MQA is Vaporware

[Currawong]

1 hour ago, botrytis said:

Because he is paid for this, so useful. Idiot because he just repeats what he is told to repeat. mQ-Anon is like a conspiracy theory.

 

I thought that he already has a highly-paid job, so it seems rather odd that he'd need to be paid for it.   I'd be more inclined to put it down to it being human nature that we all have something about which we're completely deluded -- something that we're living in fantasy land in our minds about, and that's just his.

[Currawong]

On 1/29/2023 at 1:26 AM, ARQuint said:

That has been a central question for me over the five years this debate has been unfolding. (That and why those on opposing sides of the MQA debate  often treat one another so miserably.)  If MQA is offering less data than a competing format, why do some critical listeners  think it sounds better, and why do some recording professionals utilize it in their production methodology? Unless they are citing the one Canadian comparison study where subjects couldn't tell the difference, those most stridently opposed to MQA tend to discount the subjective experience entirely.

On 1/29/2023 at 2:24 AM, ARQuint said:

"The DXD file sounds better than the disc's DSD layer: cleaner transients, greater transparency, etc."

He said it believing that he was hearing the full-resolution "reference" file. You'll say it's expectation bias or lousy hearing. I'm interested in hearing how the real reference (the NativeDSD file) sounds in comparison to the allegedly fake one (the MQA-CD.)

To add to what Archimago wrote, the digital filters used by MQA screw up the phase, such that instruments are pushed forward in the soundstage. You can see that the MQA CD is a dB or so louder as well. When you add compression (Jack Johnson or The Beatles are good examples of this) it emphasises quieter sounds, so the overall impression is of more detail. With some music, it definitely can be more enjoyable. With others, such as some classical I've tried, they've attempted to remove some of the background, such as in concert halls, presumably to emphasise notes more, and you lose the sense of atmosphere and space, and it ends up sounding artificial.

 

On 1/29/2023 at 3:07 AM, Archimago said:

As I've shown, the SACD layer is clearly a transfer of the DXD reference and since SACD is capable of true hi-res performance, you should hear what amounts to the DXD. As opposed to the MQA-CD decode with the demonstrable frequency variation within the audible range (which you might still enjoy, maybe even prefer!).

DSD blunts transients, which is why it sounds soft, and explains the impressions of the DXD version sounding more dynamic.  A lot of people have the idea that "soft" equals "more natural" but live music is totally the opposite. If anything, a lot of the music we listen to is missing varying degrees of dynamic range, transient dynamics, etc. but that's another discussion.

[Currawong]

19 hours ago, firedog said:

Andrew apparently sees everything within his "courtesy and civility template", even when it doesn't apply. If you challenge the audiophile press, you are automatically in the "caustic" and "uncivil" category - even when you aren't uncivil. 

Well, every time someone throws an insult about a person rather than just what they say, that gives them good reason to ignore the arguments and just accuse one of being uncivil. It doesn't help that a considerable percentage of discussion in this thread consists of that. 

[Currawong]

On 2/16/2023 at 3:33 AM, Jud said:

 

The claims aren't even consistent:

 

 

24 x 384k = 9.2Mbps, not 20Mbps. So which is it? (On second thought, don't bother. If at some point there's a working codec popular enough to be included with music I may listen to and products I may choose to purchase, then let me know what the actual tested capabilities are. Until then, I don't think this merits my further attention.)

 

On 2/16/2023 at 4:13 AM, FredericV said:

RAW uncompressed bandwidth of stereo 24/384 is 24x2x384k, so 18.432.000 bits per second. That's closer to 20 mbit. If you have a stable 20 mbit channel, you don't even need any compression at all. In reality this does not happen with BT.

 

I'm sure their 20 Mbps "lossless" transmission works.... inside a chamber isolated completely from all other HF transmission, with no other electronics. What they are saying is, it'll always be lossy in actual use.   

They used the same trick with the "3rd unfold". I believe it does exist, but according to their own materials, requires a 32-bit file. Since no 32 bit streaming files exist on the internet (that I am aware of), there aren't any MQA files in circulation that are actually capable of the 3rd unfold. They just blur (ha!) the line between up-sampling and unfolding in their literature, as we already know. Then, of course, you the make the files a little louder, and compress them a bit to bring up the quieter sounds. Combine that with the effect that short filters have of making things sound more forward, and it's easy enough to trick people who don't know any better (heck, digital is complicated) that it's better.

