Jump to content
IGNORED

MQA is Vaporware


Recommended Posts

56 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

First MP3, next MQA :)

 

Gizmodo reported yesterday that Fraunhofer Institute for Integrated Circuits IIS, developer of the MP3 audio data-compression system, has terminated the licensing program that allows companies to create MP3 encoders and decoders. This is probably not sad news for many audiophiles, who disdain the format’s lower audio quality compared with uncompressed CD quality. But there’s no doubt that MP3 fundamentally changed the face of music distribution, which makes it important in the history of our hobby.

 

Everything is temporary, if you give it enough time :~)

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, crenca said:

 

No, no "come on" here :)

 

Really, that is the thing about the ground you walk on - it effects everything because well, it is the ground you walk on.  Your question is too broad for a comment box - which part of everyting do you want to discuss - and why because it is already discussed endlessly here on almost every thread?

 

Behind the context of a subjectivist "why does it matter - I only care what it sounds like and if I can't here it then it does not matter" is an entire engineering world where math matters...

 

 

 

I think you and I could have a great time arguing about this over a couple beverages some day. Not that we don't have better things to do with our time, but it would be much better to have a discourse in person. 

 

On one hand you're arguing the consumer perspective and how this affects the consumer. Now you're using the engineering argument to combat a consumer concern. Hmmmm.

 

A consumer doesn't care if a recording has 140 bD of dynamic range versus 141 dB of dynamic range. I'm sure engineers care and the math matters, but it's irrelevant to most people. I care about what something sounds like. I want music to sound as close to the artist's intent as possible. Sure, the theoretical argument that 141 dB of dynamic range is better and should get me closer to the artist's intent is true, but it's dumb in real life. 

 

Sample rate conversion is lossy and so is MQA. Standard FLAC albums are the result of a lossy process. MQA albums are the result of a lossy process. Thus, I don't think using the lossy argument is really sound in the case against MQA.

 

To me the best case against MQA is possibility that undecoded MQA sounds worse than redbook and the fact that many devices won't support MQA decoding. That's only the best case against it, not the only case. 

 

I really wish I could setup a skype video call with Bob Stuart and people like mansr and miska, so we could attempt to get to the bottom of some of these claims. Without knowledgable people representing both sides, it's impossible to get anywhere. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Founder of Audiophile Style

Announcing The Audiophile Style Podcast

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, mansr said:

As I have tried repeatedly to explain, the losses from sample rate reduction (bandwidth limiting) are of a fundamentally different nature than those from a perceptual coding algorithm. They cannot be compared. Besides, labels that care about sound quality usually offer the actual studio masters, whatever resolution they happen to be. Do you believe transferring files over the internet degrades sound quality? If not, how can you be saying that FLACs of the studio masters are lossy?

 

FLAC of studio masters aren't lossy. Of course I don't believe the internet degrades audio. 

Founder of Audiophile Style

Announcing The Audiophile Style Podcast

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

To the consumer it doesn't matter how something is lost. 

 

Depends on the "consumer" and if they even care if something is "lost" as much as "consumers" here do. 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

First MP3, next MQA :)

 

Gizmodo reported yesterday that Fraunhofer Institute for Integrated Circuits IIS, developer of the MP3 audio data-compression system, has terminated the licensing program that allows companies to create MP3 encoders and decoders. ...

 

 

This is another example of misdirection, akin to MQA's marketing. What has really happened is that the patents for MP3 have expired, so you no longer need to purchase a license. Instead, Fraunhofer would like you to purchase a license for AAC, for which the patents are still current.  So far from being "the death of MP3", it heralds a new beginning... :)

"People hear what they see." - Doris Day

The forum would be a much better place if everyone were less convinced of how right they were.

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

 

 

This is another example of misdirection, akin to MQA's marketing. What has really happened is that the patents for MP3 have expired, so you no longer need to purchase a license. Instead, Fraunhofer would like you to purchase a license for AAC, for which the patents are still current.  So far from being "the death of MP3", it heralds a new beginning... :)

 

No no, it is death!! like MQA!!! Ggaahhh!!!

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> wi-fi to router -> EtherREGEN -> microRendu -> USPCB -> ISO Regen (powered by LPS-1) -> USPCB -> Pro-Ject Pre Box S2 DAC -> Spectral DMC-12 & DMA-150 -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

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

As I have tried repeatedly to explain, the losses from sample rate reduction (bandwidth limiting) are of a fundamentally different nature than those from a perceptual coding algorithm. They cannot be compared.

