MQA is Vaporware

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, botrytis said:

anything past that is upsampled to the resolution in encoded information in that file.

That's not quite accurate. The "renderer" upsamples to whatever rate it pleases regardless of what the MQA tag says. The actual upsampled rate can be higher or lower than the displayed number.

[botrytis]

7 minutes ago, mansr said:

That's not quite accurate. The "renderer" upsamples to whatever rate it pleases regardless of what the MQA tag says. The actual upsampled rate can be higher or lower than the displayed number.

 

So they want to make it as confusing as possible.  I will fix it - thanks for the correction. Really, it is very appreciated. I have learned so much in this thread.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, botrytis said:

 

So they want to make it as confusing as possible.

Where there's mystery, there's margin.

[botrytis]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Where there's mystery, there's margin.

 

So I guess the cartoon I posted, on the previous page, was very accurate to the MQA process.

[daverich4]

22 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

This is literally correct. When 24/48 MQA data is sent to the D/A processor, the DAC chip is presented with 24-bit data sampled at 192kHz. If every such passing mention had to include a full discussion of how MQA works or doesn't work, reviews would become unwieldy. 

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

 

It doesn’t seem like it would take any more effort to be accurate than changing the word “unfolded” to “upsampled”. Not sure why that would be unwieldy. 

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, daverich4 said:

It doesn’t seem like it would take any more effort to be accurate than changing the word “unfolded” to “upsampled”. Not sure why that would be unwieldy. 

"Upsampled" is 12.5% longer. I guess MQA does reduce the size after all.

[botrytis]

26 minutes ago, daverich4 said:

 

It doesn’t seem like it would take any more effort to be accurate than changing the word “unfolded” to “upsampled”. Not sure why that would be unwieldy. 

 

It is part and parcel of the obscuration of information about MQA. Would you buy a file/lp knowing is was just an upsample from a lower quality file?

 

People complained about that and so did Stereophile. Why is MQA different? Is it because it is hidden in the decoding and it had to be tested?

[kumakuma]

54 minutes ago, daverich4 said:

 

It doesn’t seem like it would take any more effort to be accurate than changing the word “unfolded” to “upsampled”. Not sure why that would be unwieldy. 

 

I think he was using "unwieldy" as a synonym for "embarrassing". 👺 

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

I think it is crystal clear by the passive aggressive and defensive responses of both JA's to the language used the magazine concerning how MQA works for higher sample rates etc that their goal is to put MQA in the best possible light. A blue light...

 

(Oy vey I could not resist. ..)🤠

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

Two big questions here..who is putting in pre orders for Meridian's new streamer? It seems to cost around $1500 US.

 

And when did John Dark get a middle initial?

 

https://darko.audio/2019/08/meridian-announces-210-network-streamer/

 

[firedog]

6 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Two big questions here..who is putting in pre orders for Meridian's new streamer? It seems to cost around $1500 US.

 

And when did John Dark get a middle initial?

 

https://darko.audio/2019/08/meridian-announces-210-network-streamer/

 

 

No connection to USB DACs. Only SPDIF and Meridian proprietary link. It seems to be intended for use with Meridian equipment.

[FredericV]

Remember the times when you could only download the MP3 because your internet was too slow? Well that's long over.
The same applies to MQA vs 24/96 and 24/192 FLAC.

The slowest internet subscription in Belgium can already stream 24/96 and 24/192 FLAC without the need for MQA.

At the same time, most don't need the premium speeds of 200+ Mbps for consumer use:

https://tech.slashdot.org/story/19/08/20/1450204/the-truth-about-faster-internet-its-not-worth-it

The shelf life of MQA thanks to increasing internet speeds, is almost over the expiry date

PS: and if you really need to do folding, in technical thread, I discovered MQA's compression of the hi-res part is very inefficient, and folding flac inside flac with gain scaling of the high-res part with dithering, is a lot more efficient than MQA:
 

But better skip folding, why not optimze the entropy of flac if bandwidth is really limited?

