MQA is Vaporware

[GUTB]

Just now, KeenObserver said:

 

Your entire premise is based on fallacies.  None of your "givens" are given.

 

MQA alters the music.

 

MQA may alter the music, but altering the music in of and by itself does not necessarily mean that it makes it inferior.

 

Let's go a little bit deeper into this concept. Recording music to PCM alters the music more so than recording it to tape. However, unless you are dedicating a lot of bandwidth to the tape recording the PCM recording will be better is most ways. DSD alters the music less than PCM -- in fact, DSD is essentially an analog waveform contained in a digital carrier. However, low-rate DSD may actually sound worse than high-rate PCM (ie, DXD) due to the effects of a steep filter needed for low-rate DSD.

 

Based on my own testing using a good MQA DAC there is a clear and significant audio improvement over the non-MQA version. Audiophiles universally agree to the nature and general degree of the improvement. If there is an alteration of music in MQA it does not overcome the improvements or are the cause of the improvements.

[jabbr]

2 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

But...BUT..based on playback of MQA CDs with a cheap Chinese CD player, it is the bomb!

My local mapo dofu does all the gustatory deblurring I need  

[John Dyson]

3 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

1. Part of MQA is based on research into the human auditory system which shows our time domain acuity is far higher than our frequency domain acuity. Do you disagree with that research? Does MQA not improve time domain resolution?

 

2. Another part of MQA is the idea that almost all meaningful music data exists up to around 50 kHz and past that it's mostly just noise. Do you disagree with this? Does MQA not accurately re-construct up to around 50 kHz?

 

3. Undoubtedly the people who developed MQA want to make money off it. Do you disagree with it?

 

4. The point of the Emperor's New Clothes is that no one was willing to point out the Emperor was naked. There wasn't a forum full of anti-Emperor activists posting non-stop about the Empror being naked.

 

5. MQA is intended to benefit listeners by improving sound quality and also to provide wider distribution / accessibility to high-resolution audio. Do you disagree? Is improved sound quality just an incidental unintended effect?

 

Item 1 -- vacuous gobbltygook.

Item 2 -- your statement is meaningless WRT the distortion that MQA causes -- we already have perfect 192/24 transport without MQA.

Item 3 -- Making money for the license holders -- only positive attribute -- for the license holders..

Item 4 -- MQA advocates have no 'clothes'.  MQA is a big silly exercise WRT improving audio quality...  Why distort, when we already have near perfection?

Item 5 -- MQA only distorts the signal, we can already handle full quality 192/24bits...  No  need for further distortion.

(No need for compression, we can easily handle 192/24 nowadays, even on my cell phone.)
Why start with really great bit-wise quality: 192/24 and do any further distortion?  Like MQA does.  Why?  No reason other than obfuscation and an attempt by the license holders to wedge in a profit -- giving truly no benefit.  Effectively MQA interpolates to try to hide the fact that it throws away information.

MQA -- emperors new clothes.

 

John

 

 

 

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

1 minute ago, GUTB said:

 

MQA may alter the music, but altering the music in of and by itself does not necessarily mean that it makes it inferior.

 

Let's go a little bit deeper into this concept. Recording music to PCM alters the music more so than recording it to tape. However, unless you are dedicating a lot of bandwidth to the tape recording the PCM recording will be better is most ways. DSD alters the music less than PCM -- in fact, DSD is essentially an analog waveform contained in a digital carrier. However, low-rate DSD may actually sound worse than high-rate PCM (ie, DXD) due to the effects of a steep filter needed for low-rate DSD.

 

Based on my own testing using a good MQA DAC there is a clear and significant audio improvement over the non-MQA version. Audiophiles universally agree to the nature and general degree of the improvement. If there is an alteration of music in MQA it does not overcome the improvements or are the cause of the improvements.

"Recording music to PCM alters the music more so than recording it to tape."

 

Says who?

 

The rest of your post is pure fiction. C'mon try harder please.

 

 

[KeenObserver]

2 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

MQA may alter the music, but altering the music in of and by itself does not necessarily mean that it makes it inferior.

 

Let's go a little bit deeper into this concept. Recording music to PCM alters the music more so than recording it to tape. However, unless you are dedicating a lot of bandwidth to the tape recording the PCM recording will be better is most ways. DSD alters the music less than PCM -- in fact, DSD is essentially an analog waveform contained in a digital carrier. However, low-rate DSD may actually sound worse than high-rate PCM (ie, DXD) due to the effects of a steep filter needed for low-rate DSD.

 

Based on my own testing using a good MQA DAC there is a clear and significant audio improvement over the non-MQA version. Audiophiles universally agree to the nature and general degree of the improvement. If there is an alteration of music in MQA it does not overcome the improvements or are the cause of the improvements.

 

Again, you are forming conclusions based on fallacies.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

1 minute ago, John Dyson said:

Item 1 -- vacuous gobbltygook.

