MQA is Vaporware

[Currawong]

12 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Putting to one side your emotional language, I made this point in the very first article I wrote on MQA: that it offers a benefit to the record companies in that, as with the LP, they are no longer selling a clone of the master.

 

 

 

9 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

So finally we have it...you fully acknowledge that MQA files are NOT identical to the master, and are lossy.

 

8 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

I have said that from the very first time I wrote about MQA, in December 2014. They are derived from the master, of course.

 

 

From the original, 2014 article: (emphasis mine)

 

Quote

Fig.4 shows the final result of this folding and packing: a 24-bit MQA file sampled at 48kHz contains all the musical information corresponding to an original recording sampled at 192kHz. You are not getting something for nothing: The data above the baseband Fs is packed sufficiently beneath the recording's noisefloor, using subtractive dither, in an information space area that would otherwise be random, that it will not have audible consequences. When this file is played back with an MQA decoder, it unfolds to give the original resolution and bandwidth required to playback the music without loss.
 

 

Sorry John, but that article has "lossless" written all through it, including in the graphs, and your explanation above. MQA sold itself as reproducing the original music losslessly until Archimago's article came out showing otherwise. Then all description of that vanished as the facts came out.

 

Despite what Bob Stuart is trying to sell people, "lossless music" is defined as having no reduction in bit depth. MQA by definition has to use bits, somewhere, to store the high-res musical data, so is, by definition, lossless. Your stating that you never claimed otherwise is simply untrue. "All" means "all".

[Currawong]

Who is claiming that MP3 stores "all the musical information [corresponding] to an original recording"?

[Currawong]

8 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Two points:

 

1.  Based on the Chesky test with engineers, the compression scheme is at least audibly lossless which differs from the mantra here around "17 bits", "lower quality than CD", etc.

 

2.  I do find MQA files to sound better based on listening to files that I am familiar with that I can A/B with identical mastering.

 

I know you probably disagree with either or both of these points but that's my honest opinion.

 

So we remain with the value of MQA as I see it:

 

1.  It offers better sound quality.

2.  The compression scheme is audibly lossless.

3.  There is value at scale of having smaller file sizes from both a bandwidth and mobile phone storage perspective.

 

Even though I'm here mostly to read and understand, I can't help but reply to this.

 

Your two points:

 

1. You're mixing up technical facts with listening tests. A listening test doesn't counter a mantra. Heck, just compare listening tests of NOS DACs versus their shockingly bad measurements. 

 

2. Because they are using tricks such as increasing the volume by a dB or two, enhancing certain sounds, or removing noise so that you'll feel they sound better when they listen. 

 

It's the same with R2R DACs, tube amps, and cleverly tuned circuits that add even-order or 3rd-order harmonic distortion to make you believe you're hearing more than you really are in the music. It sounds better! I have experienced that (I'm listening with a NOS R2R DAC right now in fact) but that is not the same thing as actually "better". 

 

Value points:

 

1. It has been processed through a DSP, with remastering to enhance certain sounds and/or remove noise as I've already said. 

2. If the compression is audibly lossless, then likely too would be the difference between a CD-quality version and the high-res one.

3. The bandwidth issue has been debunked already, but you are promoting the idea of using files which have data in the audible frequency ranges removed in exchange for compressed, inaudible mostly ADC-generated noise or aliased versions of the music from poor filters. That is not high-res, but the opposite Do you really consider this a good thing? 

 

Seriously Lee, does NONE of the technical information provided here, very often by experienced professionals, make any sense to you?

 

Do the lies that were told not matter?

Do the facts not matter?

[Currawong]

I'm still trying to get my head around the idea that "MQA sounds better to me" but leading industry professionals couldn't discern any difference between MQA and the high-res original. 

 

I don't think we should be rude to him though. Heck, I have relatives that are both respected scientists and Marxists. I don't understand how they can hold those contradictions in their heads either.

