MQA
- Thread starter Rosewind
- Start date
- Status
Johnjo
pfm Member
Last I checked I can’t hear anything above 13 KHz anyway!
mansr
Objectionist
Tidal's problem is that they _want_ the MQA-CD files rather than true CD quality.
may be just different points of view, and some reasons (most, if not all of them for me) clearly not related to SQ?) Why unfair? I personally accept your point about experience and preference. And I also think MQA could have been a good thing. But it’s not to me. May be for others too or differently. If it’s a good thing for you as it is, this is ok.
DimitryZ
pfm Member
In my book, criticizing something you don't know - you have neither technical not experiential understanding - is a textbook definition of unfair. Multiply this by 10 or 20 (the case on any anti-MQA thread) and you get a pile-on.
Plus I object to vicious vilification of MQA's founder, Bob Stuart.
DimitryZ
pfm Member
And only an issue if you play MQA content through a non-MQA DAC (without allowing Tidal app to do the unfold).
DimitryZ
pfm Member
You should totally post this on every page. It will discourage people from listening for themselves.Ok. Still on topic, I see.
This is the video that started it all:
This is another video that details what exactly is going on with MQA:
And some conclusions from the second video:
Now you are suggesting that I cannot have a view on this? Interesting? In a slightly broader sense where we can all agree the Inquisition might be a bad thing, I really think it’s ok to consider we all know what we are talking about - it’s about pretty general principles, and no one here has the technical full MQA “book” btw, that’s the point?
So why you would not accept that I should have a view and position, let alone accept it, is seemingly the issue?
DimitryZ
pfm Member
Or I accept that you have an opinion, which is like a particular body part, that everyone has.
However, if you don't have knowledge, either theoretical or empirical, your opinion is definitionally uninformed.
Great majority of anti-MQA folk on every forum, including this one, have no technical background in signal processing to contribute any scientific insight, nor are they actual users of the technology to contribute empirical evidence.
All they have, are uninformed opinions of something they neither understand nor use. Appeals to authority are then used in attempts to elevate these opinions into knowledge.
These opinions are essentially useless for the purpose of advancing understanding of the subject matter.
Well, this says it all really, and sadly.
sunbeamgls
pfm Member
Oh come on Dimi, I referred you back to the video. Please watch it.
sunbeamgls
pfm Member
Just reality, tha's all.
flutteringwow
She called me baby, like an old romantic
^ Hasn't this guy been banned yet?
DimitryZ
pfm Member
Is this the first time you came across the idea that opinion without knowledge is informationally irrelevant?
tuga
Legal Alien
There's a "my" missing in your sentence.
But the reality is that you're not looking at advancing your understanding of the subject matter, you wan't confirmation of your misunderstanding. You won't find it here.
DimitryZ
pfm Member
DimitryZ
pfm Member
Absolutely incorrect.
I have been consistently asking for those with relevant skills to advance technical understanding.
I have consistently encouraged all to gain empirical understanding.
DimitryZ
pfm Member
Perhaps you can clearly paraphrase it or point the time stamp that this is discussed in the video?
This is obviously very important to you.
I could be wrong but I seem to remember you saying somewhere that you are an aviation engineer (or similar?) with no real deep technical knowledge on this matter? unless you believe you have developed it already after another few hundred posts? Could well be? I don’t mind and help is available.
In any case, apologies for not being able to entertain you any further!
George J
Herefordshire member
Dear Dimity,
You are addressing a wide range of people technically, from those who turn their replay on and just listen, through those who know something of the topic of the techniques of replay, and a few who actually understand Digital signal replay completely. You cannot possibly tell which people are those who are [in your terms] uninformed and those who probably actually really do know even more than you may.
You cannot quite get away with dismissing the opinions of those who love music and use replay in the home to access something they love, just because they are not experts on modern digital systems. If they love music and hence use quite advanced replay systems, they are entitled to a view on how MQA may impinge on them in future if it does not already.
For myself, I am not aware of ever having listened to replayed music at a quality standard higher than Redbook [CD], and I can say that it is good enough. In some ways it improves on VHF/FM radio, even optimal compared to optimal. I have zero interest in ever getting a better medium for recordings in a library at home than Redbook. It is more than good enough for my use.
Where I come unstuck with MQA, is that Bob Stuart wants to insert this unproven [scientifically] and certainly noise additive system into the recording chain so that I may not be able to avoid an un-necessary complication that [in your own words, and in own stated preference] is only better to you some of the time.
Technically we face a problem. The frequency range of most commonly used microphones does not exceed that frequency range possible from Redbook. Same with the other end, the domestic loudspeaker. However Hi-res digital recording can capture inaudible sounds that are higher up the sound spectrum.
This may seem admirable if they were caught by the microphone or repayable on most home replay systems even if most human adults cannot actually not hear it. But the problem is that out of audible band sonics [even though they are systematic noise rather than musical information caught by the microphone] can modulate the audible spectrum. Much better to cut out the super-aural systemic noise and reproduce the audible frequencies with the least additional noise and distortion possible.
This makes a fine argument against the recording machines from collecting information [noise/distortion] that the microphone cannot collect in the first place.
So why am I not entirely neutral about MQA? [And I know you realise that I am not].
So simple. It brings in non-musical distortions and noise from outside of the audible band, manipulates them and claims to have improve the end result. But the end result is accounting for what is discounted at the very stage of the microphone!
That is fine, but it does stick in my craw is that I may have to buy additional decoding hardware to avoid the effects of undecoded MQA ... this is real enough. I could be totally selfish and say that the mainstream classical record labels have not adopted MQA [yet], but other labels dedicated to other genres have. If the sole offering of these labels and streaming services take on the music that I am interested in I would consider that out of band distortions mixed into audible band replay [because I have no intention of buying into MQA decoding] is a move backwards in replay. For those whose interest is in areas where MQA has already raised it ugly head, I can only express my sympathy and solidarity in their fight for the highest standards to be maintained.
If MQA makes a sonic that in some circumstances some people may prefer, then simply add it to suitable DACs as a filter called MQA enhanced sound.
But I will not refrain from pointing out that MQA is like LP, in that is is always different from the master. Pure lossless digital is bit perfectly a presentation of the master as approved for publication.
I love an honest to goodness fried egg on toast. I prefer to leave the ketchup off it, even if some people prefer it with ketchup. Now where is the parallel in this? MQA, as streamed, or released [as is the plan] on LP or CD would mean that I cannot do without a condiment that at best is only preferable to some people sometime. Yet you admit that to optimise it [minimise the damage in my thoughts] would require to buy additional hardware ...
No the answer lies in a filter for MQA enhanced sound at the user end for those positively want MQA. Just like tone controls that were normal only twenty years ago.
That is all MQA can be at best. A tone control ...
Best wishes from George
Last edited:
- Status