MQA is Vaporware

[The Computer Audiophile]

18 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

There is no 'UN-MQA' button. The damage is done before the files are compressed into the FLAC container. Think of FLAC like a 'zip' or 'tar' file. That is all it is. How can you un-erase anything when there is noting of that information left? Then you will also have to remove all the noise the crappy filters put above the music information.

 

I think you do not understand what you are talking about.

 

A FLAC file can me made out of an MP3 but the data removed will not be 'magically' restored. Nothing can do that.

Exactly. If it could happen, the same must be true of the novel I’m writing. I’ll send Frank the first chapter in a zip. He should be able to fill in the final 23 via AI. 🤣

[KeenObserver]

Strange how every time that posters get down to the nitty gritty of MQA, the thread gets diverted off to a tangent.  It is as if serious talk about the true impact of MQA bothers some people.

[botrytis]

4 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

Strange how every time that posters get down to the nitty gritty of MQA, the thread gets diverted off to a tangent.  It is as if serious talk about the true impact of MQA bothers some people.

 

People do not like to hear the truth.

 

It happens.

[sphinxsix]

12 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

People do not like to hear the truth.

 

It happens.

 

Hearing the truth isn't always a pleasant thing, even for audiophiles..

 

 

59 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Someone would have to contact a truth in advertising/consumer protection agency in a country that actually cares. 

 

I believe this could really be done.

 

Beside that if other labels join Warner and are also shareholders of MQA, I'd ask a good lawyer if something like that can't be called a collusion. 

 

[fas42]

2 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

Let's hear you restore 64 kbps MP3 to 16/44.1 PCM.

 

Why not go really silly - and suggest that a cylinder recording done in the 1910's can be made as technically together as a modern 192/24 effort, hmmm ...

 

The point of the exercise is to make the recording 'fit enough' so that one can enjoy the musical event captured, without being distracted by the technical limitations ... I just mentioned in another thread an exercise of capturing Spotify 160 kbps of 1929, classical recordings - pretty damn bad, many would say. Bev was enthralled, by the replay, listened through a whole CDs worth of this - the sense of an orchestra conducted by a maestro, doing a damn fine job, of pumping out music worth listening to, was fully intact.

[botrytis]

5 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

 

Hearing the truth isn't always a pleasant thing, even for audiophiles..

 

 

 

I believe this could really be done.

 

Beside that if other labels join Warner and are also shareholders of MQA, I'd ask a good lawyer if something like that can't be called a collusion. 

 

 

 

People don't seem to want to discuss anything any more. What they want is everyone to agree with them and move on. Audiophiles, etc. as it really doesn't matter.

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

 

People don't seem to want to discuss anything any more. What they want is everyone to agree with them and move on. Audiophiles, etc. as it really doesn't matter.

It makes for boring times for some and really hyped up times for others. 

[kumakuma]

8 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Why not go really silly - and suggest that a cylinder recording done in the 1910's can be made as technically together as a modern 192/24 effort, hmmm ...

 

The point of the exercise is to make the recording 'fit enough' so that one can enjoy the musical event captured, without being distracted by the technical limitations ... I just mentioned in another thread an exercise of capturing Spotify 160 kbps of 1929, classical recordings - pretty damn bad, many would say. Bev was enthralled, by the replay, listened through a whole CDs worth of this - the sense of an orchestra conducted by a maestro, doing a damn fine job, of pumping out music worth listening to, was fully intact.

 

Thanks for confirming what I suspected about your "solution"

 

[fas42]

2 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

That can only be fake.

What's gone, is gone.

 

If there is dynamic compression, with no clipping, and the precise parameters are fed back in to decompress, then the waveform is fully restored - I did some exercises, years ago, of doing compression and then decompression to envelopes of sine waves which faded in to maximum, and then faded out - using Reaper - provided one didn't get too fancy, the waveform was retrieved.

 

In the real world, of reversing audible 'damage', the difference is dramatic - going from "Get me out of here!!", to "Hey, that was a good track!" - worrying about the process being 'perfect' is in the realms of angels on a head of pin stuff - if it works subjectively, then that's what counts ... to me.

[KeenObserver]

If these three studios are capable of forcing the industry to accept MQA, are anti Trust laws applicable?  Should these studios be broken up?

[KeenObserver]

Apparently, we are not stepping back into reality.  How long does this usually continue?

[The Computer Audiophile]

I was just thinking about something. HiFi manufacturers implemented MQA for a few reasons, among them was to give their customers a choice. They said, if customers want MQA they can have it. It’s crazy that providing this choice will eventually eliminate any choice. Pure PCM will be gone. 

[kumakuma]

3 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

Apparently, we are not stepping back into reality.  How long does this usually continue?

 

Depends on whether or not Frank's involved...

 

I keep forgetting the First Rule of Audiophile Style:

 

RULE 1. DON'T RESPOND TO ANY OF FRANK'S POSTS

 

Probably should be Rules 2 and 3 as well

[The Computer Audiophile]

7 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

If these three studios are capable of forcing the industry to accept MQA, are anti Trust laws applicable?  Should these studios be broken up?

Wish I would’ve paid attention in law school. 
 

The part that just seems wrong to me is forcing people into encoded MQA music, then collecting money because you have ownership in the only company that can decode MQA. 

[KeenObserver]

I suppose it does provide some comic relief to the grim realities of MQA.

[fas42]

2 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

While you can use DSP to add dynamic range to previously compressed recordings, I hope you're not suggesting that the output of that process bears a significant resemblance to what the recording was before being compressed.  At best, it will be a facsimile of an uncompressed version.

 

I do indeed ... you see, there's a sweet spot - on either side of getting it spot on, it doesn't sound correct - there's a peculiarity to what you hear, "something is not quite right" - using an ancient, buried in the sands of time, technique 😜 you narrow in to the right numbers to use - the simplistic approach is to listen, but one can also analyse what's happening in the waveform. What you get with a "close enough" version is a sense that there's nothing in the music that "sounds wrong" - and that's good enough for me 🙂.

 

Quote

 

Comparing material that was previously encoded in Dolby A is a little bit misleading, because there is dynamic range compression as part of the encoding process and the restoration of the original dynamic range was/is possible because of the encoding.

 

 

The restoration is possible, because the 'right' parameters are used - work out by some means what the mastering did as far as parameters are concerned, in some compression exercise,  and out pops a decent waveform.

 

What you get with a good decompression is excellent transient bite; subjectively satisfying dynamics, and treble completely clean - it's worth doing, 🙂.

[KeenObserver]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Wish I would’ve paid attention in law school. 
 

The part that just seems wrong to me is forcing people into encoded MQA music, then collecting money because you have ownership in the only company that can decode MQA. 

 

Having one company have control of the entire music encoding and distribution network a matter of anti Trust.  Should the justice department be looking into this?

[botrytis]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

I do indeed ... you see, there's a sweet spot - on either side of getting it spot on, it doesn't sound correct - there's a peculiarity to what you hear, "something is not quite right" - using an ancient, buried in the sands of time, technique 😜 you narrow in to the right numbers to use - the simplistic approach is to listen, but one can also analyse what's happening in the waveform. What you get with a "close enough" version is a sense that there's nothing in the music that "sounds wrong" - and that's good enough for me 🙂.

 

 

The restoration is possible, because the 'right' parameters are used - work out by some means what the mastering did as far as parameters are concerned, in some compression exercise,  and out pops a decent waveform.

 

What you get with a good decompression is excellent transient bite; subjectively satisfying dynamics, and treble completely clean - it's worth doing, 🙂.

 

Some one has been imbibing again 🤣

[fas42]

1 hour ago, botrytis said:

 

There is no 'UN-MQA' button. The damage is done before the files are compressed into the FLAC container. Think of FLAC like a 'zip' or 'tar' file. That is all it is. How can you un-erase anything when there is noting of that information left? Then you will also have to remove all the noise the crappy filters put above the music information.

 

I think you do not understand what you are talking about.

 

A FLAC file can me made out of an MP3 but the data removed will not be 'magically' restored. Nothing can do that.

 

Enlighten me. What specifically has MQA completely eliminated, that can never be recovered - IOW, that which when you listen to an MQA is obviously missing, and makes it much less of a listening experience?

 

[botrytis]

6 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Enlighten me. What specifically has MQA completely eliminated, that can never be recovered - IOW, that which when you listen to an MQA is obviously missing, and makes it much less of a listening experience?

 

 

It has THROWN AWAY parts of the file, period. How can you restore them if they are gone?

 

Remember this block diagram? This is from the MQA patent. Notice the 'Lossy' parts? That means they are ignored and thrown away? Are you Dr. Frankenstein? Because that is what you are asking....

 

Also the filters used in this process add noise to the file (both above the file max 20 KHz for a 44KHz file as well as those ultrasonics adding noise to audible range of the file. and there is some DSP aspect to it. I am sure others, in this thread, can explain it.

 

 

[fas42]

1 hour ago, KeenObserver said:

Strange how every time that posters get down to the nitty gritty of MQA, the thread gets diverted off to a tangent.  It is as if serious talk about the true impact of MQA bothers some people.

 

The real point is whether one can reverse MQA doctoring, without using MQA endorsed methods - I say it can; others throw up their hands in horror, and declare it's as bad as pulling half the spark plugs leads off a V8 engine, having MQA in the mix - always satisfying to exaggerate something to the hilt, to try and make a point, 😉.

[JoeWhip]

22 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Depends on whether or not Frank's involved...

 

I keep forgetting the First Rule of Audiophile Style:

 

RULE 1. DON'T RESPOND TO ANY OF FRANK'S POSTS

 

Probably should be Rules 2 and 3 as well

the ignore button is your friend. Sure is mine.

[fas42]

1 minute ago, botrytis said:

 

It has THROWN AWAY parts of the file, period. How can you restore them if they are gone?

 

Remember this block diagram? This is from the MQA patent. Notice the 'Lossy' parts? That means they are ignored and thrown away? Are you Dr. Frankenstein? Because that is what you are asking....

 

Ummm, that's a diagram of what the machinery is doing - how about, an original music file and then, oh horrors, an MQA version of the same. And then point to all the dreadful damage done inside when you compare them, all the stuff which MQA has hurled out the window ...

[botrytis]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

The real point is whether one can reverse MQA doctoring, without using MQA endorsed methods - I say it can; others throw up their hands in horror, and declare it's as bad as pulling half the spark plugs leads off a V8 engine, having MQA in the mix - always satisfying to exaggerate something to the hilt, to try and make a point, 😉.

 

Have you ever run a V8 engine w/o half the sparkplugs? You can't do it. The reason being is that those cylinder will have no compression and will cause the engine to fail. That is why the first 8-4-2 engines failed  from GM. They didn't have the complex computer control to do it.

 

The way GM is doing it is not like you describe it, that is a very simpleton way. They are actually hutting off the fuel and spark to those cylinders as well as lowering valve lift. It is a very complicated process.

[botrytis]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

Ummm, that's a diagram of what the machinery is doing - how about, an original music file and then, oh horrors, an MQA version of the same. And then point to all the dreadful damage done inside when you compare them, all the stuff which MQA has hurled out the window ...

 

 

People have pointed them out and you have ignored it. Not my fault.

 

They have also graphically represented it and you probably ignored those too.