[Currawong]

I think showing that we're better than that is important. If you're goaded into being rude, then it's easy to say (as has essentially happened) "That chap is rude, so everything he says can be disregarded."

[Currawong]

  I'm with firedog on this. I think that some people just don't want to see. Even though I don't think people should have been as hostile, I can understand the frustration when dealing with such people.

[Currawong]

9 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

I think the MQA team has made a decision to trim off non-musical data and preserve the hjrez content in order to reach a smaller file size goal. 

 

I know Lee has now been banned, but it still gets me how someone can't see the contradictions in their own comments, i.e: The high-res part could be chopped off (rather than the bits within the audible range) and people probably wouldn't hear it either. Heck, given a lot of the "hires content" is supposedly ADC noise (according to Dan Lavry and others) it would make more sense. 

[Currawong]

12 hours ago, Paul R said:

I think this is a debatable point, as MQA can definitely support higher resolution than CD, but at the expense of some high frequency (very high frequency) information, additional alias products to deal with, and perhaps, some limits on dynamic range. Still better than CD,

 

Isn't that a contradiction?

[Currawong]

1 minute ago, Paul R said:

 

No,why would you think it is? Or possibly are you thinking a slightly decimated 24/96k file is worse than a CD? 

I can see where that might be possible, but I do not think it is the case here.  Open to alternate speculation/opinions though. 

 

-Paul

 

 

If that is all it was, but given they have obviously applied some form of DSP to it (at least with the TIDAL tracks I've compared), in some cases adding high-frequency aliases of the music, I'm not particularly convinced.

[Currawong]

 

7 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

Well yes, they have to apply DSP to de-convole the information that they convolved into it when they did their MQA hoo-doo. 

That is *supposed* to make no effect on the CD sound, but I don't know anyone who actually believes that anymore. Some people like the 

sound better, at least on some material. But as other people have pointed out, that may just be a temporary reaction to the processed file being or appearing to be louder. 

 

-Paul 

 

 

It's more than that. Take Getz and Gilberto on TIDAL. The MQA version has, in effect, been EQ'ed, with boosted bass and some weird distortions in parts of some tracks. Then there's INXS Kick, which has a serious pitch change. Some of the changes make it seem as if they've run one of those sound enhancer plug-ins over the music to ensure there is a distinct difference for consumers to hear. They are trying to tie this in to being a result of "MQA" when really they've simply altered the music itself, something that doesn't require the fancy compression scheme at all, or the filters.

[Currawong]

On 3/29/2019 at 3:26 AM, John Dyson said:

First -- I DO MAKE MISTAKES, and I am just as susceptible to myths as anyone else.  Geesh -- I used to believe that 'Gibbs' is really ringing for many many years -- until I put my EE/DSP hat on instead of my 'just me' hat.  It is so easy to be mistaken in these highly technical fields, and one thing that I have learned to say (or write):  yes, my statement was wrong, I was wrong in my beliefs, etc...  (I am not wrong about Gibbs, but I have been wrong about A LOT of things. 🙂)   Threw the stupid part of ego away -- once I did that, it was so much easier to be intellectually honest and accept the truth.

Another thing -- gotta give up on trying to convince those who don't want to admit the truth.  I remember an old co-worker, a little long in the tooth, telling me that he was a real expert in this or that field.  In fact, he said:  I can't be taught anything!!!   He really said that, I was incredulous and kindly kept my mouth shut :-).

Stupid arguments are not worth throwing away friendships or even kind correspondents.

 

John

 

A friend of mine once commented, "The true measure of intellect is seen in the ability of a person to re-evaluate what they believe to be true when additional and clarifying knowledge is received, and then apply this knowledge in their life so as to intimately embrace the higher truth that has been revealed in the endeavor to receive still Higher Truth."  It was referring to spirituality, but it is equally relevant to anyone's life and profession. 

 

I believe many of the issues with people who fanatically believe in things is that they simply don't want to even consider any view that would shatter their belief. I've observed that many people are this way, and nothing can "remove the beam from [their] eye".

