MQA is Vaporware

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

2 minutes ago, WAM said:

 

You did some A-B-testing " before" and "after"?

 

> I'm in the market for a new pair of bibs (Isidore is also tempting) 😌.

 

Back on topic. I'm also in the market for a dac/headphone-amp. First RoE: no MQA. Shortlist, but open to alternatives: UR SH, Luxman DA 250. Someone an other suggestion?

 

 

 

Marantz HD-DAC1. Absolutely the deal of the century. I have one for home and one for the office. that is how much I love it. $799.

 

https://www.us.marantz.com/us/products/pages/ProductDetails.aspx?CatId=hificomponents&ProductId=HDDAC1

[Paul R]

3 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

Yeh - huge market in Kemmerer

 

I don't live in Kemmerer, it's a good ways from here. But you might be surprised, there are at least two, maybe three audiophiles in that area, though I only met one. He saw the Soundkeepers sticker on the back of my Jeep. What else are they going to do? Shop at J.C. Penny's? Which, by the way, checking out the history of is a very cool way to spend a couple hours. Thank you my audiophile friend.

 

So assuming you live in a huge urban area, how many people have you talked to face to face about audio in the past six months?  

 

And what did they think about computers and audio, or specifically about MQA and audio?  

 

-Paul 

 

 

[sandyk]

6 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

I keep hearing that. That may be true at home and maybe even at the office.  But what about the shopping mall,  the coffee shop, airports, public buildings, schools, etc.? The bandwidth can be pretty bad.

 

6 hours ago, mansr said:

My 4G phone usually gets 100-200 Mbps in populated areas.

Not everybody uses a 4G phone to listen to Audio. There are STILL many countries and semi rural areas where Internet is damn slow, including the service we currently have here via the National Broadband Network which for the most part uses FTN, and replaces sloooow ADSL .

 We currently peak at 2.8Mbps whereas a  previous service in Sydney via Optical cable nudged 100Mbps with speed tests, but not real live traffic.

[tmtomh]

5 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

Not everybody uses a 4G phone to listen to Audio. There are STILL many countries and semi rural areas where Internet is damn slow, including the service we currently have here via the National Broadband Network which for the most part uses FTN, and replaces sloooow ADSL .

 We currently peak at 2.8Mbps whereas a  previous service in Sydney via Optical cable nudged 100Mbps with speed tests, but not real live traffic.

 

You make a very good point. But it doesn't seem relevant to MQA: files that are partway between the size of 24/48 FLAC and 24/96 FLAC are not going to make streaming any more reliable in poor-bandwidth situations. In such situations, losslessly compressed redbook is the obvious audiophile choice if possible, because it's lossless and uses less bandwidth than high-res or MQA.

 

If high-res is desired, and somehow possible, in a lower-bandwidth situation, then 24/48 FLAC still is more feasible than MQA.

[sandyk]

9 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

In such situations, losslessly compressed redbook is the obvious audiophile choice if possible, because it's lossless and uses less bandwidth than high-res or MQA.

 

 NO ! By far the best choice in this situation is to Download  genuine hi res recordings and save them for more than likely technically and audibly superior listening sessions than most streaming services are capable of,without paying for the same music over and over again  !

 This thread isn't just about streaming MQA, it's about MQA in general, including downloads and physical media.

[lucretius]

36 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

losslessly compressed redbook is the obvious audiophile choice if possible, because it's lossless and uses less bandwidth than high-res or MQA.

 

How much size difference will there be between a compressed 24/48 file and a compressed 16/44.1 file?

 

 

36 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

If high-res is desired, and somehow possible, in a lower-bandwidth situation, then 24/48 FLAC still is more feasible than MQA.

 

I'm not following here.  The MQA on Tidal is either a from a 24/48 file or from a 24/44.1 file.

 

 

[Rt66indierock]

6 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

 

Then why are so many people jumping on the MQA bandwagon?   Someone somewhere is making compelling arguments for MQA.  

 

Part of the problem is that often, a MQA version does sound better. Though I have noticed they are starting to admit it is a different mastering, which is probably the real reason. But people don’t care, if a MQA master sounds better, then they want it.

 

Question: why would a remaster sound better? Are the originals simply done poorly, is this fallout from loudness wars, or something else?  Can it be that audiophiles are listening for different things than the average music lover? If that is so, why do MQA files often sound better to audiophiles? 