[Currawong]

2 hours ago, botrytis said:

https://store.hiby.com/products/hiby-r6-gen-iii

 

16X MQA unfolding? What nonsense.....

The DAP market in Asia has always been insane. First, it was Astell&Kern that came out with the awful 2.5mm balanced headphone connector, even though it isn't a standard, and most of the plugs available were slightly the wrong length compared to the sockets... that meant that to even sell a portable audio device in Asia, you HAVE to have a balanced output, even though the benefits are essentially zero. Ironically, A&K's flagship DAPs both measured and sounded just as good from the 3.5mm output as the 2.5mm.  There's also a mod for the Chord Mojo which gives it a balanced output, but the SQ is, not surprisingly, worse. 

 

MQA is just a repeat of the same kind of nonsense -- you have to have it in your audio gear or people wont even consider it. This is the same market where people will buy half-a-dozen expensive cables just to get the right synergistic match with their IEMs and DAP.

 

If TIDAL is fading out though, it'll burn out eventually as new FADs come through. I'm sure that the MQA BT codec is just to try and capture more money from Asia before it finally burns out.

 

[Currawong]

18 hours ago, Axiom05 said:

Why won't they just rollover and die?!

It's like an STD: The gift that keeps on giving. 

[Currawong]

20 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

PSB Speakers, Sonical and MQA announce partnership to create next-generation headphones 

 

The first in new category of smart, mobile and true hifi audio products

Tuesday, Febraury 28, 2023, Pickering, Canada– PSB Speakers, together with hearables start-up Sonical and audio specialists MQA, announced a partnership that will define a new category of high-resolution audio headphones. The product combines high resolution wireless transmission, proven high-fidelity design, and Sonical’s CosmOS platform. Released under the PSB Speakers brand by Q1 2024, it will be the first headphone to feature Sonical’s ear computing platform, enabling a variety of apps and software upgrades. It also includes MQA’s latest technology, SCL6, the most advanced codec for adaptive, high-resolution audio streaming.

 

CosmOS is Sonical’s revolutionary operating system that runs on powerful low wattage processing cores, bringing unprecedented levels of connectivity and computational power to headphones. CosmOS offers mobile audio product manufacturers the versatility to keep pace with rapidly changing consumer demands for convenience and performance. The integration of Qorvo’s Ultra-wideband (UWB) radio technology enables a superior audio experience thanks to UWB’s higher data rate and extremely low latency. Using Antennaware’s UWB antenna directly addresses any issues associated with Body Blocking which could occur with wireless wearable devices. 

 

Canada-based PSB Speakers, a pioneer in psychoacoustics and an early brand to create audiophile grade wireless headphones, will innovate through deep relationships with Sonical and MQA to push the boundaries of mobile listening. The product will utilize MQA’s new technology, SCL6, an innovative, time domain-based codec for the highest quality audio streaming. Developed by industry veteran and MQA founder, Bob Stuart, SCL6 ensures high-resolution sound even at low data rates.

 

“Given PSB Speakers’ long-time commitment to the science of audio and music listening, it’s a pleasure to be in this partnership which shows the world what CosmOS can do,” says Gary Spittle, Founder and CEO of Sonical.

 

“Our use of the CosmOS platform to make the world’s first software defined wireless headset and the inclusion of MQA’s adaptive wireless codec helps set a new benchmark for a high resolution, mobile high-fidelity product. We believe this product underscores what Paul Barton and the PSB team have accomplished over the brand’s 50-year history in the pursuit of audio excellence for listeners at home and now on the move,” says Gordon Simmonds, President and CEO of Lenbrook Industries, PSB Speakers’ parent company.

 

“MQA was founded by one of the great innovators in audio. We design by thinking of the consumer experience first which means we are comfortable challenging the status quo. The vision shared by our partners at PSB Speakers and Sonical, bringing together superior audio quality and the next generation of consumer convenience, makes this a perfect fit for our latest technology SCL6,” says Mike Jbara, CEO of MQA.

