MQA is Vaporware

[PeterSt]

And since when are we comparing mostly faked HDTracks "Hires" with MQA which only very rarely is faked (except for that it's MQA of course) ?

[PeterSt]

3 minutes ago, Paul R said:

Any of us who had kids go through college on a debating team can easily recognize those kinds of tactics.  

 

Sadly.

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

And I just noticed this: https://www.prostudiomasters.com/?utm_source=prostudiomasters&utm_campaign=db2b15ffed-20190322-us_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3c6a0cab26-db2b15ffed-71939157&mc_cid=db2b15ffed&mc_eid=5e69fe14d3#x

 

Tracks 1-24 – contains material which has been processed by a perceptual audio coding algorithm

What the **** does that mean? It doesn't list MQA as a format.

 

I couldn't get to the link you posted, but there are MQA albums available there. 

[firedog]

4 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

I couldn't get to the link you posted, but there are MQA albums available there. 

 

I brought up the MQA files there last week, I think. This isn't that. The album is 

Shostakovich: String Quartets Nos. 1, 2 & 7 Carducci String Quartet

 and this is what is written in the "technical notes" for the 24/96 file

Tracks 1-24 – contains material which has been processed by a perceptual audio coding algorithm

[PeterSt]

On 3/10/2019 at 12:21 PM, manisandher said:

@PeterSt, what are your thoughts on the sound of MQA?

 

Different. Always very different.

[KeenObserver]

Apparently someone mentioned "Beetlejuice".  Lee and Paul have reappeared.

 

Please tell me the cycle of MQA BS is not going to repeat itself.

[KeenObserver]

I don't know if I can take another cycle of MQA BS.  I just washed the MQA BS off my boots!

[KeenObserver]

27 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

Thanks Alex, I appreciate the pat on the back. But it isn't a popularity contest.  

 

Mostly, it is people like this Raf11 person,  deciding they can safely bully people with outrageous and untrue insinuations behind an anonymous ID. Or shout a lie long enough and hard enough that people start to agree just to get them to shut up. Old style propaganda techniques dusted off and refreshed for the internet. Companies try doing the same thing as well. As witness MQA at RMAF. 

 

Fortunately, when you call them out they rarely are brave enough to put their name behind their opinions. Any of us who had kids go through college on a debating team can easily recognize those kinds of tactics.  

 

That isn't true of everyone of course, but it is a problem here. 

 

And though none of us really like it, it is one of the (very few) valid points the MQA people made. They didn't like being "attacked" by a nameless person on the internet. Not that they were really attacked by Archimago, but I can see how they might have felt so. 

 

 

 

 

It is not that they are being attacked by nameless people,  it is the fact that people are exposing the truth about MQA!

[Paul R]

2 hours ago, firedog said:

 

I brought up the MQA files there last week, I think. This isn't that. The album is 

Shostakovich: String Quartets Nos. 1, 2 & 7 Carducci String Quartet

 and this is what is written in the "technical notes" for the 24/96 file

Tracks 1-24 – contains material which has been processed by a perceptual audio coding algorithm

Wow - that is concerning!

[Confused]

13 hours ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

Regarding Brexit, there are always scare stories on the disastrous consequences of Brexit - there were predictions of severe economic impact that never happened. The BBC News website always presents the calamity predictions and even reports Brexit is to blame when decisions were made before Brexit was voted on.

 

The BBC News technical areas never report on Windows 10 telemetry, or other aspects of severe privacy infringement.

 

Some of the politicians and critics of the EU have always referred to the problem that the EU is not for the people, for which it has always stated its function, but favours corporations.

 

So, when MQA slowly makes inroads into the mainstream music market, the BBC will NOT be challenging the scam, but since it favours corporations, it will support it. It is sad that the BBC whose remit is to "Inform, Educate and Entertain" fails dismally on so many fronts for the common man.

 

The Hifi press should be reporting MQA for exactly what it is - but they won't.

 

We cannot rely upon any of the media outlets to report accurately and in support open systems which allow freedom. So, forums and the internet are the only places to challenge MQA.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[The Computer Audiophile]

I finally figured it out. If MQA CD is audibly lossless and people can’t tell the difference between it and pure PCM then the main reason for MQA CD must be to cut down on postage costs. Less data to fit through the postal service pipeline will lighten the load for mail carriers  😳

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 hours ago, ddetaey said:

How can we be sure that we do not receive an 'mqa'-ed download when buying a regular flac (or aiff/wav) album?

Anybody in the house capable / interested to develop a small app(lication) for that?

