MQA is Vaporware

[Nikhil]

1 hour ago, 4est said:

Care to elaborate on that nuance? I am curious, not baiting you. TYIA

 

1 hour ago, Charles Hansen said:

 

Thanks for enlightening me. While I've heard of Sanskrit, I didn't know what it actually was. Apparently an almost dead language from many thousands of years ago from the region now called India, and important to certain religions such as Buddhism. I mistakenly assumed it was a Japanese word, although now that I think about it this could not be right as it would be extremely difficult to pronounce in Japanese, where there are no stressed syllables. It's really only readily pronounced with an accent on the second syllable.

 

Since I don't know any Sanskrit (there are apparently around 50,000 in India who are fluent), could you kindly let me know the translation?

 

59 minutes ago, synn said:

It means emptiness.

 

59 minutes ago, mansr said:

An online dictionary I found lists several loosely related meanings including "non-reality" and "illusory nature." Seems fitting to me.

 

Charles and others,

 

Sanskrit is the Latin of the Hindu universe from which other religions like Buddhism branched off.

The literal translation of emptiness doesn't adequately describe the meaning of the term.

 

Link: http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Emptiness

 

The above link does a better job of it. 

It's the liberation from existing beliefs in the manner of an advanced wisdom. 

 

Regards.

 

 

 

[Shadders]

1 minute ago, PeterSt said:

 

I had to look up the meaning of that. So learned something again.

Yeah ... I am.

 

And you for the first time (that I noticed) did not end with your polite

Regards,

Shadders

 

Regards,

Peter

Hi PeterSt,

My deepest apologies. I was trying to be hip. Will not happen again.

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

7 minutes ago, Confused said:

 If this ADC 'polishing' technology does have any merit, it occurs to me that it could (if allowed my MQA) be used outside of the MQA folding and unfolding nonsense.  You could correct the original ADC to the maximum extent possible and the end result could be straight PCM.

 

So taking a simple case as an example, an 80's digital copy made from a master tape, using a single ADC of known make and model, is there anything in MQA that can improve the digital copy?

 

Mindful that this thread has become a battleground between the trolls, shills and debunkers, I have to make it clear that this is a 100% genuine question! 

 

Hi,

That is a heretical remark.

100 Hail Mary's, and wash your mouth out with caustic soda.

Yes - of course, that is possible. But there would be no money in it, and no possibility of applying DRM to any file.

You have to create an end to end solution, to control the end to end solution.

Regards,

Shadders.

[Fokus]

9 minutes ago, Confused said:

So taking a simple case as an example, an 80's digital copy made from a master tape, using a single ADC of known make and model, is there anything in MQA that can improve the digital copy?

 

Let me put it this way: if such an ADC displays sins that can usefully be compensated for afterwards, then this can entirely be done outside of the MQA ecosystem, as part of normal and competent remastering.

[PeterSt]

14 minutes ago, Confused said:

So if the make / model is known for the ADC that was used for the original tape to digital transfer, then MQA have some specific filtering or techniques that can correct for errors / inaccuracies from the original ADC.  Is there anything in this?

 

Yes. But the subject is a bit different than you pose, and before you think I have the answers - I don't have hem either. So :

 

It is the deblurring thing which is the real subject here and it is there where ADC's can use some counter attack BUT this assumes that one ADC has been used for a recording. And this is BS because it can be several. Still there is something in that.

 

The issue I have with understanding MQA is WHERE this has happened, and I mean where in the total workflow of us obtaining the file( stream) after it has been put somewhere (if not generated in real time on Tidal) via software decoding (like we can do) up to hardware decoding and 2nd unfold baloney. So somewhere this deblurring has to happen (as long as we believe it does for real) and with quite some times reasoning about this now, for me it can only have happened before we start streaming (obtaining) the file.

 

If this is correct we should be having the best (possible) of all worlds because we next have full control of the filtering. This may be a bit difficult to grasp, but it is so.

Keep in mind that our own filtering with MQA hardware active(ly decoding), is not possible.

