MQA is Vaporware

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

59 minutes ago, lucretius said:

But it still not representative of what one finds on Tidal, so what does it really matter? And what mQa processes would be evaluated?  What would it tell us about the sausage maker that Warner's back catalogue is put through or the mQa processes available to studios?

C'mon, you know that Archimago and others would be able to easily evaluate the differences between the pure PCM file and the Master Quack, and more importantly, the rest of us would be able to see if we hear anything close to what Atkinson claims.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

1 hour ago, MikeyFresh said:

Why would that be OK? Disrupt an RMAF presentation? You sound as if you think that was clever, justified and well done, none of which are the case. 

 

It wasn't their presentation, though they certainly could have waited until the end and made some comments or questioned whatever they wanted to. But to engage in the level of interruption and unprofessional behavior they did when someone like Jbara is the damn CEO, more is expected of both himself and the band he leads into a public arena that is being captured on video. He couldn't have looked more foolhardy, or done a worse job of representing their brand with that gaggle of jerks.

 

Who the hell do you suggest Ken Forsythe is to "disrupt" an RMAF presentation? Should we for some reason be impressed by his tenure at Meridian, or at HiFi Buys? Lee's buddy?

 

Another pathetic attempt at "clever" revisionist history, I'm amazed at how in each and every post you make here you seem to fancy yourself about the most clever guy around. You've only deluded yourself though, no one else is impressed at all with these periodic ARQ summations, your credibility long ago shot.

Utterly perfect, dead on post.

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

C'mon, you know that Archimago and others would be able to easily evaluate the differences between the pure PCM file and the Master Quack, and more importantly, the rest of us would be able to see if we hear anything close to what Atkinson claims.

 

First, there is more than one mQa encoder (BS refers to a hierarchy). And do we really need any more technical analysis?  Whether there's 13 or 15 or 17 bits of music, etc. , so what?  iirc, it was mansr who did the technical breakdown.

 

The whole point of the white glove treatment is to present mQa in the best light (not to provide a typical result*).  Noone can be sure what processes mQa limited employed -- perhaps they used some non-mQa processes prior to or subsequent to the mQa encoding.  Also, they are obviously going with the specific mQa encoder (among the various ones they have to choose from) that gives them the best results. Questioning JA's subjective impressions is an act of sheer folly.

 

*E.g. If I were to use a Mytek Brooklyn ADC to produce an mQa file, you know there's no way I could duplicate mQa ltd's white glove treatment.

 

 

 

 

 

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

All the new activity.

The carnival barkers are out.

Somethings coming.

 

mQa 2.0?   (Then, what would people do with their mQa 1.0 DACS and ADC's, LOL?)

[firedog]

11 hours ago, LarryMagoo said:

So I guess that JA does not mind that he has BURNT ALL HIS BRIDGES WITH HIS READERS?????

Doubtful. Lot's of us still read his reviews and measurements. He has lots of good things to say.

I just don't buy into anything he says about MQA....Bu at least  (unlike RH), he didn't compare it to an achievement rivaling Copernicus.

[lucretius]

3 hours ago, firedog said:

Doubtful. Lot's of us still read his reviews and measurements. He has lots of good things to say.

I just don't buy into anything he says about MQA....Bu at least  (unlike RH), he didn't compare it to an achievement rivaling Copernicus.

 

And yet it doesn't bother you (???) that JA did state the following:

1. I've heard the future of streaming: Meridian's MQA.

2. In almost 40 years of attending audio press events, only rarely have I come away feeling that I was present at the birth of a new world.

3. What was behind this "WTF" moment?

4. Judging by the recordings I heard in Manhattan, some dating back to the early 1950s, I feel the launch of Meridian's MQA is as important to the quality of sound recording and playback as digital was 40 years ago [with the introduction of the CD].

5. The benefit for streaming is obvious. Without any increase in bandwidth, streaming services can offer true high-resolution audio.

6. No more upsampled CD masters masquerading as "hi-rez."

[lamode]

4 hours ago, firedog said:

Doubtful. Lot's of us still read his reviews and measurements. He has lots of good things to say.

I just don't buy into anything he says about MQA....Bu at least  (unlike RH), he didn't compare it to an achievement rivaling Copernicus.

 

Now that he has demonstrated that he is willing to act as a shill for a complete fraud like MQA nothing he says can ever be taken seriously.

