John Dyson Posted April 6, 2019 Share Posted April 6, 2019 5 hours ago, Don Hills said: The State Of The YouTube Music Economy <off sides for a minute -- and back on subject after this paragraph> It is a moderately special case, but whole thing about licensed music has been tricky for me when trying to demo the results of my project. On a micro (once in a long while -- here is hout it sounds, one-on-one) scale, I tend to be a little lax, but cannot broadcast entire songs without either feeling guilty or possibly even getting in trouble. The results of my work WILL benefit the industry, but in the entire scheme of things, 99% of the time the material would have just been copied (I mean peer to peer -- maybe through a You Tube, then people not paying for the benefit of the music) and not reviewed. Most of the real-world copying is NOT for review, but instead for simply adding to a collection (and not paying.) Any deep resentments against the license holders do NOT count -- they own the stuff. There are limitations as to how they can control it, but there are also limitations as to how the material should be distributed. Excessive cheating WILL encourage the creating of Frankenstein monsters like MQA. Perfectly clean material will cause restrictiveness like the control of HDTV signals (used to have unencoded HDTV around until stuff like HDMI.) NTSC/PAL equivalents (the junk coming out of a home VHS//SVHS/Beta/EDBeta VCR is a very poor excuse for NTSC/PAL) have been available, but as the quality increases -- the restrictivness has also increased. The risk of duplication is always in the back of the owners minds. With VHS/Beta, there are only so many generations that one can go before the video is pretty much one big blob on the screen. With properly done digital video, you can copy infinitely. (Even my D9 decks where I resolved down to YUV analog and back, would do 10generations and barely decrease to Betacam SP level quality.) That was just about the time that NTSC/PAL really started dying off anyway -- now who really cares much about NTSC/PAL master quality? HDTV, on the other hand, starts coming close to the family jewels (Original Tron was done something like 600-700 lines AFAIR, many more recent movie masters with special effects were at 2k-4k -- now are probably much higher. The stuff being displayed on consumer TVs has approaching master quality now.) Right now, we often have access to pretty good audio -- in fact, by the stupidity and short sightedeness of some of the distributors, SOMETIMES they have let the family jewels out by distributing almost unmolested DolbyA copies of older material. (Not really here nor there in this specific discussion.) If there would be a culture where people would think twice about creating massive copies of their collections, material like MQA would have less strong justification vis-a-vis DRM. DRM stuff more helps to minimize fear than anything else. YouTube with their detection systems (IMO) seem to help more than hurt -- because people often do use YouTube to share. The $$$ can still go to into the correct pockets. (Guess just rambling -- and right now have troubles with demos BECAUSE of TRYING to follow the rules a little.) John Link to comment
Popular Post sandyk Posted April 6, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted April 6, 2019 25 minutes ago, John Dyson said: YouTube with their detection systems (IMO) seem to help more than hurt -- because people often do use YouTube to share. The $$$ can still go to into the correct pockets. Although the video quality on YouTube can be very good these days, YouTube is discouraging people from sharing the resulting audio by using a very low 125kbps rate (typically) with their videos . This means that although people can usually gauge whether or not they like the recording, but if they want decent audio quality they need to purchase the album. P.S. Shouldn't you be in bed ? christopher3393 and Teresa 2 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 13-11-2020 Link to comment
Popular Post Confused Posted April 6, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted April 6, 2019 20 hours ago, shadowlight said: Yes, but isn't the risk decision based on what your risk tolerance is? Something that is low risk to you and me might be medium to high risk for other folks. There is no agreement as to how much risk MQA actually presents to anyone, this is probably due to the fact that assessing the risk involves predicting the future, and to quote Neils Bohr, "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future". So if we cannot accurately predict the future, maybe we should look at this another way, in terms of a risk-reward ratio. Very often in life it is worth taking a risk, or even necessary to accept risk, in order to gain certain benefits. We all get into cars, cross the road, maybe take flights because the clear benefits outweigh the known risks. With MQA the risks are maybe not clear yet, but the benefits, and indeed the shortcomings, are now very clear to many. So if you consider that MQA offers very little if any benefit and comes with obvious shortcomings, balancing this against a perhaps unknown risk becomes easy. If you consider an unknown risk, versus zero benefit and some shortcomings, the risk-reward ratio is something approaching a calculated figure of infinity to 1 against taking the risk, however small the risk may be. MikeyFresh, kumakuma, Dr Tone and 1 other 2 1 1 Windows 11 PC, Roon, HQPlayer, Focus Fidelity convolutions, iFi Zen Stream, Paul Hynes SR4, Mutec REF10, Mutec MC3+USB, Devialet 1000Pro, KEF Blade. Plus Pro-Ject Signature 12 TT for playing my 'legacy' vinyl collection. Desktop system; RME ADI-2 DAC fs, Meze Empyrean headphones. Link to comment
bluesman Posted April 6, 2019 Share Posted April 6, 2019 On 4/5/2019 at 2:00 PM, John Dyson said: Linda Ronstadt vocals are often distorted by the Aphex distorter (I think that is the name, or should be.) That thing was called the Aphex Aural Exciter - there was one in every studio rack in America back in the day. I’m lucky enough to live in Philly, the home of the original Sigma Sound Studios (where I got to record as a sideman on several instruments). I don’t remember if they had an AAE, but it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that even Sigma used it when producers asked for it. I suspect that Rudy VG never did, but I don’t know this for certain. Teresa 1 Link to comment
shtf Posted April 6, 2019 Share Posted April 6, 2019 On 4/5/2019 at 12:21 AM, firedog said: Maybe we shouldn't attack an industry professional who posts here and seems to be nothing but helpful to others and honest with his posts. People like you drive every professional who comes here away. Driving every “professional” who comes here away is certainly is not my attention. With regard to Kal, I’ve rarely if ever addressed him about anything here or elsewhere. And even this time I tried to respectfully pose my allegations more as a question rather than a direct assault. I suppose your comments or perhaps my comments need a little context. From a technical perspective hasn’t MQA been determined even in this very thread to be a complete fraud? From a performance perspective hasn’t MQA also been determined by some-to-many to be complete fraud? Isn’t Stereophile high-end audio’s most popular domestic publication? Isn’t Stereophile perhaps the biggest MQA propagandist? Doesn’t Kal work for Stereophile? I had no idea Kal was one of the good guys at Stereophile and frankly, I was unaware Stereophile had any. But if Kal is one of the good guys at Stereophile as you seem to allude, then why is Rt66indierock compiling some type of expose about Stereophile not being all about the music or whatever it is he’s compiling? Wouldn’t such an expose potentially harm Kal since Kal is a staff member there? Since Kal supposedly was recently promoted, wouldn’t any such expose potentially harm Kal even more? If Kal’s affiliation at Stereophile is innocent, then why haven’t you guys tried to discourage Rt66indierock from moving forward? Since obviously Rt66indierock’s expose or whatever would most likely harm all of Sterephile’s staff wouldn't this also potentially harm any affiliating 3rd party vendors, any of which may be more innocent than Kal since they would be further from the flame? You may indeed find Kal nothing but helpful and honest but that doesn’t mean others have experienced that same pleasure. And considering the damage some of us allege his employer (Stereophile) has induced to high-end audio like MQA, and since Kal has been a part of Stereophile for perhaps several decades, and was recently promoted at Stereophile, I don’t see how anybody can separate Kal from Stereophile, even if MQA specifically is not his thang. Both Kal and Jim Austin were recently promoted at Stereophile. Aren’t promotions usually awarded to those who do things more right (or more wrong) than their colleagues at least from the employer’s perspective? Since you’re pushing the issue, my suspicion is that Kal has never been helpful nor honest nor innocent and has been entirely compromised if for no other reason than his mere affiliation with Stereophile. At the very least, he certainly is not innocent as it’s not like he just started working for Stereophile 2 weeks ago. And if indeed Rt66indierock will be publishing some sort of expose on Stereophile and how that magazine is less than what it should have been, Kal will most likely feel the impact of that exposure. As he should. But if any of you truly think Kal is one of the good guys at Stereophile, then I suggest you reach out to Rt66indierock pronto. Otherwise, you’re just being selective, hypocritical, and/or just nonsensical. Now, what about people like me? The more I dabble with extreme forms of electrical mgmt. and extreme forms of vibration mgmt., the more I’m convinced it’s all just variations of managing mechanical energy. Or was it all just variations of managing electrical energy? No, it’s all just variations of mechanical energy. Wait. It's all just variations of managing electrical energy. -Me Link to comment
John Dyson Posted April 6, 2019 Share Posted April 6, 2019 17 minutes ago, bluesman said: That thing was called the Aphex Aural Exciter - there was one in every studio rack in America back in the day. I’m lucky enough to live in Philly, the home of the original Sigma Sound Studios (where I got to record as a sideman on several instruments). I don’t remember if they had an AAE, but it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that even Sigma used it when producers asked for it. I suspect that Rudy VG never did, but I don’t know this for certain. Yeah -- you are right about the so called 'Exciter' :-). I wrote a program that can undo some of the phase distortion done to Linda Ronstadt and others, but was only partially successful (it takes multiple passes & teaking to properly undo each recording. It makes it so she has less of an electronic lisp, but is too much work to use. I still think that 'distorter' is a more accurate term 🙂 (really -- I mean it with humor, not arrogance :-)). Link to comment
