[britneedadvice]

Hi
I try very hard not to post too much on Head-fi due to the many negative comments that the site seems to generate.
However, there are many wise members who's views are diminished due to the volume of uninformed information.
If I can identify such members and I believe they have knowledge that would be useful to me , I ask.
I initially was going to answer the above by way of PM but have decided to post here.
 
I am an older man. I do not keep myself informed with the latest technology,gimmicks or otherwise.
As stated, I'm an ex Police Officer , so I'm a disbeliever of most things I hear until I can prove it for myself.
 
As far as MQA is concerned , you seem very sceptical ?
I assume you've auditioned it?
I made the point 'try it and see.'
 
You make the point regarding the  Salesman. So, you obviously have proved that the Salesman in question is unreliable. I have full faith in my HiFi Dealer.Yes, they may try and sell me say  'Stillpoints', so I audition them, then take them home and audition them against against say HRH. I then do 'blind' auditions with my wife. Sometimes I don't agree with them and so I tell them. They may argue that stillpoints are technically better than anything else.I don't care. I trust my own ears!
 
....and so, your latest PM interests me. "it's been done before" . Can you please send me details. I would like to have something to compare MQA with.Clearly , if there's something out there  which may even be cheaper, seems like a good idea to 'try it' ?? My sceptical mind tells me it's not possible to register a patent of something that's already been done??So, I assume Meridian are in for a legal fight?
 
I've already stated that for me , MQA still needs to prove itself. However, from what I've heard, the signs are good! That's all !!
I've questioned my Dealer about certain matters. When they receive their upgraded 818v3 they will bring it to my house(as they always do) and I can do my own auditions with no tricks attached!! I'll let you know.

 

[bigshot]

I've done direct A/B comparisons between 24/96 and 16/44.1 and AAC 256. They all sounded exactly the same. Audibly transparent is audibly transparent. Once a file format is capable of exactly reproducing a sound signal accurately enough that human ears can't hear any difference, then it can't be any better. It can only be just as good.
 
MQA doesn't claim to *improve* sound. It claims that it can stream sound that has bigger file sizes due to higher bitrates. If higher bitrates don't matter, then the whole concept is pointless. If it is accurate, it sounds the same. If it isn't accurate, I don't want it hard wired into a file format. If it alters the sound in an effort to improve the sound, I want it in an optional, adjustable, bypassable DSP.
 
However, it is interesting to see them prevaricate and slide around on the facts in their promotional material. While they are standing up front talking about how inaudible frequencies are audible, they are sneaking digital rights management in through the back door. I think that is the main purpose for this. Since high bitrate audio has always been primarily a thing for recording studios, there has been no purpose in locking it up with DRM. Now audiophiles are lusting after bigger and bigger numbers, so it's time to put a lock on that door I guess.
 
In the meantime, open source formats with MUCH more efficient file sizes and ones that are MUCH easier to stream that sound EXACTLY the same are already out there for those who listen with their ears, not numbers on a spec sheet.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Just as "sex sells," so do numbers.

se

 

[bigshot]

It's funny, because people keep saying, "Listen to it and make up your mind" but when you say, "I've already listened to AAC 256 which is audibly perfect,  smaller, more efficient to stream and open source"; then they turn around and start pointing at the numbers to convince you that you are missing something. If I can't hear it, I don't care. I don't need inaudible frequencies.

 

[sonitus mirus]

Any music used to showcase MQA is certain to sound wonderful.  With nothing to fairly compare it to in an unbiased manner, the listener is simply hearing a really good song.  It should sound exactly the same in any audibly transparent format played at an equal volume level on the same gear.
 
It's not the MQA file responsible for the sound quality, but that point is being missed by many that are raving about it.  

 

[ralphp@optonline]

  Any music used to showcase MQA is certain to sound wonderful.  With nothing to fairly compare it to in an unbiased manner, the listener is simply hearing a really good song.  It should sound exactly the same in any audibly transparent format played at an equal volume level on the same gear.
 
It's not the MQA file responsible for the sound quality, but that point is being missed by many that are raving about it.  

I disagree - the many who are raving about MQA include Meridian and lots of individuals from the high end audio press, both print and online, and they all know better but since there is money to made they gladly and very willingly play dumb.

 

[sonitus mirus]

 
I disagree - the many who are raving about MQA include Meridian and lots of individuals from the high end audio press, both print and online, and they all know better but since there is money to made they gladly and very willingly play dumb.

 
I suppose the point is being intentionally ignored, rather than missed.  
 
Perhaps "strategically ignored" is more appropriate? 

 

 

[ralphp@optonline]

   
I suppose the point is being intentionally ignored, rather than missed.  
 
Perhaps "strategically ignored" is more appropriate? 

 

I think "deliberately ignored" says it best.

