Apple, in rolling out OS 11, may be the beginning of the end for MQA

[awsmone]

Smart way to be aware of company's activities/ progress. For them, it's a cheap hedge.

Yes good point

 

[caesar]

You are missing the point. One poster doubted their goal was to get involved in,
ultimately profit from music distribution. I prove them wrong.

Nobody said they were trying to "hide their strategy".

The fact is their product is totally unnecessary, and they know it would be a tough sell, hence
the concerted effort to co-op the audio press as a de-facto PR service.

This part worked.

Even those selling vapor ware need a business plan when they incorporate.

Nothing new here. Most regular WBF readers consider most "audio journalists" and reviewers as disgusting individuals and scum of the earth, who write up good reviews so they can personally get free or long term loans. And the readers here know that guys like "worthless to the audio fans" Robert Harley, who has been the biggest MQA cheerleader, would do anything to spit in the face of the fans and get them to blow their time and money on severely analytical and useless products.

Regardless, why are you so interested in MQA? And where were you when it was being hyped up by these audio-journalists? Now that it has taken off, and what can you achieve now?

 

[awsmone]

Next up was McGrath's 24/88.2k recording of Michael Tilson Thomas and the New World Symphony performing the start of Mahler's Symphony 5. Because MQA encoding is most effective when the recording and mastering equipment are known, McGrath had previously informed Stuart and the MQA team that he had used a Meitner ADC and Grado mikes
https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqas-sound-convinces-hardened-showgoers#I5VXLCl5ZMxZXIIZ.99

Another account of June meeting saying what the content was

 

[Sablon Audio]

Most regular WBF readers consider most "audio journalists" and reviewers as disgusting individuals and scum of the earth, who write up good reviews so they can personally get free or long term loans.

Whilst I don’t doubt that this can happen, it has not been my experience as a manufacturer. Some reviewers have published their coverage without giving me any insight whatsoever into their thoughts and a number have proceeded to buy their review cables. I would say that both PF and 6M have pretty strong codes of conduct which ultimately benefit both the consumer and also industry participants. Afterall, what is the benefit in investing time and resources in publications and individuals considered to lack integrity?

 

[still-one]

Stop...before you make a fool of yourself.

With you r head start as the King Fool, no one has a chance of catching up.

 

[still-one]

Do you understand the premise of a "fixed" demo?

Was ANY commercially released material used to compare MQA? If this was like any of the other demonstrations, the
answer is NO.

Please remember one thing..there is ONE place and one place only to consume MQA, and that is Tidal, for $20 a month.

No Tidal, no MQA. They lost a total of $26 million between 2015 and 2016. I have not yet seen more recent numbers.

As usual, You are uninformed. There are other places to "purchase"MQA files.

 

[rbbert]

Incorrect-

"The very first step in MQA processing is to re-sample the original high-res file at a 96kHz sample rate. Therefore the maximum frequency that can be reproduced is 48kHz and everything above that on the final playback (after the first "unfolding") is simply non-music related aliasing artifacts. This is particularly true when the original file was a quad-rate (176 or 192kHz) or an octal-rate (352 or 384kHz). Upsampling can never restore the missing high frequencies (above 48kHz) and the "leaky" MQA filters create non-harmonically related ultrasonic noise in the general frequency range that the quad- and octal-rate files had (at least some) musically related information."

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/...her-major-look-at-mqa-by-another-pro/?page=20

You don't get 24 real bits back. And anything over 96 Khz is done as an upsample in the final unfold in the DAC. That is why software
decoding is limited to 24/96.

I suggest you look at the posts of Soxr on this thread who has done and unvarnished analysis of the process.

Furthermore, Paul Miller confirmed much of this in HiFi News & Review with his measurements.

Well, your own quotes here show that my statement was correct. Upsampling does not restore the high frequencies (above 48 kHz) which might be present on the initial recording; but frequencies up to 48 kHz are reproduced correctly . Certainly any purpose for higher frequencies has nothing to do with audibility, only perhaps with timing and filtering

 

[caesar]

Whilst I don’t doubt that this can happen, it has not been my experience as a manufacturer. Some reviewers have published their coverage without giving me any insight whatsoever into their thoughts and a number have proceeded to buy their review cables. I would say that both PF and 6M have pretty strong codes of conduct which ultimately benefit both the consumer and also industry participants. Afterall, what is the benefit in investing time and resources in publications and individuals considered to lack integrity?

