The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
MQA
Old 4th April 2017
  #451
Gear Nut
How can one even compare the master to the MQA? I tried with the hi res test files at 2L.no but Pro Tools 12.5.2 will not import any flac files, and probably haven't implemented native MQA decoding just yet..
Recode them to wav would be altering the original and I can't record the Tidal stream thru my ADI-2 Pro just to get the soft decode..that's another route of filtering added.

Is listening tests the only thing we can do to compare?
Old 4th April 2017
  #452
Lives for gear
 
FabienTDR's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by jchan View Post
How can one even compare the master to the MQA? I tried with the hi res test files at 2L.no but Pro Tools 12.5.2 will not import any flac files, and probably haven't implemented native MQA decoding just yet..
Recode them to wav would be altering the original and I can't record the Tidal stream thru my ADI-2 Pro just to get the soft decode..that's another route of filtering added.

Is listening tests the only thing we can do to compare?
From wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability:

The concern with falsifiability gained attention by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper's scientific epistemology "falsificationism". Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience.
2
Share
Old 4th April 2017
  #453
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by FabienTDR View Post
From wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability:

The concern with falsifiability gained attention by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper's scientific epistemology "falsificationism". Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience.
Regardless of MQA.. It's for the first time at GS, when I noticed someone mentioned or cited Karl Popper.. Lot of inspirational thoughts come from him.

Michal
1
Share
Old 4th April 2017
  #454
qwe
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by FabienTDR View Post
From wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability:

The concern with falsifiability gained attention by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper's scientific epistemology "falsificationism". Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience.
Hmm, I'm having a hard time connecting this to the quote to which you responded. :-(
Old 4th April 2017
  #455
Lives for gear
 
FabienTDR's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by qwe View Post
Hmm, I'm having a hard time connecting this to the quote to which you responded. :-(
The MQA concept isn't reasonably falsifiable. It assumes the existence of an "original" only capturable with MQA's proprietary process (remember: PCM is, according to them, not sufficient). Sort of an invisible pink unicorn, or the countless gold-bars your took out my safe yesterday. Snake oil

The fact that it comes with it's own, proprietary AB function speaks volumes. It really is incapable of being reasonably compared against alternative formats, at least not if we take MQAs claims seriously ("better than PCM").
1
Share
Old 4th April 2017
  #456
Deleted 691ca21
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by qwe View Post
Attached is my mobile connection speed which I tested when out earlier today.

Why not just use FLAC @ 16/44.1kHz instead of MP"X"?
That's way slow for us!

Whoops, just saw the US average right down the bottom there in grey...
Attached Thumbnails
MQA-clipboard01.jpg  
1
Share
Old 4th April 2017
  #457
qwe
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by FabienTDR View Post
The MQA concept isn't reasonably falsifiable. It assumes the existence of an "original" only capturable with MQA's proprietary process (remember: PCM is, according to them, not sufficient). Sort of an invisible pink unicorn, or the countless gold-bars your took out my safe yesterday. Snake oil

The fact that it comes with it's own, proprietary AB function speaks volumes. It really is incapable of being reasonably compared against alternative formats, at least not if we take MQAs claims seriously ("better than PCM").
Oh, I agree with the snake oil stuff. But I don't see why, as long as we're comparing the same masters, that we cannot compare FLAC vs. MQA?
Old 4th April 2017
  #458
qwe
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermetech Mastering View Post
That's way slow for us!

Whoops, just saw the US average right down the bottom there in grey...
900Mbps?! I don't think that's representative of average connection speeds in France?! (See attached.)
Attached Thumbnails
MQA-akamai.jpg  
1
Share
Old 4th April 2017
  #459
Lives for gear
 
FabienTDR's Avatar
 

Verified Member
qwe, I don't see how, given MQA's secrets in the AD/DA process. One way would be to create an MQA from a PCM file, and recapture the whole playback via PCM. But MQA would then immediately raise the "it's already been restricted by PCM" joker.

The whole construct is made to protect itself against objective verification and falsification.
Old 4th April 2017
  #460
Deleted 691ca21
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by qwe View Post
900Mbps?! I don't think that's representative of average connection speeds in France?! (See attached.)
Nope, perhaps not, we're a showcase building for FREE, the whole apartment building is rigged for high speed fibre, and each individual apartment has it's own line, not shared.
Old 4th April 2017
  #461
qwe
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by FabienTDR View Post
I don't see how, given MQA's secrets in the AD/DA process.
Well I don't see how it can be done using existent MQA-encoded material. You'd need the encoder yourself to be able to ensure that you're actually comparing MQA vs. non-MQA.

