MQA is Vaporware

[Peter Markus]

So A/B comparison is possible with CD as well  https://www.stereophile.com/content/first-major-label-mqa-cd-steve-reich-nonsesuch

[Peter Markus]

11 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

As has been pointed out numerous times, anything over 96 Khz is an UPSAMPLE, with added noise, btw.

It seems to be different than just that according to this table. https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-questions-and-answers-mqa-hierarchy

 

[Spacehound]

16 minutes ago, Peter Markus said:

 They are all rying to sell you somethingIt seems to be different than just that according to this table. https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-questions-and-answers-mqa-hierarchy

 

Take everything the MQA company, any of it representatives, and Stereophile/TAS  say  about MQA  with a big pinch of salt.

They are  all trying to sell you something.  (And the magazines want to 'keep the audio pot boiling' with anything they've  got  so you  read the magazine and thus  see the adverts, on which their existence depends.)

 

Here's an easy one (most stuff above 44.1 is 24 bits):

"MQA  reduces everything  to about 17 bits" - Bob Stuart, under pressure.

[mansr]

18 minutes ago, Peter Markus said:

It seems to be different than just that according to this table. https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-questions-and-answers-mqa-hierarchy

I have decompiled and analysed the decoder. Anything above 96 kHz is created by upsampling and adding noise.

[Peter Markus]

12 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

Take everything the MQA company, any of it representatives, and Stereophile/TAS  say  about MQA  with a big pinch of salt.

 

Here's an easy one (most stuff above 44.1 is 24 bits):

"MQA  reduces everything  to about 17 bits" - Bob Stuart, under pressure.

Well it sounds much better than anything else. just interesting material to read. this also https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-tested-part-2-fold    

[Spacehound]

28 minutes ago, Peter Markus said:

So A/B comparison is possible with CD as well  https://www.stereophile.com/content/first-major-label-mqa-cd-steve-reich-nonsesuch

MQA  introduces distortions not in the original. . Some people appear to like them.

[Peter Markus]

4 minutes ago, mansr said:

I have decompiled and analysed the decoder. Anything above 96 kHz is created by upsampling and adding noise.

It is end-to-end, suppose the encoding part is more interesting. Encryption is something else. But thanks.

 

[Peter Markus]

1 minute ago, Spacehound said:

MQA  introduces distortions not in the original. . Some people appear to like them.

Did you try as well? would you appreciate MQA in blind A/B comparison..?

[Brinkman Ship]

25 minutes ago, Peter Markus said:

It seems to be different than just that according to this table. https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-questions-and-answers-mqa-hierarchy

 

FYI, a good percentage of any technical info published in Stereophile or on Audiostream is misleading, and incomplete. They still have not reported, unless someone can correct me, about the sample rate limitation, and aliasing. Don't look to them to

give you the full picture.

[Brinkman Ship]

1 minute ago, Peter Markus said:

It is end-to-end, suppose the encoding part is more interesting. Encryption is something else. But thanks.

 

Are you ok with after the fact lossy encoding, where the artist and production team have zero input?

 

"end to end" is the biggest load of bullshit marketing speak. Disregard.

[mansr]

Just now, Peter Markus said:

It is end-to-end, suppose the encoding part is more interesting. Encryption is something else. But thanks.

Here are some facts:

• The input to the decoder is 48 kHz.
• The output of the "core" decoder is 96 kHz.
• The "core" output is send to the "renderer."
• The "renderer" upsamples and adds noise.

It doesn't matter what the encoder does. The decoded/rendered output can't contain any real information above 96 kHz. There simply isn't code in the decoder that could put it there, even if it were somehow encoded in the input file (which it isn't).

[Brinkman Ship]

5 minutes ago, Peter Markus said:

Well it sounds much better than anything else. just interesting material to read. this also https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-tested-part-2-fold    

Sniff, sniff..Fee Fi Fo Fum..I smell a.........Shhhhhhhhhhhhh.......

[Spacehound]

2 minutes ago, Peter Markus said:

Well it sounds much better than anything else. just interesting material to read. this also https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-tested-part-2-fold    

It's total bollox which has been 'laughed out of town' by people who know ow it actually works. If you have actually heard any

MQA stuff,  you may just happen to like the result of MQA's  introduced 'artefacts'. Some people do.

[Peter Markus]

2 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

FYI, a good percentage of any technical info published in Stereophile or on Audiostream is misleading, and incomplete. They still have not reported, unless someone can correct me, about the sample rate limitation, and aliasing. Don't look to them to

give you the full picture.

Why would Stereophile or Audiostream do that, do not understand to risk reputation loss. I read their magazines frequently, many reviews are based on what experienced audio journalist understand and hear. But OK, I will check further

[Peter Markus]

3 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

It's total bollox which has been 'laughed out of town' by people who know ow it actually works. If you have actually heard any

MQA stuff,  you may just happen to like the result of MQA's  introduced 'artefacts'. Some people do.

I do not understand why dCs is now MQA certified and MSB Technology as well...Best way to compare if MQA would improve these unaffordable DAC's would be to listen A/B or not?

[Peter Markus]

9 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Sniff, sniff..Fee Fi Fo Fum..I smell a.........Shhhhhhhhhhhhh.......

???

[mansr]

I think @Peter Markus is Peter Veth. The account was created on the same day Peter Veth was banned, and I'm already seeing similarities in writing style. @The Computer Audiophile, could you look into this?

[Peter Markus]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

I think @Peter Markus is Peter Veth. The account was created on the same day Peter Veth was banned, and I'm already seeing similarities in writing style. @The Computer Audiophile, could you look into this?

Pardon??  what is this??  

[Spacehound]

4 minutes ago, Peter Markus said:

n Did you try as well? would you appreciate MQA in blind A/B comparison..?

No. I'm not paying for losses and introduced distortions .

 

I don't turn up the   'loudness'  knob nor use  a 'science fiction'  or 'sport'   DSP either.

 

And the claimed 'authentication' is nonsense. It is both 'scientifically' and 'administratively' impossible.  They didn't even attempt it with the Reich recording, as you will see if you read it closely. It was  just some guy 4000 miles away liking it and the 'suits' nodding  it through. The performers, who are supposed  to 'authenticate' it, never even heard it.

[Peter Markus]

1 minute ago, Spacehound said:

No. I'm not paying for losses and introduced distortions .

 

I don't turn up the   'loudness'  knob nor use  a 'science fiction'  or 'sport'   DSP either.

 

And the claimed 'authentication' is nonsense. It is both 'scientifically' and 'administratively' impossible.  They didn't even attempt it with the Reich recording, as you will see if you read it closely. It was  just some guy 4000 miles away liking it and the 'suits' nodding  it through. The performers, who are supposed  to 'authenticate' it, never even heard it.

Strange the reviewer knows the music well. OK tnx  . I have to find out more m but get some strange reactions here which I do not understand

[Spacehound]

26 minutes ago, Peter Markus said:

I do not understand why dCs is now MQA certified and MSB Technology as well...Best way to compare if MQA would improve these unaffordable DAC's would be to listen A/B or not?

For dCS it's just another 'function' which was  easy for them  to implement, as their DACs are firmware driven.

 

Keep trying., It cannot  improve on  the original. Period.

[Brinkman Ship]

alright...another shill/troll from the MQA zombie army...I'm done.

[Brinkman Ship]

12 minutes ago, Peter Markus said:

???

SHILL.

[fung0]

59 minutes ago, Peter Markus said:

So A/B comparison is possible with CD as well  https://www.stereophile.com/content/first-major-label-mqa-cd-steve-reich-nonsesuch

 

Correct me if I'm wrong... but I seem to recall that, once upon a time in this thread, a number of people claimed that such a thing as an "MQA CD" would never exist. Just goes to show that "never" is never as far in the future as we might hope.

 

"...With no MQA designation on the album cover or disc..."

 

Just gets better and better.

[The Computer Audiophile]

14 minutes ago, mansr said:

I think @Peter Markus is Peter Veth. The account was created on the same day Peter Veth was banned, and I'm already seeing similarities in writing style. @The Computer Audiophile, could you look into this?

You can't make this $#!+ up!

 

Here is just one example of many.

 

 

Nice catch @mansr

 

Bye Peter.