Hi Sablon,

Wake up an smell the incentives! Surely incentives are not on the side of the fans, whether you personally or "directly" experienced it, or not. These days all the strands of wires you need to wire up a system frequently costs more than a reviewers home, and these guys will do and say anything to get their favorite gear into their home.... They just call it best, without adding value to fans and comparing the experiences of each product so that fans can make appropriate decision on the experience they will enjoy...


As for Harley, he dumped on wilson because of the silk tweeter and called magico q7 the best ever, yet he never compared the 2 products.... guess what - the magico q7 died, while the wilson silk tweeter made it their $700k tweeter, so the fans have spoken.... unfortunately, harley has the most analytical tastes and values any new detail he hears in the recording as proof that the product is better

Harley also called the most analytical dac on the market, berkeley ref the best. Had he actually compared it to other dacs, like the dcs he had called best 2 months earlier, people would not waste their time auditioning crap sounding gear (to them) and spend more time with their kids, not bang up their gear putting stuff in, save precious time that they can spend doing other things in their life, save money they spend money on travel to audition garbage they are not interested in, etc...

Here's some more information on how incentives are misaligned and how proclaiming something Best, because it only matches reviewer tastes, is meaningless to fans...

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...C-DSD-Debunked&p=339348&viewfull=1#post339348

 

[marty]

No, for the MQA session, everything was 24 bit, at least 48Khz I believe, most were 88Khz.

Last night, I spend a few hours playing Tidal Master MQA files and comparing them to their identical good ol' fashioned regular Tidal files. Bottom line, is that I just don't get it. The MQA files seemed minimally different, in in many cases, worse, than the standard files. Now perhaps it's that I am not using a MQA DAC and I am letting Audirvana do the MQA unfolding. And perhaps it's because the Meitner DA2 upsamples all Rebook to 16x. All I know is that I wouldn't pay an extra dime for MQA at this point. Very unimpressive audition of MQA streamed material, although as I said, my set-up to demonstrate it's merits may not be optimum.

 

[rbbert]

Last night, I spend a few hours playing Tidal Master MQA files and comparing them to their identical good ol' fashioned regular Tidal files. Bottom line, is that I just don't get it. The MQA files seemed minimally different, in in many cases, worse, than the standard files. Now perhaps it's that I am not using a MQA DAC and I am letting Audirvana do the MQA unfolding. And perhaps it's because the Meitner DA2 upsamples all Rebook to 16x. All I know is that I wouldn't pay an extra dime for MQA at this point. Very unimpressive audition of MQA streamed material, although as I said, my set-up to demonstrate it's merits may not be optimum.

Of course you aren't paying anything extra at this point...

Why not have the Tidal desktop app do the unfolding, rather than Audirvana? Or is the process identical?

 

[asiufy]

Last night, I spend a few hours playing Tidal Master MQA files and comparing them to their identical good ol' fashioned regular Tidal files. Bottom line, is that I just don't get it. The MQA files seemed minimally different, in in many cases, worse, than the standard files. Now perhaps it's that I am not using a MQA DAC and I am letting Audirvana do the MQA unfolding. And perhaps it's because the Meitner DA2 upsamples all Rebook to 16x. All I know is that I wouldn't pay an extra dime for MQA at this point. Very unimpressive audition of MQA streamed material, although as I said, my set-up to demonstrate it's merits may not be optimum.

Yep, just like me. When the Tidal app (for Macs) started doing the first unfolding, I went ahead and did the comparisons, using standard, non-MQA DACs at the time, and was not impressed. Filed it as "blah", and kept on. Until I got an MQA enabled DAC.

 

[caesar]

Gentlemen, why is the MQA brand not being fully transparent about what happens? Despite the positive results so many are hearing, their brand has been seemingly irreparably tarnished by not fully explaining what is going on.

