MQA is Vaporware

[FredericV]

It's funny this is PV's answer to the debunk video ... but why does MQA never show plots above 48 kHz ?

Maybe because it's band limited to 17/96 as implied by the encoding process as shown in their patent.



There is no data recovered beyond the first unfold, everything above x2 is no longer in any way similar to the master:

If we censor the plot, yes it looks similar ....
 

 

Real measuments ;)

[Chris_87]

Nice Brickwall filter not leaky at all😇

[botrytis]

Well, MQA is stretching the truth - the FLAC packaging is lossless, but the information in the FLAC package is not. That is basically what they said. That the FLAC package is lossless.

 

What about the heap of crap inside the package? A whole 'nother animal.

[Chris_87]

In their FAQ I linked above they claim in the first answer that MQA is lossless. No word on the container itself.

 

Source; https://www.mqa.co.uk/newsroom/qa/is-mqa-lossless

Quote

Q. Is MQA Lossless?

A. Yes. 

...

This is clearly missleading.

Something like

 

Q: Can a petrol car drive without fuel?

A: Yes

 

But only a few feet in case the 1st gear is engaded and you will use the engine starter.

[sphinxsix]

 

6 hours ago, Chris_87 said:

In my oppinion this is clearly misleading advertising. See the first question.

https://www.mqa.co.uk/newsroom/qa/is-mqa-lossless

 

There is more than enoght evidence that MQA is everything but lossless.

 

Has anybody living in the UK informed CMA already. For me living in Austria this has become quite difficult since brexit.

 

2 hours ago, Chris_87 said:

In their FAQ I linked above they claim in the first answer that MQA is lossless. No word on the container itself.

 

Source; https://www.mqa.co.uk/newsroom/qa/is-mqa-lossless

This is clearly missleading.

Something like

 

Q: Can a petrol car drive without fuel?

A: Yes

 

But only a few feet in case the 1st gear is engaded and you will use the engine starter.

 

I also think informing Competition and Markets Authority or some other relevant authority (I unfortunately can't say what organization could it be) could be quite fruitful. Maybe even more than almost a thousand of pages of this (great) thread.

 

[botrytis]

I saw this on Reddit and modified it to fit the facts....

[FredericV]

Why does MQA use dual standards for spectrum plots?

It's interesting to see that MQA stops tracking the music spectrum above 48 kHz in the first Bob Talks article (the gold curve stops at exactly the limit of their 17/96 dithering). The gold curve should not stop at around 48 kHz ...

https://bobtalks.co.uk/blog/mqaplayback/origami-and-the-last-mile/

 

If we look at other resources, there's music content above 48 kHz:

https://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm

 

even the Stereophile industry pieces on MQA mention such content:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-questions-and-answers-informative-topic-spectral-content-music

 

So why did MQA truncate the gold curve in Bob's origami article?

These old skool music boxes seem to generate a lot of content not within MQA's encoding triangle:
 

 

[KeenObserver]

It is obvious that this has nothing to do with the quality of the music. The claims have all been debunked and refuted.

This has to do with ego.

They are going to ram this down the music consumers throats whether they like it or not.

"WE'LL SHOW THEM WHO RUNS THE MUSIC BUSINESS"

It's like the car salesman that uses every trick in the sales book to rack up another "win".

This whole MQA thing is just disgusting.

[KeenObserver]

The people who buy into MQA are like the car buyer who believes the car salesman when he says: "I'll have to run this by my manager".

[KeenObserver]

Does Peter Veth sell cars?

[lucretius]

4 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

Does Peter Veth sell cars?

 

He sells environmental test equipment.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, lucretius said:

 

He sells environmental test equipment.

to Volkswagen?

[Josh Mound]

Not sure whether this is better placed in this thread, the thread on @GoldenOne’s video, or the ASR thread, but:

 

1) Over at ASR, John Atkinson is claiming that Golden’s test is invalid since everyone knows a lossy encoder (we’re now apparently conceding that MQA is lossy) can’t handle the signals Golden encoded. This is the same claim Amir made, and if you look at John’s “likes” at ASR, he’s “liking” every post criticizing Golden’s test and defending MQA. 
 

