MQA is Vaporware

[FredericV]

32 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Within that 16 bits there's at least the bit somewhere which denotes that the file is MQA.

As 24 bit MQA files (not 24 bit of audio anyway, but 24 bit file format with more than 1/3 containing non nyquist data) can be truncated to 16 bit, and the MQA indicator stills shines on my Mytek, it's actually in the LSB bit of redbook.
 

 

Depending on how you count, if bit 0 is the MSB bit, then it's the 15th bit, and this position does not change depending if it's a 16 or 24 bit MQA file.

[FredericV]

5 hours 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....

Thanks for this graph. The first steps are to noise shape the 24/96 to 17/96, and then all their folding steps to pack this as 24 bits at half the sample rate.

Then the bottom graph shows the inverse process, where the output is 17/96 !!!

I now have conclusive proof that MQA is indeed never any better than 17/96

The MQA shills are revisiting their canned articles ("research" they call this), but so are we.

[ARQuint]

1 hour 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."

 

Kind of like "Perfect Sound Forever"?

 

I'm pretty confident that even recording professionals who have had positive things to say about about MQA (people like Bob Ludwig, Peter McGrath, George Massenburg, Morten Lindberg) would cringe at Veth's preposterous statement.

 

One of the things the pandemic has reminded me about the audiophile pursuit is that no technology is a substitute for the real thing. The musical organizations I patronize offer streamed performances in lieu of cancelled concerts and I find I have little interest. It's not remotely the same as being in the room with the musicians as a performance is happening. Hearing music live and perfectionist audio are complementary experiences—they always have been and always will be. So during COVID times, I listen more than ever to recordings that I chose at home while awaiting the day we can all return to concert halls and other venues.

[fas42]

2 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

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 ?

 

Looking around, it's 13 bits for music data, 3 bits for MQA encoding. So, we drop back from 96 to 78 dB dynamic range ... is this a disaster? From my own experiments, investigating what happens when bits are lost - not really. If intelligent dithering is applied then what you get, subjectively, is an increase in benign noise - very large levels of gain are needed to actually hear this.

 

No way is MQA-CD, er, good - but it's not the end of the world; if a release is only available in this then it still should be able to be made to sound good, 🙂.

[fas42]

8 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

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.

 

Did an exercise, some months ago for Archimago, of what can be done without too much drama - for a track he was complaining about,

 

[firedog]

8 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

 

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?

But in the legal sense that isn't what will be happening. There are multiple labels and MQA. Labels choose to have their catalog MQA'd, and then sell that version. In a legal sense this isn't a monopoly or lack of competition.  The labels compete, and the non MQA material still exists. MQA hasn't eliminated it, the rights owners have simply decided to sell a certain version of their files and keep others in the vaults. Their prerogative.

No case for stopping that. The fact that some audiophiles don't like the file version being sold doesn't matter. The labels can also choose to only make mp3 versions available if they wish.

[lucretius]

18 minutes ago, firedog said:

But in the legal sense that isn't what will be happening. There are multiple labels and MQA. Labels choose to have their catalog MQA'd, and then sell that version. In a legal sense this isn't a monopoly or lack of competition.  The labels compete, and the non MQA material still exists. MQA hasn't eliminated it, the rights owners have simply decided to sell a certain version of their files and keep others in the vaults. Their prerogative.

No case for stopping that. The fact that some audiophiles don't like the file version being sold doesn't matter. The labels can also choose to only make mp3 versions available if they wish.

 

While it's not a monopoly, I'd say the big labels make up an oligopoly.  Seems to me that if they all release their catalogs in MQA only, then the big labels are conspiring together and acting like a cartel (non-competition).  In any case, there's not enough interest outside the very tiny audiophile community, so there's no chance a government would intervene to break the cartel (and stop the MQA-only trend).

[ShawnC]

26 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

While it's not a monopoly, I'd say the big labels make up an oligopoly.  Seems to me that if they all release their catalogs in MQA only, then the big labels are conspiring together and acting like a cartel (non-competition).  In any case, there's not enough interest outside the very tiny audiophile community, so there's no chance a government would intervene to break the cartel (and stop the MQA-only trend).

