MQA is Vaporware

[fas42]

1 minute ago, botrytis said:

 

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.

 

I mentioned it because I viewed a YT clip yesterday, which talked about that Cadillac engine - customers complained because the 6 cylinder variant was very rough. And most of the customers got the dealer to snip the cable which activated the system ... ah, relief!

[botrytis]

4 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

I mentioned it because I viewed a YT clip yesterday, which talked about that Cadillac engine - customers complained because the 6 cylinder variant was very rough. And most of the customers got the dealer to snip the cable which activated the system ... ah, relief!

 

Right, you glean all your knowledge in 30 second bytes of information, I get it.

 

The new ones are not rough. Most of the V8 GM cars use it now and people don't even know it is there. That is why they can get 25 MPG in a new Corvette.

 

That was a 90's engine - move forward but, you are using old data and thinking you are on top of things. You are still behind the times.

[lucretius]

On 11/21/2020 at 5:18 AM, Rexp said:

Tidal MQA sounds crap through non MQA DAC's. So hopefully its not too difficult to understand the problem if they make all their ouput MQA'd.

 

Undecoded MQA played back with a minimum phase filter sounds no different than decoded MQA.  The problem is 7 bits have been hijacked -- doesn't matter if you have an MQA decoder or not; the decoder was always a ruse, LOL!

[fas42]

4 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

 

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.

 

What I'm talking about, is data that is audibly meaningful, that existed in the pre-MQA version, and which is now completely extinct after MQA processing - say, the hiss of the reel to reel analogue tape used to make the recording, down about 70dB, is very important - and we can't afford give up the bits that are used to give us 96dB range, possibly distorting that hiss?

[botrytis]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

What I'm talking about, is data that is audibly meaningful, that existed in the pre-MQA version, and which is now completely extinct after MQA processing - say, the hiss of the reel to reel analogue tape used to make the recording, down about 70dB, is very important - and we can't afford give up the bits that are used to give us 96dB range, possibly distorting that hiss?

 

There is data this is removed from MQA, but we do not know what it is since it is a Patented process. They do not have to tell you what they remove.

 

That is the issue - PERIOD.

[fas42]

3 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

Undecoded MQA played back with a minimum phase filter sounds no different than decoded MQA.  The problem is 7 bits have been hijacked -- doesn't matter if you have an MQA decoder or not; the decoder was always a ruse, LOL!

 

Which is interesting. Implies that it's not too difficult to get rid of the MQA 'envelope', subjectively. So, we lose 7 bits from a 24 bit waveform, 17 left - plenty enough to do Redbook, which I'm fine with.

[fas42]

4 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

There is data this is removed from MQA, but we do not know what it is since it is a Patented process. They do not have to tell you what they remove.

 

That is the issue - PERIOD.

 

Which is how every studio does mastering - lots gets dumped, especially with remasterings. For the worse, IMO 😉.

 

Sorry, I still don't get what the fuss is about - there will always be a workaround; if the demand is there.

[Rexp]

8 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

Undecoded MQA played back with a minimum phase filter sounds no different than decoded MQA.  The problem is 7 bits have been hijacked -- doesn't matter if you have an MQA decoder or not; the decoder was always a ruse, LOL!

Well undecoded MQA sure sounds crap to me (via a Chromecast). Means I have to remove all favourited albums from Tidal that are now MQA only. 

[botrytis]

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."

- Stephen Hawking

 

We just have to remember this.....

[botrytis]

1 minute ago, Rexp said:

Well undecoded MQA sure sounds crap to me (via a Chromecast). Means I have to remove all favourited albums from Tidal that are now MQA only. 

 

Sorry about that.

[Rexp]

47 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

Undecoded MQA played back with a minimum phase filter sounds no different than decoded MQA.  The problem is 7 bits have been hijacked -- doesn't matter if you have an MQA decoder or not; the decoder was always a ruse, LOL!

Here is an example of a record that is now only available in MQA and below is the same artist in FLAC, do you detect a marked difference? 

 

[lucretius]

55 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Here is an example of a record that is now only available in MQA and below is the same artist in FLAC, do you detect a marked difference? 

 

 

??? Was there supposed to be sound files attached?  Nonetheless, non-decoded MQA ≠ normal PCM.  Also, both examples must be derived from the same master before we can compare them. 

