Jump to content
Rt66indierock

MQA is Vaporware

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Shadders said:

[ A whole bunch of stuff I 100% agree with. And said it better than I did. -Paul ]

 

Hi,

The AES paper has serious errors. As pointed out by another poster, it states on page 11 that the MQA filters cause less dispersion, but the actual impulse response shows the pulse is broadened - Figure 14 top figure. An own goal by MQA.

 

 

I agree with everything you said except this point. I think the commercial code out there was deliberately written to limit the resolution, and that it’s current behavior is not a limitation of the technology / algorithm.

 

There are similar implementations of similar technology in other fields that do not have this flaw. Other flaws perhaps, but not this. Ergo - this flaw is on purpose. 

 

Now, the behavior of the people selling/marketing MQA and the recording industry, well, I agree with you completely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mcgillroy said:

Who is it that these guys show up reliably a few weeks after the last one fizzled out?

 

Paul’s been here since long before you found this place. He was inactive on the forums for a while and is just getting back to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jud said:

 

Paul’s been here since long before you found this place. He was inactive on the forums for a while and is just getting back to them.

 

I stand corrected!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

You’re correct. On the other hand, the failure to seriously engage on technical topics and concerns audiophiles have about access to non-proprietary hi res means that an actual exchange of ideas isn’t being sought by most folks of pro-MQA persuasion either.  So yes, ganging up on folks who don’t share an anti-MQA point of view is tiresome...

 

You are incorrect.  What is tiresome is "discussions" based on...absolutely nothing.  These are not discussions - they are assertions of half truths, untruths, and misunderstandings.

 

Your equivalency of pro and con MQA positions, and the characterization of a 'debate' is in error in reference to Paul, ARQuint (most of the time)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Paul R said:

I think the commercial code out there was deliberately written to limit the resolution, and that it’s current behavior is not a limitation of the technology / algorithm.

What leads you to believe this? Do you have access to privileged information the rest of us do not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Paul R said:

Hi Danny - maybe so. I just find it difficult to believe that releases are mastered in 24/48k or even 24/96. I expect DXD 

, DSD, or at least 24/192. 🤪 

 

 

YMMV

-Paul

Sorry, no. LOTS of releases are still mastered in no more than 24/44.1. if you look at all forms of popular music, it is almost unheard of for recording to be done in anything above 24/96, and even that isn't the norm. Pros don't see it the same way audiophiles do.  Their main concern is preserving the quality during the mixing of lots of tracks. Bit depth is considered more important for this.
Some studios see extreme hi-res as unnecessary - EMI, for example, specifically says they see no reason to work in anything higher than 24/96.  Again, check and you will see that recording in 24/44.1 and 24/48 is quite common. Recording in 4X rates and 8X rates is definitely not the norm at the big labels. Sometimes recordings are upsampled to  4X rate for mixing, and then brought back down for mastering. Really working and mastering in 4x rates or higher is pretty much only at specialty labels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

You’re correct. On the other hand, the failure to seriously engage on technical topics and concerns audiophiles have about access to non-proprietary hi res means that an actual exchange of ideas isn’t being sought by most folks of pro-MQA persuasion either.  So yes, ganging up on folks who don’t share an anti-MQA point of view is tiresome.  But how much of real value is thereby missed?  

 

When a couple of MQA principals derailed Chris’s RMAF presentation, they used the time not to put forward facts, but to attack the anonymity of someone who did measurements, and to attack Chris’s honesty by implying he’d been given confidential pro-MQA technical information that contradicted what he was saying publicly. All insinuation, no open technical discussion.  If that’s indicative of what’s being missed, it doesn’t seem like a great loss.

Yep - and the whole MQA mess came about because Meridian was unwilling to release MLP, which IMO, was/is a legit competitor to DSD.  MQA was their answer to not adversely affect their MLP revenues.  And, I suppose, to keep recording industry execs from going ape **** crazy when they realized what MLP actually was. 

