MQA deep dive (and why it's a load hogwash)

[james.miller]

Veery interesting couple of videos posted by GoldenSound on youtube taking a look at MQA, and what happens when you start asking too many questions...

Grab a coffee (or tea, you monsters ), sit back and listen to it 'unfold' heh, pun intended.

tl/dr: smoke and mirrors baby!

 

[james.miller]

- Not possible to recreate the original file. Of course it isn't, as it's partially lossless, so why mention it? Again, this style of presentation exists in other formats, whether that is SACD, Pioneer with it's "legato link" and similar.

Because when MQA was released, they claimed it was lossless. They've only very recently backtracked on this, doing so on the quiet then denying they ever made that claim. Now, it's "better than lossless" Is MQA Lossless?

Sounds good to me and the rest of the "noise" from detractors appear to be hyperbole and creating noise out of nothing particularly important.

I dont understand this. GoldenSound saw and heard problems with the converted MQA files that were not present in the originals and MQA the company couldnt and still havent been able to explain any of it. This is a big deal, why do you think it's hyperbole?

 

[james.miller]

As Tidal replied the codec wasn't designed to encode the artificial, step impulses( if I remember right) he trojan horsed into his music submissions.

He submitted another track for testing but Tidal removed everything he uploaded before he got a change to test it. He also reached out to Tidal and asked them to encode the 192khz flac version of the audio for the second video which is all voice and nothing else. Tidal has so far not done so.

 

[james.miller]

I dont understand why or how you think GoldenSounds has overclaimed. What claims of his do you take issue with?

GoldenSounds didnt set out to make any claims, he intended to test MQA's claims, and what he found didnt support them. He isnt the only one of course, and he's linked to a statements from a number of companies who also do not support MQA claims, such as Schitt audio and Linn.

 

[james.miller]

Did I mention anyone specific? Don't think so.

Ok, I don't understand your hostility. Since this thread is about GoldenEars and his investigation in to MQA, who else would you be talking about when you said 'both sides overclaimed'? I asked you which claims you took issue with and.. You refuse to tell me, instead I get a sarcastic 'Did I mention anyone specific? Don't think so', which suggests you don't take issue with anything GoldenEars has said in the two videos because well, what's the alternative? You either do or you don't. If you have 'no skin in it' then why the hostility? Bizarre.

The key point is that groups including Schitt and Linn do have skin in the game, which is why I don't trust their comments any more than MQAs.

Actually i'd argue the opposite. What have Schitt got to gain by not supporting MQA? and what about PS Audio? they literally said the only reason they did implement MQA decoding in their DACs is because the customers asked for it. They don't like it either. Are you discounting them also because they're in the industry? Soo...what or who would it take for you to drop the defence and listen?

 

[james.miller]

I'll refer you back to my initial post, such that I don't have to repeat what I've already stated.

Whatever.

BTW, did you notice that Linn have pulled the plug on their "view" on the subject:
https://www.linn.co.uk/blog/mqa-is-bad-for-music

No, they didnt.
https://www.linn.co.uk/uk/blog/mqa-is-bad-for-music-heres-why

This pretty much sums up your views from what you've posted here:
- You like MQA, even though you have no reference to determine whether MQA was actually better than the studio masters or not.
- You think anybody who has something negative to say about MQA is 'overclaiming' but are unwilling to talk specifics in any capacity. You will not tell me what claims or by who, leaving very little to discuss with you, instead you just keep repeating that you wont...keep repeating yourself. Defensive / hostile without reason.
- You claimed that MQA was a mixture of lossy/lossless (techniques). which is fine. You mentioned it being lossy over 20khz or thereabouts however this is ignoring the fact that MQ stated multiple times that the folding process was lossless. Now that's been disproven, MQA have changed their website from reading 'lossless' to 'better than lossless'. I said this and you have not acknowledged it. TL/DR? MQA made unsubstantiated claims, got caught, backtracked and you are treating it as though it's always been lossy....which it has, but that's not what MQA claimed. You are ignoring this and talking about 'the other side overclaiming', trying to direct the conversation towards discrediting those people who want to speak up instead.


That, is mind boggling.

 

[james.miller]

1 - You like MQA, even though you have no reference to determine whether MQA was actually better than the studio masters or not.
A - Yes, it's called having an opinion. No it wasn't a DBT, rather a comparison of tracks that I already have on CD, vs their equivalent in MQA. Could they be different? Yes, but again, it's an opinion.

Lack of objectivity. And you know full well comparing cd audio to MQA tells you nothing beyond which format of that particular track you prefer. It doesnt tell you anything about the masters, it doesnt tell you if the MQA track is even as good as the studio master, let alone 'better than lossless'.

A - What you did was post a link to an article who might aswell be labelled as an "influencer". I've seen and been involved in MQA discussions since it was first inbound and frankly I'm tired of the debate. All I see are the same comments regurgitated against it, some of which has some genuine foundations, and some of which are clearly just "noise" and "speculation" as a certain person on the PF forums seems to love doing.

I've already asked you which points GoldenEars made that you objected to and you refused to answer. Don't then tell me it's noise and speculation if you aren't willing to be challenged. Nothing you have said refutes anything reported in the videos.

You also seem to have ignored my comment that there's clearly bs on both sides.

Have I? You really think that? Despite me asking you in every reply to explain the bs from this side, you're now claiming I am ignoring you?

So it's bs from MQA about it being lossless.

Oh, now you acknowledge the lies. very good - we're getting somewhere.

Having said that, apparently it IS lossless below 20khz, so it's not fully correct to say that it's a fully lossy file.

Which is amusing isn't it? because again that is not what Bob Stuart said.

reminder: Bob Stuart explains how the 24-48khz band is folded under the 0-24khz band (losslessly!)

skip to 1m49s.

Audio origami

What I find mind boggling is your seeming insistence that all of the rest of us should automatically agree with your link to another's thread.

Given your complete refusal to talk about any point he made, that's completely ridiculous. You like MQA beyond objective reasoning and wont be questioned on it. I get it. move along then.