MQA is Vaporware

[The Computer Audiophile]

29 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Good question.  For me, the take away is that MQA is monolithic - it is a particular solution, a certain "sound", an "end to end" that limits everyone along the entire chain (artists, engineers, end users, etc.).  Does that (or any of the other objections to MQA) change anything?  I suppose time will tell.  Today my mood/gut tells me that the push back against MQA is reaching towards a critical mass, but this "feeling" changes like the weather  

 

I hear you. When I see an engineer come out and say something is the best or the worst or whatever, I don't even consider it newsworthy or memorable. If s/he likes the way something sounds that's fine. It's kind of like my father-in-law loving the new Corvette. that fact does nothing for me, but does provide good fodder for discussion given that I dislike Corvettes quite a bit. 

 

With respect to MQA, I've heard many in the music industry who like it or hate it and for all kinds of reasons related to sound quality, DRM, change, etc... To me it doesn't really matter what anyone else says (good or bad). Everyone has an opinion. Touting one guys opinion (good or bad) doesn't move the needle, but it does drive site traffic. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

11 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Chris,

If your studio signature sound changed in the conversion to MQA then it isn’t a master. In Bob Lucy’s case he uses a Pacific Microsonics ADC and has his studio set up differently to get that sound in 24/44.1. If he used a Forssell ADC instead the sound would be different and would not be a master. If he took his equipment to another location it would sound different and not be a master. When you convert master to MQA and it sounds different it is not a master. There is no difference in the three examples.

 

Again. One guy stating his preference. When Bob Ludwig stated his preference in favor of MQA, I thought the same thing. Big deal. 

 

We both know there is often more to public opinions than meets the eye. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

11 minutes ago, realhifi said:

 

WHAT?!!  Sacrilegious!  How can you not flip over these little classics?

 

I admit to liking the classics, but he loves the new ones. Yuck!

[The Computer Audiophile]

17 hours ago, esldude said:

Not buying that.  Find me pro gear that doesn't do at least 96/24.  Other than older gear even sub $100 ADCs do 96 and usually 192.

 

The lower limit is usually because they use so many channels. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

13 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

Why, they're only one of the finest sports cars in the world,

And of under $100,000

Something a real person can own.

 

Consider me an "unreal person" then, because there's no way I'm spending that much on a car :~)

 

More than anything, I dislike the looks. Not classic. They will look dated in 5 years. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

51 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

if you fear DRM you will not buy a Kaby Lake CPU

 

Oh yes, I fear many in this thread won't be able to purchase a computer in the near future :~)

 

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/11/netflix-4k-streaming-pc-kaby-lake-cpu-windows-10-edge-browser/

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

No, it completely fixes the problems of "Redbook ringing" inside audiophile heads.

Now of course Stuarts AES "MQA prequel" paper used a concocted MATLAB filter with suboptimal dither, that doesn't remotely represent any AD filter used in over 20yrs, thereby proving you need MQA.

A good explanation of the "process"  can be found here http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/MQA/origami/ThereAndBack.html

There are quite a few things going on...

 

Please be careful commenting about another company's products. True, false, neither, or both, manufacturers commenting on another manufacturer's product is tricky territory. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Apologies Chris, I did not think of MQA as a "manufacturer", but rather an entity that strictly licenses the "process".

MQA actually manufactures hardware? Regardless, did not think as loudspeaker manufacturer there would be conflict with being critical of the MQA process itself. Your site, your rules, no prob.

 

Hi AJ - Thanks for the response. I just wanted to make sure you are cautious. As I said it's tricky, not necessarily against the rules. The world is full of shades of Gray, not black & white. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

10 minutes ago, fung0 said:

and even those who do dip their toes into the "subjective" all too often.

 

Which in itself is a very subjective statement :~)

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, crenca said:

 

Thinking of the Chord vs MQA approach, is it fair to say that the "time domain smearing" IS the ringing, and that the lack of ringing in the MQA filters IS what they allege to be "time domain accuracy"?  I know this has already been described thus a 1000 times but just want to verify:  given this, then MQA trades aliasing for the lack of ringing - noise for ringing whereas the steep filter of the Chord Dave will have ringing but more accurate (i.e. little aliasing distortion) FR.

 

Ok, after all this I am still having a hard time tracking relevance in the audio band as I can't tell which approach as a paper tiger (a graph) is more relevant from 20-20.  I think it comes down to what you believe the ultrasonics is doing to your DAC/amps/speaker such that it skews the sound within the audioband, but again here it is all opinion is it not?

 

Sometimes you just have to listen to music and decide for yourself what sounds best. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 hours ago, crenca said:

 

In reply, and in the context, I would answer with "but that is only half the story".  Several reasons.  It is digital audio and measurements mean something - digital audio is just software, and thus math, in the end.  Within the context of digital audio, there is a large amount of consensus (for example 8 bit audio is not the same SQ as 16 bit) and also contention (is 24/20/18 bit really better than 16 all things considered?).

 

With MQA, you have an attempt to make a psychoacoustic sales pitch based on DSP (and DRM ;0 ) manipulation of PCM, psychoacoustic studies, etc.  You also have a strong claim about "time domain" vs. "frequency domain" that is subject (by its nature) to cold, objective engineering (as archimago, mansr, and others do).  MQA itself is pushing this level and is not in any way a soft, "ah just listen" market play.  

 

For me, I am interested in whether the additional noise that is a byproduct of MQA's design is euphonic  - this would allow the audio press to save face, at least a little...