[lucretius]

10 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

If MQA were truly a good thing for consumers, there would be press releases saying that Tidal has removed the “terrible” lossless CD quality versions in favor of MQA. Instead it’s a switch behind the curtain. 

 

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

[Rexp]

10 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

??? Was there supposed to be sound files attached?  Nonetheless, non-decoded MQA ≠ normal PCM.  Also, both examples must be derived from the same master before we can compare them. 

Out of interest, what are you using to listen to non-decoded MQA? 

[lucretius]

19 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Out of interest, what are you using to listen to non-decoded MQA? 

 

When I still had a Tidal subscription, I captured a few MQA tracks. Since I have an MQA DAC, I can play the files back with MQA turned on or off.  (Actually, the playback comparison can be done with MQA enabled software, if an MQA DAC is not available.)

[lucretius]

6 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

Bob Stuart and Tidal are claiming that their processes are lossless because the FLAC container is a lossless process.

 

Yes, at first, BS thought that because the MQA stream was buried in a FLAC container, no one would notice that it was lossy.  Then after being called out on it, he redefined losslessness as some sort of perceptual losslessness of the analog signal (bits be damned).

[lucretius]

6 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

Bob Stuart has turned into a pathetic shill for MQA.  He was a respected figure in the audio community but he willingly and knowingly put himself in this position.

 

Must have been before my time.

[lucretius]

7 hours ago, FredericV said:

So those without an MQA decoder now get a degraded sound quality as some of the bits were traded for  non-nyquist data as used for the MQA crypto DRM process (so expect a much higher noise floor without decoder), and those with an MQA decoder also get a different sounding version.

 

Technically, one can use MQA enabled software for the playback but this is a moot point.  

[lucretius]

3 hours 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?

 

Yes and yes.

[KeenObserver]

Just went and listened to music.  Non MQA music over my Benchmark Dac3.

Reminded me of what Warner and MQA is trying to screw me out of.

It is a sad time when the studios want to return to a time when they screwed everyone over.

Listening to the music reminded me that I have enough music and equipment to never have anything MQA.

I will still add non MQA music to my library.

If only MQA music becomes available I'm glad I am in a position to tell them to go screw themselves.

[KeenObserver]

Legendary self pronounced expert Veter Peth has announced that it is no longer necessary to go to the symphony.

" MQA produces music that is better than live.  MQA corrects all the errors that are introduced in live music.  Now you can hear music as it should have been played.  MQA uses magic algorithms that correct the music to what the composer imagined."

[UkPhil]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Which is interesting. Implies that it's not too difficult to get rid of the MQA 'envelope', subjectively. So, we lose 7 bits from a 24 bit waveform, 17 left - plenty enough to do Redbook, which I'm fine with.

But what about the latest loading of files by Warner’s, these are not 24 bit containers we are only starting with 16 bit here. This proves to me that the long term goal is to control “all” files under the MQA banner for the consumer. They have no interest in bit depth or sample rate, these files are broken from their originals plus choice has been taken away from the listener without a lot of them knowing. To me it’s worse than the MP3 days as their were still choices which may not be the case in the future. 

[UkPhil]

8 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

Legendary self pronounced expert Veter Peth has announced that it is no longer necessary to go to the symphony.

" MQA produces music that is better than live.  MQA corrects all the errors that are introduced in live music.  Now you can hear music as it should have been played.  MQA uses magic algorithms that correct the music to what the composer imagined."

They must have seen COVID-19 coming at least we can sit at home isolate and save money on the ticket and enjoy real “live” music on our smart speaker with our £99 MQA DAC...lol

[PeterSt]

4 hours ago, lucretius said:

Undecoded MQA played back with a minimum phase filter sounds no different than decoded MQA.

 

In your dreams.

[PeterSt]

27 minutes ago, UkPhil said:

But what about the latest loading of files by Warner’s, these are not 24 bit containers we are only starting with 16 bit here.

 

Within that 16 bits there's at least the bit somewhere which denotes that the file is MQA. By now I forgot how often that bits (or sequence of) sticks out its neck, but previously this was in bits 17-24 somewhere, which was part of the encoding scheme anyway, and deemed not to be in the Redbook representative. Now, however, it is really taken from the 16 bits Redbook bears anyway.

 

This associates with HDCD. And guess what - in the long term HDCD does not sound right to me either.

 

Maybe I must wonder whether there's a resemblance between the two. Maybe MQA Ltd hired KOJ ?