Jump to content
IGNORED

MQA is Vaporware


Recommended Posts

"EQ'ed and DRC'ed" applies to all PCM based formats, not only MQA, my question is broader than MQA. Fact is, Bob don't tell whole story about MQA and EQ. No matter where or who writes something about MQA, fact remains - some "clever" math is involved in process. Is this really nessesary? If basically every DAC is Sigma-Delta, I don't see much point.

 

What exactly is Bob not telling us about MQA and EQ? Can you be more specific?

 

The clever math used in MQA is the 'origami' technique, which allows a high-res file to use much less data, allowing easier streaming with much less required bandwidth. Again, see several Stereophile articles for all the details.

 

You didn't reply to my question on ADC jitter correction yet which is claimed to be one of MQA's key assets. Looking forward to your response.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

Link to comment
I would strongly advise anyone 'throwing bits around' here and claiming MQA must be sounding really bad to read this article thoroughly first. MQA is not easy to understand from a technical PoV. But if you take the time it's certainly doable and there's a lot of very clever maths behind it. It's clear to me that a lot of technical allegations here are simply incorrect and based on lack of knowledge, which doesn't help the discussion.

 

Could you please explain where is John Siau incorrect?

 

"The MQA encoder shown in Fig. 7A accepts a 96 kHz 24-bit input. This 24-bit input is immediately reduced to 17 bits ...

...

... Note that the original 24-bit signal is never recovered. MQA does not losslessly preserve the original 24-bit signal. For this reason MQA is not truly a lossless system. At best, the MQA system losslessly conveys 17-bits at 96 kHz. Unfortunately this very complicated process is less efficient than lossless FLAC compression of the 17-bit file. It is also only slightly smaller than a FLAC version of the original 24-bit signal. MQA does not make it easier to stream 96 kHz files. With a 96 kHz 18-bit input, FLAC compressed MQA requires higher data rates than FLAC compressed PCM while delivering lower quality than 18-bit losslessly compressed PCM. MQA also requires special mastering and special playback hardware. Conventional FLAC compression requires neither."

i7 11850H + RTX A2000 Win11 HQPlayer ► Topping HS02 ► 2x iFi iSilencer ► SMSL D300 ► DIY headamp DHA1 ► HiFiMan HE-500
Link to comment
Could you please explain where is John Siau incorrect?

 

"The MQA encoder shown in Fig. 7A accepts a 96 kHz 24-bit input. This 24-bit input is immediately reduced to 17 bits ...

...

... Note that the original 24-bit signal is never recovered. MQA does not losslessly preserve the original 24-bit signal. For this reason MQA is not truly a lossless system. At best, the MQA system losslessly conveys 17-bits at 96 kHz. Unfortunately this very complicated process is less efficient than lossless FLAC compression of the 17-bit file. It is also only slightly smaller than a FLAC version of the original 24-bit signal. MQA does not make it easier to stream 96 kHz files. With a 96 kHz 18-bit input, FLAC compressed MQA requires higher data rates than FLAC compressed PCM while delivering lower quality than 18-bit losslessly compressed PCM. MQA also requires special mastering and special playback hardware. Conventional FLAC compression requires neither."

No I myself cannot, since I'm not technically savvy enough to be able to point out the correctness or incorrectness of his exact technical reasoning.

Having said that: can you yourself indicate if John Siau is technically more correct or less correct than Stereophile is in their analyses of MQA's working?

 

Furthermore: please allow me to be much more sceptical towards the VP of a DAC brand that's clearly not willing to embrace MQA for their own personal (and no doubt business/financial) reasons. For this exact reason I tend to trust Stereophile's opinion more, as they are not paid purely to represent a specific brand's own financial interest. Don't you think John (although being a digital expert) just might be a little bit biased on this topic..?

 

To me John's opinion on MQA is just as much worth as Bob's. Both are likely to be taken with a nice grain of salt.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

Link to comment
Could you please explain where is John Siau incorrect?

 

"The MQA encoder shown in Fig. 7A accepts a 96 kHz 24-bit input. This 24-bit input is immediately reduced to 17 bits ...

...

