MQA: Revolutionary British streaming technology
Apr 15, 2016 at 2:30 PM Post #286 of 1,869
You or I might just possibly be misreading the simple chart. I read it as a very generalised comparison of a media's convienence of use to its audio quality and is not trying to compare audio quality between different media.
 
Apr 15, 2016 at 2:44 PM Post #287 of 1,869
You or I might just possibly be misreading the simple chart. I read it as a very generalised comparison of a media's convienence of use to its audio quality and is not trying to compare audio quality between different media.

 
I'm not misreading anything.
 
Apr 15, 2016 at 3:11 PM Post #289 of 1,869
You don't confirm that you have actually read the article and make such a sweeping generalised statement about the articles reliability that some might question the reliability of your comments.

I would repeat that the article is most certainly worth reading if one wishes to gain some insight about the thinking behind MQA. I however make no claims about the veracity of the article, I leave that for others.


I'll make you a deal:
 
You confirm the veracity of the article and I will read it.
 
Personally I don't make a habit of reading self serving press releases, which until you or someone else confirms the veracity of the article, is all that I will take the article to be. And once again, the parts of the article that I did read only confirmed my suspicions that MQA is nothing more than some fancy equalization. I.E. the only way to "improve" the sound of an existing recording is by some form of equalization or digital signal processing (which is also just another form of equalization). And more to the point equalization, regardless of how fancy or how "new" is NOT revolutionary.
 
Apr 15, 2016 at 4:10 PM Post #290 of 1,869
As you read at least a very small part of the article I will assume that you are aware that the article is one of the two inventors of MQA responses to a great many questions submitted by many different people, many of them with very serious doubts about it.

On reflection hold that statement, I realise that you clearly don't otherwise you would have absolutely no justification to call it a "self serving press release" which it patently is not.

As Bob Stewart has gone to great lengths and in considerable depth to address a whole range of very searching questions which is considerably more than I have ever read from any other manufacturer, I find your reluctance to read it a little puzzling. Are you concerned that he might have something of real worth to say that you are unable to refute?

Of what you have read, what aspects are inaccurate? what specific false statements or claims has he made? If you have not been able to identify any, then your reason for not reading his answers in full undermines the merits of any arguement you put forward.

I am quite prepared to say that I simply don't understand everything he says, but he certainly puts forward authoritive reasoning. Of those who put forward the original questions I am yet to hear any of them counter is reasoning. If you do have valid reasoned arguments to contradict what he states in the article, I would be very happy for you to enlighten me.

Your stance that you won't read the article until someone else proves to you that he is right and yet will continue to dismiss and argue against it's merits, for me at least, simply undermines the credibility of your claims. I hope you do not take offence at my comments as I intend none.
 
Apr 15, 2016 at 4:45 PM Post #291 of 1,869
I will withhold judgement until I have the opportunity to listen to MQA properly derived from a Master recording, on my very own system in my listening room.  
 
I also believe that the only way that MQA will attain broad adoption is if it is used in streaming (Tidal).  Paying $24 per downloaded album is a non-starter.
 
Apr 15, 2016 at 5:09 PM Post #292 of 1,869
I am quite prepared to say that I simply don't understand everything he says, but he certainly puts forward authoritive reasoning. Of those who put forward the original questions I am yet to hear any of them counter is reasoning. If you do have valid reasoned arguments to contradict what he states in the article, I would be very happy for you to enlighten me.

 
See the comments below the article and a quick response from Archimago here. The question isn't so much if they can encode high frequency content into the LSBs of a 44.1/48k carrier and then recover that information to yield a "better" impulse response. It's about the resulting quality, both for decoded and non-decoded streams, and the DRM potential, not to mention the whole big question of what we can actually hear as humans in terms of "blur" or "smear".
 
Apr 15, 2016 at 5:53 PM Post #293 of 1,869
As you read at least a very small part of the article I will assume that you are aware that the article is one of the two inventors of MQA responses to a great many questions submitted by many different people, many of them with very serious doubts about it.

On reflection hold that statement, I realise that you clearly don't otherwise you would have absolutely no justification to call it a "self serving press release" which it patently is not.

As Bob Stewart has gone to great lengths and in considerable depth to address a whole range of very searching questions which is considerably more than I have ever read from any other manufacturer, I find your reluctance to read it a little puzzling. Are you concerned that he might have something of real worth to say that you are unable to refute?