 

Many remasters are louder which makes them sound better to most audiophiles and other music lovers. Another thing frequently done in a remaster is to add space between the musicians. Audiophiles seem to like the added “air” more than other music lovers.

 

Look at a previously discussed example The Nightfly. The original master is considered good enough that it was used as a reference to setup live systems for concerts. The MQA version uses a different master and is 2dB louder. If people aren’t volume matching they will pick the louder version.

[Rt66indierock]

6 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

What evidence do you have that MQA is being rejected by the much larger set of audiophiles who are not online here?  I would be glad to see contradicting evidence. So far, not seen much. 

 

Evidence from the MQA Ltd website indicating people are rejecting MQA. There are less than fifty companies with MQA products. Then you get to how you listen to files processed by MQA Ltd. In the United States Tidal, Onkyo Music and Nugs.net allow you to purchase or stream MQA files. It is unclear how you get 2L MQA files since their music is distributed on sites that don’t sell MQA files in the US. Deezer is listed as a streaming service with MQA but a quick look at their website only shows CD quality streaming available.

[firedog]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

 

How many people have you spoken to about the hobby in the past six months?  I mean, other than online?  

 

Or do you talk to people exclusively online?  

 

That would explain why you seem to be un-aware of the much larger audiophile community out there. Would you believe I met people who don't use their computers for music at all? Or that you might be surprised how many Jeepers are also audiophiles? 

 

-Paul 

 

 

 

Uh, so a decent amount of the audiophiles you met don’t use computers at all for music? And how have they been getting MQA on their iPhones? So no MQA for any of them.

Sorry Paul, I don’t find your claim of having talked to hundreds of audiophiles about  MQA and how it sounds credible.

[lucretius]

13 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Many remasters are louder which makes them sound better to most audiophiles and other music lovers. Another thing frequently done in a remaster is to add space between the musicians. Audiophiles seem to like the added “air” more than other music lovers.

 

 

Raising the peak to just under 0.0 dBFS is fine but increasing the perceived loudness by compressing the dynamic range is not OK with audiophiles.

[Les Habitants]

6 hours ago, Paul R said:

So far, not seen much. 

 

Nor have you provided any. I too can tout anecdotal evidence, in Québec no one know what MQA is, and they don't care to pay for Tidal either.

[tmtomh]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 

 NO ! By far the best choice in this situation is to Download  genuine hi res recordings and save them for more than likely technically and audibly superior listening sessions than most streaming services are capable of,without paying for the same music over and over again  !

 This thread isn't just about streaming MQA, it's about MQA in general, including downloads and physical media.

 

Well, okay, sure - no disagreement there.

[Les Habitants]

7 hours ago, Paul R said:

Yes, I did mean Pono. The question was about selling high resolution music. “Phono” is  inherently hires and has been around a very long time. Not sure how anyone could assume it was a failure. 

 

And there absolutely is more to MQA the theory. Again, what MQA the company does, and the science behind what they claim are separate things. MQA fails in the engineering, not in theory.  If you really do not understand that difference, I can probably recommend some community colleges in your area. Call their math department and ask for help.

 

Not sure how anyone could know if you are referring to Pono as a failure (it was), or "Phono" based on your cryptic reference to both there.

I can probably recommend some community colleges in your area, call their English department and ask for help.

[crenca]

1 hour ago, lucretius said:

...I'm not following here.  The MQA on Tidal is either a from a 24/48 file or from a 24/44.1 file.

 

 

I forgot the numbers, but 24/48(or 44.1) PCM compresses to a smaller file than MQA anything...

[lucretius]

54 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

I forgot the numbers, but 24/48(or 44.1) PCM compresses to a smaller file than MQA anything...

How is that? A 24/48 PCM file compresses just the same as a 24/48 MQA file.

[Sonicularity]

2 minutes ago, lucretius said:

How is that? A 24/48 PCM file compresses just the same as a 24/48 MQA file.

 

Yes, that is technically correct, but an 18-bit PCM file could contain as much or more musical data than a decoded 24-bit MQA file.  Why not use PCM and save the rain forests?  

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, Les Habitants said:

 

Not sure how anyone could know if you are referring to Pono as a failure (it was), or "Phono" based on your cryptic reference to both there.

I can probably recommend some community colleges in your area, call their English department and ask for help.

 

 

What an inane and malicious comment - the original reference was to "Pono" - but it spelling corrected to "Phono." Intentionally misunderstanding? 

 

I know some nuns who would probably take you on as a charity case - you obviously are sorely in need. At least you know the difference between "there" and "their." 

