MQA is Vaporware

[botrytis]

5 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

 

Hearing the truth isn't always a pleasant thing, even for audiophiles..

 

 

 

I believe this could really be done.

 

Beside that if other labels join Warner and are also shareholders of MQA, I'd ask a good lawyer if something like that can't be called a collusion. 

 

 

 

People don't seem to want to discuss anything any more. What they want is everyone to agree with them and move on. Audiophiles, etc. as it really doesn't matter.

[botrytis]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

I do indeed ... you see, there's a sweet spot - on either side of getting it spot on, it doesn't sound correct - there's a peculiarity to what you hear, "something is not quite right" - using an ancient, buried in the sands of time, technique 😜 you narrow in to the right numbers to use - the simplistic approach is to listen, but one can also analyse what's happening in the waveform. What you get with a "close enough" version is a sense that there's nothing in the music that "sounds wrong" - and that's good enough for me 🙂.

 

 

The restoration is possible, because the 'right' parameters are used - work out by some means what the mastering did as far as parameters are concerned, in some compression exercise,  and out pops a decent waveform.

 

What you get with a good decompression is excellent transient bite; subjectively satisfying dynamics, and treble completely clean - it's worth doing, 🙂.

 

Some one has been imbibing again 🤣

[botrytis]

6 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Enlighten me. What specifically has MQA completely eliminated, that can never be recovered - IOW, that which when you listen to an MQA is obviously missing, and makes it much less of a listening experience?

 

 

It has THROWN AWAY parts of the file, period. How can you restore them if they are gone?

 

Remember this block diagram? This is from the MQA patent. Notice the 'Lossy' parts? That means they are ignored and thrown away? Are you Dr. Frankenstein? Because that is what you are asking....

 

Also the filters used in this process add noise to the file (both above the file max 20 KHz for a 44KHz file as well as those ultrasonics adding noise to audible range of the file. and there is some DSP aspect to it. I am sure others, in this thread, can explain it.

 

 

[botrytis]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

The real point is whether one can reverse MQA doctoring, without using MQA endorsed methods - I say it can; others throw up their hands in horror, and declare it's as bad as pulling half the spark plugs leads off a V8 engine, having MQA in the mix - always satisfying to exaggerate something to the hilt, to try and make a point, 😉.

 

Have you ever run a V8 engine w/o half the sparkplugs? You can't do it. The reason being is that those cylinder will have no compression and will cause the engine to fail. That is why the first 8-4-2 engines failed  from GM. They didn't have the complex computer control to do it.

 

The way GM is doing it is not like you describe it, that is a very simpleton way. They are actually hutting off the fuel and spark to those cylinders as well as lowering valve lift. It is a very complicated process.

[botrytis]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

Ummm, that's a diagram of what the machinery is doing - how about, an original music file and then, oh horrors, an MQA version of the same. And then point to all the dreadful damage done inside when you compare them, all the stuff which MQA has hurled out the window ...

 

 

People have pointed them out and you have ignored it. Not my fault.

 

They have also graphically represented it and you probably ignored those too.

[botrytis]

4 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

I mentioned it because I viewed a YT clip yesterday, which talked about that Cadillac engine - customers complained because the 6 cylinder variant was very rough. And most of the customers got the dealer to snip the cable which activated the system ... ah, relief!

 

Right, you glean all your knowledge in 30 second bytes of information, I get it.

 

The new ones are not rough. Most of the V8 GM cars use it now and people don't even know it is there. That is why they can get 25 MPG in a new Corvette.

 

That was a 90's engine - move forward but, you are using old data and thinking you are on top of things. You are still behind the times.

[botrytis]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

What I'm talking about, is data that is audibly meaningful, that existed in the pre-MQA version, and which is now completely extinct after MQA processing - say, the hiss of the reel to reel analogue tape used to make the recording, down about 70dB, is very important - and we can't afford give up the bits that are used to give us 96dB range, possibly distorting that hiss?

 

There is data this is removed from MQA, but we do not know what it is since it is a Patented process. They do not have to tell you what they remove.

 

That is the issue - PERIOD.

[botrytis]

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."

- Stephen Hawking

 

We just have to remember this.....

[botrytis]

1 minute ago, Rexp said:

Well undecoded MQA sure sounds crap to me (via a Chromecast). Means I have to remove all favourited albums from Tidal that are now MQA only. 