By putting it directly in headphones, users wont be able to check easily if the codec is actually sending lossless data, which we know it very likely wont anyway.  Just like when the Sound Guys showed that even "high res" 990kbit LDAC wasn't quite even CD quality.

[Currawong]

41 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

The telling part of this is that the MQA reps in that group would be happy to correct people if the inaccuracies have a negative connotation, but 4 unfolds sounds good, so they let it slide. 

Every new product I see from China with MQA still uses the graphic that implies the need of a 32 bit file for the second and third unfolds (with B and C portions in the area below -120 dB).

 

But it's interesting that they are trying to break into the headphone market. They don't seem to realise that the high-end headphone market is almost entirely wired. Focal has been the only company to really make a high-end wireless headphone that impressed people.  Every other attempt has been near ignored. 

 

Let's say that they do come out with a headphone at something like the standard price point of $350 (or so) then it wont seem expensive enough for anyone to take it seriously. I guess it keeps the investment money flowing in though.

[Currawong]

17 hours ago, ECL said:

1. You have an ALMOST-lossless codec,

2. > 99% of what's lost is what's claimed as inaudible, such that it's ALMOST fair to call it lossless.

3. This codec allows transport of Hi-Res at bandwidth usage similar to 16/44.

4. If used properly and not merely for marketing hype, it could potentially satisfy artists AND consumers about authenticity. To clarify, NOT that the end-user is hearing a Master on the same kit it was produced with "as it sounded to the production team", which is silly and preposterous.... But rather, that the end-user is hearing something compressed, decoded, and unfolded in such a way that it is 1) guaranteed to be reasonably faithful to a Master, at least in the source data, and 2) isn't some counterfeit unapproved kooky crap that who knows which platforms you can't trust, would serve that stuff up.

 

1. A codec is either lossy or lossless. There isn't an "almost" involved. It's one or the other. It is being promoted as being able to contain high-res content in a manner that has shown to be either a: false (via analysis of high-res originals and their MQA versions) or b: impossible without the use of a 32 bit file (going by their own marketing materials).

2. Again, no "almost". Lossless and lossy have strict definitions. If the compression of the music removes data, it is lossy. Period.

3. No it does not. Compression of the MQA data has been shown to result in larger FLAC files, due to the MQA data part of the file not being music. What amounts to noise does not compress as well.  Then, MQA's claimed "high res" compression REQUIRES at least a 24-bit file (or even 32 bit), which results in much larger files.  What MQA have done is bait-and-switch, claiming one thing, then doing another.

4."Reasonably faithful to a Master" is not the Master. In other words, the end user is hearing something that is a fake master, with fake high-res content caused by aliasing as a result of leaky digital filters. That's totally opposite of faithful to anything, and a good description of "unapproved kooky crap" as most MQA material was batch-processed without any input from anyone who created the music in the first place.

 

The ONLY benefit of MQA is to make money off of flagrant lies and deception. There is ZERO in it for the end consumer.

 

 

[Currawong]

 

5 hours ago, ECL said:

Second, there is no way I can fight the flood of spurious misinformation above. Much of it has clearly not even researched the basic goals and principles of what MQA is and is trying to do. And is completely ignorant on the science of the flaws in digital recording that MQA rightly acknowledges and CLAIMS to be improving.

 

There are plenty of people here who have spent years researching it. Many of us know engineers with decades of experience in digital conversion who have analysed MQA in detail. The things MQA are actually doing, don't improve anything, but, in actual application, make things worse.  For example, minimum phase type filters, which MQA uses, ruin the timing information necessary for the brain to reconstruct the the placement of instruments on a soundstage. You can literally pass audio through a minimum phase filter and compare the before and after, and see the phase shift.  The issues with ADCs cannot be fixed post conversion by screwing up the audio even more.

 

5 hours ago, ECL said:

Third, I am not pro-MQA. I am pro-evolving past the heinous flaws in current digital recording/playback methodology and highly interested that MQA at least rightly lists off what those are. I am not inner circle to MQA nor the expensive equipment needed, to tell if those claims are correct, but certainly educated enough to peer review that all the critiques so far against MQA have failed to pass even the basics of scientific methodology, and are total amateur hour not even worthy of MS level let alone Ph.D. or post-graduate level.

So, now we're into the ad-hominem attacks.  

