MQA is Vaporware

[AJ Soundfield]

4 minutes ago, manisandher said:

500 posts in a month. Yep, nothing but a big mouth.

 

Mani.

think...if....may...

 

[PeterSt]

3 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

So this was all about derailing the MQA thread to shill Peters magic product.

 

What did you smoke ?

You started out nicely here but managed to f*ck up fairly quickly. Well done.

 

2 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Another believer incapable of comprehending burden of proof or

 

No pitiful you, that would be you yourself.

 

Mani, leave the guy be. Nothing with sense will ever come from such, well, trolls.

Now guess what he is going to fantasy about next.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

2 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

What did you smoke ?

Obviously nothing strong enough to come up with audible sounds that can't be measured. Nice job. No really.

 

Maybe if we all just bought your magic software....

[testikoff]

4 hours ago, manisandher said:

 

I'm not Peter, but I do use his software player and DAC. All users of Peter's XXHighEnd are familiar with how its various settings can change the sound, and yet keep the output totally bit-perfect. I think these effects, though audible to virtually everyone who's tried, may actually be difficult to measure (if not impossible).

 

As a bit of background... XXHighEnd is a true memory player, and has the ability to transfer all tracks from storage (a network-attached music server in my case) into the audio PC's RAM, shut down the audio PC's LAN connection and then commence playback. There is a setting in XXHighEnd called SFS (split file size). My layman's understanding is that this determines how large the file is when XXHighEnd accesses it from RAM during playback. Low SFS settings sound different to high SFS settings . All XXHighEnd users hear this difference in a totally consistent way - lower SFS sounding brighter than higher SFS settings.

 

Earlier this year, I took some captures with SFS=1 and SFS=120. I took the captures in two different ways: a) digital, using an USB-to-spdif converter, and straight into the Tascam's spdif input, and b) analogue, feeding the output of my DAC into a Prism ADC, and then into the Tascam's spdif input. Here are my findings:

 

a) the SFS=1 digital capture sounds identical to the SFS=120 digital capture

b) the SFS=1 analogue capture sounds different to the SFS=120 analogue capture

 

But hey, don't take my word for it, here are the captures:

 

1. SFS=1 digital capture: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0PU5LO5jVjfOE5PZ0RxTVl3M0U

2. SFS=120 digital capture: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0PU5LO5jVjfWXIyaWVaRkt1Znc

3. SFS=1 analogue capture: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0PU5LO5jVjfa05DdTBnZmI1aVU

4. SFS=120 analogue capture: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0PU5LO5jVjfdGhDcXFhdlFOekk

 

Mani.

BTW, the first 2 files provided are not even close to being digitally identical, thus either the output of the player software or the capture process is not bit-perfect...

[manisandher]

50 minutes ago, testikoff said:

BTW, the first 2 files provided are not even close to being digitally identical, thus either the output of the player software or the capture process is not bit-perfect...

 

I don't have any sophisticated analysis tools. In Audacity it's clear that the files need to be aligned before comparing. Here are two reasonably well-aligned random segments:

File 1:

File 2:

They look pretty much the same to me, though I accept that this is probably a very coarse way to do this.

 

Could you show at what level the two files are not identical please? Thanks.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

And here's the same segment from files 3 and 4 (DA/AD loop):

 

File 3:

File 4:

Edit: Actually, in these two files, I think small differences are indeed visible... but due no doubt to slightly misaligned clocks.

 

Mani.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

So this was all about derailing the MQA thread to shill Peters magic product.

Cool 

Seems like many of your comments are to derail threads to shill your own magic products. Still willing to bet many more people have heard his magic than yours. 

[AJ Soundfield]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

Seems like many of your comments are to derail threads to shill your own magic products. Still willing to bet many more people have heard his magic than yours. 

I don't make magic products, so that's certainly true.

Mine sound just like they measure, like everyone else, no claims about being only one in world doing so either.

What threads am I shilling product in?

[testikoff]

1 hour ago, manisandher said:

 

I don't have any sophisticated analysis tools. In Audacity it's clear that the files need to be aligned before comparing. Here are two reasonably well-aligned random segments:

File 1:

File 2:

They look pretty much the same to me, though I accept that this is probably a very coarse way to do this.

 

Could you show at what level the two files are not identical please? Thanks.

 

Mani.

Digitally identical audio samples are supposed to cancel each other out. Here is what happens with samples 1 & 2 when they are carefully lined up at start for a null-test:

 

They run in sync for ~5 seconds (but do not cancel each other completely there; the difference at ~-90dBFS), then they get out of sync & SFS1 audio gains ~55 samples for a total of 5:08 excerpt running time.

 

[manisandher]

Ah yes, thanks for pointing this out. I remember now that elsdude found something similar a while back. The issue is some sort of compatibility issue with the USB-to-spdif converter and the software player. IIRC, periodically (every 6 seconds, according to your analysis), an extra sample gets inserted - heard as a faint but audible click during playback. So it's only valid to compare the files between these clicks.

 

But you've done that and still found a difference at ~90dBFS. I have no idea what could be causing that. Whatever it is, it doesn't seem to affect the sound, because files 1 and 2 sound identical to me.

 

Could you quickly find the difference in dB between files 3 and 4 (taking into account the clicks) please? If this is substantially higher than at ~90dBFS, that'd give a clue as to why I'm hearing what I'm hearing between them.