 

[John_Atkinson]

3 hours ago, Currawong said:

On 8/19/2019 at 12:40 PM, John_Atkinson said:

This is literally correct. When 24/48 MQA data is sent to the D/A processor, the DAC chip is presented with 24-bit data sampled at 192kHz. If every such passing mention had to include a full discussion of how MQA works or doesn't work, reviews would become unwieldy. 

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

Read more  

 

No, it is NOT correct.

 

Perhaps you are misreading what I wrote. In the example wrote that was quoted on this forum, the PCM data fed to the DAC chip has a bit depth of 24 bits and is sampled at 192kHz. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

2 minutes ago, firedog said:

 

No connection to USB DACs. Only SPDIF and Meridian proprietary link. It seems to be intended for use with Meridian equipment.

Interesting. Thanks I did not see that. Another DOA Meridian product. 

[mansr]

3 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

Perhaps you are misreading what I wrote. In the example wrote that was quoted on this forum, the PCM data fed to the DAC chip has a bit depth of 24 bits and is sampled at 192kHz. Nothing more, nothing less.

That's true of those fake high-res files HDtracks was selling too.

[esldude]

2 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Perhaps you are misreading what I wrote. In the example wrote that was quoted on this forum, the PCM data fed to the DAC chip has a bit depth of 24 bits and is sampled at 192kHz. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

Nothing lossy? Must not be MQA if it is nothing more and nothing less.

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, FredericV said:

Remember the times when you could only download the MP3 because your internet was too slow? Well that's long over.
The same applies to MQA vs 24/96 and 24/192 FLAC.

Wrong. MQA doesn't save bandwidth at all compared to the same quality in regular FLAC. With a 44.1/48 kHz master, MQA actually increases the size substantially while reducing the quality.

[Rt66indierock]

14 hours ago, esldude said:

BTW, is it just me, or is not Phil Spector's famous Wall of Sound one of the most ridiculous over-hyped awful recording methods ever?  Only surpassed by the modern pervasive hyper-compression of all music.

 

The wall of sound has its place. I start listening tests with Pet Sounds. More likely than not stuff fails and I move on. If you hear Bruce Springsteen's  Born to Run with any soundstage depth you aren't hearing what they intended.

[FredericV]

16 minutes ago, mansr said:

Wrong. MQA doesn't save bandwidth at all compared to the same quality in regular FLAC. With a 44.1/48 kHz master, MQA actually increases the size substantially while reducing the quality.

You are right! MQA does not save bandwidth for 44.1 / 48K content. The bottom 8 bits with crypto DRM don't compress well with flac, as it's non-audio content to flac and thus flac tries to compress garbage
 

[Jud]

10 hours ago, firedog said:

I'm also not a big fan, although he was a good songwriter, arranger, and judge of talent. I think his method might have been very good for the late 50's early 60's when people listened on crappy AM radios and crummy tabletop "stereos".

I don't think it translates well to any decent system that can reproduce a reasonable amount of detail and something close to a full range frequency response. 

 

It was originally a way of hugely overdriving a room to sound ”big” on the lo-fi equipment teens were listening with. Did that pretty well.

 

I enjoy listening to the Spector collection I have. Helps if you don't expect more than it is. Helps too that my wife likes those old songs a lot.

[Tintinabulum]

1 hour ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Another DOA Meridian product

I don't think you're the target market. More installer, which is quite profitable and something you'll struggle to sour.

If you want to have a go, they dropped Airplay from this product. Not a good move.

 

Meridian are an easy target for you guys, It doesn't change their history though and bang on as much as you like, there's some excellent, exceedingly well price Meridian audio gear out there that play music very well indeed. You've got the wrong guy...

[Ralf11]

nice to see they didn't waste any money on the case

[kumakuma]

25 minutes ago, Tintinabulum said:

You've got the wrong guy...

 

Who's the right guy?

 

[MikeyFresh]

22 minutes ago, Tintinabulum said:

It doesn't change their history though

 

Which history would that be, the one where Meridian lost a cumulative £40 million with their fantastic product offerings and savvy business acumen?

[The Computer Audiophile]

27 minutes ago, Tintinabulum said:

which is quite profitable

Words to never be in the same sentence as Meridian. As evidenced by their continued multimillion pound losses.