Part 4 Finale – A Summation That Doesn’t Always Add Up
STRATA-GEE – This is the fourth and final installment of our contemplation on the controversy swirling around MQA. I want to start by thanking Bill Leebens for the many, many…MANY hours he spent interviewing, speaking with his editor (me), writing, and rewriting these pieces. It was a lot of work that for him, I’m afraid, will largely be thankless, as one side or the other will decry his work. At the same time, Bill and I end up in a slightly different place and you can see some of my thoughts at the end of his piece. But none of that takes away from the herculean effort this topic represented and I am eternally grateful to Bill Leebens for his thoughtful approach.
See where we end up after weeks of study on MQA
If one thing has become abundantly clear while researching and writing this series, it is this:
No matter what we say regarding MQA and the recent upswell of interest and controversy surrounding it, no matter what conclusions we reach—somebody, somewhere, is going to be unhappy. Perhaps grievously so.
Surprises, Difficulties, and Disappointments
We set out to examine the topic in an unbiased manner, without having a set agenda or an ax to grind. As is always the case, there were surprises, there were difficulties, and there were disappointments. Sometimes, things are not black and white—not as clear-cut as might be expected.
This is one of those times.
MQA is Not a Marketing Scam
First things first: those accusations that MQA is a marketing scam? Having approached this with an open mind, having heard from those who denounce it ferociously, relentlessly, and at very great length, and also having heard from its developers, users, and supporters – it is clear that MQA is not a marketing scam. It appears to be a unique technology with real potential benefits, and it may well have a place in the worlds of audio, and content distribution.
So – is all the noise from the opponents, all the criticism, is completely unwarranted?
Schism: MQA the Process? Or MQA the Company?
No. Again: not as clear-cut as expected. There’s also a major schism here: are we talking about MQA the process, or MQA the company? Although the two are synonymous and intimately interwoven, each should be considered separately. The recent furor was essentially triggered by claims the company made for its technology, not necessarily by the technology itself.
Confusing, no?
MQA – The Process
First, MQA the process. Technology is rarely simple, and explaining it is often difficult, even when it’s presented to an audience of scientists or engineers. Presenting complex technology to a non-technical audience is challenging. The trick is in finding the middle path: too much technical lingo and the audience is lost; too many simplified or non-technical terms, and the audience won’t take it seriously— and may simply view it as bullshit. The worst technical presentations commit both sins and are both obfuscating and patronizing.
On top of that, most audiences can relate to mechanical systems better than they can relate to the movement of electrons – which, after all, is largely conjectural. So, in audio, it’s easier to understand the realm of analog audio, which is based on fairly simple, understandable physical concepts – than digital audio.
As was said in Part 1, “few technical fields devolve into abstruse technical jargon as quickly as does the field of digital audio.” The basics of digital audio, the need for and processes of ADCs and DACs, are not intuitively understood by most. To further confound matters, MQA the process takes the basics of digital audio and ties them in knots – well, folds them up, anyway.
MQA – The Company
Long story short: MQA the company could’ve done a better job of explaining MQA the process, and its claimed benefits – which include a reduction in file size relative to that of a standard hi-res file, “deblurring” of the digital signal, and authentication of the provenance of the music file. Recently, much has been made about the fact that MQA’s reduction in file size is no longer the boon that it might’ve been a few years ago, given that the ability to download or stream massive files is commonplace – not universal, but commonplace.
In a bad infomercial, this is where the announcer would say, “But wait! There’s MORE!”
Aside from alleging to reduce the size of hi-res files, MQA’s “deblurring” is a method to adjust or correct the impulse response of the digital signal, eliminating the pre- and post-ringing that are present in most digital files. Such ringing is one of the contributors to what is often described as “digititis”, the mechanical, unreal sound of many digital recordings. Eliminating the ringing should, in theory, improve sound quality and make it more analog-like.
Criticizing ‘Authentication’
The third part of the triad of MQA’s processes is authentication, confirming the provenance of a recording, confirming that the material being delivered is true to its source, and is in fact what was promised. Next to the file-reduction, authentication is the aspect most often targeted by critics; “the [authentication] light didn’t go on” is a criticism that is often read or heard. Well, that’s a criticism of the implementation of the authentication and its display, not of the process itself – but the criticisms are out there.
So why has there been so much criticism of MQA, virtually since its launch? For users, wouldn’t acceptance or rejection of the process amount to a matter of taste, along the lines of preferring tubes over transistors?
MQA’s Specious Descriptions of Its Processes
From the outset, there has been criticism that MQA’s descriptions of its processes were specious, and terms such as “deblurring” and “origami” were imprecise and proof that, well, there was no there there. In the admittedly cynical world of high-end audio, eye-rolling was rampant over both the terminology and the claims.
