventually Spotify so there will be no shortage of Hi-Res music on demand. If Tidal continues to grow its user base then I think it will always have a portion of the market. There must also be a decent demand for it if many vendors have implemented it to the extent we have seen.
It's probably going to be around for a while. Ultimately it's a choice which the consumer can make for themselves.

Thanks for sharing this video. It took me about 3 different times to sit down and get through it, but I watched the whole thing. You're right that it is a "(not) response" as you put it. The interviewer is a reporter for the tech page in the Metro (UK) newspaper. I don't know what the business model is for that portion of that paper, but the video felt more like a 37 minute commercial for Bob Stuart and MQA than anything else. And maybe that's how they handle tech writing at that publication, generally. I just don't know. Stuart kept claiming multiple times that MQA cares about delivering great sound. This reporter never asked a single question about the issues that @GoldenOne brought up in his video/post that suggest MQA doesn't care about delivering great sound as much as they claim. Stuart's comments also sounded like a CEO of a company pumping people up on their long-term business plan. That seems to be MQA diversifying into video and live-performance streaming (which to be fair, MQA likely would be a sonic upgrade from the audio of a lot of video streaming services). At least in this video, Stuart sounds like a person who is now business-first, rather than audio-first.

Another crucial element lacking from all the responses to GoldenSound's video was that literally no one has tried to defend MQA's rep's behavior at conferences or their general defensive and hostile demeanor toward the audio community. That behavior is as much a problem as the questions surrounding their product claims. They are making the situation worse by acting as if they know they have something to hide. Hans Beekhuizen and other defenders have completely ignored this point.

 

[GoldenSound]

Thanks for sharing this video. It took me about 3 different times to sit down and get through it, but I watched the whole thing. You're right that it is a "(not) response" as you put it. The interviewer is a reporter for the tech page in the Metro (UK) newspaper. I don't know what the business model is for that portion of that paper, but the video felt more like a 37 minute commercial for Bob Stuart and MQA than anything else. And maybe that's how they handle tech writing at that publication, generally. I just don't know. Stuart kept claiming multiple times that MQA cares about delivering great sound. This reporter never asked a single question about the issues that @GoldenOne brought up in his video/post that suggest MQA doesn't care about delivering great sound as much as they claim. Stuart's comments also sounded like a CEO of a company pumping people up on their long-term business plan. That seems to be MQA diversifying into video and live-performance streaming (which to be fair, MQA likely would be a sonic upgrade from the audio of a lot of video streaming services). At least in this video, Stuart sounds like a person who is now business-first, rather than audio-first.

Another crucial element lacking from all the responses to GoldenSound's video was that literally no one has tried to defend MQA's rep's behavior at conferences or their general defensive and hostile demeanor toward the audio community. That behavior is as much a problem as the questions surrounding their product claims. They are making the situation worse by acting as if they know they have something to hide. Hans Beekhuizen and other defenders have completely ignored this point.

MQA has now published a "Bob Talks" post in direct response to my video:

https://bobtalks.co.uk/a-deeper-look/all-that-glitters-is-not-golden/

I'll be posting a short response to this myself soon. Normally I would not, but given the size and nature of the company and product, as well as the statements made in their response I feel it is important to do so as much of it is either outright false or intentionally misleading.

"MQA has never made false claims about ‘losslessness’."
Are you sure about that? https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4802:ojxphr.2.3

Plus other things like Bob Stuart repeatedly claiming MQA is lossless, or the FAQ page literally answering the question "Is MQA lossless" with one word "Yes".
Oh.....but it no longer says that. In fact now they've changed it to say "It's better than lossless!" https://www.mqa.co.uk/newsroom/qa/is-mqa-lossless
But if we look at an archive from a mere week ago that was not always the case: https://web.archive.org/web/20210515030602/https://www.mqa.co.uk/newsroom/qa/is-mqa-lossless

There's also some VERY careful choices of words in their response.

"MQA Files are delivered losslessly"
Yes....the MQA files are....that doesn't mean the actual content of said files is lossless. This is incredibly misleading.

Many of their other points do not offer any evidence to back them up or refute claims made in the original video. But even in the appendixes linked, information is not particularly clear cut. Appendix 4 for example relies on trust in their determination of "Temporal Blur" for which there is absolutely no measure.
Additionally, the screenshots included in Appendix 4 appear to be fake.....will go into this in the video.

 

[castleofargh]

About losslessness, I think there's a mix bag of honesty and marketing Tokyo drift. The patent was very clear about a lossy handling of some stuff, the slightly controversial reconstruction filter sported by Meridian that probably sounds just fine anyway, and the application of dither by the decoder. So if there was some ambiguity, it was on the marketing side of things, which was abused extensively for many years as most people here already know.
About his point on ultrasonic content being low in music, I tend to agree. And indeed a part of MQA is counting on that to save space. Again the patents are pretty clear IMO. So I’m temped to give him that. Typical music content and audibility should probably be what matters for an audio format. Even if that very argument is why I could never care about ultrasounds or MQA... I guess the same idea can be interpreted in a number of ways ^-^.


