Jump to content
IGNORED

MQA is Vaporware

Rt66indierock

By Rt66indierock
in General Forum

Recommended Posts

  • Popular Post
Shadders

Shadders

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
5 hours ago, witchdoctor said:

The reality is I was already paying $20 a month to Tidal for FLAC and I now have an additional choice of 7000+ MQA albums and counting. I can choose the FLAC version or the MQA version. Total premium price vs prior price= 0.

Option 1- Pay $10 a month for standard 320k streams

Option 2- Pay $20 a month for FLAC and MQA streams

 

Hi,

Link below shows that Tidal is not in the top 10 for the UK :

http://uk.businessinsider.com/pandora-spotify-most-popular-music-streaming-service-chart-2017-3?r=US&IR=T

 

Second point, Tidal is £20 for Lossless High Fidelity. The website for Tidal is very poor - i cannot determine what the specifications are for Lossless High Fidelity - is it redbook, or 96k/24bit ???

 

Third point - Tidal if offering MQA under the subscription for Lossless High Fidelity, should be investigated by the UK Advertising Standards Authority, since MQA in NOT lossless.

 

Fourth point, if MQA (whatever the rate) and FLAC (redbook, or 96kHz/24bit ???) are being offered at the same cost - it would seem so, then the streaming service is either subsidising MQA, or FLAC is being over charged for.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

Link to comment
Shadders

Shadders

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Maybe not the latter. But that highs generally are "pseudo" I heartedly agree with. Otoh it is heard to see where they emerge.

 

I just finished a version of the software which can leave out the decoding. I thought to me smart and listen to "another version" which maybe is more native than the first unfold, might that do wrong. Man, that s*cks !

This in itself leads to my thinking that this unfold does more than just that. There's just no way that the e.g. 48KHz and 96KHz sound so different. I again did this with LZ (I), Talk Talk (the Colour of Spring) and Machine Head. All super bad.

Btw, the LZI should not be part of this game because this is some kind of remaster (I otherwise don't own) and it sounds heavily distorted on each track. You could say that LZ always sounds distorted, but only for IV this is really so (IMO).

 

 

Hi PeterSt,

Does this mean that a CD encoded with MQA will sound significantly different to a non MQA encoded CD ?

(that is, they have intentionally made the CD version sound bad if not decoded by the MQA chip ?).

Thanks and regards,

Shadders.

Link to comment
Shadders

Shadders

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Hi Shadders - I don't think it works like that. This will already not be so because MQA Ltd states that the MQA version in CD format (well, 24/48 most of the time) already sounds better. But I say : if you are used to a few things then this undecoded (first unfold not executed) sounds so poor that by now I can't tell what got into them.

But what we also know is that this does not make any sense anywhere because why present a "CD" which is 1/3 larger than the CD - and tell it is good to begin with ? it is not at all (I state) and the file is larger.

 

Some real time fun : I am now playing a normal Redbook. I have the sense of something lacking (the directness).

So I guess we can get used to whatever it is.

Hi PeterSt,

Thanks. The concern is that they offer 44.1k CD's, but encoded with MQA. This will be no different to non encoded MQA CD's. I recall that the 3 LSB's are used for the embedded higher frequencies.

Whatever MQA do, is up to them, but if the record labels decide that they want to implement only MQA CD's - then they can degrade the quality purposefully. Forcing people to purchase MQA DAC's, controlling the entire audio chain.

Regards,

Shadders.

Link to comment
Shadders

Shadders

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Shadders, I tend to agree with you. But I tell you : to me this is new since tonight. I must admit that at very first I reported quite similar (I think on the Phasure forum) BUT at that time I could not decode MQA yet, so I could not relate to the decoded outcome and just thought that MQA was nothing much. This now (6 months later !) changed to : If I keep on going in improving MQA by all what I am capable of then possibly I can end up with many MQA albums which I like better than the Redbook counterparts (I really have some already), BUT without that decode stage it is rampage and sheer disaster. Remember, all is relative and in 6 months of time there's an improved SQ version of the playback software around, I play the MQA "isolated" from streaming noise and last but sure mot least : I use a newly created USB cable (out of all made for the purpose).

Hi PeterSt,

I am unsure as to what you are stating.

Are you stating that you are using your own MQA decoding process, and like what you hear, which is better than redbook CD?

Or

Are you using an MQA DAC, and this presents music better than standard redbook CD ?

Or

You are listening to MQA file with no decoding, at 48k/16bits, and these files are better than redbook CD ?

Thanks and regards,

Shadders.

Link to comment
Shadders

Shadders

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Charles Hansen said:

 

Please see this post to understand my position:

 

https://www.audioasylum.com/forums/critics/messages/8/88367.html

Hi Charles,

I think that for audio, there is enough people making music as a hobby, small/medium enterprise, small label etc., that MQA will not be the only source of music, and the current standard will still prevail.

The issue will be that popular bands may only be available in MQA format.

Regards,

Shadders.

Link to comment
Shadders

Shadders

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, audiventory said:

 

Small label may use MQA if price to MQA license will allowable for produced volumes.

