MQA is Vaporware

[mansr]

32 minutes ago, Archimago said:

Let's hope they at least put in some good tips on high quality audio production... And less on paradigms and seismic shifts!

They are both competent at their main jobs, AFAICT. I just don't trust them not to be influenced by monetary factors in situations like this.

[Archimago]

16 minutes ago, mansr said:

They are both competent at their main jobs, AFAICT. I just don't trust them not to be influenced by monetary factors in situations like this.

 

Yeah. Every man has his price, I suppose...

 

Hopefully this and some of other AES talks get recorded and posted at some point.

 

[Archimago]

7 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I have a hard time following your comments. Now you're talking about people's likes and your concerns and whose call it is to convert libraries? None of that matters in this discussion. 

 

Exactly, Chris...

 

Some of the discussions are getting off track with peripheral issues like surround sound and the like. Let's just get down to "brass tacks" here, folks. The reality is this...

 

Suppose we start with an original 24/192 hi-res file which I think most of us would agree would be able to encode all that human ears/minds can perceive and likely more (sure, we can argue this point but given that few recordings are even true 24/192, we can argue this elsewhere). Now, suppose we want to stream this because that's the model of music distribution we see as a growth industry and we want to decrease the data rate to an equivalent 24/48 file (as per Tidal).

 

We have 2 options currently:

1. We simply downsample to 48kHz while maintaining 24-bit resolution and give up the ultrasonic frequencies above 24kHz = STANDARD downsampling.

2. We sacrifice 24-bit depth to "typically 15.85 bits" (Bob Stuart's words), and encode the ultrasonic frequencies from 24-48kHz in a lossy fashion = voilà MQA encoding & decoding. Throw in some stuff about "deblurring" while you do this of course and claim you can recover everything else you need back to the "original" 192kHz (not true IMO). Plus turn on a LED telling us MQA decoding is happening and it's the "original" resolution (meaningless).

Which of the 2 do you choose? Do you think there's going to be a massive difference in sound quality?

Personally, I think solution 1 is just fine. 24/48 sounds great and in many cases would be easier to compress than MQA for streaming. Heck, we could zero out the last 4 bits and maybe compress a 20/48 stream for more data savings without worrying about anyone complaining. Plus, since time domain performance is linked with bit-depth, one could argue that maintaining true 24-bit resolution provides better time-domain performance below Nyquist.

 

Option 1 is easy to implement and sounds great IMO (I happily downsample 24/96 or 24/192 all the time to 48kHz). But Tidal and MQA presents to us option 2. Here are some concerns:

 

1. It adds complexity and cost (unnecessarily):

     a. We already have many high-resolution DACs out there. Do we need a new "format" that's not "fully" backward compatible?

     b. Only MQA-certified software / hardware for decoding. Reduces options for consumers.

     c. MQA versions of download such as what we see on 2L costs more than downsampled 24/96 (for example). Does selling MQA encoded files add a licensing fee passed on to consumers?

 

2. Technical concerns:

     a. It reduces the actual bitdepth to the aforementioned "typically 15.85 bits" and up to "17-bits" resolution when decoded. These numbers are from Bob Stuart.

     b. Reconstruction of the 1st unfold into 24-48kHz audio frequency is lossy in nature compared to the original. Are we sure we "need" this?

     c. MQA upsampling is done with "leaky" filters resulting in weak ultrasonic suppression of aliasing. Remember that DAC designers can easily program their devices to do this if this is felt to be preferable for their design. Also, we as consumers can choose to do this ourselves with software upsampling if we really think this is a good idea (software like HQPlayer for example).

     d. For those who want to do advanced DSP like room correction filters, ambisonic processing, surround processing, we cannot have access to the full digital resolution because of the proprietary MQA process. (This is a big deal IMO that limits flexibility and progress as we aim for better sound quality for hi-fi enthusiasts.)

 

3. Minimal audible difference - few actually claim to hear significant differences:

     a. Digital subtraction tests show little difference.

     b. Blind listening test with 83 listeners show no clear preference. (In fact, in some situations, standard hi-res was preferred.)

 

4. Unclear DRM implications:

     a. Already as in (1), MQA certified products like upgrading to MQA DAC adds expense and there are fewer software playback options. Presumably the hardware and software companies need to pay MQA for licensing costs which at some level needs to be covered by consumers.

     b. Potential future scrambling or stronger mechanisms to enforce playback only with licensed products at the expense of sound quality. This is not a reality currently but there are hints that this could happen.

