MQA Controversy

Audio Components DACs
623
Seegs108 said

There’s practically no physical media being manufacturers for digital music anymore . . .


? Over 100 million CDs were sold in 2016.

There were more CDs sold than digital downloads the last time I looked, although sales of both were down.

Consumers listened to more digital album equivalents (Nielsen’s track-equivalent albums (TEA) whereby 10 track sales equal one album unit) than either. But I do not know how to relate this to actual albums because people listen to the same tracks over and over, as well as to the same albums over and over. I think something like 10 TEAs is equivalent to one album purchase.

624

And there were literally over 1 trillion songs streamed last year. As I’ve said, physical media doesn’t really matter and will not alter where the market is going over the next few years. So if you figure an album has on average 10 songs on it, only one out of a thousand albums listened to were on a physical CD. This just kind of helps prove my point that streaming is where it’s at and that’s where record labels will focus on exapnding. I highly doubt we’ll see a physical audio format again. I personally think this is a good thing.

625

So… this is what is confusing me… when Bob Stuart came out with MLP… it was absolutely stressed in the marketing - that it was a lossless algorithm… no bits were lost… superior sound… etc… Now - essentially the same folks are saying – it isn’t lossless… in fact you do lose bits -but it does not matter…It sounds better with the lost bits. So, lets think about this from a marketing perspective… Where is the ‘sell’ here if it isn’t for audiophiles like us that care about the sound … and buy 6K DACs… :wink: … Up above someone said - it is the MP3 crowd… I’ll tell you - the MP3 crowd will NOT pay more for a service because it says ‘masters’ on it… I won’t pay 2 dollars a month extra for Netflix… So - now where is the market for MQA? If you don’t have a market - you don’t have a product… Do you think people that are avid MP3… background music listeners are lighting up the internet talking about MQA - saying they ‘just can’t wait till more titles come out!!’ … I don’t think so… The audiophile community is because of people that stream and think better sound will occur… Now Tidal says ante up for the good stuff… I having trouble connecting the dots quite frankly…

So lets suppose Tidal doesn’t see people switching over to Masters for a premium… I think Paul said there was one - 20 bucks extra per month… seriously?.. What then… who do you think the market is that will switch over? What will make it worth while for Tidal to keep it? The audiophiles won’t keep it afloat – hell we are all conflicted with it… so as small as our niche is - it just got smaller.

I guess I don’t see the market for this… It feels like a twist on MLP possibly to get licensing fees etc… Yet the marketing strategy - to me anyway … seems a mystery???

626
timm said

So lets suppose Tidal doesn’t see people switching over to Masters for a premium… I think Paul said there was one - 20 bucks extra per month… seriously?..

The MQA Masters are free with TIdal's HiFi service. There is no extra fee for them. This is mostly due to the fact that the MQA version doesn't really change the amount of data needed to be streamed to the end user or at least in a big enough way to warrant Tidal to charge extra for it.
627
Seegs108 said

And there were literally over 1 trillion songs streamed last year.


Untrue. According to Nielsen, 400 billion which translates to 280 million TEAs, or roughly equivalent to 28 million album sales (assuming people only listen to a purchased album ten times - the actual number of listens is much higher rendering the equivalent even lower). CD sales were twice this.

Streaming is significant, but does not dominate.

Regardless, physical CDs at 50 million sold last year remain a major player.

628
Elk said
Seegs108 said And there were literally over 1 trillion songs streamed last year.
Untrue. According to Nielsen, 400 billion which translates to 280 million TEAs, or roughly equivalent to 28 million album sales (assuming people only listen to a purchased album ten times - the actual number of listens is much higher rendering the equivalent even lower). CD sales were twice this.

Streaming is significant, but does not dominate.

Regardless, physical CDs at 50 million sold last year remain a major player.

