MQA puzzlement.

My studies of the subject involve the Forsell MDAC-2 and Burl B2 Bomber. In the consumer world think about transparent DACs and they can be pretty cheap.

 

It isn't John Siau's math, this has been known for years.

Filters should be your choice and I agree with Julius O. Smith of Stanford that you need minimum, intermediate and linear. I've found MQA files are pretty normally distributed just like any other format as far as sound quality goes.

And did you know a pretty big chunk of MQA files are 16/44.1 anyway?

 

The seeming failure to take off is an actual failure to take off. The labels aren’t lifting a finger to advance MQA’s cause. No real evidence of market traction and a path to growth have emerged for quite some time, and merely riding Tidal’s coattails to mark time doesn’t look like it will lead anywhere good.

 

Oh my god...Wilco's "Handshake Drugs" hi rez!!!

Bass! Vocals! SPACE! Soundstage! Jazzmaster!

 

Dear Prudence!

 

Thanks. But I'm looking for opinions on sound first, numbers and graphs come only after that.
Hence my remark about vinyl often sounding better than a digital source with "perfect" numbers.
But you've done quite a lot of work, and I appreciate that.

 

Because streaming a small file is cheaper than streaming a small file.
It's about the $$$.
Maybe this is the reason they're pushing MQA?
Of course it is.

 

That is absolutely at the bottom of the list of rationales for MQA. High res FLAC of equal effective resolution is smaller than an MQA file.

 

Really? That's surprising.

What's at the top of the list?

 

Sound, eh?..

I ran an ABX test this morning on the tracks I analyzed above & here is my score (not a success, which would be 9+/10):

Code:

foo_abx 2.0.6c report
foobar2000 v1.4.6
2019-09-06 10:47:15

File A: 01 - Arnesen A [excerpt].flac
SHA1: b0c8c1ba746d3c4b3a456522f79ceaf28800afa4
File B: 02 - Arnesen C [excerpt].flac
SHA1: 3464e17bd36b5c5bfd5c9498a9635cf2cb7ce603

Output:
ASIO : Meridian USB ASIO Driver
Crossfading: NO

10:47:15 : Test started.
10:55:13 : 01/01
10:55:38 : 02/02
10:56:11 : 03/03
10:56:49 : 03/04
10:57:35 : 04/05
10:58:13 : 04/06
10:59:04 : 05/07
10:59:45 : 06/08
11:00:10 : 06/09
11:00:50 : 07/10
11:00:50 : Test finished.

 ----------
Total: 7/10
p-value: 0.1719 (17.19%)

 -- signature --
914a08d5425bb9d51a9768cc0d91d77427aa9435

Well, I guess, one sometimes can spot small differences in 24/176 HD source & its downconverted to 24/88 with "leaky" minimal-phase slow-rolloff filter / MQA-encoded to 24/44 / MQA-decoded to 24/88 / MQA rendered to 24/176 with "leaky" minimal-phase slow-rolloff filter variant... (BTW my best score with this material was 8/10 - I used Archimago's HD source excerpt B then; today I used my own linear-phase downconversion to 24/176 of 24/352 DXD master track from 2L).

 

Some folks are gaga over MQA while others are definitely not.
Some of those who hate it are averse to it for philosophical reasons, with which I agree.
Others dislike it because it's an answer waiting for a question.
Still others are opposed because it doesn't actually do what it's hyped up to do.
As for me I'm staying away for now and maybe longer.

 

You got to hand it to them though, mqa in these forums have gotten a lot of post time!
Got to hand it to someone who actually goes by the title ‘toilet doctor’!
All we need now is a ‘scumbag’!
Beave

 

Already HEAPS of those on here..............they just use different names..

 

MQA puzzlement.?

Who's puzzled and why.?!
There is no need to be puzzled - MQA is a lossy format inferior to 24bit hi-res and in its low-res/MQA CD form inferior to redbook CD. These are facts, so please don't be puzzled..
For those who are interested in more detailed elaboration:

MQA: A Review of controversies, concerns, and cautions

 

MQA sounds OK. MQA is also a rent seeking solution in search of a problem. The problem is, how can record labels force a proprietary format on their consumers, with future DRM benefits.

 

There are different opinions on that. I did only a listening test of undecoded MQA (I don't have and I'm not planning to buy an MQA DAC). It didn't sound ok.

 

There's no consumer benefit. I still contend it's a money/power grab meant to enrich the key masters, and good for no other reason. I cancelled my TIDAL subscription and use Qobuz instead for that reason. Long live open and free formats.

 

Agreed on everything you've touched upon.

 

The problem is that a lot of people have made up their minds that MQA is fake news, regardless of what you hear or say

 

I’m pretty sure that you are wrong about the file sizes

 

I'm still waiting for how how it sounds any better for the trouble, or really even as good.

 

It's ironic that a lot of the people who relentlessly bash lossy formats like AAC and MP3 - calling them "unlistenable" - are the same ones lauding MQA. It's also a lossy format but since it's audiophile approved, it must be good, right?

 

You mean audiofool approved, right.?

As for the 'audiophile approvement':

MQA is Vaporware

Unfortunately Tidal recently has been offering no other format option than MQA (check out the latest posts of the above thread) in many cases and soon others may follow. If the consumers don't resist, in the near future we may get a lossy format replacing good lossless formats not only on streaming platforms and as downloads but also in the form of (13bit instead of 16bit!) physical MQA CD.
IMO we simply shouldn't allow to get fooled!

.

 

MQA benefits MQA, Ltd. It has no benefits or does anything really useful that FLAC files does better. FLAC is an open standard, and can be decoded to .wav files. It plays on far more hardware than MQA ever will. MQA needs to simply put, DIE! We need better digital audio, not degraded digital audio.

 

Agree.