Popular Post Cebolla Posted September 20, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted September 20, 2023 19 hours ago, bambadoo said: 20 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said: I believe Lenbrook has the MQA only version of Radio Paradise. Yes, wasn´t that exclusive for BluOS? https://support.bluos.net/hc/en-us/articles/1500006134702-Radio-Paradise-in-MQA-BluOS-exclusive- According to Radio Paradise's William Goldsmith, BluOS's (private) MQA encoded Radio Paradise streams are both funded and handled by Lenbrook themselves - the implication being that Lenbrook are running a proxy server with an MQA encoder to create & supply the MQA RP streams for their BluOS devices. Radio Paradise's only apparent involvement is to provide their FLAC internet radio streams, the same ones that are freely available to everyone, to feed Lenbrook's proxy server with: RP Listener Forum - Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » MQA in administration Interesting to note that given that RP's FLAC streams are all currently CD-res, BluOS's MQA encoded RP streams can only be MQA-CD rather than full blown hi-res MQA. Archimago, bogi, MikeyFresh and 3 others 6 We are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us. -- Jo Cox Link to comment
Popular Post KeenObserver Posted September 20, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted September 20, 2023 My God, the cycle of BS is starting all over again. "It's better than lossless" "It's better than the original master" "It's DRM but we are not using DRM" "It corrects time smearing" ( but no one can demonstrate or prove this) etc,etc,etc. And Fx Studio is from Thailand and not Georgia. Someone needs to shoot MQA with a silver bullet and pound a wooden stake through its heart. John Dyson, maxijazz, Gustave and 5 others 7 1 Boycott Warner Boycott Tidal Boycott Roon Boycott Lenbrook Link to comment
KeenObserver Posted September 20, 2023 Share Posted September 20, 2023 It's important to some people's psyche that they get over on you. It is sad that some people are letting MQA get over on them. botrytis 1 Boycott Warner Boycott Tidal Boycott Roon Boycott Lenbrook Link to comment
Popular Post KeenObserver Posted September 20, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted September 20, 2023 MQA is not a scientific breakthrough on the order of Copernicus. It is a PR sales experiment. botrytis and John Dyson 1 1 Boycott Warner Boycott Tidal Boycott Roon Boycott Lenbrook Link to comment
Popular Post KeenObserver Posted September 20, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted September 20, 2023 As someone has said earlier, the product that publications like Stereophile and TAS are selling are the readers to the manufacturers. If they can sell a scam like MQA, they can sell anything. maxijazz, Tsarnik, MikeyFresh and 1 other 2 2 Boycott Warner Boycott Tidal Boycott Roon Boycott Lenbrook Link to comment
JoeWhip Posted September 20, 2023 Share Posted September 20, 2023 ☝️ that’s for sure. Link to comment
Popular Post rn701 Posted September 20, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted September 20, 2023 3 hours ago, Fx Studio said: You obviously missed the significance of this one: https://www.androidbrick.com/how-to-download-tidal-mqa-albums/ That violates Tidal's terms of service and is likely illegal in many countries. The Computer Audiophile and botrytis 2 Link to comment
Popular Post firedog Posted September 20, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted September 20, 2023 3 hours ago, Fx Studio said: I can test for it with my ears in 3 seconds - and I kept hearing it BEFORE I had even heard of time smearing. "test' doesn't apply to your subjective sighted listening. It's not a test, and proves nothing. As I assumed, you can't define what "time smearing" is. So MQA can't be tested to see if it reduces it. It's a clever trick. It's the same one that resulted in the term "snake oil". Again, if you like the sound of it, that's fine. Just stop inventing false explanations like it's fixing time smearing. It's illogical to claim it's fixing something that you don't even know how to define. How do you know what you are hearing is MQA fixing so called "time smearing"? Maybe it's changing something not at all related to "time smearing". You have no way to know, one way or the other - because there's no definition of time smearing. Get it? Jeff_N, Currawong, botrytis and 2 others 4 1 Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protectors +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Protection>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three BXT (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three BXT Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