5 hours ago, ECL said:

 

I have given ample volumes of critique against MQA, especially in what I called mismarketing and proprietary secrecy which would hold back global cooperation and intelligentsia from collaborative consortia of bringing the legitimately superior goals of MQA further. To anyone over IQ 108, this should be clear enough to differentiate me from some paid bot who comes in just to troll and market MQA.

"[L]egitimately superior goals of MQA". I think you missed that their goals were to earn billions processing all music through their machine, collecting royalties from studios, manufacturers, streaming companies, and the whole industry, basically. They got caught out lying about their technology, however. 

5 hours ago, ECL said:

 

Fourth, the claim that MQA at a 16/44 or 48 is up to 50% more data is a blatant misinformational propaganda lie, far worse than any misrepresentation made by MQA itself. It's at roughly 1:1 or only micro higher, and significantly compressed for Hi-Res, which is what all audiophiles are more concerned about since Hi-Res brings significant magnification to the frequency bandwidth for the cutoff filtering, which CREATES LESS FALSE DIGITAL ARTIFACTS in the AUDIBLE frequencies.

There's more than enough processing power available, even in off-the-shelf DA converter chips, to avoid this. MQA, however, are claiming their music has high-res content, which is aliased content, the result of their digital filters. Then, don't forget that the MQA data is often stored within the audible frequency range. If you have an MQA CD, you basically have 13-bit audio.
Another example of MQA claiming one benefit, while making something else worse.

 

5 hours ago, ECL said:

Fifth, to claim that ALMOST LOSSLESS is the same as LOSSY is a disingenuous argument when the topic is about slight lossyness in INAUDIBLE frequencies in a format whose A-to-D was ALREADY extremely lossy in these frequencies due to microphone limitations. If we are lossy in inaudible areas that microphones can't even record, and we trade off SLIGHT lossyness in this "garbage data" for actual GAINS in the reconstruction of audible frequencies, then besides that being KUDOS FOR ABSOLUTE GENIUS, we can make some judgements about the kind of person who understates this as "ALMOST LOSSLESS." That person could've hyped it a lot more than merely saying ALMOST LOSSY. That person is using understatement and OVERVALUING the points against them in an extreme act of honesty and civility to propagate higher quality discussion. That person is a hero of honesty, civility, and understatement when calling it ALMOST LOSSLESS when they could have deservedly and easily given it a more deserving title like "LOSING NOTHING OF VALUE IN EXCHANGE FOR GAINING EXTRA FIDELITY." If anything, we need to re-educate people with a greater vocabulary than just LOSSY vs LOSSLESS. Let's make some new concepts such as GAINY. GAINY represents any format which RECOVERS losses made over an exisiting A-to-D-to-A paradigm, giving greater fidelity to the original A. FLAC has 0 GAINYNESS and as such, recovers NONE of the lossy damage which has been scientifically shown to occur in the current A-to-D-to-A sound reproduction paradigm. 

1+1=3 if I say it is. Thank you for providing a good example of a bunch of logical fallacies. 
MQA, nor anything else, can recover the losses caused by conventional AD conversion. If it were possible, after almost a decade of MQA, there's good reason we don't see it all through the recording industry.

5 hours ago, ECL said:

 

Now then, it is claimed that MQA is a GAINY format which recovers some of those losses and is therefore, when the rubber meets the road, actually LESS lossy than PCM/FLAC/etc. Obviously, an MQA enemy could propagandize this GAINYNESS by actually measuring it as LOSSY, by comparing it to the middle-stage D rather than original-stage A. But only if disingenuous and dishonest and deliberately ignoring the main thesis of MQA as invalid before even starting the troll attacks against it.

 

Sixth, the claim that we are at a place where bandwidth doesn't matter couldn't be further from the truth. YES, TRUE, we are at a place where you can actually pay LESS to get lossless Hi-Res from Amazon, than compressed ALMOST-LOSSY from Tidal. And I never claimed otherwise. I'm the honest one here who acknowledges pros and cons.