-Paul 

 

 

[crenca]

31 minutes ago, lucretius said:

How is that? A 24/48 PCM file compresses just the same as a 24/48 MQA file.

 

18 minutes ago, Sonicularity said:

 

Yes, that is technically correct....

 

Is it?  I thought MQA is not nearly as compressible (i.e. non-lossy, FLAC, etc.) as the 24/48...due to the folded HF being non conducive to compression...going from memory here

 

edit:  see #3 and 4 in the last section here:  https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/55970-mqa-technically-exposed/

because of this preexisting compression, FLAC is simply not as effective and so MQA is a 'tweener' in size (i.e. between 24/48 and 24/96 PCM)

 

[Paul R]

2 hours ago, firedog said:

Uh, so a decent amount of the audiophiles you met don’t use computers at all for music? And how have they been getting MQA on their iPhones? So no MQA for any of them.

Sorry Paul, I don’t find your claim of having talked to hundreds of audiophiles about  MQA and how it sounds credible.

 

In this case Danny, it does not matter if you find it credible or not - I keep a journal.

 

But think about it for a second. The last time *I* connected my phone to a computer was certainly years ago, and I listen to music on my phone all the time. When was the last time you connected your phone to a computer? 

 

You do know most people do not think of their phones as computers, right? 

 

-Paul 

 

Also, what possible purpose could I have for lying? It's unimaginable.  I just like to talk to people. -PR

[sandyk]

42 minutes ago, Les Habitants said:

 

I can imagine it, you just like to hear yourself talk (and you imagine that others like it too), the purpose being to enhance that legend in your own mind.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znodcpMzcnA

 

[crenca]

44 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znodcpMzcnA

 

 

Puuuleeesssee.  Paul R has been making stuff up since he waded into this thread a few months back, falsely accusing "members" (aren't you the guy who refers to "members" a lot?) of all sorts of dispicables, and now claims to have met several hundred folks who are actually interested in MQA  - personally.  What is "unkind" is the constant derailing of the the thread.  I blame the OP for not demanding order in the utter chaos of your brand of "kindness" 😛

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, Sonicularity said:

 

Yes, that is technically correct, but an 18-bit PCM file could contain as much or more musical data than a decoded 24-bit MQA file.  Why not use PCM and save the rain forests?  

 

I agree.  But in the end, Bob Stuart's argument is about psychoacoustics; however, as far as I'm concerned, he has not made a compelling case.

[Les Habitants]

@sandyk I trust you missed Paul's rude, condescending, presumptive, uninformed, and nasty suggestion that Lars need seek community college help with mathematics? He then coupled that with a thinly veiled allegation of stupidity.

You missed that post I take it, or do you agree with Paul there and everywhere?

I'm willing to bet Paul is not the math genius he purports himself to be, rather like Lee Scoggins in that regard I suppose.

I'm sure Lars is too classy to even respond to such nonsense, more likely he will just place Paul R. on his ignore list, knowing that blowhards hate to be ignored.

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, crenca said:

 

 

Is it?  I thought MQA is not nearly as compressible (i.e. non-lossy, FLAC, etc.) as the 24/48...due to the folded HF being non conducive to compression...going from memory here

 

edit:  see #3 and 4 in the last section here:  https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/55970-mqa-technically-exposed/

because of this preexisting compression, FLAC is simply not as effective and so MQA is a 'tweener' in size (i.e. between 24/48 and 24/96 PCM)

 

 

MQA is not a file format nor a compression scheme.  All MQA does is play with the bits.  An MQA'd track can exist in any lossless file format you choose.  If it be a flac file with compression, then the compression scheme will not be partial to whether there are any "MQA" bits or not.    

 

 

 

 

[crenca]

1 minute ago, lucretius said:

 

MQA is not a file format nor a compression scheme.

 

It is an encoding (audio codec), and yes it is a compression scheme - even if it is one obscured in a black box proprietary software.  Also, for practical purposes MQA is a "file format", again one that is black boxed and has a freemium PCM aspect.

 

4 minutes ago, lucretius said:

An MQA'd track can exist in any lossless file form you choose.

 

Not really relevant - it is a black boxed compression scheme that does not compress very much at all

 

6 minutes ago, lucretius said:

If it be a flac file with compression, then the compression scheme will not be partial to whether there are any "MQA" bits or not.    

 

 

Incorrect.  MQA has aspects (it's already compressed, etc.) that makes it different from standard PCM.  See the tech post I referenced above.