MQA is Vaporware

[lucretius]

1 minute ago, kumakuma said:

 

Why not? 

Proprietary format and compatibilitly with file tagers and some hardware devices.

[lucretius]

5 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Ok. I've never had any issues with the format though.

IIRC, even HQPLayer  couldn't play ALAC files.

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, kumakuma said:

 

Fortunately you can easily convert any lossless PCM format to any other with no loss in quality.

That is fortunate. But if we kept it in flac, we don't need to convert.

 

Just checking the software on my computer at the moment, the following does not support ALAC: Audacity, Sound Forge, MAAT DR Meter offline. I remember trying out some DAW software (e.g. FL Studio) as well as DJ software (e.g. TRAKTOR) and no support for ALAC.

 

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, lucretius said:

IIRC, even HQPLayer  couldn't play ALAC files.

Just checked the HQPlayer page and I see that the current version of HQPLayer does not support ALAC files.

[lucretius]

37 minutes ago, lucretius said:

That is fortunate. But if we kept it in flac, we don't need to convert.

 

Just checking the software on my computer at the moment, the following does not support ALAC: Audacity, Sound Forge, MAAT DR Meter offline. I remember trying out some DAW software (e.g. FL Studio) as well as DJ software (e.g. TRAKTOR) and no support for ALAC.

 

Steinberg (creators of ASIO) software, e.g. Cubase, WavLab Pro and WaveLab elements, does not support ALAC. 

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, danadam said:

Not since 2011 (according to wikipedia).

https://macosforge.github.io/alac/

 

Not before a bunch of folks had spent a lot of time and effort reverse engineering it, LOL.

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, MikeyFresh said:

I was very curious how that new feature would work with MQA, for example would the presence of some MQA garbage HF content trick the software into calling it "hi-res" or not?

 

Can you try it with 24-bit MQA and see what happens?

I've tried it with some 24bit MQA files I had. Audirvana Studio reported "Confirmed HD recording".  ☹️

 

I bet that the software reports all 16bit files as "dubious HD""  but I cannot confirm this, since I refuse to continue using Audirvana Studio.

[lucretius]

14 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

mQa

What is the history behind the use of "m" "Q" "a"?  Enquiring minds want to know.

[lucretius]

51 minutes ago, FredericV said:

True 24/192 without such decimation is usually around 5 mbit, so how does MQA fit in the 9+ mbit advertising?

 

They are perceptual bits, silly.  🙂

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

HA!

 

It's as if the same crew of Ken Forsythe and Mike JBara from my RMAF presentation, created this reply. When people show you their colors, believe them. This is yet another example of who they are. 

 

This takes the cake:

"padded the video with a litany of alternative facts previously debunked many times by MQA and others.

 

 

One thing's for sure, Bob's obviously not a master of the english language:

 

Definition of "fact":  a thing that is known or proved to be true.

[lucretius]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I think we could've written that mQa response nearly identically just by guessing what the company would say. It's straight out of the mQa playbook. 

Seems almost like a page out of Fox News.

[lucretius]

9 hours ago, MarkusBarkus said:

Oh you very bad boys! Using "unsafe levels of ultrasonic signals" 

you are going to hurt yourselves and put an ear out!

"Unsafe levels of ultrasonic signals"  leads to "ultrasonic sickness". How do you get this from digital input to the mQa encoder?

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, FredericV said:

When argumentum ad verecundiam has become a religion ...

Many responded the HB video did not debunk the claims of  @GoldenOne / GoldenSound, instead he admitted he is guessing.

He did not even question mQa's answer, or try to peer review it ... just make the BT reply sticky.

"There the answers to my quests are given with great detail."  The response contained so many vagueries that Hans could pretend that it was the answer to any question raised.  Apparently, "great detail" = great vagueness.  Maybe Bob could use his secret facilities (apparently not available to others) to help deblur some of those images from the Hubble telescope. Come on* Bob, impress me.

 

*

 

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, Currawong said:

 

I think that this can't be overstated enough. They claim to determine the ADC used by the contents of the track and process accordingly, but how? If they actually did this, surely they'd either have a white paper on it, or, like Rob Watts does, when asked about how his D/A designs work, can provide solid answers.  Instead, from BS, we get get vague answers and technobabble arguments with holes you can drive a truck through. That says to me that the whole idea that they can determine what ADC was used from the music is not true.

 

Where there's gibberish, there's bs and religion. Alternatively, bs by any other name is still bs.

