Jump to content
IGNORED

MQA is Vaporware


Recommended Posts

Would be interested in links to financial info on MQA and/or related entities.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
Just now, kumakuma said:

It would also be nice for someone who knows the ins/outs of the filing requirements to tell us how companies get around publishing what they don't want to. It happens everywhere on Earth and I'd be shocked if there aren't several loopholes. 

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

Link to comment

I just sent my disappointment email off to prostudiomasters.  I've bought dozens of albums from them over the years, it's sad to see them selling MQA, when they have "studio master" right in their name.

Roon Rock->Auralic Aria G2->Schiit Yggdrasil A2->McIntosh C47->McIntosh MC301 Monos->Wilson Audio Sabrinas

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Dr Tone said:

I just sent my disappointment email off to prostudiomasters.  I've bought dozens of albums from them over the years, it's sad to see them selling MQA, when they have "studio master" right in their name.

 

The objective/subjective divide is widely acknowledged, but what about the industry/consumer divide?  As a consumer, you think words have meaning:  "studio master" is something real with meaning - distinguished from other things and meanings.  However, as an industry, what do words mean?  "Studio master" is but a marketing term - something to be used and abused to sell you something - it has no intrinsic meaning.

 

What would it look like if consumers actually pressed their position a bit (and boy, do we have a position!)?  What if we demanded a bit of accountability?  What would it be like if the industry in the forms of the trade publications and even "old guard" community audiophiles actually supported this?

 

Nah, it will never happen 😋

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

It absolutely has to have less resolution because there is only so much room on the CD. They have to remove stuff to add the MQA stuff. It's all folded in there, but it's like a balloon Pushing in on one side makes the other side go out. 

 

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. I don't want to spread misinformation. 

 

I think this is a debatable point, as MQA can definitely support higher resolution than CD, but at the expense of some high frequency (very high frequency) information, additional alias products to deal with, and perhaps, some limits on dynamic range. Still better than CD, but...  whether any individual file at MQA 16/44.1 is better compared to CD seems to be a crap shoot. High Res MQA always seems to be better than CD though. 

 

The issue of course, being that it is not as good as, or at least different from the nice original high res music. Arguments rage over if the differences are intentional, the result of hidden different mastering, beneficial or fake, cause or don't cause ear fatigue, and so forth and so on. 

 

It isn't really clearly defined anywhere from testing; too much bias to unravel when it comes to how it sounds. Arguments over what MQA  is are clear cut. 

 

YMMV! 

-Paul

 

 

 

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

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment

Responding about MQA being problematical...  IT is, it is one of the things that I did allude to about not being beneficial for the community at large.  I didn't really want to make the observation totally MQA specific, even though it is the current subject of discussion (hopefully.)

 

However, emotional responses show weakness.  We all know that the MQA skeptics are more on the 'right side'  of audio/music enjoyment than the MQA advocates (esp those who are trying to profit), and even getting angry is probably okay.  However, overly emphasizing personal aspects of the discussion tends to show weakness.  I know that the people involved don't see that aspect of things -- because they are locked up in the muddled mess.

 

I know of a politician who keeps tripping himself up with personal invective, even when he is on top.  It is so important to avoid that kind of 'discussion.'

 

It is a delicate balance to mix the personal preference aspects vs. the hard-core scientific aspects of things.  It is easy to leak into personal criticism -- best to stay away from personal criticism IF POSSIBLE.

 

I DO NOT have all of the answers -- but when on the winning side (I truly wish there weren't 'sides'), it doesn't pay to 'beat dead horses', or continue complaining about the vanquished.

 

John

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Paul R said:

High Res MQA always seems to be better than CD though. 

How are you coming to this conclusion?  I really have not seen this comparison done in any meaningful way using the same master.  I don't think the McGill study included redbook, did it?  That would have been worthwhile, I think.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, mansr said:

On an MQA CD, there is less than 1 bit per left/right sample pair in which to store any extra information. That's about 44 kbps. If mp3 at 128 kbps sounds bad, well... it's probably a good thing those high frequencies are inaudible.



 

Yes, you are correct of course.  I was thinking of digital files, not a physical CD. 

 

-Paul 

 

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

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, psjug said:

How are you coming to this conclusion?  I really have not seen this comparison done in any meaningful way using the same master.  I don't think the McGill study included redbook, did it?  That would have been worthwhile, I think.

 Absolutely - I should have said "seems to be better"  - because it actually might not be. But people get that impression when they listen to it. Even me.  

-Paul 

 

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

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

 But if there is any sonic difference, it can only be in one direction: MQA cannot sound as close to the original as a file using better filters, and that hasn't been subjected to lossy processing.