 

The discussion here has been very helpful towards increasing my understanding of digital audio. Sadly the above reality means it has not been for some who really should be learning more.

 

On 3/29/2019 at 3:48 AM, The Computer Audiophile said:

Thank you. That's the answer I needed. 

 

Just an observation which you may find useful: I found, after moderating forums for many years, that I tended to see the worst in what I read from other people. 

 

On 3/29/2019 at 10:25 AM, Paul R said:

 

It is possible I am really missing something here. I really don't get the idea that MQA is going to cost anyone here any amount of money that would hurt them. 

 

 

Why did you bring this up at all? The whole point of the discussion to begin with is that MQA was based on flat-out lies, and the implication, analysis, is that it can act as a trojan horse for the music industry to wreck the quality of available music, potentially even device-limiting playback.

 

Heck, I just ripped a CD in iTunes to use in a classroom (from a textbook) and iTunes refuses to copy half the tracks to my phone due it not being available in my region. This even though I purchased the textbook. And this isn't even MQA! So the paranoia isn't far-fetched at all.

 

On 3/30/2019 at 6:59 AM, Paul R said:

I applaud the efforts to oppose MQA, I think it needs to be opposed. But it is not all bad. Those people with $7/month subscriptions might get better sounding music, access to more music, ad so on. 

 

From what we've seen, they wont get better sounding music, not access to more music as a result. So you are right, it needs to be opposed. However, I'm not sure why you agree it needs to be opposed yet hold the view that "people with $7/month subscriptions might get better sounding music" from MQA if that is so.

 

 

[Currawong]

47 minutes ago, Currawong said:

Heck, I just ripped a CD in iTunes to use in a classroom (from a textbook) and iTunes refuses to copy half the tracks to my phone due it not being available in my region. This even though I purchased the textbook. And this isn't even MQA! So the paranoia isn't far-fetched at all.

 

I can't edit my post to fix this for some reason, but it looks as if this was a bug, as it now syncs without issue.

[Currawong]

To be fair to JA, I think the suggestion that they are trying to market MQA is somewhat unfair. I noticed Herb Reichert gently pissed on MQA in the Kitsune DAC review, for example. 

 

Of "the acoustic objects within the stereo image having somewhat greater palpability", this reminds me of my impressions of the MQA-similar GTO filter in the iFi Pro iDSD, which brings instruments more forward, and makes them feel a bit livelier. My issue would be that the whole MQA process is unnecessary to get that kind of result with music. 

 

Not unlike how the slightly V-shaped sound signature of tubes (something which a designer I know could fake in solid-state circuits by adjusting the crosstalk) and even-order harmonics make the music sound "richer" (or whatever word one wishes to use) I think MQA simply picked distortions that would appeal most to listeners. But again, the whole process is simply a trick, and the MQA folding, and etc. is completely unnecessary.

 

 

[Currawong]

10 hours ago, John Dyson said:

Who cares about CD for the best quality -- just get 24bit at least 48k sample rate -- no need for recording obfuscation? 

 

Myself, and others, have been saying this for years. I think this is where much of the problem lies. If the baseline quality had been this to begin with, I reckon most of the arguments over digital wouldn't have come about in the first place.

 

8 hours ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

CW:

 

I just read that DAC review by Reichert. I am not sure where he "pissed" on MQA....

 

Reviewing nice affordable digital  products from small manufacturers, like let's say, a ladder DAC, and wanting to recommend it puts Stereophile writers in a pickle because they have to figure out how to handle the MQA thing. based on their editorial obsession with marketing it. Here Reichert choses the strategy to down play it. Interestingly he chooses to really spotlight DSD. 

 

This was not the case when he reviewed several MyTek DACs and fell in love with MQA to the point that the Schiit DAC, (very similar to the Kitsune) that was his "reference" was kicked to the curb because if did not decode MQA.