Of what you have read, what aspects are inaccurate? what specific false statements or claims has he made? If you have not been able to identify any, then your reason for not reading his answers in full undermines the merits of any arguement you put forward.

I am quite prepared to say that I simply don't understand everything he says, but he certainly puts forward authoritive reasoning. Of those who put forward the original questions I am yet to hear any of them counter is reasoning. If you do have valid reasoned arguments to contradict what he states in the article, I would be very happy for you to enlighten me.

Your stance that you won't read the article until someone else proves to you that he is right and yet will continue to dismiss and argue against it's merits, for me at least, simply undermines the credibility of your claims. I hope you do not take offence at my comments as I intend none.

Okay I read the article ad it is indeed a very, very self serving press release.
 
Here are some choice quotes from the article:
 
"In brief, MQA is a philosophy more than it is ‘just a codec’." Really? Really? What?!?!?
 
"We are very serious about the problem that, in the internet era, the average level of sound quality has declined for most music fans." Again really? So smartphones do not sound better than cassette Walkmans?
 
"The fact that the decline of physical media has effectively disconnected several generations from simple discovery and playback has accelerated the process." Ever heard of Spotify or Apple Music or Pandora?
 
"Q9. Regarding my disappointment from hi res audio (with some exceptions of course) as a holy grail digital format I believe that MQA is the last format standing between Real evolution in digital audio and Redbook-mp3 total domination in the long term.
 
A9. We are inclined to agree. It’s an important problem we are solving and requires insight, perspective and determination. We are up for the chance to make recorded music more enjoyable and more available. We have been very pleased by the number and quality of very positive comments and support. The key difference is we are taking the solution inside the music industry. This inclusive approach makes it slower to get going, but we hope more effective in the end."
 
If the above question and answer aren't the very definition of self serving then i don't know what is.
 
"temporal blur" this is a video, not an audio, term.
 
The remaining 80 or so Q&As do very little as far as presenting any additional useful information but he does answer lots of pretty much pointless questions, though this is not his fault.
 
And in light of the current market forces facing record companies I highly doubt there exists the will to spend time to properly remaster anything short of the Beatles. But that is a different issue than the technological aspects of MQA, which only careful listening will either confirm or deny.
 
Perhaps a better question for the audiophile would be why is MQA even being discussed when it is very clearly works as PCM and is not DSD? (Please note: that is very much meant to be sarcastic.)
 
Apr 16, 2016 at 4:12 AM Post #294 of 1,869
tmarshal's comment about reserving judgement and auditioning MQA utilising a system that he is comfortable with is a welcome piece of common sense. Totally agree that cost and availability have yet to addressed as yet, if they are not then MQA is a complete non flier regardless of any claims to its audio merits.
 
Apr 16, 2016 at 4:46 AM Post #295 of 1,869
""In brief, MQA is a philosophy more than it is ‘just a codec’." Really? Really? What?!?!?"

You may not like or agree with the statement but stating MQA's philosophy regarding the technology is quite a reasonable thing to do in the context of responding to a very large number of questions.


"We are very serious about the problem that, in the internet era, the average level of sound quality has declined for most music fans." Again really? So smartphones do not sound better than cassette Walkmans?"

The highly compressed MP3 sound quality being listened to by the average user is probably on a par with audio cassettes. Those that use HD quality files on their smartphones are unquestionably in a minority and certainly not to be confused with the majority

""The fact that the decline of physical media has effectively disconnected several generations from simple discovery and playback has accelerated the process." Ever heard of Spotify or Apple Music or Pandora?""

There is a whole generation out there who only listen to music via Spotify etc. and have never listened on anything remotely akin to a quality playback system

""Q9. Regarding my disappointment from hi res audio (with some exceptions of course) as a holy grail digital format I believe that MQA is the last format standing between Real evolution in digital audio and Redbook-mp3 total domination in the long term.

A9. We are inclined to agree. It’s an important problem we are solving and requires insight, perspective and determination. We are up for the chance to make recorded music more enjoyable and more available. We have been very pleased by the number and quality of very positive comments and support. The key difference is we are taking the solution inside the music industry. This inclusive approach makes it slower to get going, but we hope more effective in the end."

