1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

    Dismiss Notice

MQA: Revolutionary British streaming technology

Discussion in 'Sound Science' started by bigshot, Dec 8, 2014.
107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116
118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125
  1. bigshot
    Almost years after the announcement of their launch and they're still stalling? Amazing.
  2. gregorio
    At the risk of providing more treacle, that depends on what you mean by cumulative but I don't agree that improving part of the chain is probably a good thing, it's just as likely to be a bad thing. Let's really simplify it and just use arbitrary numbers. Let's say perfect is zero and the anti-alias filter in a particular ADC equals +1, the reconstruction filter in a particular DAC equals +2, MQA knows that ADC and DAC and therefore applies -3 and we're back at zero/perfect. Massively simplified, this is essentially what MQA are claiming to do and on the face of it, it sounds like a great idea but it's missing what actually happens in practice. Typically numerous anti-alias filters have been applied in any given master. Not only in the recording ADC but in many of the audio processors used in mixing and mastering, some of which over-sample process and down-sample again or occasionally do the reverse. There may be dozens of anti-alias filters applied in a given mix and the interaction is not cumulative the way you are suggesting, using my simplified analogy, some/many of the filters may effectively be producing a negative cumulative effect. A particular oversampling compressor might cause say a -3 effect and be used say 5 times, so the total figure above of +3 could actually be -12 and then along comes MQA, corrects that by -3 and now the error is -15, even further from the perfect zero, it's made matter worse, not better. The effect of multiple anti-alias filters and other processors which affect timing being applied at the different stages of recording, mixing and mastering are unpredictable and therefore applying the correction stated by MQA is just as likely to be worse than better. That's not so much of a problem though because "on the face of it" is all that's required, audiophiles make a lot of fuss over reconstruction filters while apparently being completely ignorant of how insignificant that is compared to everything else which actually happens in the production of the music.

  3. bigshot
  4. old tech
  5. bigshot
  6. jagwap
    Well I have to say I am not surprised.

    I welcome any advance in audio, but this does look like it is the significant jump we were promised.

    I'll leave it to others to bang on that this is only MQA core and the full version is better.
  7. bigshot
  8. Strangelove424
    I don’t see a statistically valid conclusion one way or another, the results appear more or less random. I thought it was kind of interesting that young people and people with high end systems, two groups I imagine would be able to hear the details best, both preferred PCM. But not to any statistically meaningful degree.

    The lack of MQA software encoders on the market right now makes me hesitant. If everybody is relying on MQA for test files it's not really a controlled test.
  9. castleofargh Contributor
    This test is only trying to show that the part of MQA he tried to copy doesn't offer much of an audible impact. Which if not conclusive or properly controlled, was at least expected.
    Now would other manipulations in a typical MQA album, result in audible differences? And if yes, are they really consistently preferred like marketing wants us to believe? This test doesn't say. And probably no test will as MQA people are right now the only ones who could help to set up a proper test, and they have no interest in actually offering a fair opportunity for comparison. Because we know there would be none or at best critically small ones that might not be an improvement. MQA will benefit much more from people going crazy over what are simply different masters. You know, the "happy" misunderstanding encouraged by all formats.
    gregorio likes this.
  10. bigshot
    That hasn't done much for SACDs and blu-ray audio.
  11. DrSeven
    You guys saved me do much money thanks a ton bigshot and Gregorio
  12. Sterling2
    My OPPO UDP-205's firmware just updated, adding MQA. What does that mean to me?
  13. Glmoneydawg
    The problem with digital is it has sins of omission...analog has sins of distortion.Distortion is easy ish to hear,omission takes a while...i feel like you have already picked your poison my friend.I am sure i will get flamed for this,but its all in good fun right?
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2018
  14. bigshot
    I learned a valuable lesson when I was a teenager... What my mom didn't know couldn't get me in trouble. That realization helped me make the transition from being a kid to being a man and making decisions for myself. In audio the realization that it was a waste to spend money to preserve sound that I couldn't hear was another epiphany for me.

    I focus on improving sound I can hear. I don't lay in bed worrying that I might be missing out on sound that I can't hear in a direct A/B line level matched comparison.
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2018
    Sterling2 likes this.
  15. Strangelove424
    I'd really appreciate it if someone could create a separate thread for all generic analog vs digital gaseous releasing so that every other thread won't be stinked up about by people launching completely unspecified ad hominem attacks questioning the prevailing rational movement since the Renaissance, and the very reason this sub forum exists.

    In order to elicit as much caricature and exaggerated rhetoric as possible, please name the thread "Dark Ages vs Tron" and move all general scientific nay saying, flat world hypothesizing, and blind attacks to this thread.
107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116
118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125

Share This Page