MQA is Vaporware

[MikeyFresh]

52 minutes ago, Fx Studio said:

From what I and others are hearing your test is likely flawed and making assumptions - the old "it can't be this because of that", argument is very weak.

 

What about your non-test involving only your ears and some bullshit EDM supposedly produced recently with the unicorn MQA VST plugin? That non-test/light show was pathetic and laughable, yes we all laughed at you, very hard.

 

54 minutes ago, Fx Studio said:

And making Bizarro claims that what I am hearing: is "intermodulation distortion caused by the leaky MQA filters letting ultrasonics through to intermodulate into the audible frequency range", doesn't help you case either.

 

Not bizarre at all and not a claim, it's been previously documented and repeated. Jud's post contained very specific and verifiable information, unlike your ridiculous drivel.

 

59 minutes ago, Fx Studio said:

If you are going to perform a test do a proper one and document it.

 

Since you don't know what a proper test is you aren't qualified to comment on it nor demand one, much less any documentation. Hint: it's already been documented here, and elsewhere, a fact you'll surely disregard in your next troll post.

[MikeyFresh]

12 minutes ago, Fx Studio said:

 

The response when expecting wild claims made here might actually have some substance to back them up...

 

Care to try again with that nonsense reply, or are you a chat bot?

[JoeWhip]

Yes, I think FX Studio has to be a Poe.

[Fx Studio]

1 hour ago, Archimago said:

 

Alas, you're kinda new around here. There have been listening tests and write-ups and other testimonies as well as blinded work for awhile now since Tidal made MQA available in 2017. 

 

Since you don't know what a proper test is you aren't qualified to comment on it nor demand one, much less any documentation. Hint: it's already been documented here, and elsewhere, a fact you'll surely disregard in your next troll post.

 

Instead of getting defensive why doesn't someone post a simple link to the so called "logic analyzer applied to the internals of a DAC" test that was initially referred to by JUD?

 

Been through the thread here and found nothing that looks like a proper test.

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/30572-mqa-technical-analysis/

 

And yes, with a degree in electronics and years of experience in the electronics industry (though not in audio) I think I should know what a proper "analyzer test" should look like. 

[Jud]

2 hours ago, Fx Studio said:

And making Bizarro claims that what I am hearing: is "intermodulation distortion caused by the leaky MQA filters letting ultrasonics through to intermodulate into the audible frequency range", doesn't help you case either.

 

If you are going to perform a test do a proper one and document it.

 

The proper test, which was indeed documented (long before you graced the thread) showed the exact parameters of each of the 17 MQA filters by applying a logic probe to the DAC internals to see precisely what instructions were being sent with regard to that filtering. These filters matched the descriptions in the MQA patent. They showed, just as the patent itself describes, that the filters avoid ringing (technically, the Gibbs effect) by being quite short and not cutting much.

 

You see, in filter mathematics cutting ultrasonics more steeply and avoiding ringing are opposites. (Technically they are conjugate variables in Fourier analysis.) So if you avoid "time smearing" (ringing or Gibbs effect) with these types of short filters, you cannot cut ultrasonics much, just as surely as 2+2=4. Thus when you're asking to "do a proper test," you're asking someone to actually show you that 2+2=4.

 

As I said, the test has already been done, but even if it hadn't, the fact that you think a test is needed to prove 2+2=4 shows you don't understand what's being discussed here.

 

Now you're certainly free to demonstrate further your lack of understanding. But perhaps you'd first consider pausing for reflection and even a bit of reading and learning about how filters work, and how the MQA filters work specifically?

[Fx Studio]

9 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

The proper test, which was indeed documented (long before you graced the thread) showed the exact parameters of each of the 17 MQA filters by applying a logic probe to the DAC internals to see precisely what instructions were being sent with regard to that filtering. These filters matched the descriptions in the MQA patent. They showed, just as the patent itself describes, that the filters avoid ringing (technically, the Gibbs effect) by being quite short and not cutting much.

 

You see, in filter mathematics cutting ultrasonics more steeply and avoiding ringing are opposites. (Technically they are conjugate variables in Fourier analysis.) So if you avoid "time smearing" (ringing or Gibbs effect) with these types of short filters, you cannot cut ultrasonics much, just as surely as 2+2=4. Thus when you're asking to "do a proper test," you're asking someone to actually show you that 2+2=4.

 

As I said, the test has already been done, but even if it hadn't, the fact that you think a test is needed to prove 2+2=4 shows you don't understand what's being discussed here.

