MQA is Vaporware

[Brinkman Ship]

1 minute ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

They really are promoting it, aren't they.

So, John Atkinson has access to an MQA encoder ? (i assume the same JA).

Regards,

Shadders.

???? There was extensive discussion about the fact that John  Atkinson, along with Peter McGrath, are one of few, if only ones, who had their recordings encoded by Bob Stuart. And all microphone, ADC, etc information was supplied, and in fact, it seems that Atkinson even supplied the multi-tracks..he has never posted a samples for comparison..with out and without encoding citing nonsense copyright issues.

[Shadders]

2 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

???? There was extensive discussion about the fact that John  Atkinson, along with Peter McGrath, are one of few, if only ones, who had their recordings encoded by Bob Stuart. And all microphone, ADC, etc information was supplied, and in fact, it seems that Atkinson even supplied the multi-tracks..he has never posted a samples for comparison..with out and without encoding citing nonsense copyright issues.

Hi,

I did not take notice of the discussion on the associations people have with MQA people. From the UK perspective, it is only Stereophile who is championing MQA.

 

When i read Hifi News - the High Resolution digital download section never reviews MQA downloads - i think the management team there know MQA is a bad product, and the stated early claims it resolved digital audio issues, and was the next holy grail, are seen as a sham. I have recordings on CD which sound fantastic - and the difference in high resolution (blu ray Pure Audio) is absolutely minimal. A well produced CD is all we really need.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Brinkman Ship]

Just now, Shadders said:

Hi,

I did not take notice of the discussion on the associations people have with MQA people. From the UK perspective, it is only Stereophile who is championing MQA.

 

When i read Hifi News - the High Resolution digital download section never reviews MQA downloads - i think the management team there know MQA is a bad product, and the stated early claims it resolved digital audio issues, and was the next holy grail, are seen as a sham. I have recordings on CD which sound fantastic - and the difference in high resolution (blu ray Pure Audio) is absolutely minimal. A well produced CD is all we really need.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

Noted..in fact, it is ironic, that in the UK, Paul MIller was the first to measure and publish data that showed MQA was lossy and produced aliasing.

 

It takes some set of stones to use "white gloved" files as "proof" that MQA is superior and offer no comparison of the same files without encoding. Maybe the word is Chutzpah.

[Rt66indierock]

55 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Noted..in fact, it is ironic, that in the UK, Paul MIller was the first to measure and publish data that showed MQA was lossy and produced aliasing.

 

It takes some set of stones to use "white gloved" files as "proof" that MQA is superior and offer no comparison of the same files without encoding. Maybe the word is Chutzpah.

 

Not if you are in Stereophile's case the marketing arm of MQA.

[Brinkman Ship]

1 hour ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Not if you are in Stereophile's case the marketing arm of MQA.

A quick scan of this article I and counted 10-12 mentions of MQA..quite stunning for a "format" only available on one streaming service, and considering the tiny number of MQA albums available. I wondered yet again, if this was a review of MQA, or the streamer.

[Rt66indierock]

6 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

A quick scan of this article I and counted 10-12 mentions of MQA..quite stunning for a "format" only available on one streaming service, and considering the tiny number of MQA albums available. I wondered yet again, if this was a review of MQA, or the streamer.

 

Jason is going to mention MQA as often as possible. Why is anybodies guess.

[Brinkman Ship]

1 minute ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Jason is going to mention MQA as often as possible. Why is anybodies guess.

Indeed. But I still say the most disgraceful and pathetic MQA shill was Fremer's Brinkmann DAC review.

[mansr]

2 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

Jason is going to mention MQA as often as possible. Why is anybodies guess.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_placement

[mcgillroy]

On 8/13/2018 at 10:37 PM, Indydan said:

A recent interview by MQA Chief executive Jbara. He claims MQA is the high resolution quality, to better current streaming quality. He also claims it's what's best for the consumer! 

 

http://musically.com/2018/07/24/mqa-mike-jbara-hi-res-music/

 

That interview is a job-interview. Every paragraph tells the reader that this guy wants to be hired away. Every paragraph emphasises that high-rez turned out to be a no-sell but that along the way they might have developed some ideas how to make the listening experience richer 

 

Perhaps someone bites and Mr. Jarba soon enriches somebody elses board.

