Jump to content
IGNORED

MQA is Vaporware


Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

Your tinnitus may be impacting the frequency range but recent research suggests we hear timing distortions down to 5 microseconds well into our 70s.  Maybe you are doing okay on hearing the timing elements.

5 µs, so still well within the limits of what RBCD is capable of.

Link to comment
  • 1 month later...
  • 5 months later...
  • 10 months later...
  • 3 months later...
  • 3 months later...

I always thought that "white glove" processing meant:

  1. carefully prepare a new master (in good old PCM, mind you)
  2. encode it in MQA, the usual way
  3. release to public only the encoded version and keep PCM master in safe

which would not entirely apply in case of BC because, presumably, the master they release in FLAC/DSD is already a carefully prepared master.

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...
On 4/20/2021 at 7:33 PM, GoldenOne said:

The fact that amir has suddenly 180'd from his usual stance that gear can be evaluated solely using steady state signals and ideal test conditions, to now saying that this testing is invalid because it doesn't represent music, is rather odd.....

Did you infer that, for some reason, from what he said about testing lossy codecs? Or did he actually said this about testing gear? Got any links to that?

 

On 4/20/2021 at 8:51 PM, Dr Tone said:

He's been an MQA fanboy for a while.  He sells a few high dollar MQA pieces through his business, bashing MQA wouldn't be good for that business.

Is it still the same "fanboyism" that charlesphoto was talking about:

 

Or does not bashing equal being a fanboy nowadays?

 

On 4/20/2021 at 11:04 PM, Samuel T Cogley said:

I call shenanigans!!!  We know a lot about the performance of CODECs such as MP3 and AAC because..... TEST SIGNALS!!!

Do you have any examples? All I'm aware of are only listening tests on hydrogenaud.io but they use music samples.

 

Apparently there are some AES papers about testing codecs, but they also use music samples:

https://www.audiosciencereview_AUDIOPHILESTYLE_IS_CHILDISH.com/forum/index.php?threads/mqa-deep-dive-i-published-music-on-tidal-to-test-mqa.22549/post-753835

Unfortunately it is amirm's post, so it probably doesn't count on this forum.

 

18 hours ago, Currawong said:

This is how hate-forums start: They pick a manufacturer they don't like, and then fanatically go on and on about how everything about that manufacturer's products are bad.

It's funny that you wrote that in this thread in particular :)

Link to comment
16 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:


If you don’t like AS, you are free to leave at anytime. 

Er... ok. Thank you for informing me about this fact, I guess.

 

Other than the link annoyance it's mostly fine, though.

 

But I get the message. I will refrain from expressing my opinion on the link switcheroo in the future.

 

16 hours ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

What color are your ASR knee pads? Do they have the ASR logo on them?😅

See! This is the quality content I visit this forum for. What's not to like?

Link to comment
21 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

You do know why I had to disable links, right?

I think I remember you writing something about spamming.

Assuming that's still the case, wouldn't it be enough to just turn the link into a text? So it can be just copy-pasted? And if not, than surely it would be enough to modify it only in one place instead of three:

www.Xaudiosciencereview.com/foobar

Hell, you could even include the reason why:

www.audio “science” review ANTISPAM.com/foobar

Selecting and deleting a single word is still less annoying than editing the address in several places.

But that of course would not include a chil..., sorry, a dig at their name.

 

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...
34 minutes ago, skikirkwood said:

And along the way, learned about the X-Frame-Options DENY directive to block any site from iFraming a site.

 

The fact that Stereophile has not set this simple setting in all of the years of its online existence, but instead is threatening Chris with legal action over an iFrame embed, pretty much speaks for itself in so many ways.

Are you suggesting that Stereophile has control over superbestaudiofriends.org servers? 😉

 

 

(to be clear, I'm not saying that lack of such control is an excuse to threaten for linking)

Link to comment
  • 2 months later...
1 hour ago, Pierre LeMonf said:

If one unpacks an MQA FLAC file to WAV or AIFF, does it retain the MQA tags?

It depends what you mean by "MQA tags". If you mean the bitstream instructions that make the mqa-capable DAC's LED light up, then yes. If you mean the FLAC tags related to MQA, like:

ENCODER=MQAEncode v1.1, 2.3.3+862 (3fe8af8), DF77A107-A71F-4E57-A322-872C6D0E99C8, Jan 01 2018 01:09:00
MQAENCODER=MQAEncode v1.1, 2.3.3+862 (3fe8af8), DF77A107-A71F-4E57-A322-872C6D0E99C8, Jan 01 2018 01:09:00
ORIGINALSAMPLERATE=352800

then usually no.

1 hour ago, Pierre LeMonf said:

Also, if one converts to lossy MP3 or AAC, same question, does it retain the MQA info?

In this case the bitstream instructions are lost too.

Link to comment
  • 3 months later...
47 minutes ago, yahooboy said:

I am aware that the "gap" moves with the sampling rate

Ah... so when Focus said

"MQA, when given a 2x or more source, has a mechanism for passing the part between 24kHz and 48kHz"

then you actually agreed with that, and "Sorry but I have to disagree" was only a typo? 😉🙂

Link to comment
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
13 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

That's a bridge too far in my opinion.

Sorry, but I'm mightily confused.

The study says that the participants didn't hear differences. Both you you and botrytis seem to agree that this is what the study says.

Then botrytis says he himself heard a difference. Ok, fine, whatever. Then he says the study confirms what he heard. How?

Link to comment
  • 7 months later...
On 9/6/2022 at 10:02 PM, The Computer Audiophile said:

I just happened to check this out a few minutes ago and couldn't believe how bad it is. This is Tracy Chapman Talkin' Bout A Revolution. 

 

I first played the mQa version, the only version available from Tidal, then the CD version that's available from all other streaming services and the actual CD. Rather than Talkin' Bout A Revolution, it should be called Talkin' Bout Juicing the Volume!

 

I just hit record with my iPhone, sitting in my listening chair. Nothing special. The attached audio goes along with this image. The first music is the mQa, followed by CD.

So... those other services, were they more like Tidal or more like the CD?

 

4 hours ago, skraggy said:

However, this is not exclusive to Tidal: I just compared my own CD, Tidal and Qobuz and both streaming versions sound the same to me, but they are undeniably much louder than the CD. I don't have any measuring gear other than my phone, but I'd say Qobuz and Tidal are approx. 7-8 dB louder.

Yes, exactly:

DR,  Sample peak,          RMS,    Loudness,     LRA
 9,   -0.05 dBFS,  -13.84 dBFS,  -10.8 LUFS,  6.6 LU - qobuz/01-01-Tracy_Chapman-Talkin_Bout_a_Revolution-LLS.flac
14,   -0.80 dBFS,  -20.00 dBFS,  -16.9 LUFS, 10.3 LU - cd/01. Talkin’ Bout a Revolution.flac

but shush 🤫, I'm sure it's still mqa's fault 🙂.

Link to comment
  • 11 months later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...