MQA is Vaporware

[sandyk]

43 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

The quality IS NOT GREAT -- but I think that you can see how difficult that ABBA is to process.  I know that the DHNRDS IS pretty accurate -- the quality of pop recordings is generally pretty low.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/prkz8ghg4jwqw2w/nameofthegame-dhnrds.mp3?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ey502pue7kr1nk4/nameofthegame-polar.mp3?dl=0

 

If only all .mp3 sounded as good as the markedly improved version.

 

  Brought to you by the makers of :

[sandyk]

28 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Bottom line -- it is SOOOO important to keep from doing things that will be regretted in the future (e.g. DolbyA, MQA, etc.)

 

it IS  SOOOO important to keep from doing things that will be regretted in the future (e.g. DolbyA, MQA, etc.)   !!!

 

 

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, John Dyson said:

Here is a short Linda R snippet (I haven't massaged it -- this is raw, and not tweaked):

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/v34yepx63x1n7zy/Pitiful-dhnrds.mp3?dl=0

 

 Overall, It more than gives the CD version that I have a run for the money despite being only 320kbps .mp3  !

They should be ashamed for calling this what they have at the top.!

I can  only imagine how the DHNRDS version would sound as a 1411kbps .wav file though.
 

 P.S.

I am not using the Dropbox player. I am downloading them, converting them to .wav using Foobar 2000 if in .flac format , then playing them with JRiver.

[sandyk]

25 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

YouTube with their detection systems (IMO) seem to help more than hurt -- because people often do use YouTube to share.  The $$$ can still go to into the correct pockets.

 

 Although the video quality on YouTube can be very good these days, YouTube is discouraging people from sharing the resulting audio by using a very low 125kbps rate (typically) with their videos .

 This means that although people can usually gauge whether or not they like the recording, but if they want decent audio quality they need to purchase the album.

 

 P.S.

 Shouldn't you be in bed ?

[sandyk]

4 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

MQA is a gimmick whose time is long gone -- other than for benefitting those trying to control/limit the freedom of listening to high quality music or make money from intellectual property.  There just is no other reason for MQA to exist.  the existance of MQA CERTAINLY does not benefit the listener.

 

John

 

Spot on !!!

[sandyk]

9 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

And I do NOT have 'golden ears' at all.

 

 That's debatable, but there are certain times of the day when most people's hearing is not always as reliable as we would wish for. 

Another prominent member suggested that you show flashes of genius in your approach to correcting damaged material.

[sandyk]

17 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

it may happen even without demand. 

 

 And eventually create the demand, just as 4K TV is now doing, and also 4K from Foxtel for Sporting events ?

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

Where in the world is the data to support these ideas?  Amazes people...................when.............where?

 

 

 

 Some people prefer vinyl, others vacuum tube amplifiers, and others like Class D amplifiers.

 Just because something  may be  measurably better/technically superior than those, doesn't rule out personal choice.

Not everybody hears the same, and it's not a hanging offence to like some MQA selections .

 FTR, I preferred high res over MQA with  samples provided in this forum.

[sandyk]

7 hours ago, FredericV said:

Next up are blu-rays remastered …

 

Surely they can't do much worse than the remastering used with some Music Blu Rays ?

[sandyk]

6 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

I keep hearing that. That may be true at home and maybe even at the office.  But what about the shopping mall,  the coffee shop, airports, public buildings, schools, etc.? The bandwidth can be pretty bad.

 

6 hours ago, mansr said:

My 4G phone usually gets 100-200 Mbps in populated areas.

Not everybody uses a 4G phone to listen to Audio. There are STILL many countries and semi rural areas where Internet is damn slow, including the service we currently have here via the National Broadband Network which for the most part uses FTN, and replaces sloooow ADSL .

 We currently peak at 2.8Mbps whereas a  previous service in Sydney via Optical cable nudged 100Mbps with speed tests, but not real live traffic.

[sandyk]

9 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

In such situations, losslessly compressed redbook is the obvious audiophile choice if possible, because it's lossless and uses less bandwidth than high-res or MQA.

 

 NO ! By far the best choice in this situation is to Download  genuine hi res recordings and save them for more than likely technically and audibly superior listening sessions than most streaming services are capable of,without paying for the same music over and over again  !

 This thread isn't just about streaming MQA, it's about MQA in general, including downloads and physical media.

[sandyk]

42 minutes ago, Les Habitants said:

 

I can imagine it, you just like to hear yourself talk (and you imagine that others like it too), the purpose being to enhance that legend in your own mind.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znodcpMzcnA

 

[sandyk]

25 minutes ago, Les Habitants said:

@sandyk I trust you missed Paul's rude, condescending, presumptive, uninformed, and nasty suggestion that Lars need seek community college help with mathematics? He then coupled that with a thinly veiled allegation of stupidity.

You missed that post I take it, or do you agree with Paul there and everywhere?

I'm willing to bet Paul is not the math genius he purports himself to be, rather like Lee Scoggins in that regard I suppose.

I'm sure Lars is too classy to even respond to such nonsense, more likely he will just place Paul R. on his ignore list, knowing that blowhards hate to be ignored.

 

Quote

I can imagine it, you just like to hear yourself talk (and you imagine that others like it too), the purpose being to enhance that legend in your own mind.  - Les Habitants

 

Some of you thoroughly deserve any rude replies that may come your way !

[sandyk]

39 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Nobody is interested in your theology or morality and what you think we "deserve".  This is an audio forum.  

 

 And to Hell with Civility ?

 You are one of the worst offenders in this respect.

[sandyk]

42 minutes ago, Siltech817 said:

There is no market acceptance, and MQA means nothing to the wider world, nothing at all.