 

I might have missed other arguments but these are the top-of-mind for me. I'm certainly happy to be wrong if evidence can be provided and how some of the technical pitfalls like item 2d can be circumvented. So far, no evidence that MQA can honestly improve sound quality, provide convenience, and ideally reduce cost for the consumer.

 

Again, why not just use a "flat" 24/48 stream for high-resolution audio and avoid all these potential complications and even potential hindrances to sound quality?!

 

[Rt66indierock]

I agree there is no need for MQA based on sound quality, economics and distribution. MQA adds needless complexity when a simple solution works with current technology.

 

Thanks for your contribution to showing MQA is not an optimal solution to recording good sounding music and playing it back.

[Milt99]

If this thread was a horse, we could shoot it.

[witchdoctor]

1 hour ago, Archimago said:

 

Exactly, Chris...

 

Some of the discussions are getting off track with peripheral issues like surround sound and the like. Let's just get down to "brass tacks" here, folks. The reality is this...

The reality is I was already paying $20 a month to Tidal for FLAC and I now have an additional choice of 7000+ MQA albums and counting. I can choose the FLAC version or the MQA version. Total premium price vs prior price= 0.

Quote

We have 2 options currently:

Option 1- Pay $10 a month for standard 320k streams

Option 2- Pay $20 a month for FLAC and MQA streams

 

Quote

Which of the 2 do you choose? Do you think there's going to be a massive difference in sound quality?

MASSIVE difference, no. A difference worth an extra $10 a month? Hell yes.

 

Personally, I think solution 1 is just fine.

Witchdoctor's don't roll with "fine", witchdoctor's roll with hirez MQA.

Quote

24/48 sounds great and in many cases would be easier to compress than MQA for streaming. Heck, we could zero out the last 4 bits and maybe compress a 20/48 stream for more data savings without worrying about anyone complaining. Plus, since time domain performance is linked with bit-depth, one could argue that maintaining true 24-bit resolution provides better time-domain performance below Nyquist.

Whatever...

Quote

Option 1 is easy to implement and sounds great IMO.

This is the key to the whole MQA matter. If you think option one sounds great more power to you. Save the $10 a month and rock out.

Quote

1. It adds complexity and cost (unnecessarily):

 

An audioquest dragonfly dac is $100 granted, using it is not complex and you can use it at home or on the road. I was already paying $20 a month so dropping MQA on me was 0 out of pocket above my cost for FLAC.

Quote

2. Technical concerns:

     a. It reduces the actual bitdepth to the aforementioned "typically 15.85 bits" and up to "17-bits" resolution when decoded. These numbers are from Bob Stuart.

     b. Reconstruction of the 1st unfold into 24-48kHz audio frequency is lossy in nature compared to the original. Are we sure we "need" this?

     c. MQA upsampling is done with "leaky" filters resulting in weak ultrasonic suppression of aliasing. Remember that DAC designers can easily program their devices to do this if this is felt to be preferable for their design. Also, we as consumers can choose to do this ourselves with software upsampling if we really think this is a good idea (software like HQPlayer for example).

     d. For those who want to do advanced DSP like room correction filters, ambisonic processing, surround processing, we cannot have access to the full digital resolution because of the proprietary MQA process. (This is a big deal IMO that limits flexibility and progress as we aim for better sound quality for hi-fi enthusiasts.)

Whatever...it is still worth the $10 a month premium to me. You are fine with option one, NP.

Quote

3. Minimal audible difference - few actually claim to hear significant differences:

     a. Digital subtraction tests show little difference.

     b. Blind listening test with 83 listeners show no clear preference. (In fact, in some situations, standard hi-res was preferred.)

The question will be answered differently depending on who you ask. To me it is worth $10 extra a month, to others maybe not, granted.I did my own blind listening test comparing Tidal HIFI tracks and Masters, I preferred Masters (MQA), YMMV.

Quote

4. Unclear DRM implications:

     a. Already as in (1), MQA certified products like upgrading to MQA DAC adds expense and there are fewer software playback options. Presumably the hardware and software companies need to pay MQA for licensing costs which at some level needs to be covered by consumers.

     b. Potential future scrambling or stronger mechanisms to enforce playback only with licensed products at the expense of sound quality. This is not a reality currently but there are hints that this could happen.

