Jump to content
IGNORED

MQA is Vaporware


Recommended Posts

On 9/6/2017 at 4:07 AM, Miska said:

Even if a format is "extinct" the content is not. So if I ever purchase content I want to have the freedom to losslessly transcode it to a new container without having to purchase the same content over and over again. Standard FLAC, ALAC and such allow this. MQA is breaking this possibility, on purpose. Since I use primarily Linux, I won't be able to use that software.

 

Apparently, this is not the case. I downloaded a MQA file from www.2l.no, which came in a flac container. Played it on my MQA DAC and it unfolded to 24/352 (and the MQA indicator lit up). Then, using dBpoweramp, I converted the file to AIFF, ALAC, and WAV. All three of these files played on my MQA DAC and unfolded to 24/352 (with the MQA indicator lit up). Also a quick check revealed that all four files played fine on a non-MQA DAC like 16/44.1. [Used JRiver Media Center for this test.]

 

mQa is dead!

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

For streaming - possibly, but for downloads - i will not want a lossy format.

We already have a lossy format as in MP3.

I do take your point that it is new and shiny though.

If we the 1% know that MQA is utter shite/con, then why would someone want to buy something lossy and has aliasing ?

The issue, as has been posted here - is that they may remove high res files and offer MQA only.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

MQA is lossy but not that lossy. The idea is that you can get something that sounds similar to 16/44.1 or 24/96, etc. without actually having possession of the master.  Also, the MQA file contains a digital signature, to allow tracing the file back to its origin.

 

As to why someone would want to purchase/stream MQA files -- maybe it will be the only alternative.

mQa is dead!

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...
4 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

 

That last article is such a fresh stinking pile, it should prompt one to say "That is not only not right; it is not even wrong".

 

What problem that TAS and the whole industry has with MQA is that the confidence game is up but they will keep trying because unfortunately it has worked for them in the past...  

 

The first clue would be the reference to Kuhn (oh brother!).

mQa is dead!

Link to comment
15 hours ago, FredericV said:


The zodiac platinum will accept 24 bit in any samplerate up to 384K, so those decimated MQA files which are typically 24/44.1 or 24/48 will just play, but with a higher noise floor as 9 bits contain the control data and secret DRM encrypted MQA non-nyquist data, which a normal dac will play as noise. When using sox based resampling, the difference between the original DXD master (in case of 2L.no) and upsampled MQA using nothing more than the 24/44.1 or 24/48 files and no licensed decoder, becomes so small it cannot be distinguished under blind testing, even on the most expensive sets. Most are guessing or can't tell them apart. In the test we did on the show, nobody could even numerate any difference between both.

Anyone can peer review the test:
http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2017/07/kih-46-mqas-missing-link/

 

 

So a MQA file played without a decoder cannot be distinguished under blind testing from the original DXD master. I fail to see how that is "very bad for MQA".

 

 

mQa is dead!

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, FredericV said:

 

Only on the condition of using minimum phase upsampling, which so far hqplayer, 432 EVO and Auralic have implemented in their products. There may be other as well, I open sourced our findings, so any dev can use it in their product.

So it's still bad, as most don't have this resampler. It's also bad because MQA has DRM and deliberate crippling features in the patent so that the above can be sabotaged in the future without MQA decoder, and the file size increments compared to real nyquist data compressed as flac.

Thanks for the explanation.

mQa is dead!

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...
11 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Thought I already said it in my post :~)

 

Edit: They see MQA as a vehicle to sell again to the same customer base who buys something at every change in tech.

 

And/or to a new group of "kids" not burdened by the "traditional", entitled audiophile paradigms.

mQa is dead!

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

I have talked about this countless of times. I think even in the Lush thread. :o

Did you (or can you) try the MQA version ? it is the very first which is as fresh as can be. Just what all these failed version needed. Including the HDCD (especially that !) and the Hires.

So the MQA incarnation of Machine Head is by far my preferred version. Also when played undecoded it would be (I think) but that one just does not "work" (no music). If you play them subsequently (I only did Highway Star) then you just can't tell what actually happened to the / during the Unfold. But I dare bet quite some $ that this is not just unfold to "hires" (96KHz).

 

Thanks! I will try the MQA version on Tidal.

mQa is dead!

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Perhaps this is a fringe opinion, but I've always believed the existence of tape hiss on a digital transfer was a good sign that the digital restoration didn't overdo it on the noise reduction.  In other words, tape hiss = fidelity.

 

In the 2000s, too many remasters had way too liberal amounts of NoNOISE applied, which tended to suck the life out of the music.

 

That's one way to look at it.  It seems I had less tape hiss from cassettes -- but then I used whatever Dolby I had on my deck.

mQa is dead!

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Charles Hansen said:

 

Yes, that is because the MQA-organized group has directed its trolls to distract from all threads about MQA - much like happens in political races where there are "astro-turf" (fake grassroots) campaigns designed to deceive the public.

 

It looks like a general interest group started by Peter Veth and not some industry group. Thou doth protest too much?

mQa is dead!

Link to comment
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.

 

 

 

mQa is dead!

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Fokus said:

 

That is not correct.

 

There was electronics company Goldstar, who traded under that name, also in the West.

Then there was plastics company Lucky.

Lucky and Goldstar merged in the 90s, and immediately rebranded as LG.

 

 

According to Wikipedia, Lucky and Goldstar merged and formed Lucky-GoldStar in 1958.   In 1995 the Lucky-GoldStar Corporation was renamed "LG".

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Corporation

 

... which seems to conflict with this Wikipedia page:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Electronics

 

You can't always trust Wikipedia.

mQa is dead!

Link to comment
  • 4 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...