advertisement


MQA

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wolfmancatsup said:
I thought this was interesting. A review of MQA-CD by the not-very-techy Techmoan. Interesting that in Japan some MQA-CDs were released with regular CDs in the box as well, to give the listener a way of comparing the two.
Click to expand...

The potential snag is that the 'regular' CD may not be exactly the same up to 22kHz as what was fed into the MQA encoder. Some of the 2L examples that are the 'not MQA' versions are low pass filtered, for example. The MQA ones show what renders as 'noise' on a simple power spectrum in that region if you have no other way to deal with it.

So although you can compare, the *reason* for any 'difference' may not be what it seems on the surface.
 
bz9IPoT.jpg
 
Sorry about the previoius post. Can't help myself sometimes.

One good reason to keep this thread going is to have Jimaudiomisc report his analyses of (2L) MQA files. Also I would hate the thread to end with the final post being a conclusion supplied by DZ.
 
Yank said:
I've got a 10-CD box set, released in 2020, encoded in HDCD with no sticker or logo in sight.
Click to expand...

Sometimes you can find "pacific microsonics" mentioned in tiny type somewhere.

But the real problems are when the data is HDCD encoded and used by someone doing a 'new version' who didn't know and lost the tagging as they 'improved' it. So an HDCD player/convertor can't then expand the data back to LPCM even if you have a player/convertor. Yes, I have some examples of this. Crazy innit.

The main audible clue is the marked amount of peak compression giving a 'too close to the mic' sound. Beyond that you need to do stats on distribution of sample values to spot a candidate.
 
Rosewind said:
Sorry about the previoius post. Can't help myself sometimes.

One good reason to keep this thread going is to have Jimaudiomisc report his analyses of (2L) MQA files. Also I would hate the thread to end with the final post being a conclusion supplied by DZ.
Click to expand...

Well, even if this thread stopped I could report in a new one. I can't say who has the 'last word'. All I can do is aim at presenting the results of analysis in a way that people can use to make up their own minds. Afraid it's a slow process as takes some work, and I confess I have other things to do as well. I do have an, erm, life I think they call it. (Currently cooking dinner after making some Ma-Made. :) )
 
EPear said:
Doesn't sound like a good idea to me, but let's say it's honey - you just forgot to mention it's some sort of synthetic honey

Now - where it gets really exciting is that you go to your local supermarket and all the milk, all of it, is honey flavoured, no other milk on the shelves! Even better, isn't it?

And the manufacturers say that this is how even the cows and milkmen (or are they the milking men?) like their milk and this is how it should be at source, from the Master! And, of course, you will never ever again be able to take the honey out of the milk. And you will not know what milk without honey is, but hey by then milk without this synthetic honey would make no sense anyway, it's how it should be, right?

And, finally to make this even more real, here is something from one of the most real movies you will ever watch (it's effectively a documentary):

"Joe: For the last time, I'm pretty sure what's killing the crops is this Brawndo stuff.
Secretary of State: But Brawndo's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes.
Attorney General: So wait a minute. What you're saying is that you want us to put water on the crops.
Joe: Yes.
Attorney General: Water. Like out the toilet?
Joe: Well, I mean, it doesn't have to be out of the toilet, but, yeah, that's the idea.
Secretary of State: But Brawndo's got what plants crave.
Attorney General: It's got electrolytes."
Click to expand...
Dude, it was just one sentence. MQA can't take over - Apple and Amazon will never let them.

Chill.
 
mansr said:
With the small sample size, poorly controlled conditions (including self-selected participants), unknown confounding variables, etc, the reported preference would have to be much stronger in order to mean anything one way or the other.


The MQA core process is probably audibly transparent for most inputs. However, since true lossless encoding is guaranteed transparent for all inputs, MQA serves no useful purpose. When you buy MQA, you are, at best, giving Bob Stuart money for nothing. If you're feeling generous, give to a local charity. Bob doesn't need a handout.
Click to expand...
The last paragraph is worth repeating.

And lets compare "audibly transparent" MQA with our perfect darling, DXD.

MQA is 99% audio. DXD is 95% noise.

Neither is much compacted with FLAC.
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
Well, even if this thread stopped I could report in a new one. I can't say who has the 'last word'. All I can do is aim at presenting the results of analysis in a way that people can use to make up their own minds. Afraid it's a slow process as takes some work, and I confess I have other things to do as well. I do have an, erm, life I think they call it. (Currently cooking dinner after making some Ma-Made. :) )
Click to expand...
And we should add a disclaimer (because JimA doesn't) that he is only interested in MQA into non-MQA aspect of the system.
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
Incomplete description. Determinstic additions like anharmonic components are not 'noise' and thus may be more audible, particularly because of their coherent relationship with the original components that they alias. And we get back to the conundrum: If you can't hear this it becomes difficult to argue that you *can* hear the 'unfolded' stuff at *higher* frequencies which is the selling point in high rez terms.

Change can be of different types:

1) Noise

2) Linear 1:1 mapped distortion (nominally correctable)

3) Many:1 distortion (not always correctable

4) Memory affected distortion (can be a nightmare and impossible to undo)

The differences may matter.
Click to expand...
Sure, MQA into non-MQA is a compromise. The MQA information is at 16+KHz, so shouldn't be a problem for most people.

Core unfold or MQA DAC eliminates this, of course. Mansr calls this "audibly transparent."
 
DimitryZ said:
Come on.

Just because you are paranoid, it doesn't mean they won't get you!

See? A joke.
Click to expand...

No, not just "a joke". It's not "a joke" when you are belittling some one else's concerns. It's a tactic for delegitimizing the opposition.
 
DimitryZ said:
Dude, it was just one sentence. MQA can't take over - Apple and Amazon will never let them.

Chill.
Click to expand...

Apple and Amazon don't own the masters. They can only distribute what they are supplied. If the owners of the masters are convinced that MQA is the way to protect their investment, they'll go for it. MQA are still lobbying record companies.
 
Yank said:
No, not just "a joke". It's not "a joke" when you are belittling some one else's concerns. It's a tactic for delegitimizing the opposition.
Click to expand...
Your concerns have been well articulated. They just don't align with empirical evidence over the last 5 years. They also don't align with how the music business works today.

At the same time, it was not my aim to cause you any pain. So, if it makes any difference, I withdraw my unwelcome comment and apologize.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top