MQA is Vaporware

[botrytis]

Or just equipment that doesn't cost an arm and a leg. It is nice they review uber-expensive equipment, but the majority of people can't afford it. It is nice to hear about Wilson, etc. but equipment that costs more than my house and 2 cars is a little ridiculous.

 

I understand some people CAN afford it, great, but I cannot.

[JoeWhip]

No doubt. 
 

[FredericV]

I think he means blurring. If those working for MQA don't know the difference between blur and deblur ....



The deblurring of individual stems is BS since virtually every MQA track has been batch encoded, with a few cherry picked exceptions getting the "white glove" treatment.

Furthermore if they could actually do that per channel in the studio, where are the DAW plugins? I don't see any revelant google results for MQA VST plugins. They don't even have a product page on MQA gear, plugins or software for the studio.

[John Dyson]

1 hour ago, FredericV said:

I think he means blurring. If those working for MQA don't know the difference between blur and deblur ....



The deblurring of individual stems is BS since virtually every MQA track has been batch encoded, with a few cherry picked exceptions getting the "white glove" treatment.

Furthermore if they could actually do that per channel in the studio, where are the DAW plugins? I don't see any revelant google results for MQA VST plugins. They don't even have a product page on MQA gear, plugins or software for the studio.

Yes, what nonsense in that insert...   Do they/he really believe that the word salad is convincing?

 

 

[botrytis]

[KeenObserver]

"We start by determining whether the technician loading the master tapes is left handed or right handed. We then determine what day of the week it is, what month it is, what year it is, and, finally, what time it is. After that, the master is processed with a super secret system known only to those who are capable of understanding what is truly lossless and the essence of de-blurring. When the final copy comes out it is sprinkled with proprietary pixie dust."

"We are the foremost experts in the world at telling you that it sounds better than the original master. No one else in the world would dare to say that they can make it sound better than the master."

[KeenObserver]

"Because we told you so many times it is better than the original master, it MUST be true! These naysayers spouting scientific laws that have been accepted by the scientific community do not understand that we have entered a new age."

[James lee]

They have re-invented sample theorem.

Good for them. Same goes for Scientology.

[FredericV]

On 2/19/2023 at 10:08 PM, KeenObserver said:

"Because we told you so many times it is better than the original master, it MUST be true! These naysayers spouting scientific laws that have been accepted by the scientific community do not understand that we have entered a new age."

Why does PV keeps repeating the same BS about the third and fourth unfold?



Only the first unfold is a real unfold. It recovers one octave above 1X rate at the cost of a higher noise floor compared to the original 24 bit source. Any original analog content above 48 kHz is always lost, since MQA can at best encode a 17/96 triangle, debunking that MQA is end-to-end analog: it's not.

MQA can NOT bring back original information outside of this decimation triangle, which does exist:

https://www.drummerworld.com/forums/index.php?threads/cymbal-reviews-with-spectral-analysis.66957/

Everything above this 2X rate in typical MQA spectrum plots is upsampling noise from leaky filters showing fake aliased content. These leaky filters can also be done with sox. In MQA it is done by the renderer.



PV does not even read the caption, as he should have known that everything above 48 kHz in this plot, is fake content:

 

PV asks to keep studying the right material, but he does not even fully understand the material posted.

In the same group he admitted that he visited MQA ...

[Currawong]

On 2/16/2023 at 3:33 AM, Jud said:

 

The claims aren't even consistent:

 

 

24 x 384k = 9.2Mbps, not 20Mbps. So which is it? (On second thought, don't bother. If at some point there's a working codec popular enough to be included with music I may listen to and products I may choose to purchase, then let me know what the actual tested capabilities are. Until then, I don't think this merits my further attention.)

 

On 2/16/2023 at 4:13 AM, FredericV said:

RAW uncompressed bandwidth of stereo 24/384 is 24x2x384k, so 18.432.000 bits per second. That's closer to 20 mbit. If you have a stable 20 mbit channel, you don't even need any compression at all. In reality this does not happen with BT.

 

I'm sure their 20 Mbps "lossless" transmission works.... inside a chamber isolated completely from all other HF transmission, with no other electronics. What they are saying is, it'll always be lossy in actual use.   

They used the same trick with the "3rd unfold". I believe it does exist, but according to their own materials, requires a 32-bit file. Since no 32 bit streaming files exist on the internet (that I am aware of), there aren't any MQA files in circulation that are actually capable of the 3rd unfold. They just blur (ha!) the line between up-sampling and unfolding in their literature, as we already know. Then, of course, you the make the files a little louder, and compress them a bit to bring up the quieter sounds. Combine that with the effect that short filters have of making things sound more forward, and it's easy enough to trick people who don't know any better (heck, digital is complicated) that it's better.