... Note that the original 24-bit signal is never recovered. MQA does not losslessly preserve the original 24-bit signal. For this reason MQA is not truly a lossless system. At best, the MQA system losslessly conveys 17-bits at 96 kHz. Unfortunately this very complicated process is less efficient than lossless FLAC compression of the 17-bit file. It is also only slightly smaller than a FLAC version of the original 24-bit signal. MQA does not make it easier to stream 96 kHz files. With a 96 kHz 18-bit input, FLAC compressed MQA requires higher data rates than FLAC compressed PCM while delivering lower quality than 18-bit losslessly compressed PCM. MQA also requires special mastering and special playback hardware. Conventional FLAC compression requires neither."

These links (specifically the first) might help to clarify the MQA bit depth topic. You will have to decide for yourself whose opinion you value more: John Siau's of Benchmark Audio or Jon Iverson's of Stereophile and Michael Lavorgna's of Audiostream (related to Stereophile).

 

http://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-questions-and-answers-bit-depth-mqa#lBdsuEtAdseh3IL8.97

 

http://www.audiostream.com/content/mqa-reviewed#9gvuUuQaPL4ptEzy.97

 

Enjoy reading.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

Link to comment
I wouldn't call it aliasing - so not sure what you mean.

 

Did you read this?

 

MQA 192k / 96k There and back again.

 

I look forward to reading Miska's (Jussi) technical evaluation when ready.

SO/ROON/HQPe: DSD 512-Sonore opticalModuleDeluxe-Signature Rendu optical with Well Tempered Clock--DIY DSC-2 DAC with SC Pure Clock--DIY Purifi Amplifier-Focus Audio FS888 speakers-JL E 112 sub-Nordost Tyr USB, DIY EventHorizon AC cables, Iconoclast XLR & speaker cables, Synergistic Purple Fuses, Spacetime system clarifiers.  ISOAcoustics Oreas footers.                                                       

                                                                                           SONORE computer audio

Link to comment

I think we need to remember that (in my understanding) there are two aspects to MQA processing:

 

1. The compression algorithm

 

2. The ADC/DAC compensation

 

All we are getting with the Tidal files is the compression, not the compensation. The compensation has to be applied in the hardware (DAC) because the compensation applied would have to be specific to each DAC design. Additionally, I believe (but am not sure on this) the ADC compensation has to occur in hardware where the analog source is first digitized by the ADC, either in initial recording or subsequent mastering from analog to digital. The improved sound quality claims appear to mainly stem from the compensation techniques, all the compression does is allow for a hi res file to be delivered in a smaller container (of course to the average consumer comparing this to an MP3 it might deliver improved sound quality, but to audiophiles who are already listening to an uncompressed hi res file this is a moot point).

Additionally, the MQA compression technique adds alias products, said to be inaudible of course, just as the psyychoacoustically derived MP3 algorithm is also claimed to be inaudible...

SO/ROON/HQPe: DSD 512-Sonore opticalModuleDeluxe-Signature Rendu optical with Well Tempered Clock--DIY DSC-2 DAC with SC Pure Clock--DIY Purifi Amplifier-Focus Audio FS888 speakers-JL E 112 sub-Nordost Tyr USB, DIY EventHorizon AC cables, Iconoclast XLR & speaker cables, Synergistic Purple Fuses, Spacetime system clarifiers.  ISOAcoustics Oreas footers.                                                       

                                                                                           SONORE computer audio

Link to comment
No I myself cannot, since I'm not technically savvy enough to be able to point out the correctness or incorrectness of his exact technical reasoning.

Having said that: can you yourself indicate if John Siau is technically more correct or less correct than Stereophile is in their analyses of MQA's working?

 

Furthermore: please allow me to be much more sceptical towards the VP of a DAC brand that's clearly not willing to embrace MQA for their own personal (and no doubt business/financial) reasons. For this exact reason I tend to trust Stereophile's opinion more, as they are not paid purely to represent a specific brand's own financial interest. Don't you think John (although being a digital expert) just might be a little bit biased on this topic..?

 

To me John's opinion on MQA is just as much worth as Bob's. Both are likely to be taken with a nice grain of salt.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

 

Personally, I am more likely to trust Siau, as he has not really steered me wrong. When Bob Stuart uses the term: "Master Quality Authenticated" I immediately know there is some bad smelling stuff going on, as MQA clearly bears very little resemblance to the actual master. I can purchase, for example, 24/176.4 HRx files which are exact bit perfect copies of the master from Reference Recordings, MQA is an entirely different thing.