 

Meridian Lossles Packing is the tech behind DVD-A, for those who may not be familiar with it. There is a story with a whole lot of erie similarity in that...

 

Knowing that story is, I think, important to understanding the marketing mindset and goals behind MQA. And to understanding why and how I believe MQA is purposefully crippled. 

 

I think MQA will suffer the same fate as every other copy protection scheme, and perhaps for the same reasons, though that thinking is purely opinion. 

 

-Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, mansr said:

What leads you to believe this? Do you have access to privileged information the rest of us do not?

 

No, see previous reply with reference to M

12 minutes ago, firedog said:

Sorry, no. LOTS of releases are still mastered in no more than 24/44.1. if you look at all forms of popular music, it is almost unheard of for recording to be done in anything above 24/96, and even that isn't the norm. Pros don't see it the same way audiophiles do.  Their main concern is preserving the quality during the mixing of lots of tracks. Bit depth is considered more important for this.
Some studios see extreme hi-res as unnecessary - EMI, for example, specifically says they see no reason to work in anything higher than 24/96.  Again, check and you will see that recording in 24/44.1 and 24/48 is quite common. Recording in 4X rates and 8X rates is definitely not the norm at the big labels. Sometimes recordings are upsampled to  4X rate for mixing, and then brought back down for mastering. Really working and mastering in 4x rates or higher is pretty much only at specialty labels.

 

Well, my experience is pretty limited to the Austin scene, but even garage bands there record in 24/192k  or higher. A few still do tape actually. 

 

I suspect you know more than I do about the commercial “high res” releases though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, rickca said:

This is all moot ... whether BS had good intentions but fell in with a bad lot, whether MQA is technically brilliant but was intentionally watered down, etc.  Not even worth a discussion.  It's all conjecture.

 

Old Guard audiophiledom is like an X-File episode...just not as clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny my local dealer who has been in the business like forever still thinks MQA is a huge breakthrough.  He swallowed the story hook line and sinker since it was first announced, and clearly has never heard about any of concerns discussed on this forum.

 

I bet there are lots of dealers out there just like him, naive and uninformed.

 

He is a great resource for analog components.  I sure wouldn't consult with him about anything else.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, rickca said:

I bet there are lots of dealers out there just like him, naive and uninformed.

 

 

I bet there are lots of dealers out there who want all of their customers to upgrade to MQA-capable DACs.

 

My local dealer is really a vinyl guy. He sells Brooklyn DACs and I think their ads mention it as a feature, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard him mention MQA in person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, rickca said:

Funny my local dealer who has been in the business like forever still thinks MQA is a huge breakthrough.  He swallowed the story hook line and sinker since it was first announced, and clearly has never heard about any of concerns discussed on this forum.

 

I bet there are lots of dealers out there just like him, naive and uninformed.

Dealers are agents of the brands they represent. Their job is to sell more of whatever the latter produce. Whether or not they actually believe the stories they tell is beside the point. Without telling them, they wouldn't sell as much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jud said:

The dealer who sold me most of my original system would actually discourage me and others from purchasing from him the “latest and greatest” that had just been given favorable reviews if he thought it wouldn’t be an improvement, or a sufficient improvement, over what we already had.  (He also had a nicely incisive sense of humor about audio marketing. He would occasionally walk over to a wall and shout into it, “The Sound of Bose!”)

Is he still in business?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, mansr said:

Is he still in business?

 

Heh, no.  :)  He and most other audio-only dealers got killed off by the audio-video stores. He wasn’t interested in video.

 

Edit: This was also 25-30 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

Hi Jud, sounds like Jack at Chestnut Hill Audio. I still have the stuff he sold me. It still sounds great.

 

Got it in one!

 

Edit: I have the original amp I bought from him (after speaking with Richard Vandersteen about it) in my desktop system; the preamp I bought as an upgrade from him in the main system; and speakers I bought from him privately in the main system.

 

He had Philadelphia Orchestra season tickets. I went along with him a few times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

×