MQA is Vaporware

[The Computer Audiophile]

21 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

OR, it goes something like this (and speaking to your "approach to learning and understanding the technology behind a product is more important"):

 

Stereophile and most all of the trade publications (aka "audiophile press") are not normally balanced and critical - instead, they are trade publications and thus there to support and promote the trade.  This is one of the reasons that reviews are overwhelmingly positive, and no real comparisons are ever done.  They relentless promote the "subjective" side because it is open ended, and allows the status quo method of subjective promotion, and a sort of cuckold objectivism when the appearance of it are necessary/helpful.  Yes, MQA/Bob S is a "well-known friend" but then so is everybody else in a small niche industry.  The subjective "friendly" promotion of MQA was just a bridge too far, but is in fact the normal way of things.  They "ignore" the pulling of the curtain because it often (most of the time really) works and their place in the industry remains the same.  Complaints of civility are in the main a tactic to FUD the consumer.

Please take your crusade to crencascrusadeagainsthifi.com or whichever site would like this content. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

23 minutes ago, crenca said:

Complaints of civility are in the main a tactic to FUD the consumer.

Give me a break. If you can't be civil, get lost. 99% of the people here want civility and want to talk about objective and subjective topics in a civil way. 

[MikeyFresh]

Have I (once again) missed a recent spate of incivility in this thread? Yes, I did.

[MikeyFresh]

6 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

Some people have very short memories here about their own faux pas, but an infinite memory for those of their opponent

 

Yes that's true, and that ugly doxing incident you were involved in is a prime example.

 

6 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

do you have any regrets regarding any posts you made,some of which, while literally may have been "on topic" may have derailed more genuine conversation?

 

Some introspection on your part is in order there, no?

Or are you personally asking others to submit their repentance, and if so, should it be directed to you, Chris Connaker, or both?

 

6 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

So I don't fit your stereotype that some of you keep insisting upon, at your own convenience.

 

Fake news, and I do detect narcissism, no one here has stereotyped you at all. In fact other than responses to your occasional thread check-ins crying foul on the civility front, you are never really mentioned in any way. No one has stereotyped you, however your behavior here and on other fora has more than earned your actual reputation, in that sense no one need stereotype you.

 

6 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

I happen to think that this forum would be better served by a generally higher ethical standard.

 

Perhaps, but that would be in the eye of the beholder, who will better moderate it... you?

 

6 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

And now this will be called derailing and other specious things. So it goes.

 

Manage the damage.

 

It will be called derailing, because it is, and I join the OP in calling you out on it.

"Manage the damage" eh? Dare I request you elaborate, exactly what damage is being managed, and by whom? Cryptic one-liners aren't clever, tell us who should be managing what exact damage.

[Rt66indierock]

6 hours ago, Currawong said:

 

This reminds me a bit of the story told by a mechanic to which a car was towed. The owner stated "It's not the battery, I'm an engineer." or words to that effect. So the mechanic tested everything else under the hood, eventually coming to the conclusion, verified by testing, that it was indeed that the battery was dead.

 

My point is, attacking members of the audiophile press because they may not have some kind of engineering credentials has little merit, as I don't believe that qualifications alone, but approach to learning and understanding the technology behind a product is more important. By the same logic, being a well-known musician would surely be qualified to talk about musical playback, but if you've had any experience with musicians, they tend to know the least about the gear they use or anything technical involving sound. Regardless, just about anyone with any serious audio engineering knowhow is, or works for a manufacturer of audio gear.

 

I think that, more usefully, a better approach to reviewing or discussing audio technology would involve a more critical eye towards any technology or the claims within, or, like Stereophile does much of the time, a balance between subjective impressions and technical analysis. Some more caution and reservation when declaring supposed fact would be in order too.

 

Again though, I think the issue with MQA and the audiophile press is that a well-known friend of theirs suddenly came out and said that he was going to revolutionise music mastering and delivery and they believed everything he said without critically examining it. All the analysis from this forum was so full of noise, especially the abusive critique of the audiophile press, that for a long while it gave them an excuse to ignore everything as just noise from people with nothing better to do than make noise on forums.