 

 

Promise ?

[sandyk]

4 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

If Chris won't here is a personal favorite of mine.

 

“Is there ever an equipment review, interview, or technical article in Stereophile or TAS that you find informative or entertaining?” Andy Quint to me in a December 31, 2018 email.

 

All that does is lump him in with quite a few of the posters in this thread who don't trust the integrity of the Hi Fi publications..

 I hope that such opinions don't also include Chris, as he IS also a Journalist these days !

[sandyk]

22 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

The feedback I get face to face says the opposite. 

 I presume that you are talking about NEGATIVE MQA feedback here, and not the excessive vitriol and personal attacks from a few members that are highly unlikely to speak to others the same way face to face ?

I believe that 4est has made it abundantly clear that he doesn't believe that we need MQA.

Very few (if any) members currently posting in this thread believe that we need MQA any more than we need another backside passage,

[sandyk]

3 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Actually the vitriol  and personal attacks started to get going after Bob Stuart and Robert Harley we’re called liars at the Los Angeles Audio Show in 2017. And don’t forget my late friend Charles Hansen’s attacks on Audio Asylum, they seemed to work pretty well.

 

Alex the main battle was fought in studios with rational arguments about the files being changed and financial things like reliable cash flow and rates of return. Notice how there are no MQA ADCs except Mytek? Those arguments seem to be working. That’s where I spend most of my time fighting against MQA.

That is clearly the way to go.

 Personal attacks/ slanging matches in this thread are not helping the cause. They are simply resulting in many members who don't feel the need for MQA, based on the facts already provided in this thread,  from participating in the thread.

[sandyk]

13 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

The civility crowd advances a negative stereotype of audiophiles. If they want act like sheep I’ll let them.

 

Stick with your Boots and Knuckler Dusters approach and sooner or later somebody bigger will knock you down.

 A better approach would be to use both Mansr and Archimago to represent you.

[sandyk]

17 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

If I got third question it would be why have you and Ken Forsythe tried to shut down the “MQA is Vaporware” thread?

 That should be obvious to even Blind Freddy !      $

[sandyk]

3 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

If one doesn't end up with really bad problems -- the system will still have 'cooties' (oh, I mean MQA recordings :-)).

 

John

Hi John

 Perhaps your next assignment/ mission should be to find a way to reverse the damage caused by MQA ?

 (Mission Impossible perhaps ?)

Kind Regards

Alex

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, Rt66indierock said:

Me

 Hi Stephen

 I would respectfully suggest that we don't dilute this thread with silly arguments about amplifier bandwidth requirements, human hearing capabilities etc.

 In fact,  it may even be an advantage to roll off MQA encoded music, if we end up being stuck with it , (mainly due to greedy Entrepreneurs )  quite savagely from 22kHz to remove the possibility of their false information and added noise artifacts from being seen by the amplification chain at all. This may be hard to do with current filtering techniques though, without degrading the existing music.

 

 I would also gently remind you , that there are a large percentage of A.S. members who LOVE the high res formats, including 24/96 , 24/192, even 24/384, and especially the most recent DSD recordings with GENUINE music information well above 22kHz.

And even if most of the advantages come down to the more gentle HF  filtering possible with the high res formats, many members still prefer the high res version over the pathetic RBCD standard of 16/44.1.

 To mention as some do, the bandwidth of up to 48kHz , that is in this case a red herring, as 48kHz is normally only used for Audio on Videos, NOT with normal Music ONLY recordings.

 Yes, I do agree that the RBCD standard perhaps should have been 16/48kHz originally, but at the time they even had a lot of trouble getting 16/44.1 right.

 

If you believe that high res is likely to be of no advantage to you, then use the Format Comparison pages available on line to decide if there are likely to be of any benefit to you, however, I would also suggest that you verify this for yourself using a high quality pair of headphones with an extended frequency response to at least 40kHz, not loudspeakers that start to roll off sharply as they approach 20khZ.

 

 Feel free to remove this post after a short time period as it is OFF TOPIC, along with quite a few previous replies.

 

Kind Regards

Alex

[sandyk]

7 hours ago, John Dyson said:

If one  looks at op-amp specs (even really good ones), the distortion tends to increase fairly rapidly above a  nominal frequency in the range of 5kHz through maybe 20k or more at times (I have some very interesting and detailed references in that regard -- if interested.)

 

Hi John

 I wouldn't exactly call the rise in distortion from around 5kHz with the LME49720 (formely LM4562)  a problem.

 (still well under .0001%)

 Incidentally, Mark ,who was on the original design team reported that the HA version (metal can) sounded better that the DIP version despite measuring the same with their Audio Precision gear. I found the same too. (Perhaps improved heat dissipation was the reason?)

 

Kind Regards

Alex

  

LME49720.pdf

[sandyk]

 

Incidentally, FWIW,not so long back Teresa couldn't stand RBCD, as something about it irritated her, but high res versions didn't .

 

[sandyk]

3 hours ago, John Dyson said:

You are pointing to a manufacturer's spec sheet.  They always always give ideal distortion characteristics.  What was the source/load impedance while measuring the distortion?   If they specify the soruce/load impedances, they are usually not in the more challenging ranges.

 John

 The 33 page Data sheet that I attached is possibly the most detailed opamp data sheet that I have seen. It does show numerous graphs of distortion into various loads etc., but you are correct in that it doesn't show the input resistance value used.

 However, in practise they are prone to instability/oscillation problems when directly driving cable loads of 100pF or more without a series output resistor.

 

Years ago, I also had several of the National Data books that you referred to, but they are obsolete now due to much newer devices. 

 

Regards

Alex

LME49720.pdf