[FredericV]

2 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

And yet it doesn't bother you (???) that JA did state the following:

1. I've heard the future of streaming: Meridian's MQA.

2. In almost 40 years of attending audio press events, only rarely have I come away feeling that I was present at the birth of a new world.

3. What was behind this "WTF" moment?

4. Judging by the recordings I heard in Manhattan, some dating back to the early 1950s, I feel the launch of Meridian's MQA is as important to the quality of sound recording and playback as digital was 40 years ago [with the introduction of the CD].

5. The benefit for streaming is obvious. Without any increase in bandwidth, streaming services can offer true high-resolution audio.

6. No more upsampled CD masters masquerading as "hi-rez."

1. why did Apple, Amazon HD, Qobuz and many others chose NOT to implement mQa?
2. a new world which is based on the old world? How is that possible

 

5. for 1X rate sources such as 24/48 and 24/44.1, the encrypted part of the file does not compress well with flac, so it's actually not saving Tidal any bandwidth, whereas Qobuz would be saving bandwidth serving the non-encrypted 24/48 or 24/44.1 flac

6. MQA CD and those batch encoded Tidal redbooks into MQA CD versions, are using upsampling on several decoders ....

To dig a little bit deeper why MQA cannot defeat information theory, we must look at signals which do not fit in MQA's dithered 17/96 decimation triangle. Which brings us back to this research:


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

Trumpets:

Quote

The fourth excerpt shows that by 55 kHz, the harmonics are vanishing. Note that, as seen in Figure 1(a), the trumpet is still 12 to 15 dB above the background at this frequency; so the energy seen at 55 kHz, though non-harmonic, is still trumpet sound.

Cymbal crashes just don't run out of energy in the ultrasonics, and thus have content outside MQA's encoding triangle, and the ultrasonic energy in case of a cymbal crash is 40%:

 

Quote

Each musical instrument family — strings, winds, brass and percussion — has at least one member which produces energy to 40 kHz or above. Some of the spectra reach this work's measurement limit of 102.4 kHz.
       Harmonics of French horn can extend to above 90 kHz; trumpet, to above 80; violin and oboe, to above 40; and a cymbal crash shows no sign of running out of energy at 100 kHz. Also shown in this paper are samples from sibilant speech, claves, a drum rimshot, triangle, jangling keys, and piano.
       The proportion of energy above 20 kilohertz is low for most instruments; but for one trumpet sample it is 2%; for another, 0.5%; for claves, 3.8%; for a speech sibilant, 1.7%; and for the cymbal crash, 40%. The cymbal's energy shows no sign of stopping at the measurement limit, so its percentage may be much higher.

If MQA would be able to decimate to 17/192 and store all of that into a 24/48 distribution file, and after unfolding the > 48 Khz analog spectrum would be preserved instead of being replaced by upsample noise from the second unfold, that would be ground breaking.

But MQA can't beat Shannon and information theory still applies.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

9 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

First, there is more than one mQa encoder (BS refers to a hierarchy). And do we really need any more technical analysis?  Whether there's 13 or 15 or 17 bits of music, etc. , so what?  iirc, it was mansr who did the technical breakdown.

 

The whole point of the white glove treatment is to present mQa in the best light (not to provide a typical result*).  Noone can be sure what processes mQa limited employed -- perhaps they used some non-mQa processes prior to or subsequent to the mQa encoding.  Also, they are obviously going with the specific mQa encoder (among the various ones they have to choose from) that gives them the best results. Questioning JA's subjective impressions is an act of sheer folly.

 

*E.g. If I were to use a Mytek Brooklyn ADC to produce an mQa file, you know there's no way I could duplicate mQa ltd's white glove treatment.

 

 

 

 

 

Let's try again...I and many others want to know if we heard the Master Quack "magic" JA did-

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/listening-mqa

 

"Amazing Grace: The first of two recordings of mine I used for my comparisons and for which Bob Stuart had prepared MQA versions, this arrangement by Eriks Esenvalds opens and closes with solo soprano, set against a choral vocalise. I've always been happy with the sound of the original 24/88.2 WAV file, but with the MQA version, Genna McAllister's angelic vocal line stands a little more forward from the choral halo, which itself sounds a little farther back than I'm used to. Overall, there was simply less ambiguity in the spatial relationships between the singers and the surrounding acoustic with the MQA version."

