MQA is Vaporware

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

28 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

I've read their material. They don't strike me as being dishonest. The MQA articles were honest. Was there anything dishonest in them?

Pretending MQA unfolds to true DXD or true 24/192 is dishonest. And that is the tip of the iceberg.

[Paul R]

4 hours ago, mansr said:

Are you sure about that?

 

Err. yep. Everything is relative, but put a SACD up for sale and it won't be up for long. There is a lot of interest in SACD. 

 

I know you and a couple others are rather dismissive of the audiophile market, but that is the market that drives the sales for high resolution audio and other esoteric formats. 

 

Yours,

-Paul 

 

 

[Rt66indierock]

23 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

I've read their material. They don't strike me as being dishonest. The MQA articles were honest. Was there anything dishonest in them?

 

As I said you haven’t met them I have. And it isn’t an honesty dishonest issue. But nice try disrupting the thread.

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, Paul R said:

Err. yep. Everything is relative, but put a SACD up for sale and it won't be up for long. There is a lot of interest in SACD.

 

That's good to know. I have a few SACDs that are less then stellar. Someday, I will try to unload them.

 

It's still all about the mastering. The only good thing I can say about SACD's is that there are some folk putting music on SACDs and doing their best to make a good remaster, e.g. Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab.  But then there are a lot of SACDs that shouldn't exist.

 

Also, sales of new SACDs are less than 100,000 in the US. Hardly significant to the major labels. Each year, there are fewer and fewer SACD players being manufactured and sold.  In fact, even CD players are becoming more scarce. The optical disk is going the way of the DoDo.

 

[Rexp]

On 8/1/2019 at 12:47 PM, GUTB said:

 

Yes. I ended up with the Liberty specifically for that support. I had to buy a linear power supply but thanks to AliExpress that's inexpensive. As far as the CD player is concerned it's just a standard 16/44 stream.

 

My CD chain:

MHZS CD88J --Supra TOSLink-->Mytek Liberty + linear PSU. All plugged into a 500VA balanced isolation transformer.

Thanks for the report, I don't doubt your findings, most CDs sound crap. How would you say the SQ compares to vinyl? 

[GUTB]

30 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Thanks for the report, I don't doubt your findings, most CDs sound crap. How would you say the SQ compares to vinyl? 

 

I haven't tested any MQA-CDs against vinyl yet. However my vinyl in general is significantly superior to my digital. The setup pictured here (the CDP is put ontop of the amp temporarily for testing) shows my vinyl setup as well. The area where vinyl outshines the digital is dynamic performance which either directly or in conjunction with other factors leads to a more convincing sound, ie, more real-life. My digital has significantly better bass definition and overall better soundstage but they don't overcome the superiority of the vinyl overall. 

[firedog]

7 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

Lots of people care about SACD, and even more about its file based descendant, DSD. 

 

-Paul

 

Lots is a relative term. I would say any number over 3 counts as "lots".

Outside of Japan it is dead other than the classical market -   non classical SACDs are pretty much not made anymore, other than  a few specialist curated remasters that sell in very small amounts. As a "commercial" format - I call that dead. 
 

And the only market for them in most of the world is classical- which in the US is something like 1% of the market, and much of that isn't SACD.

 

I'm not sure that even in the audiophile market SACD is a significant player at this point. It's even a fringe issue in the audiophile world. DSD downloads have a bit more significance, but they are also a tiny market. 

 

SACD? Lots? Are you sure?

 

Hanging out at audiophile sites gives a warped perspective. 

[Confused]

4 hours ago, GUTB said:

 

Why won't you listen to MQA before making a judgement on it? If you're not an audiophile, okay, I understand that you don't value quality enough to make MQA playback work.

 

 

Would you be kind enough to provide some links / pointers to examples of MQA and PCM files that are confirmed to be from the same master?

[firedog]

3 hours ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Pretending MQA unfolds to true DXD or true 24/192 is dishonest. And that is the tip of the iceberg.

Yep. I pointed this out to JA in the article comnents about the Sony DMP where he again talks about 4X and 8X MQA files. JS also does it in every review. It's simply deceptive to present them as such, and IMO proves that Stereophile is shilling for MQA. It's been pointed out to them repeatedly that there is no such thing as  a non-upsampled 4X or 8X MQA file, and they consistently refuse to clarify that. 
 

I'm not one of the Stereophile or JA haters here, but as a result of the above one can only assume that this is intentional deception.

[firedog]

3 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

As I said you haven’t met them I have. And it isn’t an honesty dishonest issue. But nice try disrupting the thread.

Discussing with GUTB is the forum equivalent of entering a black hole. You will never get anywhere with him. Once he has an idea in his head,  no amount of logic or facts will dislodge it. 

[MetalNuts]

7 minutes ago, firedog said:

Discussing with GUTB is the forum equivalent of entering a black hole. You will never get anywhere with him. Once he has an idea in his head,  no amount of logic or facts will dislodge it. 

 

Agreed, it happened before and it is happening again.🤣

[MetalNuts]

1 hour ago, GUTB said:

 

I haven't tested any MQA-CDs against vinyl yet. However my vinyl in general is significantly superior to my digital. The setup pictured here (the CDP is put ontop of the amp temporarily for testing) shows my vinyl setup as well. The area where vinyl outshines the digital is dynamic performance which either directly or in conjunction with other factors leads to a more convincing sound, ie, more real-life. My digital has significantly better bass definition and overall better soundstage but they don't overcome the superiority of the vinyl overall. 