 

It may be need to support MQA-compatible devices as one of playback devices. Like labels provide PCM and DSD versions simultaneously.

 

But, looks like, in the future alternatives will exist too.

 

There was a time, when DRM-files (MQA is not DRM) was sold. But I don't know, who sell DRM-files now.

 

All depend on cunsumer demands and profitability.

 

Hi,

It depends. In the mid to late 70's, in the UK there were many small labels being created, and some of the bands became popular.

You spelt consumer wrong, may need a letter 't' in there.

The labels then did control everything, but soon learnt that artists realised that they were being ripped off, and hence the independent labels proliferated.

It just takes an underground youth movement to start, and we will have the same process again.

Old people could help here too.

Regards,

Shadders.

Link to comment
Shadders

Shadders

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

The modern music is so completely sh*t that it is very hard to imagine that any youngster can be interested in good quality music (which includes the recording process), that there's no space for them to investigate any MQA or Hires for that matter.

Hi PeterSt,

I would have to disagree, in that there are some very good bands still making music.

I never follow the charts in the UK, as the previous 15 years of reality TV for bands/singers/talent has ruined music. One person in particular should be held to account.

So i use Jools Holland as a way to get to hear new bands, Amazon UK "customers who bought this also bought that", or bands that continue to make music. Radio X (aka XFM) sometimes have some great bands being played.

If MQA is just an update to the mobile, and if streaming services push MQA over MP3, then we could have a de facto standard, whether we want it or not.

Regards,

Shadders.

Link to comment
Shadders

Shadders

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, witchdoctor said:

This is an MQA thread, and those are that car and that dCs player represent absolute pinnacle quality.

Top quality products include MQA- get it? That is the path of best SQ. Those companies wouldn't degrade those products at those prices right? 

Hi,

The start of a recording is the 192kHz file at whatever bit depth in the studio, where MQA applies a lossy algorithm, with bad filters that cause aliasing, and no deblurring, as has been shown by the reverse engineering on this site.

Therefore, how is MQA the path of best SQ ???.

Surely, the original master is the best sound quality which can be available as a download depending on the recording ?

Regards,

Shadders.

Link to comment
Shadders

Shadders

Posted
Posted
Just now, witchdoctor said:

I said the path, not the goal line.

At AES the focus was on improving hirez mastering. Once the current generation of engineers start matering in MQA rather than converting back catalogs I think you will see an improvement. Thus it is a path, not a we are already their.

Hi,

Someone will have to confirm this, but MQA is not a mastering process, it is applied at the end once all mastering has been completed.

Once MQA, which is lossy, has been applied, this application/process CANNOT be reversed. You have a lossy file.

Therefore, the path, as you put it, is the final solution - a lossy file with aliasing, and no de-blurring, since there is no going back.

Regards,

Shadders.

Link to comment
Shadders

Shadders

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, witchdoctor said:

You don't like MQA NP. I do, that doesn't mean I am spamming we just have different taste. 

 

Hi,

The video you presented does NOT support your postulation that MQA is a tool used for mastering.

How can it - it is a lossy algorithm, and i am sure that the recording studio want all their 24bits or 32bits in the master recordings.

Regards,

Shadders.

Link to comment
Shadders

Shadders

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, PeterSt said:

 

I had to look up the meaning of that. So learned something again.

Yeah ... I am.

 

And you for the first time (that I noticed) did not end with your polite

Regards,

Shadders

 

Regards,

Peter

Hi PeterSt,

My deepest apologies. I was trying to be hip. Will not happen again.

Regards,

Shadders.

Link to comment
Shadders

Shadders

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Confused said:

 If this ADC 'polishing' technology does have any merit, it occurs to me that it could (if allowed my MQA) be used outside of the MQA folding and unfolding nonsense.  You could correct the original ADC to the maximum extent possible and the end result could be straight PCM.

 

So taking a simple case as an example, an 80's digital copy made from a master tape, using a single ADC of known make and model, is there anything in MQA that can improve the digital copy?

 

Mindful that this thread has become a battleground between the trolls, shills and debunkers, I have to make it clear that this is a 100% genuine question!  :(

 

Hi,

That is a heretical remark.

100 Hail Mary's, and wash your mouth out with caustic soda.

Yes - of course, that is possible. But there would be no money in it, and no possibility of applying DRM to any file.

You have to create an end to end solution, to control the end to end solution.

Regards,

Shadders.

Link to comment
Shadders

Shadders

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, mansr said:

I'll publish them somewhere tomorrow.

Hi mansr,

OK - thanks - much appreciated. I just wanted to run them through Octave to see their response etc.

I am working through a DSP book, and at the stage here i can examine real world filters, with the tools provided by the book etc.

Regards,

Shadders.

Link to comment

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
Go to topic listing


sonore

aurender

Lumin

HEAP

Schiit

SOtM

Mytek

mutec

uptone

jcat

sotm usa

audioquest

Taiko Audio

Teddy Pardo

Eversolo




×
×
  • Create New...