Looking at the process in detail, as descriptors go, “deblurring” and “origami” are actually pretty good ones. The removal of pre- and post-ringing should indeed result in a clearer signal, with fewer spuriae (to use the $5 technical term): the signal is clearer. The analogy could be drawn to a photographic image that is more in focus, and certainly, digital image processes perform such miracles without us even noticing—or understanding how it’s done. So why the focus (no pun intended) on the term “deblurring” in this case?
Perhaps the term isn’t technical enough and brings to mind cleaning a window more than performing digital wonderment. And yet, one of the most tired of tired audio cliches is the description of better gear as “cleaning the window between me and the orchestra”. Perhaps an exotic acronym would’ve made the process seem more high-tech and real.
Is ‘Origami’ Accurate? Or BS?
And “origami”? Finding physical analogs for electrical or electronic processes is commonplace: almost every basic explanation of electricity includes a representation of voltage as a tank full of water, for example. “Origami” is actually a pretty fair description of the processes involved, and “fold” and “unfold” of the file are consistent with that metaphor.
It’s easy to look back and think, “oh they should’ve done a better job of explaining it” – but that’s only part of the problem. MQA the company’s public behavior is often viewed as a combination of aloofness, condescension, and overly-aggressive responses to criticism, with the responses to GoldenSound viewed as particularly arrogant.
MQA’s Behavior Speaks of Bullying and Desperation
Bob Stuart himself has said of the company’s responses to criticism, “I think I’ve been too polite and ‘British’ about it all” – and MQA staffers seem to agree. But anyone who has watched the video of the RMAF debacle, in which presenter Chris Connaker is continually heckled by MQA staffers, cannot help but feel both embarrassed and ashamed. The behavior speaks of bullying and desperation, and no one ends up looking good.
When asked how the company would handle the situation if they had to do it all over again, Stuart simply said, “we wouldn’t attend.”
That’s an understandable response, but it doesn’t wipe out the incredibly negative impression left by the staffers. Comments on the video posted to YouTube include: “the MQA folks really embarrassed themselves here. It made them look desperate and pathetic” (Amir Jubtan), “My god this is a toxic conversation. Shame on MQA representatives present in the crowd for not allowing an examination of their technology…” (Travis Ernewein) – and there are 185 more comments.
Deflecting the Criticism by Changing the Issue to the Identity of the Critic
Interestingly, much of the fuss was over the identity of an online blogger who goes by the nom de plume Archimago, one of the more thorough and civil detractors of MQA – not disproving Archimago’s technical criticisms, but simply attempting to diminish his credibility by attacking his anonymity,
What else? As Jeff Haagenstad of Exogal mentioned, there is the complaint that “having to hand over all the Intellectual Property around our proprietary DAC to a company with a historical connection to Meridian [is] uncomfortable.” That’s clearly a legitimate issue that any potential hardware licensee would have to evaluate for themselves.
An MQA Critic Himself Gets Criticized
GoldenSound, in our interview with him, referred to the need for a “curious middle ground” in audio, exploring why measurements and listening often seem to conflict, with gear that measures poorly often sounding more real. And yet, his criticisms of MQA (aside from marketing he labeled as false) are based upon his own tests – which were viewed by many recording industry folks as problematic. George Massenburg characterized GoldenSound’s tests as “really sloppy work”, followed by a lengthy explanation of how such testing should’ve or could’ve been done. The tests described by Massenburg would’ve required fairly exotic equipment, well beyond the means of an amateur like GoldenSound. I would suggest that GoldenSound deserves props for trying, although his methods were quite likely problematic.
I’m certain MQA view his tone and language as inflammatory – but that’s a separate issue.
Chris Connaker (founder of Computer Audiophile, now Audiophile Style) focused upon the proprietary nature of MQA processing as being contrary to the spirit of an open market, and that the aspect of file size reduction was no longer a boon in today’s streaming world. Chris’ points have merit – but amount to a matter of user choice.
Few Critics Match Expertise of Pro-MQA Recording & Mastering Engineers
With the exception of Archimago, few of the other bloggers and posters in the long-running threads on Computer Audiophile/ Audiophile Style exhibit the technical expertise, experience, or gravitas of some of MQA’s supporters. For example, George Massenburg has produced or recorded hundreds of highly regarded recordings, and also has designed groundbreaking equipment and teaches the next generation of recordists at McGill University.
