[icebear]

   
MQA will not take over the world, nor will it become a new standard.
 
It's trying to solve a problem that doesn't need to be solved in 2017 -- I can get full lossless streaming on my cell phone. why do I need a partially lossy encoder?

1. that
2. they want the consumer to buy their favorite music in yet another new format
3. they want the consumer to buy new equipment to be capable of the proprietary decoding (de-origami)
4. it's DOA, even more than the SACD

 
I guess that makes me one of the nay sayers

 

[jagwap]

1. that
2. they want the consumer to buy their favorite music in yet another new format
3. they want the consumer to buy new equipment to be capable of the proprietary decoding (de-origami)
4. it's DOA, even more than the SACD


I guess that makes me one of the nay sayers

Yup.

The horseless carriage will never catch on. Bah humbug.

 

[icebear]

There is more than this new horseless carriage already around that are doing a very fine job.
It's obviously not the one and only "first ever" horseless carriage even though it comes with patents filed galore.

 

[HipHopScribe]

Yup.

The horseless carriage will never catch on. Bah humbug.

 
Except in this case the horseless carriage already exists, and has been working fine, but now you're trying to make rotary engines happen, when pretty much everyone is fine with their V8s, V6s and inline-fours. Now, the rotary engine might have a couple advantages, it might have its useful applications, but well, how many people do you see driving around in horseless carriages with rotary engines? I live down the street from one guy with an RX-8, but that's pretty much it. 

 

[watchnerd]

Yup.

The horseless carriage will never catch on. Bah humbug.

 
MQA is not a technological improvement.
 
Is it higher SQ than lossless? No.

 

[jagwap]

MQA is not a technological improvement.

Is it higher SQ than lossless? No.

Says you.

However it is clearly stated that time domain is better separated in MQA than 192kHz 24 bit.

Whether that is important remains to be seen, as this thread and forum in general does not recognise the papers published on the matter.

However it is a technological improvement.

 

[watchnerd]

Says you.

However it is clearly stated that time domain is better separated in MQA than 192kHz 24 bit.

Whether that is important remains to be seen, as this thread and forum in general does not recognise the papers published on the matter.

However it is a technological improvement.

 
Yes, says me -- it's partially lossy.
 
That is not better than lossless.

 

[jagwap]

Yes, says me -- it's partially lossy.

That is not better than lossless.

I get where you're coming from, but it losslessly encoding everything within an amplitude envelope to 96kHz. That envelope is reduced in level as frequency increases based on some assumptions, but as long as you don't want to reproduce 28kHz at > -6dBFS (my estimation) then you're as good (or better if you take onboard the rest of the system) as 96kHz. I think this is a reasonable assumption for now.

MQA assumes that > 96kHz is useful mostly for timing, so does that differently. You are entitled to disagree. However I have yet to see a decent hypothesis as to why 192kHz helps otherwise, so I am staying open minded and encoraged that anyone is putting in decent work in this area.

I want lossless. I also want progress as audio isn't perfect yet.

 

[castleofargh]

 

MQA is not a technological improvement.

Is it higher SQ than lossless? No.

Says you.

However it is clearly stated that time domain is better separated in MQA than 192kHz 24 bit.

Whether that is important remains to be seen, as this thread and forum in general does not recognise the papers published on the matter.

However it is a technological improvement.

 
they make use of some bit depth data(so MQA has higher noise level) to play with the time domain. as we're dealing with sine waves, both axis are linked and it's not magic. it's done in reverse all the time to improve the noise floor with noise shaping where you basically move the noise into the ultrasound and then filter those frequencies to get rid of them. 
  they can move stuff around as much as they like, I don't mind when none of this is likely to be audible on its own, but it's not superior to anything and it's not an improvement. the engineers didn't just become pregnant with extra data while converting the PCM album to MQA.

 

[icebear]

Says you.

However it is clearly stated that time domain is better separated in MQA than 192kHz 24 bit.

Whether that is important remains to be seen, as this thread and forum in general does not recognise the papers published on the matter.

However it is a technological improvement.

Although I was sceptical from the start on this"innovation" I tried to dig deeper and a lot of "published papers" are not in the public domain. I.e. you have to pay to read them. If I do invest my time to read to get a better understanding that is enough investment from my side towards anyone who has only one goal ... to get my money anyway.
 

I get where you're coming from, but it losslessly encoding everything within an amplitude envelope to 96kHz. That envelope is reduced in level as frequency increases based on some assumptions, but as long as you don't want to reproduce 28kHz at > -6dBFS (my estimation) then you're as good (or better if you take onboard the rest of the system) as 96kHz. I think this is a reasonable assumption for now.

MQA assumes that > 96kHz is useful mostly for timing, so does that differently. You are entitled to disagree. However I have yet to see a decent hypothesis as to why 192kHz helps otherwise, so I am staying open minded and encoraged that anyone is putting in decent work in this area.

I want lossless. I also want progress as audio isn't perfect yet.

 
The upper frequency limit important for timing? Listen to some JVC redbook XRCD's. Read about meticulous taking care of synchronizing ever step of the production chain. There is audible proof of what the lowly

RB specs with only 22khz upper limit is capable of. All the 96/192/384kHz or quad DSD at 4...MHz good for timing? If 96kHz supposedly is better than 22kHz then why isn't 192kHz even better than 96kHz? Just because of their file size handling limitations, I guess. Give my a break.

