advertisement


MQA pt II

tuga said:
What else could they have done when they were selling a türd?

But you bought into their PR, so it must have been really bad.
Click to expand...
Stop working so hard. Your name in Russian is a synonym for constipation. Isn't that a weird coincidence?

I never even read that stuff, as I expect all advertising to be various levels of exaggeration.

I simply listened. What a concept on an audiophile forum.
 
tuga said:
My nickname is Russian for MQA? That's disapointing...



You listened and, what, were brain-drained?
Because your stubborn rejection the facts is embarrassing.
Click to expand...
Your childish behavior is the only thing embarrassing here. In Russian, this behavior is summarized by an immortal phrase "Сам дурак."

The only fact ultimately relevant to an audiophile is sound quality. If you are not interested in SQ, you are on the wrong forum.
 
At least Tuga, your posts may be tough to bear for our Russo-American friend.

EDITED
Tuga = I need a better Dictionary.
Tight, tough.
 
Last edited:
DimitryZ said:
Your childish behavior is the only thing embarrassing here. In Russian, this behavior is summarized by an immortal phrase "Сам дурак."

The only fact ultimately relevant to an audiophile is sound quality. If you are not interested in SQ, you are on the wrong forum.
Click to expand...

Sound quality is synonymous of "sounds good to me". And what sounds good to me may or may not sound good to you. It's subjective.

It has been demonstrated often along the topic that MQA is technically very flawed. But you like it. And because you like it you won't accept that it is flawed. There is a word for that but I can't recall what it is at the moment... Trumpism?
 
tuga said:
Sound quality is synonymous of "sounds good to me". And what sounds good to me may or may not sound good to you. It's subjective.

It has been demonstrated often along the topic that MQA is technically very flawed. But you like it. And because you like it you won't accept that it is flawed. There is a word for that but I can't recall what it is at the moment... Trumpism?
Click to expand...
Tube amplifiers are flawed, yet many like them and consider them superior sounding to better measuring solid state amps.

The thing about SQ is large groups of audiophiles agree what sounds good, so group consensus in equipment and streaming methodologies can be formed.

That's why it important to note that half or more listeners actually prefer MQA in blind testing.

As to the exact technical performance of MQA vs. LPCM, this is an ongoing debate, and I am certainly looking forward to analyses based on relevant and credible sources.

At this point, I certainly like the fact that MQA doesn't carry with it 50-150KHz junk that is baked into modern DXD and runs through your equipment at high volume.
 
I have no idea what the valve vs solid state argument has to do with our discussion of MQA. I also have a feeling that Tim de Paravicini would have disagreed strongly with DZ's blanket statement that valve/tube amps sound worse than solid state ones.

When I created the thread, I deliberately called it simply "MQA" and not "All MQA fanbois are now revealed to be good for nothing audiophools". Still, I have no love for MQA as a universal codec to rule all codecs, but as a filter selectable on a DAC by the end user, I see no harm in it.

I still await analyses of MQA and LPCM music files that were undeniably made from the exact same source files without any secret manipulation along the way.
 
misterdog said:
Though 70 of those pages are Dimitry Z's posts.
Click to expand...

As I wrote above, "Spies love a chatterbox." MQA is harmed quite a bit worse by the sheer number of DZ's posts than they would have been hurt if he had kept a lower profile. I think we have all heard that DZ likes the sound of MQA unreservedly and because of that MQA is a good thing. Ok. Noted.
 
Rosewind said:
As I wrote above, "Spies love a chatterbox." MQA is harmed quite a bit worse by the sheer number of DZ's posts than they would have been hurt if he had kept a lower profile. I think we have all heard that DZ likes the sound of MQA unreservedly and because of that MQA is a good thing. Ok. Noted.
Click to expand...
Actually, you haven't and couldn't hear much because you proudly have me on ignore, and only sheepishly try to reply to others replies to me.

Tubes are precisely relevant as they are demonstratively measurably worse than solid state, just like MQA is likely measurably worse than DXD in the audio band.

Yet tube amps are loved by many who consider them superior to solid state on SQ considerations alone.

And since when were you concerned with MQA's well-being?
 
Tubes are irrelevant .. or no more relevant than anything else in preference, it’s just one of many digressions used innumerable times to make MQA sound innocent or just as anything else .. but it’s not!

it’s amazing how some of us here choose to remain blind and deaf (pun intended)!
 
Ok, here are the results I got from transforming the dispersion filter signature found in the GO files.
http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/temp/WaitABit.png
As I'd guessed it shows almost a perfect all-pass behaviour (the original impulse was shy of peak, so the gain of the filter is near-as-dammit unity on average I think. Given that this is an all pass time dispersion it raises a possibility people may want to check. Reasoning being as follows.

I can't tell if this changes was applied by Tidal for their own reasons or is specific to MQA. We only at present have 'externals' on that. However as a simple linear (in system terms) dispersion filter it should be possible to 'unscramble the eggs' in terms of what it does. I think you just need to time reverse the pattern swept out by GO's initial impulse and use that as the correction filter to time-align back to the original. No real need for scaling, etc.

If this works I speculate that the result may be music files with a higher peak/ave ratio than the 'smeared' ones we have. If Tidal are doing this, then the implication that their files can be 'improved' by this process, regardless of any application of MQA or not. (I've not yet looked at the GO example that has been 'unfolded' but it also means it should be possible to deconvolve it's filter from this one as well.)

Reporting this now as it would be a good idea for others to cross-check all the above in case I've made errors, and to see if it may apply to other files, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top