Jump to content
IGNORED

MQA is Vaporware


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, crenca said:

 

Again, besides the point and not relevant to the definition.  There is no "original" because all recordings are facimilies of original signal/impulse.  On this level, there is nothing to go back to...so what?

 

 

 

 

Great, then why even discuss lossless or lossy? Oh wait, it helps your argument against MQA.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
Just now, mansr said:

Here you are demonstrating your ignorance. AAC does not alter the sample rate or bit depth per se. Depending on the parameters chosen, an encoder may elect to filter out high frequencies (since these are the least audible), but the decoder would still return the original sample rate.

 

Rather than name calling, perhaps you could decide to purposely understand my comments. When delivering an album the mastering engineer will deliver a 24/96 to the label for download stores and a lossless ALAC version to Tidal and an MP3/AAC version to Spotify. Of course AAC doesn't alter the sample rate, thats a decision by the person doing the conversion when they create the distribution file. 

 

 

 

 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

For all the reasons endlessly discussed - consistency of input for DAC architecture, design, and measurement.  For DSP, for consumer verifiability, manipulation, and reversibility, for industry innovation, for just about everything important in the digital musical ecosystem!!

 

This was your answer to my question of "why it matters to the consumer if something is lossy from a sample rate conversion or a compression algorithm."

 

Come on.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
1 minute ago, mansr said:

I don't disagree with that. What Bob calls "lossless," everybody else in the industry has always called "psychoacoustically transparent."

 

Now your agreeing that MQA is lossy does not explain why you're trying to expand the definition of "lossy" to include pretty much everything.

 

Wow, we agree on something (your first two sentences.)

 

To the consumer it doesn't matter how something is lost. It's the fact that something is lost that matters. If you want to split hairs and say sample rate conversion that chops off frequencies and bits isn't lossy, but compression that removes more frequencies and other items less readily audible is lossy, I guess you're entitled to do so.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
1 minute ago, smartin said:

Yes, MQA is mathematically lossy, but why does that matter at all in and of itself.  There is nothing inherently wrong with that.  The only aspect of 'lossy' that should matter (IMHO, and perhaps I am missing something) is how it effects sound quality.

 

I totally agree. Everything is lossy compared the original performance. What matters is how much loss people find acceptable.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
56 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

First MP3, next MQA :)

 

Gizmodo reported yesterday that Fraunhofer Institute for Integrated Circuits IIS, developer of the MP3 audio data-compression system, has terminated the licensing program that allows companies to create MP3 encoders and decoders. This is probably not sad news for many audiophiles, who disdain the format’s lower audio quality compared with uncompressed CD quality. But there’s no doubt that MP3 fundamentally changed the face of music distribution, which makes it important in the history of our hobby.

 

Everything is temporary, if you give it enough time :~)

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, crenca said:

 

No, no "come on" here :)

 

Really, that is the thing about the ground you walk on - it effects everything because well, it is the ground you walk on.  Your question is too broad for a comment box - which part of everyting do you want to discuss - and why because it is already discussed endlessly here on almost every thread?

 

Behind the context of a subjectivist "why does it matter - I only care what it sounds like and if I can't here it then it does not matter" is an entire engineering world where math matters...

 

 

 

I think you and I could have a great time arguing about this over a couple beverages some day. Not that we don't have better things to do with our time, but it would be much better to have a discourse in person. 

 

On one hand you're arguing the consumer perspective and how this affects the consumer. Now you're using the engineering argument to combat a consumer concern. Hmmmm.

 

A consumer doesn't care if a recording has 140 bD of dynamic range versus 141 dB of dynamic range. I'm sure engineers care and the math matters, but it's irrelevant to most people. I care about what something sounds like. I want music to sound as close to the artist's intent as possible. Sure, the theoretical argument that 141 dB of dynamic range is better and should get me closer to the artist's intent is true, but it's dumb in real life. 

 

Sample rate conversion is lossy and so is MQA. Standard FLAC albums are the result of a lossy process. MQA albums are the result of a lossy process. Thus, I don't think using the lossy argument is really sound in the case against MQA.

 

To me the best case against MQA is possibility that undecoded MQA sounds worse than redbook and the fact that many devices won't support MQA decoding. That's only the best case against it, not the only case. 

 

I really wish I could setup a skype video call with Bob Stuart and people like mansr and miska, so we could attempt to get to the bottom of some of these claims. Without knowledgable people representing both sides, it's impossible to get anywhere. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, mansr said:

As I have tried repeatedly to explain, the losses from sample rate reduction (bandwidth limiting) are of a fundamentally different nature than those from a perceptual coding algorithm. They cannot be compared. Besides, labels that care about sound quality usually offer the actual studio masters, whatever resolution they happen to be. Do you believe transferring files over the internet degrades sound quality? If not, how can you be saying that FLACs of the studio masters are lossy?