 

True, there's probably less research on the audible effects of sample rate reduction. :)

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> wi-fi to router -> EtherREGEN -> microRendu -> USPCB -> ISO Regen (powered by LPS-1) -> USPCB -> Pro-Ject Pre Box S2 DAC -> Spectral DMC-12 & DMA-150 -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mansr said:

As I have tried repeatedly to explain, the losses from sample rate reduction (bandwidth limiting) are of a fundamentally different nature than those from a perceptual coding algorithm. They cannot be compared.

 

Of course!  One discards inaudible content in order to fit into a given size, and the other discards inaudible content in order to fit . . . oh, wait . . .

 

Kidding, but I don't see how they are "of a fundamentally different nature" - sample rate reduction cuts off all frequencies above a certain point (and requires filtering / resampling to do so), and perceptual coding is just somewhat more selective ;)

John Walker - IT Executive

Headphone - MacMini running Roon Server > Netgear Orbi wireless > Blue Jeans Cable Ethernet > mRendu Roon endpoint > iFi Audio xDSD + iFi Audio xCAN > Focal Elegia

Home Theater - Mac Mini running Roon Server > Blue Jeans Cable HDMI > Pioneer Elite SC-81 > MartinLogan Motion series home theater speakers + M&K subwoofer

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mansr said:

The research says as long as frequencies up to 20 kHz are intact, the change is imperceptible. But you already knew that.

 

And here I thought there was research on time smearing, linear phase vs. minimum phase, apodizing filters, the effect of ultrasonics, etc.  No?

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> wi-fi to router -> EtherREGEN -> microRendu -> USPCB -> ISO Regen (powered by LPS-1) -> USPCB -> Pro-Ject Pre Box S2 DAC -> Spectral DMC-12 & DMA-150 -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jud said:

 

No no, it is death!! like MQA!!! Ggaahhh!!!

From your lips to Gods ears.

"The gullibility of audiophiles is what astonishes me the most, even after all these years. How is it possible, how did it ever happen, that they trust fairy-tale purveyors and mystic gurus more than reliable sources of scientific information?"

Peter Aczel - The Audio Critic

no-mqa-sm.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jud said:

And here I thought there was research on time smearing, linear phase vs. minimum phase, apodizing filters, the effect of ultrasonics, etc.  No?

Is there more than anecdotal evidence that any of those things are perceptible?

Link to post
Share on other sites

We already have a very good, open source, widely distributed and well supported  system for producing perceptually indistinguishable, reduced size version of studio masters. It's called 16/44. It is marginally preferable to 256 Khz AAC as it can be further transcoded transparently. 

 

If people want something better than 2 channel 16/44 they would be better off working on some version of surround/HRTF or whatever.

You are not a sound quality measurement device

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, fung0 said:

So why would a true audiophile choose a somewhat more-compact recording over one that is absolutely unequivocally guaranteed to contain every possible bit of the original studio recording? The only plausible reason for the adoption of MQA is to avoid giving us that choice.

Your entire post is very well worded and right on the money!

Thank You

"The gullibility of audiophiles is what astonishes me the most, even after all these years. How is it possible, how did it ever happen, that they trust fairy-tale purveyors and mystic gurus more than reliable sources of scientific information?"

Peter Aczel - The Audio Critic

no-mqa-sm.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mansr said:

Is there more than anecdotal evidence that any of those things are perceptible?

 

I believe there is actual research, yes.  But life being busy at the moment, perhaps we could reach a resolution faster this way:

 

@Miska has said he can perceive differences in the sounds of his filters, which vary from each other in the sorts of characteristics I mentioned.  Do you believe him?  If so, these things are indeed perceptible.  Accuracy of those perceptions will then be a matter of training.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> wi-fi to router -> EtherREGEN -> microRendu -> USPCB -> ISO Regen (powered by LPS-1) -> USPCB -> Pro-Ject Pre Box S2 DAC -> Spectral DMC-12 & DMA-150 -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

I don't disagree labels like MQA, but I can't figure out why they all wouldn't be onboard if it's as cut and dry as everyone thinks. 

Maybe some of them see the downsides. Linn certainly seems to.

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...