MQA is Vaporware

[sandyk]

1 minute ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Hi Alex.  We'll just have to agree to disagree regarding why Scoggins does what he does.  Obviously, my views about his motives are not as generous as yours.  Would you consider you and Scoggins to be generally like-minded when it comes to audio?

 

I have no idea why Lee hears what he does. Perhaps it is only their technically inferior method of deblurring that he seems to find beneficial ? " Sharpening"  like that can even be performed in the PSU area at the time of saving the file without too much trouble.

I have made it quite clear that I preferred the original high res version over the MQA version with examples that were previously posted.

 

If Lee he says that he is not affiliated with MQA I take his word for it unless until he is conclusively proved to be lying.

Even POTUS deserves that !

[sandyk]

10 minutes ago, Jud said:

So Alex, you might well wish for the technical debunking of MQA to've been accomplished without hostility and personal attacks, but that was never going to happen.  Just ask Friday.   

 

That can only happen when Admin or moderators are completely neutral.

 I can however understand that Chris has strong personal views in this area, and wishes as most informed members do, to see that MQA does not become mainstream and result in non Lossless files replacing genuine high res material.

 

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Especially with the younger folks in Australia.  They can't say two sentences without saying it three times.

 

 I have it on authority from a USA Science teacher whose school hosts regular exchange students from Australia that our younger people are far more polite, and use profanity far less than their USA counterparts.

[sandyk]

2 hours ago, Paul R said:

And this is indeed far easier to believe than to accept MQA is some kind of worldwide menace in collusion with the big record labels to curtail our freedom and lock up the market. 

 

 More likely they see it as yet another way to keep re-releasing older popular material from their back catalogue.

 I doubt that too many recent releases will end up being re-released many times over.

[sandyk]

1 minute ago, Ralf11 said:

 

that is the goal

 

One Ring

Is it the goal or do they want to sell both versions with the high res version selling at a markedly higher price ?

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

Hello, John -

 

I guess I'd be pretty surprised if this actually happened, but do you suppose Stereophile readers might enjoy a technical discussion, battle, whatever you might wish to call it, between some of the folks who've posted technical critiques of MQA here, and anyone with technical chops who might want to mount a defense of it?

 

 Perhaps that issue may even become  one of their best selling issues in recent years, and perhaps  even lead to more subscriptions too ?

[sandyk]

20 minutes ago, firedog said:

There is no way to logically square those two experiences other than to conclude that  the Stereophile reviewers are simply projecting expectation bias onto their listening (I'm discounting something more nefarious going on, as I don't believe that's what's going on, and there is no evidence for it). 

 

 Perhaps it's Tidal that is part of the problem ?

Was there any mention of listening to them from locally sourced material using  high quality clocking ,low noise Linear PSUs etc, as used by many of our  members ?

[sandyk]

6 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

Careful there - your excellent posting applies just as fully to the very enthusiastic Anti-MQA crowd. Perhaps even more so. 

 

-Paul 

 

 

And in many cases they probably don't even realise it ?

 

 In my case, although I am enthusiastically Anti MQA, it is as a result of listening to samples provided in this forum,. and much preferring the original high res version.

[sandyk]

21 minutes ago, Don Hills said:

Second, to accept that in spite of presenting a convincing argument, some people can never be persuaded to change their opinion.

 

That probably applies far more to the MQA crowd, including the Record companies ,than it does to the Audio press that several of you love to so mercilessly bash !

[sandyk]

25 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

It seems the writer, like a good little puppy, was eager to please his MQA cheerleading editor. Well done.  You can take your knee pads off now. To argue against the fact that MQA that there is anything other than obsessive product placement pushes the boundaries of believability. 

 

https://twitter.com/thebennyhill/status/1010138865863155712

 

[sandyk]

10 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

..just like clock work, a True Believer to the rescue...🤣

 

That's BS.

I don't like MQA either, but I am , like many other members, heartily sick of your never ending nasty attacks on everybody that doesn't agree with you, and your insinuations that all contributors to the HiFi press are all corrupt backside kissers..

 

 

[sandyk]

2 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

You have to remember that at one time Stereophile endorsed green pens for CD's, among other "magic" tricks!  In fact, John Atkinson lent his name to advertising for one such green pen.

 

 Many people did in fact find that there were differences that they found pleasing, however later research found that they resulted in an increase in  Jitter, which has since been demonstrated to be found pleasing to many people, as it may sometimes result in a larger soundstage with the appearance of added HF detail. (artificial) .

 

Quote

as far as I am concerned, Stereophile's imprimatur on any product is less than worthless.

 

And yours, Crenca's  and Slapowitz's are far more valuable/ reliable  ?

[sandyk]

39 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

It IS the responsibility of publishers to go the extra mile to be skeptical when distributing information represented as fact, when it is actually mixed with opinion or (common knowledge.)  An incorrect fact can be mistakenly passed amongst the press (back and forth) until it becomes an incorrect common knowledge*.

 

It seems highly likely, that with many contributors, and probably the editorial staffs of some publications  now working from  home as well , that this desirable situation is less likely to happen in future.

[sandyk]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Come on archimago, sandyk admits to major hearing damage yet still hears differences between bit perfect MD5 identical rips 😄

So have another couple of members in the last 7 days, one of whom is highly experienced and posts in this thread too !

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, John Dyson said:

Ask sandyk how well I passed his evil test :-).  It was tricky, but apparently I did pretty well.   (The difference was something like what I deal with on the DA decoder, so I just happened to be tuned to the sort of difference that was in the test.)

 

John 

Thanks for chiming in , but I wouldn't have named you.  Admin's jibe was uncalled for .

