Article: MQA: A Review of controversies, concerns, and cautions

[firedog]

57 minutes ago, HelpfulDad said:

1) There’s a discussion about mathematical accuracy comparing a hi rez PCM stream befoe MQA processing and after.  I’m concerned with how it ultimately sounds and I can understand how various mathematical transforms can create a different bitstream that creates a more realistic analog reproduction so for me, I don’t care about this objection. It’s like trying to convince the Nyquist groupies that higher sample rates sound better.  I hear the difference, understand mathematics and signal processing to explain why what I hear is better so eh!

 Great, you've just proving that expectation bias works.

 

57 minutes ago, HelpfulDad said:

2) Another discussion is that DRM is why MQA exists.  Stuart has taken an egregious approach to getting paid for his technology, but it’s no different than paying Dolby a license to use their tech in hardware, the 1¢ we spent on cassettes for Philips, or what we pay Sony/Philips for each CD so again, who cares?  MQA is not some way to prevent archiving or prevent playing the content when you pay for the HW/SW license.

 

MQA is a tech designed to insert itself into all stages of the recording and marketing process and get paid along the way. It has the potential for severe DRM, and it's owners have explicitly stated their goal is to make it THE only available source of hi-res or "masters". Since their is no consensus that it improves SQ or adds anything else positive, who needs it and why does it exist - other than to line Bob's pockets and enable labels to prevent us from hearing the actual masters?

57 minutes ago, HelpfulDad said:

3)Another discussion is about MQA decoded to 96k from a 48k file doesn’t sound as good as source or even straight 96k PCM.  In every one of these objections I’ve responded to, they don’t fully decode MQA.  They do the first step or two to get 96k or 192k, but not the last step. So again, it’s probably true for partial decode, but who cares?  If you’re not going to apply all the math, it’s like recording Dolby C, then applying Dolby B on playback and complaining.  Don’t dismiss the codec if you’re not going to apply it. The only reason you’d do this is to save money on a DAC. Again, who cares?

 

How do you know this? I was one of the early adopters of an MQA DAC (like others here) and have heard it fully decoded. Did blind tests. Conclusion: "meh". Some tracks sounded "better", some worse, some the same. Mostly the "better" ones sounded different, and I have no way of knowing it they were the same master or otherwise altered (It's been shown some MQA tracks have slightly increased volume, which makes them sound "better" in a comparison).

And by the way "all the math" - are you kidding? It's just upsampling and crappy, nothing special filtering after the first unfold. Maybe what's really going on is that you like the sound of the added aliasing artifacts MQA adds in in the second unfold.

 

58 minutes ago, HelpfulDad said:

5) My favorite discussion is “MQA is lossy”.   Digital audio is lossy compared to live or even analog,  No matter how quickly you sample, nothing captures what’s happened between samples.  The Nyquist groupies will tell you it doesn’t matter, because humans can’t hear above 20khz so it’s not lossy. But, MQA cleverly tosses unused bits outside the content’s dynamic range, and thats called lossy. This confusion seems to stem from describing anything below the noise floor of the content as not audible.  Sadly,MP3 devotees say that the part of the music that is lost to compression is inaudible. The difference is MQA loses no content, it tosses unused bits. Big difference. 

 

What nonsense. You don't have a clue what you are talking about in terms of lossy, Nyquist, etc.

Additionally, "MQA loses no content" - who says? Bob? I don't want him making that decision for me, or one of his proprietary algorithms. What about artists who say MQA altered their content for the worse? Give me the unaltered master and let me decide.

 

58 minutes ago, HelpfulDad said:

I’ve given up convincing all but those who haven’t actually heard quality MQA studio recordings fully decoded. Don’t let intellectuals stop you from hearing it.  Even the stereo store guy. They usually have axes to grind and may not even know how MQA works and how to properly decode it. 
 