 

and

 

"Water Night: The scoring of this choral work by contemporary composer Eric Whitacre is complex and occasionally dense. But with the MQA version, the inner voices were better differentiated. And as with "Amazing Grace," the relationships of each of the singers to each other and the surrounding space seemed better defined. The reverberation tails in the warmly supportive acoustic of St. Stephen's Catholic Church, in Portland, Oregon, faded cleanly into the room tone in both cases, but at one place in the recording the MQA version just sounded more real: About two seconds before the singers start, there is a very quiet noise toward the back of the choir. It sounds somewhat like a generic tick on the original WAV file, more like a sound made by a human being in a real space in the MQA version."

 

Every hifi forum is filled with thousands of threads questioning reviewer subjective impressions of every speaker, component, and cable..so I don't get your reasoning.

 

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

"Comparisons: I had sent MQA's Bob Stuart the 24/88.2 masters of some of my recordings, for him to produce MQA versions. When he DropBoxed the MQA versions to me, Stuart also loaned me some MQA-encoded hi-rez files that had been used in MQA's demonstrations at the 2016 Consumer Electronics Show, as well as a number of MQA-encoded FLAC files accompanied by the original PCM versions."

 

What is good for the goose, is good for the gander folks.

[John_Atkinson]

1 minute ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

"When he DropBoxed the MQA versions to me, Stuart also loaned me some MQA-encoded hi-rez files that had been used in MQA's demonstrations at the 2016 Consumer Electronics Show, as well as a number of MQA-encoded FLAC files accompanied by the original PCM versions."

 

What is good for the goose, is good for the gander folks.

 

I understood that Chris Connacker, as well as several other writers,  had also been sent the 2016 CES hi-rez files and the corresponding MQA versions that I mention above.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

[The Computer Audiophile]

I think asking John for the files is a distraction. People can already get the 2L pure PCM files and mQa versions, if they want to analyze something. 

 

I have all the mQa files made available to the press. I'm looking at the Doors LA Woman right now. It says FLAC 48 kHz 24 bit, MQA 352.8 kHz. I don't think these would lead anyone anywhere we haven't been 

[LarryMagoo]

33 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

I understood that Chris Connacker, as well as several other writers,  had also been sent the 2016 CES hi-rez files and the corresponding MQA versions that I mention above.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

So JA....Please tell us....do you still believe in MQA and all the benefits you previously touted?????

[Confused]

1 hour ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Let's try again...I and many others want to know if we heard the Master Quack "magic" JA did-

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/listening-mqa

 

"Amazing Grace: The first of two recordings of mine I used for my comparisons and for which Bob Stuart had prepared MQA versions, this arrangement by Eriks Esenvalds opens and closes with solo soprano, set against a choral vocalise. I've always been happy with the sound of the original 24/88.2 WAV file, but with the MQA version, Genna McAllister's angelic vocal line stands a little more forward from the choral halo, which itself sounds a little farther back than I'm used to. Overall, there was simply less ambiguity in the spatial relationships between the singers and the surrounding acoustic with the MQA version."

 

and

 

"Water Night: The scoring of this choral work by contemporary composer Eric Whitacre is complex and occasionally dense. But with the MQA version, the inner voices were better differentiated. And as with "Amazing Grace," the relationships of each of the singers to each other and the surrounding space seemed better defined. The reverberation tails in the warmly supportive acoustic of St. Stephen's Catholic Church, in Portland, Oregon, faded cleanly into the room tone in both cases, but at one place in the recording the MQA version just sounded more real: About two seconds before the singers start, there is a very quiet noise toward the back of the choir. It sounds somewhat like a generic tick on the original WAV file, more like a sound made by a human being in a real space in the MQA version."

 

Every hifi forum is filled with thousands of threads questioning reviewer subjective impressions of every speaker, component, and cable..so I don't get your reasoning.

 

The article also stated this:

 

After doing all of my formal comparisons, I subjected myself to a sort-of-blind test. I created an Audirvana playlist that randomly mixed MQA and non-MQA files, and pressed Play. I then went into my test lab, which is in the room next to the listening room, to begin measuring some of the products in the review queue. At irregular intervals I returned to the listening room and made a decision, MQA or non-MQA, before looking at the Prime's front panel to see what was playing. I scored four out of seven correct; though this is insufficient to prove formal identification, I feel that it is relevant information.