About appendix 4, they're just saying that flac is lossless. It might look like more but it's not. Once anything is in a flac container it's going to be delivered and decoded losslessly into whatever it is by the flac decoder. Then we have the veted MQA file and the series of stuff done to it by decoder or Meridian DAC scheme where losslesness becomes less relevant because it's simply impossible. No DAC is doing a lossless reconstruction of the digital signal.
So again, yes mqa is lossy, but if you think like they do, then it's no different from any other and different system . DACs will have their own oversampling numbers and reconstruction filters. Basically all files are dithered at some point, MQA is just being its own sauce in its own order.

Ultimately, one does need to get onboard with a lot of assumptions(or be happily ignorant) to embrace MQA as a format. Others will just ignore it and wait for the next format trying to solve problems we don't really have, so they can also not use it.

 

[]eep]

About losslessness, I think there's a mix bag of honesty and marketing Tokyo drift. The patent was very clear about a lossy handling of some stuff, the slightly controversial reconstruction filter sported by Meridian that probably sounds just fine anyway, and the application of dither by the decoder. So if there was some ambiguity, it was on the marketing side of things, which was abused extensively for many years as most people here already know.
About his point on ultrasonic content being low in music, I tend to agree. And indeed a part of MQA is counting on that to save space. Again the patents are pretty clear IMO. So I’m temped to give him that. Typical music content and audibility should probably be what matters for an audio format. Even if that very argument is why I could never care about ultrasounds or MQA... I guess the same idea can be interpreted in a number of ways ^-^.


About appendix 4, they're just saying that flac is lossless. It might look like more but it's not. Once anything is in a flac container it's going to be delivered and decoded losslessly into whatever it is by the flac decoder. Then we have the veted MQA file and the series of stuff done to it by decoder or Meridian DAC scheme where losslesness becomes less relevant because it's simply impossible. No DAC is doing a lossless reconstruction of the digital signal.
So again, yes mqa is lossy, but if you think like they do, then it's no different from any other and different system . DACs will have their own oversampling numbers and reconstruction filters. Basically all files are dithered at some point, MQA is just being its own sauce in its own order.

Ultimately, one does need to get onboard with a lot of assumptions(or be happily ignorant) to embrace MQA as a format. Others will just ignore it and wait for the next format trying to solve problems we don't really have, so they can also not use it.

Did you even read the opening post? You are totally missing the point (and point, and point), confusing the issues of what is normally meant by lossless (digital file) and how the mqa group is redefining it (trowing half the data away before the adc or ddc conversion).

Rephrasing 'a mixed bag of honesty and marketing', is just a very eufemistic way of saying they make loose half-true assertions. Half-truths are even more insidious than straightforward lies.

If you don't see how misleading and carefully phrased the wording is in the mqa narrative (that's the new word for propaganda, ie lies)... I'm lost for words here...

-If they say 'jump' I say 'Why?'
-When you dismiss things that you don't understand then others suffer. Faith is the foundation of every enterprise.

 

[]eep]

Thanks for sharing this video. It took me about 3 different times to sit down and get through it, but I watched the whole thing. You're right that it is a "(not) response" as you put it. The interviewer is a reporter for the tech page in the Metro (UK) newspaper. I don't know what the business model is for that portion of that paper, but the video felt more like a 37 minute commercial for Bob Stuart and MQA than anything else. And maybe that's how they handle tech writing at that publication, generally. I just don't know. Stuart kept claiming multiple times that MQA cares about delivering great sound. This reporter never asked a single question about the issues that @GoldenOne brought up in his video/post that suggest MQA doesn't care about delivering great sound as much as they claim. Stuart's comments also sounded like a CEO of a company pumping people up on their long-term business plan. That seems to be MQA diversifying into video and live-performance streaming (which to be fair, MQA likely would be a sonic upgrade from the audio of a lot of video streaming services). At least in this video, Stuart sounds like a person who is now business-first, rather than audio-first.

Another crucial element lacking from all the responses to GoldenSound's video was that literally no one has tried to defend MQA's rep's behavior at conferences or their general defensive and hostile demeanor toward the audio community. That behavior is as much a problem as the questions surrounding their product claims. They are making the situation worse by acting as if they know they have something to hide. Hans Beekhuizen and other defenders have completely ignored this point.

Wow. You watched the whole thing! I couldn't stand more than 1 minute. I got the distinct impression they are sleeping together... The chest thumping, the selfserving dumbing it down, the idolatrous giggling... eew. Gross.

Fyi: I've been reading lots of English, German and Dutch Hifi magazines. The English glossies were always very expensive and I often bought HFN&RR. But never What Hifi because it has always been to simplistic for me. Like the hifi variant of consumer information monthly of 'What kitchen appliance' , 'What insurance' or 'What washing powder' for Joe average. Or the socialist 'Consumer Guide' in my country . I also didn't buy much of the Dutch magazines for the same reason (too much like Hans Beekhuizen... now you wonder why did he ever get fired...). German monthlies are all very good and reliable (much more than American).

So, no. I don't have much incentive to view the WH video to start with.