Popular Post RichardSF Posted September 20, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted September 20, 2023 3 hours ago, Fx Studio said: You obviously missed the significance of this one: https://www.androidbrick.com/how-to-download-tidal-mqa-albums/ The significance is that it's music piracy software. There are versions of such apps on the web to capture files from any streaming service. Are you saying that it's a perfectly valid way to obtain your own copies of MQA files? The author of the app knows what he is offering: MikeyFresh and botrytis 2 Link to comment
Popular Post John_Atkinson Posted September 20, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted September 20, 2023 5 hours ago, firedog said: Yes, I understood what you wrote. But the context was you responding to someone that called it lossy. So essentially you were trying to shoehorn it into being lossless, as it were, by responding to that. Simply put - it's necessarily lossy by the accepted definition of the terms "lossy" and "lossless". Yes, less lossy, but can't truthfully be called lossless. And as I wrote, regardless of your statements I didn't say MQA was lossless. John Atkinson Technical Editor, Stereophile jhwalker, botrytis, bogi and 4 others 7 Link to comment
Popular Post jhwalker Posted September 20, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted September 20, 2023 17 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said: And as I wrote, regardless of your statements I didn't say MQA was lossless. John Atkinson Technical Editor, Stereophile You said it's "not lossy". That's the same as saying it's lossless, because there is not a spectrum between lossy and lossless: it has to be one or the other 🤷♂️ firedog and botrytis 1 1 John Walker - IT Executive Headphone - SonicTransporter i9 running Roon Server > Netgear Orbi > Blue Jeans Cable Ethernet > mRendu Roon endpoint > Topping D90 > Topping A90d > Dan Clark Expanse / HiFiMan H6SE v2 / HiFiman Arya Stealth Home Theater / Music -SonicTransporter i9 running Roon Server > Netgear Orbi > Blue Jeans Cable HDMI > Denon X3700h > Anthem Amp for front channels > Revel F208-based 5.2.4 Atmos speaker system Link to comment
Popular Post The Computer Audiophile Posted September 20, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted September 20, 2023 23 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said: And as I wrote, regardless of your statements I didn't say MQA was lossless. John Atkinson Technical Editor, Stereophile Is that kind of like telling the truth, but not the whole truth? JSeymour, Tsarnik, maxijazz and 1 other 1 3 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
Popular Post kumakuma Posted September 20, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted September 20, 2023 58 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said: And as I wrote, regardless of your statements I didn't say MQA was lossless. John Atkinson Technical Editor, Stereophile MikeyFresh, Jeff_N, maxijazz and 3 others 6 Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley Through the middle of my skull Link to comment
Popular Post John_Atkinson Posted September 20, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted September 20, 2023 24 minutes ago, jhwalker said: You said it's "not lossy". I am beginning to think that some people lack comprehension skills. I did not say MQA is "not lossy." What I wrote was that "While it is true that the bits in an MQA-encoded file are not the same as those in the original hi-rez file, this does not necessarily mean that the format is 'lossy' in the manner that MP3, AAC, etc are lossy." You omitted the final 9 words in that sentence, thus misrepresenting my statement. If you look at the measurements I have performed on lossy codecs like MP3 and AAC - see https://www.stereophile.com/features/308mp3cd/index.html - and APT-X and A2DP - see https://www.stereophile.com/content/chord-chordette-gem-da-processor-measurements - you can see that these codecs discard real music information and compromise the analog noisefloor in order to reduce the bitrate. MQA behaves differently from those codecs, and while the unfolded/upsampled bits are not identical to those in the original hi-rez PCM file, in theory no music information is lost and the analog noisefloor is that of the original recording. All I am saying that MQA is different in principle to codecs like MP3 etc. You are welcome, of course, to regard it as "lossy" John Atkinson Technical Editor, Stereophile botrytis, Spike Kasperak, Fx Studio and 5 others 2 6 Link to comment
