MQA is Vaporware

[Lee Scoggins]

13 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

I've got to disagree Lee because MQA files are normally distributed when it comes to sound quality and the middle is no difference and different but neither better or worse. If you volume match and use the same commercially available masters of the recordings of course.

 

That's not my experience Steve.  In my listening tests, MQA versions are noticeably better. And yes, we volume match so the test is fair.

[wdw]

1 minute ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

That's not my experience Steve.  In my listening tests, MQA versions are noticeable better. And yes, we volume match so the test is fair.

 

Lee,

this is complete silliness...I have what can only be described as a very high resolution system and MQA is neither consistently better nor worse than any similar PCM......your argument is just insulting.  

 

[Rt66indierock]

2 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

That's not my experience Steve.  In my listening tests, MQA versions are noticeably better. And yes, we volume match so the test is fair.

 

So it is just your opinion I'm fine with that but I've found some MQA stuff that is worse and some that the small differences are irritating.  Something you won't acknowledge. 

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

44 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

That's a straw man argument.  MQA differences can be heard on modest systems.  But like anything else, the more resolving the system is, the easier the differences can be heard.  Same thing applies to the CD vs. hirez debate.

Wait! PRO level engineers hand picked by David Chesky could her NO DIFFERENCE on his presumably excellent playback system LOL!!!

 

Consult the manual, and come back with a spin. 😛

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

11 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

That's not my experience Steve.  In my listening tests, MQA versions are noticeably better. And yes, we volume match so the test is fair.

Rinse, repeat, Rinse repeat, Rinse, repeat?🙄

[rickca]

Some people love haggis.  That doesn't mean it's a delicacy for everyone.

[The Computer Audiophile]

24 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

John, I politely differ.  MQA is not degrading any of Peter's recordings.  It's making the instruments sound more natural. You're not being fair to different opinions expressed by people with deep experience in recording.

You weren’t at the recording venue during the recording so you have no clue if MQA makes the recording sound more accurate. I know you said more natural but what does that mean. 

 

Please don’t tell me you know how every instrument in every orchestra sounds either. Ask any violinist if the violins are all the same and s/he will obviously say no. Thus, saying you know the sound of John Doe’s violin and it sounded more natural is preposterous. 

[sandyk]

13 hours ago, John Dyson said:

Just my two cents, but I would REALLY WISH that non-technical audiophiles could be kindly and respectfully educated about engineering and mathematical fact ---

 John

" Engineering  and mathematical fact"  isn't always as cut and dried as many E.E.s may wish to believe.

This is also evidenced in many anecdotally confirmed subjective reports in this thread in Music Servers.

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/30376-a-novel-way-to-massively-improve-the-sq-of-computer-audio-streaming/

 It's not always due to " Groupthink" either. It never hurts to question long held beliefs , and find out for yourself the correctness or otherwise of these "facts".

 Many of the posters in that thread may not be qualified E.E.s , but many do have a technical background or are experienced DIY people.

 

Kind Regards

Alex

[The Computer Audiophile]

26 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

You're not being fair to different opinions expressed by people with deep experience in recording.

He is being fair to many opinions from people with “deep” experience in recording. Not all opinions are believable. One doesn’t have to be fair to anti-vaxxers to still be considered fair.  

[Lee Scoggins]

1 hour ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

I've got to disagree Lee because MQA files are normally distributed when it comes to sound quality and the middle is no difference and different but neither better or worse. If you volume match and use the same commercially available masters of the recordings of course.

 

Steve, how are you determining sound quality for the normal distribution?  Are you using resolution?  What is your source?

[Rt66indierock]

3 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Steve, how are you determining sound quality for the normal distribution?  Are you using resolution?  What is your source?

 

Lee I'm going to not answer you until you ethically debate points here for 30 days. 

[Paul R]

58 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

John, I politely differ.  MQA is not degrading any of Peter's recordings.  It's making the instruments sound more natural. You're not being fair to different opinions expressed by people with deep experience in recording.

 

Well, to be fair, MQA removes content from the original material. Regardless of whether the content is important or even audible, that is technically "degrading" the data.  

 

But then again, we often decimate an audio data file, for very valid reasons and with the result of providing the best sound. Decimation is still, technically, a form of degrading the file. 

 

Does MQA degrade sound quality? A much more difficult question. It necessarily must take into account the audience. For high-end audiophiles, it probably does, though there are certain MQA files I like better than the originals.  Subjectively, MQA improved sound quality on those files for me. There are other files I think the MQA version inferior on. 

 

What I do not have a clear understanding of is why I liked those MQA files slightly better. Did they boost the volume in the MQA process? Is the DAC just "louder" when processing these files, similar to how almost all DACs are "softer" when processing DSD? Some other factor? I do not know and it is difficult to find out. 

 

 

-Paul 

 

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

1 minute ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Lee I'm going to not answer you until you ethically debate points here for 30 days. 

You are looking for "ethical" conduct from a consultant? Good luck! Hashem even has had no luck!😎

[Lee Scoggins]

25 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

He is being fair to many opinions from people with “deep” experience in recording. Not all opinions are believable. One doesn’t have to be fair to anti-vaxxers to still be considered fair.  

 

This is how unserious your forum has gotten Chris.  You are equating having a positive opinion of MQA with the anti-vaxxing crowd.   And you are specifically stating that my opinion is not "believable".

 

There are many professional engineers who favor MQA but I guess these opinions don't count either.

 

There's really no point in debating this anymore here.  Everyone's mind is made up and you are using a mob mentality to ridicule every point I am trying to make.

[Lee Scoggins]

1 minute ago, Paul R said:

 

Well, to be fair, MQA removes content from the original material. Regardless of whether the content is important or even audible, that is technically "degrading" the data.  

