Jump to content
IGNORED

MQA is Vaporware


Recommended Posts

@Kevin Brock Are you aware of the studies done by Jonathan Berger showing kids have a preference for MP3 now? 
 

Lossy music like MQA can be preferred by people, but it isn’t because it’s accurate. 
 

http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/03/the-sizzling-sound-of-music.html

Founder of Audiophile Style

Announcing The Audiophile Style Podcast

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Yet another Master Quack zombie shill. Yawn. No ordinary person would spend that much time and energy preaching the gospel of Master Quack to the non believers. What a joke. Don't feed the trolls.

 

Sadly, there are many out there repeating the MQA mantra.

They drank the "Tot".

Boycott Warner

Boycott Tidal

Boycott Roon

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

Lightly dismissing DRM is misleading.

 

I think DRM is the underlying purpose of MQA.

Absolutely agree...all the unfolding, upsampling, and other propaganda is handwaving to hide the DRM facet of the technology.  A win for the labels, a win for BS and his cohorts in licensing fees, and a big loss for consumers in added costs and availability.

QNAP TS453Pro w/QLMS->Netgear Switch->Netgear R7800 Router->Ethernet (50 ft)->Netgear switch->SBT->iFi xDSD->Linn Majik-IL (preamp)->Linn 2250->Linn Keilidh; Control Points: Squeeze Commander (DroidX) & iPeng (iPad Air); Also: Rega P3-24 w/ DV 10x5; OPPO 103; PC Playback: Foobar2000 & JRiver; Portable: Sony NWZ_ZX1 & ZX2 w/ PHA-3; SMSL IQ, Fiio Q5, iFi Nano iDSD BL; Garage: Edifier S1000DB Active Speakers  Wish List: New DAC,  SBT replacement; Dream system: Linn EXACT or ATC Active or Big Tubes (KR or Nagra or Shindo or ...)

 

My goal is to use appliances and take home PC out of the chain...

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

 

Both sides do it, calling names. It is not one side or the other. It really doesn't matter but it kind of does. I mean Chris did not have to put up with the crap he did at RMAF. That shows the Pro-MQA people are more interested in not having the truth out.

When telling the 'truth', sometimes it best to be simple (but not excessively over-simplified).

 

The most simple, and most straightforward technical complaint about MQA is that people are typically thinking that they are getting full 16bit distribution quality (bait), but with MQA, without ADDITIONAL STUFF, they are only getting 14bits of quality (switch.)   In fact, the processing with the 2 lost bits are lossy, and the quality in the truly audible frequency region (<21kHz) is less because the use of the bits is necessarily lossy in that frequency region for misguided application in regions that are both noisy and inaudible at the levels that those >20kHz frequencies are played..

 

So, from a quality standpoint ALONE (not even considering the political and control issues), MQA is a loss to the average consumer who is purchasing a product of a certain, expected quality.

 

Above, I am simplifying the issue, and not talking about a lot of other disadvantages/side-effects against the consumer, but if someone wants a simple, honest, accurate argument -- the above is it.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not here to defend or accuse MQA but to learn something about signals. One major thing people tend to forget is most recordings done using delta Sigma adc don't have the high frequency content at all due to the noise shaper structure (and the brickwall that follows). Pulling through a windowed fft based spectrum analyser software like spek I seldom found anything to have ANY content above 20khz regardless of recordings. Very few recordings had such content preserved.

 

https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/mqa-time-domain-accuracy-digital-audio-quality?amp

 

Paragraph below sampling evolution - 

"There are other approaches that don’t suffer the same uncertainty between time and frequency information that is inherent in the Fourier model... and developments in advanced mathematics over the last 15 years or so (particularly in relation to Wavelet Theory and complex image processing) have led to many momentous advancements in both the fundamental concepts and the practical techniques of sampling theory.

Of particular interest are new techniques which essentially discard brick-wall anti-alias filtering as we currently know it, and employ new forms of sampling and reconstruction kernels that can resolve transient signal timing with extraordinary resolution, even conveying positional time differences that are shorter than the periods between successive samples! This seems counter-intuitive but it is possible if, instead of using traditional adjacent rectangular sampling periods, a series of overlapping and time-weighted triangular sampling kernels are used (see Figure 6). Even better results are possible using higher-order ‚ÄėB-spline‚Äô kernels, which allow both the position and intensity to be identified of two or more separate pulses occurring within the same sampling period!"

 

Any idea where I can find the math about such time weighted kernels and whole of wavelets in general?

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, FredericV said:


This is BS, as PCM can already do this, even on very cheap hardware. MQA did not reinvent the wheel.

Watch from 21:00
 


Regarding their triangular sampling kernel, there are no MQA ADC's except for one Mytek, which is almost never used by any studio.

If MQA from a standpoint of sampling was so revolutionary, we should have seen more studio gear vendors jumping on it.
But it hasn't happened.

I'm sorry, I wasn't asking your opinion on MQA or some random video. Can we keep a check on unsolicited comments?

 

I was asking for books/resources on wavelet theory and time weighted kernels. Not sure how hard that is to understand. I have done enough math to know that the particular paragraph I have quoted has no mistake (not sure of the rest of the article and I couldn't care less).

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, opus101 said:

 

Why would we when they're calling out other people's erroneous comments?

There's absolutely nothing wrong in the content I posted (the link is just a reference and the content that I agree with I have quoted). @The Computer Audiophile I wasn't expecting to face random condescending comments for a gentle post requesting resources on a particular topic relevant to this thread.

 

If their claim is on basis of wavelets isn't it necessary to understand what wavelet is first and what they are claiming to achieve before jumping into conclusions based on a particular number chart. Pretty sure wavelets are more capable and complex than a simple stft. Anyway again my intention is not to praise or discredit mqa, I just wanted to analyse it thoroughly and I felt certain degree of knowledge is needed.

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


√ó
√ó
  • Create New...