Popular Post Archimago Posted September 20, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted September 20, 2023 1 hour ago, John_Atkinson said: I am beginning to think that some people lack comprehension skills. I did not say MQA is "not lossy." What I wrote was that "While it is true that the bits in an MQA-encoded file are not the same as those in the original hi-rez file, this does not necessarily mean that the format is 'lossy' in the manner that MP3, AAC, etc are lossy." You omitted the final 9 words in that sentence, thus misrepresenting my statement. If you look at the measurements I have performed on lossy codecs like MP3 and AAC - see https://www.stereophile.com/features/308mp3cd/index.html - and APT-X and A2DP - see https://www.stereophile.com/content/chord-chordette-gem-da-processor-measurements - you can see that these codecs discard real music information and compromise the analog noisefloor in order to reduce the bitrate. MQA behaves differently from those codecs, and while the unfolded/upsampled bits are not identical to those in the original hi-rez PCM file, in theory no music information is lost and the analog noisefloor is that of the original recording. All I am saying that MQA is different in principle to codecs like MP3 etc. You are welcome, of course, to regard it as "lossy" John Atkinson Technical Editor, Stereophile @John_Atkinson, we know what you wrote, the implications of what you wrote, and how you carefully placed the words together. It's no different than much of MQA's "Is MQA Lossless?" page with innuendos and suggestions which might at best be partially true. When fed a 24/192 hi-res source, I don't think anyone disagrees with you that most of the time, it's just noise down at 16-bits and below so the sub-band algorithm that stuffs the ultrasonic content above 24kHz (say into a 24/48 MQA file) would have been downsampled effectively and should not sound worse. Of course the stuff >24kHz would still be a lower-resolution "lossy" representation. (There are then filtering technicalities beyond this which we don't need to get into here.) We can all agree that this is not MP3 or AAC or aptX or SBC. But it's still by definition lossy and there will be some pristine recordings where the low-level content has been altered, and ultrasonic harmonics made less accurate. Regardless of semantics, let's be absolutely transparent about what you actually think about MQA. So, is this codec still the "birth of a new world" and the "future of streaming" you were so excited about in Dec 2014? Have you changed your opinions on MQA since that highly positive assessment now that we look back and understand the technology better? If you think some here "lack comprehension skills", please help us out and just tell us what you really think in 2023 at least in regard to that "big picture" appreciation of MQA. Perhaps by doing this we can come to some level of mutual understanding, you being the Technical Editor of Stereophile. Thanks in advance for your consideration. botrytis, jhwalker, firedog and 8 others 8 3 Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile. Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism. R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press. Link to comment
Popular Post KeenObserver Posted September 20, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted September 20, 2023 Which is to say, it is not lossy, it is "addy". It adds distortion. MikeyFresh, jhwalker and Tsarnik 2 1 Boycott Warner Boycott Tidal Boycott Roon Boycott Lenbrook Link to comment
Popular Post maxijazz Posted September 20, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted September 20, 2023 8 hours ago, Fx Studio said: FLAC never sounds like the vocalist is in the room singing - the vocals are flat 2D like. While with MQA the sound is everywhere like 3D - so yes, it does sound like the vocalist is live in the room. IF you have a sound system that can deliver that. Maybe it is not FLAC causing "flat 2D" vocals? Since "MQA body" is inside FLAC, similar to "regular PCM body", thus, how is it possible, the FLAC did not make the "MQA body" to sound "2D-flat"? botrytis and MikeyFresh 2 Link to comment
maxijazz Posted September 20, 2023 Share Posted September 20, 2023 7 hours ago, firedog said: [...] Why your publication and others make strenuous efforts to avoid these simple truths is really hard to understand. [...] Money talks. botrytis 1 Link to comment
skikirkwood Posted September 20, 2023 Share Posted September 20, 2023 21 hours ago, loop7 said: I would be surprised if Spotify finally licensed MQA. It will never happen. Spotify chose OGG Vorbis as a codec in large part because it's open-source and royalty free. botrytis 1 Link to comment