There are also Peter McGrath, Bob Ludwig, and Morten Lindberg, all of whose recordings are audiophile favorites. The fact that these purists hear an improvement in sound while utilizing the process in their work is compelling: revering these gentlemen and their work on one hand, and decrying their use of MQA on the other, seems as self-serving and specious as most allegations of voting fraud: “the votes I got are valid, and the ones HE got are fraudulent.” It simply makes no sense and is disingenuous in the extreme.
Of MQA, Massenburg, with 50 years of recording and design experience, said, “I know it works. It feels great, and I know it works—in my ear, in my heart, in my guts. I know this works.”
It’s impossible to separate his work from these emphatic statements. He doesn’t talk about measurements or processing waves—he talks about music and how it makes the listener feel. Along similar lines, Stuart’s decades of work have been focused upon psychoacoustics, going beyond the mechanistic model of listening, and into the act of how the brain processes sound.
But the Anti-MQA Camp Has Their Stars as Well
This is not to say that only the supporters have credibility. Many in the audio and recording worlds have spoken against MQA for a variety of reasons, including the need to share IP, the (frequently disputed) perception of MQA as a form of digital rights management (DRM), the dislike of a closed system, the perception of yet another format as needless and superfluous—and some simply disliked the sound. We’ve previously cited Linn Audio, Mike Moffat and Jason Stoddard at Schiit Audio, Paul McGowan at PS Audio, Jeff Haagenstad at Exogal, and Mark Waldrep of AIX Records. Perhaps the most emphatic critic of MQA in the audio world was the late Charles Hansen of Ayre Acoustics, whose opposition approached the level of obsession.
That’s all well and good. 10,000 or so words downstream, it’s easy to forget that the impetus behind this series of articles was to examine reasons for the surge in interest in MQA following GoldenSound’s videos on YouTube. In order to do so, some history of MQA and its technology was necessary, as well as some perspective as to why the video seemingly hit a nerve.
As mentioned in Part 2, GoldenSound’s videos generally drew about 1,000 views—and his first video on MQA has drawn nearly 280,000 views to date. Clearly, there already existed considerable interest in MQA, no doubt fed by literally millions of online posts—most of which were negative.
What can We Conclude from all of This?
Bob Stuart of MQA has pioneered the development of digital audio for 40 years. There can be no doubt as to the contributions he has made in both digital audio and video, and in the methods by which digital files can be stored, transmitted, and streamed. He’s done significant work in psychoacoustics and analysis of how humans actually perceive sound, not just hear it. He is clearly a dedicated, sincere researcher and creator.
Given all that, why has MQA evoked such hostility and suspicion, largely but not exclusively in the audiophile world?
There are likely a number of reasons: technological change is often met with resistance, and MQA presents a method of manipulating digital files which is not easily understandable and is counter-intuitive for many. That alone would be sufficient to aggravate many and generate a fair amount of suspicion.
However, the behavior of MQA the company has exacerbated the situation— with responses to criticism or even simple questioning that seem disproportionately severe, creating the impression of bullying.
…and the blogosphere and the discussion boards never forget.
See more on MQA by visiting: mqa.co.uk
From Ted Green
When I first approached Bill Leebens with the idea of covering the controversy swirling around MQA, we had no idea the journey we would take together as he put in countless hours researching the issues surrounding the company and the technology. But attitudinally, we were in a remarkably similar place of agreement on our general impressions of the technology – mostly neutral, if a touch skeptical.
The first thing we realized is that neither of us possessed the depth of technical expertise to deeply study the highly sophisticated digital system that Bob Stuart and MQA had put together. But that was beside the point. Because what really fascinated us both, was the never-ending controversy surrounding the company – and the depth of passion that both proponents and opponents embodied in their never-ending argumentative battle. It would be in the process of studying the controversy itself, that never-ending battle of ideas and ideals, that we really wanted to explore more fully.
There is a continuum between the opposing forces – those for or those against MQA – with most in the industry falling at or near one of those extremes. The irony is that, while Bill and I started well centered on that continuum, by the end of the journey, we ended up in a slightly different place.
While Bill came to earn an even greater appreciation of the MQA system than he had at the beginning, I probably moved a little more towards the opponents, although only in relation to where I started. I still view myself as largely neutral. But I wanted to share with you a few of the takeaways that impacted me the most from this unique industry saga.
Marketing Scam
After our further investigation, both Leebens and I came away firmly believing that MQA is NOT a marketing scam. Believe me, we were willing to consider that as a viable option at the beginning of this process. In fact, if MQA was a scam, no one would be more motivated to reveal that than Strata-gee, as I’m sure my regular readers can attest. But after looking at that possibility from varying angles, neither of us came to view it as a scam.
