MQA is Vaporware

[Sonicularity]

8 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

What are the X and Y axes on the chart and what is the source'link?

 

The source is Mans' own research from page 185 of this very thread.

 

 

[Sonicularity]

4 hours ago, BratStrangler said:

As Lee noted earlier, it’ll be up the consumer.  

 

I'd agree with you as it has been initially typed.  Exactly up what should probably remain unsaid.

[Sonicularity]

7 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Sure, not everyone will be into streaming but I think it has the best chance for widespread appeal.

 

As for sound quality, I let my ears be the guide. They remain the best instrument out there for evaluation.  So far, I have been impressed by the sound quality.

 

Are you making any reasonable attempts to isolate your ears by removing the abundance of bias that is already very well known to exist with human hearing?   Also, when you are evaluating, do you consider precisely matching volume levels and ensuring that identical sources are used, when applicable?  

 

It is the details that matter.  My Sentra is as fast as a Ferrari when dropped straight down from a 500 foot cliff.  

[Sonicularity]

2 hours ago, WAM said:

Fair enough. But you make a mistake. A silver disc is not " stone age" . A streamer does not beat a cd-transport. Do not fool yourselves, nothing obsolete about cd's.

 

But let's not spoil this thread with a discs vs files discussion, I just wanted to know how you did your testing. 

 

Enjoy your music. 

 

Isn't a disc just a medium to store a file format, like MQA, MP3, AAC, FLAC, CD-DA, or others?

[Sonicularity]

Getting back to MQA, could the registered trademark use of MQA Lossless be considered false advertising?

 

https://www.trademarkia.com/mqa-lossless-85965607.html

 

 

 

[Sonicularity]

5 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Don't be surprised.  In the 20+ years that I have been writing for Stereophile, I have never experienced any censorship.  

 

Though, one has to consider that you have provided no reason to be censored, which may have contributed to your lengthy tenure.  

[Sonicularity]

11 minutes ago, FredericV said:

 

Taking several identities, e.g. Pedro at Archimago's blog - how many others?

Denying he was Peter Markus on CA
Discussing his strategies on the secret group, like how he would attack Archimago
Always repeating the same shill arguments
Writing "congrats MQA team" several times

and still denying being paid by MQA for all his efforts

 

 

I don't suspect anyone was getting paid.   Maybe they were, but I don't think it is a necessary component to explain these actions.  

[Sonicularity]

20 hours ago, Jim Austin said:

Oh, and no, I won't provide the citations. If you want to read them you can find them on your own. 

 

https://arxiv.org/abs/0812.3066

 

Beyond Bandlimited Sampling: Nonlinearities, Smoothness and Sparsity (2008)
by Y. C. Eldar , T. Michaeli

 

https://mafiadoc.com/splines-a-perfect-fit-for-signal-and-image-processing-citeseerx_59bf2c001723ddfb705c3c8f.html

 

SPLINES : A PERFECT FIT FOR SIGNAL/IMAGE PROCESSING (1999)

by Michael Unser

 

Edit: top link was broken

[Sonicularity]

I keep wondering why a petty reply is offered in some odd defensive motive, but I suppose it is all about having people click a link to Stereophile, presumably for financial reasons or hubris.  I mean, who cares?  I realize the irony in my own post, but I had to point it out for those of us that have been sitting on the sidelines just shaking our heads.

[Sonicularity]

 

 

I still like to think of myself as more of a Nyconquistador than a Shannonista.

 

 

[Sonicularity]

8 minutes ago, mansr said:

True, he wasn't banned. He bravely ran away.

 

Like brave, brave Sir Robin?  They both have merry minstrels.

 

 

 

[Sonicularity]

Wow, we think alike.  Jinx!

[Sonicularity]

36 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

The term "strict Shannonista" was used in a letter published in the October issue of Stereophile (p.13).

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

I'll take your word for it.   A fervent supporter of MQA uses a term published in a magazine that appears to irrationally support and align itself as pro-MQA.  How would this be surprising? 

[Sonicularity]

MP3...all the musical information corresponding to an original recording sampled at 192kHz...for a significant number of listeners and with an enormous amount of music.  Nah, it will never fly.   

[Sonicularity]

1 hour ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Sure it is possible..

 

Even if they pound on a table and flatly deny it?

[Sonicularity]

1 hour ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

My clock says there's about 5 minutes left on that 15 minutes of fame Lee.  ?