Do yourself a favor, learn what hardware is necessary to get MQA Studio fully decoded, make sure the hardware and software is properly configured for your audition.  Make sure you’re listening to a good, hi rez PCM recording that was MQA Studio encoded (Abbey Road, Fragile, to name two) .  Don’t trust the stereo guy.  Ask questions and be sure you’re seeing the MQA DAC showing MQA Studio on the indicators as it plays back.  Sit back and enjoy.  It’s much more pleasant 

 Again, just some myth you've invented for yourself. Hard for you to believe, but LOTS of people have heard it "properly decoded" and don't think it adds anything.

 

And BTW, MQA themselves disagree with you - they claim even with just the first unfold it's superior. It's right there in the opening description of it at their website - that the first unfold is superior to CD and has all the musical content....Any other claims you'd like to invent?

 

And MQA "Studio"  - another myth.  Stop drinking the Kool Aid. The "artists" didn't approve all those recordings. And what percent of MQA is "studio", anyway?

Probably what's really going on here is you are seeing lights blinking on your DAC and that's "improving the SQ" for you.

 

[danadam]

6 hours ago, HelpfulDad said:

They do the first step or two to get 96k or 192k, but not the last step.

 Shots  Third unfold fired! ;-)

[MikeyFresh]

9 hours ago, HelpfulDad said:

 I hear the difference, understand mathematics and signal processing to explain why what I hear is better so eh!

No you don't, or if you do, you are decidedly in the minority in that regard.

 

9 hours ago, HelpfulDad said:

Another discussion is that DRM is why MQA exists.  Stuart has taken an egregious approach to getting paid for his technology, but it’s no different than paying Dolby a license to use their tech in hardware, the 1¢ we spent on cassettes for Philips, or what we pay Sony/Philips for each CD so again, who cares?

The entire record buying public cares, DRM has been consistently rejected by the market and that will continue.

 

9 hours ago, HelpfulDad said:

Don’t dismiss the codec if you’re not going to apply it.

You mean upsampling with a leaky MP filter, right? We can easily do that without MQA should anyone be so inclined.

 

9 hours ago, HelpfulDad said:

 If it’s authenticated as MQA Studio, that means the creative team who produced the Master has participated in the authentication

It does not mean that at all, where do you get that information, can you cite sources? 

 

9 hours ago, HelpfulDad said:

If Chris Squire, Eddy Offord, Steve Howe, Jon Anderson listen to Yes Fragile after it’s MQA encoded/decoded and they all agree and sign off that it’s what they were trying to do in the first place,  I’d feel confident that the codec is reproducing music that is an accurate representation of the album.

Related to the above, Chris Squire passed away in June 2015, and so have many other artists, engineers, producers, and band members who you claim are involved in authenticating an MQA encode. We've been through this false claim at length, these albums were batch encoded in the cloud, with absolutely no involvement from the team that created the recordings. Have you seen Neil Young's statement on this?

 

9 hours ago, HelpfulDad said:

But, MQA cleverly tosses unused bits outside the content’s dynamic range, and thats called lossy. This confusion seems to stem from describing anything below the noise floor of the content as not audible.  Sadly,MP3 devotees say that the part of the music that is lost to compression is inaudible. The difference is MQA loses no content, it tosses unused bits. Big difference. 
 

MQA is lossy, even BS has been forced to admit that, and the organization was forced to stop using their original logo which included the word lossless in it. Those are facts. Your representation above? Nonsensical at best.

 

9 hours ago, HelpfulDad said:

I’ve given up convincing all but those who haven’t actually heard quality MQA studio recordings fully decoded.

Again, how would you know who has heard what? A few anecdotal exchanges and now you know exactly what everyone has heard or not heard?

 

9 hours ago, HelpfulDad said:

Even the stereo store guy. They usually have axes to grind and may not even know how MQA works and how to properly decode it. 

Nobody has been going to stereo stores for a long time due to the pandemic, however your representation of "the stereo store guy" is exactly the opposite of accurate, retailers have every reason to push MQA as the next great thing, so that they can sell you all new hardware. They are professionals who make their living selling audio gear, why do you think they don't know how to "properly decode it"? FYI... there is no such thing as proper here, either you are decoding MQA, or you are not.