 

I thought you were asking about differences between approaches and since two companies think they are right, it comes down to listening and making a decision based on what you like. No math involved when two approaches have pros and cons. 

 

Edit: It appears archimago agrees with me, "So which approach is right? I guess I can offer you the usual recommendation... "Go listen for yourself." :-)

[The Computer Audiophile]

One thing comes to mind after reading @Archimago article. There is talk about Chord and MQA approaches being very different. Many people here have ripped on the MQA approach. I don't disagree with anyone on this.

 

However, without blind ABX testing aren't we arguing over something that may not matter or even be audible? 

 

P.S. I like reading all the measurements and seeing graphs and reading about people's subjective assessments. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

 ...it would had been so much better if I could buy, say a $150-ish software decoder which can be used with various music players as a plug-in (e.g Jriver and so forth.)

 

That's a really cool idea. If someone wants to pay to play MQA, the company could sell them a plug-in. Rather than all users of software paying for the embedded license such as what's in Audirvana. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

8 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

There's that crazy talk again...

 

I have access to the Chord and some other fairly high end DACs (Berkeley, Lampi, Ayre, etc), some of which can decode MQA. In all the informal sessions so far, the Chord has been spanking the MQA DACs, but as you say, it most definitely must be done controlled, for any sort of validity.

In Nov I'll be doing something a bit different. I'll be comparing the MQA output of a Mytek Brooklyn vs a 16/44 loop version of itself. That might be interesting. 

 

I'm suggesting that not all measurements really matter. That's not crazy talk. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

I'm just trying to figure out what MQA actually is.

 

Yes, and thanks for sharing your efforts. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

12 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Gentlemen, MQA facts are too important to be left up to audiophile juries.

You think your average audiophile is King Solomon? No! He's a dentist with a mortgage. He wants to go home and sit in his Barcalounger and let MQA wash over him. And this man doesn't give a single, solitary droplet of shit about truth, justice or your American way.

 

Wow. You act as if your health is at stake. This is audio. A fun hobby. 

 

You also underestimate the intelligence of the average audiophile. 

 

When it comes to what audiophiles care about and what people spend their disposable income on, i opt for the live and let live approach. I don't care what others want to do with their time or money. I also don't want others caring what I do with mine. 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, james45974 said:

MQA, Black Sabbath USB computer dongle cross,

 

Wrong and tasteless on so many levels!

 

That's what Black Sabbath is all about. Being tasteless on so many levels. Part of what makes them great :~)

[The Computer Audiophile]

12 hours ago, Fokus said:

... In the eyes of the real world out there audiophools are morons anyway.

 

 

This statement really bugs me. Perhaps I don't understand who is in the group of people called the "real world." This my help me understand their views, but I'll always disagree with them because I personally know many audiophiles who are the opposite of morons. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, String said:

It's said.

You can't reading and you don't understand my meaning!

Or why I wrote as I did!

 

So don't ask me, because I ain't going to answering you .

 

L&R

String

 

Lighten up Francis.

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

So this was all about derailing the MQA thread to shill Peters magic product.

Cool 

Seems like many of your comments are to derail threads to shill your own magic products. Still willing to bet many more people have heard his magic than yours. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, AJ Soundfield said:

I don't make magic products, so that's certainly true.

Mine sound just like they measure, like everyone else, no claims about being only one in world doing so either.

What threads am I shilling product in?

"Nobody" had heard of your products before you started poking people with sophomoric jabs. You seem to live by the mantra that no press is bad press. Very similar to Steve Nugent who took all he could get in free advertising by posting so much, before he was banned. Why don't you become helpful rather than continue to be a taker, taking all you can get. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

I've known A J  around the net for quite some time now Chris.

You really do need to get out from behind that CA keyboard.  

I don't doubt either of those sentences :~)

 

Now back to MQA. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

43 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

Enough

 

While this argument may have been fun let’s get back to the topic MQA.

 

As I’ve talked with studio people one thing is getting clearer. MQA does change the sound of the master. The proponents of MQA say in general MQA is like a better DAC but it changes the master. These changes are generally described as linearity and image changes.  The opponents of MQA say it changes the soundstage of the master. There seems to be an agreement that there is an increased presence in the midrange but differing opinions on other changes to the sound.

 

I’ve discovered is MQA Ltd is recruiting mastering engineers to be area representatives. So when you hear a mastering engineer support MQA you have to ask two questions. One are they an area representative and did they receive equipment or other forms of compensation to say what they did.

 

Miguelito I thought about your system pictures a bit when I was traveling to New York City recently. I ‘m familiar with all the sources Bob Stuart uses to support detection of ultrasonics as basis for MQA. I use many of the same sources to say there isn’t any evidence a person’s brain will be affected by ultrasonics in a normal listening position at a concert say sixty to eighty feet from the stage. After looking at your system pictures I can’t see how enough ultrasonic energy would be above the noise floor of your listening space to be able to record differences in brain activity sitting on the couch. I have more doubt than ever about whether ultrasonics matter.

 

Finally, opponents of MQA have formed a group to collate, organize and disseminate information about MQA. The group includes people from high end audio manufacturers, major labels, studios and me.

Perhaps a special area of CA or curated thread could help organize / display the info. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

The new CA upgrade coming soon will enable a special area for topics like this that can contain attachments for white papers, videos, forums, images, etc... And all can have special moderators etc...

 

It's a cool feature I will implement after I return from vacation. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 hours ago, mansr said:

Some information is of a nature that you don't want on this site. It could still be a good place for general discussion.

 

I'd love to see it.