MQA is Vaporware

[mansr]

Vincent1234, correct me if I am wrong but are not John Siao, Mike Moffat, Jason Stoddard, Miska, etc actual electrical/audio engineers or otherwise with technical degrees that required them to actually pass (let alone take) calculus? And are not the "writers" you cite from Sterophile and elsewhere just that - journalists and writers who have a good bit of practical experience in "the industry" but nothing more and so really are simply regurgitating what Bob/MQA tells them? I could be wrong here...

That's exactly how it is.

[Vincent1234]

That's exactly how it is.

I don't agree as you can read in my reply.

 

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[bogi]

Vincent1234, correct me if I am wrong but are not John Siao, Mike Moffat, Jason Stoddard, Miska, etc actual electrical/audio engineers or otherwise with technical degrees that required them to actually pass (let alone take) calculus? And are not the "writers" you cite from Sterophile and elsewhere just that - journalists and writers who have a good bit of practical experience in "the industry" but nothing more and so really are simply regurgitating what Bob/MQA tells them?

+1 So it is ...

[Vincent1234]

+1 So it is ...

-1 I don't agree :-)

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[Maldur]

What exactly is Bob not telling us about MQA and EQ? Can you be more specific?

Bob don't tell that:

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/attachments/f8-general-forum/32208d1483819592-mqa-spectrum-plots-2l-064-full.png

and

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/attachments/f8-general-forum/32209d1483819913t-mqa-spectrum-plots-2l-064-silence.png

If that is not result of EQ, what is it?

[mansr]

Bob don't tell that:

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/attachments/f8-general-forum/32208d1483819592-mqa-spectrum-plots-2l-064-full.png

and

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/attachments/f8-general-forum/32209d1483819913t-mqa-spectrum-plots-2l-064-silence.png

If that is not result of EQ, what is it?

 

I suspect it's mostly the result of shaped dither.

[Miska]

I suspect it's mostly the result of shaped dither.

 

Could be also some inaccuracy or purposeful tailoring of the post-decoding correction Eq discussed here:

MQA 192k / 96k There and back again.

 

(remember that they've crammed the decoding to run on the same XMOS chip as the USB audio implementation, so there's not much resources available for doing things)

[Maldur]

I suspect it's mostly the result of shaped dither.

 

I as listener don't need to know it is dither or EQ or both, for me it acts like EQ and therefore it is not like original, it is processed with lossy.

[Vincent1234]

Bob don't tell that:

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/attachments/f8-general-forum/32208d1483819592-mqa-spectrum-plots-2l-064-full.png

and

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/attachments/f8-general-forum/32209d1483819913t-mqa-spectrum-plots-2l-064-silence.png

If that is not result of EQ, what is it?

So what is it exactly you are showing here..? The scales look rather strange to me. If I'm interpreting correctly effects are shown above 20 khz which are all below -120 dB. Correct?

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[mansr]

So what is it exactly you are showing here..? The scales look rather strange to me. If I'm interpreting correctly effects are shown above 20 khz which are all below -120 dB. Correct?

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/showthread.php?t=31199

[crenca]

-1 I don't agree :-)

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

 

Look Vincent1234, one of these "writers" says today that:

 

"If you're thinking, "Well the DragonFlys are limited to 24/96," you like me, would be wrong." (MQA Blue Is The New Black | AudioStream)

 

Except the (non technical) writer is wrong, and the original thought (and spec) is correct. What one has to believe to get to the point where up is down, wrong is "right" is to believe the MQA marketing claim (which is a Big Fat Lie) that "MQA is PCM". When you believe that, well then magical things happen, like DAC's that can only process PCM 24/96 being able to process higher levels of PCM (say, 24/192) but such a thing is mathematically impossible. What IS possible is for said doc to process a compressed/lossy file that CLAIMS to represent the same data in PCM 24/192. These writers in the Audiophile Press have been duped, willingly as they really want to believe it because they think MQA (or something like it) is necessary (or at least inevitable) for "the industry", or at least inevitable and because they simply do not have the technical background have a responsible critique...

[jhwalker]

Look Vincent1234, one of these "writers" says today that:

 

"If you're thinking, "Well the DragonFlys are limited to 24/96," you like me, would be wrong." (MQA Blue Is The New Black | AudioStream)

 

Except the (non technical) writer is wrong, and the original thought (and spec) is correct. What one has to believe to get to the point where up is down, wrong is "right" is to believe the MQA marketing claim (which is a Big Fat Lie) that "MQA is PCM". When you believe that, well then magical things happen, like DAC's that can only process PCM 24/96 being able to process higher levels of PCM (say, 24/192) but such a thing is mathematically impossible. What IS possible is for said doc to process a compressed/lossy file that CLAIMS to represent the same data in PCM 24/192. These writers in the Audiophile Press have been duped, willingly as they really want to believe it because they think MQA (or something like it) is necessary (or at least inevitable) for "the industry", or at least inevitable and because they simply do not have the technical background have a responsible critique...