Of course the whole exercise is pointless, as AFAIK all the only "improvement" MQA can claim is cancellation of A/D filter ringing at the D/A stage. And that makes no sense to me as realisable, other than if one had an old analogue master and therefore there's one A/D to get it over to digital.

BTW, the whole notion of "true to source" is the audiophile ideal which makes little sense in the context of recording practice. I mean this only works with a minimal acoustic recording setup, e.g. 2 mics, A/D conversion, D/A, amp, speakers. Basically, it's aimed at a market that doesn't understand the recording, mixing and mastering processes.

Whilst an accurate monitoring/playback system is highly desirable, optimal sound quality isn't the same as "true to source." Oh, and apparently synthesizers haven't been invented, either.


EDIT: Sorry, replied before seeing your updated post.
Old 4th April 2017
  #462
qwe
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by FabienTDR View Post
qwe, I don't see how, given MQA's secrets in the AD/DA process. One way would be to create an MQA from a PCM file, and recapture the whole playback via PCM. But MQA would then immediately raise the "it's already been restricted by PCM" joker.
Ah, I see what you mean. I thought the idea was that the MQA encoder has "knowledge" of the A/D converter (yes, the one A/D converter!) which is used to do the filter ringing cancellation rather than having to use an "MQA" A/D converter?
Old 4th April 2017
  #463
qwe
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deleted 691ca21 View Post
Nope, perhaps not, we're a showcase building for FREE, the whole apartment building is rigged for high speed fibre, and each individual apartment has it's own line, not shared.
Ah, lucky you! There are FTTP trial areas in the UK as well.

Unfortunately I'm a long way from the nearest cabinet so my FTTC connection maxes out at 40Mbps. :-( So my mobile connection is faster than my fixed line!
1
Share
Old 4th April 2017
  #464
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Verified Member
The bottom line is: how does it sound? If audiophiles consider it to be an improvement and are willing to pay premium prices for recordings, it will probably be well worth any added expense for some artists.
Old 4th April 2017
  #465
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
 

Verified Member
5 Reviews written
RE: US internet speed
I got 27.2 Mbps download speed here in Chicago on my phone. 66.5 Mbps at the office. This is considered a fast internet speed here. It should be able to supply a goodly amount of music data throughput.
1
Share
Old 4th April 2017
  #466
Lives for gear
 
Greg Reierson's Avatar
 

Verified Member
5 Reviews written
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
The bottom line is: how does it sound? If audiophiles consider it to be an improvement and are willing to pay premium prices for recordings, it will probably be well worth any added expense for some artists.
Like fancy power cords and crystals. If it make's 'em happy...
Old 4th April 2017
  #467
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
The bottom line is: how does it sound? If audiophiles consider it to be an improvement and are willing to pay premium prices for recordings, it will probably be well worth any added expense for some artists.
Valid point!

However, if audiophiles were to decide I think the loudness issue would be taken care of first, and then - as an afterthought - they'd consider MQA against conventional hires.

So even if you have a valid point, I don't think it's very plausible that audiophiles will get to decide anything that has to do with the quality of recorded music.

My point being that MQA is a distraction from harm being done to recorded music due to poor mastering habits.

I don't know if this qualifies as a rant or a valid post, though...
2
Share
Old 4th April 2017
  #468
qwe
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by svarthvitt View Post
I don't think it's very plausible that audiophiles will get to decide anything that has to do with the quality of recorded music.

My point being that MQA is a distraction from harm being done to recorded music due to poor mastering habits.
Also a distraction from the overall poor sound quality today which isn't a result of "poor mastering habits" alone. But like I said in a previous post, the audiophile "ideal" is get an acoustic session going and use a couple of microphones, minimal degradation, therefore maximum sound quality. Of course it doesn't work that way, otherwise even with great mic technique and all the rest this could be done with an out of tune knackered piano and the recording would be "perfect."

I know one audiophile who can't even grasp the difference between mixing and mastering, who is heavily into MQA, and has absolutely no treatment in a very reflective and "boomy" room. Try as I might, the fact that most of what you hear on typical recordings has nothing to do with the distribution medium doesn't really get through. I mean, a good sounding recording at 128kbps MP3 will sound better than a cr*p one with whatever magic powder MQA claims to bring to the table.