 
You can screw up timing along the way many times, starting at mic selection, mic positioning, multi miking and multi track recordings and that has a much more significant impact than the storage format. All the enveloping / origami idea and defolding the data on the fly when decoding? Very hard to believe that this improves timing.

 
Audio (or any form of reproduction) will never attain perfection.
The level of quality available today of sound or image quality is certainly good enough to be thoroughly enjoyable.
Progress consequently is very difficult to achieve when you are already so close that any improvement can not be significant (or obvious to the consumer wallet).

 

[icebear]

   
they make use of some bit depth data(so MQA has higher noise level) to play with the time domain. as we're dealing with sine waves, both axis are linked and it's not magic. it's done in reverse all the time to improve the noise floor with noise shaping where you basically move the noise into the ultrasound and then filter those frequencies to get rid of them. 
  they can move stuff around as much as they like, I don't mind when none of this is likely to be audible on its own, but it's not superior to anything and it's not an improvement. the engineers didn't just become pregnant with extra data while converting the PCM album to MQA.

ROFL

 

[jagwap]

  Although I was sceptical from the start on this"innovation" I tried to dig deeper and a lot of "published papers" are not in the public domain. I.e. you have to pay to read them. If I do invest my time to read to get a better understanding that is enough investment from my side towards anyone who has only one goal ... to get my money anyway.
 
 
The upper frequency limit important for timing? Listen to some JVC redbook XRCD's. Read about meticulous taking care of synchronizing ever step of the production chain. There is audible proof of what the lowly

RB specs with only 22khz upper limit is capable of. All the 96/192/384kHz or quad DSD at 4...MHz good for timing? If 96kHz supposedly is better than 22kHz then why isn't 192kHz even better than 96kHz? Just because of their file size handling limitations, I guess. Give my a break.

 
You can screw up timing along the way many times, starting at mic selection, mic positioning, multi miking and multi track recordings and that has a much more significant impact than the storage format. All the enveloping / origami idea and defolding the data on the fly when decoding? Very hard to believe that this improves timing.

 
Audio (or any form of reproduction) will never attain perfection.
The level of quality available today of sound or image quality is certainly good enough to be thoroughly enjoyable.
Progress consequently is very difficult to achieve when you are already so close that any improvement can not be significant (or obvious to the consumer wallet).

I have some of those papers.  I'd love to share, but I promised I wouldn't, as they are watermarked back to the owner.
 
I agree timing can be screwed up easily.  AC coupling the signal, or poor bass port tuning is the easiest.  Luckily PCM is DC coupled (unlike mp3! Explains a few things), and interestingly so is most Meridian kit.  And I'm not talking DC servos either.  The time domain is vastly overlooked.  Linkwitz-Riley crossovers and EQ do horrible things to the waveform.
 
You are right, that CD can resolve timing well if properly dithered and looked after.  (96kHz is better than 44.1kHz, and yes 192kHz is better than 96kHz). Have a look at the Stereophile article of Bob Stuart answering questions.  It is the resolving ability between transients MA can beat 192kHz.  He has listened to all these points and answered them. http://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-questions-and-answers#ovlywfEKoio6uJMx.97
 
Is it audible?  Some say yes, some say no.  But I prefer to listen to those who heard it, than those who have made their mind up before even trying.
 
Thank you for a considered discussion, rather than the "la-la-la fingers in my ears, it sounds the same with my fingers in my ears" that happens here too much.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

.

 

[castleofargh]

well let's not start a contest about who's got the biggest.. ear.
but I do agree that looking for what makes a clearly audible difference, instead of stretching out the small stuff until it looks important, seems like the right thing to do. and solving the "problems" of a format(PCM) that people still fail to identify in blind test against other formats to this day, well it doesn't feel like a priority. 
 
if MQA becomes big, so be it, I'm fine with a gazillion formats as long as I can pick an album in the one I want for less than 30$. but if they start making masters only for MQA the same way they do with DSD just to force people to buy compatible devices, then I'm gonna be pissed off.

 

[icebear]

...  
Is it audible?  Some say yes, some say no.  But I prefer to listen to those who heard it, than those who have made their mind up before even trying.
Thank you for a considered discussion, rather than the "la-la-la fingers in my ears, it sounds the same with my fingers in my ears" that happens here too much.

I prefer to listen to it myself, not to 2nd hand impressions of people who I don't know.
I have heard the HE-1000 when it was hyped and I also had a session with the Orpheus II and both did not impress me as much as all the chatter might make me expect. I have not heard MQA and won't make an effort to do so. I bought a new DAC maybe 4 years ago that also handles DSD (just to be future proof I thought...), how many DSD files do I have today? ... about two, if I am not mistaken, somewhere on a laptop. Paying 4x as much for a DSD download file than a red book CD or even SACD version? Not from my wallet.

 
Enjoyment of music is about the content and artistic delivery first, second about the way it has been captured. This makes about 90% in my book. And then maybe 8% is about the engineer working within the limitations of the recording medium to get the best of it and maybe 2% is about the format itself. Just a rough guess of course and YMMV.