DARKO: MQA: a non-hostile takeover?

[Melvin]

The fact that doing either is bloody impossible screams fraud to me.

 

Well, some of us have heard MQA in our own homes. Waiting for more familiar content is where I'm at now.

 

I've listened to Jan Gunnar Hoff "LIVING" and Ola Gjeilo "Piano Improvisations" during my comparisions. These two I've owned for quite some time.

[The Computer Audiophile]

The fact that doing either is bloody impossible screams fraud to me.

The fact that I would have a much harder time demoing 8K video than MQA, doesn't make me want to call it fraudulent. That's just me.

[mansr]

The fact that I would have a much harder time demoing 8K video than MQA, doesn't make me want to call it fraudulent. That's just me.

8K video would be pointless in most homes. Even 4K needs a very large screen to be of any benefit. Even so, there is no mystery around what it is or how it is better than lower resolution video. MQA is shrouded in end-to-end secrecy, and that raises my suspicions.

[plissken]

Here is my scorecard on MQA.

Robert Harley evaded my question at T.H.E. Show

John Atkinson pulled semantic tricks in MQA Questions and Answers

Michael Lavorgna twisted what I said

Steve Stone tried pull the reliable source trick

The Meridian staff gave the A/B I wanted as noted in previous post then either evaded follow up questions or gave me answers that contradicted what had been written about authentication.

Bob Stuart hasn't given a straight answer that I've read or seen.

 

As of today I not received a direct response to any MQA question I've asked. So why should I give them a fair shake?

 

Interesting list as these are almost all industry people that I tune out.

[Octavius]

8K video would be pointless in most homes. Even 4K needs a very large screen to be of any benefit. Even so, there is no mystery around what it is or how it is better than lower resolution video. MQA is shrouded in end-to-end secrecy, and that raises my suspicions.

 

So according to you not complete information equals fraud.

I'd say that's jumping to conclusions.

 

Why don't people keep their shirts on regarding MQA?

It's not as if Bob Stuart et al are slaughtering baby seals.

[plissken]

So according to you not complete information equals fraud.

I'd say that's jumping to conclusions.

 

Why don't people keep their shirts on regarding MQA?

It's not as if Bob Stuart et al are slaughtering baby seals.

 

Mansr is basing his statement on well understood fundamentals of screen resolution, screen size, and seating distance. It's not even debatable.

 

Years ago Audioholics did a really well researched article on screen resolution and human visual acuity.

[Octavius]

Mansr is basing his statement on well understood fundamentals of screen resolution, screen size, and seating distance. It's not even debatable.

 

Years ago Audioholics did a really well researched article on screen resolution and human visual acuity.

 

I couldn't care less about 8k TV.

 

I was just talking about MQA and his concluding that it screams fraud.

[The Computer Audiophile]

8K video would be pointless in most homes. Even 4K needs a very large screen to be of any benefit. Even so, there is no mystery around what it is or how it is better than lower resolution video. MQA is shrouded in end-to-end secrecy, and that raises my suspicions.

Dude, you just couldn't resist could you.

[mansr]

Dude, you just couldn't resist could you.

Resistance is futile.

[jabbr]

The fact that doing either is bloody impossible screams fraud to me.

 

Let's not call it fraud -- at least I don't -- but lack of transparency invites speculation and raises my concerns regarding ulterior motives -- clearly there must be a reason why more technical information is not being released.

 

So I'd say that if MQA wants a "fair" consideration then it can release more information -- short of that, the consideration it gets is that which a "secret" technology deserves.

 

Again, if what is being said isn't fair, then clear the air, rather than blowing smoke.

[plissken]

I couldn't care less about 8k TV.

 

I was just talking about MQA and his concluding that it screams fraud.

 

Either you get the point Mansr and Miska are making or you don't.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Either you get the point Mansr and Miska are making or you don't.

I didn't get it. This has nothing to do with the efficacy of 8K. It has everything to do with realizing 8K tv was used for illustrative purposes, not to debate its usefulness.

[Octavius]

Either you get the point Mansr and Miska are making or you don't.

 

No I don't get it. Care to elaborate for my benefit?