 

But then again, we often decimate an audio data file, for very valid reasons and with the result of providing the best sound. Decimation is still, technically, a form of degrading the file. 

 

Does it degrade sound quality? A much more difficult question. It necessary must take into account who. For high-end audiophiles, it probably does, though there are certain MQA files I like better than the originals.  Subjectively, MQA improved sound quality on those files for me. There are other files I think the MQA version inferior on. 

 

What I do not have a clear understanding of is why I liked those MQA files slightly better. Did they boost the volume in the MQA process? Is the DAC just "louder" when processing these files, similar to how almost all DACs are "softer" when processing DSD? Some other factor? I do not know and it is difficult to find out. 

 

-Paul 

 

 

To be fair, MQA is not removing musical content.  The triangular encoding is just removing stuff below the audible level.

 

I suspect you like the deblurring of the filters.  There is no boosting of volume.  All the tests I've done have been level matched.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

1 minute ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

This is how unserious your forum has gotten Chris.  You are equating having a positive opinion of MQA with the anti-vaxxing crowd.   And you are specifically stating that my opinion is not "believable".

 

There are many professional engineers who favor MQA but I guess these opinions don't count either.

 

There's really no point in debating this anymore here.  Everyone's mind is made up and you are using a mob mentality to ridicule every point I am trying to make.

Thank Hashem! GOOD BYE!!!!! 

[Lee Scoggins]

4 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Lee I'm going to not answer you until you ethically debate points here for 30 days. 

 

Steve, it's clear you are an idiot and an asshole.  Welcome to my ignore list.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

just posted by Lee Scoggins:

 

"Steve, it's clear you are an idiot and an asshole.  Welcome to my ignore list."

 

Screen shot taken.  This follows him calling said poster a "douchebag" last week. 

[Paul R]

11 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

To be fair, MQA is not removing musical content.  The triangular encoding is just removing stuff below the audible level.

 

I suspect you like the deblurring of the filters.  There is no boosting of volume.  All the tests I've done have been level matched.

 

This is a point we have very different views on. What you are saying is rather like saying that the computers at the bank trimmed your bank account records, and only removed the unimportant records. That would probably raise the hair on the bak of your neck, as it would mine. 

 

It's the same kind of thing in a way. I remember when MP3s were touted as just as good as the CD, because they only removed information you could not hear. And in fact, that is mostly true for MP3s at 360kbs compared to a CD. 

 

A non-MQA example that is amazing to me. When you do a needle drop, do you know that there is a lot of energy present well beyond 20khz? And even though we can not hear it, it somehow makes a huge difference in the playback. It doesn't really sound like vinyl to me unless I record at a high PCM rate, I can easily tell the difference. And with live recording, the higher the PCM resolution, up to around 176k, the more like the real mic feed the recording sounds.  48K does NOT sound real to me, either from vinyl or in a live recording. 

 

It is difficult to explain, and pooh poohed by some. Still, for me it a very real thing.  

 

Something similar may be happening with MQA, though I am totally with you that it happens even on very modest systems. 

 

-Paul 

 

 

[kumakuma]

7 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Steve, it's clear you are an idiot and an asshole.

 

Perhaps he feels the same about you...

[Rt66indierock]

1 minute ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

just posted by Lee Scoggins:

 

"Steve, it's clear you are an idiot and an asshole.  Welcome to my ignore list."

 

Screen shot taken.

 

He didn't realize I've been keeping track of people using intellectually dishonest debate techniques. He reached a threshold today.

[rickca]

7 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Steve, it's clear you are an idiot and an asshole.  Welcome to my ignore list.

Well, it took a while but eventually all the MQA shills flame out like ML.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

Just now, Rt66indierock said:

 

He didn't realize I've been keeping track of people using intellectually dishonest debate techniques. He reached a threshold today.

A real; class act. i will miss him. 🤗

[Lee Scoggins]

4 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

This is a point we have very different views on. What you are saying is rather like saying that the computers at the bank trimmed your bank account records, and only removed the unimportant records. That would probably raise the hair on the bak of your neck, as it would mine. 

 

It's the same kind of thing in a way. I remember when MP3s were touted as just as good as the CD, because they only removed information you could not hear. And in fact, that is mostly true for MP3s at 360kbs compared to a CD. 

 

A non-MQA example that is amazing to me. When you do a needle drop, do you know that there is a lot energy present well beyond 20khz? And even though we can not hear it, it somehow makes a huge difference in the playback. It doesn't really sound like vinyl to me unless I record at a high PCM rate, I can easily tell the difference. And with live recording, the higher the PCM resolution, up to around 176k, the more like the real mic feed the recording sounds.  48K does NOT sound real to me, either from vinyl or in a live recording. 

 

It is difficult to explain, and pooh poohed by some. Still, for me it a very real thing.  

 

Something similar may be happening with MQA, though I am totally with you that it happens even on very modest systems. 

 

-Paul 

 

 

 

The bank records are not a good analogy.  In that case even pennies count.  In the music world, things below the inaudible level don't count.

 

As for the needledrops, I hear the same thing.  But you just use 24/176 or 24/192 and everything is fine.  But it's not just the things above 20khz that hirez captures better, it's the extra detail and timbre in the midrange and other areas.

[Paul R]

1 minute ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

He didn't realize I've been keeping track of people using intellectually dishonest debate techniques. He reached a threshold today.

 

To be fair, you baited him knowing that it would result in a rude comment. (shrug)

 

So far as I can see, you both are a bit guilty there. Probably should apologize to each other and move on with more profitable discussion.  And ignore the people egging on the hard feelings.