If the above question and answer aren't the very definition of self serving then i don't know what is."

To comment positively about MQA in relation to the question posed I believe is perfectly reasonable response. Labelling the response as self serving seems just a tad bias

""temporal blur" this is a video, not an audio, term."

temporal blur is simply a statement that means degradation of a signal over time and is most certainly not a video term. The term can be used in the context of any data transference.

"The remaining 80 or so Q&As do very little as far as presenting any additional useful information but he does answer lots of pretty much pointless questions, though this is not his fault."

The rest of the question addressed are not pointless. The fact that some have conducted "tests" to disprove MQA and he has systematically pulled their analysis to pieces is very much to the point. I note you have not refuted a single technical point expressed in any of the responses to the questions, (as some questions were clearly quite hostile, his responses are all the more note worthy).

"And in light of the current market forces facing record companies I highly doubt there exists the will to spend time to properly remaster anything short of the Beatles. But that is a different issue than the technological aspects of MQA, which only careful listening will either confirm or deny."

You are absolutely on the ball with the last comment and only time will tell

"Perhaps a better question for the audiophile would be why is MQA even being discussed when it is very clearly works as PCM and is not DSD? (Please note: that is very much meant to be sarcastic.)
[/quote]"

I simply ignored the sarcasm :slight_smile:
 
Apr 16, 2016 at 6:34 AM Post #296 of 1,869
@Gringo , try to do something about how you quote. it's close to impossible to understand who's talking.
 
 
MQA offers something, time will tell if people want it. now the entire purpose of the format is to make files that can send smaller resolution when the streaming speed is limited. please guys don't go creating another white whale. it's not a superior format, it's not doing more than highres, it will not sound magically superior to anything.  the purpose of the format is the ability to scale down, not up!!!!!!
 
Apr 16, 2016 at 7:57 AM Post #297 of 1,869
I have been following this thread for some time now in the hope that I would eventually understand it based on the supplied information. But after reading 20 pages I can't say that many others who have given an explanation, understand it either! Some of the explanations given by contributors are not even backed up or suggested by the inventors. That's the first sign that we are all confused.
 
But let's to get back to the information that Meridian has released, and that has been written about at http://www.expertreviews.co.uk
1. The format is based on mp3, but lossless. We can say that with a degree of certainty, since that is the format mentioned in just about every press release or review of the system.
2. MQA, basing their research on neuroscience and psychoacoustics rather than frequency graphs and oscilloscopes So it is not necessarily  bit accurate.
3. The technology is not treating audio frequency and timing data equally, but focuses more on the timing data. So frequency accuracy is sacrificed.
4. Their research is based on neuroscience and psychoacoustics rather than frequency graphs and oscilloscopes. So the key to the system is in what we hear, not the accuracy of original audio track itself.
5. It is designed for streaming.
 
I don't quite understand what the benefits of this system is supposed to be offering, if its key concept is based on making it possible to stream otherwise very large audio tracks, in a far smaller size. The accuracy of the frequency of the playback is important. If that is given a backseat in MQA, then the perceived technical benefits do not justify the amount of tampering on the original recording.
 
Apr 16, 2016 at 8:37 AM Post #298 of 1,869
tmarshal's comment about reserving judgement and auditioning MQA utilising a system that he is comfortable with is a welcome piece of common sense. Totally agree that cost and availability have yet to addressed as yet, if they are not then MQA is a complete non flier regardless of any claims to its audio merits.

I completely agree. At present MQA is little than a promise of great things to come.........
 
""In brief, MQA is a philosophy more than it is ‘just a codec’." Really? Really? What?!?!?"

You may not like or agree with the statement but stating MQA's philosophy regarding the technology is quite a reasonable thing to do in the context of responding to a very large number of questions.


"We are very serious about the problem that, in the internet era, the average level of sound quality has declined for most music fans." Again really? So smartphones do not sound better than cassette Walkmans?"

The highly compressed MP3 sound quality being listened to by the average user is probably on a par with audio cassettes. Those that use HD quality files on their smartphones are unquestionably in a minority and certainly not to be confused with the majority

""The fact that the decline of physical media has effectively disconnected several generations from simple discovery and playback has accelerated the process." Ever heard of Spotify or Apple Music or Pandora?""