 

Now you're certainly free to demonstrate further your lack of understanding. But perhaps you'd first consider pausing for reflection and even a bit of reading and learning about how filters work, and how the MQA filters work specifically?

 

"The proper test" - "logic analyzer applied to the internals of a DAC"

 

OK great! - so where is it then? 

[Archimago]

1 hour ago, Fx Studio said:

 

Instead of getting defensive why doesn't someone post a simple link to the so called "logic analyzer applied to the internals of a DAC" test that was initially referred to by JUD?

 

Been through the thread here and found nothing that looks like a proper test.

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/30572-mqa-technical-analysis/

 

And yes, with a degree in electronics and years of experience in the electronics industry (though not in audio) I think I should know what a proper "analyzer test" should look like. 

 

I don't see how my comment was defensive, rather it's an observation that in all these weeks, you have offered nothing to show that your beliefs are to be taken seriously - or that you were even able to produce an honest test done right with your YouTube video!

 

Perhaps you can show us that you have some capacity to offer reasonable evidence first. Perhaps some sign that among those who have strong beliefs that MQA offers better quality (such as yourself) also can "perform a test do a proper one and document it" (sic) as you suggest.

[Allan F]

3 hours ago, AudioDoctor said:

I think you quoted the wrong person.

 

Mea culpa. My sincere apologies. Dunno how I screwed up. Of course the quote belongs to John Atkinson.

[Fx Studio]

16 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

I don't see how my comment was defensive, rather it's an observation that in all these weeks, you have offered nothing to show that your beliefs are to be taken seriously - or that you were even able to produce an honest test done right with your YouTube video!

 

Perhaps you can show us that you have some capacity to offer reasonable evidence first. Perhaps some sign that among those who have strong beliefs that MQA offers better quality (such as yourself) also can "perform a test do a proper one and document it" (sic) as you suggest.

 

You are the people who have been condemning it - you should back up your claims!

Some sketchy spectrum graphs with no information even about the equipment used to obtain it + Golden Sounds heavily flawed "test" are not any kind of professionally conducted testing.

 

I am not an audio engineer nor involved in audio electronics - but the way Lenbrook are talking in the press release I have no doubt that they are going to put to rest some of these false claims.

[Don Hills]

46 minutes ago, Fx Studio said:

 

"The proper test" - "logic analyzer applied to the internals of a DAC"

 

OK great! - so where is it then? 

 

Probably in the "MQA Technical Analysis" thread. I think it was done by user mansr. Now do your own homework.

 

On the deblurring topic, Jud summed it up well thusly:

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/30381-mqa-is-vaporware/page/470/?tab=comments#comment-936690

[Archimago]

15 minutes ago, Fx Studio said:

You are the people who have been condemning it - you should back up your claims!

Some sketchy spectrum graphs with no information even about the equipment used to obtain it + Golden Sounds heavily flawed "test" are not any kind of professionally conducted testing.

 

I am not an audio engineer nor involved in audio electronics - but the way Lenbrook are talking in the press release I have no doubt that they are going to put to rest some of these false claims.

 

I think we've backed up our claims pretty well given that in all these years, neither MQA themselves nor proponents like yourself have provided any counterevidence.

 

Go have a look at the McGill University MQA listening test results. They certainly did not show the improvement from MQA you seem to believe or want us to believe from your YouTube video (I guess no "WTF moment"). That test by the way was with support from Bob Stuart and Meridian.

 

Yeah, we figured that you're "not an audio engineer nor involved in audio electronics". Absolutely, let's see what Lenbrook does...

 

Have a good day sir. Please enjoy your MQA DAC and files...

[GregWormald]

On 9/21/2023 at 6:41 AM, John_Atkinson said:

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.

This is partly in defence of JA but more importantly also in defence of "semantics".

 

A definition of semantics: "The study or science of meaning in language." This is obviously important if we want to understand each other and is definitely not a pejorative term. Hence "only semantics" is decrying science. Let's not go there. If we are going to use science to understand MQA processes, then using science to understand language is vital.

 

That means that John's statement above about the importance of the "does not necessarily mean" and the "final 9 words" are  absolutely critical in understanding what he said. Taking quotes out of context is not scientific and easily clouds or destroys meaning.

 

p.s. Whether at other times he said things with which we (I) wish to disagree is not addressed here.