SO/ROON/HQPe: DSD 512-Sonore opticalModuleDeluxe-Signature Rendu optical with Well Tempered Clock--DIY DSC-2 DAC with SC Pure Clock--DIY Purifi Amplifier-Focus Audio FS888 speakers-JL E 112 sub-Nordost Tyr USB, DIY EventHorizon AC cables, Iconoclast XLR & speaker cables, Synergistic Purple Fuses, Spacetime system clarifiers.  ISOAcoustics Oreas footers.                                                       

                                                                                           SONORE computer audio

Link to comment
I think we need to remember that (in my understanding) there are two aspects to MQA processing:

 

1. The compression algorithm

 

2. The ADC/DAC compensation

 

All we are getting with the Tidal files is the compression, not the compensation. The compensation has to be applied in the hardware (DAC) because the compensation applied would have to be specific to each DAC design. Additionally, I believe (but am not sure on this) the ADC compensation has to occur in hardware where the analog source is first digitized by the ADC, either in initial recording or subsequent mastering from analog to digital. The improved sound quality claims appear to mainly stem from the compensation techniques, all the compression does is allow for a hi res file to be delivered in a smaller container (of course to the average consumer comparing this to an MP3 it might deliver improved sound quality, but to audiophiles who are already listening to an uncompressed hi res file this is a moot point).

Additionally, the MQA compression technique adds alias products, said to be inaudible of course, just as the psyychoacoustically derived MP3 algorithm is also claimed to be inaudible...

Yes, I agree. Although I think the ADC compensation part now seems to be able to be executed in software only.

 

W.r.t. audible (lack of) quality of MQA: the proof of the pudding - as always - is in the eating. Since much of the audio press is pretty positive on the audible results I will keep my eyes and ears open until my Rossini fully supports MQA. And only then I will judge, not minding if I lost 1 or 0,6 least significant bits in the process; not for one bit, actually. [emoji6]

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

Link to comment
Personally, I am more likely to trust Siau, as he has not really steered me wrong. When Bob Stuart uses the term: "Master Quality Authenticated" I immediately know there is some bad smelling stuff going on, as MQA clearly bears very little resemblance to the actual master. I can purchase, for example, 24/176.4 HRx files which are exact bit perfect copies of the master from Reference Recordings, MQA is an entirely different thing.

Fair point. However I do trust Stereophile more than either Bob or John, for the reasons I have explained.

 

Do check out the Stereophile article on actual MQA bit depths and you will understand why.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

Link to comment
No I myself cannot, since I'm not technically savvy enough to be able to point out the correctness or incorrectness of his exact technical reasoning.

Having said that: can you yourself indicate if John Siau is technically more correct or less correct than Stereophile is in their analyses of MQA's working?

 

Furthermore: please allow me to be much more sceptical towards the VP of a DAC brand that's clearly not willing to embrace MQA for their own personal (and no doubt business/financial) reasons. For this exact reason I tend to trust Stereophile's opinion more, as they are not paid purely to represent a specific brand's own financial interest. Don't you think John (although being a digital expert) just might be a little bit biased on this topic..?

 

To me John's opinion on MQA is just as much worth as Bob's. Both are likely to be taken with a nice grain of salt.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

My understanding is that MQA really reduces 24bit resolution to 17bit, that makes the 1st block on Siau's diagram. When anyone speaks about higher 'apparent' resolution, it may be caused by some DSP, but such a 'resolution' cannot return information which was lost by reducing resolution from 24 to 17 bits. It's similar like when you reduce resolution of some picture and then you perform some sharpening algorithm on it. You may improve something for your eyes, but the low level detail is not reconstructed. Now it's important how much resolution has the technical gear you are using to look at the picture and how much resolution have your eyes. But we are not using the same gear and we have not the same eyes, ears and brain.

i7 11850H + RTX A2000 Win11 HQPlayer ► Topping HS02 ► 2x iFi iSilencer ► SMSL D300 ► DIY headamp DHA1 ► HiFiMan HE-500
Link to comment
Fair point. However I do trust Stereophile more than either Bob or John, for the reasons I have explained.