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, Charles Hansen said:

 

Hello Samuel,

 

Thanks for the info. I don't know why some people do such shilling. Are they paid to do so, or are they just so insecure as to need "approval" from some authority figure like Bob Stuart or Caelin Gabriel. (The fact that Caelin Gabriel chose a Japanese sounding name for his company makes me very suspicious right off the bat. Why would he want to potential customers to think that he was based in Japan? It's kind of the reverse of Korean company Astell & Kern who deliberately chose a British-sounding name for their company. It makes the opposite impression on me than what was intended, as it clearly implies that they are being deceptive from the ground up. Then you get really weird things like designed in the Netherlands, made in China equipment from a company that chose a grammatically-incorrect Spanish name of "Prima Luna" - first moon - it should be "Luna Prima". Their latest ad is obviously attacking Audio Research and claims that ARC's PCB are wave soldered "overseas" - I doubt this is true - while completely glossing over the fact that all of their equipment is made in Chinese sweat-shops.)

 

And people wonder why so many think high-end audio is a joke...

 

Look at it this way:  How many people outside of China would buy audio equipment (made in China) from companies with Chinese names?  It's just marketing; some of it makes sense, some of it does not.

 

 

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 hour ago, 4est said:

In the Civility thread you made it seem as if it was alright to say whatever however you wanted to in order to "defend" what you see is the truth.

 

I did nothing of the sort.  If you can find a quote to back this up, please do so.

 

Perhaps there is a group of "high profile members/people" that assume they understand my argument without actually reading it. 

 

I have to date one middling MQA DAC (the Meridian Explorer 2) and the performance of that device with or without MQA content is quite underwhelming IMHO.  My hands-on experience with MQA does not even remotely come close to the hype.  In fact, quite the opposite.  I'm willing to give MQA one more chance, and I'm leaning more towards the iFI iDSD Nano BL (hopefully out later this year).

 

Quote

Here you are expressing that WD is pushing an agenda and should be banned for his deliberate campaign.

 

"expressing"?  Only in your mind.  I never asked for anyone to be banned.  I never even liked posts of others suggesting it.  I submit your apparent prejudices are coloring your interpretation of my contributions here.  I have no beef with you, and generally read your posts.  If calling me out gains you some kind of forum cred, then go for it.  I'm just asking you to own it and not be coy.

[Andyman]

26 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

So somewhere this deblurring has to happen (as long as we believe it does for real) and with quite some times reasoning about this now, for me it can only have happened before we start streaming (obtaining) the file.

 

 

Hmm Peter, if this were so, then a completely undecoded MQA file should in certain respects sound better than its PCM equivalent (MQA cd better than non-MQA cd allowing a little leeway for reduction in bit depth). Perhaps as alleged by MQA themselves. Your own experiments/listening seems to be pointing to the converse being true.

 

Andy

[Confused]

34 minutes ago, Fokus said:

 

Let me put it this way: if such an ADC displays sins that can usefully be compensated for afterwards, then this can entirely be done outside of the MQA ecosystem, as part of normal and competent remastering.

I think this gets at the key point of my question.  My understanding is that historic ADC 'sins' can indeed be corrected by known, understood & conventional means.  So this leads to the question, do we know for sure that MQA cannot do anything better?  I suspect it cannot, but I am not sure if this has been fully explored?

[PeterSt]

3 minutes ago, Andyman said:

 

Hmm Peter, if this were so, then a completely undecoded MQA file should in certain respects sound better than its PCM equivalent (MQA cd better than non-MQA cd allowing a little leeway for reduction in bit depth). Perhaps as alleged by MQA themselves. Your own experiments/listening seems to be pointing to the converse being true.

 

Andy :

 

On 23-10-2017 at 9:22 PM, PeterSt said:

I just finished a version of the software which can leave out the decoding. I thought to be smart and listen to "another version" which maybe is more native than the first unfold, might that do wrong. Man, that s*cks !

This in itself leads to my thinking that this unfold does more than just that. There's just no way that the e.g. 48KHz and 96KHz sound so different. I again did this with LZ (I), Talk Talk (the Colour of Spring) and Machine Head. All super bad.

Btw, the LZI should not be part of this game because this is some kind of remaster (I otherwise don't own) and it sounds heavily distorted on each track. You could say that LZ always sounds distorted, but only for IV this is really so (IMO).

 

Around that post I talk some more about this, especially about the idea that the undecoded file should sound better. But the contrary appeared true. After that it was reasoned to some degree how that could happen (something with phase stuff which is just guessing).

[Samuel T Cogley]

2 hours ago, Charles Hansen said:

 

Hello Samuel,

 

Thanks for the info. I don't know why some people do such shilling.

 

To close this particular topic, I want to bring your attention to this train wreck (now only available on the Internet Archive) that the younger people would rightly call an "epic fail".  It celebrates the rise of the crowd-sourced funding model, and enthusiastically predicts the demise of the more traditional audio gear manufacturers that distribute primarily through brick and mortar.  Scroll to the bottom of the article to see the author.