 

I might have missed other arguments but these are the top-of-mind for me. I'm certainly happy to be wrong if evidence can be provided and how some of the technical pitfalls like item 2d can be circumvented. So far, no evidence that MQA can honestly improve sound quality, provide convenience, and ideally reduce cost for the consumer.

 

Again, why not just use a "flat" 24/48 stream for high-resolution audio and avoid all these potential complications and even potential hindrances to sound quality?!

I agree rhat DRM implications are UNCLEAR

Quote

My thanks to you for publishing your double blind study, your attention to detail, and your excellent posting skills. I think you contributions are great and you are definitely not a malcontent. Thanks again Archimago

 

[Archimago]

17 minutes ago, witchdoctor said:

The reality is I was already paying $20 a month to Tidal for FLAC and I know have an additional choice on 7000+ albums and counting. I can choose the FLAC version or the MQA version. Total premium price vs prior premium price= 0.

Option 1- Pay $10 a month for standard 320k streams

Option 2- Pay $20 a month for FLAC and MQA streams

 

Witchdoctor's don't roll with "fine", witchdoctor's roll with hirez MQA.

Whatever...

This is the key to the whole MQA matter. If you think option one sounds great more power to you. Save the $10 a month and rock out.

An audioquest dragonfly dac is $100 granted, using it is not complex and you can use it at home or on the road. I was already paying $20 a month so dropping MQA on me was 0 out of pocket above my cost for FLAC.

Whatever...it is still worth the $10 a month premium to me. You are fine with option one, NP.

The question will be answered differently depending on who you ask. To me it is worth $10 extra a month, to others maybe not, granted.

I agree rhat DRM implications are UNCLEAR

 

 

Fascinating answers WD.

 

You see, I am cool with anyone spending $10 and buying a $100 AQ Dragonfly Black. Glad you like the sound...

 

Beyond the money to buy a DAC or stream from TIDAL. Beyond the licensing $ to MQA. What of the evident limitations to the sound resolution this encoding system imposes? What of the loss of freedom to DAC designers? What about the loss of freedom to do one's own room correction and other forms of sound processing at full resolution? These are arguments based on fact, not preferential opinion.

 

As a man who has your studio set-up with thoughts about enveloping sound quality and multichannel capability (great thread BTW that you started today), do you think that MQA is a step forward to promote the interests of enthusiasts who might want to keep options open in the future? Or does doing it MQA's way lock us into what Bob Stuart, et al. deems to be the way forward with their vision of what "studio sound" is supposed to be?

 

I'm glad you agree that DRM implications are unclear. Is there even any need to entertain this possibility when "flat" hi-res audio is already great and in truth, much of the developed world already has the bandwidth to just stream lossless compressed 24/96 if we wanted to?

 

[witchdoctor]

30 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

Fascinating answers WD.

 

You see, I am cool with anyone spending $10 and buying a $100 AQ Dragonfly Black. Glad you like the sound...

 

Beyond the money to buy a DAC or stream from TIDAL. Beyond the licensing $ to MQA. What of the evident limitations to the sound resolution this encoding system imposes? What of the loss of freedom to DAC designers?

What about the loss of freedom to do one's own room correction and other forms of sound processing at full resolution? These are arguments based on fact, not preferential opinion.

 

As a man who has your studio set-up with thoughts about enveloping sound quality and multichannel capability (great thread BTW that you started today), do you think that MQA is a step forward to promote the interests of enthusiasts who might want to keep options open in the future? Or does doing it MQA's way lock us into what Bob Stuart, et al. deems to be the way forward with their vision of what "studio sound" is supposed to be?

 

I'm glad you agree that DRM implications are unclear. Is there even any need to entertain this possibility when "flat" hi-res audio is already great and in truth, much of the developed world already have the bandwidth to just stream 24/96 if we wanted to?

This train has just left the station and the questions you are asking are important but I think a little bit overblown.

Every form of sound reproduction has limitations. The limitation in the music industry is not SQ, it is sadly the artists are being ripped off. They just got a workaround from being under the labels thumb because of Prtools. What technology gives it takes away because that enabled pirating on a massive scale. Artists make more money with streaming. If MQA attracts more customers to buy streaming services it is a win for the artist, the label, and the customer. MP3's screwed the labels yes, but they mainly screwed the artist and in the long run the customer. To me that is the limitation MQA can hopefully address. Offering a quality product that customers will prefer over pirating.

