Further thoughts on MQA....is it all it seems???
- Thread starter DaveyF
- Start date
So, to those who think that I am unreasonable or being ironic, I say this....
I still stand entirely behind what i heard that night. The MQA demo's were eye opening. The SQ of the MQA vs. the standard file was VERY easy to hear...and was a clear advance across the board! Now, for some the fact that using one's ears is not enough. I get that...now. However, my frustration with many members on this board and others, is that they will play arm chair quarterback without having actually ever heard the gear in point or the resulting SQ. I did not ask my a'phile friend IF he had ever heard an MQA demo, this perhaps I should have. However, here's the interesting thing--- he agreed that the MQA files would have absolutely sounded better! The point that he brought to my attention...which I did not see brought up by any members here, was that the same results in SQ can be had by a simple up- sampling. I have heard demo's in the past wherein up-sampling was utilized ( from redbook) and could clearly hear the differences as the sample math increased ( although to a certain extent, at a certain level, the differences between the sample rates began to diminish!)
Did I post this thread to be flamed and blamed...not really ( it's ok, i have a pretty strong flame suit, LOL), but i did because it occurs to me that at this point, there can be some validity to what my 'expert' friend stated. Is it an absolute that he is correct and MQA is nothing more than a scam??...that-- as I think I stated above, remains to be seen. What is NOT in contest is the fact that all in attendance, including myself, were a) highly impressed by the increase in SQ ( and all of the descriptors that are typically used to describe SQ) and b) the enthusiasm and belief that the demonstrators had for the technology the night of the demo.
If the technology ( or lack thereof) proves to be bogus and the demo was in fact somehow 'gamed'; then all I can say is that is a serious shame and would not play well on the participants. OTOH, and this is what i would prefer to believe, either a) my 'expert' friend is somehow wrong ( although his explanation seemed to be quite apropos) or b) the participants were and are as enthusiastic as I was and yet they too are being hoodwinked. Again, time will tell.
I still stand entirely behind what i heard that night. The MQA demo's were eye opening. The SQ of the MQA vs. the standard file was VERY easy to hear...and was a clear advance across the board! Now, for some the fact that using one's ears is not enough. I get that...now. However, my frustration with many members on this board and others, is that they will play arm chair quarterback without having actually ever heard the gear in point or the resulting SQ. I did not ask my a'phile friend IF he had ever heard an MQA demo, this perhaps I should have. However, here's the interesting thing--- he agreed that the MQA files would have absolutely sounded better! The point that he brought to my attention...which I did not see brought up by any members here, was that the same results in SQ can be had by a simple up- sampling. I have heard demo's in the past wherein up-sampling was utilized ( from redbook) and could clearly hear the differences as the sample math increased ( although to a certain extent, at a certain level, the differences between the sample rates began to diminish!)
Did I post this thread to be flamed and blamed...not really ( it's ok, i have a pretty strong flame suit, LOL), but i did because it occurs to me that at this point, there can be some validity to what my 'expert' friend stated. Is it an absolute that he is correct and MQA is nothing more than a scam??...that-- as I think I stated above, remains to be seen. What is NOT in contest is the fact that all in attendance, including myself, were a) highly impressed by the increase in SQ ( and all of the descriptors that are typically used to describe SQ) and b) the enthusiasm and belief that the demonstrators had for the technology the night of the demo.
If the technology ( or lack thereof) proves to be bogus and the demo was in fact somehow 'gamed'; then all I can say is that is a serious shame and would not play well on the participants. OTOH, and this is what i would prefer to believe, either a) my 'expert' friend is somehow wrong ( although his explanation seemed to be quite apropos) or b) the participants were and are as enthusiastic as I was and yet they too are being hoodwinked. Again, time will tell.
So, to those who think that I am unreasonable or being ironic, I say this....
I still stand entirely behind what i heard that night. The MQA demo's were eye opening. The SQ of the MQA vs. the standard file was VERY easy to hear...and was a clear advance across the board! Now, for some the fact that using one's ears is not enough. I get that...now. However, my frustration with many members on this board and others, is that they will play arm chair quarterback without having actually ever heard the gear in point or the resulting SQ. I did not ask my a'phile friend IF he had ever heard an MQA demo, this perhaps I should have. However, here's the interesting thing--- he agreed that the MQA files would have absolutely sounded better! The point that he brought to my attention...which I did not see brought up by any members here, was that the same results in SQ can be had by a simple up- sampling. I have heard demo's in the past wherein up-sampling was utilized ( from redbook) and could clearly hear the differences as the sample math increased ( although to a certain extent, at a certain level, the differences between the sample rates began to diminish!)
Did I post this thread to be flamed and blamed...not really ( it's ok, i have a pretty strong flame suit, LOL), but i did because it occurs to me that at this point, there can be some validity to what my 'expert' friend stated. Is it an absolute that he is correct and MQA is nothing more than a scam??...that-- as I think I stated above, remains to be seen. What is NOT in contest is the fact that all in attendance, including myself, were a) highly impressed by the increase in SQ ( and all of the descriptors that are typically used to describe SQ) and b) the enthusiasm and belief that the demonstrators had for the technology the night of the demo.
If the technology ( or lack thereof) proves to be bogus and the demo was in fact somehow 'gamed'; then all I can say is that is a serious shame and would not play well on the participants. OTOH, and this is what i would prefer to believe, either a) my 'expert' friend is somehow wrong ( although his explanation seemed to be quite apropos) or b) the participants were and are as enthusiastic as I was and yet they too are being hoodwinked. Again, time will tell.
