MQA is Vaporware

[fas42]

Just now, KeenObserver said:

 

How's the weather on your planet?

 

See what I mean? ... nothing like a flock of ostriches scurrying to their carefully guarded, heaped ...

[Ralf11]

7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

See what I mean? ... nothing like a flock of ostriches scurrying to their carefully guarded, heaped ...

 

 

 

[KeenObserver]

6 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

See what I mean? ... nothing like a flock of ostriches scurrying to their carefully guarded, heaped ...

 

No no.  You misconstrued what I was saying!

 

Your theories are absolutely amazing and should be injected into every thread possible as many times as possible!

[fas42]

4 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

facts are established by experimentation - the question is whether or to what extent they apply outside the conditions of that experiment

 

A source of great amusement is reading many of the papers produced by, say, AES - "facts" which are only extremely vaguely connected to the requirements for high quality sound, with holes in the concept that one could drive multiple trucks, side by side, through ...

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 hours ago, daverich4 said:

 

Do a search for Jim Austin and you’ll come up with any number of comments on the technical aspects of his articles in Stereophile, dismissing them as mere shilling. As well as for John Atkinson and others not members of the inner circle here. 

Are you suggesting Austin is correct and people here are incorrect in challenging him?

 

I don’t ever remember seeing measurements that contradict anything @mansr or @Archimago have done. If they existed I’m sure both of those guys would be interested in seeing them. 

 

MQA Ltd said MQA was lossless. It was proven to be a lie. The marketing was soon changed.

 

I can’t imagine buying a car advertised as having 200 horsepower only to find out via a forum that it has 150. When asked, the manufacturer said it was perceptually 200 horsepower. 

[fas42]

1 minute ago, KeenObserver said:

 

No no.  You misconstrued what I was saying!

 

Your theories are absolutely amazing and should be injected into every thread possible as many times as possible!

 

Ah, we need more men of humour ... audio does take itself far too seriously ... I mean, it's only about doin' something like foolin' around with old cars ...

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

A source of great amusement is reading many of the papers produced by, say, AES - "facts" which are only extremely vaguely connected to the requirements for high quality sound, with holes in the concept that one could drive multiple trucks, side by side, through ...

AES is a joke. 

[Ralf11]

6 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

A source of great amusement is reading many of the papers produced by, say, AES - "facts" which are only extremely vaguely connected to the requirements for high quality sound, with holes in the concept that one could drive multiple trucks, side by side, through ...

 

 

 

[crenca]

1 hour ago, Archimago said:

 

As @Thuaveta said above. In which part of Jim Austin's writings is he demonstrating the value of MQA in a way that answers the critiques technically?

 

Remember guys, it was Jim Austin's articles regarding MQA that told us that the record labels didn't want to release their hi-res "crown jewels" and that MQA was some kind of solution...

 

I thought Robert Harley (TAS editor) came first with the "crown jewel" industry motivation for MQA (or anything like it)...I could be misremembering...

 

@daverich4, allow me to summarize what Jim Austin (who is now editor of Stereophile) did in his series:

 

He took diverse marketing claims of MQA/Bob Stuart and in his idiosyncratic, and at times impenetrable way, tried to make sense of them from his particular understanding of signal processing.  He did more than "make sense" of them (because he really did not do that - see below), but rather tried to understand and view them in the best possible light. 

 

In other words, his entire effort was a marketing gloss. No measurements, zilch, nada.  To his credit at the end of the series he does say that if he or anyone else could have independent measurements of the encoder (I think he mentioned impulse response) then everything MQA and he said could be actually...you know...be supported, verified, or otherwise shown to be in some way/shape/form as true.   We all know, or at least should know, that this is exactly what MQA has refused to do.  😉

[KeenObserver]

16 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

If you mean you are setting a new record for being an obdurate ass, then possibly. When are you going to learn you cannot tell people how to feel?

 

People read an article where turning on MQA made a device sound better. I am sure that the article was factual, and not misleading to people. If you buy one of those and turn on MQA in the settings, it will sound better. Its the same as reading an article where the MQA version of a file from Tidal sounded better than the Redbook version. 

 

Again, all most audiophiles really care about is does it sound better, will it increase my enjoyment, and how much does it cost? Routing all the sound through a superior filter or something doesn't really enter their minds, except perhaps as a reason why it sounds better. The fact that it was MQA that made it sound "better" - no more important that playing a music file with JRiver or Roon. 

 

You don't see this. That is called "tunnel blindness." 

 

 

I'm trying to figure out where these "facts" you are talking about are posted.

 

Are you talking about those articles where some people supposedly "hear" a difference?

[fas42]

31 minutes ago, Paul R said:

People read an article where turning on MQA made a device sound better. I am sure that the article was factual, and not misleading to people. If you buy one of those and turn on MQA in the settings, it will sound better. Its the same as reading an article where the MQA version of a file from Tidal sounded better than the Redbook version.