 

As for DAC designers have you seen the MQA partner page? They are adapting quickly. My Bluesond Node was $500 and I think I will get the new iFi MQA BL dac when it is available. DAC designers are engineers, they learn quickly (or just complain which I see MANY of them doing, yeesh)

 

My room correction works fine streaming MQA through the Node via analog out. I use Audyssey via my Marantz 7702. I can't speak for the guys using software based DSP.

As for what other enthusiasts plan for the future the industry is pivoting to hirez, immersive audio, and I believe vinyl remains the fastest growing segment. As a percent of sales it is still small but the growth rate is good.

 

As for MQA being a lock I think it is a key. DSD and HIREZ PCM are expensive to buy at $20+ a pop and SACD , BR Audio and DVD-A discs aren't any cheaper. I had less than 20 "hirez" recording before MQA. Now I have a kick ass library of 7000+ hirez MQAalbums PLUS about 2 dozen curated MQA playlists. My total out of pocket software cost =0 (I was already paying $20 a month before MQA). If you would have told me a year ago I would have access to a library of 7000+ hirez albums I would have never believed you. So for me MQA unlocked the hirez vault rather than locked it.

Quote

 

 

[Archimago]

Hey WD:

"This train has just left the station and the questions you are asking are important but I think a little bit overblown."

 

IMO, the only thing overblown is how much better MQA is supposed to sound! Yes, it's left the station without passengers and IMO not enough coal to get to its destination.

 

"Every form of sound reproduction has limitations. The limitation in the music industry is not SQ, it is sadly the artists are being ripped off. They just got a workaround from being under the labels thumb because of Prtools. What technology gives it takes away because that enabled pirating on a massive scale. Artists make more money with streaming. If MQA attracts more customers to buy streaming services it is a win for the artist, the label, and the customer. MP3's screwed the labels yes, but they mainly screwed the artist and in the long run the customer. To me that is the limitation MQA can hopefully address. Offering a quality product that customers will prefer over pirating."

 

You think MQA can't be pirated? As if we can't already access the hi-res stream and notice it lacking. In what way does MQA increase interest in streaming? Others have asked already, but is there any evidence that TIDAL's Hi-Fi subscription increased as compared to Spotify or Apple Music in the last year or a sustained boost from MQA availability?

 

"As for DAC designers have you seen the MQA partner page? They are adapting quickly. My Bluesond Node was $500 and I think I will get the new iFi MQA BL dac when it is available. DAC designers are engineers, they learn quickly (or just complain which I see MANY of them doing, yeesh)"

 

Yes, I've seen the page. So what? Doesn't mean it'll sell. Yes, engineers can learn to incorporate the MQA firmware (remember, it's just a firmware upgrade for most devices)... That's not the point. The issue is that MQA is doing things that are not necessarily in the best interest of sonic reproduction and takes away freedom when one is locked in.

 

"My room correction works fine streaming MQA through the Node via analog out. I use Audyssey via my Marantz 7702. I can't speak for the guys using software based DSP.

As for what other enthusiasts plan for the future the industry is pivoting to hirez, immersive audio, and I believe vinyl remains the fastest growing segment. As a percent of sales it is still small but the growth rate is good."

 

But why do I want to go through another ADC/DAC step for room correction!? While I agree that it'll sound good, clearly this is not best practice to extract the highest fidelity! This is an audiophile forum where people buy $$$$$ gear, sometimes believe in exotic cables, USB dejitter devices, power filtration, special footers, maybe even green pens... And you're advocating doing something that can compromise hi-res digital? Come on man!

 

Let's stick to MQA. No need to talk about vinyl here.

 

"As for MQA being a lock I think it is a key. DSD and HIREZ PCM are expensive to buy at $20+ a pop and SACD , BR Audio and DVD-A discs aren't any cheaper. I had less than 20 "hirez" recording before MQA. Now I have a kick ass library of 7000+ hirez MQAalbums PLUS about 2 dozen curated MQA playlists. My total out of pocket software cost =0 (I was already paying $20 a month before MQA). If you would have told me a year ago I would have access to a library of 7000+ hirez albums I would have never believed you. So for me MQA unlocked the hirez vault rather than locked it."

