advertisement


MQA

Status
Not open for further replies.
Timcat said:
If MQA are correct in suggesting that their process reduces or reverses digital artefacts introduced during the recording chain, why is it that musicians who care about these things, the prime example being Neil Young, say that they can hear and dislike the distortion to their original work that MQA introduces?

I believe that he said: MQA is the company supplying technology to TIDAL. In their own official descriptions they go into what they did to my original files. They altered them and charge a royalty. I feel that my master files are in no way improved. They are degraded and manipulated. I made them. I know the difference. I can hear it.
Click to expand...
Like us, some musicians like it, others don't. Perhaps Neil Young is a great authority to you, so you will go with his opinion, not your own ears.

For what its' worth, Jacob Collier, who I like a lot, does like it.
 
Rosewind said:
EDITED



Exactly.

I would invite DimitryZ to ask MQA to be allowed to redo Golden One's testing of MQA. You have the dedication and the technical insight, it transpires, to be able to do it correctly according to your own - and MQA - specifications through your playback chain.

Full disclosure to prove that MQA is more than a filter inserted after the music file has been already once authenticated as a clone of the original recording.

If MQA is nothing more than a filter then simply offer it as a filter.

Don't pretend to make MQA out to be more than it really is.

Lossy MQA is a filter process that changes, cuts out, adds, folds and unfolds again. It changes the original non-MQA file to something new. Ask Neil Young.

You think it sounds ok and more than that. Ok. Fine.

You think that because a given lossy MQA file sounds better to you than the same source master in lossless FLAC, we all should leave MQA well alone. Ok. Fine

You approve of MQA's stated aim to be the only format available in the future. Ok. Fine.

You approve of the MQA effort to try to corner music into a locked format that needs licensed software and hardware treatment to be played back as MQA intended. Ok. Fine.

You only care about subjective perceived sound quality. The fact that the original master file is manipulated and altered means nothing to you. Ok. Fine.

This is all. Nothing more, nothing less.

That will be all, I hope.




Post script:

Pleade note that I don't need to be border-line abusive in order to answer you.
Click to expand...
Stop the victimization complaining. I am simultaneously arguing with 12 people, many with advanced degrees. You think it's easy? :)

I have explained at length what are the controversies and my opinion on them last night. Please read that and respond to that, instead of endlessly repeating the same post.

I respect proprietary technology and I believe it's futile to "ask" MQA to reveal their methods beyond what is in the patent. They will do so if the themselves choose to or if ordered by a court.

I have absolutely no problem judging only by listening, and I have no problems considering specs.

If lack of technical knowledge about something prevents you from considering it strictly on the sonic merits, that's OK too.
 
DimitryZ said:
Like us, some musicians like it, others don't. Perhaps Neil Young is a great authority to you, so you will go with his opinion, not your own ears.

For what its' worth, Jacob Collier, who I like a lot, does like it.
Click to expand...

I see your not so subtle dig regarding the use of my own ears, that’s fairly typical when you see someone clutching at straws to maintain a debate in a position with no scenario of a positive outcome - except more meaningless repetition.

I record my own music and would also suggest that Neil Young has done a lot more to champion high fidelity than many other artists that allegedly have embraced their music being deliberately tampered with, outside of their control.
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
Erm. Can you give the number of the posting in this thread where I "demanded peer-reviewed papers from MQA"? I can't actually recall demanding that.

You seem to confuse "proof" with "evidence". This is, admittedly, a common muddle that people make.

I wrote the webpages to try and explain things for people in general. I have also repeatedly since said they should also read the patents and form their own views. You might care to consider also the meaning of the term "peers". Again, it is a term where the actual use in science isn't what people may assume from its use in many cases wrt the House of Lords". Although when one of the Lords uses it to refer to the other Lords it gets closer. :)

Thus in the context of this forum my 'peers' are all the others reading and contributing to this forum.

Note also that I don't think anything I wrote is 'new' in terms of the science. Methods like undersampling, filters that choose to alias, etc, are well established in other fields. It is an idea uses in varous kinds of receivers, etc. But in many cases they employ other methods to deal with the aliasing so it can be dealt with.

e.g. the use of IQ sampling so you can distinguish +f and -f components, but allow undersampling because you filtered the input to the IQ 'mixer+sampler' to limit the range *either side* of the sample rate. (OK, some RWRs, etc, deliberately fold as they want to take in a wide bandwidth and make detection the priority. Ditto for some hopping-source detectors and other applications in ECM.)

So I simply made my own analysis, argument and conclusions available for others to consider, and expect them to make up their own minds about it. If you think it is twaddle, fine, you can - and have been - making your own views clear. However as I indicated earlier, I don't think you advance your case by adopting "go for the man, not the ball" tactics.
Click to expand...
You are not convincing, though you do write very long posts to demonstrate to your "peers" that you are conversant with maths.

Let me refrase my point. You demand that MQA produces evidence of its benefits or allow others into their system to investigate how it works so they can report back. I totally understand and would also find it interesting. You are naturally skeptical of its claims, which is proper posture.