[botrytis]

1. Psychology - louder sounds better, or so people say.

2. Once lossy, a file will ALWAYS be lossy.

3. The patent is very clear, DRM can be added to a file at any time.

4. This is inferior technology compared FLAC and other lossless codecs.

 

 

[Archimago]

Just to be clear @FredericV, was that Ken Forsythe quote above (confusing "blurring" and "deblurring") along with FUD about "transient rippling" as if an issue, etc... just posted in the last few days (Feb 2023)?

 

No surprise that Peter Veth continues to talk about the same thing ad nauseum even though he has little apparent audio knowledge whatsoever. But interesting to see MQA Company folks like Forsythe continuing to talk like this, promoting misinformation. Also interesting that they're doing this within a private group and incapable of basically defending themselves outside of that friendly "bubble" and away from all the (evil) "naysayers" 🤣.

 

The PV comment about "keep on studying the right material which is available here" is some seriously creepy cultish stuff!

 

Behold MQA-supporters: these are your would-be messiahs here to save you from the horrors of digital "blur". God's plan.

 

I have faith that the True Audiophile Deity shall at some point smite these apostates by depriving them of the only thing they desire - money. 🙏

[FredericV]

4 hours ago, Archimago said:

Just to be clear @FredericV, was that Ken Forsythe quote above (confusing "blurring" and "deblurring") along with FUD about "transient rippling" as if an issue, etc... just posted in the last few days (Feb 2023)?

That's correct, and the screenshots are comments on this post:

 

The "Group expert" label is amusing, as it only has value within the cult, since any admin of the FB group can add this label to a group member, so that the blue badge is added to the true blue light believer ;)

 

[bambadoo]

That FB group (owned by PV) is a totally freakshow in lack of basic common sense and knowledge. 

 

[JoeWhip]

PV reminds me of so many of the flat earthers I have dealt with, parroting the same nonsense from their Papa flerfs, like we see too far, the second law of thermodynamics, etc. understanding nothing about which they bloviate. Pathetic really.

[bambadoo]

i actually think he understands some of it but is in perfect denial. Not sure why but it is a common phenomenon.  He founded the group and has put "his whole" soul in advertising for "the (low)tech that shall not be mentioned"

[botrytis]

7 hours ago, bambadoo said:

i actually think he understands some of it but is in perfect denial. Not sure why but it is a common phenomenon.  He founded the group and has put "his whole" soul in advertising for "the (low)tech that shall not be mentioned"

The old saying, 'A little knowledge is dangerous when spouted by an arrogant person'.

 

It is arrogance to think the m-Q-anon followers think they know what is best for us. I will keep my FLAC and DSD files, the mqa files they should be flushed down the toilet.

 

 

[Allan F]

9 minutes ago, botrytis said:

I will keep my FLAC and DSD files, the mqa files they should be flushed down the toilet.

 

Should the files be folded before flushing?

[botrytis]

39 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

Should the files be folded before flushing?

You mean unfolded? Nah, they will flush just fine.

[Archimago]

On 2/21/2023 at 8:50 AM, bambadoo said:

i actually think he understands some of it but is in perfect denial. Not sure why but it is a common phenomenon.  He founded the group and has put "his whole" soul in advertising for "the (low)tech that shall not be mentioned"

 

I have that suspicion as well in my interactions with PV that this is just conscious denial.

 

He's not totally delusional and will acknowledge when things don't look so good (for example, when the decoded signal clearly is not the same as the master in recent discussions). But ultimately I get the sense that he's not able to disengage from his persona and role of being a cheerleader for MQA.

 

He's just in too deep now whether he's officially sponsored or may have had some "in kind" support or friendly relationship with the MQA company. Would be great to see if one day he might have a "conversion" and discard the cult. I'd certainly congratulate him for his courage if he could reach that point. ;-)

[Samuel T Cogley]

Whatever the reason for Peter Veth's obsequious behavior in regards to MQA, he can't be trusted to provide objective information.

[bambadoo]

Of course not. There are no objective positive information regarding it.

Much "positive" subjective though. 

[botrytis]

Just now, bambadoo said:

Of course not. There are no objective positive information regarding it.

Much "positive" subjective though. 

 

No, just a massive negative information.

[FredericV]

14 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

Whatever the reason for Peter Veth's obsequious behavior in regards to MQA, he can't be trusted to provide objective information.

The problem is that his "ultimate" source, is also not telling the full truth by extremely oversimplifying things. But PV is a blind believer, and this keeps the misinformation or lack of information loop ("further research is needed" - which never happens) going.