2) Amir has just given a response that completely negates the point of every measurement he’s ever done:

 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

42 minutes ago, JoshM said:

Not sure whether this is better placed in this thread, the thread on @GoldenOne’s video, or the ASR thread, but:

 

1) Over at ASR, John Atkinson is claiming that Golden’s test is invalid since everyone knows a lossy encoder (we’re now apparently conceding that MQA is lossy) can’t handle the signals Golden encoded. This is the same claim Amir made, and if you look at John’s “likes” at ASR, he’s “liking” every post criticizing Golden’s test and defending MQA. 
 

2) Amir has just given a response that completely negates the point of every measurement he’s ever done:

 

 

 

Could this have gone any other way? 

[The Computer Audiophile]

You have to ask yourself, what’s in it for people to support MQA like this. Money, access, and perceived power. 

[GoldenOne]

1 hour ago, JoshM said:

Not sure whether this is better placed in this thread, the thread on @GoldenOne’s video, or the ASR thread, but:

 

1) Over at ASR, John Atkinson is claiming that Golden’s test is invalid since everyone knows a lossy encoder (we’re now apparently conceding that MQA is lossy) can’t handle the signals Golden encoded. This is the same claim Amir made, and if you look at John’s “likes” at ASR, he’s “liking” every post criticizing Golden’s test and defending MQA. 
 

2) Amir has just given a response that completely negates the point of every measurement he’s ever done:

 

 

 

Well that is.....unexpected.

People really are treating this far too much like a team sport and trying to "win". 
I didn't make this video to 'win', or for any kind of recognition. I made it to demonstrate that MQA's claim of being lossless and an equal/better alternative to native FLAC is false.

If people are conceding that MQA is lossy then that's my main aim achieved (with the second being that this video gives manufacturers enough community backing to be able to say no to MQA and not be effectively forced to implement it lest they lose sales). No, these tests wouldn't work for a lossy encoder, which is exactly the point!
How "good" of a lossy encoder MQA is we probably will never know unless they open things up more. But honestly I don't really want to know, the point is that it IS lossy despite their marketing implying it is not, and I'd rather stick to lossless given as it's from all evidence provided, better, and doesn't have a license fee attached.

If MQA were as good as FLAC, and truly lossless, it would not have "broken" with the tests I threw at it.
It did, and therefore until MQA provides concrete evidence as to why these issues are a worthwhile tradeoff for whatever supposed benefit it provides, I don't want it and people shouldn't be comfortable with how much it's spreading.


The fact that amir has suddenly 180'd from his usual stance that gear can be evaluated solely using steady state signals and ideal test conditions, to now saying that this testing is invalid because it doesn't represent music, is rather odd.....

[Stereo]

Probably bleeding customers now and are desperate for new ones to try and fool:  https://www.wfmz.com/news/pr_newswire/pr_newswire_entertainment/tidal-and-epix-launch-new-subscription-bundle-timed-to-the-season-two-premiere-of-award/article_b47a75be-8c62-5948-806a-b521802afbe8.html

[MikeyFresh]

55 minutes ago, GoldenOne said:

If people are conceding that MQA is lossy then that's my main aim achieved (with the second being that this video gives manufacturers enough community backing to be able to say no to MQA and not be effectively forced to implement it lest they lose sales). No, these tests wouldn't work for a lossy encoder, which is exactly the point!

People are conceding that, except for MQA themselves of course:

 

 

So it's lossless, and also higher resolution, though higher than exactly what they aren't actually saying.

 

It's also evidently better than lossless, and the only advancement of significance in audio distribution in the last 20 years:

 

 

So let's sum that up: it's lossless but also higher resolution (than something, ostensibly lossless), and it's lossless but also better than lossless, and it's the only significant advance in sound distribution for 20 years, well beyond lossy and lossless.

 

I believe there is actually a video interview I've seen where Bob is asked "so it's lossless but also better than lossless?" to which he replies "yes".

 

One would be hard pressed to come up with anything more laughable than the above.

 

[JoeWhip]

It really isn’t odd at all Goldenone. Amir is all about clicks and supporting his site which is really an echo chamber. Since JA now chimes in and has in video chats with audio groups complemented Amir, Amir is swayed by the flattery and will side with JA regardless of Amir’s ideology. Flattery...... reminds me of someone else........