 

Sorry about that.

[botrytis]

47 minutes ago, lucretius said:

Just wait until we have 4K resolution sound files.

 

They will skip 4k and go to 8K instead....

[botrytis]

HDCD encodes the equivalent of 20 bits worth of data in a 16-bit digital audio signal by using custom dithering, audio filters, and some reversible amplitude and gain encoding: Peak Extend, which is a reversible soft limiter; and Low Level Range Extend, which is a reversible gain on low-level signals. There is thus a benefit at the expense of a very minor increase in noise.

The claim that the encoding process is compatible with ordinary CD players (without audible distortion) is disputed: not being able to decode the peak soft limiting, a normal CD player will output distorted peaks.

 

From WIKI - I guess Frank doesn't google well :D

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, R1200CL said:

You’re soon convincing me to call him 😀 (or just drop by). 

As others I thought MQA was used in studio as a real tool in authentication etc.

 

How? In looking there is only one ADC that does MQA, that I found from Mytek. With so many older LP's being converted to MQA, the only way that it is possible is by mass encoding. "They say that they have different MQA for different ADC's used', but that is impossible.

 

 

[botrytis]

8 minutes ago, GUTB said:

MQA claims to dramatically improve time domain errors. What non-MQA process can do this? Record in DXD? Move back to master reels? 

This has been disproven by people, in this thread, and have shown it actually makes it worse. It also adds more noise and ringing. So, in point of fact, MQA does nothing at they say except line their pockets.

[botrytis]

4 hours ago, GUTB said:

Listening to this album a bit, I do detect an improved resolution in the MQA version (switching between Master and Hifi in Tidal). Improved separation of notes and associated harmonics in complex passages. To me it sounds very much like a 96kHz recording: a minor improvement in separation and "clarity" (ie, "resolution") over 44.1kHz. I thought I could hear the venue in both versions, but I'm also listening on pretty resolving headphones (TH900). Also I'm sure Fremer is using a much better system than I am. The Mytek Liberty isn't exactly a high-end DAC, just the best one I have to evaluate MQA and MQA-CD. Obviously I did get a linear power supply for it, but it's a cheap AliExpress job.

 

AES is not a scientific publication. True scientific publications are 'Peer reviewed'. This means that experts in the field look at the data supplied and determine it is it REAL or not. AES is an advert publication. Meaning blow your own horn w/o anyone looking over your shoulder.

[botrytis]

(PDF) Production and Characterization of Laccase from Botrytis cinerea 61-34 (researchgate.net)

 

Here is what a REAL Scientific paper looks like. One that was peer reviewed and one that I wrote, I might add. 😁

[botrytis]

One will read the bottom of the paper link, I wrote, and because of the fact that the research was funded by a government grant, it has to say it is an advertisement per regulations regarding Scientific Journals. 

 

This is why I say the AES journal is an Industry mouthpiece journal, that type of disclosure does not exist.

[botrytis]

42 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

Up until now, I hadn't realized your screen name is that of a fungus.

Well, my wife does say I am a FUN-GUY 🤣

 

Also, working with fungi, as a research topic (it was really a biochemistry topic) they do grow on you.

[botrytis]

8 minutes ago, BigWilliam said:

 

They have stopped bundling chargers

 

What are you insane/ lol. They have managed to get pepole on BT music even tho it's inferior to a 3.5 and a decent dac.

 

Those are his major contributions to revenue. Thick skin in milking consumers

 

Again i worked for them, used to have guys call up and complain all the time. No one tech savvy wants their boss on an apple product all things being equal. They are forced to because their bosses are incompetent. Senator's IT guys calling and whining about the native email client...hahah.

 

IT nerds and apple do not mix, they're closed gardens. No one who wants to use the hardware they own likes that.

 

No one cares how much you've spent on apple products. If you like their UI and are totally incompetent i'm sure you gain something from it....

 

But anyone in IT should not be.

 

Typical audiophile, trying to defend the undefendable. lol

 

No doubt because you have wasted absurd amounts of money on apple hardware for no real gain beyond the status symbol and familiarity with the UI

 

Attitude. Can do w/o condescension here. We get that enough from the MQA contingent. Ask Chris - he got an earful at RMAF. Chris was too nice, I would have thrown those jackasses out. I am not so nice.....

