advertisement


MQA

Status
Not open for further replies.
nostromo said:
Finally caught up with this video for What Hifi. What a boring 45 minutes. The host hadn't done her homework, I don't suppose she ever did at school either. Bob was just allowed to waffle endlessly.

My take home:

1) What neuroscience does Bob think he knows and how has he put that into MQA? Is neuroscience that advanced nowadays that we can know how everyone perceives or understands music.....is it in the same way for everyone?

2) MQA do want to TAKE OVER the world, Bob wants MQA embedded into everything; movies (cinema and streaming), radio, the whole internet(YouTube etc.) phones/DAPs, TV and cars to name a few. Wherever there is sound reproduction he wants 'in' with MQA. Maybe SETI should try it!

Let's hope the big boys in the entertainment business give a swerve to MQA or else Bob will hold the key to all audio data and be the new Padishah Emperor Shaddam V!
Click to expand...
Everyone wants to rule the world, dude.
 
mansr said:
Very funny.
Click to expand...
Not really. Sit tight.

But before you are....busy, you should publish a detailed paper, describing a step by step analysis of MQA decoding, including rendering, using a representative piece of actual music, taken from 2L and comparing to an LPCM version. You have gone through a ton of work and it's really interesting to see it.

Please include details on how you processed each step and which device you used. Publish it here, on CA, ASR and SBAF for maximum visibility.
 
I even do not care how MQA sounds as do not have compatible equipment and I do not plan to change it in the foreseeable future. My concerns is that MQA wants to get into way how I listen music and I do not want it happen. They may not succeed, but if nobody object, then they may. And some people here still cannot accept that for some other people having problem with MQA is not limited to how it sounds.
 
gints said:
I even do not care how MQA sounds as do not have compatible equipment and I do not plan to change it in the foreseeable future. My concerns is that MQA wants to get into way how I listen music and I do not want it happen. They may not suceed, but if nobody object, then they may. And some people here still cannot accept that for some other people having problem with MQA is not limited to how it sounds.
Click to expand...
There are plenty of people objecting and we now have two competing services without MQA.

Yet the fever pitch of paranoia is only increasing.
 
mansr said:
Are you reporting me to the MQA cops?

Seriously, what laws in which jurisdictions do you suppose I've broken?
Click to expand...
I am not going to narc you out.

Let us now what you actually did, and we will try to help out :)

If you can capture true data at every part of MQA decoding chain, you should be able to put an open source full unfold/render software decoder at least for the DAC you hacked into.

That seems like a valuable ability.

If you extend your work into other popular DAC chips, you would obviate the need for an MQA DAC for full MQA DAC.

When this was done for HDCD in 2006, Microsoft, who owned the rights no longer cared...but that's not the case today.
 
If MQA gets into recording, there may not be competing services. I do not care if they can or not, I do not like that it is in their plans.
 
gints said:
If MQA gets into recording, there may not be competing services. I do not care if they can or not, I do not like that it is in their plans.
Click to expand...
I don't like the idea that Burger King wants to take over Wendy's and Mcdonald's, but I still eat their impossible burgers.
 
nostromo said:
Finally caught up with this video for What Hifi. What a boring 45 minutes. The host hadn't done her homework, I don't suppose she ever did at school either. Bob was just allowed to waffle endlessly.

My take home:

1) What neuroscience does Bob think he knows and how has he put that into MQA? Is neuroscience that advanced nowadays that we can know how everyone perceives or understands music.....is it in the same way for everyone?

2) MQA do want to TAKE OVER the world, Bob wants MQA embedded into everything; movies (cinema and streaming), radio, the whole internet(YouTube etc.) phones/DAPs, TV and cars to name a few. Wherever there is sound reproduction he wants 'in' with MQA. Maybe SETI should try it!

Let's hope the big boys in the entertainment business give a swerve to MQA or else Bob will hold the key to all audio data and be the new Padishah Emperor Shaddam V!
Click to expand...

Nostromo. Exactly. Nothing new at all.
 
Again your wrong comparisons. If Burger and Mc takes the same burger and each prepares it its own way and then competes for buyer, that would be fair way. MQA way is take Burger burger, prepare it and then give it to Mc for preparing for buyer.
 
Did Bob or anyone in this thread come up with solid verifiable proof of how good lossy MQA alledgedly sounds? Oh, not yet? Ok. Fine.

MQA sounds so good that everything else doesn't matter. That is the extent of the arguments presented by the MQA in-crowd and their followers. This from people with expensive degrees - such as Bob.
 
mansr said:
As I've explained before, I extracted the MQA decoder/renderer from the Bluesound firmware and figured out how to run it as a standalone application.
Click to expand...
Interesting. You chose Bluesound because unfolding and rendering occurs in the same firmware and ostensibly not protected? Did you ask for their permission to put their firmware into the public domain as a standalone program? Did they say yeah, sure?

So can your software be used as a plugin into some streaming application, outputting a standard LPCM into an external non MQA DAC that uses the same DAC chip as the Bluesound?
 
mansr said:
The tracks that GoldenSound managed to get MQA encoded include some segments of pure silence. Here's what MQA did with that. The blue curve is the undecoded MQA, red is the output of a decoder.

image.png
Click to expand...
I'm not really technically educated enough to understand what this means. This is supposed to be 'silence' , so should be an almost straight trace anywhere below -120dB being the background noise in the DAC/audio chain.

The MQA (folded) has somehow picked up a lot of HF from 6kHz upwards, which by 15kHz would be directly audible, the decoded (fully unfolded) is better but the ultrasonic frequencies look very bad, but pretty much inaudible unless you're a cat or a bat. I do however expect these ultrasonic artifacts by interference affect the audible band below? Am I understanding things right?
 
Rosewind said:
Did Bob or anyone in this thread come up with solid verifiable proof of how good lossy MQA alledgedly sounds? Oh, not yet? Ok. Fine.

MQA is so good that everything else doesn't matter. That is the extent of the arguments presented by the MQA in-crowd and their followers. This from people with expensive degrees - such as Bob.
Click to expand...
I think we are still waiting on you. As the most super prolific anti-MQA poster, you should be the one to assess it's qualities.
 
DimitryZ said:
Interesting. You chose Bluesound because unfolding and rendering occurs in the same firmware and ostensibly not protected?
Click to expand...
Bluesound was one of the first implementations, and being Linux based, the firmware was easy to pick apart.

DimitryZ said:
So can your software be used as a plugin into some streaming application, outputting a standard LPCM into an external non MQA DAC that uses the same DAC chip as the Bluesound?
Click to expand...
The DAC chip doesn't matter. They all use the same PCM format.
 
nostromo said:
I'm not really technically educated enough to understand what this means. This is supposed to be 'silence' , so should be an almost straight trace anywhere below -120dB being the background noise in the DAC/audio chain.
Click to expand...
It's supposed to be perfect silence, a straight line at negative infinity.
 
mansr said:
Bluesound was one of the first implementations, and being Linux based, the firmware was easy to pick apart.


The DAC chip doesn't matter. They all use the same PCM format.
Click to expand...
So, you have asked Bluesound to "pick apart" their firmware into a standalone software and they gave you permission?

Does Bluesound has any patents on their designs and may consider their code to be proprietary?

And by implying that MQA rendered LPCM stream is DAC independent, do you mean that you hacked other MQA DACs and extracted their firmware as well? You then compared MQA unfolded and rendered LPCM output to a Sabre and AKM chips and found it bit-identical?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top