 

First, the hi-res vault didn't contain many gems anyway. Let's be honest. So unless the mastering quality changes very substantially, people aren't going to pay money for it (considering so many audiophiles already question the difference hi-res makes). Secondly, it could have been done without imposing the restrictions and questionable hype which IMO is not good news for consumers. Like I said, 24/96 compressed lossless streaming can already be done and Qobuz even can do 24/192. If you think hi-res is such a big deal, you should be fighting for that... True "studio master" quality down to 24-bits, not the "typically 15.85 bits" of MQA.

[PeterSt]

3 hours ago, witchdoctor said:

Option 1- Pay $10 a month for standard 320k streams

Option 2- Pay $20 a month for FLAC and MQA streams

 

I think the witchdoctor has some issue with math and $. Or some other comprehension problem.

Finally witchdoctor got it right and it is now clear that he too thinks that MQA adds zero to the price of FLAC (at least at this moment).

 

3 hours ago, witchdoctor said:

Whatever...it is still worth the $10 a month premium to me. You are fine with option one, NP.

 

This makes clear how witchdoctor thinks. He compares all with MP3; without MQA he might use MP3 only and pays $10. Might, because somehow he turned into lossless already.

 

So maybe witchdoctor recalls that yesterday alone he 5 or 6 times stated without context that MQA costs $10 more on Tidal.

 

WHY ?

Witchdoctor seems to think he is talking to 99% of people using the MP3 $10 account. But I'd make that 0.01%.

[Shadders]

5 hours ago, witchdoctor said:

The reality is I was already paying $20 a month to Tidal for FLAC and I now have an additional choice of 7000+ MQA albums and counting. I can choose the FLAC version or the MQA version. Total premium price vs prior price= 0.

Option 1- Pay $10 a month for standard 320k streams

Option 2- Pay $20 a month for FLAC and MQA streams

 

Hi,

Link below shows that Tidal is not in the top 10 for the UK :

http://uk.businessinsider.com/pandora-spotify-most-popular-music-streaming-service-chart-2017-3?r=US&IR=T

 

Second point, Tidal is £20 for Lossless High Fidelity. The website for Tidal is very poor - i cannot determine what the specifications are for Lossless High Fidelity - is it redbook, or 96k/24bit ???

 

Third point - Tidal if offering MQA under the subscription for Lossless High Fidelity, should be investigated by the UK Advertising Standards Authority, since MQA in NOT lossless.

 

Fourth point, if MQA (whatever the rate) and FLAC (redbook, or 96kHz/24bit ???) are being offered at the same cost - it would seem so, then the streaming service is either subsidising MQA, or FLAC is being over charged for.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Charles Hansen]

22 hours ago, witchdoctor said:

Well if you are THAT interested here are links to the MQA related presentations. I can't send you the papers themselves but you can access them one of two ways. By joining the AES or by purchasing the paper as a non member.The papers have already been uploaded and are available. I recommend this one since the malcontents here seem obsessed with this topic. This study includes both objective data and subjective blind listening tests:

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=19340

Perceived Differences in Timbre, Clarity, and Depth in Audio Files Treated with MQA Encoding vs. Their Unprocessed State

 

Witchdoctor -

 

You have just exposed yourself as a fraud and a shill. Since you have full access to the paper, you will know that it is a proposal for a study that has not even been designed yet, let alone conducted.

 

Chris - I suggest that you look into Witchdoctor's affiliations with the industry, as nobody would post this misleading clap-trap if they weren't working for MQA.

[Charente]

Do I sense a witch-hunt ? 

[Charles Hansen]

18 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

With respect to audio, consumers have never shown an interest in quality.

Bob said to me on an MQA panel that consumers have never had the option.

 

Hi Chris,

 

Maybe  Bob said that the consumers never had an option to hear quality music because the equipment that Meridian sells doesn't provide it.

 

Just one possible interpretation of a remark taken out of context....

[Charles Hansen]

18 hours ago, witchdoctor said:

Hey didn't you know there is a HUGE population of witchdoctor's and growing? What other people like is not my concern, sorry. The fact that the labels are converting their catalogs to MQA is their call.

 

And the record companies are happy to have someone spend millions of dollars to promote their products. The only reason they are letting MQA convert any titles is because MQA is paying for it. If the labels had to pay for it, they would have to make money on it. Nobody is making any money from MQA, especially not the labels.