 

[Greenears]

Any music used to showcase MQA is certain to sound wonderful.  With nothing to fairly compare it to in an unbiased manner, the listener is simply hearing a really good song.  It should sound exactly the same in any audibly transparent format played at an equal volume level on the same gear.

It's not the MQA file responsible for the sound quality, but that point is being missed by many that are raving about it.  

Just in case an innocent reader stumbles into this thread unsuspectingly.....

....They should know that there is an easy test for all of these claims. Simply take Meridien's choice of best example of their remastered audio, play it on their best equipment, then loop the analog out through a soundcard recording and play back at 16 bit. If you fail the ABX you have proved it is the mastering and not the format.

This test is easy to do and controls for all the unknowns argued at length herein. Until that has been done I for one will ignore this thread.

 

[bigshot]

That test isn't going to be performed as long as the fox is in the chicken coop so to speak. It's going to take a third party overseeing to filter out all the deliberate deceptions by the salesmen.

 

[FFBookman]

Wow, who can't hear 256k mp3 

  It doesn't matter whether it's redbook. I'd love to see someone discern AAC 256 VBR in a test with "HD" audio!

Joking right? Who can't hear 256k mp3 sounding like a paper box compared to 16/44 and especially 24bit if you are fortunate enough to own all those versions of the same thing. I don't usually have 3 versions of the same song.
 
Lots of ways to hide behind mastering sessions, volume, and other FUD. Of course 4000k stereo bitrate sounds better than 256k stereo bitrate.  Right?

 

[FFBookman]

  Any music used to showcase MQA is certain to sound wonderful.  With nothing to fairly compare it to in an unbiased manner, the listener is simply hearing a really good song.  It should sound exactly the same in any audibly transparent format played at an equal volume level on the same gear.
 
It's not the MQA file responsible for the sound quality, but that point is being missed by many that are raving about it.  

Seems to me that you are assuming the "audibly transparent format" part.  
 
MQA is claiming to focus specifically on timing issues, the very thing that in PCM @ 24bit has over 16bit. 24bit PCM has never been about the raw frequency response and "dog" frequencies, it's about accuracy of delays, slapbacks, timbre, and room sound. That is almost all timing. So I think MQA deserves a shot.
 
I haven't heard it, they don't invite me to high end anything. I know the PonoPlayer plays PCM pretty nicely at 16 and especially 24bit and doesn't require any new converters or copy-protection. But I pay for my music so the DRM fight is about other people for me.
 
I guess all I'm saying is they appear to be going back to the drawing board and looking at PCM, and then applying Frauhauffer principles in compressing at the encoding level, not the post-encoded level like mp3. That's why it can be rolled easily into a FLAC or Ogg or any container.
 
I think that's a noble mission, if they in fact managed to fix the timing issues in PCM and got rid of the lack of center and thinness of 16/44 PCM, and can do it at 320k instead of 1000k, that's not bad.
 
It can also all be a ploy for new DRM by the labels. Time will tell.

 

[DreamKing]

  Wow, who can't hear 256k mp3 

Joking right? Who can't hear 256k mp3 sounding like a paper box compared to 16/44 and especially 24bit if you are fortunate enough to own all those versions of the same thing. I don't usually have 3 versions of the same song.
 
Lots of ways to hide behind mastering sessions, volume, and other FUD. Of course 4000k stereo bitrate sounds better than 256k stereo bitrate.  Right?

 
Yes, because 256k is not provided in 16 bits, nor 44khz...
 

 

[FFBookman]

   
Yes, because 256k is not provided in 16 bits, nor 44khz...
 

Huh?  I don't think you understand loss.  I was using shorthand for mp3 lossy or 16/44 PCM.  You can say "mp3 is 16/44" all you want but it's not because it's lossy. 
 
Data Removal. Lack of Bandwidth. Simple really.  
 
People who claim they can't hear any differences between lossy and originals are the problem. There is so clearly a difference that their must be something else in your equation to get you to the conclusion that there is no difference between 256k and 1000k and 4000k/ second. 

 

[DreamKing]

 
Huh?  I don't think you understand loss.  I was using shorthand for mp3 lossy or 16/44 PCM.  You can say "mp3 is 16/44" all you want but it's not because it's lossy. 
 
Data Removal. Lack of Bandwidth. Simple really.  
 
People who claim they can't hear any differences between lossy and originals are the problem. There is so clearly a difference that their must be something else in your equation to get you to the conclusion that there is no difference between 256k and 1000k and 4000k/ second. 

 
It's still in 44khz sampling rate, bits aren't going to be 16 though you're right.
 
But how is that a problem, anyway? It's not as if ALL we have as an option is 256k, why do you have to act like it.
 
Do a relevant A/B test then we can talk until then: