Jump to content
Rt66indierock

MQA is Vaporware

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

To the surprise of nobody, certain people were as pompous and abrasive as ever. I was told by people they’d never be on a panel or present with them again. 

 

Probably safe to say that Jbara is no pro at corporate governance, and Forsythe reacted poorly to his credentials being questioned?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

And with due respect, I don't think your regular comments extolling the futility of rising in opposition of MQA in audio forums will have a measurable affect either.

 

To paraphrase The Princess Bride...

Extolling
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, daverich4 said:

 

To paraphrase The Princess Bride...

Extolling
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

 

I'm well aware of the definition and I think the usage of that word is appropriate to describe your contributions to this thread.  Was that word an odd choice to use next to the word "futility"?  Perhaps.  But your message is clear: protesting MQA is futile and foolish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

I'm well aware of the definition and I think the usage of that word is appropriate to describe your contributions to this thread.  Was that word an odd choice to use next to the word "futility"?  Perhaps.  But your message is clear: protesting MQA is futile and foolish.

 

It must not have been clear enough because that isn’t what I was saying at all. When you phrase it that way it sounds as if I think the success of MQA is inevitable. I do not. While I don’t share the animosity towards MQA that many posters here do, I don’t have any desire to have that be the only game in town. But the factors that will decide that are much larger than any thing that’s posted on this site. Apparently several of the more prolific posters here disagree with that sentiment. That’s fine. Carry on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, daverich4 said:

 

It must not have been clear enough because that isn’t what I was saying at all. When you phrase it that way it sounds as if I think the success of MQA is inevitable. I do not. While I don’t share the animosity towards MQA that many posters here do, I don’t have any desire to have that be the only game in town. But the factors that will decide that are much larger than any thing that’s posted on this site. Apparently several of the more prolific posters here disagree with that sentiment. That’s fine. Carry on. 

 

Thanks for the response.  Am I imagining that you're avoiding the point I was trying to make?: you mock MQA protesters and certainly imply that their effort is futile and foolish.  Does your reply mean you won't do that anymore?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, FredericV said:

OMG they still believe there are 3 unfolds ... so he quotes Archimago's article but clearly he has understood nothing, as he would have known better ....

image.png.53161fa35d071007be4719ffeaa0505d.png

Really hard to believe. I mean absurd. But then as has been stated ad nauseam we live in a post truth era.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hans Beekhzn also believes there are 3 unfolds, while 24 bit stops at around -144dB, so how is this graph even possible? It's a complete fabrication by HB (or copied).

image.thumb.png.76d86b7b96fa7c0ac787eb3678f07df8.png

 

So why is this completely incorrect graph still on Hans's site?

http://thehbproject.com/nl/artikelen/38/6/MQA---Kwaliteitsgarantie

The article mentions "kwaliteitsgarantie" which means quality assurance, but the articles by Hans lack any quality journalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, FredericV said:

 

Let's use @mansr tools to educate him a little bit, shall we?
 

image.png.81dfd034a1fb7f83776792b3bc66ae05.png

 

So he claims MQA can contain 4 resolutions, but he obviously is mistaking resolution and upsampling.

The first unfold can achieve 17/88.2 or 17/96
Then the second unfold can upsample to any value set by the orig_rate field as shown in the output of @mansr tool.

If your MQA dac does not support that resolution (e.g. you try 352.8 kHz but your dac is a 24/192 dac, it may actually try to use 24/176.4 instead), but that does not make MQA a format which contains 44.1, 88.2, 176.4 and 352.8K resolution in the same file format.

MQA is not DXD resolution, it can only do a fraction of DXD.

Also notice that MQA files have similar data rates independent of the original being e.g. 24/96, 24/192, 24/384 or 24/768 as it decimates to 17/96 in this case and tries to pack that in a 24/48 container.

For 44.1K multiples like DXD, you can clearly see the limitations of MQA:
mqa-mutilation-freq-domain.thumb.png.f20079d49ed0414c68ec587afa4ab785.png
 

Unfortunately, you are dealing with this:

 

spacer.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, crenca said:

It looks like to me Steven Stone is simply trolling you.  Hans however I don't think gets it - is that graph not straight from a Bob S presentation?

 

Sometimes you wonder if they are playing dumb just for sake of trolling:

image.png.b9815bbbd014c319aae0a9214066afe9.png

 

or they are completely misinformed like the HB project

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect it's both.  I don't know who Steven Stone is but like so many doing audio "reviews" he might not have any knowledge of basic digital software at all.  He might not have liked being exposed so he is running with "perceptual lossless" and the like...


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, crenca said:

I suspect it's both.  I don't know who Steven Stone is but like so many doing audio "reviews" he might not have any knowledge of basic digital software at all.  He might not have liked being exposed so he is running with "perceptual lossless" and the like...


He spilled the beans: he ignored all the independent research:

image.png.ea5e8cfe0b7b6202e2e0544b0df14869.png

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, crenca said:

I suspect it's both.  I don't know who Steven Stone is but like so many doing audio "reviews" he might not have any knowledge of basic digital software at all.  He might not have liked being exposed so he is running with "perceptual lossless" and the like...

 

https://audiophilereview.com/authors/steven-stone.html

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...