 

Seventh, a "partisan" in my book is someone whose pro- and con- list is 100% pros or 100% cons and is incapable of having an erudite productive dialogue. If we were to believe intelligence experts like Edward deBono, we'd classify the people who deliberately try to force data/information to 100% support a view as IDIOTS, people who weigh a list of PROS vs CONS as SMART, and people who use a list of PROS and CONS to generate a third category called INTERESTING, and use the three categories to generate intellectual PROGRESS, as geniuses. I started out with P and C to a group of only C, and hinted at how we can discuss I, and all I got was more C.

"IDIOTS". If MQA had just been sold as a mastering method to studios, without the file format nonsense (which was designed to lock in hardware manufacturers) it would have been ok. As it is, I and other people have complained about the awful results with batch processed albums on TIDAL, where old jazz and classical albums are ruined.  The same thing has happened with spacial audio on Apple, but at least you can switch that off.

5 hours ago, ECL said:

 

At the end of the day, the elephant in the room is this, and NO ONE here is talking about it so hasn't even passed level 1 out of 10 in due diligence:

As Bob Stuart CORRECTLY says, all the recording engineers in studio COMPLAIN that the A-to-D-to-A PERFORM-RECORD-PLAYBACK tests right in the studio show that what goes in IS NOT WHAT COMES OUT. Compared right next to analogue in the same studio, the analogue is still performing better in SOME metrics over digital. Unlike poop-throwing chimps, I applaud him in giving a calm, clear, thorough, and civil explanation of the hypotheses for why this is the case, based on our current scientific understanding of all the known phenomena from multi-disciplinary fields coming together. I applaud anyone seeking to TACKLE these issues rather than stick their head in the sand and proclaim current digital formats as be-all-end-all. Heroes raise the bar, fundamentalist dogmatists fight advancement. What we know so far is that in studio A-to-D-to-A A/B testing, significant improvements WERE made in these issues.

"[P]oop-throwing chimps". The problem is using one argument to justify something that does not fix the actual problem, which is the MQA playbook.  You're doing a similar thing, having a go at people calling you a troll, then replying with a bunch of ad-hominem comments. 

5 hours ago, ECL said:

 

My concerns are that there is no openness to what's going on, and how much of the advancements made there are really and truly getting to END USERS from a dual-corporate-monopoly that has currently exhibited no remorse in wildly exaggerative mismarketing and not delivering truthfully on its claims. But I don't care about that as much as making sure a bunch of nazis don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. WHERE ARE ALL THE OPEN-SOURCERS trying to make an OPEN STANDARD to do what MQA is trying to do? Nowhere, just chimps throwing poop and sticking their head in the sand and claiming PCM/FLAC is the be-all-end-all highest summit humanity will ever reach in recording and playback. DISGUSTING.   

 

What people familiar with these topics should be legitimately concerned about is:

1. HOW WELL does it MQA achieve its stated goals? Surely it can do better.

2. IF it can do better, WHO IS EVOLVING THAT improvement?

3. WILL PROPRIETARY SECRECY handicap the rest of the industry from taking these concepts to further levels of perfection?

4. Will the mismarketing and exposure of false claims permanently damage the LEGITIMATE goals MQA has correctly listed, as what is holding digital media back from higher levels of fidelity?

 

My prediction is that none of the trolls here will address any of that, and will default back to their PCM/FLAC is the be-all-end-all which needs none of the improvements that Bob Stuart listed, in spite of the fact that those are now scientifically established flaws in the current world of digital formats.

 

Cheers and Peace.

 

1. Not at all.
2. Rob Watts is designing a completely new ADC, which he aims to resolve the issues with recording.

3. BS tech certainly wont help.
4. MQA doesn't have any legitimate goals beyond hijacking music recording and playback methods (as Dolby did!) to make billions.

 

 

[Currawong]

19 hours ago, John Dyson said:

I tend to agree, but have my own reasons for disliking the postings containing too much propaganda-motivated techno-babble...   There are a few of us who are trying to do something that is truly technically difficult and incredibly complex.   How can someone discern between total techno-babble and mistakes when trying to describe something actually 'semi-new'?   There are individuals who *really do* know what they are talking about, each of us myself included, sometimes  have something to learn.  We are all diminished when someone publically spouts technical nonsense, how can a naive person reliably discern the truth?     (I HAVE mistakenly or erroneously spouted some nonsense, but mostly for the purpose of a quest, not as a goal to pontificate or propagandize.)