At the same time you do not exhibit the same sceptical posture toward anonymous posts that align with your position. For example, GO doesn't list the equipment he used. This is a big red flag to me. You are OK with it. Great majority of his files were rejected by the encoder. This is another red flag. You are OK with it. He is using only a partial version of the system and presents the results as capabilities of the entire system. That's another big NO-NO. You have no problem with it.

In a strictly technical terminology GO" "work" is called crap. But you accept it, amplify it and make even farther reaching conjectures from it.

And so you participate in a non-scientific meme formation, which any competent engineer should be very wary of.
 
nostromo said:
The more I learn about MQA and what it was initially trying to do, the more perplexed I get.

To me it seems MQA initially wanted a better way to compress music files to aid streaming on limited bandwidth but bandwidth outgrew the need very quickly leaving MQA in the lurch.

Then MQA looked at the ADC issues in studios and DAC issues and decided some DSP could be beneficial.

Somewhere along the line they came up with some grandiose marketing words and a cult was born with the aim of world domination.
Click to expand...
Read my post from last night. I am in a unique position here to be able to directly compare MQA and LPCM and report what it actually does musically.
 
Tony L said:
Agreed. It strikes me as a product with no current context other than providing a marketing opportunity to lock multiple stages of the recording and music distribution chain into entirely unnecessary licensing fees. As a business model it has similarities to certain lines of clothing for emperors.
Click to expand...
Again, hearsay and other people's opinions. Read my posts from last night to understand what it ACTUALLY does in direct comparison with LPCM.
 
mansr said:
Nobody knows what they mean. Through all the years since they first introduced the format, they have failed to define what this "blurring" is supposed to be, much less explain why their "solution" is needed. The only logical conclusion is that it's something they made up to impress the less technically knowledgable, e.g. the hifi press.
Click to expand...
Impulse response of common reconstruction filters and it's effect on sound reproduction is well understood. That's why DACs now offer them. Your position appears to be that they are inaudible. That contrasts with my experience that they are quite audible.
 
mansr said:
(Here's something I started writing after a few beers a while back.)

The story of MQA begins with Bob waking up one morning and thinking, "how can I make some money?" His hardware business, Meridian, was losing money, and his earlier foray into digital formats, MLP, had had limited success. Clearly, a new approach was needed. The labels control the music, Bob thought, and thus the flow of money. Something to tap into, but how?

What do the labels desire the most? "Control," Bob said to himself, "and that's what I'll sell them." In another word, DRM. An end to the scourge of piracy. Of course, the music-buying public had long ago rejected DRM, so something clever was needed.

DRM is based on cryptography, and besides secrecy, cryptography can also be used to verify authenticity. Discerning music lovers care about provenance, and what better assurance could there be than an authentic signature from the label itself? Bob had found his Trojan horse.

With a plan to conquer both the music labels and the consumers, one market player still remained unexploited, the hardware vendors. How could they be persuaded to contribute to Bob's fortune? The answer, he decided, was to insist that his new format be decoded only within the DAC. This would also be a further incentive for the labels in that DRM coverage would extend all the way to the analogue stage, elegantly preventing copying without losses, just like in the good old days.
Click to expand...
It's sad to see so many people demonize one man. I guess, by knocking someone down, you feel taller yourself.
 
DimitryZ said:
Stop the victimization complaining, ...

I have explained at length what are the controversies and my opinion on them last night. Please read that and respond to that, instead of endlessly repeating the same post.

(...)

If lack of technical knowledge about something prevents you from considering it strictly on the sonic merits, that's OK too.
Click to expand...

Again you are mixing in a few undignified digs. You can't help it, it seems.

I don't see you changing your replies or reply style at all so why should I stop rephrasing my conclusions that are just as valid as your conclusions?
 
DimitryZ said:
Again, hearsay and other people's opinions. Read my posts from last night to understand what it ACTUALLY does in direct comparison with LPCM.
Click to expand...

You have absolutely no idea what it does as, like the rest of us, MQA refuse to tell you. You say you like the sound, and I’m absolutely fine with that on a subjective level, but without proper peer review, which there has not been as they will not allow it, this is just unsubstantiated marketing claims. To review it scientifically you obviously need the ability to stick something of a known quantity in one end and see what comes out of the other!
 
Craig B said:
Poor DZ was up until 3:40AM (-4:00GMT) defending the indefensible this morning.

Working from home for Bob Stuart must be exhausting.
Click to expand...
Are we back with "you disagree with me, so you must be a paid troll" mode? How sad.

Actually, we were watching "The Bee Gees" documentary.
 
tenpercenter said:
I see your not so subtle dig regarding the use of my own ears, that’s fairly typical when you see someone clutching at straws to maintain a debate in a position with no scenario of a positive outcome - except more meaningless repetition.

I record my own music and would also suggest that Neil Young has done a lot more to champion high fidelity than many other artists that allegedly have embraced their music being deliberately tampered with, outside of their control.
Click to expand...
If his opinion is convincing to you, then you go with that.

I don't take other people's opinions on how things sound to me very seriously.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top