There is a whole generation out there who only listen to music via Spotify etc. and have never listened on anything remotely akin to a quality playback system

""Q9. Regarding my disappointment from hi res audio (with some exceptions of course) as a holy grail digital format I believe that MQA is the last format standing between Real evolution in digital audio and Redbook-mp3 total domination in the long term.

A9. We are inclined to agree. It’s an important problem we are solving and requires insight, perspective and determination. We are up for the chance to make recorded music more enjoyable and more available. We have been very pleased by the number and quality of very positive comments and support. The key difference is we are taking the solution inside the music industry. This inclusive approach makes it slower to get going, but we hope more effective in the end."

If the above question and answer aren't the very definition of self serving then i don't know what is."

To comment positively about MQA in relation to the question posed I believe is perfectly reasonable response. Labelling the response as self serving seems just a tad bias

""temporal blur" this is a video, not an audio, term."

temporal blur is simply a statement that means degradation of a signal over time and is most certainly not a video term. The term can be used in the context of any data transference.

"The remaining 80 or so Q&As do very little as far as presenting any additional useful information but he does answer lots of pretty much pointless questions, though this is not his fault."

The rest of the question addressed are not pointless. The fact that some have conducted "tests" to disprove MQA and he has systematically pulled their analysis to pieces is very much to the point. I note you have not refuted a single technical point expressed in any of the responses to the questions, (as some questions were clearly quite hostile, his responses are all the more note worthy).

"And in light of the current market forces facing record companies I highly doubt there exists the will to spend time to properly remaster anything short of the Beatles. But that is a different issue than the technological aspects of MQA, which only careful listening will either confirm or deny."

You are absolutely on the ball with the last comment and only time will tell

"Perhaps a better question for the audiophile would be why is MQA even being discussed when it is very clearly works as PCM and is not DSD? (Please note: that is very much meant to be sarcastic.)
"

I simply ignored the sarcasm :slight_smile:[/quote]

I stand by my original statements. MQA is a form of signal processing combined with a codec, it is not a philosophy. Again pure marketing BS.
 
At what bit rate do mp3s sound worse than cassettes? To my ears even 128kps mp3s sound much better than cassettes. And at 192kps and above mp3s sound almost the same as flac files. MP3s are not the real problem, over use of dynamic range compression is the much, much, much bigger problem and the reason today's popular sounds so bad. This serious problem is not even mentioned, since this very real problem could be fixed without the need for MQA.
 
The comment on streaming was about discovering new music and not about sound quality of the playback system.
 
If Q9 & A9 do not seem like prime examples of Marketing 101 then I suggest that you retake the course.
 
temporal blur is simply a statement that means degradation of a signal over time and is most certainly not a video term. The term can be used in the context of any data transference.
 
No, go back and read the article and google "temporal blur" - it's a video/visual term.
 
And while all the remaining questions do contain lots of technical information, they do little to help one understand why MQA is going to be such a game changer or why the music in a MQA file will sound so much better or be worthwhile for the end user.
 
Apr 16, 2016 at 10:22 AM Post #299 of 1,869
"I stand by my original statements. MQA is a form of signal processing combined with a codec, it is not a philosophy. Again pure marketing BS."

The article states "We see from the questions that some people have been confused but this is generally because they are approaching, trying to understand, or forcing the discussion on MQA, from a different conceptual frame of reference. In brief, MQA is a philosophy more than it is ‘just a codec’."

The clue here is the words "more than just" . You maintain its BS but for those who don't concur from your point of view the term of BS could just as equally be applied to your interpretation.

"At what bit rate do mp3s sound worse than cassettes? To my ears even 128kps mp3s sound much better than cassettes. And at 192kps and above mp3s sound almost the same as flac files. MP3s are not the real problem, over use of dynamic range compression is the much, much, much bigger problem and the reason today's popular sounds so bad. This serious problem is not even mentioned, since this very real problem could be fixed without the need for MQA."

No one has used the term " mp3s sound worse than cassettes"" other than you. I used the phrase "MP3 sound quality being listened to by the average user is probably on a par with audio cassettes" and the key words here are "the average user" who are listening at low rates. That with the added problem of the loudness wars, which you quite rightly refer to, results in terrible quality.

