Jump to content

MQA is Vaporware

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, MarkusBarkus said:

Oh you very bad boys! Using "unsafe levels of ultrasonic signals" 

you are going to hurt yourselves and put an ear out!

"Unsafe levels of ultrasonic signals"  leads to "ultrasonic sickness". How do you get this from digital input to the mQa encoder?

mQa is dead!

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

When argumentum ad verecundiam has become a religion ...

Many responded the HB video did not debunk the claims of  @GoldenOne / GoldenSound, instead he admitted he is guessing.


He did not even question mQa's answer, or try to peer review it ... just make the BT reply sticky.

"There the answers to my quests are given with great detail."  The response contained so many vagueries that Hans could pretend that it was the answer to any question raised.  Apparently, "great detail" = great vagueness.  Maybe Bob could use his secret facilities (apparently not available to others) to help deblur some of those images from the Hubble telescope. Come on* Bob, impress me.




mQa is dead!

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

I think you may be right actually. Just playing about with the scale there now and whilst I cannot get mine to show as theirs does it does look like it could be going up to 44k.

I retract that suggestion.

Though the lack of any impulse ringing is still the biggest issue. The only three situations it would show as is in their screenshot:

1) It's just an 88.2khz impulse file. Not unfolded/reconstructed from anything

2) It was reconstructed using cubic/polynomial interpolation (which MQA does not use)

3) They have reconstructed a true digital 1-sample impulse which represents all frequencies upto 44.1khz at full scale. Which they themselves say the encoder cannot do. (And as previously mentioned would imply they've created a 100% 'perfect' reconstruction system for which audio would not be even a blip on the radar in terms of use cases for)

To avoid any doubt MQA could literally put the entire debate to rest by just releasing that one file.....


Just had a look again... Yeah, I guess if he played with the scales and made it small, it actually could have looked the way it did. That's fine. Reconstruction of the 88.2kHz impulse exactly is still in question...


Yes you're right. They could just release file(s) and clarify things. But they won't...


By the way, the other graphs they showed on that page like the square wave and 1kHz tone also did not reflect actual music either. I didn't see anything on there that was all that surprising otherwise. Knowing what signal was being fed into the mQa encoder I'm sure allows them to tweak to some extent what the output should look like...

Archimago's Musings... A "more objective" audiophile blog.

Free The Music - No MQA!  :nomqa:

Link to post
Share on other sites

@GoldenOne - From a technical point of view, just consider the MQA encoder is adaptive - MQA say this themselves, so it’s entirely possible it automatically adapts itself to test tones without any “white glove treatment”, so as @The Computer Audiophilesays, be careful!

To play devils advocate, I do think your test tones broke the stated MQA acoustic models, which seem to be done on a track by track basis. 

transparency would be good here - so if MQA could provide you with some real data, that would be helpful for one and all?


your friendly neighbourhood idiot 

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...