 

What is wrong about his statement? The MQA file is compressed in a 24/48 container, but contains (almost) all the data necessary to reconstruct the original 24/192 (or 24/384 or higher) file once it passes through the USB interface.

 

Yes, it's not 100% lossless, but it's pretty darned close (i.e., lossless to 24kHz, very nearly lossless to 48kHz, lossy but containing quite a bit of the original content up to 96kHz, etc.). The part that's missing is clearly inaudible (i.e., a lot of garbage below the noise floor and some of the content above 24kHz).

 

I understand skepticism, but there's quite a bit of rancor going around which is (in my opinion) overblown and misplaced.

[mansr]

What is wrong about his statement? The MQA file is compressed in a 24/48 container, but contains (almost) all the data necessary to reconstruct the original 24/192 (or 24/384 or higher) file once it passes through the USB interface.

 

Yes, it's not 100% lossless, but it's pretty darned close (i.e., lossless to 24kHz, very nearly lossless to 48kHz, lossy but containing quite a bit of the original content up to 96kHz, etc.). The part that's missing is clearly inaudible (i.e., a lot of garbage below the noise floor and some of the content above 24kHz).

 

I understand skepticism, but there's quite a bit of rancor going around which is (in my opinion) overblown and misplaced.

If only that were the case. My testing shows moderate loss below 20 kHz and substantial degradation at higher frequencies.

[jhwalker]

If only that were the case. My testing shows moderate loss below 20 kHz and substantial degradation at higher frequencies.

 

I saw your results - they were highly divergent from what others have reported (i.e., on Stereophile).

 

I think the underlying tech as described is sound, but feels as if some of the implementation is a bit fractured

[Ralf11]

substantial degradation at higher frequencies than 20 kHz?

 

how do snares & cymbals sound?

 

what else would be affected?

[crenca]

What is wrong about his statement? The MQA file is compressed in a 24/48 container, but contains (almost) all the data necessary to reconstruct the original 24/192 (or 24/384 or higher) file once it passes through the USB interface.

 

Yes, it's not 100% lossless, but it's pretty darned close (i.e., lossless to 24kHz, very nearly lossless to 48kHz, lossy but containing quite a bit of the original content up to 96kHz, etc.). The part that's missing is clearly inaudible (i.e., a lot of garbage below the noise floor and some of the content above 24kHz).

 

I understand skepticism, but there's quite a bit of rancor going around which is (in my opinion) overblown and misplaced.

 

It's wrong because words have meaning. PCM implies a known code, it has a technical and repeatable definition, and my DAC (as all) can process it. MQA is not PCM because of the very things you say - iand my DAC can not process it - not the important part, not the "hi res" part, not the part justify's MQA existence and not the part that is the reason the industry wants it (i.e. DRM). Words have meaning.

 

I will say more later - got to run!

[jhwalker]

It's wrong because words have meaning. PCM implies a known code, it has a technical and repeatable definition, and my DAC (as all) can process it. MQA is not PCM because of the very things you say - iand my DAC can not process it - not the important part, not the "hi res" part, not the part justify's MQA existence and not the part that is the reason the industry wants it (i.e. DRM). Words have meaning.

 

I will say more later - got to run!

 

No one is saying or implying MQA is PCM - not sure where you're getting that.

[mansr]

substantial degradation at higher frequencies than 20 kHz?

 

how do snares & cymbals sound?

 

what else would be affected?

I'd rather stick to the hard data, but I'll gladly provide decoded versions of the 2L samples or anything else supplied to me.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

What is wrong about his statement? The MQA file is compressed in a 24/48 container, but contains (almost) all the data necessary to reconstruct the original 24/192 (or 24/384 or higher) file once it passes through the USB interface.

 

Yes, it's not 100% lossless, but it's pretty darned close (i.e., lossless to 24kHz, very nearly lossless to 48kHz, lossy but containing quite a bit of the original content up to 96kHz, etc.). The part that's missing is clearly inaudible (i.e., a lot of garbage below the noise floor and some of the content above 24kHz).

 

I understand skepticism, but there's quite a bit of rancor going around which is (in my opinion) overblown and misplaced.

 

+1. The "lossless" stuff is a bogus red herring. As Jud pointed out elsewhere, HQPlayer is no more lossless in converting PCM to DSD than MQA is in converting PCM to PCM. (If you converted HQPlayer's DSD back to the original PCM sampling rate, it would not be bit identical with the original.) Yet, HQPlayer is a revered and beloved player in these here parts and "sounds great". Ya got that, pardner.

 

You are are exactly right about the rancor. I have no idea why otherwise seemingly reasonable people are throwing their bodies in front of this moving train. It is simply not a life/death matter. And, MQA will succeed or fail on its sonic merits or the lack of them to the greater marketplace of music listeners in any case, not the guru wanna-be's here.