 

9 hours ago, HelpfulDad said:

Ask questions and be sure you’re seeing the MQA DAC showing MQA Studio on the indicators as it plays back.  Sit back and enjoy.  It’s much more pleasant 

Make sure you see that comforting blue light! Hysterical.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

As MQA is the grift that keeps on grifting, I should add that I couldn't care less if people love MQA and want to listen to it all day every day. That's their choice. The other side of this coin is that I don't want them telling me what I can/can't listen to. Unfortunately, this is what MQA was designed to do. Bob Stuart has said it many times, including in the first MQA panel that I moderated at RMAF. Bob said the goal is a single deliverable (file) to replace all other formats. 

 

That's my issue. I have no problem selecting DACs, music, and services that don't charge me the MQA tax. However, as MQA content replaces pure PCM on Tidal, some people have had their access to non-MQA music removed. That's not cool in my book. If this happens on the other lossless services, it will be a shame. Removing choice is never a good thing for consumers. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

11 minutes ago, MikeyFresh said:

MQA is lossy, even BS has been forced to admit that, and the organization was forced to stop using their original logo which included the word lossless in it.

 

If nobody had spoken up, do you think this would still be the MQA logo? Absolutely 100% it would be the MQA logo. Those who think it's lossless, should ask themselves why MQA no longer uses this logo. 

 

 

 

[Josh Mound]

On 2/1/2021 at 12:24 AM, HelpfulDad said:

5) My favorite discussion is “MQA is lossy”.   Digital audio is lossy compared to live or even analog,  No matter how quickly you sample, nothing captures what’s happened between samples.  The Nyquist groupies will tell you it doesn’t matter, because humans can’t hear above 20khz so it’s not lossy. But, MQA cleverly tosses unused bits outside the content’s dynamic range, and thats called lossy. This confusion seems to stem from describing anything below the noise floor of the content as not audible.  Sadly,MP3 devotees say that the part of the music that is lost to compression is inaudible. The difference is MQA loses no content, it tosses unused bits. Big difference. 

You say that you understand signal processing, but the above doesn’t make sense.
 

“Digital audio is lossy compared to live or even analog”? By definition, any recording medium is “lossy” (in the colloquial sense) compared to live. But analog — as in tape or vinyl — is “lossy” in the way you’re describing. They cannot produce the full frequency range. Digital is likewise band limited. But we can increase the sample rate to capture as high of frequencies as we want. Regardless, MQA is lossy (in the digital sense) compared to a PCM version of the same digital recoding. It’s throwing out information. That’s central to its existence. 

 

“Nothing captures what’s happened between samples”? All digital audio relies on reconstructing the original waveform — including what happens between samples — from the samples. Do you think MQA doesn’t involve sampling?

[HelpfulDad]

On 2/2/2021 at 3:39 PM, JoshM said:

You say that you understand signal processing, but the above doesn’t make sense.
 

“Digital audio is lossy compared to live or even analog”? By definition, any recording medium is “lossy” (in the colloquial sense) compared to live. But analog — as in tape or vinyl — is “lossy” in the way you’re describing. They cannot produce the full frequency range. Digital is likewise band limited. But we can increase the sample rate to capture as high of frequencies as we want. Regardless, MQA is lossy (in the digital sense) compared to a PCM version of the same digital recoding. It’s throwing out information. That’s central to its existence. 

 

“Nothing captures what’s happened between samples”? All digital audio relies on reconstructing the original waveform — including what happens between samples — from the samples. Do you think MQA doesn’t involve sampling?

Of course it does, but I can see why it may seem I’m claiming that MQA is lossless like perfect analog would be.  But my point is that MQA is no more lossy than any digital, or to your point, analog recording is.  Well, it might be more lossy than accurate analog since that could be considered truly lossless.  My point being that if one classifies MQA as lossy, then so is any digital audio, not that MQA isn’t. 