Well said, but this is not entirely true.  In some cases, an amp will produce notably better sound if you filter out the supersonic signal information. This is an example of removing the same kind of information without hard to, and actual improvement to the sound coming out of the speakers. 

 

Note: I am not saying that MQA necessarily improve the sound this way, just that it is in theory possible. I think the other factors, such as aliasing noise, would also be factors. 

 

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

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

 

I DO NOT have all of the answers -- but when on the winning side (I truly wish there weren't 'sides'), it doesn't pay to 'beat dead horses', or continue complaining about the vanquished.

 

John

 

I respect your perspective - however the horse keeps getting up...or whatever the right analogy is.  What then?  I wonder if you are not declaring victory too early.  You understand, others understand, but those who don't keep talking and spamming this thread.  Also, I don't get the sense that Audiophiledom is about good (or just adequate) technical knowledge, common sense, community, principles, or anything related to all that.  So having those things and asserting them certainly won't do much about the MQA's of this hobby.  Bob S started with audiophiles and the audiophile "community" for a reason:  he understood that it was here that the fraud would be most accepted.

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Funny also -- the high frequencies are the most difficult to gain a lot of compression digitally -- it is best to compress the low frequencies where the energy is being used.  There is less redundancy in the higher frequencies, and LOTS of redundancy in the low frequencies, but a lot of energy also normally spent there.  Digitally compressing the lower frequencies tends to be more effective, and like some of the original enhanced TV systems -- they would have passed the high frequencies unmolested.  The compressed signal wouldn't be viewable by legacy TVs, but the compression would both be efficient and require less signal power to convey the high frequencies of the signal also.

 

So, by trying to get effective compression of the high frequencies -- well -- it can be done, but would be of poorer quality relative to doing the compression 'correctly'.  Apparently, the reason for stealing the bits isn't so much to improve the audio quality, but to secret away some kind of encryption.

 

I TRULY do not know much about MQA, but I do understand many aspects of digital compression (all the way down to KLT stuff.)

 

John

 

 

I *think* the compression and data storage depends upon the amplitude difference - low amplitude in the high frequency range of course, more room to convole data into the signal.  As noise in this case, but still. 

 

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

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

I respect your perspective - however the horse keeps getting up...or whatever the right analogy is.  What then?  I wonder if you are not declaring victory too early.  You understand, others understand, but those who don't keep talking and spamming this thread.  Also, I don't get the sense that Audiophiledom is about good (or just adequate) technical knowledge, common sense, community, principles, or anything related to all that.  So having those things and asserting them certainly won't do much about the MQA's of this hobby.  Bob S started with audiophiles and the audiophile "community" for a reason:  he understood that it was here that the fraud would be most accepted.

Be ready every time they come back for 'punishment', but no need to condemn.  It' d be nice to rid the world of the MQA 'scourge', but as long as there is money to be made....

John

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 Absolutely - I should have said "seems to be better"  - because it actually might not be. But people get that impression when they listen to it. Even me.  

-Paul 

 

 

Play 45 seconds of a song someone loves. Then hit the "loudness" button and play the same 45 seconds. I'd bet money the person prefers the 45 seconds with loudness on. Now make them listen to the whole album on repeat for 3+ hours. After being totally fatigued from the EQ'ing / other crap loudness generally does I would also bet that person prefers loudness off for the rest of their listening session. 

 

This was my audio journey with MQA (decoded/first unfold in software, I do not have MQA hardware). Initial there was a "WOW! That's alive and fun and different." But then after a few hours with it I found it to be really fatiguing to listen to. It just started to sound processed, digitized, emphasized in the wrong places, and generally overdone. Like those early HDR photos. Some people will love the MQA filters over their current redbook set-up and I totally get that. Heck, I don't even use the DAC in my CD player anymore because I prefer what my external DAC is doing when I use the player as transport. Doesn't mean my external DAC is "better". I just prefer it. 

 

There are fundamental reasons to stop MQA from polluting what gets streamed / downloaded into our homes. But I don't put as much value in debating if sound quality is one of those things. MQA, for some people, will sound better than what they are used to. Doesn't matter if bits are missing. Heck, an EQ'd/room corrected 128kbps MP3 that better matches someones listening environment might very well be preferred over a 24/192 file. Who am I to tell that person their preference is wrong even if I can scientifically document why I'm right?

 

 

 

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

The UK plugged a big one. If a member (shareholder) is a public company then the small companies exemption doesn't apply. Reinet  Investments the money behind MQA Ltd is publicly traded. That seems to mean audited financial statements are required.

Bob Stuart probably hates Companies House with a passion...😆

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...