 

Anyone can apply DSP to make a system, and a recording, "sound better" - people being rewarded, as an industry wide thing, for doing this has the smell of "let's make money from something that's not the slightest bit special, that people can do for themselves"

[tmtomh]

2 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

If you mean you are setting a new record for being an obdurate ass, then possibly. When are you going to learn you cannot tell people how to feel?

 

People read an article where turning on MQA made a device sound better. I am sure that the article was factual, and not misleading to people. If you buy one of those and turn on MQA in the settings, it will sound better. Its the same as reading an article where the MQA version of a file from Tidal sounded better than the Redbook version. 

 

Again, all most audiophiles really care about is does it sound better, will it increase my enjoyment, and how much does it cost? Routing all the sound through a superior filter or something doesn't really enter their minds, except perhaps as a reason why it sounds better. The fact that it was MQA that made it sound "better" - no more important that playing a music file with JRiver or Roon. 

 

You don't see this. That is called "tunnel blindness." 

 

 

Noting that obdurate means, "stubbornly refusing to change one's position or course of action," the term could quite easily be applied to you, Paul. Surely you must realize that the fact that people found the sound was better when MQA was turned on, is not the same as the claim that MQA makes music sound better, if as you note additional changes in the signal path also are taking place when that MQA "on" switch is engaged.

 

The point - which you surely know despite your obduracy in your mode of discussion here - is that if a switch makes the music sound better, and that switch is claimed to be an MQA-ON switch but really is a switch that turns on MQA and makes other changes to the signal path, that's deceptive and does not count as empirical evidence or measurements on behalf of MQA.

 

I know you know this because you have been quite clear that MQA is not demonstrated in isolation. What you're obdurate about - and I really don't understand why - is your refusal to acknowledge that this "not demonstrated in isolation" aspect is precisely what is making mansr and others object to the test results as examples of measurements of MQA.

 

[rando]

From interview of Lothar Kerestedijian in May 2018 edition of Hifi Pig when asked about journalists in the US decrying MQA.

 

"I call that "Fake News".  The massive hype from States makes me sick."

 

 

Too much in that statement applies to the daily goings on in this thread.  Especially petty arguments breaking out over toning down the hype.  

 

Kindly try not to burn down the rest of this place if you would.

[crenca]

20 minutes ago, rando said:

From interview of Lothar Kerestedijian in May 2018 edition of Hifi Pig when asked about journalists in the US decrying MQA.

 

"I call that "Fake News".  The massive hype from States makes me sick."

 

 

Too much in that statement applies to the daily goings on in this thread.  Especially petty arguments breaking out over toning down the hype.  

 

Kindly try not to burn down the rest of this place if you would.

 

What are you even talking about??

 

Also, point me to the "journalists", or even the usual audio trade publications that are "decrying MQA"!

 

 

 

[Ralf11]

crenca, don't eat the word salad - it is not nutritious

[KeenObserver]

33 minutes ago, rando said:

From interview of Lothar Kerestedijian in May 2018 edition of Hifi Pig when asked about journalists in the US decrying MQA.

 

"I call that "Fake News".  The massive hype from States makes me sick."

 

 

Too much in that statement applies to the daily goings on in this thread.  Especially petty arguments breaking out over toning down the hype.  

 

Kindly try not to burn down the rest of this place if you would.

 

Well, that's it then.  I guess this means the discussion is over.

 

Let me just ask this:  How's the weather on your planet?

[rando]

18 minutes ago, crenca said:

Also, point me to the "journalists", or even the usual audio trade publications that are "decrying MQA"!

 

Direct quote, intentionally used, obviously intending a different meaning than decrying has. 

 

Anyways, slapdash comments were expected from the usual reactionary quarters.  Being K.O.'d.

[Ralf11]

Planet Claire has pink air.

[crenca]

42 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

 

Well, that's it then.  I guess this means the discussion is over.

 

Let me just ask this:  How's the weather on your planet?

 

The man makes no sense, no sense at all.  What "journalists " is he talking about?!?  

 

Is he a member of the Old Guard who is really bitching about the consumer reaction to the MQA fraud through all the egg on his face?

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

Planet Claire has pink air. 

All the trees are red.

[Paul R]

3 hours ago, tmtomh said:

 

Noting that obdurate means, "stubbornly refusing to change one's position or course of action," the term could quite easily be applied to you, Paul. Surely you must realize that the fact that people found the sound was better when MQA was turned on, is not the same as the claim that MQA makes music sound better, if as you note additional changes in the signal path also are taking place when that MQA "on" switch is engaged.

 

No, you are rationalizing here. The point was there are plenty of "measurements" of MQA sound out there on the net, and from some pretty respectable sources. That was the question you know.

 

Mansr and Danny scoffed at it, but that is really arrogant tunnel blindness, and as you say, taking the review in utter isolation against what one might know. The review simply said turning on the MQA On switch improved the sound. I have seen nothing here that invalidates or even casts doubt on that. 