Nielsen only takes into account subscription services and not free ones. If you take into account streamed music from free services such as YouTube, Pandora and a few other popular services, it's well over 1 Trillion streamed songs. With that said, do you honestly think CD sales and other physical sales will increase? They will dwindle down, as they have every single year since the inception of streaming. As I've said, physical CD sales are not what record labels care about or use to judge where the market will be in a few years.
629
timm said

So… this is what is confusing me… when Bob Stuart came out with MLP… it was absolutely stressed in the marketing - that it was a lossless algorithm… no bits were lost… superior sound… etc… Now - essentially the same folks are saying – it isn’t lossless… in fact you do lose bits -but it does not matter…It sounds better with the lost bits. So, lets think about this from a marketing perspective… Where is the ‘sell’ here if it isn’t for audiophiles like us that care about the sound … and buy 6K DACs… :wink: … Up above someone said - it is the MP3 crowd… I’ll tell you - the MP3 crowd will NOT pay more for a service because it says ‘masters’ on it… I won’t pay 2 dollars a month extra for Netflix… So - now where is the market for MQA? If you don’t have a market - you don’t have a product… Do you think people that are avid MP3… background music listeners are lighting up the internet talking about MQA - saying they ‘just can’t wait till more titles come out!!’ … I don’t think so… The audiophile community is because of people that stream and think better sound will occur… Now Tidal says ante up for the good stuff… I having trouble connecting the dots quite frankly…

So lets suppose Tidal doesn’t see people switching over to Masters for a premium… I think Paul said there was one - 20 bucks extra per month… seriously?.. What then… who do you think the market is that will switch over? What will make it worth while for Tidal to keep it? The audiophiles won’t keep it afloat – hell we are all conflicted with it… so as small as our niche is - it just got smaller.

I guess I don’t see the market for this… It feels like a twist on MLP possibly to get licensing fees etc… Yet the marketing strategy - to me anyway … seems a mystery???


It was originally stated to be lossless, then someone pointed out the impossibility of that and they relented.

Here’s a pretty concise explanation from digital expert Andreas Koch:

  1. It reduces sample rate to 44.1kHz in its compressed form through standard sample rate conversion algorithms which are known to be as lossy as MP3 and others.
  2. It further reduces the audio signal from 24-bits to around 16 or 17, a process that further throws away vital information from the original signal that cannot be restored later. These remaining 8- or 7-bits will now be used to encode some of the high sample rate information that we threw out during the above sample rate down conversion. They can then be added to each 44.1kHz sample in the least significant bit positions. The above mentioned word length reduction from 24 bits down to 16- or 17-bits and the resulting higher noise floor will mask the effects of using these bits for the higher sample rate information. It is like making the signal quality slightly worse first so that the effect of the repurposed 7 or 8 least significant bits becomes less audible.
  3. The apodizing feature that we have added independently to the compression scheme has the potential to counteract some of the side effects that were introduced by the ADC and digital signal processing used during the recording process, as well as those that could be introduced by the DAC used during playback. But for this to work optimally we need to know the characteristics of the entire signal chain from studio to home.
If you're interested in reading Andreas' entire article, published in Positive Feedback Magazine, go here: http://positive-feedback.com/audio-discourse/questions-answers-mqa-interview-andreas-koch/
630

Thanks Paul.

631

Consider that Qobuz offers hi res streaming 24/192 for $220 a year. That gets you access to everything… even cd quality that hasn’t gone hi-res yet.

I would ditch Tidal immediately for that… it’s just not licensed for US sales yet.

632

Paul, I don’t use USB on my DS. I go from Roon to a SqueezeBox Touch and then optical to the DS. It gives me the same format support as the Bridge does (192kHz PCM and DSD64). Roon will in future decode MQA to 88.1 or 96 and then send that stream as it does now. I love the sound quality I get from optical on the DS.

Timm, I use Tidal for “serious” listening. The playback path I’m using makes my choice of software irrelevant, provided it’s bit perfect. They all sound the same – that is, they all sound great via optical into the DS.