[lucretius]

9 hours ago, FredericV said:

 

The YouTube video does not pass the test due to the fact it is: 1) user generated content/self published content. If he was a professional journalist who did youtube videos on the side, it may be different. 2) Video has no editorial oversight. 3) It relies upon personal opinions (hence I argued if the video is included, the videos criticism from Professional audio journalists should be included). However, it appears you do not think those sources are a response to GoldenSounds video (despite the video by Hans YouTube video being titled: "My response to the Golden Sound MQA test", he may not go into individual claims, but it is a response stating he doesn't agree), so the compromise is to remove the GoldenSounds YouTube video entirely to ensure this article remains in line with Wikipedia policy. Quickstick4 (talk) 07:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

 

"Profesional audio journalist"*. That's an oxymoron.  The mQa response refers to Hans as a "Profesional audio journalist".  Is it not the case that Hans' Youtube content is "user generated content/self published content"? Does Hans' content not rely upon "personal opinions"?  And since when does his Youtube videos have "editorial oversight"?

 

* I expect professional journalists to have a code of ethics that includes truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness, and public accountability.

[lucretius]

9 hours ago, FredericV said:

They also tried to remove the GoldenSound video from the wiki page ...

 

I'fd like to see more of the same linked to the Wiki page. How about a link to the RMAF video? After all, the Wiki article even references What HiFi and Darko, LOL!

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

ind it funny that you and @John_Atkinson come out of the woodwork today

Doesn't @John_Atkinsonhave a special interest in mQa in that the company was involved in producing his music?

[lucretius]

On 5/24/2021 at 1:48 AM, FredericV said:

Something with the time domain  went wrong ...

I like how the loud dude woke up the guy beside him.  The sleepy guy is probably repreaentative of the average music buying public.

[lucretius]

7 hours ago, ARQuint said:

Now, his response to Bob Stuart's response to GoldenOne report on his Tidal experience involves a facile dismissal rather than the point-by-point rebuttal of Stuart's statement I would have loved to read.

 

You do realize that Bob Stuart must actually say something before there can be a point-to-point rebuttal?  I cannot blame anyone for not preparing a serious response to BS' last bit of gibberish. Actually, I've been wondering if BS even wrote the response.

[lucretius]

5 hours ago, ARQuint said:

but I believe you miscalculated with that seminar, giving it a misleading title and then being surprised when the MQA people anticipated what you were up to and (after waiting 10 minutes to see if they were wrong) launched an attack that definitely threw you offyour game. It was a fiasco, and the fact is, you were at least partially to blame.

 

So here is the problem with both you and mQa.  You both see this as some sort of flame war, and maybe the one with the biggest dick wins.  Why can't mQa ltd simply supply honest information about mQa? And honestly answer some questions?  Even if I disagreed with the info they presented, I'd nonetheless have a lot more respect for them than I do now. Instead, what we get is gibberish like the last response to GoldenOne as well as the various Bob talks.  These are so vague and watered down they're almost offensive. Surely BS can deliver better information?

 

Even BS realizes that mQa has limitations -- hence the existence of secret white glove procedures/processes -- and yet BS has never explained/admitted mQa's limitations.

[lucretius]

13 minutes ago, LarryMagoo said:

BS initials are perfect for the man and his quest....it's a shame after reading John Atkinson for 3 or 4 decades, that he cannot come clean instead backing all the crap!

 

It seems @John_Atkinson is trying not to burn his bridges -- he wants to maintain an "in" with mQa ltd (and BS) should that ever prove useful in the future.

[lucretius]

5 minutes ago, LarryMagoo said:

So I guess that JA does not mind that he has BURNT ALL HIS BRIDGES WITH HIS READERS?????

 

To be fair, he is only burning his bridges with some readers that frequent Audiophile Style,

[lucretius]

 

From Appendix 4 referenced earlier:  "MQA is not a codec in the conventional sense. It takes account of the source (A/D and mastering) and playback (D/A converter). The conceptual target is analogue to analogue."

So how does this statement reconcile with the mass mQa conversion of Warner's back catalogue?

[lucretius]

6 minutes ago, StephenJK said:

I don't know that anyone here would say that "spinning the black circle" is a bad thing!

https://www.musixmatch.com/lyrics/Pearl-Jam/Spin-The-Black-Circle-2011-Remaster

[lucretius]

54 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

As I was a contractor for these recording projects and don't own the copyright, I am not free to share the files.

 

 

49 minutes ago, StephenJK said:

Fair enough.  Thanks for answering, that does make sense.

 

Even if JA could share I'm not sure what that would reveal.  The white glove treatment these recordings received is not representative of a random mQa album found on Tidal.