 

Mani

[AJ Soundfield]

The "magic" slowly unravels

[mitchco]

Can confirm @testikoff is correct. I choose a spike at the front of the tracks and lined them up. Then about 37 seconds later found another spike and they do not line up. SFS1 gained about 7 samples.

 

Just saying it is not easy. But if you want to go through with the complete difference test, the procedures listed in this article work and are repeatable: https://www.computeraudiophile.com/ca/ca-academy/JRiver-Mac-vs-JRiver-Windows-Sound-Quality-Comparison/

 

 

 

[mitchco]

PS. as far as what is audible or not at normal listening levels, may want to have a look (and listen) at:

 

[manisandher]

2 minutes ago, mitchco said:

Just saying it is not easy.

 

Yep, understood. It'd still be interesting to determine whether files 3 and 4 are more different than files 1 and 2, extra inserted samples taken into account. I'm hearing something...

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

1 minute ago, mitchco said:

PS. as far as what is audible or not at normal listening levels, may want to have a look (and listen) at:

 

Will do... Thanks!

 

Mani.

[rickca]

On 7/6/2017 at 3:18 PM, PeterSt said:

I think I know which one you mean. I never even bothered to look into it. And this great (ahum) MQA thread should not turn into the same.

I feel exactly the same way.  This thread is being co-opted.

[manisandher]

2 minutes ago, rickca said:

I feel exactly the same way.  This thread is being co-opted.

 

You're right. Apologies.

 

I'll take the analysis of my files over to the following thread:

 

Mani.

[AJ Soundfield]

Well, all the MQA measurements I've seen so far suggests if its audible, it;s measurable too. So not magical or one of a kind in world etc

[rickca]

10 minutes ago, manisandher said:

You're right. Apologies.

My comment was directed at @AJ Soundfield, not you.  All I'm saying is that this thread is about MQA.  There's another thread about audible differences that can't be measured.  Let's not mix them up.  That way people can focus on what is of interest to them.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, AJ Soundfield said:

I don't make magic products, so that's certainly true.

Mine sound just like they measure, like everyone else, no claims about being only one in world doing so either.

What threads am I shilling product in?

"Nobody" had heard of your products before you started poking people with sophomoric jabs. You seem to live by the mantra that no press is bad press. Very similar to Steve Nugent who took all he could get in free advertising by posting so much, before he was banned. Why don't you become helpful rather than continue to be a taker, taking all you can get. 

[AJ Soundfield]

15 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

"Nobody" had heard of your products before you started poking people with sophomoric jabs. You seem to live by the mantra that no press is bad press. Very similar to Steve Nugent who took all he could get in free advertising by posting so much, before he was banned. Why don't you become helpful rather than continue to be a taker, taking all you can get. 

Well, I've demo'd to folks at nearly a dozen audio shows, including Axpona, RMAF, etc. have appeared in articles in Stereophile, PF, etc., Youtube, all that sort of thing, so I doubt "nobody" had heard of me, unless you mean yourself specifically. That seems likely. I haven't been trying to keep myself secret. I also took pains not to mention my speakers in threads, including this one, since they are almost always irrelevant to the discussions. Even going as far as to specifically not use them in the BACCH thread when showing measurements.

You don't find those type of measurements and discussion helpful? Or my links to LeSurf etc about MQA in this very thread?

 

Btw, I've heard of Ted, who is Steve Nugent??

https://www.google.com/search?q=Steve+Nugent&oq=Steve Nugent&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[k-man]

38 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Btw, I've heard of Ted, who is Steve Nugent??

Empirical Audio Chief

[Sal1950]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

"Nobody" had heard of your products before you started poking people with sophomoric jabs. You seem to live by the mantra that no press is bad press. Very similar to Steve Nugent who took all he could get in free advertising by posting so much, before he was banned. Why don't you become helpful rather than continue to be a taker, taking all you can get. 

I've known A J  around the net for quite some time now Chris.

You really do need to get out from behind that CA keyboard.  

[Rt66indierock]

Enough

 

While this argument may have been fun let’s get back to the topic MQA.

 

As I’ve talked with studio people one thing is getting clearer. MQA does change the sound of the master. The proponents of MQA say in general MQA is like a better DAC but it changes the master. These changes are generally described as linearity and image changes.  The opponents of MQA say it changes the soundstage of the master. There seems to be an agreement that there is an increased presence in the midrange but differing opinions on other changes to the sound.

 

I’ve discovered is MQA Ltd is recruiting mastering engineers to be area representatives. So when you hear a mastering engineer support MQA you have to ask two questions. One are they an area representative and did they receive equipment or other forms of compensation to say what they did.

 

Miguelito I thought about your system pictures a bit when I was traveling to New York City recently. I ‘m familiar with all the sources Bob Stuart uses to support detection of ultrasonics as basis for MQA. I use many of the same sources to say there isn’t any evidence a person’s brain will be affected by ultrasonics in a normal listening position at a concert say sixty to eighty feet from the stage. After looking at your system pictures I can’t see how enough ultrasonic energy would be above the noise floor of your listening space to be able to record differences in brain activity sitting on the couch. I have more doubt than ever about whether ultrasonics matter.

 

Finally, opponents of MQA have formed a group to collate, organize and disseminate information about MQA. The group includes people from high end audio manufacturers, major labels, studios and me.

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

I've known A J  around the net for quite some time now Chris.

You really do need to get out from behind that CA keyboard.  

I don't doubt either of those sentences :~)

 

Now back to MQA.