 

 

I was talking about audio education. I was taught audio. My hearing was trained to hear differences. I wasn’t talking about engineering. Part of my knowledge was gained at places like Lucas Films. And I’ve mentioned clients that made movie soundtracks. Learned a lot outside the audio equipment industry.
 

A musician may or may not have the ability to evaluate sound equipment. My sister did and had a great stereo. My daughter does not.

 

Most of the audio engineering know how is in the movie, broadcasting industries or the government.
 

The audio press ignored valid criticism in 2015 and 2016. I’ve interviewed several people who warned John Atkinson about MQA. My late friend Charles Hanson was especially vocal. At the LAOCAS gala last month I talked with a Meridian dealer who warned Bob that it won’t sell. This is what the audio press ignored not forums. 
 

Reread my original post. What was it about? With Tidal in trouble just how am I going to listen to MQA in the United States?

[KeenObserver]

22 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Back home to snow and cold 😢

 

So nice to be back from vacation.🙄

[JoeWhip]

Gee, why would anyone want to vacation where it is warm?😊

[Ralf11]

15 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Please take your crusade to crencascrusadeagainsthifi.com or whichever site would like this content. 

 

He is correct about the audiophile magazines

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

 

He is correct about the audiophile magazines

 

No he isn't. He is generalising. There are some that publish both a subjective review and measurements. Whether or not you agree with the reviewer's subjective report is another matter. There is also at least one magazine that is not supported by advertising at all, but you pay a great deal more for the privilege when there are no advertisers to support the cost of publication, the wages of the staff and the necessary trips to the various Hi Fi shows.

 There are also others such as our own Audiophile Style HOME.

[Ralf11]

He is correct about the audiophile magazines, but not the HiFi magazines

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

He is correct about the audiophile magazines, but not the HiFi magazines

You mean Sound on Sound and its coverage of MQA, I mean rubber stamp. 
 

https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/mqa-time-domain-accuracy-digital-audio-quality

[Currawong]

 

13 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

I was talking about audio education. I was taught audio. My hearing was trained to hear differences. I wasn’t talking about engineering. Part of my knowledge was gained at places like Lucas Films. And I’ve mentioned clients that made movie soundtracks. Learned a lot outside the audio equipment industry.
 

A musician may or may not have the ability to evaluate sound equipment. My sister did and had a great stereo. My daughter does not.

 

Most of the audio engineering know how is in the movie, broadcasting industries or the government.
 

The audio press ignored valid criticism in 2015 and 2016. I’ve interviewed several people who warned John Atkinson about MQA. My late friend Charles Hanson was especially vocal. At the LAOCAS gala last month I talked with a Meridian dealer who warned Bob that it won’t sell. This is what the audio press ignored not forums. 
 

Reread my original post. What was it about? With Tidal in trouble just how am I going to listen to MQA in the United States?

 

I read it again. I replied to your comments about qualifications. Since you weren't specific about what "qualifications" you were looking for in the people you mentioned, and since the word assumes at least some kind of official degree, I responded as such.

 

Given your experience, you're the kind of person I'd be interested in seeing equipment reviews from.

 

Your comments about the press ignoring valid criticism was what I was talking about, from another angle. My guess is that they made excuses to themselves to ignore it.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

34 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

You mean Sound on Sound and its coverage of MQA, I mean rubber stamp. 
 

https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/mqa-time-domain-accuracy-digital-audio-quality

The piece you linked was indeed fluff. But please note, since then they have completely ignored MQA.

 

And..on their forum, the author admitted he saw no purpose to MQA when shown data about it not being lossless, unnecessary post processing, DRM, and the fact that no "mastering tools": ever appeared.  

 

Contrast that with the TAS/Stereophile/Audiostream/Darko coverage. And even your initial coverage where you were super excited.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

37 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

You mean Sound on Sound and its coverage of MQA, I mean rubber stamp. 
 

https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/mqa-time-domain-accuracy-digital-audio-quality

Ring a bell?

 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Ring a bell?

 

Yes, but my point was that folks often look at the pro audio world as a bunch of audio saints. My experience has been the opposite. The article I linked to was one piece of evidence. 
 

I make no apologies for my MQA coverage. I probably would’ve listened to those with anti-MQA evidence much quicker had they not been so abrasive and uncivil. 