Remember, the chart being referred is not MQA's but "it’s the opinion of top music label heads of what they delivered to the average customer and where they want to go."

"The comment was about discovering new music and not about quality of the playback system"

I misunderstood/misinterpretedyour original comment, the comment in the article I think you are referring to is:-
"The decline in physical media has effectively disconnected several generations from simple discovery and playback has accelerated the process."

This I believe refers to the fact that the majority of those downloading and streaming" do so with regards to single tracks rather than downloading or streaming and listening to whole albums and discovering music they would not have otherwise heard. I am sure you would agree that often the favourite track on an album turns out to not be the original track that was the reason you purchased the album for.

Your reference to Q9. A question was put to him and he responded just as he did to some very negative ones. He ducked no questions and simply answered them all. In this context your comment about marketing is completely without foundation. As mentioned at the begining of the article, he asked the reader to please not take answers out of context which was I believe you are doing here.

Oxford English Dictionary - Temporal:- relating to time, 'the spatial and temporal dimensions of human interference in complex ecosystems'
The word temporal in conjunction with the term blur is not the sole domain on the video world and I repeat can be applied to any data transference medium where space/ time can have an impact.

As to the other questions and there values, he can only answer what he is asked and they do help to explain what MQA is or is not which I believe was the purpose of the exercise. If these are not the answers you want then I suggest you ask MQA directly. If MQA takes off and that is a massive if, then being able to stream and store High quality music files much more readily is or will be a game changer for me. If and again it's another massive if, if the MQA mastering takes place and brings improved quality that has been alluded to then that is significant. Remember that MQA do not claim that their system trounces current hi-def files other than some issues with original DAC's that introduced artifacts can be addressed, if this proves to be the case then that is great. If it is all a house of cards built on sand then we will all get to find out in due course and for me at least it won't cost a penny as like many I am waiting to see. I hope it turns out for the good but in the mean time I won't decry or extol it without justification but try to take a rational view and wait and see.

Has any one listened to MQA and said "no, it's no good"? I have read lots by people basically trashing it who have not yet listened to it. Totally unscientific and unreliable but the comments I have read by those that have are all positive.
I have not had an opportunity to do direct comparisons with existing HD files so although I was impressed when auditioning MQA, for me the jury is still out.
 
Apr 16, 2016 at 12:04 PM Post #300 of 1,869
I have been following this thread for some time now in the hope that I would eventually understand it based on the supplied information. But after reading 20 pages I can't say that many others who have given an explanation, understand it either! Some of the explanations given by contributors are not even backed up or suggested by the inventors. That's the first sign that we are all confused.

But let's to get back to the information that Meridian has released, and that has been written about at http://www.expertreviews.co.uk
1. The format is based on mp3, but lossless. We can say that with a degree of certainty, since that is the format mentioned in just about every press release or review of the system.
2. MQA, basing their research on neuroscience and psychoacoustics rather than frequency graphs and oscilloscopes So it is not necessarily  bit accurate.
3. The technology is not treating audio frequency and timing data equally, but focuses more on the timing data. So frequency accuracy is sacrificed.
4. Their research is based on neuroscience and psychoacoustics rather than frequency graphs and oscilloscopes. So the key to the system is in what we hear, not the accuracy of original audio track itself.
5. It is designed for streaming.

I don't quite understand what the benefits of this system is supposed to be offering, if its key concept is based on making it possible to stream otherwise very large audio tracks, in a far smaller size. The accuracy of the frequency of the playback is important. If that is given a backseat in MQA, then the perceived technical benefits do not justify the amount of tampering on the original recording.


1. MQA is not based on MP3, once unfolded and played back, every bit of data from the original mastered file is reproduced other than the "random 0's and 1's that were originally below the noise floor. In other words you hear exactly the same as a HD file other than that below the noise floor.

2. See 1. Above the noise floor it is bit accurate.

3. The statement is not MQA's. Where does it say they are not paying full regard to frequency accuracy?

4. From what I gather MQA are trying to get closer to the original performance and at the same time address some of the artifacts introduced by the original DAC's

5. It is designed for streaming, downloading and CD's

Benefits as far as I understand it is some slight improvement in audio quality, HD quality more convienently due to much smaller file size. For some that will be great and others will question its tangible value.

Whether it will actually happen and benefits be real/worthwhile is yet to be seen.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top