 

 

[Fokus]

1 minute ago, Confused said:

 do we know for sure that MQA cannot do anything better?  I suspect it cannot, but I am not sure if this has been fully explored?

 

In their mind they do better, by virtually omitting the anti-aliasing filter in their downsampling process, and forcing the replay DAC to virtually omit its oversampling anti-imaging filter.

 

But this holds only for material that originated at a sufficiently  high rate (i.e. x4 or more) so that it has to be downsampled to fit into MQA's x2 container.

 

Your original question, rooted in the 80s, was about x1 rate source material, where even within the MQA system nothing more can be done.

 

[Andyman]

3 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Andy :

 

 

Around that post I talk some more about this, especially about the idea that the undecoded file should sound better. But the contrary appeared true. After that it was reasoned to some degree how that could happen (something with phase stuff which is just guessing).

 

Indeed. And just seeing the words Talk Talk (the Colour of Spring) made me smile...

 

Andy

[Samuel T Cogley]

42 minutes ago, Fokus said:

 

Let me put it this way: if such an ADC displays sins that can usefully be compensated for afterwards, then this can entirely be done outside of the MQA ecosystem, as part of normal and competent remastering.

 

The ADCs of yore had lower resolution compared to today's units.  Music of the later 80s that had only a digital, Redbook (or in some cases, lower than Redbook) resolution master is what we're stuck with.  Forever.  No amount of lipstick on that pig will make it pretty. 

[Confused]

40 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

That is a heretical remark.

100 Hail Mary's, and wash your mouth out with caustic soda.

Yes - of course, that is possible. But there would be no money in it, and no possibility of applying DRM to any file.

You have to create an end to end solution, to control the end to end solution.

Regards,

Shadders.

Ummm....   This could be a useful line during confession I guess, 'forgive me father, I am having thoughts of a useful non DRM version of MQA'.  Should confuse the priest at least.  It's just a shame I'm not a catholic.

[PeterSt]

13 minutes ago, Fokus said:

But this holds only for material that originated at a sufficiently  high rate (i.e. x4 or more) so that it has to be downsampled to fit into MQA's x2 container.

 

I am not sure whether I am able to express my thoughts about this remark well, but an attempt if it is this :

 

What if I see far too many MQA "Hires" of which at least I myself can see that it is not Hires at all - and has never been (it just does not exist). *Still* it is presented as that (96 or 192) *AND* we already know that this 2nd etc. unfold is an upsampling step only.

 

So what does this say about your remark ? (or what does your remark do with what I / we (?) see ?).

And also keep in mind my "Whole Lotta Love" post from yesterday (if that was clear a little in the first place). No Hires as such is needed to improve Redbook (just allow the transition band to be passband - done).

 

(reminder of yesterday's post)

[Fokus]

2 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

What if I see far too many MQA "Hires" of which at least I myself can see that it is not Hires at all - and has never been (it just does not exist). *Still* it is presented as that (96 or 192) *AND* we already know that this 2nd etc. unfold is an upsampling step only.

 

We already know that the Authentication is BS. If the record companies want to peddle upsampled baserate signal as hi-res, through MQA, then that is exactly what they will do.

Approved by the CFO.

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, Fokus said:

Approved by the CFO.

 

And Trumpified.

[wushuliu]

2 hours ago, Charles Hansen said:

 

Hi Nikhil,

 

Thanks for enlightening me. While I've heard of Sanskrit, I didn't know what it actually was. Apparently an almost dead language from many thousands of years ago from the region now called India, and important to certain religions such as Buddhism. I mistakenly assumed it was a Japanese word, although now that I think about it this could not be right as it would be extremely difficult to pronounce in Japanese, where there are no stressed syllables. It's really only readily pronounced with an accent on the second syllable.

 

Since I don't know any Sanskrit (there are apparently around 50,000 in India who are fluent), could you kindly let me know the translation?

 

Thanks!

 

Sanskrit is considered the mother of most languages, including Latin. The word mother, matr, comes from sanskrit. As does father, and Man, amongst many others...

[christopher3393]

1 hour ago, Nikhil said:

 

 

 

Charles and others,

 

Sanskrit is the Latin of the Hindu universe from which other religions like Buddhism branched off.

The literal translation of emptiness doesn't adequately describe the meaning of the term.

 

Link: http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Emptiness

 

The above link does a better job of it. 