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

8 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Yes, but my point was that folks often look at the pro audio world as a bunch of audio saints. My experience has been the opposite. The article I linked to was one piece of evidence. 
 

I make no apologies for my MQA coverage. I probably would’ve listened to those with anti-MQA evidence much quicker had they not been so abrasive and uncivil. 

Points noted. Also note that SOS wrote ONE piece on MQA in 5 years. You and every other publication published far, far more

 

Of course, you deserve enormous credit for providing a platform for a multi part MQA expose'. So thanks for that. 😎

[KeenObserver]

I think, in the beginning, everyone was taken by the possibilities and claims of MQA.  There was a big flash and there was talk everywhere about MQA. ( Marketing in the internet age? ) Then there were highly controlled demos. BS gave talks that hit every talking point but really said nothing.  And, he put up one of the most absurd charts I have ever seen. People started to realize there was a smell to MQA.  When people started to look behind the curtain MQA pulled another curtain.  MQA doubled down on the claims and talking points.  Over and over and over.  People started to look deeply into MQA and were finding out the truth about MQA.

 

There has been much back and forth on MQA.  I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing.  It has brought out the truth about MQA.

 

I don't think MQA offers any benefits to me.  And, if implemented, would cost me at every step of the process.  At this point nothing will change my mind.  MQA has been less than forthcoming about MQA right from the beginning. I will never have anything that implements MQA.

[KeenObserver]

With all the initial hype, I believe that MQA was trying to implement their scheme before it could be closely examined.  There were people that could clearly see what was happening and took offense.  This lead to abrasive confrontations.

[The Computer Audiophile]

17 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

don't think MQA offers any benefits to me.  And, if implemented, would cost me at every step of the process.  At this point nothing will change my mind.  MQA has been less than forthcoming about MQA right from the beginning. I will never have anything that implements MQA

I believe that’s a very logical position that many who’ve looked at the evidence have taken. 

[John Dyson]

On 1/3/2020 at 3:38 AM, sandyk said:

 

John Dyson is already demonstrating that it IS indeed possible to remove most of these distortion artifacts, and he may even be well ahead of MQA in this area. In fact, some of his corrected RBCD tracks from non decoded or improperly decoded Dolby A material, end up sounding as good, if not better than many modern High Resolution releases !

If everyone knew the filters used for creating the VERY COMMON feral DolbyA material, theyd' be disgusted.   The best thing to start is to undo the filters -- but then it sounds like hell because after undoing the feral filters, then you get raw DolbyA.   With the DolbyA encoding, you have lots of gain control happening with horrendously fast attack and release times (happily, the attack is very carefully controlled though.)  Such gain control, uncorrected does do some compression (or expansion for decoding), but also adds moduation distortion components.   The gain control dance between the bands on a DolbyA is mind boggling -- it doesn't do gain control with the dynamics that a normally conceived compressor might.

 

So, after undoing the feral-EQ, the feral DolbyA is heavily time/frequency corrected from the original, very shrill DolbyA signal. Starting with the true, corrected DolbyA signal, then the DHNRDS DA can do the gain correction and some of the modulation distortion mitgation.

 

By undoing the feral filtering, and then carefully decoding the DolbyA signal without adding additional modulation distortion components the results can be astonishing..  In fact, the DHNRDS DA appears to hide the compression side (encoding)  distortion to some extent also, where the expansion side is not allowed to exist from the start.

 

There is a LOT of correction done by the DHNRDS -- ALL of the problems that I have when decoding, and I mean ALL OF THE PROBLEMS are purely due to reverse-engineering the feral filters, and make sure that the numerous filter parameters match.  (Soon, the DHNRDS will do much of the work for people decoding/cleaning  feral material.)  Many of the corrective EQ parameters can be calculated based upon some reasonable observations by the user -- FINALLY.

 

So, yes, the DHNRDS DA *can* make incredible improvements in sound quality.  It isn't perfect though as it cannot make a 'silk purse from a sows ear' -- but can certainly get rid of much of the sad 'distortion' that has been allowed in many digitial distributions since CDs came out.  The improvemnet REALLY IS real.