 

[MQA Truth]

Yep, just like me. When the Tidal app (for Macs) started doing the first unfolding, I went ahead and did the comparisons, using standard, non-MQA DACs at the time, and was not impressed. Filed it as "blah", and kept on. Until I got an MQA enabled DAC.

Ah, thank you for hitting the bullseye..

Yes, one has to buy an "MQA enabled" DAC to get the full "unfold".

Bob Stuart used Atkinson and Harley and their crew to create anxiety and demand, which creates
product churn, which then turns into more advertising revenue.

Everybody wins! The record companies get un copyable versions of their files, Bob Stuart makes money from them and from the DAC manufacturers,
Stereophile and TAS make money from more ads, and the consumer gets shafted.

What a wonderful thing. Instead of actually pushing forward the art of digital audio, we grease the wheel with
lossy crap to help struggling manufacturers, dealers, and magazines, with an army of shills in tow.

 

[caesar]

Ah, thank you for hitting the bullseye..

Yes, one has to buy an "MQA enabled" DAC to get the full "unfold".

Bob Stuart used Atkinson and Harley and their crew to create anxiety and demand, which creates
product churn, which then turns into more advertising revenue.

Everybody wins! The record companies get un copyable versions of their files, Bob Stuart makes money from them and from the DAC manufacturers,
Stereophile and TAS make money from more ads, and the consumer gets shafted.

What a wonderful thing. Instead of actually pushing forward the art of digital audio, we grease the wheel with
lossy crap to help struggling manufacturers, dealers, and magazines, with an army of shills in tow.

How much "better" does MQA sound with a fully MQA-enabled DAC?

 

[marty]

Why not have the Tidal desktop app do the unfolding, rather than Audirvana? Or is the process identical?

Good question. Probably convenience more than anything else. I use Audirvana because it seamlessly handles iTunes files, my NAS files and Tidal all in 1 couch potato worthy app. (And it sounds darn good as well - after all it is the preferred player for Nagra and others which is encouraging). However, as others have mentioned, it seems I need a legitimate MQA enabled DAC to appreciate the true benefit of MQA. Sadly, not gonna happen any time soon.

 

[MQA Truth]

How much "better" does MQA sound with a fully MQA-enabled DAC?

Who cares? It is about collecting fees, and more fees from manufacturers,...which then gets passed to YOU.

Stuart is a genius I think. Develop a phony "fomrat" that throws away 7 or 8 bits, is inaccurate in the frequency spectrum,
and provides no information over 48Khz, and convince people that it is "better". Hysterical.

A backwards move cloaked as an "advance" in the technology. That is why it will be stamped out and destroyed
by the best minds in the industry. You can take that to the bank.

If it were MP3 or AAC the shills would saying how "shockingly" better it was.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Erm, I'll stick w my trusty cdp, thanks.

 

[caesar]

Who cares? It is about collecting fees, and more fees from manufacturers,...which then gets passed to YOU.

Stuart is a genius I think. Develop a phony "fomrat" that throws away 7 or 8 bits, is inaccurate in the frequency spectrum,
and provides no information over 48Khz, and convince people that it is "better". Hysterical.

A backwards move cloaked as an "advance" in the technology. That is why it will be stamped out and destroyed
by the best minds in the industry. You can take that to the bank.

If it were MP3 or AAC the shills would saying how "shockingly" better it was.

Are they being transparent that they are a lossy format?

 

[Rodney Gold]

I compared a local rip to a 24/48 master on tidal .. I might have heard a difference or not
I compared the master file folded vs a partial unfold via tidal..I must say I was quite impressed ... partial unfold sounded better to me ..you can switch unfolding off in tidal whilst you listen
At any rate .. even tho mqa is free to me ..the amount of titles in the catalogue is mickey mouse and its a schlep to go from roon to tidal to play the 20 or so titles I wanted to hear....I dont think I will be getting a mqa enabled dac soon either..so to me , MQA is a nice to have freebie but nothing essential at this time.
I think the whole roll out of MQA is a dogs breakfast and was handled badly .. sooo much confusion, overpromise , underdeliver

 

[asiufy]

Erm, I'll stick w my trusty cdp, thanks.

Tinfoil hat firmly in place then, uh?
How many MQA files have you heard to make that assessment?