 

I hope that notoriety is as fulfilling for you as it is for others.

 

I would love to hear my mp3 library on my Sansa Clip with that system.  Bet it would sound spectacular.

[Sonicularity]

43 minutes ago, sullis02 said:

*Negative* audiophile fluff about MQA like that Audiobacon piece are about as credible as MQA marketing fluff.   There's no solid evidence I know of that indicates MQA will either impart or remove 'warmth' or 'density'...or any clearly audible difference at all, for that matter.   (Same for 'oversampling done with software', a pretty broad brush category)  

 

I agree though it is entirely possible a different master was used for the MQA version,  and that could be responsible for the apparent differences.   I remember playing Gorf at the local arcade and "Highway to Hell" from AC/DC started up and the sound nearly immobilized me as I was just mesmerized by the beat.  I have not heard any recent mastering of AC/DC from streaming services or a CD that match the album's outstanding intensity from back then.   There may have been drugs and/or alcohol involved.

[Sonicularity]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

 

I was thinking of his various posts through the years. He's said variously that DSD is bad, that 24/192 and DXD are unnecessary, in fact that pretty much everything except the 24/96 resolution recordings he produces and sells are a type of fraud on the consumer.

 

As for his own recordings, despite the fact his customers apparently aren't able to tell the difference between them and CDs, his site still says, "The more people experience real high-res audio the more they will demand record labels provide them."

 

More people demanding HiRes after experiencing it has nothing to do with audio quality.  There is no conflict, even with bold, quoted text.

[Sonicularity]

18 hours ago, Jud said:

 

That isn't what Mr. Waldrep has said for many years. I was pointing out the hypocrisy.

 

His idea of real hi-res audio could be made on a Redbook CD from what I have read on his site and elsewhere.  I don't believe the format alone determines the audio quality from his perspective.

[Sonicularity]

2 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

Well, in 1982, 16/44.1K was absolutely high resolution, and the promise was perfect sound forever. We all know how that worked out, but - there are still significant numbers of people today who will tell you that 16/44.1 is *it*, and it just doesn't get any better. Some people have the same opinion concerning vinyl. Or Reel to Reel tape.

 

 

 

I don't see how 16/44.1 can be compared to vinyl or reel-to-reel when it comes to fidelity.  You are conflating inferior audio formats to rational people with a format that can be audibly transparent for playback of the recording.  You can't get better than transparent, but that does not mean that every Redbook product was made without flaws, only that there is no reason to believe it could not sound identical to any supposedly superior HiRes format.

 

 

[Sonicularity]

5 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

A vinyl record can hold a 50khz signal which translates to 100khz sampling rate.  So vinyl is roughly around DVD-Audio quality which is what I usually hear as well.  Reel to reel is higher fidelity at 15 ips and still higher at 30 ips.  Analog tape is capable of truly outstanding fidelity.  

 

Redbook can sound great with a great recording and a great mastering.  But given the same recording on hirez and great mastering it will sound better still.

 

Why would any human care about 50kHz or 100kHz?  I have not seen any reliable evidence to suggest what you claim about HiRes being better.   I did say rational people, my bad.

[Sonicularity]

9 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

There are several AES studies that found people could hear the improvements of hirez music.  The sonic advantages are pretty obvious to me.

 

Let's see these and we can create a new topic for discussion.  You still have not provided any reliable evidence.  

[Sonicularity]

13 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

Lee answered that very well I think.  So, you are one of those people who believe Redbook format is *it*?

 

Great example.

 

-Paul 

 

 

I hope that it is not it.  I don't think we will get anything for stereo playback with music released to date that would sound superior.  As a format, it is not as practical today.  It is capable of being audibly transparent.

[Sonicularity]

18 minutes ago, rickca said:

I thought this thread was about MQA.

 

I agree.

 

@Lee Scoggins Choose the one you feel best provides evidence that HiRes is audibly superior to Redbook and we can move the discussion into a separate thread.

[Sonicularity]

7 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

You said yourself that the discussion was "good" once all MQA dissent was removed from the room.  If this isn't a stark indication that you have a pro-MQA agenda, I don't know what is.

 

Dissent is a bit harsh of a term.  What I saw were just objective discoveries that could have been discussed and possibly explained by some of those present in the audience.  Instead, we got a rant as Dick Cheney could expect at a Berkley graduation ceremony.