 

Do check out the Stereophile article on actual MQA bit depths and you will understand why.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

 

I have read everything at Stereophile and find that most of it appears to be a regurgitation of what Bob Stuart/Meridian are saying, which I find to be obfuscating marketing speak for the most part.

I do look forward to a real technical analysis of what MQA compression and compensation actually does by John Atkinson with actual measurements showing the spectrum analysis, jitter, alias products, etc. That would be interesting. Hopefully Jussi will be reporting on this in the near future, I know he has a vested interest with HQPlayer and a very high degree of understanding of digital filtering (which is what MQA does after all).

SO/ROON/HQPe: DSD 512-Sonore opticalModuleDeluxe-Signature Rendu optical with Well Tempered Clock--DIY DSC-2 DAC with SC Pure Clock--DIY Purifi Amplifier-Focus Audio FS888 speakers-JL E 112 sub-Nordost Tyr USB, DIY EventHorizon AC cables, Iconoclast XLR & speaker cables, Synergistic Purple Fuses, Spacetime system clarifiers.  ISOAcoustics Oreas footers.                                                       

                                                                                           SONORE computer audio

Link to comment
My understanding is that MQA really reduces 24bit resolution to 17bit, that makes the 1st block on Siau's diagram. When anyone speaks about higher 'apparent' resolution, it may be caused by some DSP, but such a 'resolution' cannot return information which was lost by reducing resolution from 24 to 17 bits. It's similar like when you reduce resolution of some picture and then you perform some sharpening algorithm on it. You may improve something for your eyes, but the low level detail is not reconstructed. Now it's important how much resolution has the technical gear you are using to look at the picture and how much resolution have your eyes. But we are not using the same gear and we have not the same eyes, ears and brain.

I can only say that according to the referenced Stereophile article your understanding is incorrect.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

Link to comment
My understanding is that MQA really reduces 24bit resolution to 17bit, that makes the 1st block on Siau's diagram. When anyone speaks about higher 'apparent' resolution, it may be caused by some DSP, but such a 'resolution' cannot return information which was lost by reducing resolution from 24 to 17 bits. It's similar like when you reduce resolution of some picture and then you perform some sharpening algorithm on it. You may improve something for your eyes, but the low level detail is not reconstructed.

 

And there is the rub. I agree. On the one hand, for the average consumer, MQA can be, and may be a step up in sound quality, as they (may) get a version of hi res (sort of) when they are used to MP3 or (maybe at best) CD level quality. But for audiophiles it is a different thing, we are already listening to hi res (often) and are using DACs which are painstakingly designed specifically to retrieve the last bit of low level detail. Suddenly all the work of our favorite DAC developers on low level detail, and digital filter design is not really relevant anymore with MQA, and we will be settling for whatever MQA feels is appropriate.

SO/ROON/HQPe: DSD 512-Sonore opticalModuleDeluxe-Signature Rendu optical with Well Tempered Clock--DIY DSC-2 DAC with SC Pure Clock--DIY Purifi Amplifier-Focus Audio FS888 speakers-JL E 112 sub-Nordost Tyr USB, DIY EventHorizon AC cables, Iconoclast XLR & speaker cables, Synergistic Purple Fuses, Spacetime system clarifiers.  ISOAcoustics Oreas footers.                                                       

                                                                                           SONORE computer audio

Link to comment
I have read everything at Stereophile and find that most of it appears to be a regurgitation of what Bob Stuart/Meridian are saying, which I find to be obfuscating marketing speak for the most part.

I do look forward to a real technical analysis of what MQA compression and compensation actually does by John Atkinson with actual measurements showing the spectrum analysis, jitter, alias products, etc. That would be interesting. Hopefully Jussi will be reporting on this in the near future, I know he has a vested interest with HQPlayer and a very high degree of understanding of digital filtering (which is what MQA does after all).

Some healthy skepticism is always OK. Please note however that a pretty extensive technical analysis has already been done by Jon Iverson in the same article on several tracks, of which some were recorded by John Atkinson himself. Although I think you would like to see these analyses to be even more elaborated?