I have a lawyer friend who once explained to me that “fraud,” a not-to-distant relative of scam, is difficult to prove because, for something to be a fraud, the perpetrators have to knowingly seek to intentionally deceive their victims. MQA invented a unique system, aggressively promoted it, building a supportive network, and genuinely believe in its mission. I sense no fraudulent intentions and I believe that Leebens agrees with my assessment.
Maybe I’m a rube and they succeeded in tricking me…but I don’t think so.
Extremists Ruin the Discourse
Sadly, as we’ve seen in American politics, the passionate extremists on both sides of this debate ruin it for those genuinely interested in discussing or otherwise contemplating the pros/cons of MQA. Our country has become more polarized and we seemed to have lost the ability to debate a topic without it falling into juvenile name-calling…or a shouting match. That’s true in politics and…sadly…in high-end audio.
I see examples of this on both sides of the MQA debate. Some on the anti-MQA side are overly aggressive, lobbing accusation after accusation like hand grenades, and starting flame wars rather than a thoughtful – and respectful – conversation. Whether you agree with Bob Stuart’s system or opinion or not, he is one of the industry’s leading engineers and inventors…have some respect.
Likewise, the company has often responded to criticisms or questions on their system way too aggressively, with personal attacks and seemingly deceptive practices. The veracity of their response is often overshadowed by the high-decibel snark with which it is delivered. Come on guys, you are better than that. You should have some respect for your customers or potential customers…some of them have legitimate questions.
There is plenty of blame to go around here…no one has clean hands.
This Battle is Not Fun
In fact, I blame both sides for not respecting the other’s opinions. Bob Stuart is an engineer who is proud of his baby, the MQA system. He and those around him have seemingly tired of the continuous stream of incoming artillery of complaints and have resorted to carpet bombing these complainers when a more thoughtful response would suffice.
At the same time, the anti-forces have several really loud voices that have seemingly gone on to dedicate their lives to an obsessive mission of destroying MQA in any way that they can. They are indefatigable and trash MQA every opportunity they get. They have, in my opinion, gone beyond reason.
Lossless vs. Lossy
Out of the gate, MQA promoted their technology as “lossless.” Yet, the company executives knew this was not true and that, in fact, MQA is a lossy system. When it became obvious that they could no longer carry that water, instead of choosing transparency and owning up to this lossy reality, they got a little gimmicky by resorting to marketing speak on their website. Instead of calling it “lossless” they now say it is “better than lossless.” That is NOT engineering speak…that is marketing speak – and deceptive. This kind of cute trick gives oxygen to the anti-MQA fire.
There is an old saying, “Objections die with agreement.” Admit MQA is a lossy system – disarming your opponents – and then explain the steps you took to make it a better lossy system.
In any event, MQA may be on borrowed time, as more streaming services that compete with Tidal have announced they will begin offering their content with non-MQA lossless streaming. This fact just may begin to limit the TAM or Total Addressable Market for MQA.
And Finally
Low-end audio is firmly rooted in science. Base performance is all about Ohm’s Law, internal component selection, and manufacturing quality. But when we get into the lofty realm of high-end audio, we are now approaching the juncture of art & science. We all need to consider the artists.
As Bill mentions, MQA has an impressive roster of supporters that are Grammy award-winning recording engineers, producers, and mastering engineers. These folks make a living off their almost other-worldly precise hearing. Bob Ludwig will tell you that while he watches frequency readouts, what really makes the difference is what he hears. I respect that, and I think you should too – unless you personally possess more Grammys than he has, which I sincerely doubt.
So while GoldenSound and others may want to see it on their scopes, sometimes – rather than seeing – hearing is believing.
Thanks to all for reading our MQA series, you’ve been very patient as we laid out the extensive controversy surrounding the company and technology. Let us know what you think in the Comments section below. Please be respectful…
And to Bill Leebens let me say, I owe you a tremendous, incalculable debt of gratitude for your tireless effort on this multi-part story! Thank you!!
A Bill Leebens Guest Post
Bill Leebens has been a published writer since the age of 15 and has worked in audio since he was 16. He edited Copper magazine while at PS Audio and has also worked in automobile racing, medical imaging, and even as an IRS tax examiner. Bill lives in Colorado with two impatient dogs and several very patient humans.
Reach Bill at: bill@leebensllc.com
That was a really good summation, even though I found many parts to which I disagree. That’s not only OK, it’s great! Reading all sides of issues and making up our own minds is enjoyable for many of us.
I think the one item overlooked and what probably upsets me most about MQA is the company’s stated goal of giving record labels a single deliverable, this removing all choice for the consumer. I moderated a panel at RMAF on which Bob Stuart was a presenter. He said this single deliverable was a good thing and a major selling point to the labels. It’s all on YouTube I’m sure :~)
Years later, this is a reality for many albums. Try to stream Tracy Chapman’s self titled album from Tidal in pure PCM (non MQA). You can’t. MQA versions of many Warner albums have supplanted non MQA versions. This removes choice for consumers, and that’s never good for us.