[botrytis]

2 hours ago, R1200CL said:

Since we are discussing audio, is this publication within the frames of a scientific paper ?

https://www.willhowie.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/wh.3Daudio.sample_rate.discrimination.v1.7.pdf

As an example. This document probably isn’t. Read the comments/discussion.
https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/journal/?ID=2
The guy beneath in the video has an interesting comment.

 

If we trust Bob Stuart and Peter Craven saying our auditory system has a time resolution  of 7 µs, which would need a sample rate of 141 kHz or better, it certainly make sense to use 24/192. 
Video gives a good explanation. (I haven’t watched part 2 yet😀)

I just wish BS had stopped there, and didn’t invent the origami. 😀
 

 

Hans is clueless, unfortunately, and just hawks the same conspiracy theories that BS does without actually doing any work. Looks like he is reading off a script.

 

People need to do research and actually prove what people are saying not just repeat lies. This seems to be the issue with Audio, more snake oil salesmen involved than actual snakes.

[botrytis]

52 minutes ago, Solstice380 said:

Just like politics!  I guess that makes MQA more of a political issue than a technical improvement idea.  🤪

Exactly.

[botrytis]

I am sorry, it seems we are under attack from infidels from all side. I say that from living in the US and abhorred by what happened today. My heart is broken. 

 

MQA is no different. Snake oil salesmen pushing nonsense to line their pockets. It has to stop. The Laws of Thermodynamics applies to everything, even MQA. You cannot make a princess out of pig wearing lipstick.

[botrytis]

Why would I want to capture anything that is a bastardization of the original?

 

Not me, MQA can shove it right up their......... 'NUFF SAID!

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, Abtr said:

Although sometimes the MAQ version of an album sounds better than the currently available redbook release, this seems to be because MQA uses e.g. an earlier redbook version (possibly the original release) as the basis for the MQA conversion. And sometimes there's no readily discernable audible difference between redbook and MQA, probably because the master is the same.

 

Now here's an MQA album that sounds notably worse than the redbook version: Steely Dan, Gaucho. Both redbook and MQA versions are available on Tidal. The difference is night and day in my system. After playing the redbook version, the MQA version is almost unlistenable. It appears MQA used the 24/96 version which has about half the dynamic range of the 16/44.1 version. 

 

I have a Japanese SACD version which sounds worse than the original CD version I have, basically it is the same way.

 

It really depends on the master used.

 

Although most of the music I have heard in MQA format has been worse than the original I have heard (more compressed, etc.).

[botrytis]

6 hours ago, GUTB said:

It's not gobbledygook but rather a functional compression scheme. From my own testing MQA-CDs played back in a non-MQA system are indistinguishable from regular CDs (using the MQA test CDs) in casual listening. I haven't performed a detailed listening comparison so there may be mild artifacts. I'm actually not sure if it's just the least significant bit dedicated to MQA data. Using a MQA-CD capable system (in my case, a Mytek Liberty and a regular CD transport connected via SPDIF) the quality improvement is on the level of a 96 kHz master, and significantly inferior to high-rate DSD and DXD masters. Bear in mind that all (most?) of these MQA-CDs are coming out of Japan and being mastered onto UHQCD media. In testing UHQCD (again using a sampler pack to compare UHQCD vs regular CD with the same tracks) I found there was a mild but noticeable improvement to lower frequency definition, something you normally don't get with MQA so it's not as simple as saying MQA-CD is just like a 96 kHz PCM or a low-rate DSD (SACD). It's been a long time since I listened to SACD so I can't honestly say that MQA-CD is the best physical digital format currently.

 

I have found the UHQCD's to be hit and miss really. And why put a lossy compression up against CD. If I had wanted a lossy system, instead of CD's, well MP3 is the way to go AND I don't have to have specialized software/hardware for it.

 

Do you see how stupid the idea is?

[botrytis]

12-13 bits from 16 bits is a lot of information. MQA is a container that cannot be efficiently compressed under FLAC (Like using *.RAR to compress *.Zip files together. There is no compression ratio. It is pretty much 1 bit of RAR = 1 bit of zip in the the RAR file. 

 

So, what it might mean is that, like mp3 files, minor harmonics are thrown out. Unless MQA lowers the max frequency of the file, say from 20K to 16KHz. Either way it is information that if you are listening to a regular cd, that data is there.