[HelpfulDad]

On 2/1/2021 at 7:21 AM, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

If nobody had spoken up, do you think this would still be the MQA logo? Absolutely 100% it would be the MQA logo. Those who think it's lossless, should ask themselves why MQA no longer uses this logo. 

 

 

 

Because it makes for too many unnecessary battles without any real benefit.  Its as lossless as any digital sampling without the perceptual encoding 

[HelpfulDad]

On 2/1/2021 at 7:15 AM, The Computer Audiophile said:

As MQA is the grift that keeps on grifting, I should add that I couldn't care less if people love MQA and want to listen to it all day every day. That's their choice. The other side of this coin is that I don't want them telling me what I can/can't listen to. Unfortunately, this is what MQA was designed to do. Bob Stuart has said it many times, including in the first MQA panel that I moderated at RMAF. Bob said the goal is a single deliverable (file) to replace all other formats. 

 

That's my issue. I have no problem selecting DACs, music, and services that don't charge me the MQA tax. However, as MQA content replaces pure PCM on Tidal, some people have had their access to non-MQA music removed. That's not cool in my book. If this happens on the other lossless services, it will be a shame. Removing choice is never a good thing for consumers. 

Yet we all paid a cassette and CD tax to Phillips without a peep.

[HelpfulDad]

On 1/31/2021 at 10:45 PM, firedog said:

 Great, you've just proving that expectation bias works.

 

 

MQA is a tech designed to insert itself into all stages of the recording and marketing process and get paid along the way. It has the potential for severe DRM, and it's owners have explicitly stated their goal is to make it THE only available source of hi-res or "masters". Since their is no consensus that it improves SQ or adds anything else positive, who needs it and why does it exist - other than to line Bob's pockets and enable labels to prevent us from hearing the actual masters?

 

How do you know this? I was one of the early adopters of an MQA DAC (like others here) and have heard it fully decoded. Did blind tests. Conclusion: "meh". Some tracks sounded "better", some worse, some the same. Mostly the "better" ones sounded different, and I have no way of knowing it they were the same master or otherwise altered (It's been shown some MQA tracks have slightly increased volume, which makes them sound "better" in a comparison).

And by the way "all the math" - are you kidding? It's just upsampling and crappy, nothing special filtering after the first unfold. Maybe what's really going on is that you like the sound of the added aliasing artifacts MQA adds in in the second unfold.

 

 

What nonsense. You don't have a clue what you are talking about in terms of lossy, Nyquist, etc.

Additionally, "MQA loses no content" - who says? Bob? I don't want him making that decision for me, or one of his proprietary algorithms. What about artists who say MQA altered their content for the worse? Give me the unaltered master and let me decide.

 

 Again, just some myth you've invented for yourself. Hard for you to believe, but LOTS of people have heard it "properly decoded" and don't think it adds anything.

 

And BTW, MQA themselves disagree with you - they claim even with just the first unfold it's superior. It's right there in the opening description of it at their website - that the first unfold is superior to CD and has all the musical content....Any other claims you'd like to invent?

 

And MQA "Studio"  - another myth.  Stop drinking the Kool Aid. The "artists" didn't approve all those recordings. And what percent of MQA is "studio", anyway?

Probably what's really going on here is you are seeing lights blinking on your DAC and that's "improving the SQ" for you.

 

I understand that your brain doesn’t allow you to appreciate the nuances in music that comes from MQA or probably for more than 44.1/16, but that sounds like a personal problem, particularly with the condescending tone of your tirade.

 

just because you can’t hear doesn’t mean its not there

[HelpfulDad]

On 2/1/2021 at 7:05 AM, MikeyFresh said:

No you don't, or if you do, you are decidedly in the minority in that regard.

 

The entire record buying public cares, DRM has been consistently rejected by the market and that will continue.

 

You mean upsampling with a leaky MP filter, right? We can easily do that without MQA should anyone be so inclined.

 

It does not mean that at all, where do you get that information, can you cite sources? 