[Vincent1234]

Look Vincent1234, one of these "writers" says today that:

 

"If you're thinking, "Well the DragonFlys are limited to 24/96," you like me, would be wrong." (MQA Blue Is The New Black | AudioStream)

 

Except the (non technical) writer is wrong, and the original thought (and spec) is correct. What one has to believe to get to the point where up is down, wrong is "right" is to believe the MQA marketing claim (which is a Big Fat Lie) that "MQA is PCM". When you believe that, well then magical things happen, like DAC's that can only process PCM 24/96 being able to process higher levels of PCM (say, 24/192) but such a thing is mathematically impossible. What IS possible is for said doc to process a compressed/lossy file that CLAIMS to represent the same data in PCM 24/192. These writers in the Audiophile Press have been duped, willingly as they really want to believe it because they think MQA (or something like it) is necessary (or at least inevitable) for "the industry", or at least inevitable and because they simply do not have the technical background have a responsible critique...

Aah yes, the old conspiracy theory popping up again. I studied journalism myself (it's my original profession) and I do believe that the general audio journalists have enough self critique and moral insight to know the difference between what does and doesn't sound good, especially at a well regarded magazine as Stereophile.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[Miska]

+1. The "lossless" stuff is a bogus red herring. As Jud pointed out elsewhere, HQPlayer is no more lossless in converting PCM to DSD than MQA is in converting PCM to PCM. (If you converted HQPlayer's DSD back to the original PCM sampling rate, it would not be bit identical with the original.)

 

Much closer than MQA... And when selecting suitable filter, modulator and rate you could probably even get back a bit-perfect copy of 24-bit PCM original. In fact any difference is more likely to happen when you convert it back to PCM than when it is being converted to DSD.

 

And I'm not supporting saving the result anywhere and even less I would recommend anybody to store and sell such conversions. In fact it would be plain stupid to do the conversion and store the result in a file. Don't do it! I'm fine if MQA would be placed only in DAC where I can choose to use it or some other DAC, like you can choose a different player than HQPlayer. But if the damn thing is force-fed to me and I have no way to opt-out and get a clean copy of the original source, it becomes unacceptable.

 

Even looking from analog domain of DAC output, it is clear that MQA has losses compared to the original.

 

I usually don't use much emphasis. But the difference is that MQA puts it's fingerprint on the source, the content itself and there's no way to take it out, it's mangled forever. Whereas HQPlayer performs it's operations only at playback time, and you can change the behavior at any time, use some different player or not perform any operations on your will.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Look Vincent1234, one of these "writers" says today that:

 

"If you're thinking, "Well the DragonFlys are limited to 24/96," you like me, would be wrong." (MQA Blue Is The New Black | AudioStream)

 

Except the (non technical) writer is wrong, and the original thought (and spec) is correct. What one has to believe to get to the point where up is down, wrong is "right" is to believe the MQA marketing claim (which is a Big Fat Lie) that "MQA is PCM". When you believe that, well then magical things happen, like DAC's that can only process PCM 24/96 being able to process higher levels of PCM (say, 24/192) but such a thing is mathematically impossible. What IS possible is for said doc to process a compressed/lossy file that CLAIMS to represent the same data in PCM 24/192. These writers in the Audiophile Press have been duped, willingly as they really want to believe it because they think MQA (or something like it) is necessary (or at least inevitable) for "the industry", or at least inevitable and because they simply do not have the technical background have a responsible critique...

 

Wow. I know for a fact you are wrong. You may not know it, so I won't call you a liar, but you should stop posting misleading and incorrect information.

[barrows]

What is wrong about his statement? The MQA file is compressed in a 24/48 container, but contains (almost) all the data necessary to reconstruct the original 24/192 (or 24/384 or higher) file once it passes through the USB interface.

 

Yes, it's not 100% lossless, but it's pretty darned close (i.e., lossless to 24kHz, very nearly lossless to 48kHz, lossy but containing quite a bit of the original content up to 96kHz, etc.). The part that's missing is clearly inaudible (i.e., a lot of garbage below the noise floor and some of the content above 24kHz).

 

I understand skepticism, but there's quite a bit of rancor going around which is (in my opinion) overblown and misplaced.

 

Problem: The "inaudible" artifacts of which you speak have the probability to inter modulate with analog audio signal, causing audible artifacts. Digital designers do care what happens above beyond 24 kHz, for these distortions can, and often do, have an effect on audible frequencies.

[GUTB]

In regards to cost, if I get access to all this new hi-res content for $20 month I'm for it. I just listened to a pretty good Led Zepplin album (Black Mountain Side deluxe edition). The album was on HDTrack for $30. I regularly buy $40 DSD recordings. $20 a month is honestly peanuts.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Computer Audiophile

[crenca]

Wow. I know for a fact you are wrong. You may not know it, so I won't call you a liar, but you should stop posting misleading and incorrect information.

 

Explain how I am wrong. How does MQA = PCM, technically. What is the equivalency (mathematically) between the a data set of say of "Friend of the Devil" encoded PCM 24/96 and the same file encoded with MQA?

 

Chris, respectfully, what are your "facts" that counters my claim that you will not be able to establish the above?