Very generous and pleasant person otherwise though!
4
Share
Old 5th April 2017
  #469
Gear Guru
 
lucey's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
The bottom line is: how does it sound? If audiophiles consider it to be an improvement and are willing to pay premium prices for recordings, it will probably be well worth any added expense for some artists.
MQA is, in all of my tests so far, brighter and thinner with more distortion, and a sense of excitement (remember Aphex?) and even volume from the artifacts. Sure many lay people will be fooled. I don't like to see pros fooled, but oh well, that's why I'm busy I suppose and they're posturing next to a new product so I'm free to tell the truth here.

If there is a market for MQA sure that's great, all good. Yet I don't think we should let Audiophiles (who are a small market in the first place) set definitions on good sound quality. They're not even remotely objective as they don't have the source files and do not know the intentions of the creative team. They're also easily fooled by all sorts of things, because they are essentially experiencing creativity, by tweaking the playback.

That's fine, and I love them for paying money for great systems, but it is what is is. A form of creativity and control.


The bottom line for me, this whole "bettering" the source file and "deblurring" malarkey has to be stopped. It's less data and a new filter ... not better or equal to the source files, that are not that much larger, and are easily downloaded by most people in the world with 2017 tech.

To say otherwise is either greed, a dreamers imagination or just bad A/B listening skill.
9
Share
Old 5th April 2017
  #470
qwe
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucey View Post
Yet I don't think we should let Audiophiles (who are a small market in the first place) set definitions on good sound quality. They're not even remotely objective as they don't have the source files and do not know the intentions of the creative team. They're also easily fooled by all sorts of things, because they are essentially creating music for their own satisfaction by tweaking the playback.
Which is true, and ironic since their stated intention is accurate playback.

The person I mentioned in my previous post says that "digital" has "timing errors" and vinyl does not. Apparently these are "corrected" by MQA.

Having said that, there are many "audiophiles" who have contributed valuable work, e.g. Dr. Floyd Toole's studies (which show listener preference for accurate loudspeakers), or the work (and recordings) of John Eargle, etc.

Or even Bob Stewart et al at Meridian, who after all licensed Meridian Lossless Packing (MLP) to Dolby (i.e. Dolby TrueHD.)

From Wikipedia (my emphasis):

"In 2007 a significant minority shareholding in the company was sold to the Muse Group, a consortium of the Swiss-based luxury goods group Richemont and U.S. film company New Regency. Muse is now a majority shareholder and is 100 percent owned by Reinet Investments, a sister company of Richemont."

And among various "designer brand" partnerships:

"Meridian and Alfred Dunhill partnered to develop the Alfred Dunhill AD88 Entertainment System."

Figures.

As for the spun-off MQA Ltd., from https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/c...ficant-control (my emphasis):

"1 active person with significant control / 0 active statements Reinet Investments S.C.A Luxembourg
"Nature of control Ownership of shares – 75% or more."
1
Share
Old 5th April 2017
  #471
Lives for gear
 

Both qwe and Lucey have used the term "Audiophiles" above in an attemp to decribe what they seem to feel is a homogenous group, big mistake.

Think again!
1
Share
Old 5th April 2017
  #472
qwe
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Audiop View Post
Both qwe and Lucey have used the term "Audiophiles" above in an attemp to decribe what they seem to feel is a homogenous group, big mistake.

Think again!
"Having said that, there are many "audiophiles" who have contributed valuable work, e.g. Dr. Floyd Toole's studies (which show listener preference for accurate loudspeakers), or the work (and recordings) of John Eargle, etc."

I could cite others such as Douglas Self.

Also that's why I quoted the stuff about Meridian's parent company etc.--basically to indicate that they're aiming at the luxury high disposable income sector who aren't really "audiophiles."

Think again. :-)

I started out as an audiophile in my early teens. I'd still call myself an audiophile really, in the sense of the uncompromising quest for the best possible sound quality, and accurate playback.

For me, it has come to mean a group of people whose stated intention is "accuracy to the source" whilst following pseudo-scientific or at best sub-optimal methods to achieve it, and who have little or no idea about the recording/production process. Maybe the term needs reclaiming. :-)

Perhaps you'd like to share your views on what the "inhomogeneous" groups that comprise "audiophiles" are?
3
Share
Old 5th April 2017
  #473
Deleted 691ca21
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by qwe View Post
For me, it has come to mean a group of people whose stated intention is "accuracy to the source" whilst following pseudo-scientific or at best sub-optimal methods to achieve it, and who have little or no idea about the recording/production process. Maybe the term needs reclaiming. :-)
That's what it means to me too, unfortunately. Spending even a small amount of time on one of the audiophile forums is an exercise in pure frustration for anyone schooled in audio engineering. Like the blind leading the blind, banging your head against a wall, etc.
2
Share
Old 5th April 2017
  #474
Gear Guru
 
lucey's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audiop View Post
Both qwe and Lucey have used the term "Audiophiles" above in an attemp to decribe what they seem to feel is a homogenous group, big mistake.