 

They simply cannot have it both ways, 

 

"According to legendary musician and record producer Don Was, now president of Blue Note Records, "what record producers and artists intend for the audience to hear is the first commercially released issue—not some hypothetical master tape or enhanced later version. By that sensible measure, every remastering, reissue, or change in format—whether from 78 to 331?3rpm, mono to stereo, LP to CD, CD to hi-rez, or hi-rez to MQA—is simply a lower-fidelity interpretation of the original. That's why I've never felt comfortable with remasterings."

 

To his arguable discredit, he does make everything he reviews sound like the second coming, and does write in the favour of whatever he is reviewing.  I haven't read his Mytek review, but I am more inclined to think, since I'm a reviewer, they are more afraid of alienating subscribers who DO think MQA is wonderful and complain if they aren't catered to.  If they were really so in bed with manufacturers, they surely wouldn't measure products, especially given that they reveal how "fundamentally broken" NOS DACs are.

 

Maybe their mistake was to take BS at his word (bad pun intended), and now it's like the man who buys a pristine-looking second-hand car, assured by the  supposedly trustworthy salesman that it is in perfect condition, has a crash, and all the bog filler falls out from where the previous owner had done the same thing....

[Currawong]

7 hours ago, Jud said:

 

I didn't mock, I disagreed. And it was in fact the types of photos you mention that I wouldn't want to see in glossy mags. I think very few of them are good. You might disagree, which is fine.

 

Given how good smart phones are nowadays at taking photos, it isn't actually that hard to get a couple of bright lights, (or just a very bright room light) point them in the general direction of the products and take something half-decent. It just takes practice.

 

7 hours ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

I would offer the observation that this is not the thread to  bas reviewers here in general. They should be raked over the coals for their MQA Marketing, but if folks just want to crucify them, it is a bit gratuitous. Just my two shekels. 

 

Since I'm currently of the opinion that, whenever I see a reviewer say that they heard more detail from something like a NOS DAC that they are actually hearing more distortion they are mistaking for detail, that the real problem is likely that they really don't know what they are hearing. Their impressions of MQA likely falls under this problem.

 

And in case the above is misunderstood, I have both a NOS DAC and an MQA DAC here and I have been enjoying listening with both. I just don't feel I'm under any illusions about what is causing my enjoyment. I just don't think that anyone else who has the title of "reviewer" anywhere should be either.

[Currawong]

On 5/16/2019 at 3:48 AM, John_Atkinson said:

 

Really? What I have complained about is when people have posted false defamatory and demeaning comments about me or Stereophile's writers or have asked Chris to delete posts that infringe on Stereophile's copyright. But "censure this thread"? Not at all.

 

The problem I've had with these MQA threads, given that I'm here to research the technical elements, is sifting through all the crap. When I was moderating Head-Fi, the same thing would happen in the "Sound Science" forum, or "un-Sound Science" forum as some people nicknamed it, as it was more about chest thumping on how high-res/cables/whatever is snake oil, and would quickly descend into suggestions that a person who thought otherwise was deluded. At least one person here (who posted very useful technical info at point) is someone I banned at one point for this kind of abuse. I really would like a good technical summary, but sifting through something close to a thousand pages across multiple threads for all the good info would take too long, and I can't find Chris' presentation any more online. 

 

Really, all this pissing on Bob (understandable as it may be) really doesn't help anything. How do you explain to someone who has no technical understanding why MQA is dubious?

 

On 5/16/2019 at 10:34 AM, Paul R said:

I will say it isn't "junk science."

 

On 5/17/2019 at 3:30 AM, Paul R said:

Yes but I think they are under more pressure now, and might respond differently now. I mean, after all, they need a chance to disseminate their point of view, in a safe environment.

 

On 5/17/2019 at 3:53 PM, Paul R said:

 

Well, all I can say is you are thinking of them like people, not like a business.  Most inimical companies can turn around and become partners in an incredibly short period of time. Look at Apple and Qualcomm.  

 

If you look at them as a business, their behavior becomes a bit more understandable. Still wrong, and still stupid, but understandable at least. 

