MQA is Vaporware

[yahooboy]

On 8/30/2023 at 4:32 PM, FredericV said:

My biggest frustration with YT is that I sometimes find music, which I can't find anywhere in flac format.

e.g. 38:50 could be demo quality if it was available in lossless:
 

And this is the format some audiophile press sites want us to use to listen to shootouts .....
 

Since we're both in the EU I think You can find it on Apple Music, screenshot from the Apple Classical app

[KeenObserver]

Is someone trying to revive MQA?

MQA is in an advanced stage of de-comp.

They should have been shoveling dirt over MQA years ago.

[Currawong]

5 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

Is someone trying to revive MQA?

MQA is in an advanced stage of de-comp.

They should have been shoveling dirt over MQA years ago.

Naa, it's someone tricked by the added compression etc. thinking they are hearing "time smearing correction".

 

It has relieved the boredom a bit. 

[Fx Studio]

12 hours ago, charlesphoto said:

Nailed it. I would consider myself an 'objectivist' (yes, I've heard sound differences in cables and digital replay/networking gear) but far too many people are like "I added x/y to my setup and now it sounds amazing!" or " There's no way x/y could do anything because the sound of my setup is already amazing!" Well, both statements can be simultaneously true and false if there's no baseline to compare to. And there's nothing wrong with thinking your setup is endgame - for you. I know mine is - for me - mostly because I don't/can't want to spend anymore money on it. And that's okay. But I won't go around making pronouncements about things because of hearing what I hear (only it's a shame Audio Physic speakers aren't better well know outside EU/Germany). 

The MQA time smearing correction is not a small effect - unless you were certified clinically deaf you couldn't miss it on my system. Listen to my video and/ or download it at 192K.

MQA is like the artist is present singing in the room, while FLAC is like listening to a good recording coming from the speakers.

 

I would agree with people who say the best outcome would be if MQA in there demise became open source.

Pity Paul Allen isn't still around...

 

 

[Archimago]

On 8/29/2023 at 11:15 PM, Fx Studio said:

This is a side by side comparison between FLAC and MQA on a Hi-End 12kW Alcons PA Pro Ribbon based rig.

 

 

The difference between the two especially on female vocals is very obvious - MQA has a 3D quality to it, the vocals just seem to hang in the air, while FLAC collapses around the speakers and sounds flat. 

But that's with the following caveats:

1) It has to be a post 2021 full MQA studio recording.

2) It can not be an old recording made up to be a so called "master".

3) The sound system has to be powerful 110-130db and with fast ribbon drivers.

4) Ideally located in a large room/ space.

5) No resampling after the MQA DAC

 

If I play the same music on a set of Adams A7X monitors, in the same room, on the same player the MQA 3D (time smearing correction effect) can not be heard at all. So I believe it exists, just most peoples audio setups are not able to deliver the audible benefits of MQA and therefore it gets dismissed.

 

 

What are you doing man? Some kind of hoax?

 

I downloaded the 24/192 audio from the YouTube page and the "FLAC" portions are in MONO. No wonder it lacked the stereo expansion sound of the "MQA" portions.

 

Please explain to us what do you think "deblur" means in the context of MQA? What time units are involved in this process? Do you honestly think that even if it worked, you would be able to capture it with a mic and have it sound so different compressed over YouTube?

 

[Fx Studio]

43 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

What are you doing man? Some kind of hoax?

 

I downloaded the 24/192 audio from the YouTube page and the "FLAC" portions are in MONO. No wonder it lacked the stereo expansion sound of the "MQA" portions.

 

Please explain to us what do you think "deblur" means in the context of MQA? What time units are involved in this process? Do you honestly think that even if it worked, you would be able to capture it with a mic and have it sound so different compressed over YouTube?

 

 

That's the lamest excuse ever - you can't even hear stereo ?

Check the waveforms out its ALL STEREO - that's why the original 192K download is available on the link and some here have already downloaded and analyzed it.

 

And as I say again: DO YOUR OWN TESTS ON THE SAME EQUIPMENT - you will get the same result.

[Archimago]

57 minutes ago, Fx Studio said:

That's the lamest excuse ever - you can't even hear stereo ?

Check the waveforms out its ALL STEREO - that's why the original 192K download is available on the link and some here have already downloaded and analyzed it.

 

And as I say again: DO YOUR OWN TESTS ON THE SAME EQUIPMENT - you will get the same result.

 

Isn't your point to convince us that MQA works? All I see is that the "FLAC" portions of your audio are perfectly in mono and the "MQA" portions have at least stereo signals different in each channel.

 

 

Either you did something wrong and should go back and see what happened. Or you know this to be the case and this is a hoax. I do not need to do any testing with that gear because the evidence is obvious - I've done enough testing with MQA already, thanks. Regardless, removal of temporal distortions would not change relative channel content like this.

 

It's just the end-game now for MQA.

 

You also did not answer the question about what you think "deblurring" does or what magnitude you expect it to perform at.