Anyway, hope everyone in the US has a great Independence Day holiday.
Ah for the good old days when you couldn’t hear RCA artists without the glorious enhancement of their Dynagroove LP process.
Many thanks to Bill for a good article on MQA!
Chris brings up a good point about the single deliverable. But this is also, in my opinion, why some mastering engineers oppose MQA. They will potentially get paid less. If you look at much of the criticism of MQA on Audiophile Style, many of it comes from developers of other audio codecs. Jealousy perhaps? Or simply a different approach to how things should be done?
I’ve had many discussions with Bob Stuart and find this technology to be truly innovative and compelling. I think MQA could have explained some things better earlier on but it’s always a challenge to describe complex technology in plain English.
The excitement I have for MQA remains because I’ve been able to hear before and after files from Peter McGrath’s recordings. The improvement in sound quality from the MQA process is significant. This remains across many systems, including two of my own, that I have heard MQA playback on.
We should be celebrating advances in audio and MQA is one of many examples contributing to serious people recognizing Bob Stuart for technical achievement.
Not a single criticism of MQA on Audiophile Style “comes from developers of other audio codecs.” WAV, FLAC, AIFF, ALAC are all CODECS used by many of us, including FLAC used by MQA. None of the developers of those CODECs seem to care about MQA.
Breaking this down;
The closed system and requirement for ‘licensed’ de-coding equipment to experience the full un-folding is against the audiophile philosophy of ‘swap, change and upgrade’. It’s also not interesting to the masses. So who does MQA appeal to?
As more streaming service providers move to hi-res, they will more than likely stick with an ‘open source’ uncompressed format, such as FLAC. Or ALAC in the case of Apple. So if after all these years is really just Tidal who has supported MQA, then that is just small potatoes. Apple and Spotify dominate the streaming sector.
So whether you like MQA or not, the future prospect for business development years after its inception is not great. In that case, I will not buy into it, regardless of sound or technical nuances.
The problem, according to some, is that certain labels will only provide files that have gone through the MQA process so you will be forced to listen to these sub-optimally if you do not have MQA decoding capability regardless of your streaming provider.
When you are faced with lack of choice and effectively being forced into buying something you don’t want/need, usually results in avoiding it. FLAC is open source, uncompressed and does the trick. Why do we need anything else? If it’s a choice of open source uncompressed vs closed shop ‘compressed’, them I’m already sold thanks
Dean has nailed it. It’s the potential lack of choice, a lynchpin of the MQA philosophy, that kills it for me.
Kudos on one of the most intelligent, even-handed summations I’ve ever read. Ted has me seeing that there are truly two sides to the argument, and nothing is as simple as the “politicians” make it out to be.
On one hand, I would never want to go against the legendary ears of the Bob Ludwigs of the mastering engineer world. I know the value of listening over time vs. A/B testing to “feel better inside” about high-resolution audio.
At the same time, I find abhorring the whole idea of a closed format that could force me into a single available version of a music release, that one version diminished for me unless I subscribe a streaming service I don’t prefer and buy additional “unfolding” hardware I don’t want. I love me some Bob Ludwig, but that’s my dealbreaker.
My takeaway is precisely as Ted admonished each camp separately: “Have some respect.” Don’t emulate the partisan rancor you see in the news, and keep the fun in music appreciation. This missive should be a master class on, well, class.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Charles. I especially appreciated your well-articulated abhorrence to the thought of a company effectively limiting your options and forcing you to pay an added tax to do what would normally be available for less.
If MQA is an available option that like-minded folks could freely chose to opt-in to with their willingly provided dollars as the added but acceptable (to them at least) entrance fee – then that would be ok by me. Choice is good.
Ted
Something which might both lessen the controversy and potentially provide a boon to audiophiles would be to separate the DSP “deblurring” from the lossy compression. Sure it would still be proprietary with all the inherent objections to that, but why not make the most of the audible benefits (assuming that the proponents have that right) by eliminating the lossy compression?
Only touched on briefly, perhaps because of the advent of true lossless hi-res streaming services as competition to Tidal, was the possibility that the major labels would only release “hi-res” as MQA files (with its associated DRM); this could easily be viewed as a (relative) disaster to the discerning audiophile.
Rob,
I think this is an interesting suggestion. But for some reason, I can’t help but feel that the MQA question is much like the Middle East peace question – no simple solution. In fact, the criticism of MQA is multi-faceted and I think this will cause the controversy to sustain.