 

It is possible to conduct business with integrity and honesty, without compromising principles.  It says much that you seem to consider normal business behaviour to be lying, and when caught, making up alternative bullshit to justify those lies. Worse still attempting to change standard science-based definitions of terms to mean something they don't to sell your product, i.e. Trying to re-define high-res as something that isn't high-res at all.

 

That means that they don't have a "point of view" rather than what could be described as a "post truth" goal, to sell The Audiophile's New Music. More fundamentally, their "point of view" doesn't negate the actual science and the reality. So asking Chris to kiss-and-make-up with them is of zero benefit. You're asking Chris, and everyone here to just forget everything they have done wrong, and are still doing wrong, and give them a chance to redeem themselves. Really? There is nothing MQA can say (other than admitting the truth) that is of any interest to him, or anyone, except those wanting to live in the lie.

 

[Currawong]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

Well MQA is a big gob of crap.  Anywhere you touch it is like a smelly tar baby. 

 

I'd start with the fact it is not lossless. 

 

Next that it actually doesn't have the full dynamics of CD. 

 

That it has leaky filters that allow aliasing and imaging. 

 

That the provenance, authentication, etc. is simply a con job. 

 

The claim to retroactively determine what gear was used to compensate for it when they do nothing of the sort. 

 

The way that the high sample rates are a con completely past 96 khz and mostly even at 96 khz. 

 

That it isn't great at saving bandwidth as in fact 20 bit Flac could be smaller and of higher fidelity. 

 

That it could become effectively DRM.

 

There are some other things, but each of these can be rather in depth depending upon the technical knowledge of the person you are explaining it to.  It is already a rather long list for one thing called MQA.  An excellent example of baffling them with BS as a marketing strategy.  Make so many ridiculous claims you get rather involved debunking each of them and every aspect of it is a lie.  It will make people who don't know get that glazed over look before you get started good on all crap involved in being MQA. 

 

 

 

That's a great list, thanks. I just need pictures to help things along.

 

1. Not lossless. That's where I usually start. Covered by this patent pic. 

 

2. Doesn't have the full dynamics of CD Quality. Ok, I missed that one. Got a link to the discussion of that?

 

3. Leaky filters. Got that from "MQA: A Review of controversies, concerns, and cautions"

 

4. Authentication. Ditto above. I remember great post someone made in one of the other threads about all the manipulation and electronics a regular audio master has had done to it before it is sent out on a format, so the ADC processing is irrelevant. If anyone recalls it, please link me.

 

5. ADC used filters. That was mansr's deconstruction of the baked-in filters inside the MQA code wasn't it?

 

6. 96k limit. As per the image from a couple of pages back showing totally different HF content?

 

7. It was 18-bit, 176k FLAC according to Archimago wasn't it?

 

8. DRM. That was in materials sent to studios wasn't it? I don't recall exactly where though.  

 

 

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

Well, that's one man's opinion. Maybe two.   

 

Seriously,  you just went around three corners there. Piss on Bob, Explain the tech to me, and businesses can be run ethically but this one has not been and so piss on it.  You act like they did something personal to you. 

 

The only person I know of who has had a personal conflict with MQA is Chris, and that wasn't with Bob Stuart, it was with the business lackeys. (shrug). 

 

Nothing personal at all. But this does come across as a "You're just being emotional" argument and doesn't address what I wrote at all. 

[Currawong]

I think that the "render" really being up-sampling and not part of the actual MQA file is the most damning bit. You can't talk your way around adding data that wasn't there in the first place.

[Currawong]

What Thuaveta said. I look at it as more "I want to believe" with MQA instead of the UFO.

 

If a person has any genuine intellect, they would, upon learning the truth of something, re-evaluate what they have previously learned or believed, and express themselves based upon that from then on. What we have instead, with some people, is not just people who don't want to accept the truth (in this case about MQA), but actually make fanatical efforts to argue against it.