 

Four out of seven?  OK, this is not exactly a statistically significant sample, or a particularly stringent test, but flip a coin seven times and get four heads, and you are not going to be too surprised.

[GoldenOne]

 

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I think asking John for the files is a distraction. People can already get the 2L pure PCM files and mQa versions, if they want to analyze something. 

 

I have all the mQa files made available to the press. I'm looking at the Doors LA Woman right now. It says FLAC 48 kHz 24 bit, MQA 352.8 kHz. I don't think these would lead anyone anywhere we haven't been 

I am focuses just on Atkinson's recordings. They will without a doubt be more of a boutique, purist nature, with presumably no overdubs and not any where near the post production of the average pop album. It would be VERY instructive to hear how mQa changes the sound.

[botrytis]

35 minutes ago, GoldenOne said:

 

 

Thank you - you have answered them w/o snark. This is what we need from MQA which I doubt they will do...

 

 

 

[GoldenOne]

6 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

Thank you - you have answered them w/o snark. This is what we need from MQA which I doubt they will do...

 

 

 

That was the aim :)
I (and others) just want honesty and transparency. 

I won't be the one to resort to pettiness and bickering. I think their responses somewhat speak for themselves in terms of how lacking they are in actual truth and how they have resorted to ad hominem.

[The Computer Audiophile]

44 minutes ago, GoldenOne said:

 

 

Well done. 

 

Be careful with the reference to AES paper's about mQa. There is more than one and one may be peer reviewed. There was an issue with this a while back, where "someone" contacted AES because of what he read in this thread, and a representative from AES contacted me etc...

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, GoldenOne said:

That was the aim :)
I (and others) just want honesty and transparency. 

I won't be the one to resort to pettiness and bickering. I think their responses somewhat speak for themselves in terms of how lacking they are in actual truth and how they have resorted to ad hominem.

 

Yes!

 

mQa can't help itself and continues to punch down at the little guys whenever possible. At least you can sleep well at night, knowing you've taken a honorable approach. 

[GoldenOne]

Well that didn't take long......

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Amazing. 

[lamode]

I see that BS labelled your video as "a libellous manifesto". What a joke. I wouldn't be surprised if he threatens legal action to shut you up but rest assured that this is would be an act of desperation and a bullying tactic. If anyone needs a good lawyer, it is BS himself, after committing acts of fraud on any customers, partners and investors from which MQA may have received payment based on his false claims.

 

 

[GoldenOne]

5 minutes ago, lamode said:

I see that BS labelled your video as "a libellous manifesto". What a joke. I wouldn't be surprised if he threatens legal action to shut you up but rest assured that this is would be an act of desperation and a bullying tactic. If anyone needs a good lawyer, it is BS himself, after committing acts of fraud on any customers, partners and investors from which MQA may have received payment based on his false claims.

 

 

I would sincerely hope that wouldn't happen. I don't think they would have any sort of case given as I've been very clear as to what was my opinion vs what was demonstrable fact. 
And absolutely nothing I've put out is a lie or knowingly false.

Not to mention, I think suing me would from a PR standpoint be the worst possible thing they could do.
Their bob talks post was not particularly well thought out given how demonstrably false or misleading some of the statements such as their claims of losslessness are. But a lawsuit to try to bury this would be shooting themselves in the foot to put it lightly.

I've given them several easy-outs if their claims are true. A lawsuit would only prove to people that they are not telling the truth and are having to seek alternative ways of shutting critics up.

Plus....what I've put out in videos so far is FAR from all the information I have available.
Manufacturers have provided me with some VERY interesting information.....

[vmartell22]

40 minutes ago, GoldenOne said:

Well that didn't take long......

 

 

 

Hrm - very disappointing. This should have the thing that united  ASR and AS.  Argument should be  - hey,  both sides of the audiophile thought discussion agree here, mQa is bad news  - even if for different reasons. Doesn't matter.

 

I do have a related question - do moderators have a duty to be impartial?  Well, I understand that the owner of the forum has the right to regulate content she/he wants on the forum - BUT, talking in general, if someone becomes a moderator, is that a reasonable expectation? I guess I kind of answered my question... so it may be dumb in essence... yet... feels wrong what they did...

 

v