But I like your thinking on this.
Ted
It would be great, but even the deblurring seems to have been disproven.
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2018/02/musingsmeasurements-on-blurring-and-why.html?m=1
Why do we need it, again? Just kidding. No, but seriously, why do we need it? At any snapshot in time, you might take a look at what tech is available and how it improves end to end content delivery/quality. The ‘buzz words’ are all great ‘n’ all, but we’ve probably all seen many of these things come and go in the audio biz for many decades. So when it all shakes down…FLAC is still the winner. ‘End game’ as they say in some circles. But to be fully inclusive, then; ‘you pays your money, you makes your choice’
Great article!!! But be forewarned, I’m going to go where most would never dare to tread. Could all this MQA hate simply be the scapegoat for the fact that TIDAL, who is regularly identified by many bloggers, and reputable publications as a company run by a bunch of rappers that’s destined to fail? A simple Google search, “ TIDAL failure racism crooks scam” will bring up several links to why Tidal with MQA has been in the limelight ever since the Jay-Z’s acquisition of the then struggling Norwegian lossless music service.
There is no denying we live in a very divided world. For the highly successful billionaire rapper like Jay-Z, who happens to be African American, to own a high quality streaming music service could strike a nerve in those that have a problem with rich successful people that happen to be black. Would there have been so much extreme dislike towards MQA If Spotify or Qobuz had adopted the technology first?
Chris Connaker’s whole disposition changed after his first Youtube RMAF interview with TIDAL and MQA. Prior to Jay-Z becoming the publicly recognized CEO of TIDAL , Chris Connaker seemed excited and eager to experience the new MQA technology during the first RMAF interview with Bob Stuart and Pal of TIDAL. Forward ahead a year later and Chris Connaker next RMAF presentation focused on trying to attack MQA/TIDAL with anonymously provided Power-Point measurements and silly misrepresentations of the highly technical MQA process, mainly that MQA isn’t lossless. He only made himself look foolish as he desperately tried to make his case against MQA in the presence of TIDAL executives. This in my opinion is when most of the MQA / TIDAL controversy all started. Since critics of TIDAL couldn’t blatantly say they hate TIDAL because a black rapper owns it, MQA unfortunately had to be scapegoat for the personal prejudices those held against TIDAL and its new ownership..
MQA is a great technology and has much to offer the music industry. The highly accomplished Bob Stuart should not have to defend the many years of research and work his team put in to bring us better sounding music. As hard as the pill is to swallow, we still live in a world where racism CLEARLY exists..The extreme TIDAL/MQA dislike by some only help to further validate my observation. The TIDAL hate mob was out full force and MQA just happened to be on that TIDAL Freedom Riders bus traveling through 1960s Birmingham. But as we’re seeing with the continued success of TIDAL and MQA, undeserved suffering is redemptive.
Please don’t take offense of my observation and opinion. That was not my intent. My intent was to simply look at all this extreme MQA rhetoric at an angle most would rather ignore.
Dave, I think you have this very wrong.
Hello Dave,
I believe your statements and speculations are highly inappropriate and certainly can be viewed as offensive.
The criticisms against the technical merits of MQA started way before any announcement of adoption by TIDAL. As one who has explored the codec over the years, concerns were raised at the beginning since January 2015 (merely a month or so after the announcement in late 2014):
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2015/01/musings-miscellanies-on-audio-encoding.html
By the time TIDAL announced MQA adoption in January 2017, already there were many concerns about the “lossy” nature of the compression technique, questions about “de-blurring”, and the necessity of such a scheme not just technically but also as a “tax” on the consumer and extra steps for hardware manufacturers. Comments such as this one:
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2016/10/an-opinion-about-audio-mqa-by-agitater.html
addressed what I think many audiophiles had already been concerned about with the audio magazines jumping on board without proper investigation.
In fact, your own statement:
“The highly accomplished Bob Stuart should not have to defend the many years of research and work his team put in to bring us better sounding music.”
Is exactly the kind of nonsense at the heart of much of these discussions before TIDAL ever was in the picture! Why shouldn’t Stuart have to defend his questionable claims?
Now as for your offensive speculations about racism, the early testing and data suggesting problems with MQA were based on decoded music from the label 2L such as this from January 2016:
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2016/01/measurements-mqa-master-quality.html
Morten Lindberg is not black. Are those critical of 2L for championing MQA also anti-Nordic people?