[MikeyFresh]

2 minutes ago, Archimago said:

You also did not answer the question about what you think "deblurring" does or what magnitude you expect it to perform at.

He's done that repeatedly through his posting history here at AS, any questions directed to him in replies are ignored as if they don't exist, a definite pattern has developed there.

[Fx Studio]

28 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

Isn't your point to convince us that MQA works? All I see is that the "FLAC" portions of your audio are perfectly in mono and the "MQA" portions have at least stereo signals different in each channel.

 

 

Either you did something wrong and should go back and see what happened. Or you know this to be the case and this is a hoax. I do not need to do any testing with that gear because the evidence is obvious - I've done enough testing with MQA already, thanks. Regardless, removal of temporal distortions would not change relative channel content like this.

 

It's just the end-game now for MQA.

 

You also did not answer the question about what you think "deblurring" does or what magnitude you expect it to perform at.

 

Its you who's faking it - WoW you guys are special first my comments are completely taken out of context now you post fake graphs. Give me the time stamp and i will screen grab and post the original.

 

But at least one thing your at the point of admitting the MQA is the better sounding on my system.

[Archimago]

5 minutes ago, Fx Studio said:

 

Its you who's faking it - WoW you guys are special first my comments are completely taken out of context now you post fake graphs. Give me the time stamp and i will screen grab and post the original.

 

But at least one thing your at the point of admitting the MQA is the better sounding on my system.

Sure. Let's play the game:

 

 

 

A proper stereo recording off a mic would never look like that "FLAC" FFT, and certainly the original stereo FLAC of the song would never have been like that. What happened? How did you make this mistake?

 

BTW folks: Here's the song in YouTube - Demi Lovato - Still Have Me

Certainly doesn't sound as flat as the supposed "FLAC" recording!

[Fx Studio]

11 minutes ago, Fx Studio said:

 

Its you who's faking it - WoW you guys are special first my comments are completely taken out of context now you post fake graphs. Give me the time stamp and i will screen grab and post the original.

 

But at least one thing your at the point of admitting the MQA is the better sounding on my system.

Clearly the waveforms are not the same !!!

 

You guys can't even hear the difference between MONO and STEREO..  OMG

[Archimago]

14 minutes ago, Fx Studio said:

Clearly the waveforms are not the same !!!

 

You guys can't even hear the difference between MONO and STEREO..  OMG

 

Why is the FLAC recording mono in the first place?

 

Why is the MQA stereo in comparison?

[Fx Studio]

1 minute ago, Archimago said:

 

Why is there mono in the FLAC recording in the first place?

 

There is ZERO MONO in any track in that recording. 

BOTH tracks are identically recorded in STEREO. 

 

Of course there will be portions of any piece of music that are similar between R & L channels - do you people know anything about music?

 

And its not going to sound the same as the original track because its recorded WITHIN the room with all that that entails.

 

But what it does show is that the MQA performs considerably better on that system in that space.

 

 

[Archimago]

16 minutes ago, Fx Studio said:

There is ZERO MONO in any track in that recording. 

BOTH tracks are identically recorded in STEREO. 

 

Of course there will be portions of any piece of music that are similar between R & L channels - do you people know anything about music?

 

And its not going to sound the same as the original track because its recorded WITHIN the room with all that that entails.

 

But what it does show is that the MQA performs considerably better on that system in that space.

 

1. Just to answer your question above. Yes, of course we can hear the difference between stereo and mono. That's the problem. We should never have to hear any portion of the recording lose 2-channel imaging like that "FLAC" portion.

 

2. I just showed you that there's MONO in that recording! What do you mean "ZERO MONO"?

 

3. It's impossible they were "identically recorded". If this was the case, it would be impossible for me to show that portion at 1:20 with exact R-L overlap. You did something wrong.

 

4. Please do not be so condescending "do you people know anything about music?". Do you not know you've obviously done something wrong?

 

5. No, this does not show MQA "performs considerably better". It only shows that the FLAC portions lost stereo imaging because (ahem)... you did something wrong.

 

Anyhow, I hope you figure it out and at least post a retraction to that video. That would be the honorable and honest thing to do.

[Fx Studio]

1 minute ago, Archimago said:

 

1. Just to answer your question above. Yes, of course we can hear the difference between stereo and mono. That's the problem. We should never have to hear any portion of the recording lose 2-channel imaging like that "FLAC" portion.

 

2. I just showed you that there's MONO in that recording! What do you mean "ZERO MONO"?

 

3. It's impossible they were "identically recorded". If this was the case, it would be impossible for me to show that portion at 1:20 with exact R-L overlap. You did something wrong.

 

4. Please do not be so condescending "do you people know anything about music?". Do you not know you've obviously done something wrong?

 

5. No, this does not show MQA "performs considerably better". It only shows that the FLAC portions lost stereo imaging because (ahem)... you did something wrong.

 

Anyhow, I hope you figure it out and at least post a retraction to that video. That would be the honorable and honest thing to do.