mansr Posted April 6, 2019 Share Posted April 6, 2019 6 minutes ago, shtf said: Driving every “professional” who comes here away is certainly is not my attention. With regard to Kal, I’ve rarely if ever addressed him about anything here or elsewhere. And even this time I tried to respectfully pose my allegations more as a question rather than a direct assault. I suppose your comments or perhaps my comments need a little context. From a technical perspective hasn’t MQA been determined even in this very thread to be a complete fraud? From a performance perspective hasn’t MQA also been determined by some-to-many to be complete fraud? Isn’t Stereophile high-end audio’s most popular domestic publication? Isn’t Stereophile perhaps the biggest MQA propagandist? Doesn’t Kal work for Stereophile? I had no idea Kal was one of the good guys at Stereophile and frankly, I was unaware Stereophile had any. But if Kal is one of the good guys at Stereophile as you seem to allude, then why is Rt66indierock compiling some type of expose about Stereophile not being all about the music or whatever it is he’s compiling? Wouldn’t such an expose potentially harm Kal since Kal is a staff member there? Since Kal supposedly was recently promoted, wouldn’t any such expose potentially harm Kal even more? If Kal’s affiliation at Stereophile is innocent, then why haven’t you guys tried to discourage Rt66indierock from moving forward? Since obviously Rt66indierock’s expose or whatever would most likely harm all of Sterephile’s staff including any affiliating 3rd party vendors, any of which may be more innocent than Kal since they would be further from the flame? You may indeed find Kal nothing but helpful and honest but that doesn’t mean others have experienced that same pleasure. And considering the damage some of us allege his employer (Stereophile) has induced to high-end audio like MQA, and since Kal has been a part of Stereophile for perhaps several decades, and was recently promoted at Stereophile, I don’t see how anybody can separate Kal from Stereophile, even if MQA specifically is not his thang. Both Kal and Jim Austin were recently promoted at Stereophile. Aren’t promotions usually awarded to those who do things more right (or more wrong) than their colleagues at least from the employer’s perspective? Since you’re pushing the issue, my suspicion is that Kal has never been helpful nor honest nor innocent and has been entirely compromised if for no other reason than his mere affiliation with Stereophile. At the very least, he certainly is not innocent as it’s not like he just started working for Stereophile 2 weeks ago. And if indeed Rt66indierock will be publishing some sort of expose on Stereophile and how that magazine is less than what it should have been, Kal will most likely feel the impact of that exposure. As he should. But if any of you truly think Kal is one of the good guys at Stereophile, then I suggest you reach out to Rt66indierock pronto. Otherwise, you’re just being selective, hypocritical, and/or just nonsensical. Now, what about people like me? Kal is definitely one of the good guys. That doesn't in any way mean the editor(s) of Stereophile (JA and JA) along with certain other writers shouldn't be called out when then they persistently perpetuate whatever BS BS feeds them. MikeyFresh 1 Link to comment
Ralf11 Posted April 6, 2019 Share Posted April 6, 2019 1 hour ago, shtf said: From a technical perspective hasn’t MQA been determined even in this very thread to be a complete fraud? From a performance perspective hasn’t MQA also been determined by some-to-many to be complete fraud? That is like calling the Ring of Sauron a fraud. MQA aims to dominate. Link to comment
bluesman Posted April 6, 2019 Share Posted April 6, 2019 25 minutes ago, Ralf11 said: That is like calling the Ring of Sauron a fraud. MQA aims to dominate. But the Crack of Doom is such a great test track! Ralf11 1 Link to comment
Rt66indierock Posted April 6, 2019 Author Share Posted April 6, 2019 2 hours ago, shtf said: Driving every “professional” who comes here away is certainly is not my attention. With regard to Kal, I’ve rarely if ever addressed him about anything here or elsewhere. And even this time I tried to respectfully pose my allegations more as a question rather than a direct assault. I suppose your comments or perhaps my comments need a little context. From a technical perspective hasn’t MQA been determined even in this very thread to be a complete fraud? From a performance perspective hasn’t MQA also been determined by some-to-many to be complete fraud? Isn’t Stereophile high-end audio’s most popular domestic publication? Isn’t Stereophile perhaps the biggest MQA propagandist? Doesn’t Kal work for Stereophile? I had no idea Kal was one of the good guys at Stereophile and frankly, I was unaware Stereophile had any. But if Kal is one of the good guys at Stereophile as you seem to allude, then why is Rt66indierock compiling some type of expose about Stereophile not being all about the music or whatever it is he’s compiling? Wouldn’t such an expose potentially harm Kal since Kal is a staff member there? Since Kal supposedly was recently promoted, wouldn’t any such expose potentially harm Kal even more? If Kal’s affiliation at Stereophile is innocent, then why haven’t you guys tried to discourage Rt66indierock from moving forward? Since obviously Rt66indierock’s expose or whatever would most likely harm all of Sterephile’s staff wouldn't this also potentially harm any affiliating 3rd party vendors, any of which may be more innocent than Kal since they would be further from the flame? You may indeed find Kal nothing but helpful and honest but that doesn’t mean others have experienced that same pleasure. And considering the damage some of us allege his employer (Stereophile) has induced to high-end audio like MQA, and since Kal has been a part of Stereophile for perhaps several decades, and was recently promoted at Stereophile, I don’t see how anybody can separate Kal from Stereophile, even if MQA specifically is not his thang. Both Kal and Jim Austin were recently promoted at Stereophile. Aren’t promotions usually awarded to those who do things more right (or more wrong) than their colleagues at least from the employer’s perspective? Since you’re pushing the issue, my suspicion is that Kal has never been helpful nor honest nor innocent and has been entirely compromised if for no other reason than his mere affiliation with Stereophile. At the very least, he certainly is not innocent as it’s not like he just started working for Stereophile 2 weeks ago. And if indeed Rt66indierock will be publishing some sort of expose on Stereophile and how that magazine is less than what it should have been, Kal will most likely feel the impact of that exposure. As he should. But if any of you truly think Kal is one of the good guys at Stereophile, then I suggest you reach out to Rt66indierock pronto. Otherwise, you’re just being selective, hypocritical, and/or just nonsensical. Now, what about people like me? I will publish what I want but it will be easy to exclude Kal. Where did you have to listen very carefully to hear any difference come from, Kal. My MQA hump in a normal distribution is no difference and and a different sort of different. A different sort of different came from Kal. crenca 1 Link to comment
Popular Post crenca Posted April 7, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted April 7, 2019 Just now using Tidal I compared the MQA to 16/ 44 version of Kendrick Scott's new album "A Wall Becomes a Bridge" which was released yesterday (at least on Tidal). I did this through Roon with MQA decoding disabled, so even though Roon is reporting that the MQA is "MQA 96kHz Authenticated" it should simply be passing MQA undecoded (i.e. as a 24/48 file) to my DAC, which in this case is a Schiit Gungnir multibit, so obviously not an MQA DAC. Using the first 10 seconds or so of the second track, Mocean, there is some obvious difference in the stereo separation. It's almost as if when I play the MQA version, I have some sort of crossfeed DSP turned on and way up (I am using a Roon>Gungnir>Jot>Focal Clear rig). This is the first comparison I have done with MQA vs. 16/44 in a while. You guys hearing this? Sonicularity and The Computer Audiophile 2 Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
firedog Posted April 7, 2019 Share Posted April 7, 2019 9 hours ago, shtf said: Driving every “professional” who comes here away is certainly is not my attention. With regard to Kal, I’ve rarely if ever addressed him about anything here or elsewhere. And even this time I tried to respectfully pose my allegations more as a question rather than a direct assault. I suppose your comments or perhaps my comments need a little context. From a technical perspective hasn’t MQA been determined even in this very thread to be a complete fraud? From a performance perspective hasn’t MQA also been determined by some-to-many to be complete fraud? Isn’t Stereophile high-end audio’s most popular domestic publication? Isn’t Stereophile perhaps the biggest MQA propagandist? Doesn’t Kal work for Stereophile? I had no idea Kal was one of the good guys at Stereophile and frankly, I was unaware Stereophile had any. But if Kal is one of the good guys at Stereophile as you seem to allude, then why is Rt66indierock compiling some type of expose about Stereophile not being all about the music or whatever it is he’s compiling? Wouldn’t such an expose potentially harm Kal since Kal is a staff member there? Since Kal supposedly was recently promoted, wouldn’t any such expose potentially harm Kal even more? If Kal’s affiliation at Stereophile is innocent, then why haven’t you guys tried to discourage Rt66indierock from moving forward? Since obviously Rt66indierock’s expose or whatever would most likely harm all of Sterephile’s staff wouldn't this also potentially harm any affiliating 3rd party vendors, any of which may be more innocent than Kal since they would be further from the flame? You may indeed find Kal nothing but helpful and honest but that doesn’t mean others have experienced that same pleasure. And considering the damage some of us allege his employer (Stereophile) has induced to high-end audio like MQA, and since Kal has been a part of Stereophile for perhaps several decades, and was recently promoted at Stereophile, I don’t see how anybody can separate Kal from Stereophile, even if MQA specifically is not his thang. Both Kal and Jim Austin were recently promoted at Stereophile. Aren’t promotions usually awarded to those who do things more right (or more wrong) than their colleagues at least from the employer’s perspective? Since you’re pushing the issue, my suspicion is that Kal has never been helpful nor honest nor innocent and has been entirely compromised if for no other reason than his mere affiliation with Stereophile. At the very least, he certainly is not innocent as it’s not like he just started working for Stereophile 2 weeks ago. And if indeed Rt66indierock will be publishing some sort of expose on Stereophile and how that magazine is less than what it should have been, Kal will most likely feel the impact of that exposure. As he should. But if any of you truly think Kal is one of the good guys at Stereophile, then I suggest you reach out to Rt66indierock pronto. Otherwise, you’re just being selective, hypocritical, and/or just nonsensical. Now, what about people like me? I'm not aware MQA has been shown to be a "complete fraud"? Does in not work as compression scheme? Is it not playable on all equipment? The problem with MQA is not the format itself. If it had been promoted as a "slightly lossy compression scheme with proprietary filters, designed to sound as good or better than the original" I think it would have been fairly well accepted. We'd be having the normal audiophile arguments about whether we think it sounds good, and there wouldn't be consensus about it's sound. It wouldn't be seen as some sort of threat. The problem with MQA is it's proprietary form, it's intent to eliminate non-MQA hi-res from the market, and the other false (or implied and false) claims it has made for itself. You do realize your entire post is built personal opinion, speculation, and innuendo, and has zero evidence that we know of to back it up? Who here has tried to prevent anyone from "going forward"? Who are "you guys"? I haven't noticed that Rt66indierock feels constrained in his life/behavior by this thread. The thread is actually a major voice for him and his position. "Separate Kal from Sterophile"? ... I wasn't aware they were one and the same. Do you know Kal's role there and exactly what his influence - or lack thereof - is on editorial policy and decisions? I'm pretty sure you don't. If some sort of expose about Stereophile is revealed, then we will have to evaluate the nature of it, and see who was responsible for whatever problems are revealed. Currawong 1 Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three . Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
Popular Post The Computer Audiophile Posted April 7, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted April 7, 2019 3 hours ago, crenca said: Just now using Tidal I compared the MQA to 16/ 44 version of Kendrick Scott's new album "A Wall Becomes a Bridge" which was released yesterday (at least on Tidal). I did this through Roon with MQA decoding disabled, so even though Roon is reporting that the MQA is "MQA 96kHz Authenticated" it should simply be passing MQA undecoded (i.e. as a 24/48 file) to my DAC, which in this case is a Schiit Gungnir multibit, so obviously not an MQA DAC. Using the first 10 seconds or so of the second track, Mocean, there is some obvious difference in the stereo separation. It's almost as if when I play the MQA version, I have some sort of crossfeed DSP turned on and way up (I am using a Roon>Gungnir>Jot>Focal Clear rig). This is the first comparison I have done with MQA vs. 16/44 in a while. You guys hearing this? WTF crenca just listened to MQA and reported about what he heard! Pigs just flew! Now what are all the crenca haters going to complain about? 😁😳😁 kumakuma, crenca, Currawong and 1 other 4 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
Popular Post shtf Posted April 7, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted April 7, 2019 4 hours ago, firedog said: I'm not aware MQA has been shown to be a "complete fraud"? Does in not work as compression scheme? Is it not playable on all equipment? The problem with MQA is not the format itself. If it had been promoted as a "slightly lossy compression scheme with proprietary filters, designed to sound as good or better than the original" I think it would have been fairly well accepted. We'd be having the normal audiophile arguments about whether we think it sounds good, and there wouldn't be consensus about it's sound. It wouldn't be seen as some sort of threat. The problem with MQA is it's proprietary form, it's intent to eliminate non-MQA hi-res from the market, and the other false (or implied and false) claims it has made for itself. .... I can see nothing gets by you. Just two minor corrections I'll focus on here. 1. False claims = fraud. Even if unintentional, though certainly not the case here with MQA. 2. It (MQA) has not made false claims for itself. People did that. Rather charlatans did that. Charlatans like Stuart, Harley, Atkinson, Austin, and a small host of others. Oh, yeah, I almost forgot. Charlatans did that while their colleagues and suborninates stood idly by remaining silent. Last time I checked, silence is complicity. Let me ask you this. If others did not remain silent, might this thread not even exist? Shadders, crenca and troubleahead 2 1 The more I dabble with extreme forms of electrical mgmt. and extreme forms of vibration mgmt., the more I’m convinced it’s all just variations of managing mechanical energy. Or was it all just variations of managing electrical energy? No, it’s all just variations of mechanical energy. Wait. It's all just variations of managing electrical energy. -Me Link to comment