 

If it sounds better with the MQA switch on, then it is also quite reasonable to assume that the MQA switch engages MQA processing. In this case, probably just a MQA filter, which, by sufficient stretch of the imagination, could be construed as "turning on MQA."  

 

I personally would not agree with that, however, I would be enraged if they had pulled that on a iPhone. And shocker - Darko and others say their music sounds better on the iPhone with MQA processing. 

 

Obdurate is insisting that everyone else in the world must agree with you because you are RIGHT! Why can't those knuckleheads see that? I do not think I am often guilty of that. Perhaps occasionally, but not here on this subject. 

 

MQA is an. extreme example, you do find that behavior all over audiophile culture though. We used to regularly get missionaries from Hydrogen Audio over here to "save us" from our foolishness. How is this utterly cretinous MQA crusade any different? Or insisting that Digital sounds better than Vinyl, or vice versa? 

 

 

3 hours ago, tmtomh said:

 

The point - which you surely know despite your obduracy in your mode of discussion here - is that if a switch makes the music sound better, and that switch is claimed to be an MQA-ON switch but really is a switch that turns on MQA and makes other changes to the signal path, that's deceptive and does not count as empirical evidence or measurements on behalf of MQA.

 

And what, except very specific knowledge and understanding of actual MQA performance, gathered pretty much exclusively here I suspect, would make you suspect that the MQA ON switch does not turn on MQA processing? 

 

3 hours ago, tmtomh said:

I know you know this because you have been quite clear that MQA is not demonstrated in isolation. What you're obdurate about - and I really don't understand why - is your refusal to acknowledge that this "not demonstrated in isolation" aspect is precisely what is making mansr and others object to the test results as examples of measurements of MQA.

 

 

Perhaps I am being influenced a bit because am researching some historical happenings surrounding WWI lately. I don't think that there has ever been a greater set of lies sold with "facts" than at that time.* An incredibly nasty war, fought for reasons that were nothing more than a fabrication of lies. Then many more lies and the even worse horrors of WWII. It may have been a hundred years ago, but people do not seem to have changed all that much today. 

 

In a very small way, this MQA crusade  is exactly like that. People are choosing a particular set of facts, in isolation, and pushing them as the absolute truth that can not be denied.That is exactly as inappropriate as telling someone they are not an audiophile because they have not spent enough money on their equipment, or because they don't like vinyl, or don't like digital, or are not subscribed to Tidal, or what have you. 

 

Its just like when we used to get missionaries from Hydrogen Audio every week or so, all determined to save us from our totally unscientific ridiculous beliefs that DACs could sound different, or any cable can be better than 18g zip cord. Except the people here are the missionaries today, torches, boiling oil, tar, feathers, and pitchforks arrayed against MQA or anyone who says a damn thing they don't like about it. 

 

*Well, except perhaps for some of  the damn yankees during reconstruction. Still telling the same lies today.  Or maybe during the McCarthy era. (*sigh*)  Maybe it just never ends. 

[mansr]

2 hours ago, Paul R said:

If it sounds better with the MQA switch on, then it is also quite reasonable to assume that the MQA switch engages MQA processing.

Aren't you the one claiming to possess detailed knowledge of the MQA algorithms that, for some reason, you are unable to share? If this were true, you would know that there is no "MQA processing" on the playback side, only decoding when presented an MQA encoded input. The test signal Amir used was not MQA encoded. There are no MQA encoded test signals. You know this. Now stop the nonsense. Please.

[firedog]

11 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

Are you really so tunnel blind?  Does that alter the “fact” that turning on MQA mode made it sound better?  

Most people are not going to care why.  

And that still means it has zero relevance to the "facts and measurements" by mansr, Archimago, and others regarding MQA. What is so hard to understand here Paul? You are much smarter than that. Don't argue just to defend your point. 

[firedog]

10 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

Its the same as reading an article where the MQA version of a file from Tidal sounded better than the Redbook version. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No it isn't.

It means there are several modes in operation, and the one called MQA had less measured distortion. This has nothing per se to do with MQA files and their playback, which is what the "measurements" in question are about. It works for any file and wasn't actually tested on an MQA file. Possibly the results upon playback of an MQA file have greater distortion. 

You have zero idea what the MQA mode in that device is and how it differs from what the other modes do. So all your conclusions based of your assumptions about what is going on are baseless. 
And it has zero to do with any general analysis/understanding of what MQA playback on MQA dacs does. 
"You don't see this. That is called "tunnel blindness." 

[Thuaveta]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

You have zero idea what the MQA mode in that device is and how it differs from what the other modes do.

 

It's explained: "MQA mode" bypasses Android's audio pipeline, it's just that one has to take the time to read the text between the pictures: "This shows that the Android audio pipeline is limited to 16 bits so best to avoid it if you can. Fortunately the LG player does that and therefore, there is no need to buy USB Audio Pro (unless you like its interface better)."