 

I don't know how you created that waveform - just output one channel or something? if so, seems dishonest of you to me.

 

Both are 100% identical STEREO recordings.

 

OK so at least you are admitting that the FLAC is not performing as well - so a critical thinker would now be asking...  WHY?

[Fx Studio]

This is at 1.20min the tracks aren't even close to being the same.

 

Unless you were expecting Scotscakovich on the left channel and Madonna on the right or course - LoL

[firedog]

4 hours ago, Fx Studio said:

The MQA time smearing correction is not a small effect - unless you were certified clinically deaf you couldn't miss it on my system. Listen to my video and/ or download it at 192K.

MQA is like the artist is present singing in the room, while FLAC is like listening to a good recording coming from the speakers.

 

I would agree with people who say the best outcome would be if MQA in there demise became open source.

Pity Paul Allen isn't still around...

 

 

We get that YOU hear it, or that your expectation bias hears it. 

So what? It proves nothing.

Other people don't hear it, or think it sounds worse.

None of it proves anything, except:

MQA doesn't live up to it's claims; if it's claims were correct the vast majority of people would hear it most of the time, no matter what the system.

 

And your repeated claim about it fixing time smearing as a fact - is  BS. Again, in measured tests it even INCREASED smearing.

 

If you ask me what I  believe: your subjective claims on your special super system, or what objective measurements show? Guess what? Objective measurements.

[Fx Studio]

5 minutes ago, firedog said:

We get that YOU hear it, or that your expectation bias hears it. 

So what? It proves nothing.

Other people don't hear it, or think it sounds worse.

None of it proves anything, except:

MQA doesn't live up to it's claims; if it's claims were correct the vast majority of people would hear it most of the time, no matter what the system.

 

And your repeated claim about it fixing time smearing as a fact - is  BS. Again, in measured tests it even INCREASED smearing.

 

If you ask me what I  believe: your subjective claims on your special super system, or what objective measurements show? Guess what? Objective measurements.

 

Others can hear it as well hence the lengths they are prepared to go to to dismiss it by making false claims about the FLAC being mono as witnessed above, or some other such nonsense.

 

But I agree that its can't be heard on a average HiFi system - but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

I can only say again - REPEAT THE TEST YOURSELF

[Archimago]

55 minutes ago, Fx Studio said:

This is at 1.20min the tracks aren't even close to being the same.

 

Unless you were expecting Scotscakovich on the left channel and Madonna on the right or course - LoL

 

Don't know what file you're looking at. Why don't you download your own 24/192 linked in the YouTube video:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Od6gT8lqsW-ivxCUnNfdQpKBOKjAkorq/view

 

Have a look again around 1:20.

[Fx Studio]

58 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

Don't know what file you're looking at. Why don't you download your own 24/192 linked in the YouTube video:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Od6gT8lqsW-ivxCUnNfdQpKBOKjAkorq/view

 

Have a look again around 1:20.

 

Check this version best to start it playing at the same time as the video (but with the video volume OFF) then you will know which is FLAC and which is MQA.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eh5gqnkmW8tcoI0u2O_EHl04FhIM1KAi/view?usp=sharing

[danadam]

1 hour ago, Fx Studio said:

 

Check this version best to start it playing at the same time as the video (but with the video volume OFF) then you will know which is FLAC and which is MQA.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eh5gqnkmW8tcoI0u2O_EHl04FhIM1KAi/view?usp=sharing

Well, the original flac is no longer available, I wonder why 😉

The audio in the youtube video is undoubtedly mono in the flac parts. Here's how it looks like when you subtract right channel from the left channel:

 

And the first thing that jumps out in the new flac file is that the channels are swapped between flac and mqa parts.

[manisandher]

15 minutes ago, danadam said:

Well, the original flac is no longer available, I wonder why 😉

 

What a total CF on @Fx Studio's part.

[Fx Studio]

30 minutes ago, danadam said:

Well, the original flac is no longer available, I wonder why 😉

The audio in the youtube video is undoubtedly mono in the flac parts. Here's how it looks like when you subtract right channel from the left channel:

 

And the first thing that jumps out in the new flac file is that the channels are swapped between flac and mqa parts.

  

Nope, its correct - FLAC is FLAC and MQA is MQA.

FLAC can't deliver that 3D "the artist is in the room" sound that MQA does.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eh5gqnkmW8tcoI0u2O_EHl04FhIM1KAi/view?usp=sharing

[Fx Studio]

1 hour ago, danadam said:

And the first thing that jumps out in the new flac file is that the channels are swapped between flac and mqa parts.

 

But it is interesting that you spotted that the MQA is the better sounding of the two.

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eh5gqnkmW8tcoI0u2O_EHl04FhIM1KAi/view?usp=sharing

 

[manisandher]

4 minutes ago, Fx Studio said:

 

But it is interesting that you spotted that the MQA is the better sounding of the two.

 

 

A joker! But don't give up your day job.