Popular Post KeenObserver Posted September 20, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted September 20, 2023 How much credence should we give to any future review in Stereophile of Lenbrook products? Indydan, Jeff_N, botrytis and 1 other 4 Boycott Warner Boycott Tidal Boycott Roon Boycott Lenbrook Link to comment
Popular Post KeenObserver Posted September 20, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted September 20, 2023 Jury: In regards to the charge of Murder in the First Degree, we find the defendant not innocent. Judge: The defendant will not be set free. The defendant shall be transported to prison, where he will be hung from the neck until he is not alive. May God have mercy on his soul. MikeyFresh, jhwalker, botrytis and 1 other 4 Boycott Warner Boycott Tidal Boycott Roon Boycott Lenbrook Link to comment
Popular Post maxijazz Posted September 20, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted September 20, 2023 1 hour ago, John_Atkinson said: I am beginning to think that some people lack comprehension skills. I did not say MQA is "not lossy." What I wrote was that "While it is true that the bits in an MQA-encoded file are not the same as those in the original hi-rez file, this does not necessarily mean that the format is 'lossy' in the manner that MP3, AAC, etc are lossy." You omitted the final 9 words in that sentence, thus misrepresenting my statement. Lossless or not is property of mathematical data compression. By its definition MQA compression is lossy. There is no such animal like "lossy format". It is mental shortcut to say "format using lossy compression". And opposite is true for "lossless format". Same applies to audio codecs. There are no "lossless codecs". That's just shortcut for "codecs using lossless compression". And you are just playing with words, snake words. Jeff_N, botrytis, jhwalker and 2 others 5 Link to comment
Popular Post Archimago Posted September 20, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted September 20, 2023 35 minutes ago, skikirkwood said: It will never happen. Spotify chose OGG Vorbis as a codec in large part because it's open-source and royalty free. Exactly. Spotify is frugal. Why would they purposely agree to give money away when they haven't all these years?! Especially on a codec that has such poor public acceptance? And failed on their rival TIDAL! If they adopted MQA, this would be one of the worst business decisions ever. botrytis and MikeyFresh 2 Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile. Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism. R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press. Link to comment
Popular Post Jud Posted September 20, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted September 20, 2023 9 hours ago, Fx Studio said: I can test for it with my ears in 3 seconds - and I kept hearing it BEFORE I had even heard of time smearing. Then your brain is lying to you about what your ears are hearing. The filtering used by MQA has been decoded. We know how the filters act on a given input. These filters hardly cut at all in the ultrasonic region where the Gibbs effect (also commonly called "ringing," and by the MQA folks, "time smearing") occurs as part of a recording. So MQA can't fix time smearing. What you're hearing, if it's not simply in your head, is intermodulation distortion caused by the leaky MQA filters letting ultrasonics through to intermodulate into the audible frequency range. Many people like the sound of this. Ayre used to (don't know if they still do) make their DACs with a choice of filter settings between "Listen" and Measure." "Listen" had leaky filters like MQA, because many people (perhaps including you?) prefer to listen to their music with a bit of intermodulation distortion added in. "Measure" of course measured better because it cut out the distortion. Tsarnik, MikeyFresh, Archimago and 8 others 11 One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature. Link to comment
Popular Post Allan F Posted September 21, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted September 21, 2023 12 hours ago, John_Atkinson said: I didn't say "lossless." With all due respect, I think you didn't comprehend what I wrote: "While it is true that the bits in an MQA-encoded file are not the same as those in the original hi-rez file, this does not necessarily mean that the format is 'lossy' in the manner that MP3, AAC, etc are lossy." John Atkinson Technical Editor, Stereophile With respect, John, as one of my law professors used to say, the above is "a distinction without a difference". Since MQA is not lossless it is, by definition, "lossy". Tsarnik, Jud and botrytis 1 2 "Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now