After TIDAL launched their streaming system with MQA in 2017, of course attention was directed to this music service! Since nobody else seriously wanted to touch MQA anywhere to the same extent. By association then, listeners used TIDAL to evaluate the sonic merits of MQA. And obviously anyone who felt MQA was suboptimal would also see TIDAL as a compromised form of hi-res audio streaming. This has nothing to do with anyone’s race (on a side note, as I recall, I was more taken aback by the “leg-up” display from Madonna at the TIDAL signing ceremony than the color of anyone’s skin).
I would happily sign up for TIDAL here in Canada if they dumped MQA, which I’ve also said publicly:
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2021/11/as-we-hear-it-2021-i-maurizio-c-on-mqa.html
At a time in history where there are real disparities and challenges in society, we must be careful to also keep our own fantasies in check. This comment IMO is one of those fantasies that will do nothing to improve understanding of the issues, nor foster open communications,
On a personal note, for what it’s worth, I am a member of a visible minority as well. Furthermore, my daily work involves those in marginalized and underserved populations. I appreciate the importance as a society to be aware of such issues… MQA and its relationship with TIDAL are not issues to project such concerns into, IMO.
Dave,
Over the last few years here in the U.S., political polarization has taken hold to a really disappointing degree. Partisans retire to their opposing ramparts and repetitively scream their slogans at each other. While some may say the loudest voice wins…I say we all lose when we can no longer exchange thoughts, ideas, and perspectives through earnest and intelligent discourse. We should be open to considering the perspectives of others – interactively offering and considering opposing viewpoints and even occasionally achieving areas of agreement and compromise.
As the owner/operator and chief content creator at Strata-gee.com, I am a firm believer in vigorous intellectual discussions and debates among well-meaning folks of different opinions – all of who are free to offer their unique perspectives for thought and discussion. Reasonable minds can disagree. None among us possess all the answers, and we can all learn from each other. Knowledge is meant to be shared and expanded – and the expedient path to the expansion of knowledge is through honest and open discourse where we all share what we know and understand with each other. We should all be seekers of truth.
Having said that, I feel that your comment was not a genuine effort at intellectual discourse. Your effort appeared to be little more than an attempt “baiting” the anti-MQA folks by throwing a racism hand grenade in hopes of causing an exploding flame war. And to smear those with genuine questions and concerns about MQA as racists. You even make an outrageous and unsupported effort to imply that Chris Connaker is engaging in racism.
As Bill Leebens and I set out on this investigation of MQA and the controversy surrounding it, we were truly engaging in an objective effort to identify the genuine issues surrounding the company. Nothing on our radar screen even remotely suggested racism.
The premise of your position is that everyone loved MQA until JayZ acquired Tidal;therefore, you deduce, it must be racism. This is simply untrue, and I suspect you know that. As others have already pointed out, controvery surrounding MQA began almost immediately upon its launch and well before the Tidal change of ownership.
As I pointed out in my summation in the post above, extremists (on both sides) ruin the discourse. You clearly are an MQA partisan and an extremist. Your allegation of racism on the part of MQA critics is a transparent attempt to fight back without facts, figures, technical analysis, or anything truly useful in the discourse of the knowledge base of all things MQA.
Ted
Shawn Carter’s personal story going from the Marcy projects to a business mogul and one of the best lyricist of a generation, is something I admire greatly. I highly recommend people watch his rock and roll hall of fame induction this year, to see his greatness.
Suggesting the objective and measurable problems with mQa, and many people’s disdain for the company’s lies, have anything to do with Tidal and racism is unfounded speculation and reprehensible.
I’m black and, while I find racism in many places in America, I didn’t expect to find it in the discussion about MQA. Whether you’re pro or con about it, MQA is a controversial technology on the merits of technology. Racism has nothing to do with it.
Over the last several years I’ve heard all manner of bizarre comments, assertions, and theories regarding MQA. I worked with one of the first manufacturers approached by MQA, and a deep dive was made into the process. We had concerns about handing proprietary IP over to a third party, and we were not convinced of the sonic benefits.
We were not alone: we discussed the subject with dozens of industry colleagues, manufacturers and software folks from all over the world. Many had similar reservations; some made assertions bordering on crackpot paranoia, claiming that MQA was out to supplant or replace any and all hi-res formats.
Yeah, no.
Engineering in all fields—and especially audio engineering—is full of creative people, prone to seeking out unique paths, often to the point of doing something different just because they can. There are obviously commercial concerns as well: how do we create something that will sell?
That’s how it works: new things arise, some folks like them, some don’t; some succeed, some don’t. There was controversy and disagreement on the subject of MQA, almost from its genesis—long before the purchase of Tidal, long before MQA became available on Tidal.
To assert that disagreement over MQA is indicative of racism, and to indict folks like Chris Connaker with that assertion—is insulting to engineers and the technically-inclined everywhere, who disagree every day but manage to maintain civil discourse without resorting to Molotov cocktail rhetoric.