[Dr Tone]

1 hour ago, GoldenOne said:

The fact that amir has suddenly 180'd from his usual stance that gear can be evaluated solely using steady state signals and ideal test conditions, to now saying that this testing is invalid because it doesn't represent music, is rather odd.....

 

He's been an MQA fanboy for a while.  He sells a few high dollar MQA pieces through his business, bashing MQA wouldn't be good for that business.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

2 hours ago, JoshM said:

Not sure whether this is better placed in this thread, the thread on @GoldenOne’s video, or the ASR thread, but:

 

1) Over at ASR, John Atkinson is claiming that Golden’s test is invalid since everyone knows a lossy encoder (we’re now apparently conceding that MQA is lossy) can’t handle the signals Golden encoded. This is the same claim Amir made, and if you look at John’s “likes” at ASR, he’s “liking” every post criticizing Golden’s test and defending MQA. 
 

2) Amir has just given a response that completely negates the point of every measurement he’s ever done:

 

 

 

This is exactly what Charlatans and Pseudo Experts do when exposed. They move the goal posts, speak out of both sides of their mouths, and the classic "Yes, but..." 

 

Both Amir and Atkinson are the useful idiots MQA hoped to recruit, and they got what they wanted. And in turn all of them are the laughing stock and have no credibility.

[sphinxsix]

1 hour ago, MikeyFresh said:

It's also evidently better than lossless, and the only advancement of significance in audio distribution in the last 20 years:

 

 

 

We have been clearly witnessing the birth of a new audio format category - it's neither (oldfashioned) lossy nor lossless - it's more than that, so it's clearly gainy! Hence all lossless formats are actually lossy (cause ex definitio they lose to gainy MQA) when you compare them with MQA!

And you're complaining, guys.. 

 

[StephenJK]

4 hours ago, JoshM said:

Not sure whether this is better placed in this thread, the thread on @GoldenOne’s video, or the ASR thread, but:

 

1) Over at ASR, John Atkinson is claiming that Golden’s test is invalid since everyone knows a lossy encoder (we’re now apparently conceding that MQA is lossy) can’t handle the signals Golden encoded. This is the same claim Amir made, and if you look at John’s “likes” at ASR, he’s “liking” every post criticizing Golden’s test and defending MQA. 
 

2) Amir has just given a response that completely negates the point of every measurement he’s ever done:

 

 

 

I always thought that John Atkinson was well respected from his days at Stereophile as Editor through many stormy seas with various ownership changes. 

 

And, he may still be - all those years of careful deliberation and quantitative measurements that build a reputation shouldn't be lost that easily.  

 

But I do recall some fuzziness way back when all this MQA talk started - he seemed to be on the supportive side initially, and it would seem may still be.  Hasn't he posted on this topic here a few times?  

 

I suppose we all have the right of some flexibility in our opinion, but certainly with MQA there isn't much more room for deliberation from a technical perspective, particularly with the detailed and methodical testing done recently by GoldenSound.  

[Samuel T Cogley]

4 hours ago, JoshM said:

Not sure whether this is better placed in this thread, the thread on @GoldenOne’s video, or the ASR thread, but:

 

1) Over at ASR, John Atkinson is claiming that Golden’s test is invalid since everyone knows a lossy encoder (we’re now apparently conceding that MQA is lossy) can’t handle the signals Golden encoded. This is the same claim Amir made, and if you look at John’s “likes” at ASR, he’s “liking” every post criticizing Golden’s test and defending MQA. 
 

2) Amir has just given a response that completely negates the point of every measurement he’s ever done:

 

 

 

 

Ok, so let me see if I'm following this logic:

 

• Amir literally makes a name for himself by...... using test signals to test DAC performance.  Not music, TEST SIGNALS
• But test signals are suddenly not suitable to evaluate the performance of an audio CODEC

 

I call shenanigans!!!  We know a lot about the performance of CODECs such as MP3 and AAC because..... TEST SIGNALS!!!

 

 

[UkPhil]

Anyone cozying up for Bob’s fireside chat on Saturday with What Hifi,  not me I’ll be too busy watching paint dry unfortunately.