It's the liberation from existing beliefs in the manner of an advanced wisdom. 

 

Regards.

 

 

 

 

yes, it is a very important, very difficult  concept in Mahayana Buddhism, including Tibetan ("Vajrayana") Buddhism. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Śūnyatā

 

 The "self" is empty, it is a construction of aggregates that are interdependent. More widely, " all things are empty of instrinsic existence, but rather arise interdependently in a processual web of interrelatedness. All phenomena are impermanent.

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, christopher3393 said:

The "self" is empty, it is a construction of aggregates that are interdependent.

 

Is the word "quantum" used at all? 

[christopher3393]

Of course! 

 

 first 4 chs.: https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Cosmology-Dialogues-Dalai-Lama/dp/0195159942/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1509030142&sr=1-2&keywords=dalai+lama+physics

 

Ch. 3: https://www.amazon.com/Universe-Single-Atom-Convergence-Spirituality/dp/0767920813/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1509030349&sr=1-8&keywords=buddhism+and+science

 

first essay in part 3 is kind of a summary overview: https://www.amazon.com/Buddhism-Science-B-Alan-Wallace/dp/0231123353/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1509030616&sr=1-3&keywords=buddhism+and+science

 

For a skeptical history of modern Buddhism's relationship with science:  https://www.amazon.com/Buddhism-Science-Guide-Perplexed-Modernity/dp/0226493199/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1509030616&sr=1-1&keywords=buddhism+and+science

 

For a typical introductory article online: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8q89x4/dalai-lama-religion-without-quantum-physics-is-an-incomplete-picture-of-reality

 

For the reason why Shunyata Research uses this name:  ?  I'd guess they mean empty of noise. Maybe they should have stayed with the English? 

 

As to the "emptiness" of MQA? I think the term can be applied both technically and non-technically in a number of ways.

 

[mansr]

2 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

yes, it is a very important, very difficult  concept in Mahayana Buddhism, including Tibetan ("Vajrayana") Buddhism. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Śūnyatā

 

 The "self" is empty, it is a construction of aggregates that are interdependent. More widely, " all things are empty of instrinsic existence, but rather arise interdependently in a processual web of interrelatedness. All phenomena are impermanent.

All very interesting, but it feels badly misplaced as a name for a company ostensibly doing engineering.

[Archimago]

4 hours ago, Confused said:

...

One thing I am not clear about is the MQA claim about correcting 'time smearing' in 'historic' analog to digital conversions.  So if the make / model is known for the ADC that was used for the original tape to digital transfer, then MQA have some specific filtering or techniques that can correct for errors / inaccuracies from the original ADC.  Is there anything in this?  I am not sure if this aspect has been fully debated, confirmed, debunked or whatever.  Maybe it has and I have missed it?  If this ADC 'polishing' technology does have any merit, it occurs to me that it could (if allowed my MQA) be used outside of the MQA folding and unfolding nonsense.  You could correct the original ADC to the maximum extent possible and the end result could be straight PCM.

...

 

 

Regarding the "de-blurring". You are correct, whatever DSP they do or believe that they are doing must be referring to prior to the "folding" step. This is because they believe that the undecoded file (in 24/48 or 24/44) sounds "better" than standard Redbook - their explanation being that some "deblurring" has already occurred.

 

Clearly the algorithms used can be a separate DSP plug-in to be used in the studio. If they believe it is of value, they could have just sold the plug-in to studios and left the consumer alone. Years ago, I've also suggested that they just release some "de-blurred" 24/192 or even DXD files for consumers to try and listen for benefits before all the proprietary "origami".

 

The fact that MQA have done nothing of practical value to address questions of this nature and instead deflect questions in vague, tangential ways as WD has demonstrated throughout this thread clearly worsens things for them.

 

Clearly, this is not the way to engage enthusiasts in a small hobby knowing full well that many do come from technical backgrounds and can see through various levels of misdirection. I assume they think all audiophiles must read articles like those in TAS and sheepishly follow the wise words of these gurus... 

[firedog]

1 hour ago, Archimago said:

Clearly the algorithms used can be a separate DSP plug-in to be used in the studio. If they believe it is of value, they could have just sold the plug-in to studios and left the consumer alone. Years ago, I've also suggested that they just release some "de-blurred" 24/192 or even DXD files for consumers to try and listen for benefits before all the proprietary "origami".

Yep. Gives us a clue that the real purpose of MQA is something other than giving us better SQ.