 

On the other hand, discussions initially started as asking for help can benefit us all, as long as no-one represents their expertise as greater than it really is.   Typically, when making a strong technical statement, it seems like a good thing to open the discussion up to dissent.   None of us is always 100% accurate.

 

In a way, there is likely some benefit when the MQA discussion is renewed and brought up to date.  It might be good to re-enforce the notion that the MQA nonsense still lurks as a generally  anti-audiophile entity.   Continued awareness and vigilance is a good thing, even if it can be very, very frustrating to those good people who help to protect the rest of us.

 

Thanks to those who have the knowledge and energy to represent reasonable & wise resistance to MQA.

It is regrettable whenever there is a loss of kindness & respect, but maybe not always deserved.

 

John

 

Something that came to mind is, people who tend to fall for technobabble (and conspiracy theories) tend to believe that everyone else is as ignorant as they are. They can't handle coherent and truthful responses, so they have to resort to abuse, as demonising the source is the only way out of their logical hole.

 

The problem then is, if you fall into the trap of giving into frustration with them and calling them for the type of people they are, then you give them justification for their own, abusive behaviour. "Judge not, lest you yourself be judged" has quick karmic consequences online. 

[Currawong]

On 3/7/2023 at 4:08 PM, loop7 said:

This question had to have been asked and answered but I'm curious if the number of MQA capable DACs has increased or decreased since MQA was introduced?

 

Has there been an arc?

I haven't heard of any manufacturers removing it. By the nature of there being new models introduced, almost every new DAP and DAC I've seen come out of China has been MQA capable, so they have been steadily increasing. 

[Currawong]

On 3/9/2023 at 3:18 PM, bambadoo said:

I have hears (from pretty reliable sources) that Topping do not like MQA at all but implement it because customers demand it. 

Thats why we are given a choice

That's the case with a number of Asian manufacturers.  I do wonder if it isn't just a small number of noisy people asking for it, and really if they didn't it, they wouldn't really lose any significant number of sales. 

[Currawong]

4 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

I see that Rupert resigned as Director.

Makes me think that MQA has lost its South African Financing.

I have heard much the same thing, and more. It looks like.... this thread is vapourware. 

 

What are we going to complain about after this? 😂

[Currawong]

1 hour ago, Iving said:

don’t be surprised to see announcements of SCL6-compatible products later in the year.

Given that MQA had to pay manufacturers, in some cases, to implement it at all (since anyone with a brain who looked at the tech behind MQA knew it was BS) I'd be very surprised if it appears anywhere, ever.

[Currawong]

Denial is a river in Egypt.

[Currawong]

 

On 4/10/2023 at 1:44 AM, krass said:

I think you’re a bit harsh on his credentials. He has a degree in Electrical Engineering and an extensive background that includes signal processing/ analysis, codecs etc.  That would cover substantial amount of relevant Physics. Audio Scientist suggests a research element… his bio suggests he has also made research contributions in the past, so I wouldn’t dispute the use of that description.

 

You may not like his viewpoint, but he has solid experience & credentials in the audio domain, as well as computing.

 

For someone with not only that, but surrounded by people with extensive expertise in his forum, many people don't understand why he still goes on about SINAD, posting measurements that don't show the settings, for products deliberately gamed to get good results in his set-up. 

 

On 4/10/2023 at 6:22 AM, Archimago said:

 

While all of us will have our own idiosyncrasies and "triggers", Amir, I suspect due to his background as an engineer and as corporate leadership in MS, has his own characterological "lacunae" that we need to be mindful of. ASR has been overall I think a positive for audiophile culture to balance out extreme subjectivism in spite of his nature; certainly not because of it, IMO.

 

The result is, invariably, if you don't heap praise when you review one of his star products, you get an army posting abuse in the comments. This is a perfect example of scientism, not science.  I guess that, just like people who shout out how their rights are being taken away, then go about trying to remove the rights from anyone who opposes them, it's just trying to make money off of people who just enjoy getting angry at false causes.

 

The people that seem to be actually posting something useful about audio measurements and their relevance to what we hear, if primarily in the headphone space, would be the reviewers at headphones.com, which now includes GoldenSound.

