D
Deleted member 13028
Guest
To really benefit from MQA you will have to be Bob Stuart
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
To get started with MQA is to first throw it in the trash. 2nd step is to move on to something that is actually loseless. 3rd step and final step is to inform people that MQA is a bad thing and shouldn't be recognized as loseless.
If you are still listening to MQA, congrats you fooled yourself into listening to "Super MP3s", just like I was.
If you are still listening to MQA, congrats you fooled yourself into listening to "Super MP3s", just like I was.
I clearly hear a difference in quality so if super mp3 sounds better than cd quality, I'll take it.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2019
- Messages
- 11,110
- Likes
- 14,773
Care to link us to streams/files that you are confident are the same masters in both PCM and mqa where you clearly perceive the improvement?
Also, care to elaborate on what makes a transducer HiDef certifiable?
Heres the thing, MQA takes up more space than actual CD quality loseless Flacs. If MQA sounds good to you so be it, but when you say MQA sounds better than CDs, something is wrong.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2019
- Messages
- 11,110
- Likes
- 14,773
Next step once you link or at least refer to comparable mqa and PCM files is to tell us what content exists in said mqa files between 22khz and 40 kHz.
Last but not least, https://electronics.sony.com/hi-res-audio-mp3-cd-sound-quality-comparison
I would rather listen to the facts then Darkos opinion. Do you know what happens to real paper when you fold it? It leaves a mark forever just like MQA does.
Edit: MQA is not lossless, its lossy.
"It's true that almost no-one can hear pure tones above 20kHz—and for most people, 15kHz is closer to the upper limit—yet live music and the environment around us is filled with ultrasonic sound. Many instruments have overtones that extend to 30kHz and beyond, and while we may not perceive their presence directly, recent research in neuroscience and psychoacoustics suggests their presence or absence can alter the way we experience the sound that we do consciously hear".
It may be lossy but comparing to cd quality (16/44.1) to lossy (24/192) I'll take the ladder.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2019
- Messages
- 11,110
- Likes
- 14,773
Well, one of the links you posted kind of answered one of my questions (what does a transducer need to be hi res certified). Now, about these PCM /mqa files that are the same master as each other that you've compared directly....
Also, don't conflate "hi res" (the certification) with mqa.
Mathematically the 16/44.1 is better than the lossy MQA 24/192. Heck even the lossless 192/24 is better than lossy MQA 192/24. My old sony core 5 speakers went up to 50khz but guess what my elacs that go up to 35khz sound better. Just because stuff is goes over CD quality doesnt mean its always good. I used to think DSD/SACDs was I all I needed and that it always beated CDs but I was wrong. Sometimes CDs actually sounded than there DSD/sacd counterparts.
Funny, What HiFi says that MQA is lossless, https://www-whathifi-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.whathifi.com/amp/advice/high-resolution-audio-everything-you-need-to-know?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a6&usqp=mq331AQHKAFQArABIA==#amp_tf=From %1$s&aoh=16219679409780&referrer=https://www.google.com&share=https://www.whathifi.com/advice/high-resolution-audio-everything-you-need-to-know
Go down to Here's a breakdown of all the main file formats
Go down to Here's a breakdown of all the main file formats
MQA is not lossless its lossy. The hifi badge belongs only to lossless sources not lossy sources. You dont see people calling mp3s, aacs, oggs, etc Hi-fi.
Edit: You even admited that MQA is lossy.
I did admitted figuring that it may be impossible to fit a 24/192 into a fraction of size, but I could be wrong, as tech is getting better
tl;dr: The streaming compression clearly isn’t worth going MQA. So, if the MQA process truly does something magical, it could be built into players and not streamed, making MQA far less intrusive. But Bob Stuart needs it to be intrusive.
Assertion: All the information is in the source PCM audio file—the recording. Not only is this true from sampling theory, but MQA admits this by using the PCM audio as the source.
Does MQA encoding improve the sound of the source PCM?
If yes, how? All the info was in the source file. Any alteration to make it sound “better” must deviate from what the artist, recording engineer, and mastering engineer intended.
If no, then is the only improvement in compressing the audio? If so, it’s degrading the audio in order to save money. Being charitable, we’ll assume the degradation is imperceptible. Is the data rate reduction worth other added costs (to the player, MQA streaming service, and encoding)?