Popular Post firedog Posted April 7, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted April 7, 2019 23 minutes ago, shtf said: It (MQA) has not made false claims for itself. People did that. Actually, they called themselves "lossless" - without qualifiers - in the beginning; it's been corrected, but it still gets referred to as lossless. And since they've never actually defined "blur" or explained where their masters come from and how they are authenticated - those also can be considered false claims. They imply certain things about both areas that are positive to MQA and are very happy to let all sorts of unfounded positive assumptions about both issues result - and they are happy never to clear up the fog. crenca, troubleahead and esldude 3 Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three . Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
Popular Post Shadders Posted April 7, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted April 7, 2019 Hi, I have asked this before - where exactly are the examples of the "blurring" or audio files in error, that have been corrected ? Why doesn't the MQA website show a before and after example ? Why hasn't MQA Ltd listed 10 albums from the past 30 years where there is the claimed "blurring" due to the filters so we can examine the claims ourselves ? MQA is a fraud. There is NO evidence presented, and the AES MQA paper has significant flaws/errors, that MQA cannot therefore be a bona fide system. All we have are claims it is better using pseudo scientific statements, which have been misused. If you examine the QSound website - they have demos, so why doesn't MQA, if it is meant to be the "New World Order" ??? All MQA is an effects processing algorithm - based on false claims that there is blurring. Regards, Shadders. John Dyson, MikeyFresh and crenca 2 1 Link to comment
Popular Post John Dyson Posted April 7, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted April 7, 2019 1 hour ago, Shadders said: Hi, I have asked this before - where exactly are the examples of the "blurring" or audio files in error, that have been corrected ? Why doesn't the MQA website show a before and after example ? Why hasn't MQA Ltd listed 10 albums from the past 30 years where there is the claimed "blurring" due to the filters so we can examine the claims ourselves ? MQA is a fraud. There is NO evidence presented, and the AES MQA paper has significant flaws/errors, that MQA cannot therefore be a bona fide system. All we have are claims it is better using pseudo scientific statements, which have been misused. If you examine the QSound website - they have demos, so why doesn't MQA, if it is meant to be the "New World Order" ??? All MQA is an effects processing algorithm - based on false claims that there is blurring. Regards, Shadders. I know what MQA advocates will do to demonstrate fixing the 'blurring'. 1) simply fill in the high frequency loss caused by a linear phase low pass filter... 2) sharpen the edges in the audio by some kind of nonlinear process. The only real 'blurring' caused by an LPF is when the LPF is not linear phase, then various frequencies have differing delays -- the phase shifts can then be partially fixed by an equalizer. Each of these technologies is well known (nothing new here), and I sure hope that they don't try the nonlinear method. (I am not even going to get started about the non-existent Gibbs 'ringing'. To basically summarize -- Gibbs isn't ringing, but is a residual from removing the higher frequencies. There is no 'regeneration' coming from sine exitation like true ringing has.) Another thing that I have learned when playing with audio -- starting with DSP knowledge alone. Doing certain things are more challenging than they seem to be. Perhaps one thing that had confounded me at first -- the idea of splitting frequency bands -- processing each band differently, and then reconstituting the audio by gluing the bands back together. That processing of mixing the bands back together is frought with land mines. It isn't because the bands cannot be easily split and rejoined, but the different processing in each band can make the results more damaged than what would be initially guessed. I'll give away one of my DolbyA processing tricks as an example (I am diviulging only because it is so obvious as to be worthless from an IP standpoint) -- I sometimes split some of the 4 bands used in the DolbyA system. So, there aren't just 4 bands being processed, but instead (on the current version) 6 bands. Each band IS processed differently, but the results are superior than if the 4 bands are processed normally. When doing the different processing -- there are lots of potential mistakes -- perhaps the most obvious might be relative phase shifts. So, when joining the bands together (if the filter skirts are wide), there can be cancellation/re-enforcement that will create peaks/valleys in the freq response. Time delays and even different levels than expected can also cause differing kinds of problems. When someone willy-nilly talks about (the fixing the 'blur') either adding nonlinearity or processing different frequency bands differently (when expected to have the same processing), then I become worried about unforseen problems. Think about the old NR systems that sounded okay when utilizing old technolgies, and now -- they sound terrible because our standards are higher. If the ARE doing something obvious -- then their claims start looking more and more specious and silly (making a big deal out of nothing.) They seem to be trying to create an advantage/improvement where there is none. Chopping/splitting/processing/slicing/dicing audio is something that needs to be done carefully and/or use established techniques. I am not including the 'stairstep' myth in this category, but there ARE distortions that are REAL -- and it is