Some time ago the secret group cheerleaders were granted a full hour to talk with Bob:

 

Quote

 

MQAFBG: Which brings me to the next question: What is the difference between a renderer and a full decoder? Only the authorisation mechanism?

Bob Stuart: That’s correct, a renderer can only unfold but not confirm the correct transfer at the very end, a full decoder unfolds everything and confirms the integrity of the received MQA information.

 

The difference between the two is much larger than just the authorisation mechanism:

- a renderer is just an upsampler with specific hardcoded upsample recipes, selected by the in band signalling from the output of the core decoder. The renderer does not take a lot of processing power, which is the reason why it can be embedded on very affordable DAC chips often found in entry level USB dongles.

- the core decoder is the actual decoder, which does the first unfold and can recover the secret encrypted data buried in the noise floor of the 1x rate distribution file, and by doing so, results in a 2x rate file.

Looking at the functions buried in the binaries of several MQA core decoders, the amount of linked code is much bigger to do a core decode. This requires something like an XMOS or a real CPU to do the first unfold. On several DAC's this is a separate board, and some vendors offer DAC's with and without this option.

Examples are Topping (e.g. D90LE vs D90SE - a DAC with the highest SINAD on the market), but also several Metrum & Sonnet DAC's which offer this choice.

A full decoder is the combination of both core decoder and renderer / upsampler, and therefore is much more complex than just the renderer.

Conclusion:

Because of the limited information provided by MQA and oversimplification, the cheerleaders will never fully understand / never fully decode the inner workings of MQA since they are not interesting in actual research, and they lack the skills to look under the hood.

[Archimago]

18 hours ago, FredericV said:

The problem is that his "ultimate" source, is also not telling the full truth by extremely oversimplifying things. But PV is a blind believer, and this keeps the misinformation or lack of information loop ("further research is needed" - which never happens) going.

...

 

PV and his blind adherence to the "ultimate" source is indeed a fascinating psychological dynamic/drama to watch!

 

However, he's just an example of the "fringe", representative of the "extreme" in audiophilia who hides behind private chat groups like small religious sects accessible by invitation.

 

I think MQA has been a gift to rational audiophiles! All in one place, MQA represents multiple levels of some of the worst characteristics of this hobby that needed to be confronted:

• An idealized leader played up as a hero of sorts - Bob Stuart
• Influence to publish questionable articles such as those in the AES (with unusual references to animal neuroscience, introduction of claims like "deblurring", use of atypical graphs for effect like dB vs. μs impulse response)
• Overemphasis on the value of their lossy hi-res, magnifying filter characteristics (to the point of using low quality designs!) and excessive fear of impulse pre-ringing without defining what they're afraid of. Basically, use of technical rationale as a way to "baffle them with bulls*it".
• Throwing money at the audiophile press with a bang from the start - of course a fancy dinner as if this impresses the public
• Sycophantic articles all over the place in audiophile magazines including from editors like Robert Harley and John Atkinson - is that the quid pro quo?
• Hype galore for a poorly timed release as broadband internet was on the verge of being able to stream hi-res lossless FLAC/ALAC - Qobuz by 2018-2019, Amazon Music HD 2019, Apple Music 2021. "Revolutionary" indeed!
• The balls to charge full MSRP! To this day, on at least some titles, 2L will charge more for the MQA files than buying a hybrid SACD! And the same price as the master DXD! I guess audiophiles will buy anything because the company claims it's the best while claiming they can "hear" it (including Fremer of course)...

 

Obviously, whatever benefits MQA might have desired or believed they had, whether it be sound quality or even to some extent the reduced bitrate, has been moot for years. This makes MQA anachronistic, one of the worst "old technology" without the physical charm of vinyl or the warm glow of tubes! Sorry, I don't think the little blue LED even competes.

 

Perhaps PV is a lost cause... But maybe we might still see JA(1&2), or RH come around at some point and admit that MQA is not worth having, that their over-enthusiastic stance from the beginning was misplaced. We all make mistakes but in this world where we see and hear all kinds of misinformation and disinformation, "the truth" is often a rare commodity. PV can stay in his delusional private chat group (come on Peter - take courage and be a man!).

 

I think more importantly after all this time, it would be nice to see a formal retraction from the mainstream audiophile "press"; something from the "journalists" out there who might have come to their senses by now? I think that would be helpful for the audiophile hobby, and a sign of integrity.

 

[Addendum: I doubt there will ever be a formal retraction of course... That would likely open up many sins of the past and the slippery slope of recognizing audiophile BS and snake oil!]