MQA disappointing


#1587

Ask him, I’m sure he’ll give you the time of day… [Moderated.]


(Jeff) #1588

Bob actually has something to say that is not just regurgitated marketing? That would be new and actually welcomed!


(Chris ) #1589

Lol, you will get plenty of words from the anti MQA faction, that’s Ok… I have heard it all and then heard MQA… I know what I like.


#1590

Think you missed the point, it’s about this “thread” aka Cranki’s propaganda tool of anti-MQA endless loop tape…


(crenca) #1591

I watched it a couple of minutes in. That’s all it took for him to make two large factual errors:

  1. That Qobuz won’t be offering real Hi Res
  2. That MQA is Hi Res, up to 6x sample rates (by which he means 6x 44.1/48). MQA is (sort of) regular PCM to 44.1/48, a lossy compression facsimile between 48 and 96, and after that…nothing, notta, zip.

#1592

is this factual?


(Erik Barsingerhorn) #1593
  1. Published on May 6, 2015. So it’s 3 years ago what Hans says, quote: ''probably it will not happen" 3 years later it does, so what’s wrong with that?
  2. So you don’t listen. Start listening here to what Hans says. https://youtu.be/T5o6XHVK2HA?t=866

(Erik Barsingerhorn) #1594

You don’t listen either. Start listening here to what Hans says. https://youtu.be/T5o6XHVK2HA?t=866

Where is this said? just mention the time where this is said.


(Erik Barsingerhorn) #1595

Hans admits to having learned more later. what did you know about MQA 3 years ago? You never make mistakes? Hans could also took the video ofline, he chose not to do this. [DrTone] How good are you to admit mistakes?


(crenca) #1596

@Carl, are posters now under discussion/insult?

I certainly can engage on this level if the ground rules have changed.


(crenca) #1597

This really is the only thing to do - or at least a point by point update as to what he and everyone else have learned:

  1. MQA is not “end to end”, except as a $licensing$ scheme
  2. It’s not Hi Res - it’s not even 16/44, it’s lossy
  3. It’s folding art is irrelevant in today’s bandwidth/storage realities, and even when relavant 18/96 FLAC is open standard, non lossy, and does not need a $license$, new equipment, updated software, etc.
  4. MQA is about DRM.
  5. Even as a DRM product, MQA is not very good - too easily manipulated
  6. “Blurring” is marketing speak for “ringing”, and MQA’s solution to this largely non problem brings it’s own host of problems such as IM distortion.

This list could easily be expanded and is elsewhere…


#1598

Sounds great though doesn’t it?


(Erik Barsingerhorn) #1599

You just call ‘’ its not ‘’ tell why?
If the original is not hires, it will never be hires by MQA.
If it is MQA and it is played on a non-supported device THEN it does play but within the limits of THAT device.
Folding is relevant for the streaming party as Tidal simply because it is less data.
‘‘MQA is about DRM’’ but then quality wise for the consumer. If the original is not 24/192 but an upsample it will not play as MQA. So you have been scammed. MQA consists of “hiding” the hi-res information in the inaudible range, so it is hires and not limited to the audible limit of man as the current music is limited based on the Nyquist frequency.
Ten years ago a whole controversy surrounding the SACD release of Norah Jones “Come away with me”, this turned out that the more expensive SACD was simply derived from the 44.1 kHz CD version.
MQA is not a fomat it works within a flac, wave, or Alac file
This is factual as Barrowboy said. Does MQA sound better now? you decide


(Erik Barsingerhorn) #1600

It can be that the ‘’ MQA hidden data ‘’ produces distortion when played on a non MQA compatible device.
If the reproduction is that good, man can argue that the distortions were already present in the original. Ultimately, the studio has its limitations and perhaps that’s what you hear.
Does MQA sound better now? you decide.
And don’t let someone else tel you what it sounds like, that’s his opinion is not yours. Do your own listening.


(Erik Barsingerhorn) #1601

perceptual-noise-shaping
‘‘perceptual-noise-shaping’’ is what the therm ‘lossy’ is about. The sound is not only masked, it not in the data any more. Mp3. This is why Mp3 should not be upsamled, and believe me it’s done by some people!!
MQA is exactly the opposite all data is present, with the right equipment it plays the highest possible quality available. I have flac tracks from the net that sound very good according to my ears / opinion, played in Roon I found out that they are MQA. And yes my equipment supports MQA


(crenca) #1602

Odd, you appear to be saying that because some Hi Res is upsampled 16/44, that is support for the existence of a DRM, proprietary encoding like MQA? How is that?


(crenca) #1603

Due to the filtering scheme (really two - the one used in the folding process and the one used at playback), the distortion is always present and measurable. Bob S admits this.


(crenca) #1604

You are in error. MQA is lossy, and MQA Ltd. explicitly admit this. Why would anyone want this, even if it was “free”? You can accomplish everything MQA does with already existing codecs (such as MP3).


(Erik Barsingerhorn) #1605

Sorry, but than you don’t understand Mp3 ‘‘perceptual noise shaping’’ the data simply is not there anymore, you can’t play somthing that’s not there so you can’t hear is either if you want to.


(Erik Barsingerhorn) #1606

Explane your self please?