Jump to content
IGNORED

MQA is Vaporware


Recommended Posts

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.

Current:  JRiver 26 on Win 10 PC (AMD Ryzen 5 2600 with 32 GB RAM) or Daphile on an AMD A10-5700 with 8 GB RAM

DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC 

Amplification - Bow Technologies Wazoo Integrated (great amp - silly name)

Speakers: Wharfedale Linton Heritage - KEF LS50 - ELAC unifi UB5's - Linn Tukans - others......

Cables: Tara Labs RCS Reference speaker cables and DiMarzio Interconnects

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

What’s true of all the evils in the world is true of plague as well.
It helps men to rise above themselves.
 
  ―  Albert Camus, The Plague.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Over and out.

.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Current:  JRiver 26 on Win 10 PC (AMD Ryzen 5 2600 with 32 GB RAM) or Daphile on an AMD A10-5700 with 8 GB RAM

DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC 

Amplification - Bow Technologies Wazoo Integrated (great amp - silly name)

Speakers: Wharfedale Linton Heritage - KEF LS50 - ELAC unifi UB5's - Linn Tukans - others......

Cables: Tara Labs RCS Reference speaker cables and DiMarzio Interconnects

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Founder of Audiophile Style

Announcing The Audiophile Style Podcast

Link to post
Share on other sites
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"

 

all_hat.thumb.jpg.04432dbe8b8d3d3bce7a9ed75e876d5c.jpg

Everything matters... when brewing coffee.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Over and out.

.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Founder of Audiophile Style

Announcing The Audiophile Style Podcast

Link to post
Share on other sites
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, 🙂.

Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Over and out.

.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Boycott Warner

Link to post
Share on other sites
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, 🙂.

Up in Smoke (1978) - YouTube

 

Some one has been imbibing again 🤣

Current:  JRiver 26 on Win 10 PC (AMD Ryzen 5 2600 with 32 GB RAM) or Daphile on an AMD A10-5700 with 8 GB RAM

DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC 

Amplification - Bow Technologies Wazoo Integrated (great amp - silly name)

Speakers: Wharfedale Linton Heritage - KEF LS50 - ELAC unifi UB5's - Linn Tukans - others......

Cables: Tara Labs RCS Reference speaker cables and DiMarzio Interconnects

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

 

Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Over and out.

.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

MQA-Block-Diagram.png?8802298321645544022

 

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.

 

 

Current:  JRiver 26 on Win 10 PC (AMD Ryzen 5 2600 with 32 GB RAM) or Daphile on an AMD A10-5700 with 8 GB RAM

DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC 

Amplification - Bow Technologies Wazoo Integrated (great amp - silly name)

Speakers: Wharfedale Linton Heritage - KEF LS50 - ELAC unifi UB5's - Linn Tukans - others......

Cables: Tara Labs RCS Reference speaker cables and DiMarzio Interconnects

Link to post
Share on other sites
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, 😉.

Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Over and out.

.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, botrytis said:

 

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

MQA-Block-Diagram.png?8802298321645544022

 

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 ...

Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Over and out.

.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Current:  JRiver 26 on Win 10 PC (AMD Ryzen 5 2600 with 32 GB RAM) or Daphile on an AMD A10-5700 with 8 GB RAM

DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC 

Amplification - Bow Technologies Wazoo Integrated (great amp - silly name)

Speakers: Wharfedale Linton Heritage - KEF LS50 - ELAC unifi UB5's - Linn Tukans - others......

Cables: Tara Labs RCS Reference speaker cables and DiMarzio Interconnects

Link to post
Share on other sites

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...