very easy to mistakenly cause problems. A good, common example that slices/dices, saves some space destructively and doesn't do the job perfectly might be mp3... A good, common example that slices/dices, saves some space non-destructively and does do the job perfectly might be flac. MQA is more like mp3 than it is like flac. Anything that is destructive -- guess what? It is destructive. So, if it is claimed that something is non-destructive, and it isn't obvious that it is non-destructive -- significant proof is needed. MQA is a gimmick whose time is long gone -- other than for benefitting those trying to control/limit the freedom of listening to high quality music or make money from intellectual property. There just is no other reason for MQA to exist. the existance of MQA CERTAINLY does not benefit the listener. John crenca, MikeyFresh, Shadders and 4 others 4 1 2 Link to comment
sandyk Posted April 7, 2019 Share Posted April 7, 2019 4 minutes ago, John Dyson said: MQA is a gimmick whose time is long gone -- other than for benefitting those trying to control/limit the freedom of listening to high quality music or make money from intellectual property. There just is no other reason for MQA to exist. the existance of MQA CERTAINLY does not benefit the listener. John Spot on !!! 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 13-11-2020 Link to comment
Sonicularity Posted April 7, 2019 Share Posted April 7, 2019 12 hours ago, crenca said: Just now using Tidal I compared the MQA to 16/ 44 version of Kendrick Scott's new album "A Wall Becomes a Bridge" which was released yesterday (at least on Tidal). I did this through Roon with MQA decoding disabled, so even though Roon is reporting that the MQA is "MQA 96kHz Authenticated" it should simply be passing MQA undecoded (i.e. as a 24/48 file) to my DAC, which in this case is a Schiit Gungnir multibit, so obviously not an MQA DAC. Using the first 10 seconds or so of the second track, Mocean, there is some obvious difference in the stereo separation. It's almost as if when I play the MQA version, I have some sort of crossfeed DSP turned on and way up (I am using a Roon>Gungnir>Jot>Focal Clear rig). This is the first comparison I have done with MQA vs. 16/44 in a while. You guys hearing this? I let Roon decode any MQA file with its core decoder in an otherwise lossless signal path to an RME ADI-2 DAC with the DAC's included parametric EQ enabled to correct the speakers for the room (in case AJ is reading this ). Roon>Intona USB isolator>RME ADI-2 DAC>Marantz MM7025>Klipsch RP-280F. The MQA file, decoded to 24/96 by Roon, sounds similar to the Qobuz 24/96 file. However, the Tidal 16/44 file does appear to be a different master. I also find that some of the percussion instruments in the first 10-15 seconds are in noticeably different positions. The 16/44 seems a tad wider and spread out compared to the 24/96 versions. I'm sure if I were to use SoX I could get the 16/44 to be identical to the 24/96 version where I am hearing differences. These apparent difference probably are not because of the format used, but the HiRes sounds slightly different at the beginning of this track, to be sure. l will put all three files in a queue and randomly shuffle for a while to see if I can actually identify these differences with my ears, and not with my other senses. crenca 1 Link to comment
Rt66indierock Posted April 7, 2019 Author Share Posted April 7, 2019 5 hours ago, shtf said: I can see nothing gets by you. Just two minor corrections I'll focus on here. 1. False claims = fraud. Even if unintentional, though certainly not the case here with MQA. 2. It (MQA) has not made false claims for itself. People did that. Rather charlatans did that. Charlatans like Stuart, Harley, Atkinson, Austin, and a small host of others. Oh, yeah, I almost forgot. Charlatans did that while their colleagues and suborninates stood idly by remaining silent. Last time I checked, silence is complicity. Let me ask you this. If others did not remain silent, might this thread not even exist? Forget about fraud. Just start at zero and see if the audio press and MQA Ltd have proved their case. Easy answer is no they have not. MQA Ltd has made some interesting claims but they are hard to verify and many times are wrong. If I can't verify the claims you haven't proved your case and when they are wrong they hurt their case. This thread exists because valid criticism as early as 2014 was ignored. As Chris said to me at RMAF 17, you got people to listen. crenca 1 Link to comment
Sonicularity Posted April 7, 2019 Share Posted April 7, 2019 12 hours ago, crenca said: Just now using Tidal I compared the MQA to 16/ 44 version of Kendrick Scott's new album "A Wall Becomes a Bridge" which was released yesterday (at least on Tidal). I did this through Roon with MQA decoding disabled, so even though Roon is reporting that the MQA is "MQA 96kHz Authenticated" it should simply be passing MQA undecoded (i.e. as a 24/48 file) to my DAC, which in this case is a Schiit Gungnir multibit, so obviously not an MQA DAC. Using the first 10 seconds or so of the second track, Mocean, there is some obvious difference in the stereo separation. It's almost as if when I play the MQA version, I have some sort of crossfeed DSP turned on and way up (I am using a Roon>Gungnir>Jot>Focal Clear rig). This is the first comparison I have done with MQA vs. 16/44 in a while. You guys hearing this? Ok, listening test completed. I created a playlist in Roon using the Qobuz 24/96 version, Tidal