633

Dvorak. Can you explain how that works exactly? I have a SBT as well. How do you have your pc hooked to your SBT ? U aren’t using the squeezebox server? Sorry off topic … but important. :). It has been awhile since I have used it.

634
cxp said

Consider that Qobuz offers hi res streaming 24/192 for $220 a year. That gets you access to everything… even cd quality that hasn’t gone hi-res yet.

I would ditch Tidal immediately for that… it’s just not licensed for US sales yet.


Hi, correct me if I’m wrong but my understanding is that Qobuz only offers streaming of hires material that you’ve purchased from Qobuz - they call it their “sublime” service. Other than that, they “only” offer streaming at up to cd quality.

Regards, Mike.

635

Timm & dvorak - pretty sure that setup is not passing actual DSD 64. The SBs do a nice job of playing most things, just not necessarily unmolested. For example, it will typically convert higher res stuff to Flac (if you look in the menus on the player as a track is playing, there is info about what it is outputting vs. the original file type). Dvorak - I recall you have the plugin that enables higher output on the optical. Just not 100% sure it’s all coming out the other end to the DS intact.

636
Jumbuck said

I just wonder who they originally were aiming MQA at. I assumed it was audiophiles but now it sounds more like the masses. Most people could stream CD quality now but choose not to so why would hi res be any different? Even if there is some merit with MQA in regards to SQ I think the marketing people have taken over and now it is all about how much can they make out of this. With 2 major record companies on board and more to follow my level of scepticism rises. They have proven they have no interest in SQ over the years and it is all about re-selling their catalogs for the umpteenth time.


I’m 55 and a long-time audiophile. I just received and set up a DSJr, which I’m burning in.

My friends are mostly +/- 10 years of my age, so 45-65. There isn’t a single one of them that has anything even remotely approaching a high quality music system. Mostly it’s ancient gear from their college days (!), a compact system or HTIB from Best Buy, or a Bluetooth portable. For a few, their music source is cable music channels through TV speakers, which is one step up from an AM radio through an oval speaker in a noisy pickup truck.

Most are simply amazed at my system (Oppo, Bryston, Revel Ultima), but that’s when they are looking at it. Few are amazed by the sound, as if it’s just a little louder, with just a bit more bass than they’re used to. MQA is definitely not aimed at them.

Given that the birth of MQA came from an audiophile company, and trumpeted primarily in the audiophile press, I assume it’s for audiophiles, as you did. Getting the word out through mass market streaming services might open some eyes outside the audiophile circle, but I doubt it. Nobody I know has ever heard of or gives a rip about DVD-A, SA-CD, HDCD or anything beyond the humble equipment they have. They are swayed by brand names like Sony and Bose. I live in MN, yet none of them has ever heard of Audio Research, Magnepan, Wadia or Bel Canto Design.

As a group primarily made up of baby boomers, you’d think that classic rock would be part of their DNA, and as mostly college educated people, they would be interested in what HP of TAS called “formal music”. Or jazz. Nuh-uh. Broadway show music, maybe, but only because of the show…not the music. A few would claim to love the blues, but primarily because it’s closer to the rock ‘n’ roll of their youth than the stuff the kids listen to nowadays. Which is noise, by the way.

I look at it this way; if MQA can help stream higher-quality sound to my system, on the shoulders of reducing storage and/or bandwidth costs for streaming services, then that’s fine. I haven’t heard any version of MQA yet, and hope that some of the rave reviews and positive impressions are real and sincere. If it dies on the vine, or is subsequently usurped by yet another technology, I’ll have one more arrow in my quiver of bygone audio format stories with which to bore people.

Thank you for listening. Chris V.

637
Seegs108 said
The MQA Masters are free with TIdal's HiFi service. There is no extra fee for them. This is mostly due to the fact that the MQA version doesn't really change the amount of data needed to be streamed to the end user or at least in a big enough way to warrant Tidal to charge extra for it.
Exactly, which is a point often missed. It requires streaming services like Tidal to not really change anything.