DaveyF,
IMHO if you want to post anonymous "expert" opinions you must be able to understand them fully, present them clearly with some detail and discuss them. What you posted is IMHO meaningless. I have a DAC that can up-sample to any format and the differences are listenable, but at level of preference, not to the scale you are referring. People have been using digital format transponders for long and know what are their effects - the small improvements they show are normally due to better matching the DAC, no miracles.
BTW, Bob Stuart is a know member of the professional audio community since long, with a long and prestigious CV, http://www.aes.org/events/137/presenters/?ID=2425 and recently won the CEDIA's 2015 Lifetime Achievement Award (According to the press release: "The CEDIA Lifetime Achievement Award recognizes an individual who has exhibited outstanding, creative, innovative, and visionary leadership in the growth and advancement of the residential electronic systems industry. Nominations are submitted by industry professionals and are evaluated on the basis of achievement and service within the industry).
Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content...ifetime-achievement-award#K30KbCVsrw4PtMkV.99".
Just to say I would suggest some contention when debating MQA.
That is mostly how I see it, yes. High bit rates are useful for mixing/ mastering to prevent losses of resolution during these processes, but I am not convinced that they are needed for delivery of the final product.
As for the MQA issue, I agree with the praise for Davey's intellectual honesty, but also with the criticism of his attitude towards those who were skeptical from the beginning.
I have had problems with Davey's idea that only MQA allows digital to get closer to the performance of analog. As someone who has heard spectacular, incredibly natural sounding RBCD performance that is in many ways competitive with analog, and for some sonic aspects even makes me wonder if analog can match them (hopefully), I found Davey's claim highly incredible, literally.
Also, Davey's findings that MQA made such a great difference are not universally shared. In some cases even negative effects on sound quality have been reported.
There's nothing gamed or bogus, other than your friend's "explanation".
For the record, I've tried all sorts of upsampling on the MSBs, using what's possibly the best upsampling engine out there (HQplayer), and native sounded better every single time. And I can easily and repeatedly demonstrate that. So if you (or your friend) think MQA is just some fancy upsampling, maybe that would've worked on other DACs, like Meridian's, that wouldn't have benefitted the MSBs at all.
I honestly fail to see the point of this thread...
For the record, I've tried all sorts of upsampling on the MSBs, using what's possibly the best upsampling engine out there (HQplayer), and native sounded better every single time. And I can easily and repeatedly demonstrate that. So if you (or your friend) think MQA is just some fancy upsampling, maybe that would've worked on other DACs, like Meridian's, that wouldn't have benefitted the MSBs at all.
I honestly fail to see the point of this thread...
MQA TRUTH:
The absolute FACTS about MQA:
1-Bob Stuart and Meridian have lost over THIRTY MILLION dollars since the inception of the company in 1977.
2-Bob Stuart married an incredibly wealthy heiress whose family pumped millions in to the business.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/02710631
3-The company is currently financed by a outside investment company.
4-MQA fired their US based PR firm after one year, because they had effectively
co-opted the audio press. This was part of their business plan, to use "influential
journalists" to convince consumers that MQA was a valid technology. Robert Harley,
and John Atkinson and his crew have done absolutely no critical reporting in regards
to MQA.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09123512
5-MQA is lossy, and distorts the frequency spectrum. It is 13-17 bits maximum, with no valid musical
information about 48 kHz. Completely unfolded MQA to 24/96 or 12/192 is in the form of upsampling.
6-MQA is proprietary DSP. It is an applied digital filter. It is a post processed version of the mastered file, removed by one generation,
and distorted.
7-MQA was marketed on numerous lies.
-It must be applied at mastering: lie
-it is necessary, to save bandwidth: lie
-it is "authenticated" by the artist, the producer, and the mastering engineer: lie
8-To date, only two human beings have had their "master files" encoded by Bob Stuart.
Peter McGrath and John Atkinson. Numerous others have asked have not been accommodated.
9-The following have publicly spoken out against MQA:
Charles Hansen, Ayre Acoustics
Andreas Koch, Playback Designs
Jason Stoddard, Mike Moffat, Schiit Audio
James Tanner, Bryston
Doug Schneider, Soundstage
Paul McGowan, PS Audio
Mark Waldrep, AIX
plus, many, many more.
The following companies have spoken out:
Benchmark Media
Linn
MQA is a disgusting money grab.
+1.....their polluting my vital bodily fluids by a fluoride conspiracy
MQATruth is an interesting character....joined on 14th of Sept and has one post and no personal details.....
But MQA truth claims its running at a loss...so he cannot be........or is it some clever tax scheme or money laundering?
give hi res to the masses while cleansing Russian Oligarch's money ?
All this chat of MQA unfolding.
Are we talking about banknotes?
Or IOUs?
And what does MQA stand for?
Many Qs Asked?
Certainly not Many Qs Answered
Are we talking about banknotes?
Or IOUs?
And what does MQA stand for?
Many Qs Asked?
Certainly not Many Qs Answered
Similar threads
Members online
- Ackcheng
- jonstine
- pdubya
- labelo
- skids929
- Koetsu123
- bonzo75
- Elliot G.
- matthias
- Three quid
- simorag
- Sablon Audio
- dminches
- Argonaut
- abeidrov
- Mike Lavigne
- Kingsrule
- boller
- SOS
- pcosta
- Bonesy Jonesy
- Carcrazy
- Howard
- sbo6
- willgall
- trekpilot
- crosswind
- Downtheline
- Smalah
- Tomek
- Kingrex
- sigbergaudio
- hopkins
- SK8
- Fca
- wbfhet
- olivier
- jeffreybehr
- LammJunkie
- keithc
- Designsfx
- BKDad
- Manni
- mtemur
- Armsan
- Dion667
- Gregm
- jbrrp1
- thekong
- Another Johnson
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |