Jump to content
IGNORED

MQA is Vaporware


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, mansr said:

The MQA version disables S/PDIF output, DoP256, DSD512, and 768 kHz PCM (the latter two only ever available on the Micro devices).

 

Ah right, the S/PDIF output.  The description of the MQA-enabling firmware says it has major code optimizations, or something like that.  Might be nice to offer major code optimizations to those of us in DoP256/DSD512-land (and/or who use the S/PDIF output, which I do for movies) as well.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> wi-fi to router -> EtherREGEN -> microRendu -> USPCB -> ISO Regen (powered by LPS-1) -> USPCB -> Pro-Ject Pre Box S2 DAC -> Spectral DMC-12 & DMA-150 -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mansr said:

Do you actually believe that?

 

They might've had to do that to fit as much as they did into the limited space they had (which you thought might be the reason for loss of other functions - makes sense to me). Might not make things work any better at all.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> wi-fi to router -> EtherREGEN -> microRendu -> USPCB -> ISO Regen (powered by LPS-1) -> USPCB -> Pro-Ject Pre Box S2 DAC -> Spectral DMC-12 & DMA-150 -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mevdinc said:

Would be interesting to see how many other Audio magazines/sites will do the same.

Right.  I can't wait to see this in Stereophile and TAS.  I hope this encourages other manufacturers that have held off on MQA implementation to release similar statements.

NUC7PJYH/AL --> Berkeley Alpha USB --> Jeff Rowland Aeris --> Jeff Rowland 625 S2 --> Focal Utopia 3 Diablos with 2 x Focal Electra SW 1000 BE subs

 

i7-6700K/Windows 10 Version 2004/HDPLEX 300W/HDPLEX 400W DC-ATX --> EVGA Nu Audio Card --> Focal CMS50's 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mevdinc said:

Exogal MQA decision and press announcement  is shared by Positive Feedback Online, 
Would be interesting to see how many other Audio magazines/sites will do the same.

https://positive-feedback.com/industry-news/exogal-abandons-mqa-development/
 

Darko mentions it (https://darko.audio/2018/06/all-exhale-exasound-adds-mqa-exogal-drops-it/) though he doesn't include the full text, and the first half of the post is about exaSound adding MQA.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, mansr said:

Posted by @jhaagenstad of EXOGAL in another thread:

 

"We have been evaluating MQA technology and watching the wider MQA ecosystem since early 2016. After much research on the fundamental technology and more importantly on the market demand for MQA, we have reached the decision to cease the pursuit of adding MQA to our products for several reasons:

1)     Our products by themselves exceed the performance of our products with the inclusion of MQA,

2)     Regardless of the breathless hype by the audio press, actual consumer demand is just not there.

3)     Regardless of the announced support from record labels, a suitable base of playable content is not widely available.

4)     As for the technical details of our evaluation of the technology vis á vis our own technology, we prefer not to violate our NDA’s with MQA and Meridian.

5)     Much like Wadia's technology before us, EXOGAL technology is already oriented in the time domain and does not suffer from the time-smearing effect which MQA is supposed to eliminate.

Suffice it to say we were never able to achieve the advertised level of performance using the MQA technology and thus it does not meet our standards for inclusion in our products."

 

That's pretty damning. We need more manufacturers making clear statements like this.

 

Auralic is of course one of them, see the comments by Xuanqian Wang in the Auralic community forum :

https://community.auralic.com/t/when-will-we-finally-have-mqa-decoding/1251/7

https://community.auralic.com/t/mqa-changes-in-new-firmware/1167

 

And Trinity (Über-High-End DAC manufacturer) is another one :

https://trinity-ed.de/mqa/

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, rothosand said:

 

Auralic is of course one of them, see the comments by Xuanqian Wang in the Auralic community forum :

https://community.auralic.com/t/when-will-we-finally-have-mqa-decoding/1251/7

https://community.auralic.com/t/mqa-changes-in-new-firmware/1167

 

And Trinity (Über-High-End DAC manufacturer) is another one :

https://trinity-ed.de/mqa/

 

Auralic is using sox filters to emulate MQA's "time domain" filter, this was discovered by analyzing their firmware image and it was also confirmed to me personally. They use libsox, we use soxr.

We did something similar in our 432 EVO music server (and came independently to the same solution), but personally I don't like the MQA alike filter, and prefer the Archimago intermediate phase filters, which is also one of the 10 filters to choose from.

The one cycle postringing filter config is documented here:
 

 

Designer of the 432 EVO music server and Linux specialist

Discoverer of the independent open source sox based mqa playback method with optional one cycle postringing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mansr said:

Darko mentions it (https://darko.audio/2018/06/all-exhale-exasound-adds-mqa-exogal-drops-it/) though he doesn't include the full text, and the first half of the post is about exaSound adding MQA.

You're right, he doesn't include the whole text in the main article but he does post it in full on his FB page.

Audirvana+3.0 / Qobuz Studio / Mac Mini (256GB SSD - 16GB RAM)

Lindemann Musicbook: 20 DSD, ATC EL 150ASL

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FredericV said:

Auralic is using sox filters to emulate MQA's "time domain" filter, this was discovered by analyzing their firmware image and it was also confirmed to me personally. They use libsox, we use soxr.

We did something similar in our 432 EVO music server (and came independently to the same solution), but personally I don't like the MQA alike filter, and prefer the Archimago intermediate phase filters, which is also one of the 10 filters to choose from.

 

Just for my background info, do Auralic pay the people behind sox to use their filter? Or is it completely freeware/open source?

 

And @Archimago filters? Open source or a source of income?

 

I ask respectfully and genuinely - not to hint at anything .

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Em2016 said:

And @Archimago filters? Open source or a source of income?

 

The settings & library are open source:

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2018/01/musings-more-fun-with-digital-filters.html

Designer of the 432 EVO music server and Linux specialist

Discoverer of the independent open source sox based mqa playback method with optional one cycle postringing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, shtf said:

 

Theory?  Ad hominem attacks?  Wishful thinking?  Please tell me you’re joking.  My short answer to your question goes something like this:

 

Think what the industry insiders tried to sell us 3.5 years ago about MQA’s performance e.g. hearing for the first time EXACTLY what the engineers heard in the recording studio, grown men weeping, jaws dropping, experiencing the birth of new worlds, scientific revolutions, ad nauseum.  None of which have come true for anybody else.

 

Then there’s their absurd antics to try to mitigate their damages these past 3.5 years.  Think also of the potential millions if not billions of dollars ultimately involved if the entire music industry adopted the monopolizing MQA format.

 

Their integrity, motives, listening skills, technical prowess, product reviews and ratings, reputations, care and concern for the industry, etc, in other words, everything about these two magazines and their editors and their purpose for existing have been brought into serious question as a result of their early MQA endorsements and their ongoing defense.

 

If you cannot see anything humiliating in any of this, hopefully you can at least see that one thing is becoming abundantly clear.   That if we do not read Stereophile and/or The Absolute Sound we may be uninformed but if we do read Stereophile and/or The Absolute Sound we are misinformed.

 

That is your view to which you are entitled. It likely isn't their view so their "humiliation" is a projection on your part.

Sound Minds Mind Sound

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I admire the passion some have for the art form of music around here, but, I don't know.  Exempting the public-at-large, who obviously couldn't care less about any of this (MQA or otherwise), how many people, even within the niche of our hobby, still even care enough about these publications to get this worked up?  I don't say this to insult or offend the magazines, in any way.  I'm merely pointing out that the targets of interest may not be worth the level of vitriol, whether warranted or otherwise.

 

 Again, I appreciate the fire some have in defending their hobby of choice; it's admirable and inspiring to see the effort and energy that so many have contributed to this conversation. 

 

My fear is that we may oftentimes be missing the forest for the trees.   I don't know what the age demographics are of this board, I obviously don't have any data, but, I would really like to see it sometime.  I'd love to see some of the determination that a lot of posters have thus far geared (no pun intended!  Ok...maybe a little) towards MQA and its surrounding debate re-focused towards getting younger folks involved in the hobby and showing them what is possible through better audio.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, oneway23 said:

I admire the passion some have for the art form of music around here, but, I don't know.  Exempting the public-at-large, who obviously couldn't care less about any of this (MQA or otherwise), how many people, even within the niche of our hobby, still even care enough about these publications to get this worked up?  I don't say this to insult or offend the magazines, in any way.  I'm merely pointing out that the targets of interest may not be worth the level of vitriol, whether warranted or otherwise.

 

 Again, I appreciate the fire some have in defending their hobby of choice; it's admirable and inspiring to see the effort and energy that so many have contributed to this conversation. 

 

My fear is that we may oftentimes be missing the forest for the trees.   I don't know what the age demographics are of this board, I obviously don't have any data, but, I would really like to see it sometime.  I'd love to see some of the determination that a lot of posters have thus far geared (no pun intended!  Ok...maybe a little) towards MQA and its surrounding debate re-focused towards getting younger folks involved in the hobby and showing them what is possible through better audio.

 

High-end audio is intended to be about striving toward improved musical performance levels by our playback systems.  Performance over and above what the mainstream is usually capable of achieving.  And for some, always striving to achieve levels of playback musicality closer to the live performance.

 

IMO, high-end audio participants can be separated into 3 basic categories.  Those who are passionate about performance, those who consider high-end audio a pastime, and those who consider high-end audio a business.

 

Those who consider themselves passionate about high-end audio are or should be the least compromising of the 3 categories.  And if they’re really passionate, no performance compromise is deemed acceptable.  Especially when dictated or defrauded by others who may not know what they are doing.

 

Those who consider high-end audio a pastime are usually not very concerned about performance and often times are unable to audibly discern performance differences anyway.  To them, it’s all about just listening to music with little regard to its sound quality.

 

As for those who consider high-end audio little more than a business, well, it seems pretty obvious to me that not much matters what happens to the health of high-end audio so long as revenues continue to flow and the lifestyles they’ve grown accustomed to do not suffer.

 

I consider myself well into the passionate category and would never consciously consider stepping backwards which is what you are indirectly suggesting. 

 

Those who consider high-end audio a business often times have some influence and will use that influence such that they become the tail wagging the dog with a higher-priced food (in this case MQA) that will cause the dog to lose its energy, maybe some of its hair, maybe a few teeth, and maybe even drop off a testicle or two. 

 

Now if there’s any truth whatsoever to that analogy, why would one passionate ever consider looking the other way regarding those responsible  for forcing the higher-priced infected food that harms every dog who eats it and instead try to get other younger dogs to join in and eat that same higher-priced infected food?

 

Sorry for the poor analogy but hopefully the point is made.

The more I dabble with extreme forms of electrical mgmt. and extreme forms of vibration mgmt., the more I’m convinced it’s all just variations of managing mechanical energy. Or was it all just variations of managing electrical energy? No, it’s all just variations of mechanical energy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is made rather clearly, yes, thank you.  You've just delineated precisely why none of my extremely passionate, music-loving friends have absolutely no interest in places like this.  

 

As I said to Steve Guttenberg at a headphone meet last year, "Baby boomers can't buy this sh*t forever."

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, oneway23 said:

The point is made rather clearly, yes, thank you.  You've just delineated precisely why none of my extremely passionate, music-loving friends have absolutely no interest in places like this.  

 

As I said to Steve Guttenberg at a headphone meet last year, "Baby boomers can't buy this sh*t forever."

 

Well, you would be in error if you think I’m speaking for anybody but myself or that I’m representing the opinion of computeraudiophile.com.

 

For one, I’m probably newer to this forum than you.  For another, every high-end audio forum I’m aware of usually has a pretty good mix of all categories I mentioned previously.

The more I dabble with extreme forms of electrical mgmt. and extreme forms of vibration mgmt., the more I’m convinced it’s all just variations of managing mechanical energy. Or was it all just variations of managing electrical energy? No, it’s all just variations of mechanical energy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly respect your insight, and, seeing as you are a newer member of this community, I will respectfully tell you that I believe that anyone who has even the most faint notion of me or my posts, either here, or elsewhere, should know that I am a firm advocate of at least trying making a conscious effort  to never assume that I am ever speaking for anyone other than myself whenever I engage in any sort of conversation such as this one, so, on this point, we are on the same wavelength.. 

 

If I made you, in any way, feel that your opinion was speaking for anyone other than yourself, please allow me to apologize.

 

As to the actual content of your post, you'll have to forgive me, my arms are a bit tired from typing out this response, but, I'll be glad to continue this talk at a later time. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/22/2018 at 10:47 PM, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

What makes you think Stuart,  @John_Atkinson , Harley, Austin and others have been "humiliated". Is there evidence for this theory or is it just an ad hominem attack or perhaps  just wishful thinking on your part?

 

I was just switching one of my RPi's from Volumio to piCorePlayer and caught this on the Logitech Media Server forum:

 

Quote

The Hilarity Never Stops

I know that many of us here find the high end magazines to be rather worthless as far as their equipment reviews are concerned but they often provide some good laughs. Here is small sample of the hilarity to be found in the latest (May 2018) issue of Stereophile:

Equipment under review: LG V30 Smartphone with MQA

Reviewer: Jason Victor Serinus

Quote from "Conclusions":

"Forced to chose among listening through headphones to the LG V30 or to the Bel Canto Design Black ACI 600 all-in-one integrated amplifier I reviewed in April ($24,900), or through loudspeakers to the Aurender A 10 network music player/server ($5500) in my main system, I'd choose the LG V30.

Musically speaking, the LG V30 phone doesn't qualify as merely smart; LG's implementation of its Hi-Fi Quad DAC is a work of genius. If ever there were a device that could bring the experience of high-end sound to millions of music lovers, the hi-rez V30 with MQA is it. It's more than a game changer. For its audiophile sound quality and its smartphone portability - a combination that may prove unbeatable - it belongs in Stereophile's 'Recommended Components' in a Class A catagory all its own. Now, if only Apple could see the light and release a similar product."


After reading the above I was left speechless and laughing hysterically. For that I feel that my subscription to Stereophile is well worth the $1 per issue price.

 

The full thread is here: https://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?108953-The-Hilarity-Never-Stops

 

How can you not feel humiliated when you see posts like this across the Internet.  I used to read Audiostream for laughs, similar to this person's assessment of Stereophile.  Steve Plaskin's cable reviews provided the most entertainment, I will miss them. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/22/2018 at 6:41 PM, mansr said:

You're reading it too literally.

 

May be I do.  I understand Qobus is sarcastic and there is no question about it.  

 

I find it strange that for those whose mother tongue are English would accept use of the word fold as compress.  They are different and have different meaning and usage.  I do not blame BS to use the word fold cos' he is BS anyway.

MetalNuts

Link to post
Share on other sites

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...