MQA decoded with Roon's core decoder to 24/96, and Tidal 16/44.1 lossless file. I decided to run 12 trials, hitting the shuffle button for the playlist queue and then attempting to identify the version. I made a quick table and placed an X for my selection and then checked to see what file was actually being played. With regards to the 16/44.1 and either 24/96 version, I was correct 12/12. I was not able to statistically identify which 24/96 version was playing, though I was beginning to think it was possible with a bit more concentration. I did this test quickly in under 5 minutes. The differences I believe I was hearing between 16/44.1 and 24/96 were not blatantly obvious, but even with inexpensive speakers, I was able to identify this difference consistently. Due to the types of differences I was hearing, I would assume that this would be even easier to identify using headphones or better equipment. crenca 1 Link to comment
Popular Post Ralf11 Posted April 7, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted April 7, 2019 After 553 pages, one thing stands out in this thread: somebody said they were "lucky" ... "to live in Philly" I have not heard that since the '70s Kyhl, crenca and Rt66indierock 1 2 Link to comment
crenca Posted April 7, 2019 Share Posted April 7, 2019 4 hours ago, Sonicularity said: Ok, listening test completed. I created a playlist in Roon using the Qobuz 24/96 version, Tidal MQA decoded with Roon's core decoder to 24/96, and Tidal 16/44.1 lossless file. I decided to run 12 trials, hitting the shuffle button for the playlist queue and then attempting to identify the version. I made a quick table and placed an X for my selection and then checked to see what file was actually being played. With regards to the 16/44.1 and either 24/96 version, I was correct 12/12. I was not able to statistically identify which 24/96 version was playing, though I was beginning to think it was possible with a bit more concentration. I did this test quickly in under 5 minutes. The differences I believe I was hearing between 16/44.1 and 24/96 were not blatantly obvious, but even with inexpensive speakers, I was able to identify this difference consistently. Due to the types of differences I was hearing, I would assume that this would be even easier to identify using headphones or better equipment. Excellent. I did not think to compare the Qobuz hi res to the MQA. Interesting you could tell the differing masterings so easily, and through speakers. I was using HP's so the differing mastering came through load in clear - it is immediately obvious. So here we have an example of a brand new album that is using differing mastering for the 16/44 and the MQA/Hi Res. Must be what the artist intended... 😋 Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
manisandher Posted April 7, 2019 Share Posted April 7, 2019 5 hours ago, Sonicularity said: Ok, listening test completed. I created a playlist in Roon using the Qobuz 24/96 version, Tidal MQA decoded with Roon's core decoder to 24/96, and Tidal 16/44.1 lossless file. I decided to run 12 trials, hitting the shuffle button for the playlist queue and then attempting to identify the version. I made a quick table and placed an X for my selection and then checked to see what file was actually being played. With regards to the 16/44.1 and either 24/96 version, I was correct 12/12. I was not able to statistically identify which 24/96 version was playing, though I was beginning to think it was possible with a bit more concentration. I did this test quickly in under 5 minutes. The differences I believe I was hearing between 16/44.1 and 24/96 were not blatantly obvious, but even with inexpensive speakers, I was able to identify this difference consistently. Due to the types of differences I was hearing, I would assume that this would be even easier to identify using headphones or better equipment. So you identified decoded-MQA vs. hires correctly 5/9 times, right? Mani. Main: SOtM sMS-200 -> Okto dac8PRO -> 6x Neurochrome 286 mono amps -> Tune Audio Anima horns + 2x Rotel RB-1590 amps -> 4 subs Home Office: SOtM sMS-200 -> MOTU UltraLite-mk5 -> 6x Neurochrome 286 mono amps -> Impulse H2 speakers Vinyl: Technics SP10 / London (Decca) Reference -> Trafomatic Luna -> RME ADI-2 Pro Link to comment
shtf Posted April 7, 2019 Share Posted April 7, 2019 4 hours ago, Rt66indierock said: ... This thread exists because valid criticism as early as 2014 was ignored. As Chris said to me at RMAF 17, you got people to listen. And here I thought mine was the only valid critisim back in late 2014 / early 2015 when I called MQA a fraud then in several forums and to this day I've yet to see a little green light emitting to know I'm authenticating (I've yet to listen to a single MQA recording). Sorry to break the news to you but this thread doesn't exist because of you as you (all of us) are but the effect and the cause is fraud and MQA, as the thread title clearly indicates. MQA fraud is why this and other threads exists. Fraud perpetrated by charlatans. Well, that and because of the cowardly or compromised many who remained silent. The more I dabble with extreme forms of electrical mgmt. and extreme forms of vibration mgmt., the more I’m convinced it’s all just variations of managing mechanical energy. Or was it all just variations of managing electrical energy? No, it’s all just variations of mechanical energy. Wait. It's all just variations of managing electrical energy. -Me Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now