 

Related to the above, Chris Squire passed away in June 2015, and so have many other artists, engineers, producers, and band members who you claim are involved in authenticating an MQA encode. We've been through this false claim at length, these albums were batch encoded in the cloud, with absolutely no involvement from the team that created the recordings. Have you seen Neil Young's statement on this?

 

MQA is lossy, even BS has been forced to admit that, and the organization was forced to stop using their original logo which included the word lossless in it. Those are facts. Your representation above? Nonsensical at best.

 

Again, how would you know who has heard what? A few anecdotal exchanges and now you know exactly what everyone has heard or not heard?

 

Nobody has been going to stereo stores for a long time due to the pandemic, however your representation of "the stereo store guy" is exactly the opposite of accurate, retailers have every reason to push MQA as the next great thing, so that they can sell you all new hardware. They are professionals who make their living selling audio gear, why do you think they don't know how to "properly decode it"? FYI... there is no such thing as proper here, either you are decoding MQA, or you are not.

 

Make sure you see that comforting blue light! Hysterical.

 

And your temerity telling me what I know and don’t know is arrogant at best. 

[botrytis]

UHH - Sorry No @HelpfulDad. MQA is lossy in the same way that MP3 is lossy. Meaning that material that is encoded in the master IS REMOVED. In the case of MP3 it is to make the files smaller and to remove minor harmonics to do so. MQA removes actual bit depth of the file, meaning a 44.1/16 bit master is made into a 44.1/13 bit depth file. In this case, we do not know what is removed, then the file is put trough a DSP system to actually make the file louder and god knows what else. Then there are the leaky filters which actually CAUSE ringing, not remove it. Then the compress it with FLAC system but FLAC cannot compress something that has been put through a meat grinder like that, so he file is only a little bit smaller than the original FLAC.

 

MQA is nothing more than a means to control the whole process of digital audio. Sorry no. And besides, every MQA file I have heard sounds like ass.

[HelpfulDad]

On 3/27/2019 at 4:10 PM, The Computer Audiophile said:

Oh boy. 

 

We’ve all heard it. Using the same master it isn’t better. 

 

White glove remasters may sound good but MQA has nothing to do with that. It could be done better without MQA. There’s no way to remove data from the original and make it sound better. 

 

There is no such thing as deblurring. 

 

Here are a couple concise links. 

 

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/30381-mqa-is-vaporware/page/470/?tab=comments#comment-936690

 

 

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/30381-mqa-is-vaporware/page/485/?tab=comments#comment-938207

 

No you all haven’t heard it.  You say you have but there are plenty of pontificators who’ve only done part of the decoding on playback and dismiss it.  If anyone who likes the Moody Blues can get a chance to hear the UHQCD of “This is the Moody Blues”, fully MQA decoded, you’ll find it dramatically better than any other digital format.  Although it is a bit bright, IMHO like maybe the Dolby needed better calibration(brightness theory).  But it’s rich with detail I hadn’t heard before, even on vinyl.  Nothing gets lost in the crowded parts of their songs.  I have these songs in DSD and on vinyl and thought the DSD was good until I heard this. There are things going on musically that were inaudible except the MQA version.  When I go back to DSD, I can hear some of those things at times, but unlike the MQA playback, the little subtlety gets lost in all if the sounds

 

It’s really remarkable.  Funny thing is that I only bought it because that album isn’t available in DSD.  I really wasn’t expecting it to be better that the DSD of the same songs.  I’m willing to let Stuart have his cut for the convenience and the sound because it sounds so much better in many cases.  It’s like any other hi-res digital, sometimes its just upsampled from 44.1/16 or digitally mastered from a cassette master or??? and still sounds terrible.  But a good master and fully decoded MQA is a significant improvement in many cases like this Moody Blues album or Close to the Edge is another one where the detail doesn’t get lost.  
 

Have a listen to UHQCD “This is the Moody Blues”, fully decoded on a proper DAC, not just rendering one.  