[austinpop]

Well, some of us have heard MQA in our own homes. Waiting for more familiar content is where I'm at now.

 

I've listened to Jan Gunnar Hoff "LIVING" and Ola Gjeilo "Piano Improvisations" during my comparisions. These two I've owned for quite some time.

 

Finally a data point, rather than endless speculation and debate!

 

So @Melvin - I'm familiar with both those albums. I have the DXD versions, and they have outstanding SQ.

 

If the MQA hype is to be believed, the MQA files run though an MQA decoder should sound even better than the DXD originals.

 

Has that been your experience?

 

I couldn't tell if you were referring to the full albums, or the samples on the 2L test bench site. I mention it because the latter has at least one track from those 2 albums available in all resolutions, so you can get both MQA and DXD versions easily. The tracks are Ubi Caritas and Living.

 

I would be curious to know what you hear between MQA and DXD.

 

Cheers!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[plissken]

I didn't get it. This has nothing to do with the efficacy of 8K. It has everything to do with realizing 8K tv was used for illustrative purposes, not to debate its usefulness.

 

It was used to point out that we know everything we need to know at the measurement / business end of the reproduction chain regardless of a black function box where we have zero idea of what it's doing.

 

It has everything to do with the efficacy of the measured output at the speaker. And that, just like 1080,2/4/8k we understand how to measure, what to look for and theoretically posit what benefit it has, or not, and at what points it has benefits. I'm not discounting all benefits are strictly audible benefits.

[The Computer Audiophile]

It was used to point out that we know everything we need to know at the measurement / business end of the reproduction chain regardless of a black function box where we have zero idea of what it's doing.

 

It has everything to do with the efficacy of the measured output at the speaker. And that, just like 1080,2/4/8k we understand how to measure, what to look for and theoretically posit what benefit it has, or not, and at what points it has benefits. I'm not discounting all benefits are strictly audible benefits.

Since I used it first in this thread, I happen to know exactly why I used it, and it has nothing to do with your reasoning.

[Melvin]

Finally a data point, rather than endless speculation and debate!

 

So @Melvin - I'm familiar with both those albums. I have the DXD versions, and they have outstanding SQ.

 

If the MQA hype is to be believed, the MQA files run though an MQA decoder should sound even better than the DXD originals.

 

Has that been your experience?

 

I couldn't tell if you were referring to the full albums, or the samples on the 2L test bench site. I mention it because the latter has at least one track from those 2 albums available in all resolutions, so you can get both MQA and DXD versions easily. The tracks are Ubi Caritas and Living.

 

I would be curious to know what you hear between MQA and DXD.

 

Cheers!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

 

@austinpop .. I've had the full albums for quite some time; "LIVING" in DXD and "Piano Improvisations" in 24/192. I downloaded the missing resolutions to compare. I tested these fairly extensively after Bluesound enabled MQA via their last update (I have their Node 2). The Bluesound products top out at 24/192 so MQA "unfolds" to either 24/192 or 24/176.8 at the most. I tested using the onboard Node 2 DAC, my Bifrost Multibit, and my Chord Qute EX .. lots and lots of listening.

 

Both of these albums are superbly recorded/mastered (typical of 2L) and sound great at all resolutions to begin with, even 16/44.1, so any differences were subtle. IMO MQA didn't ruin the sound quality nor did it sound better than the other high resolution files. (With these well recorded files I'm not so sure the purported de-blurring is helpful.) Against the two 16/44.1 files I might give an edge to MQA. Maybe.

 

As others have said, I suspect MQA will be great for streaming and I look forward to Tidal flipping the switch. I will not be purchasing MQA files of music currently in my library.

[Mordikai]

Ok, why do we need MQA again? It does not solve the 3 biggest issues in home audio: production (recording&mastering quality), the speakers, the room.

Give me better mastering in anything redbook or better and I'm happy.

- The studios already have the capabilities for hi quality production they just don't give a shit. Why would they invest time and money into something they already know how to do but don't care about? What do they get out of it?

-Streaming of flac files of any quality is already small enough.