 

I wish everyone  could hear the final 'Crime of the Century' that was allowed for review  -- and that isn't even the best that I have.  I am working on Breakfast, and Quiet also.   ABBA now sounds almost "High Fidelty", in the 1980''s sense.  My recent Linda Ronstadt results are so-so, maybe an improvement, maybe not.

 

I mean, I wish EVERYONE could hear the results that I hear every day.  It really raises expectations, and as if I spent $100K on my headphones...  (Of course, spending $100K on headphones wont' fix the problem of damaged recordings as they were distributed, right?)

 

I also believe in the fancy time base correction scheme that has been developed, but I'd suspect that part of that function is to undo some of the DolbyA problems on the tape, but of course, the DHNRDS DA does that kind of distortion reduction very precisely.  Imagine the combination of both the time base correction & the DHNRDS DA!!!

 

MQA is silly nonsense -- it is snake oil (sorry for the use of a potentially prohibited term) WRT actually improving the quality of material received by the user's hearing.  MQA might be useful for other things (like DRM), but not improving the accessable quality.

 

John

 

[daverich4]

On 1/4/2020 at 11:15 AM, Rt66indierock said:

And what are my friend Andy Quint’s audio qualifications?

According to you he’s a good friend of yours. Why don’t you just ask him?

[Rt66indierock]

4 hours ago, daverich4 said:

According to you he’s a good friend of yours. Why don’t you just ask him?

 

Another example of incivility. Do you know why we are friends?

 

[daverich4]

18 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Another example of incivility. Do you know why we are friends?

 

I’m not sure what’s uncivil about, after you said you weren’t aware of Mr. Quints background/qualifications, suggesting you ask him directly. I have no idea why you’re friends or even if you are. 

[John Dyson]

When reading this topic, I noticed some division between those of us who are engineers (or fully qualified as such, just don't work as EE anymore) vs. those who are not technically inclined.  I am not including everyone here -- and not writing about any one person, because this note is the result of an IMPRESSION, and not any one interaction.

 

I am speaking of 'real world', not technical prowess -- but a fully qualified engineer can be *just as wrong* and *essentially as clueless* as any other person.  As an EE, over the years, we do gather more and more real knowledge, but generally such knowledge becomes more and more specific.  Sure, someone like me can gather knowledge in a lot of specific areas, but that doesn't make me an expert in everything.

 

This is why, as someone with a really deep engineering background, I know that I can be wrong, and I can learn new things.  This is why I can accept *for example*:  that in some systems,  a flac file and wav file can have different impairments when being played realtime.  There are actual EE reasons for it -- however improbable it might be on many setups.

 

The thing about being an engineer and someone who is true to some amount of scientific method, is that there are always new things to learn, and new concepts to try to  understand.   Arrogance and elitism of any kind are self destructive in so many ways that it isn't worthwhile to list here.  Also, self-importance and spreading misinformation, intentionally or unintentionally, potentially hurts a lot of people, but especially to the vulnerable people who might never fully understand what is going on in the electronics and software.  For the self-important engineers and engineer wannabes -- that includes a lot of people like me, it is really best for everyone to know and understand the limits of what you (and me) know.  Offering help is a lot better than being a 'high priest'.

 

As long as the engineers (those of us who used to practice) and  those who might know alot about some areas of electronics/computers, each group, is careful not to misinform or be too awfully 'know it all', then those who might be vulnerable (and know it) might start beiing more trusting and feel less uncomfortable.  Likewise, the converse would also be more true -- there would be less of a feeling of 'wont listen', or 'too much religion'.  People in both situations have reasons for communications problems.

 

PS: esp for engineering types, 'crusades' about spreading the truth are difficult and often non-productive.  It is always best to keep simple honesty about what one knows, offering information but not imposing it.  Those who want to learn, will learn.  All this said, it is important to realize that some people just want to just enjoy listening, whether problems solved by metaphysics or physics -- they just want to listen to music.

 

John

 

[firedog]

https://community.roonlabs.com/t/i-know-roon-does-the-1st-unfold-but-is-it-good-enough/73891/20

Vaporware has a very long lifespan - maybe MQA is a zombie that can't be killed. See this exchange where perfectly sincere MQA lovers just can't get past the MQA marketing speak, and still tell me there is a "third unfold" of higher res data.