[HelpfulDad]

2 minutes ago, botrytis said:

UHH - Sorry No @HelpfulDad. MQA is lossy in the same way that MP3 is lossy. Meaning that material that is encoded in the master IS REMOVED. In the case of MP3 it is to make the files smaller and to remove minor harmonics to do so. MQA removes actual bit depth of the file, meaning a 44.1/16 bit master is made into a 44.1/13 bit depth file. In this case, we do not know what is removed, then the file is put trough a DSP system to actually make the file louder and god knows what else. Then there are the leaky filters which actually CAUSE ringing, not remove it. Then the compress it with FLAC system but FLAC cannot compress something that has been put through a meat grinder like that, so he file is only a little bit smaller than the original FLAC.

 

MQA is nothing more than a means to control the whole process of digital audio. Sorry no. And besides, every MQA file I have heard sounds like ass.

No it isn’t.  Your imperfect understanding of how MP3 works vs. MQA leads you to think that. And, let me guess, you’ve never heard it fully decoded

[botrytis]

25 minutes ago, HelpfulDad said:

No it isn’t.  Your imperfect understanding of how MP3 works vs. MQA leads you to think that. And, let me guess, you’ve never heard it fully decoded

 

I have heard MQA fully decoded. It sounds like shit to me. Actually, I know for certain, it is you that doesn't know how MQA works. You have only read the nonsense that they and their lackeys have put out. This is the MQA patent in a nutshell So a 96.24 file going in comes out as a 96/17 with more noise. Also any file that is greater than 96K is down sampled to 96K. NO THANK YOU.

 

I don't want MQA, I don't need MQA, and if they force MQA on us, I will never again buy any music at all. PERIOD.

[The Computer Audiophile]

53 minutes ago, HelpfulDad said:

No it isn’t.  Your imperfect understanding of how MP3 works vs. MQA leads you to think that. And, let me guess, you’ve never heard it fully decoded

You’re even taking the argument a step further than MQA Ltd is willing to take it. 
 

Your arguments are so nonsensical that the only conclusion I can reach is that your trolling. 

[HelpfulDad]

On 2/1/2021 at 7:05 AM, MikeyFresh said:

No you don't, or if you do, you are decidedly in the minority in that regard.

 

The entire record buying public cares, DRM has been consistently rejected by the market and that will continue.

 

You mean upsampling with a leaky MP filter, right? We can easily do that without MQA should anyone be so inclined.

 

It does not mean that at all, where do you get that information, can you cite sources? 

 

Related to the above, Chris Squire passed away in June 2015, and so have many other artists, engineers, producers, and band members who you claim are involved in authenticating an MQA encode. We've been through this false claim at length, these albums were batch encoded in the cloud, with absolutely no involvement from the team that created the recordings. Have you seen Neil Young's statement on this?

 

MQA is lossy, even BS has been forced to admit that, and the organization was forced to stop using their original logo which included the word lossless in it. Those are facts. Your representation above? Nonsensical at best.

 

Again, how would you know who has heard what? A few anecdotal exchanges and now you know exactly what everyone has heard or not heard?

 

Nobody has been going to stereo stores for a long time due to the pandemic, however your representation of "the stereo store guy" is exactly the opposite of accurate, retailers have every reason to push MQA as the next great thing, so that they can sell you all new hardware. They are professionals who make their living selling audio gear, why do you think they don't know how to "properly decode it"? FYI... there is no such thing as proper here, either you are decoding MQA, or you are not.

 

Make sure you see that comforting blue light! Hysterical.

 

And BTW. Chris Squire died after the music was encoded so there’s that bit of disinformation on your part.

[botrytis]

7 minutes ago, HelpfulDad said:

And BTW. Chris Squire died after the music was encoded so there’s that bit of disinformation on your part.

 

Proof? Did he sign off on it? I want to see the proof or it didn't happen.

 

Sorry. Just more nonsense.

[firedog]

5 hours ago, HelpfulDad said:

I understand that your brain doesn’t allow you to appreciate the nuances in music that comes from MQA or probably for more than 44.1/16, but that sounds like a personal problem, particularly with the condescending tone of your tirade.