Think again!
WTF are you on about now? Try and make a contribution here.


• audio·phile - a person with love for, affinity towards or obsession with high-quality playback of sound and music.
Old 5th April 2017
  #475
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by qwe View Post
"Having said that, there are many "audiophiles" who have contributed valuable work, e.g. Dr. Floyd Toole's studies (which show listener preference for accurate loudspeakers), or the work (and recordings) of John Eargle, etc."

I could cite others such as Douglas Self.

Also that's why I quoted the stuff about Meridian's parent company etc.--basically to indicate that they're aiming at the luxury high disposable income sector who aren't really "audiophiles."

Think again. :-)

I started out as an audiophile in my early teens. I'd still call myself an audiophile really, in the sense of the uncompromising quest for the best possible sound quality, and accurate playback.

For me, it has come to mean a group of people whose stated intention is "accuracy to the source" whilst following pseudo-scientific or at best sub-optimal methods to achieve it, and who have little or no idea about the recording/production process. Maybe the term needs reclaiming. :-)

Perhaps you'd like to share your views on what the "inhomogeneous" groups that compromise "audiophiles" are?
Sorry, my bad, I had the earlier post from you in mind.

I see no groups at all among "audiophiles".

Some are purist, some just want maximum illusion etc. And that was just two examples, not necessarily two goups.. ;-)
1
Share
Old 5th April 2017
  #476
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucey View Post
WTF are you on about now? Try and make a contribution here.


• audio·phile - a person with love for, affinity towards or obsession with high-quality playback of sound and music.
While I more or less can subscribe to the definition above what you wrote below makes no sense.

Quote:
If there is a market for MQA sure that's great, all good. Yet I don't think we should let Audiophiles (who are a small market in the first place) set definitions on good sound quality. They're not even remotely objective as they don't have the source files and do not know the intentions of the creative team. They're also easily fooled by all sorts of things, because they are essentially experiencing creativity, by tweaking the playback.
Saying that an audiophile is not/can not be objective is nonsense as are the idea that an adiophile can not have access to a "source file". He/she may be part of the creative team or know them intimately. Also an audiophile is no more prone to be fooled than anyone else.

By those words you would be one of them (easily fooled audiophile) since you are creatively tweaking your playback to get you where you want to be with your rig in your room.
Old 5th April 2017
  #477
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
 

Verified Member
5 Reviews written
An audiophile is always prone to being fooled because they hang out with other audiophiles. Then they debunk the engineer's objection with the retort, "let's just talk about music."

I have to congratulate the Lucey for coming up with the notion and wording that the audiophile "experiences creativity by tweaking the playback."

Fantastic.

I started out as an audiophile and I learned what good, very high fidelity playback sounded like.
4
Share
Old 5th April 2017
  #478
Lives for gear
 

Hold your hats guys as this may come as a surprise..

..a person can be an audiophile and engineer at the same time.

There's nothing mutually exclusive about etiher of these terms.
Old 5th April 2017
  #479
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucey View Post
MQA is, in all of my tests so far, brighter and thinner with more distortion, and a sense of excitement (remember Aphex?) and even volume from the artifacts...
That's frankly a bit hard to believe considering the endorsements they've gotten.
Old 5th April 2017
  #480
qwe
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
I started out as an audiophile and I learned what good, very high fidelity playback sounded like.
As I said, I did, too, in my early teens. The first time I ever heard "very high fidelity playback" was at a THX-certified cinema. Which takes a rather different approach to the typical "audiophile" one.
Closed

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 3 views: 1672
Avatar for Matt Whritenour
Matt Whritenour 5th August 2008
replies: 879 views: 134914
Avatar for chrispire
chrispire 2 days ago
replies: 25 views: 4125
Avatar for sinisterbr
sinisterbr 21st July 2016
replies: 5 views: 2736
Avatar for Jargonfilter
Jargonfilter 14th July 2017
Topic:
🖨️ Show Printable Version
✉️ Email this Page
🔍 Search thread
🎙️ View mentioned gear
Forum Jump
Forum Jump