 

The indicator would be if subscriptions to Tidal Hi-Fi increased due to the MQA titles being available. It's not happening. MQA are desperate as Big Daddy Rupert (who is financing them) wants to see some ROI. Bob Stuart is sweating bullets, as he may soon be on Rupert's hit list. Just like you don't screw with the Mafia, you don't screw with the Ruperts.

[Charles Hansen]

18 hours ago, crenca said:

 

As he has already said - I think he is just spamming this thread.

 

Yes, and almost certainly being paid (or otherwise compensated) to do so.

[mansr]

5 hours ago, witchdoctor said:

My room correction works fine streaming MQA through the Node via analog out. I use Audyssey via my Marantz 7702. I can't speak for the guys using software based DSP.

That's hilarious. The Marantz digitises the analogue input (don't know the ADC chip) at 48 kHz, runs the Audyssey process, and plays the result through the AKM DAC chip. Whatever "deblurring" benefit MQA might provide, it will be obliterated by this process.

[PeterSt]

31 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Third point - Tidal if offering MQA under the subscription for Lossless High Fidelity, should be investigated by the UK Advertising Standards Authority, since MQA in NOT lossless.

 

Ah, good. Then it falls under the MP3 subscription which is £10 less.

[witchdoctor]

To all the malcontents here, thanks for reading my posts. If you don't like MQA don't buy it, I am good with that.

. FWIW MQA will not make you gain weight, cause heart disease or cancer. Even if you spend the extra $10 a month no one will force you to listen to it, you can still play the FLAC versions of every MQA track.

Please make your crusade more meaningful, why not go take on the tobacco industry?

 

 

[jabbr]

4 hours ago, Charente said:

Do I sense a witch-hunt ? 

The level of counter hype has hardly approached the level of hype. 

[Archimago]

Greetings @Charles Hansen.

 

Good point Mans about the Marantz and the ADC/DAC step. Had forgotten that most of these are being done in 48kHz and only a few even in 96kHz...

 

Witchdoctor:

Please, this isn't "malcontentment". One cannot engage in a disagreement by using adjectives like that without justification. There's barely any MQA out there which is probably why the only people who have much of an opinion are audiophiles on forums like this. I think if you know us, you'd realize that most are rather happy, engaged, passionate people. But if one cares about something, what's wrong with voicing dissatisfaction? This is the place for people who know a thing or 2 about the topic to be able to voice objections!

 

IMO, it's fine that you like MQA and are willing to pay for something you find value in. Glad you're happy with that. Others have objections based on the facts of the matter beyond personal listening. You have not countered those facts. There is therefore no real debate to be had with you.

 

All the best in your pursuit.

[esldude]

5 hours ago, mansr said:

That's hilarious. The Marantz digitises the analogue input (don't know the ADC chip) at 48 kHz, runs the Audyssey process, and plays the result through the AKM DAC chip. Whatever "deblurring" benefit MQA might provide, it will be obliterated by this process.

[witchdoctor]

Archimago:

 

The level of vitriol from the malcontents is over a $10 a month decision. Better to take that passion and direct at things that matter in the world. How music lovers spend their money and spare time is up to them. They shouldn't be shamed by a bunch of geezer crusaders. 

Can you imagine the vitriol if the price goes up to $11? My goodness this thread might explode

 

 

 

 

[kumakuma]

6 minutes ago, witchdoctor said:

The level of vitriol from the malcontents is over a $10 a month decision.

 

No, it isn't.

[esldude]

2 hours ago, witchdoctor said:

To all the malcontents here, thanks for reading my posts. If you don't like MQA don't buy it, I am good with that.

. FWIW MQA will not make you gain weight, cause heart disease or cancer. Even if you spend the extra $10 a month no one will force you to listen to it, you can still play the FLAC versions of every MQA track.

Please make your crusade more meaningful, why not go take on the tobacco industry?

 

 

Do you understand why mansr's post was devastating to your credibility on the sound of MQA?  By resampling into and out of the 7702 you have no chance to maintain any deblurring or increased time domain advantages claimed.  It is now clear any improvements you heard in MQA are due to different mastering or your imagination.  More specifically you had your brain alter your perception from the marketing and promises of MQA.  You should be the poster child in the confidence game thread as far as MQA is concerned.  

 

Now yes I am singling you out.  It is a chance for you to learn something worthwhile.  Do you want to learn or not?  It can be scary I know.  You'll be glad you did when it is over. 

 

Maybe you should listen to the geezers a bit now.  They know not to listen to you on MQA. You have no standing.