DimitryZ
pfm Member
User. Shareholder in my own musical enjoyment.
Financial investment today would be highly speculative.
Last edited:
MQA
- Thread starter Rosewind
- Start date
- Status
Financial investment today would be highly speculative.
tuga
Legal Alien
Moral police officer?
mansr
Objectionist
DimitryZ
pfm Member
Stop the BS.
DimitryZ
pfm Member
mansr
Objectionist
tuga
Legal Alien
Stop the psycho-fanboyism.
DimitryZ
pfm Member
Honestly, I can't use your code, not without a lot of work.
Since you wrote it, it will be easy for you.
Let's pick a clip from the 2L library and you can analyze it and publish your results and final (decoded and rendered) MQA files in LPCM. You can demonstrate differences between original LPCM and MQA data in both frequency and time domains.
All can listen and confirm the terrible artefacts that you keep posting nameless cartoons of. Those of us with brand-name decoders can listen as well and confirm the goodness of your soft decoder.
Deal? Or are you running away from actual proof of you assertions?
DimitryZ
pfm Member
Stop the middle school BS.
tuga
Legal Alien
Now we're getting somewhere. You're finally acknowledging the cow-dung level of your arguments...
...or the level of your cow-dung arguments. I'm confused.
tuga
Legal Alien
What deal? You're manipulating Mans with threats and a massive tantrum... Primary school at best.
DimitryZ
pfm Member
My arguments are iron-clad and fair.
I am offering a group experiment in an open and transparent format. We now have a full software MQA decoder that MANSR has authored.
We can now openly and transparently examine both the numerics behind MQA and it's sound quality. Free to all.
Let's do it.
Last edited:
DimitryZ
pfm Member
Asking to stand behind his work and his accusations.
That is EXACTLY fair. ESPECIALLY, if he is a position to prove it or disprove it.
tuga
Legal Alien
Why do you think that using a music file instead of a test signal will produce different results?
And how do you intend to evaluate "sound quality"? The MQA filter is either effective or it isn't.
Heckyman
pfm Member
For the umpteenth time, it's not about how MQA sounds.
They could have just put their tech inside a Meridian DAC. Then if you like the sound of it, you buy it. Fine.
Instead they try to change the all the source files (via the record labels and streaming services) so that non MQA DACs now sound crap playing these new files -- therefore you need to buy their DACs / licensed hardware.
They could have just put their tech inside a Meridian DAC. Then if you like the sound of it, you buy it. Fine.
Instead they try to change the all the source files (via the record labels and streaming services) so that non MQA DACs now sound crap playing these new files -- therefore you need to buy their DACs / licensed hardware.
DimitryZ
pfm Member
This is the part that MANSR brings to the table, since he has developed a public domain full software MQA decoder (unfold and render), based on MQA-compatible Bluesound firmware for their streamer/DACs. I don't condone his methods, but I admit it's pretty cool. Previously, the "render" part forced users to buy an MQA-compatible DAC, at some premium. MANSR's years' long effort has finally made it unnecessary.
First, we can evaluate standard LPCM and MQA metrics -PSDs, FFTs and peak transient responses in a one for one, fair comparison.
Second, when fully decoded and rendered MQA LPCM clips are posted, everyone without an MQA decoder can evaluate the sound on their own, non-MQA DAC.
Finally, we have many examples of equipment that measures worse than something else, but is considered to have appreciated SQ (tube amps vs. SS amps, for example). It would be interesting to find out if MQA falls into that camp.
Last edited:
tuga
Legal Alien
Or the other DACs which pay licensing fees to use the decoder.
But it is also about how MQA sounds. And unlike mp3 which indisputably sounds worse than Redbook, there is no consensus regarding MQA. Because for audiophiles "sound quality" is about preference and we don't all like the same "presentation".
DimitryZ
pfm Member
Those are inextricably linked.
And many have been making explicit claims that MQA measures badly and therefore should sound bad.
I think it's a great opportunity to put these assertions to an open and public test.
The big complaint against MQA (with some merit) is that they closed the system to all. Well, the playback part of the system has now been opened, thanks to MANSR. There are high quality music files available for comparison, with MANSR decoder making SQ comparison available to all, free.
Last edited:
tuga
Legal Alien
It wouldn't work.
You'd need to compare the decoded file with the original file which was used to create the MQA file.
You'd need trained listeners.
And you'd need to set up an iron-clad and fair methodology for the listening test (level-matched, double-blind).
Once you go subjective it stops making sense...
- Status