 

More usefully, reviewers could learn more about digital audio, as I have from reading the MQA threads, and expand their knowledge, making them better and more useful in their job, and improving the quality of the magazines or sites they write for. 

[Currawong]

On 6/29/2019 at 3:31 AM, The Computer Audiophile said:

Looks like the Tidal app streams the CD quality pure PCM when HiFi is selected, but only via the Tidal app. I captured some of one track if anyone wants to examine..

 

HiFi-passthrough.flac 3.7 MB · 1 download

 

Master-Decoded-by-Tidal-app.flac 3.97 MB · 0 downloads

 

Master-passthrough.flac 3.75 MB · 1 download

 

 

 

I've had weird issues with Roon search lately. I have typed in tracks or albums which are in my library, but don't show up in search, or only show the TIDAL versions (if "Only show my library" is off) so it could be a bug. 

[Currawong]

28 minutes ago, sandyk said:

43 years with Telstra

 

May the Lord Have Mercy Upon You.

[Currawong]

 

On 8/4/2019 at 5:41 PM, sandyk said:

 

 24/192 is NOT a waste of time, neither is DSD. They are both audibly superior to 16/44.1 for those with half decent hearing and good equipment.

I guess that this rules out those who can't even hear differences between USB cables that meet the applicable standards ?

 

 

Sorry, can't resist, but 352.8 and 384k are even better, especially if you like a crapload of free digital noise! Note everything in that track above about 48kHz (where a 24/96kHz file would end) is massive amounts of junk noise. 

 

 

On 8/9/2019 at 3:17 AM, John_Atkinson said:

 

My own experience leads me to prefer "leaky" reconstruction filters for most kinds of music; as does that of some of Stereophile team of reviewers; as does that of readers with whom I have discussed the subject. I don't see why anyone would have a problem with people citing their own experience as a reason for having a preference.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

I've spent some time with the iFi Pro iDSD, and I get why people like those kinds of filters. It seems to vary depending on the DAC, but to me (and others) it sounded best with the GTO "MQA-imitation" filter. Instruments seemed to jump forward in the sound space.  While I recognised it wasn't really accurate in both the technical and listening sense (the Chord DACs seem to give the best, most even and deep sense of actual "space" from recordings) it was often more fun to listen with.

 

On 8/14/2019 at 9:43 AM, Jim Austin said:

 

I don't think that's an accurate characterization. John, a technically astute, experienced recording engineer and audio reviewer--a winner of the Heyser Award from the Audio Engineering Society--certainly understands what goes on up there. Jason isn't a technical guy, but he has an excellent ear, and he--along with people like Morten Lindberg,  Peter McGrath, Alan Siverman, and  Bob Ludwig--very much likes the way MQA sounds. 

 

In any case, as I made clear in my editorial in the July issue, one of the main values I bring to leading Stereophile is an appreciation of diverse voices and opinions. It's OK if one reviewer loves one thing and another reviewer likes something different. This endless thread is, if nothing else, evidence that not everyone can tolerate opinions different from their own, but to me that is a core virtue.

 

By the way, in the quote box above, I fixed the spelling of Jason's last name: Serinus. 

 

Jim Austin, Editor

Stereophile

 

Jim, your fellow internet travellers know what an "appeal to authority" argument looks like.  We also know what the difference between "opinion" and "fact" is. 

 

While "Ismael" has done more for the pro-MQA camp, and MQA themselves, by continually spamming the thread with shallow, argumentative crap and personal attacks, drowning out the useful technical discussion and in turn making out the arguments here to appear empty and the posters abusive trolls, his question was valid. I'm going to re-post it, revised, as my own.

 

Why do John Atkinson and Jason Victor Serinus still post about MQA music in their reviews in a manner that implies that they contain musical data over 96 Khz, when we know FOR A FACT that they do not? Why is it not stated that the MQA is unfolded to 96k, then rendered, via up-sampling to a higher rate using MQA filters? Why are they listed as, say, "24/48 MQA file unfolded to 24/192" when they are not?  Why are these facts not corrected?