- it's certainly not for audiophiles, our market is way too small, besides if any audiophile hears the word lossy they run the other direction. Remember audiophiles liked DVDA, SACD but they have not done a whole lot.

- so it's gotta be for the larger public, why? The public has shown they don't give a sheet about quality, and the ones who act like they do obviously don't know a damn thing, listening to their pono players in their cars or on ear buds, or sound bar, egads!

-If it's to fix lousy recordings after the fact, ok I could see some value, but that's not how they're pitching it.

 

Am I just old and grumpy? I feel like the solutions to my issues in audio are pretty simple; you ( the studios) give me better recordings of which the technology has been available for a while and I take care to have the best speakers and room I can based on my tastes, simple.

[Octavius]

In my setup MQA sounds way better than redbook and I think it sounds marginally better than DXD or DSD 256.

 

Just have three complete albums in MQA format and I'm also waiting for Tidal HiFi to stream MQA.

If it sounds on par via Bluesound digital out vs redbook local files via USB asynchronous I'd be delighted.

[mansr]

- it's certainly not for audiophiles, our market is way too small, besides if any audiophile hears the word lossy they run the other direction.

 

Perhaps that's why they keep lying that it's lossless. Another reason to distrust everything they say.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Ok, why do we need MQA again? It does not solve the 3 biggest issues in home audio: production (recording&mastering quality), the speakers, the room.

Give me better mastering in anything redbook or better and I'm happy.

- The studios already have the capabilities for hi quality production they just don't give a shit. Why would they invest time and money into something they already know how to do but don't care about? What do they get out of it?

-Streaming of flac files of any quality is already small enough.

- it's certainly not for audiophiles, our market is way too small, besides if any audiophile hears the word lossy they run the other direction. Remember audiophiles liked DVDA, SACD but they have not done a whole lot.

- so it's gotta be for the larger public, why? The public has shown they don't give a sheet about quality, and the ones who act like they do obviously don't know a damn thing, listening to their pono players in their cars or on ear buds, or sound bar, egads!

-If it's to fix lousy recordings after the fact, ok I could see some value, but that's not how they're pitching it.

 

Am I just old and grumpy? I feel like the solutions to my issues in audio are pretty simple; you ( the studios) give me better recordings of which the technology has been available for a while and I take care to have the best speakers and room I can based on my tastes, simple.

I feel your pain for the most part.

 

I think everybody can only work within their sphere of influence. High end audio companies are good at acting with a tiny group of people to come up with really geeky "solutions." Thus we get MQA from a couple of digital audio savants.

 

Its nearly impossible to persuade those making records to change, and for what?

[The Computer Audiophile]

Perhaps that's why they keep lying that it's lossless. Another reason to distrust everything they say.

Everything?

 

MQA stopped using the term lossless at least a year ago.

 

(Queue your internet search for MQA using the term lossless within the last year).

[mansr]

Everything?

 

MQA stopped using the term lossless at least a year ago.

 

(Queue your internet search for MQA using the term lossless within the last year).

I don't remember exactly when they've used that term. That they ever did is bad enough.

[plissken]

Since I used it first in this thread, I happen to know exactly why I used it, and it has nothing to do with your reasoning.

 

SQ wise it doesn't matter with the black box analogy. The measured output is the measured output and I'm still trying to figure out what SQ issues MQA is solving.

 

Part of that is currently on Meridian.

 

To clarify I'm responding to a bit of the back and forth with you and Miska in the context of the protected black box.

 

You've asked for members to keep an open mind. I think it's fair to keep the same open mind to the points Miska and Mansr made.

[Mordikai]

I feel your pain for the most part.

 

I think everybody can only work within their sphere of influence. High end audio companies are good at acting with a tiny group of people to come up with really geeky "solutions." Thus we get MQA from a couple of digital audio savants.

 

Its nearly impossible to persuade those making records to change, and for what?

 

It's sounds like you're saying this IS for audiophiles, but we already have a few small labels doing hi quality SACD and hi resolution, we just need more with the better performers. Why would I want a closed loop system if I don't need it? A good hi- resolution or redbook recording sounds fantastic on my system I just wish there were more of these available.