Long time ago I was using 'flactest' utility to check ripped tracks. As mqa is wrapped in flac, this will not be the one, but it gives an idea what I am asking here.

Dirk

It shouldn’t be too time consuming to create such an app. MQA is usually all over the metadata of a track. Not sure about consistent signatures in the data for several sample rates etc... though. 

[John Dyson]

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I finally figured it out. If MQA CD is audibly lossless and people can’t tell the difference between it and pure PCM then the main reason for MQA CD must be to cut down on postage costs. Less data to fit through the postal service pipeline will lighten the load for mail carriers  😳

My own (very rational) observation is that MQA cannot improve quality -- just give a different form of deviation from raw/best-quality audio.  Also, there are other available tradeoffs for small amounts of compression/etc (even IF the MQA quality claims are true.)  The ONLY rational reason for MQA is NOT for the consumer, but is an access control, profit siphoning scheme.  This does NOT benefit consumers at all, and is a kind of slippery slope.  Bad for everyone except those investing-in and profting-from the scheme.  There will always be those who have bought in to the scheme that effectively ends up in a kool-aid drink, but there is a term (derived from hisotry) for those who have been emotionally seduced -- it starts with 'foolish idiot'.  PLEASE I am not calling any one  a name -- because people can have valid personal motives for supporting a scheme that is bad for most people.  The term is meant to show that those who REALLY benefit from the scheme WILL NOT appreciate the support that they are getting from those looking for their kool-aid drink.  It is those who benefit from the support who KNOW that the scheme is not generally beneficial who see their supporters as described by that derogatory (foolish *) term.

 

PLEASE dont forget history or the ability to extrapolate from it!!!

 

John

[John Dyson]

12 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

 John's efforts in this regard have resulted in tracks that I find sound markedly better than those of the same title from the RBCD layer of Carpenters Singles 1969-1981, and presumably the SACD layer either .

The improvements aren't subtle either.

Thank you so very much.  The effort has been a lot like tilting at windmills, but I have wanted to leave a legacy of some kind that helps people in some way.  I don't expect to fade into the sunset quite yet, and unlike SOME technical efforts, mine was not meant to profit per se.  It was meant to do what I (we -- the project team mates also) we can do to help.  We have a very small team of individuals who contribute in their areas of expertise. Without the various disciplines, the DHNRDS would not have any credibiility (it would just be a hobby project on github or sourceforge.)

 

Unable to divulge anything about anyone who is interested -- but historical (official) archives have shown interest, and those doing some re-releases have also shown interest.  The DHNRDS DOES result in improvement beyond what a true DolbyA device can do -- but it is NEVER good enough -- IT IS LIKE TORTURE, where I can never seem to make the decoder work good enough.

 

Maybe some day, it might be easier to find clean copies of the older music without needing to go to MFSL or some place like that.  Just getting a 96k/24 bit copy of a DolbyA master tape does NOT improve the listenable quality of the material.  Places like MFSL can spend the time to actually properly master and decode.  The DHNRDS decoder can support the beancounter controlled distributors enabling the 'good quality' with greater consumer availibity and lower distributor cost for the quality.

 

We all have tried SO VERY HARD on the project.

 

John 

[mansr]

4 hours ago, firedog said:

I brought up the MQA files there last week, I think. This isn't that. The album is 

Shostakovich: String Quartets Nos. 1, 2 & 7 Carducci String Quartet

 and this is what is written in the "technical notes" for the 24/96 file

Tracks 1-24 – contains material which has been processed by a perceptual audio coding algorithm

Perceptual coding could mean MQA. In this case, it's so good that it unfolds 11 tracks into 24.

[mansr]

5 hours ago, ddetaey said:

How can we be sure that we do not receive an 'mqa'-ed download when buying a regular flac (or aiff/wav) album?

Anybody in the house capable / interested to develop a small app(lication) for that?

Long time ago I was using 'flactest' utility to check ripped tracks. As mqa is wrapped in flac, this will not be the one, but it gives an idea what I am asking here.

Already done: https://code.videolan.org/mansr/mqa

[Jud]

6 hours ago, ddetaey said:

How can we be sure that we do not receive an 'mqa'-ed download when buying a regular flac (or aiff/wav) album?

Anybody in the house capable / interested to develop a small app(lication) for that?

Long time ago I was using 'flactest' utility to check ripped tracks. As mqa is wrapped in flac, this will not be the one, but it gives an idea what I am asking here.

Dirk

 

Mansr has a test utility that is free for use. But you will have to make sure to buy from a seller that easily allows you to void a sale and get a refund if you find what you bought isn't what you thought it was.