[Currawong]

19 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

It's interesting that none of the old guard are fans of clearly upsampled high resolution releases for sale at download stores, but they are OK with clearly upsampled MQA. 

 

Quoted for truth. HDTracks got reamed when it was discovered that they were selling up-sampled music. Supposedly the record labels had sent it to them after up-sampling it. Now the labels have been busted, AGAIN, trying to market up-sampled music. 

 

Now it's on my mind, does anyone have a list of the tracks where it has been confirmed that their MQA sample rate is higher than their recorded rate?  Including the one where all the high-res material was an alias of the audible music.

 

20 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

This is literally correct. When 24/48 MQA data is sent to the D/A processor, the DAC chip is presented with 24-bit data sampled at 192kHz. If every such passing mention had to include a full discussion of how MQA works or doesn't work, reviews would become unwieldy. 

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

 

No, it is NOT correct.  You yourself first wrote about the unfolding process. "Unfolding" implies that data was folded in the first place. We know that NONE of the audio above 48 kHz (corresponding to a 96 kHz PCM file) is included, so nothing above that is folded at all*. We KNOW that the "rendering" is up-sampling. How hard is it to state this? You and the other writers always go to the trouble of stating when up-sampling is being used in a DAC, so I don't see how this is different.

 

You could write a good technical article on how MQA actually works, using the wealth of data from people here, showing that it is essentially 17/96, including an explanation of how the "rendering" is really up-sampling using MQA's selected digital filters. The article could also correct all the previous errors, such as the ones stating that it was lossless. That article could be linked to every time you mention MQA being played back.

 

In the past, I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you, and many other audio writers, had simply been misled and were simply too embarrassed to admit that you'd been given false info. Now when you and Jim write the kind of replies you have, I don't understand how can you so flagrantly ignore the facts, and so transparently brush them aside. Even more so when (and good on you for doing so) you tested the output of the 10 kHz sine tone rigged with an MQA flag and saw for yourself a piece of what has been going on.

 

Remember all the times you've posted, after measuring a NOS DAC, how it is "fundamentally broken"? How about the tube amp (manufacturer's name forgotten) which had serious electrical issues? How about when measurements have revealed issues with manufacturer claims? Have you got the balls to post as much about the serious issues with MQA, just as you have with all the other products that had equally major issues?

 

*Probably because, as Dan Lavry pointed out many years ago when he was refusing to make DACs and ADCs that went above 96 kHz, that anything above that is just electrical noise, so MQA must have realised, going by tracks such as the one which I posted the spectrogram of which, that attempting to "fold" a bunch of noise was not going to work.

[Currawong]

8 hours ago, mansr said:

How would you know what the recording format was? This information is rarely provided by the labels. All we can spot with any certainty is 44/48 kHz material upsampled and tagged as a higher original rate in MQA. That's possible since MQA does preserve at least some content up to 48 kHz. Above that it's all fake, even if the recording was in fact done at the advertised rate.

 

I recall a couple of comments where the original resolution of a recording was, say, listed as 96k, when the digital recording or mastering equipment used for it was only 48k.

 

5 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Perhaps you are misreading what I wrote. In the example wrote that was quoted on this forum, the PCM data fed to the DAC chip has a bit depth of 24 bits and is sampled at 192kHz. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

I read it fine. My point is that the 192 kHz data the DAC chip is seeing is the result of up-sampling, and that the original MQA file doesn't have data beyond 96 kHz.  That's why MQA separates the supposed "unfolding" into "decoding" and "rendering". The former is actually "unfolding" (extracting the high-res data from the 3 bits of encoded noise) and the latter is "up-sampling". 

 

If you can show me a DAC that can recover the full 352k of the 2L file I posted, from the MQA track, including the high-frequency noise (good luck fitting that into 3 bits!) then I'll apologise, and correct all my posts.

[Currawong]

The high-frequency noise pattern makes me wonder if the original file wasn't actually DSD.