[Currawong]

17 hours ago, Archimago said:

A quick search of CDJapan where many of these kinds of CDs have been released, reveals 776 MQA-CD titles here in April 2023. Back in May 2021, BS reported about 600 titles. No big growth in that segment. Most of these look like domestic small-scale jazz/classical releases to the Asian market from Universal.

 

Did the Japanese/Asian consumers actually drink the Kool Aid and desired MQA-CD's?

 

A distributor put it to me that it was for old audiophiles to have their high-res.  Physical formats are still popular here. There's a whole chain of shops dedicated to second-hand CDs and the like.

17 hours ago, Archimago said:

I suppose. The nice thing about headphones is that there are no room effects so the measurements can be seen as more directly relatable to sound quality. However, there are still all kinds of interesting subjective preferences to be had!

I'd say it's the opposite. The variation in peoples' physical ear shape is sufficient that two different people can experience significantly more bass or treble from the same pair of headphones, and even when the position on one's head is shifted.

17 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

But, measuring headphones is a soup sandwhich right now. Most of the guys doing it can't agree on the right procedure or equipment :~)

There have been a significant developments in measuring equipment in the last few years, leading to more accurate measurements.  Likewise in methodologies for providing the equivalent of a "flat" frequency response (at least compared to what you'd experience in a high-end hi-fi set-up in a treated room). The problem lies in correlating both into something people can relate to, and that some people have begun worshipping the ideal frequency response curve in the same way others worship low SINAD in electronics. 

[Currawong]

I wonder why, given how much Universal and Warner were willing to put into it, why one of them hasn't just bought MQA, even before the announcement. The only reason I can think of is that the IP is worthless -- that beyond the folding tech and filtering, they were only doing a bit of compression or EQ on music, or not much beyond that. 

[Currawong]

Denial is a river in Egypt. 🫥

[Currawong]

I'm going to give John the benefit of the doubt and, given his workload (that seemed to have caused him health problems recently) and non-participation in forums and online discussion, assume that he takes companies at their word. A similar thing happened with a friend of mine who is knowledgable both about hi-fi and audio mastering. He simply wasn't aware of the research that had been done into the validity of MQA's claims. 

[Currawong]

Just started reading the filing and my first question is: What is the litigation mentioned involving Blue Spike over patent infringement mentioned on page 9 (page 3 of the main document)?

[Currawong]

On 6/30/2023 at 9:40 AM, rickca said:

I tried to tell dCS that implementation of MQA was a misallocation of their R&D resources.  dCS responded that they did it because their customers demanded it.  It's really unfortunate that so many companies wasted time and money investing in this nothingburger. 

 

On 6/30/2023 at 5:22 PM, firedog said:

PS Audio claimed the same thing - they didn't like it, but customers demanded it. I'm skeptical - how scientific was their "survey"?

 

I just had a similar thing with a manufacturer that makes headphone amps. I asked them why they still had dual 3-pin XLR sockets on the front, as that set-up is long dead. So, they removed it, and suddenly added it back after someone else told them it was still popular. BS I say. I can count the number of headphone amps that have that set up on one hand, maybe two. No headphones come with it. No aftermarket cable makers show that set-up in pictures. 

I reckon the whole thing was just a vocal minority that wants to believe. It'll be pretty obvious when they start removing the option and find that they don't lose any significant number of sales.

[Currawong]

The question in my mind is: If it's just the origami encoder, what would the benefit be? It would just reveal that the encoding doesn't do anything special at all.
If it's any other part of the mastering, it would likely reveal that the processing they did on music wasn't anything particularly special either. 
 

[Currawong]

On 7/9/2023 at 9:07 PM, yamamoto2002 said:

There is an article about MQA appeared on local magazine 無線と実験 July 2023 pp.116～117. General info about MQA technology and the report of current company situations.

 

I think MQA is fleeting, passing, transient technology using traditional analytic method. There should be completely different audio codec in the near future, this time with deep learning autoencoder, much higher compression ratio and perceptually lossless, because it extract features (instrument, timings, pitch, expression, ...) and store / transfer,  and reconstructs sound from them and trained model parameters

A new audio codec isn't needed. What is needed is ADCs that don't, by default, mess up the audio in the first place. It'll be very interesting when Rob Watts completes the DAVINA.