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

Link to comment
And there is the rub. I agree. On the one hand, for the average consumer, MQA can be, and may be a step up in sound quality, as they (may) get a version of hi res (sort of) when they are used to MP3 or (maybe at best) CD level quality. But for audiophiles it is a different thing, we are already listening to hi res (often) and are using DACs which are painstakingly designed specifically to retrieve the last bit of low level detail. Suddenly all the work of our favorite DAC developers on low level detail, and digital filter design is not really relevant anymore with MQA, and we will be settling for whatever MQA feels is appropriate.

The earlier referenced Audiostream article clearly shows that the quality of your DAC will stay being paramount, also with MQA. In the article Michael Lavorgna compares the Mytek Brooklyn DAC with MQA with the dCS Rossini without MQA. The latter clearly wins.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

Link to comment
Some healthy skepticism is always OK. Please note however that a pretty extensive technical analysis has already been done by Jon Iverson in the same article on several tracks, of which some were recorded by John Atkinson himself. Although I think you would like to see these analyses to be even more elaborated?

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

 

I will go back and re-visit then, it has been awhile.

SO/ROON/HQPe: DSD 512-Sonore opticalModuleDeluxe-Signature Rendu optical with Well Tempered Clock--DIY DSC-2 DAC with SC Pure Clock--DIY Purifi Amplifier-Focus Audio FS888 speakers-JL E 112 sub-Nordost Tyr USB, DIY EventHorizon AC cables, Iconoclast XLR & speaker cables, Synergistic Purple Fuses, Spacetime system clarifiers.  ISOAcoustics Oreas footers.                                                       

                                                                                           SONORE computer audio

Link to comment
MQA was launched on December 2014. It is now January 2, 2017 so let’s see where MQA is at today.

 

Remember all the people who said that MQA was not Digital Rights Management? Well Utimaco disagrees. “MQA turned to Utimaco, a leading manufacturer of hardware-based security solutions that provide the root of trust to keep cryptographic keys safe, secure critical digital infrastructures and protect high value data assets. “ “Critical to the continued success and monetization of the streaming and download services of the entertainment industry, is the ability to secure and safeguard end-to-end transmission of intellectual property. A market leader in hardened encryption, Utimaco is at the forefront of enabling the authenticated delivery needed to drive next-generation entertainment consumption.”

 

Now turn to content. As of today there is no music in the genres 80% of American buy, Rock, R&B/Hip Hop, Pop and Country. Add Latin and EDM and you are at about 9 out of ten people buying music in America have no MQA encoded music to purchase. Don’t wait for licensee Warner Music Group to suddenly turn a switch and their music become available because they told the SEC in their latest financial statements they haven’t figured out how to distribute digital music.

 

There are 10 companies that produce equipment with MQA decoders. None of the products have enough units in the hands of consumers to make any impact. Many companies announced they would not support the format. The view of companies neither producing products nor announcing they would not support the format is indifference. Hardly a must have feature.

 

I said earlier this year that I would need 200 artists producing new music in the genres I regularly buy for MQA to be viable a viable format for me. I don’t see any interest by those artists in recording high resolution much less with MQA encoding. Those genres are rock, alt rock, alt country and bluegrass. And personally I will not test any MQA equipment until eight of the nine albums I use as my reference are available in MQA.

 

The Doors “Riders on the Storm “was used as demo of MQA not realizing there was no master to authenticate. Something that was well known but apparently unknown to the MQA people and audio journalists.

 

As of January 2, 2017 two years after its splashy launch we have a lot of audiophile press about MQA, announcements and demonstrations. But there is a limited supply of equipment to decode MQA files and no music encoded for nine out ten American music buyers, classic vaporware.

 

I was initially very enthusiastic about MQA, mostly due to the promise that it could do away with the necessity to stream using lossy compression algorithms such as MP3. Unfortunately, I think that Stuart shot himself (and his technology) in the foot by making the licenses to use MQA pretty expensive. If you are interested is launching a new technology on the consumer market, you give away the licensing - at least until the technology takes off and becomes an industry standard.

 

I'm not sure, at this juncture, whether MQA will ever gain the market penetration it deserves. As a society, we need to get over this "Gordon-Gekko-Greed-is-Good" mentality!