Would Apple care? They might not want this MQA thing apart of iTunes. Their at least big enough or have the resources to bring it to mainstream media. 

[lucretius]

17 minutes ago, ShawnC said:

Would Apple care? They might not want this MQA thing apart of iTunes. Their at least big enough or have the resources to bring it to mainstream media. 

 

Yes, Apple certainly has clout. However, AFAIK, Apple provides less than 16/44.1 resolution.

[JoeWhip]

Sorry Mr. Veth, but listening to a world class orchestra live in person is orders of magnitude better than the best audio system I have ever heard. Gee, does eating a picture of a pizza taste better than the real thing too? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Daccord]

16 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

Sorry Mr. Veth, but listening to a world class orchestra live in person is orders of magnitude better than the best audio system I have ever heard. Gee, does eating a picture of a pizza taste better than the real thing too? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

On keener observation, I think the attempted joke KO'd a few people. He's quoting "Veter Peth", who doesn't really exist.

[JoeWhip]

My bad. 

[FredericV]

On the group managed by Veter Peth, someone is comparing those MQA CD files with the ones before, and he does not hear any difference. As he is using an MQA dac, this would mean you actually need to use an MQA decoder in some form to get what you had in the past, without MQA.

So the MQA tax is now active on Tidal:



MQA adds nothing with those green fake 16/44.1 MQA CD files for the consumer, it takes away your rights and then sells them back to you as you now need MQA to get what you already had before.

Maybe they come up with the lame excuse his system is not good enough ....

[The Computer Audiophile]

Let's not forget these gems.

 

 

 

[Confused]

They can get away with it though ....

 

https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/mqa-ltd-a18-470395.html

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 minutes ago, Confused said:

They can get away with it though ....

 

https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/mqa-ltd-a18-470395.html

While that's not the claim I would have submitted, the response is laughable. 

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, FredericV said:

MQA adds nothing with those green fake 16/44.1 MQA CD files for the consumer, it takes away your rights and then sells them back to you as you now need MQA to get what you already had before.

 

Even with MQA, I don't think you can get what you already had before, if before you had pure PCM 16/44.1.

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Let's not forget these gems.

 

 

 

 

Do MQA-CD players actually exist? (Not that I want one.)

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, lucretius said:

 

Do MQA-CD players actually exist? (Not that I want one.)

Yes.

[UkPhil]

6 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Yes.

Unfortunately so https://premiumsound.co.uk/product/hifi-separates/cd-players/technics-sl-g700-compact-disc-player/?dTribesID=22a27fce1fa82719e4d5dfae65ca69cd|adtribes|16638&utm_source=Google Shopping&utm_campaign=Premium Sound&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=16638&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIovLO5I-Z7QIVj5CyCh0gVgCOEAQYASABEgKeSfD_BwE

[KeenObserver]

Did anyone ever actually buy a MQA CD?

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

Did anyone ever actually buy a MQA CD?

This guy :~)

 

 

[KeenObserver]

Probably the same guy that thinks MQA is the greatest scientific breakthough since Copernicus.

[KeenObserver]

Do you think that any of the people promoting MQA would ever replace their music collection with MQA CD's.

[KeenObserver]

10 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 

Kind of like "Perfect Sound Forever"?

 

I'm pretty confident that even recording professionals who have had positive things to say about about MQA (people like Bob Ludwig, Peter McGrath, George Massenburg, Morten Lindberg) would cringe at Veth's preposterous statement.

 

One of the things the pandemic has reminded me about the audiophile pursuit is that no technology is a substitute for the real thing. The musical organizations I patronize offer streamed performances in lieu of cancelled concerts and I find I have little interest. It's not remotely the same as being in the room with the musicians as a performance is happening. Hearing music live and perfectionist audio are complementary experiences—they always have been and always will be. So during COVID times, I listen more than ever to recordings that I chose at home while awaiting the day we can all return to concert halls and other venues.

 

Do you think that Bob Ludwig, Peter McGrath, George Massenburg, or Morten Lindberg would ever archive their music on MQA?