Item 2 -- your statement is meaningless WRT the distortion that MQA causes -- we already have perfect 192/24 transport without MQA.

Item 3 -- Making money for the license holders -- only positive attribute -- for the license holders..

Item 4 -- MQA advocates have no 'clothes'.  MQA is a big silly exercise WRT improving audio quality...  Why distort, when we already have near perfection?

Item 5 -- MQA only distorts the signal, we can already handle full quality 192/24bits...  No  need for further distortion.

(No need for compression, we can easily handle 192/24 nowadays, even on my cell phone.)
Why start with really great bit-wise quality: 192/24 and do any further distortion?  Like MQA does.  Why?  No reason other than obfuscation and an attempt by the license holders to wedge in a profit -- giving truly no benefit.  Effectively MQA interpolates to try to hide the fact that it throws away information.

MQA -- emperors new clothes.

 

John

 

 

 

Translation?

 

His post was a total and utter steaming pile of horse shit.😍

 

 

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

Just now, KeenObserver said:

 

Again, you are forming conclusions based on fallacies.

Translation. He is making stuff up completely out of thin air. 

[jabbr]

3 minutes ago, GUTB said:

Based on my own testing using a good MQA DAC there is a clear and significant audio improvement over the non-MQA version.

Your ears suck. 

No true audiophile advocates lossy MP3 over native hi resolution recordings. 

[KeenObserver]

1 minute ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Translation. He is making stuff up completely out of thin air. 

 

He learned it from MQA.

[PeterSt]

5 minutes ago, GUTB said:

Based on my own testing using a good MQA DAC

 

Aha. I guess it costs 20K+, right ?

Or do you have other means to define "good" ? What actually is an MQA DAC, you reckon ?

[The Computer Audiophile]

20 minutes ago, GUTB said:

1. Part of MQA is based on research into the human auditory system which shows our time domain acuity is far higher than our frequency domain acuity. Do you disagree with that research? Does MQA not improve time domain resolution?

No. It’s based on research on bard owls. 

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

Just now, PeterSt said:

 

Aha. I guess it costs 20K+, right ?

Or do you have other means to define "good" ? What actually is an MQA DAC, you reckon ?

Let's see what answer the Great Audio GUTB...the resident Sage and true Philosopher of audio comes up with.😃

[GUTB]

2 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Item 1 -- vacuous gobbltygook.

Item 2 -- your statement is meaningless WRT the distortion that MQA causes -- we already have perfect 192/24 transport without MQA.

Item 3 -- Making money for the license holders -- only positive attribute -- for the license holders..

Item 4 -- MQA advocates have no 'clothes'.  MQA is a big silly exercise WRT improving audio quality...  Why distort, when we already have near perfection?

Item 5 -- MQA only distorts the signal, we can already handle full quality 192/24bits...  No  need for further distortion.

(No need for compression, we can easily handle 192/24 nowadays, even on my cell phone.)
Why start with really great bit-wise quality: 192/24 and do any further distortion?  Like MQA does.  Why?  No reason other than obfuscation and an attempt by the license holders to wedge in a profit -- giving truly no benefit.  Effectively MQA interpolates to try to hide the fact that it throws away information.

MQA -- emperors new clothes.

 

John

 

 

 

 

1. If you have no response the research than you....have no response to it.

2. The concept behind MQA is that high-resolution audio only sounds better due to higher time-domain resolution.

3. No one seriously thinks the developers of MQA shouldn't make money from it. Is there a thread with hundreds of posts complaining about Sony making money off of DSD?

4. 192/24 is not "perfection". 382/32 is better. High-rate DSD is significantly better. Analog is still the best audio overall.

5. MQA reduced quality over regular PCM is subjective, but a subjective evaluation no audiophiles seem to share. Can you describe your MQA playback chain?

[jabbr]

1 minute ago, PeterSt said:

 

Aha. I guess it costs 20K+, right ?

Or do you have other means to define "good" ? What actually is an MQA DAC, you reckon ?

 

An MQA DAC makes MP3s sound just like DXD  

[mansr]

23 minutes ago, GUTB said:

Part of MQA is based on research into the human auditory system

Owls, actually. Not that MQA has anything to do with the cited research.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

Just now, GUTB said:

 

1. If you have no response the research than you....have no response to it.

2. The concept behind MQA is that high-resolution audio only sounds better due to higher time-domain resolution.

3. No one seriously thinks the developers of MQA shouldn't make money from it. Is there a thread with hundreds of posts complaining about Sony making money off of DSD?

4. 192/24 is not "perfection". 382/32 is better. High-rate DSD is significantly better. Analog is still the best audio overall.

5. MQA reduced quality over regular PCM is subjective, but a subjective evaluation no audiophiles seem to share. Can you describe your MQA playback chain?