Things to note are:

  1. Only when the touch-up channel is overloaded is up to 96k not lossless which is only rarely.

  2. Yes the bottom 7 bits are thrown away but that is usually below the noise floor of most recordings, and dither is used to make it effectively the same as the 24 bit recording anyway, See the graphs posted on Computer Audiophile:

Above 96k its simply up-sampling so is very lossy - but whether that high in frequency is audible is another matter.

Thanks

Bill

638

Yikes. If we don’t need those pesky “extra” bits, and likely don’t need high sample rates, then good old Redbook should be just fine, and all the work and effort at implementing high-resolution audio is a waste.

I don’t believe that anymore than you’re likely to. Despite what Bob Stuart shows on his graph. I can provide ample evidence that power cords make no difference - but my ears tell me different.

And, dither is noise - it’s no substitute for information. Years ago when we first launched the Digital Lens, we extended the word length from 16 bits to 18 or 20 by adding dither (noise). The only sonic benefit in those early days was to engage different digital filter algorithms. The DACS at that time counted the number of bits and executed different filters depending on the number of bits. It was the filters that soiunded different, not the added noise. Anyone suggesting different, is either ignorant or wrong.

For my money, I am not comfortable with any technology that throws away bits of real information - even if that information is only on a handful of recordings (like Reference Recordings).

It’s all smoke and mirrors from what I can see.

639
Seegs108 said

Nielsen only takes into account subscription services and not free ones. If you take into account streamed music from free services such as YouTube, Pandora and a few other popular services, it’s well over 1 Trillion streamed songs.


Untrue, once again. Nielsen tracks everything, even including social media. Nielsen also includes services such as YouTube, which is free for the user. If you are a customer of theirs you can obtain astounding amounts of very specific, drilled-down information. Billboard similarly carefully watches every single way listeners consume music.

With that said, do you honestly think CD sales and other physical sales will increase?
Strawman. No one here claimed CD sales will increase. Rather, I maintain "physical CDs at 50 million sold last year remain a major player." This is in response to your statement "There’s practically no physical media being manufacturers (sic)" 50,000,000 is a great deal more than "no physical media." CDs, while no longer dominant, remain a major player.

There is no question streaming is becoming more popular and it will continue to increase as a music delivery service. Unfortunately, the bulk of streaming is low-resolution. Streaming resolution approaching 16/44 is uncommon. Tidal, for example, is a minuscule player.

Thus, those of us who care about sound have a significant vested interest in CDs as a source. And, accordingly, we care about the application of MQA to CDs.

(As a bit of trivia, vinyl brought in more money to the industry last year than YouTube fees.)

640
bhobba said

Yes the bottom 7 bits are thrown away but that is usually below the noise floor of most recordings, and dither is used to make it effectively the same as the 24 bit recording anyway,


This is the same argument the developers of MP3 made; you do not need the information we are removing because you can not hear it anyway. Anyone here believe this?

Those 7 bits are precisely that which constitutes a high resolution recording. In fact, many find adding more bits (44.1/24, for example) has greater beneficial sonic impact than increasing the sample rate (88.2/16, for example).

Substituting these critically important 7 bits with noise (dither) does not result in a high resolution recording. Weird, huh? :slight_smile:

Consider also that jitter is vanishingly low level noise. Yet, as all of us who have upgraded our DirectStreams with Ted’s new firmwares, it is easy to hear the improvements made by reducing jitter even further. That is, noise is not high resolution; it is contrary to high resolution. Noise is a Bad Thing.

641
Elk said

" …MQA will not disclose what they do in detail…"


If they won’t disclose it, how are they hiding it? Is there a proprietary chip that’s required for full MQA decoding? Do all MQA compliant DACs require that chip or some implementation of it?

642

It is exceedingly difficult, neigh impossible, to reverse engineer software.

This is why many programmers elect to not patent or copyright their software; do so requires disclosure of what they are up to.