 

 

 

 

[bambadoo]

7 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Not on the magazine's website, no. But it was covered in the print magazine.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

Why not online? Afraid of comments? You were extremely fast covering the acquisition on the website. (and of course TAS also) You know very well that this has been a very big question here and other places why the big magazines dont cover the "bad news" about MQA, and therefore only acting as an advocat for this dividing tech. You are only making it worse each day.  Next to the loudness crazyness, MQA is the single worst that has happened to the audiophile community. 

 

What was it Brian Lucey said?

Quote

MQA has been targeting the weakest players in our world, the audiophiles. And they’re targeting those most dependent on pimping new tech, the audiophile press.

 

yes, all of this stand. 

[firedog]

3 hours ago, Jud said:

 

The proper test, which was indeed documented (long before you graced the thread) showed the exact parameters of each of the 17 MQA filters by applying a logic probe to the DAC internals to see precisely what instructions were being sent with regard to that filtering. These filters matched the descriptions in the MQA patent. They showed, just as the patent itself describes, that the filters avoid ringing (technically, the Gibbs effect) by being quite short and not cutting much.

 

You see, in filter mathematics cutting ultrasonics more steeply and avoiding ringing are opposites. (Technically they are conjugate variables in Fourier analysis.) So if you avoid "time smearing" (ringing or Gibbs effect) with these types of short filters, you cannot cut ultrasonics much, just as surely as 2+2=4. Thus when you're asking to "do a proper test," you're asking someone to actually show you that 2+2=4.

 

As I said, the test has already been done, but even if it hadn't, the fact that you think a test is needed to prove 2+2=4 shows you don't understand what's being discussed here.

 

Now you're certainly free to demonstrate further your lack of understanding. But perhaps you'd first consider pausing for reflection and even a bit of reading and learning about how filters work, and how the MQA filters work specifically?

Won't happen. He's the world's expert. Knows more than Bob Stuart does about MQA.

He's internalized MQA newspeak as TRUTH and anything contradicting that counts, by definition as a falsehood. 

[JoeWhip]

FX Studio’s claims about proof can be summed up by the phrase, nuh huh. All it takes from him to counter evidence is the wave of his hand.

[Fx Studio]

25 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

FX Studio’s claims about proof can be summed up by the phrase, nuh huh. All it takes from him to counter evidence is the wave of his hand.

 

HELLO - seems like you ain't got any real proof that's the problem.

[The Computer Audiophile]

17 minutes ago, Fx Studio said:

 

HELLO - seems like you ain't got any real proof that's the problem.

I know you are, but what am I?

 

 

[JoeWhip]

12 minutes ago, Fx Studio said:

 

HELLO - seems like you ain't got any real proof that's the problem.

Thanks for proving my point. Do you believe we live on a flat earth per chance? 

[KeenObserver]

Fx Studio, you seem to be intent on foisting MQA on the music consumer.

Full disclosure.

Do you hold stock in a lubricant company?

[KeenObserver]

My guess is that by spewing the MQA BS all over again they believe they will reach people that have not heard the BS before.

[Currawong]

1 hour ago, Fx Studio said:

 

HELLO - seems like you ain't got any real proof that's the problem.

I provided you a whole post of evidence showing the evidence that the MQA process does not do what MQA said it does. You didn't address a single thing contained. That means that now you're just trolling. 

[Jud]

7 hours ago, Fx Studio said:

 

"The proper test" - "logic analyzer applied to the internals of a DAC"

 

OK great! - so where is it then? 

 

First you characterize it as a "bizarre claim," then you eagerly want to have it presented to you. This doesn't sound like good faith discussion to me.

 

Are you really not good enough at performing searches that you need us to do it for you? You've been told what it is and who did it. Pardon me if the rest of your participation here doesn't motivate me to take time out of a busy day and do the work of finding this for you. I assure you it exists, here on this very website. Now do a little work for yourself.

[Daccord]

 

[Fx Studio]

28 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

First you characterize it as a "bizarre claim," then you eagerly want to have it presented to you. This doesn't sound like good faith discussion to me.

 

Are you really not good enough at performing searches that you need us to do it for you? You've been told what it is and who did it. Pardon me if the rest of your participation here doesn't motivate me to take time out of a busy day and do the work of finding this for you. I assure you it exists, here on this very website. Now do a little work for yourself.

 

All the above distraction posts because none of you, when challenged, can provide any real proof of the claims you keep making against MQA. So far some sketchy spectrum graphs + Golden Sounds heavily flawed "test".  

 

Its the old "Just believe me Bro". 

 

What a bunch of jokers 🤡

[charlesphoto]

44 minutes ago, Currawong said:

That means that now you're just trolling. 

I think you could drop the 'now' part of your statement above.