 

I was wondering whether I have something wrong with my eyes, it seems that the planks on the shelf are warped, the lower shelf is more severe.  Does it affect the tracking of the cartridge of your turntable.  You must be a genius to manage to adjust the cartridge in such circumstances to make it work properly.

[John Dyson]

5 hours ago, GUTB said:

Okay, we've established that non-audiophiles don't place a lot of value in better sound. Easier to just pretend CDs are the best sound available.

 

But why the effort in denying MQA?

Because MQA has data removed, and then artificially replaced...  Different math, similar concept as MP3.  MQA has accuracy decrease to below the source material used, not accuracy increase.  MQA is NOT like flac.

 

True audiophiles would HATE MQA.  It is just a loss to audiophiles (including that of money), no gain.  We already have 192/24 -- same as the best sane production signal (well, bigger is always better, right? :-)).  No reason for the MQA distortion.   Starting with 384/24 or higher just means MORE loss using MQA.

If someone insanely wants 768/32 quality to begin with, then why distort it with MQA?  Why distort ANYTHING with MQA --we already easily handle the high rates as used as INPUT to MQA.

 

John

[John Dyson]

It is so silly to see someone try to show a pretty picture of some kind of 'superior' equipment (definitely not necessarily true -- emperors new clothes), yet the distorted heart of MQA ruins it (or more accurately, creates more signal defects than a competent audio person would want.)

 

John

 

[FredericV]

7 hours ago, GUTB said:

Why not invest into a MQA playback chain and listen for yourself? If you're an audiophile, that is.

Let's deblur the GO LISTEN tactic:

 

[jabbr]

9 hours ago, GUTB said:

Why not invest into a MQA playback chain and listen for yourself? If you're an audiophile, that is.

True audiophiles don’t invest in lossy compression schemes

[4est]

3 hours ago, MetalNuts said:

 

I was wondering whether I have something wrong with my eyes, it seems that the planks on the shelf are warped, the lower shelf is more severe.  Does it affect the tracking of the cartridge of your turntable.  You must be a genius to manage to adjust the cartridge in such circumstances to make it work properly.

You need to see an eye doctor then. The fronts are curved...

[mansr]

5 hours ago, GUTB said:

I haven't tested any MQA-CDs against vinyl yet.

Have you tried MQA vinyl?

[jabbr]

4 hours ago, John Dyson said:

If someone insanely wants 768/32 quality to begin with, then why distort it with MQA?  Why distort ANYTHING with MQA --we already easily handle the high rates as used as INPUT to MQA.

People like @GUTB are pseudo-technical — they trash Class D yet embrace MQA. We know that DSP can enhance listening, compression can enhance loudness on noncritical listening etc. 

We know that tubes & vinyl (both of which I like) aren’t as accurate as the best transistors & high res digital. Yet they give a nice warm nostalgic feeling. MQA provides none of that — it’s role is as an  MP3 Quality Assured !

[FredericV]

24 minutes ago, mansr said:

Have you tried MQA vinyl?

 

And for the R2R niche: Master Quaility Analog

[John Dyson]

We need a contest -- the most applicable definition of the MQA acronym (initialism).  I like both Master Quality Analog and MP3 Quality Assured.   MP3 Quality Assured seems to show the correct 'feel' and seems accurate in the sense of bits or data being thrown away -- then artificially re-created.  Maybe should have a 'Poll' to choose the best and meaningful description :-).  I LOVE it :-).  Anyone got anything better? -- keep it clean!!!  I am not creative enough to even come up with something as good as MP3 Quality Assured.   Mu-law Quality Assured?  That is a little too extreme :-).

 

You know, MP3, OPUS, AAC do damage the audio to one extent or another, but I see a purpose for those (in fact, I just created an MP3 this morning to demo something -- every last bit of quality wasn' t needed), but MQA simply seems to be egregious and even developed for all of the wrong reasons.  MQA even has the wrong tradeoffs to benefit most of us (audiophiles and those of us who are just audio related people.)

 

MQA  DOES have good tradeoffs to benefit the license holders at the expense of those who spend money on recordings.

 

John

[KeenObserver]

Am I mistaken or is the whole MQA BS cycle starting all over again?

 

For MQA promoters to go through all this effort they must see it as a potential goldmine.

[Paul R]

6 hours ago, firedog said:

Lots is a relative term. I would say any number over 3 counts as "lots".

Outside of Japan it is dead other than the classical market -   non classical SACDs are pretty much not made anymore, other than  a few specialist curated remasters that sell in very small amounts. As a "commercial" format - I call that dead. 
 

And the only market for them in most of the world is classical- which in the US is something like 1% of the market, and much of that isn't SACD.

 

I'm not sure that even in the audiophile market SACD is a significant player at this point. It's even a fringe issue in the audiophile world. DSD downloads have a bit more significance, but they are also a tiny market. 

 

SACD? Lots? Are you sure?

 

Hanging out at audiophile sites gives a warped perspective. 

 

I did include people interested in DSD, but yes, “lots” is a perfectly good usage there.  

 

Y’all argue that the audiophile market is to small to be meaningful, but I will point out again, the audiophile world supports a huge number of niche and boutique products, and moves enough money to support pretty big fairs. 

 

There are lots of people interested in SACD, and more interested in its direct descendant, DSD

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Guys - Here’s something for your reading pleasure this morning. There’s a link in this Financial Times article about MQA, to this thread!

 

The article may not be viewable in all countries. Some people are saying it behind a pay wall. It’s was available for me here in the US without paying. 

 

https://www.ft.com/content/ceb7d68e-b393-11e9-b2c2-1e116952691a

 

[botrytis]

Nope - behind paywall for me and in the US.