[gdpr]

3 hours ago, mansr said:

Already done: https://code.videolan.org/mansr/mqa

 

Sorry for maybe a stupid question, but how do I get this to work under Windows 10?

I have downloaded the mqa-master.zip file and unpacked it.  I don't see any executable however?

What am I overlooking?

Dirk

[mansr]

25 minutes ago, ddetaey said:

Sorry for maybe a stupid question, but how do I get this to work under Windows 10? 

I have downloaded the mqa-master.zip file and unpacked it.  I don't see any executable however?

What am I overlooking?

There is only source code there. It can probably be compiled for Windows 10, but I haven't attempted it.

[Lee Scoggins]

10 hours ago, firedog said:

Really, Lee? You've claimed up and down that the sound is superior and claimed that's one of the reasons we should be in favor. The McGill study showed people had no preference for  it. Now Chesky has shown the same. Yet this is somehow supposed to mean MQA is a good thing?
All it shows is that it has no reason to exist and is just a proprietary format deployed in order to wall off the "ecosystem" and become a format for obtaining monopoly type rents on hires music files.

 

No superiority in SQ=no reason for it or it's "ecosystem" to exist. It brings only costs, and no benefit, to consumers.

 

Two points:

 

1.  Based on the Chesky test with engineers, the compression scheme is at least audibly lossless which differs from the mantra here around "17 bits", "lower quality than CD", etc.

 

2.  I do find MQA files to sound better based on listening to files that I am familiar with that I can A/B with identical mastering.

 

I know you probably disagree with either or both of these points but that's my honest opinion.

 

So we remain with the value of MQA as I see it:

 

1.  It offers better sound quality.

2.  The compression scheme is audibly lossless.

3.  There is value at scale of having smaller file sizes from both a bandwidth and mobile phone storage perspective.

[kumakuma]

15 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Two points:

 

1.  Based on the Chesky test with engineers, the compression scheme is at least audibly lossless which differs from the mantra here around "17 bits", "lower quality than CD", etc.

 

2.  I do find MQA files to sound better based on listening to files that I am familiar with that I can A/B with identical mastering.

 

I know you probably disagree with either or both of these points but that's my honest opinion.

 

So we remain with the value of MQA as I see it:

 

1.  It offers better sound quality.

2.  The compression scheme is audibly lossless.

3.  There is value at scale of having smaller file sizes from both a bandwidth and mobile phone storage perspective.

 

I'm having a really hard time understanding the two highlighted sentences as well as the previously quoted results from Chesky's test:

 

Quote

 

He says even the anti-MQA engineers cannot tell a difference between the master file and the MQA streamed 24/192 file.

 

 

How can two files both sound the same and yet different (one has "better sound quality") at the same time?

[firedog]

8 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Two points:

 

1.  Based on the Chesky test with engineers, the compression scheme is at least audibly lossless which differs from the mantra here around "17 bits", "lower quality than CD", etc.

 

2.  I do find MQA files to sound better based on listening to files that I am familiar with that I can A/B with identical mastering.

 

I know you probably disagree with either or both of these points but that's my honest opinion.

 

So we remain with the value of MQA as I see it:

 

1.  It offers better sound quality.

2.  The compression scheme is audibly lossless.

3.  There is value at scale of having smaller file sizes from both a bandwidth and mobile phone storage perspective.

Didn't you just contradict yourself? Either it offers better sound quality or it sounds the same (I'll ignore the possibility that it sounds worse); but it can't be "audibly lossless" and also offer better quality. Your personal listening impressions are irrelevant to anyone but you. The actual testing that's been done doesn't back up the "sounds better" argument.
 

Your file size argument is a weak one. A flac 24/48 file is smaller than the MQA equivalent, and it's now been established that at the very least it is as good sounding as MQA. It's also been established by Miska that a properly dithered 18/96 standard PCM file based on a 24/96 master is less lossy than the equivalent MQA file and also isn't bigger. Ergo, your "file size" argument also doesn't justify the existence of MQA.
Simply, neither SQ wise nor file size wise is there any need for a proprietary, closed file system.

[PeterSt]

16 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

The compression scheme is audibly lossless.

 

Who invented that term ?

[firedog]

Just now, PeterSt said:

 

Who invented that term ?

MQA. That's what they started claiming after their original claim that it was lossless was shown to be a lie.

[PeterSt]

1 minute ago, firedog said:

It's also been established by Miska that a properly dithered 18/96 standard PCM file based on a 24/96 master is less lossy

 

Now that.

Less Lossy ?

You guys must have gone bananas.