If yes, how long will it be worth that cost for the lower data rate? You can listen to only one song at a time, so the amount of data MQA is based on is not expected to change, ever (a 5 minute stereo 24/192k song requires as much data bandwidth today as it did 20 years ago and will 20 years from now). So, the requirements will remain constant, while our data pipes are constantly getting bigger and cheaper. Yet we’ll pay for MQA forever.
My point here is that MQA’s feeble compression is scarcely justifiable now, and dropping rapidly. Worse, anyone who can’t afford the data rate to listen to the format they prefer is probably listening on their phone in the car (noisy, poor speakers and acoustics), or cheap earbuds. Can anyone on the forum truly say, “I’ve invested a lot of money into my sound system, I can hear extreme nuances in the digital format, thank goodness MQA exists because I can’t afford to stream high quality audio otherwise”?
But, the ace MQA has up its sleeve is, apparently, something like, “the MQA process improves the sound of the playback, by changing PCM to a format that plays back better.”
If so, why do they need to alter the files at all? Why not build players with this magical conversion inside? Bob Stuart can still make money, and not be so intrusive into the music and recording industry. Then it would be a matter of preferring an MQA-enabled player over a regular one. The catch here, is that it would be very easy to A/B two players. If MQA is truly magical, the price bump for an MQA player could be quite a bit, people would pay it. If A/B proved it to be not an improvement, or sounded inferior, that would be the end of MQA. With MQA streaming, it’s very difficult to A/B.
But a problem for Bob Stuart is that even if it wins, competitors could come out with their own similar player enhancements. There are a lot of smart people, it’s doubtful that—even if MQA is magical—someone can’t come up with another scheme that is as good or better. Or at least fools just as many people—but that’s OK, no one needs to buy such a player. With streaming MQA, you actually lose quality with such a service if you don’t buy an MQA-capable player. And the argument from Stuart as to why that’s not so bad is just absurd—it’s OK to lose resolution from 16-bit PCM, but it’s extremely important to improve on 24-bit??
Assertion: All the information is in the source PCM audio file—the recording. Not only is this true from sampling theory, but MQA admits this by using the PCM audio as the source.
Does MQA encoding improve the sound of the source PCM?
If yes, how? All the info was in the source file. Any alteration to make it sound “better” must deviate from what the artist, recording engineer, and mastering engineer intended.
If no, then is the only improvement in compressing the audio? If so, it’s degrading the audio in order to save money. Being charitable, we’ll assume the degradation is imperceptible. Is the data rate reduction worth other added costs (to the player, MQA streaming service, and encoding)?
If yes, how long will it be worth that cost for the lower data rate? You can listen to only one song at a time, so the amount of data MQA is based on is not expected to change, ever (a 5 minute stereo 24/192k song requires as much data bandwidth today as it did 20 years ago and will 20 years from now). So, the requirements will remain constant, while our data pipes are constantly getting bigger and cheaper. Yet we’ll pay for MQA forever.
My point here is that MQA’s feeble compression is scarcely justifiable now, and dropping rapidly. Worse, anyone who can’t afford the data rate to listen to the format they prefer is probably listening on their phone in the car (noisy, poor speakers and acoustics), or cheap earbuds. Can anyone on the forum truly say, “I’ve invested a lot of money into my sound system, I can hear extreme nuances in the digital format, thank goodness MQA exists because I can’t afford to stream high quality audio otherwise”?
But, the ace MQA has up its sleeve is, apparently, something like, “the MQA process improves the sound of the playback, by changing PCM to a format that plays back better.”
If so, why do they need to alter the files at all? Why not build players with this magical conversion inside? Bob Stuart can still make money, and not be so intrusive into the music and recording industry. Then it would be a matter of preferring an MQA-enabled player over a regular one. The catch here, is that it would be very easy to A/B two players. If MQA is truly magical, the price bump for an MQA player could be quite a bit, people would pay it. If A/B proved it to be not an improvement, or sounded inferior, that would be the end of MQA. With MQA streaming, it’s very difficult to A/B.
But a problem for Bob Stuart is that even if it wins, competitors could come out with their own similar player enhancements. There are a lot of smart people, it’s doubtful that—even if MQA is magical—someone can’t come up with another scheme that is as good or better. Or at least fools just as many people—but that’s OK, no one needs to buy such a player. With streaming MQA, you actually lose quality with such a service if you don’t buy an MQA-capable player. And the argument from Stuart as to why that’s not so bad is just absurd—it’s OK to lose resolution from 16-bit PCM, but it’s extremely important to improve on 24-bit??