 

just because you can’t hear doesn’t mean its not there

I blind tested. I understand your brain is inventing improved sound for you to  "hear" with MQA.  Since you were so condescending, do a  volume matched, blind test of your ability to differentiate Redbook, MQA, and hi-res. I bet you fail.

 

Your previous posts have already proven you don't understand the technical basics, and that you base conclusions on biased listening tests.

 

Just because you think you can hear it doesn't mean it's there.

 

But if you want to enjoy your sonic illusions, please do. Just don't preach about them to the rest of us as if they mean something.

[MikeyFresh]

4 hours ago, HelpfulDad said:

And BTW. Chris Squire died after the music was encoded so there’s that bit of disinformation on your part.

Bullshit, you are the one full of disinformation here, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Such impassioned defense of MQA with such a vanishingly low post count here at AS is dubious at best. Paid "internet influencer"? 

[DuckToller]

5 hours ago, MikeyFresh said:

Such impassioned defense of MQA with such a vanishingly low post count here at AS is dubious at best. Paid "internet influencer"?

Yep, obviously the sting of this article touched him quite deeply in such a way that he felt the pain to revisit the discussion regularly. Nothing else of interest for him here in the last three years. Already last time I felt like, oh it's Lee again, still working on unfinished business ...

[Moochie]

Good article. And when it comes to audio (and other matters) I'll leave the "philosophy" to the philosophers. My ears tell me what sounds good and what doesn't, just as your ears tell you what sounds good to you and what doesn't. Snake-oil merchants offer all manner of miraculous goods to charm and beguile the unwary; let the buyer beware!

 

[HelpfulDad]

On 3/2/2021 at 11:25 PM, MikeyFresh said:

Bullshit, you are the one full of disinformation here, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Such impassioned defense of MQA with such a vanishingly low post count here at AS is dubious at best. Paid "internet influencer"? 

ROTFL!! Since I have a life and don’t post here often that means I’m paid?  I want MQA to succeed because it’s both convenient and excellent.  I can go further than MQA can in evangelizing because I won’t be subject to legal challenges that would be costly in terms of expensive and revealing proprietary information.  
 

There is more than adequate evidence to support MQA claims on top of the vast improvement in realism over straight PCM.  If you say you don’t hear a difference, it’s likely YOUR expectation bias or the person who set up the DAC didn’t do it right.  Idk why people are like this about MQA, other than the contrarian nature of those attracted to this hobby, but they are.   I, for one, am very happy that Stuart figured out how to jettison millions of unused bits and improve sound and don’t mind paying him for that.  
 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, HelpfulDad said:

There is more than adequate evidence to support MQA claims

 

Awesome. Many of us have been waiting years for this. Post a link please. 

[botrytis]

3 hours ago, HelpfulDad said:

ROTFL!! Since I have a life and don’t post here often that means I’m paid?  I want MQA to succeed because it’s both convenient and excellent.  I can go further than MQA can in evangelizing because I won’t be subject to legal challenges that would be costly in terms of expensive and revealing proprietary information.  
 

There is more than adequate evidence to support MQA claims on top of the vast improvement in realism over straight PCM.  If you say you don’t hear a difference, it’s likely YOUR expectation bias or the person who set up the DAC didn’t do it right.  Idk why people are like this about MQA, other than the contrarian nature of those attracted to this hobby, but they are.   I, for one, am very happy that Stuart figured out how to jettison millions of unused bits and improve sound and don’t mind paying him for that.  
 

 

 

Then why wasn't I enamored when I heard the McGrath MQA files at AXPONA in 2019? They were golden gloved and sounded horrible.

 

Just remember you cannot change digital sampling theory, unless you change you how the specific piece of music is sampled. Since MQA uses PCM, you cannot change the theory, that this sampling is based on.

 

Or are you like Trump and his followers who think now that all the UFO reporting's are to take the focus off the stolen election from Trump. It seems you are a very 'Q' person. MQA is much like a religion with rabid followers, that blindly follow (do not want to be educated) what ever the head of the religions says.