Jump to content
Rt66indierock

MQA is Vaporware

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 😛

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?🙄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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


NUC7PJYH/AL --> Berkeley Alpha USB --> Jeff Rowland Aeris --> Jeff Rowland 625 S2 --> Focal Utopia 3 Diablos with 2 x Focal Electra SW 1000 BE subs

 

i7-6700K/Windows 10 Version 1903/HDPLEX 200W/HDPLEX 400W DC-ATX --> EVGA Nu Audio Card --> Focal CMS50's 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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


How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 28-06-2020

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

 


Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!😎

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!!!!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 

 


Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...