Jump to content
Rt66indierock

MQA is Vaporware

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, mansr said:

Compared to what? MQA files are larger than standard CD and require a licensed (meaning paid for) decoder to access even the same quality. They are also larger than plain 96 kHz reduced to the 18 bits or so of resolution that MQA can provide. It is true that MQA files are slightly smaller than full 96/24 FLAC, but that reduction comes at a significant cost.

 

Oh, and 99.8% of users are happy with 256 kbps mp3.

 

Care to elaborate?

 

Show us the problem. Please.

 

Why should we, music consumers, care about "business model" advantages? We have the bandwidth/storage space. Why should we pay more just to feed someone's business model?

 

1. Most audiophiles want better sound quality than what the masses want.  So your point about how happy most consumers are with shitty sound, combined with recent history of DVD-Audio and SACD, suggests that MQA's approach to piggy-back on streaming tiers is a good idea.

 

2.  I am still studying how the deblurring works so more on that to come later.

 

3.  In terms of the business model, I am evaluating MQA here as a going concern, not from the perspective of the consumer.  My best guess is that MQA simply needs a major streaming service to sign on to become profitable.  I can see this happening but it's unclear what the odds are.  MQA is signing up partners pretty quickly and the labels have tested and approved the technology so I think thing look pretty good but probably best to wait and see on that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

 

  1. You have bit-depth losses because MQA stores the folded-up ultrasonics in the 15th and/or 16th bits. And there are plenty of high-res files with no losses in the audible range, including 24/48k files, which are smaller in size than MQA files.
  2. 25% smaller than 24/96 and approx 60-75% larger than 24/48 is not an advantage of any significance (if at all). And business-model advantages via a premium tier do not require MQA, as evidenced by the massive number of lossless redbook and conventional high-res PCM options available. (This is something you've been told repeatedly and have simply ignored.)
  3. It has been shown over and over that "sound improvements via the debarring filters" is at best a subjective perception, and is not in any way backed up by evidence, because the filters are too uniform and simple to achieve deblurring in any reliable manner, and because no filter can do what MQA claims when the source is a multitrack recording with multiple and/or unknown ADCs and DACs in the production chain.

And for the umpteenth time, you already know all of this

 

Where is there evidence that an MQA customer can hear the difference between the original hirez file and the MQA file played back fully unfolded?

 

So far we are seeing a difference chart where much of the frequency range is -150db.  That would be inaudible.

 

Also, the file size is one quarter of the corresponding hirez file.  At scale, that is a significant improvement in both storage cost and bandwidth savings.

 

As for deblurring filters, I tend to lean to Bob Stuart on that point.  His main area of study was human perception of audio phenomena.  Secondly, the description of what the filter does also matches my listening experience of Peter's demo files and others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mansr said:

Where, pray tell, are you studying this?

 

 

at the Goebbels Institute for Obfuscation, GIT


"The overwhelming majority [of audiophiles] have very little knowledge, if any, about the most basic principles and operating characteristics of audio equipment. They often base their purchasing decisions on hearsay, and the preaching of media sages. Unfortunately, because of commercial considerations, much information is rooted in increasing revenue, not in assisting the audiophile. It seems as if the only requirements for becoming an "authority" in the world of audio is a keyboard."

-- Bruce Rozenblit of Transcendent Sound

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, mansr said:

Oh, and 99.8% of users are happy with 256 kbps mp3.

 

 Absolute garbage. :o

 It won't be a surprise to a large number of forum members however, that you are among the 99.8% :D

 

  If you started a Poll, you would almost certainly find that most A.S. members have long since changed to .flac files as their preferred storage medium.

Even with Usenet where most illegal audio file sharing takes place, .mp3 is rarely used these days as it has been replaced by lossless .flac , and I would bet that very few members have in recent years digitised their LPs using .mp3 either.


"If you can't hear the difference between an original CD and a copy of your CD,

you might as well give up your career as a tester. The difference between a reconstituted FLAC and full size WAV is much less than that, but it does exist. - Cookie Marenco"

 

PROFILE UPDATED 18-06-2019

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

 

 

 

If I was a dick I’d give them the same treatment they gave me. But, I won’t stoop to that level. I’ll try to attend though. 

 

 

 

AD8C53A0-52DC-4EE6-9BCD-3B5FBC019EA0.jpeg

Bet you a whole nickel they politely apologize to you.  :)

 

-Paul 


Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Share this post


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

....

And for the umpteenth time, you already know all of this

 

Right. Apparently, it's not about the truth of MQA (or anything else), or persuasion, or even "civilly" sharing an interest/hobby.  I wonder what it could be about...hum...jeepers it's so perplexing...

 

Be honest @tmtomh, when are you going to break down and call out these guys for what they really are?


Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Well stated. 

 

Well stated, but wrong.  Jud, tmtomh's, and your own reasoned technical arguments might be necessary, but they are not sufficient.   It's a signal to noise thing.  Sometimes the signal needs to be turned up relative to the noise.

 

Notice how tmtomh's reasoned, technically correct, and very polite/civil responses to Lee have gone exactly...nowhere.


Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Share this post


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

MQA is  was signing up partners pretty quickly

 


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/HDPLEX 200W/HDPLEX 400W DC-ATX --> ISO REGEN/LPS-1.2 --> iFi iDSD Micro --> Focal CMS50's 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Feedback noted, but wrong. Notice how your turned up “signal” has gone exactly nowhere?

 

There is nowhere to go. We’re in a post factual era. Being civil and laying out facts gets you to the same destination as being a jerk and stating the same facts. It’s all about who you want to be and how you want your facts to be received. 

 

I’ve yet to see anyone succumb to an MQA beating, but I certainly changed my mind about MQA because of civil discourse. 

 

Sugar works much much better than spice. 

 

Wrong again.  The truth of MQA was never "in the middle", nor is sugar always the best strategy.  It's a both/and not an either or.  Sugar sometimes works, but how did that work out for you at RMAF?  Fail! as the kids say.    MQA is counting on the status quo audiophile sugar - it's a play on the sugar.  Neither yourself, nor Jud, nor tmtomh are going to convince the Lee's, ARQuint's, and JA's of the world that they are wrong about MQA.  If they don't know already, they ain't never going to know.  What they know and what they say are always going to be different because their whole position/livelihood depends on them not being wrong about MQA.

 

ARQuint civility sugar play is just that, a play.  These guys are going to work that play for the next 4 years just as they have for the last 4 years.  Sometimes, the truth needs a little spice...


Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Share this post


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...