George

Link to comment

It seems the more appropriate title of this thread should be "M Q A! M Q A! God save the MQA!!!"

The number of threads on this site, that I do not want to click on, will soon be enough to start a new religion.

my > overly > fancy > system > with > directional > interconnects > powered > by > ego & linear fusion reactor

Link to comment
I was initially very enthusiastic about MQA, mostly due to the promise that it could do away with the necessity to stream using lossy compression algorithms such as MP3. Unfortunately, I think that Stuart shot himself (and his technology) in the foot by making the licenses to use MQA pretty expensive. If you are interested is launching a new technology on the consumer market, you give away the licensing - at least until the technology takes off and becomes an industry standard.

 

I'm not sure, at this juncture, whether MQA will ever gain the market penetration it deserves. As a society, we need to get over this "Gordon-Gekko-Greed-is-Good" mentality!

Well, he's a business man and he does have the right to earn his living, doesn't he? Whether he has chosen the best sales strategy indeed remains to be seen. I expect that for one John Siao from Benchmark does not completely agree with Bob's license policy.. [emoji6]

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

Link to comment
Well, he's a business man and he does have the right to earn his living, doesn't he? Whether he has chosen the best sales strategy indeed remains to be seen. I expect that for one John Siao from Benchmark does not completely agree with Bob's license policy.. [emoji6]

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

Neither, apparently, do Mike Moffat and Jason Stoddard of Schiit Audio!

George

Link to comment

Vincent1234, correct me if I am wrong but are not John Siao, Mike Moffat, Jason Stoddard, Miska, etc actual electrical/audio engineers or otherwise with technical degrees that required them to actually pass (let alone take) calculus? And are not the "writers" you cite from Sterophile and elsewhere just that - journalists and writers who have a good bit of practical experience in "the industry" but nothing more and so really are simply regurgitating what Bob/MQA tells them? I could be wrong here...

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
Neither, apparently, do Mike Moffat and Jason Stoddard of Schiit Audio!

 

It's not the licensing (at least from what they say) but limited content availability that Jason and Mike have pointed to, as they have with DSD.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
It's not the licensing (at least from what they say) but limited content availability that Jason and Mike have pointed to, as they have with DSD.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

It's logical some manufacturers hold their horses now to see if and how MQA will be adapted in the market first. At the same time it's not very likely they will tell the audience that they think the license costs are too high for them, even if that's indeed the case. Schiit products are not the most expensive in the industry, so I can imagine it's a pretty big risk for them to take to step in already now. Just my guess..

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

Link to comment
Did you read this?

 

MQA 192k / 96k There and back again.

 

I look forward to reading Miska's (Jussi) technical evaluation when ready.

 

I have yes. Note there is no actual data in the plots.

 

But the point is that everything is aliased - understanding a FFT will show that. So it is only of value to talk about a high degree of aliasing vs. a low degree. I'll wait to see that, and will wait to hear MQA before jumping to speculative conclusions.

Link to comment
Vincent1234, correct me if I am wrong but are not John Siao, Mike Moffat, Jason Stoddard, Miska, etc actual electrical/audio engineers or otherwise with technical degrees that required them to actually pass (let alone take) calculus? And are not the "writers" you cite from Sterophile and elsewhere just that - journalists and writers who have a good bit of practical experience in "the industry" but nothing more and so really are simply regurgitating what Bob/MQA tells them? I could be wrong here...

It's a fair point to bring up. However John Atkinson from Stereophile is an experienced professional recording engineer too, and he seems to be pretty enthusiastic about MQA's SQ. And (sorry for this [emoji6]) Bob Stuart is an acknowledged digital audio expert for a very long time too. I really believe one should be pretty skeptical when a new format pops up which claims so many advantages like MQA is doing. But in the end it's all about how it actually sounds and this is exactly what most of these posts are NOT about. That's logical, since indeed available MQA material is still limited. But in the meantime I'm noticing a lot of slashing going on in the technical area, which often seems to be based on poor or wrong assumptions.

Some food for thought: if measurements were all that counted in audio, no one would listen to vinyl or tube amps anymore. Would they? By the way, I'm one of those losers.. [emoji4]

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...