 

Kind Regards

Alex

 

 

 

 

[sandyk]

4 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

I know about depression -- it is a really terrible problem.  It is silly to say please feel better -- because depression is something that is often impossible to control.  No matter what, my intention is that I hope you do feel better.

 

My poor mind is limited right now also -- had to doggiesit some dogs smarter than I am (I think.) :-).   I had to watch them, keeping them from being overly mischievous (if they had hands, they'd be driving a car.)    Anyway -- when I did the comparison check, on the non-B and the B versions, of Carly's recordings -- I did a bit for bit comparison of the entire file.  They were identical.

 

It is SOO easy for hearing to be confused. 

 

John

 John

You were NOT fooled.

 The Checksums are NOT capable of revealing the whole story. 

 

As I have previously mentioned in this forum. I even have a later versionComparison BluRay Music disc available where you can not only HEAR the differences when played by a decent media player such as an Oppo 103 or later model into a quality HDTV, you can SEE the differences at the same time.

 After this debacle, if you are still willing to open your mind on this issue, I am prepared to send you further examples of such obvious differences where the checksums simply do NOT give the full story.

Alex

[sandyk]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

If what you say is true, you’d be up for a Nobel prize. 

Chris

 You have had the opportunity twice now to try and verify my reports, which Martin Colloms has already verified using the so called " Gold Standard" DBTs. The first time was 10 years ago when you actually downloaded the files then refused to listen to them.

 In the same thread, the highly sceptical Peter St. DID report hearing the differences along with a friend.

 (" Looking for a job outside I.T. now ")

 Do you REALLY believe that John who is highly qualified in  this area made such a monumental stuff up with his indepth reports ?

 

 You are also aware that Barry Diament who is now a good online friend of mine,. also reported hearing differences, along with his wife, using his studio gear for seamless switching between tracks with my supplied CD-R that he had ripped to HDD again, although it was intended to be listened to directly.

 

Alex

 

[sandyk]

2 hours ago, John Dyson said:

 

I did a complete, bit by bit comparison of the 05 and 05b files -- exactly the same, and will produce exactly the same results -- it is

John

 John

 I will repeat this again.

 Your indepth reports were 100% accurate !!! 

 I would suggest that if you are still talking to me , that you listen to some other files such as perhaps the ones that  I sent to M.C. . originally, which was Love Over Gold from the original Vertigo 800 088 -2 ( West Germany) pressing .(He had previously heard the actual Master Recording.)

 I apologise for including your personal comments, but if I had edited them out the PM/emails /PMs may not have appeared genuine. 

Incidentally, after me reporting back about the samples that you sent me, do you truthfully believe that my hearing is as bad as Admin has suggested ? Your email/PM  replies in the last 2 weeks suggest otherwise.

Please note also that Barry Diament trusts my hearing enough to help with the selection of the best S/W to use with the conversion from .aiff of the original recording to .wav with his new 24/192 album which will be officially released in May. (Yes. we both agreed on the best sounding out of 4 different lots of S/W)

 Barry has since re-encoded the previous 5 High Res albums from .aiff to .wav using the new S/W version.

For those that are interested, I understand that snippets from Barry's new album are already available to listen to on the Soundkeeper Format Comparison page where you can compare 24/192 against RBCD etc.

Regards

Alex

 

 P.S.
 My apologies for this off topic stuff, but I didn't start it .

[sandyk]

1 minute ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Nothing is air tight in DC but way off topic so please get back to the topic.

 

 To do this you will ideally need to repost some of the indepth technical material that debunk's MQA claims,

 This thread is now way for too large for others to navigate .

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

I think what might be nice at this point would be to use common analysis tools on the hi res and MQA versions of a track or two from the White Album and compare.

•  Most people use their ears, not Test Equipment to evaluate Music quality .
• There is not always a direct correlation between measurements and what human hearing prefers.
• It would be great though if we could get a general consensus (say more than70%)  on the degradation caused by MQA with high res material, then show why with measurements.
• Perhaps it's bloody MQA that has placed 5 unwanted full stops in my reply ?
•  I can't go back and delete them either.

[sandyk]

1 minute ago, kumakuma said:

LeeS also didn't understand the concept of consolidated financial results so I'm guessing his understanding of accounting isn't the best.

 

 So now you are a qualified Accountant too ?

[sandyk]

4 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Not a CPA but I've got an MBA in Finance and was CFO of a tech company for awhile.

  

What's your point?

 So what ?

 You don't have access to all the details anymore than anybody else has. Things can also change quite a great deal in between Financial Statements, such as new revenue streams etc.

 You are simply guessing !

[sandyk]

1 minute ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

This information would be discussed in Note  2.3 of MQA Ltd's 2017 financials issued September 2018.

 

 A lot can change in more than 7 months, hopefully in the direction of Receivership !

[sandyk]

10 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 I could discover music and performances via streaming, but only a reduced subset of what I want to try out - mostly recent items.

 

Instead, I use the xlnt collection of CDs at our city library, with a university library for backup (which has a very decent music school - tho not competitive with the music school/library at Indiana univ. like this place thinks they are...).

 

But that may not apply to others.

 

There is also bandcamp.

Let's hope that you then don't rip THEIR CDs to YOUR HDD !

[sandyk]

Quote

     4 hours ago, bluesman said:

...But I have a bit of trouble with the Carpenters and ABBA as reference source material

 You guys are missing the point here. John is developing new techniques to correct the distortions created by Dolby Encoding and Decoding as used in MANY (most ?) releases of the era. He is using those as they are particularly challenging to correct.

These recordings that he is working on now will be archived and preserved so that future generations will be able to hear them as they were meant to be heard.

The techniques being  used by John now, which have resulted in MAJOR improvements over the source material could also be used to great benefit with numerous recordings of the Dolby era.