Complete distorted fiction masquerading as "authoritative" answer. Very poor effort.

[John Dyson]

1 minute ago, GUTB said:

 

MQA may alter the music, but altering the music in of and by itself does not necessarily mean that it makes it inferior.

 

You make that statement -- exactly how does MQA modify the signal?  I mean, show us the DSP math if you know so much about it with authority...  Is it that you are blathering about something that you really don't know?  Please explain exactly what you are talking about.  Show just a bit about the wonderful processing that you are talking about...  There is plenty of time and space.  The site can accept attachments, and you can provide your analysis on Dropbox if there isn't enough space available on this site.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Here is simple logic below -- no need for DSP math:

MQA removes information, so why do it?  Why not just synthesize the folding/unfolding while starting with the superior source 192/24 if 'folding/unfolding' is so good? Answer:  MQA just inserts itself in the middle when it is not needed except for money siphoning.

 

Every last bit of the information exists in the 192/24 -- why take any information away?  No reason nowadays.  We can process the h*ll out of the audio and make it sound better (processing audio doesn't usually make it better -- but sometimes it can).  By doing the MQA math locally, then we can gain whatever advantage of MQA without the toll charge...   DSP know-how is NOT uncommon.

Why dont' we synthesize the 'good parts' of MQA?  Answer:  no advantage...

 

Got it?

 

John

 

[Hugo9000]

The 'fairy tale' aspect of The Emperor's New Clothes isn't the preposterous scenario of the ruler's nudity, rather that in the story, all it took for the truth to win was a child speaking out.

 

In the 'real world,' we could have expert testimony from every conceivable field, from biologists, experts in optics, textiles, psychology, photographic and film evidence, thousands or millions of eyewitnesses, you name it, and the b.s. will still continue, unabated.

[GUTB]

6 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

"Recording music to PCM alters the music more so than recording it to tape."

 

Says who?

 

The rest of your post is pure fiction. C'mon try harder please.

 

 

 

PCM modulates a sinewave into a squarewave for digital; this process causes a transformation of the music. Analog tape records sinewaves to a magentic media.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

Just now, John Dyson said:

You make that statement -- exactly how does MQA modify the signal?  I mean, show us the DSP math if you know so much about it with authority...  Is it that you are blathering about something that you really don't know?  Please explain exactly what you are talking about.  Show just a bit about the wonderful processing that you are talking about...  There is plenty of time and space.  The site can accept attachments, and you can provide your analysis on Dropbox if there isn't enough space available on this site.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Here is simple logic below -- no need for DSP math:

MQA removes information, so why do it?  Why not just synthesize the folding/unfolding while starting with the superior source 192/24 if 'folding/unfolding' is so good? Answer:  MQA just inserts itself in the middle when it is not needed except for money siphoning.

 

Every last bit of the information exists in the 192/24 -- why take any information away?  No reason nowadays.  We can process the h*ll out of the audio and make it sound better (processing audio doesn't usually make it better -- but sometimes it can).  By doing the MQA math locally, then we can gain whatever advantage of MQA without the toll charge...   DSP know-how is NOT uncommon.

Why dont' we synthesize the 'good parts' of MQA?  Answer:  no advantage...

 

Got it?

 

John

 

John, don;'t bother. It's wack a mole with these MQA bots.

[John Dyson]

2 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

1. If you have no response the research than you....have no response to it.

2. The concept behind MQA is that high-resolution audio only sounds better due to higher time-domain resolution.

3. No one seriously thinks the developers of MQA shouldn't make money from it. Is there a thread with hundreds of posts complaining about Sony making money off of DSD?

4. 192/24 is not "perfection". 382/32 is better. High-rate DSD is significantly better. Analog is still the best audio overall.

5. MQA reduced quality over regular PCM is subjective, but a subjective evaluation no audiophiles seem to share. Can you describe your MQA playback chain?

Simply provide your analysis.  You make assertions about MQA being better -- you know the math dont you?

(PS: when the mastering is done at 192/24, very common -- it is good enough.)

 

John

[The Computer Audiophile]

12 minutes ago, GUTB said:

Recording music to PCM alters the music more so than recording it to tape.

Not according to Grammy winning recording engineers I talk to. They all said good riddance to tape. 

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

1 minute ago, GUTB said:

 

PCM modulates a sinewave into a squarewave for digital; this process causes a transformation of the music. Analog tape records sinewaves to a magentic media.

And how many recording studios have you been in?

[John Dyson]

1 minute ago, GUTB said:

 

PCM modulates a sinewave into a squarewave for digital; this process causes a transformation of the music. Analog tape records sinewaves to a magentic media.

Oh my gosh -- I don't believe this statement...  How old are you?  This is crazy stupid.

 

Sorry -- you are not worth responding to.

 

John

 

[PeterSt]

3 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Please explain exactly what you are talking about.

 

Please don't.