 

FLAC of studio masters aren't lossy. Of course I don't believe the internet degrades audio. 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

To encode music in MQA will cost money. The question then is how do they recover these costs? Every large company has an internal rate of return (similar to interest). So is there a solid predictable stream of cash that will meet or exceed their internal rate of return for investing in equipment to encode MQA? That question may be hard to answer.

 

Then the argument that this is a boon to the labels falls somewhat flat. 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Jud said:

Thanks mansr for the really informative comment.

 

Have you ever noticed that people in this forum (perhaps elsewhere in your life as well?) tend to react much more favorably to your less strident comments (for example, the nice bulleted list of MQA dislikes, refreshingly free of nastiness and exaggeration, you put up earlier in the thread)?  I.e., you're (paradoxically?) more persuasive when you're reasonable rather than railing?  As someone of a scientific bent, perhaps these data should be an indication to you of the road to future success.

 

I removed the post in question, but your comment is welcomed. 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, mansr said:

The person it was in reply to has spent the last couple of days incessantly belittling and ridiculing anyone who doesn't sing the praises of MQA. I don't mind that you deleted my post, but please consider why I posted it, even if it was a bit uncivil.

 

I certainly understand. 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, rickca said:

You would think if anyone is sensitive about being hacked and losing control of product distribution, it would be Sony.  I agree it's puzzling.

 

Word on the street now is that hackers are holding a Sony movie for Bitcoin random. 

 

Anyway, it's also strange that all the labels don't sign up for it because they don't have to encode an entire catalog if they don't want to. Or perhaps there are high minimum album requirements. 

 

Wish I knew how it all worked. 

 

P.S. I'm told another MQA announcement is coming tomorrow morning. 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

I have wondered along the lines of a "consumers union" as well.  However, there is no money in it, so who is going to fund and energize it?  Our "democracies" are really run by and for those who have the willingness and resources to run for office and to lobby those in office.  The "content industry" obviously has both of those, but what do consumers have?  The internet has evened things up a bit - a consumer can now talk to other consumers through forums like these, to the great consternation of content providers and their willing dupes in "the press" but beyond that who is going to really speak for us and our rights in our respective capitals & halls of power?

 

As consumers we have the ultimate power when it comes to life's non-essential goods. We don't purchase them. The product goes away. The company goes away.

 

 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, mansr said:

 

Someone is smoking something as well ... "anyone trying to sell it to end consumers is committing fraud. The only advantage of hi-res audio is that it tends not to have LOUDNESS WARS mixes."

 

Both totally incorrect. It's not fraud to sell high resolution audio and the loudness wars are alive and well in high resolution. In fact, the high resolution is worse than the CD often. 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

Is that a position you really want to find yourself in, take it or leave it as there's no other choice?  That's the whole point of trying to stop this before that can happen.

 

HI Sal - Absolutely not. I always want choice. Choice is best for consumers, hence the Sherman Act of 1890 etc...

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

Then why do you continue to take a strong pro MQA position?

 

I'm bummed that my position is deemed pro MQA. All I'm trying to do is balance the discussion. When one person (not you) says MQA's jack-booted thugs are coming for all of us, I like to argue the other side for the sake of getting the whole story out there.

 

One-sided discussions tend not to help people. They lead to echo chambers like the current news media catering to political sides like constituents. Try learning about what's going on in the world by only reading / watching one news outlet. It's not possible. 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
6 hours ago, mansr said:

Do you also want a "balanced" discussion about climate change or evolution vs creationism? You are more and more, as facts about MQA emerge, resembling the science deniers on those topics.

 

Balanced discussions are always good and shouldn't intimidate those who believe strongly in their opinions. It's the only way to get to the real story. 

 

When the majority of Americans were pro slavery, a balanced discussions was the only was out of the terrible situation. 

 

Climate science and evolution have and continue to be discussed by all sides in balanced, open debates and peer reviewed studies. It's the best way to get information out to those interested. 

 

Selecting a side and quashing all discussion from the other side doesn't help anyone, even those quashing the discussion. If something is so absurd, it's actually helpful to most people to see it debated openly rather than a minister of information saying one side is absurd and we should stop discussing it. 

 

MQA is far from a peer reviewed and publicly debated topic that leads 99% of engineers to a single position. 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

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



×
×
  • Create New...