This claim has no merit, and I’m sure it would horrify the creators of MQA.
To be clear: I have great respect for Bob Stuart and for many of the recording engineers who utilize MQA. I have no horse in this race, other than to attempt to examine the controversy that has periodically arisen over MQA, and to convey that accurately and objectively.
I thought I’d heard every possible permutation of weirdness on this subject. I was wrong. In another era, I’d have indignantly said, “how DARE you?”
But in 2021, the previously-unthinkable is dared every day. I’ll simply conclude with the benediction I learned during my quarter-century in Memphis:
“Bless your heart.”
Which is why you should never have let the post on your site.
Scott,
Fair point. But I am also not a big fan of censorship…
Ted
I think anti censorship is a concept that is best applied to governmental bodies, not private enterprises. What might be appropriate for a site like yours is some guidelines as to what type of posts are not acceptable. Then your removal of posts such as the one in question would be a matter of enforcing policy, not random censorship.
Hi, Scott—
I agree with you. I also disagree with you. Let’s just say I’m conflicted, especially on this topic.. ;->
Years ago, I was director of marketing at Audiogon, and saw many forum posts that admins kept from going live. Many were rage-filled for no apparent reason, or racist, or sexist, or just factually so far wrong as to be delusional.
The post under discussion checks off several of those boxes simultaneously. Had it included Sasquatch and alien abductors, we would’ve really covered everything.–except, maybe, “do cables make a difference?”
Ted could’ve just 86’d the post. But I’m glad he didn’t, and here’s why:
Whether the writer was sincere, or if this was a kind of mom’s basement false flag operation intended to discredit MQA, it perfectly illustrates the level of insanity that has surrounded this topic since the very beginning.
To be clear: it’s SOFTWARE. It is not a palace coup of any sort, insertion of tracker chips in vaccines, or any other threat that one would ordinarily expect to be the provocative force for this level of flat-out batshit nuts behavior.
IT’S SOFTWARE.
Like it, don’t like it. Use it, don’t use it. Don’t like the way it was presented? Fine. Don’t use it.
Beyond that lies insanity. And that’s what we saw here, and I think it’s useful to see it.
I think the intentions behind MQA were sincere, and good. I respect the folks associated with MQA, and count several as friends—although probably fewer than before I started the series. Oh, well.
But the very vital point I think you’re missing here is that this is an industry in which unbiased news coverage is damned near non-existent. Ted has provided important news you wouldn’t find anywhere else—for years.
This framework around this series was an attempt to explain not just what MQA is, but the controversy and turmoil that has surrounded it from the very beginning. Part of that story is the wacko post from “Dave”, though I doubt if “Dave” is his real name.
As upsetting or merely annoying as that post is—I think it’s important to be aware of it. It’s part of the picture, as absurd as that seems.
That’s all I’m gonna say about that.
Cheers, Leebs
A few comments here:
“MQA as a lossy compression algorithm” is interesting. It would be useful for MQA to drop the innuendo of lossless simply because it is not, period. But I do get that having 24bit words in a 44KHz regular PCM file is overkill, and using the 8 least significant bits as coefficients for 2x their frequency is a smart way to encapsulate.
“MQA is to digital audio what MSG is to food” is in my view what the encoder is doing. I learned here that you can run an MQA simulator in Protools and adjust encoding parameters. This is essentially a form of EQ and I have no problem with it per-se. You could take that simulated output, record it to a 24/96 FLAC, and have a standard PCM that would sound essentially the same as the “officially” encoded MQA file. From my experience listening to MQA, I do like what it does in many cases, and I will say it sounds more like a condiment, like putting MSG in food, than approaching something truer to source. In fact, I have had the impression it sounds a little bit like a very mild autotune applied to the music.
Then there’s the “MQA White Glove” treatment. All impressive MQA demos and files I own are of this type. But lets be very clear: these are very carefully done transfers from analog tape – and in my opinion the higher quality comes from a careful transfer, not something specific to MQA.
There’s also “MQA Claims” which are obviously false – for example, “as the artist intended”. Are you really trying to tell me that millions of releases were validated one by one by the artists and/or mastering engineers? Of course not. Mostly because many are dead. Blatantly false claims like this destroy trust.
Finally, and very importantly, I will argue “MQA has become the box to collect royalties” that Neil Young described. Consider all the 16/44 MQA encoded files on TIDAL: To authenticate MQA, some bandwidth has to be reserved for this. So all of these files have actually LESS resolution than redbook, just to get a royalty. Yes, there’s the added MQA MSG flavoring, but I’d rather get what was originally produced.