[mansr]

58 minutes ago, mcgillroy said:

Perhaps someone bites and Mr. Jarba soon enriches somebody elses board.

The name sounds like a combination of Jabba and Jar-Jar.

[rickca]

Maybe TIDAL and MQA can merge and get an executive from Sears to mismanage the whole thing into the abyss.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Ha!

 

on second thought, an executive from Sears is sufficient but not necessary for your outcome. 

[skikirkwood]

On 8/30/2018 at 1:46 PM, Brinkman Ship said:

Indeed. But I still say the most disgraceful and pathetic MQA shill was Fremer's Brinkmann DAC review.

 

I just read Fremer's review for the first time.  Wow.  What a clown.  And an arrogant one at that.

[Shadders]

Hi @mansr,

Cannot recall, so not sure about this - but for the MQA filter coefficients, are the x8 coefficients used for a sample rate of 176.4kHz/192kHz, x4 for 88.2kHz/96kHz, and x2 for 44.1kHz/48kHz ???

 

Or are these set to 384kHz, 192kHz and 96kHz for x8, x4 and x2 respectively ?

 

Thanks an regards,

Shadders

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Cannot recall, so not sure about this - but for the MQA filter coefficients, are the x8 coefficients used for a sample rate of 176.4kHz/192kHz, x4 for 88.2kHz/96kHz, and x2 for 44.1kHz/48kHz ???

The "core" decoder outputs 88.2/96 kHz. It is then up to the DAC whether to upsample this 2x, 4x, 8x, or 16x. For a given DAC, this is a fixed setting. All MQA content is upsampled to the same rate regardless of what original sample rate the metadata indicates (and is displayed). If the original rate was higher than 96 kHz, one of the 16 predefined filters is used in accordance with the metadata. For original rates of 96 kHz or lower, a different filter is used.

[Shadders]

7 minutes ago, mansr said:

The "core" decoder outputs 88.2/96 kHz. It is then up to the DAC whether to upsample this 2x, 4x, 8x, or 16x. For a given DAC, this is a fixed setting. All MQA content is upsampled to the same rate regardless of what original sample rate the metadata indicates (and is displayed). If the original rate was higher than 96 kHz, one of the 16 predefined filters is used in accordance with the metadata. For original rates of 96 kHz or lower, a different filter is used.

Hi,

OK - but still not sure.

Assume MQA datastream - 1st unfold is 88.2kHz ??? (example) with the extra data added, so is x2 used here ?. If not, then what is the filter used ?

 

If not an MQA datastream - does MQA then upsample from 44.1kHz to 88.2kHz, and adds zeros between the CD samples and uses filter x2 batch ?

 

For MQA datastream, for upsample to 176.4kHz, MQA has no data for the extra, so inserts zeros ?, and if so, is it data, zero, data, zero... for the upsample ? and then uses x4 filter batch ?

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[mansr]

4 hours ago, Shadders said:

OK - but still not sure.

Assume MQA datastream - 1st unfold is 88.2kHz ??? (example) with the extra data added, so is x2 used here ?. If not, then what is the filter used ?

The core decoder, the so-called 1st unfold, uses compressed data from the low 8 bits to fill in the frequencies up to 44.1/48 kHz resulting in a sample rate of 88.2/96 kHz. The filters we're discussing are not used at this stage.

 

4 hours ago, Shadders said:

If not an MQA datastream - does MQA then upsample from 44.1kHz to 88.2kHz, and adds zeros between the CD samples and uses filter x2 batch ?

It is up to the DAC how non-MQA data is handled. Some upsample to some higher rate using an MQA-provided filter, some do not.

 

4 hours ago, Shadders said:

For MQA datastream, for upsample to 176.4kHz, MQA has no data for the extra, so inserts zeros ?, and if so, is it data, zero, data, zero... for the upsample ? and then uses x4 filter batch ?

The renderer, or 2nd unfold, simply upsamples the 88.2/96 kHz core decoder output to the internal rate used by the DAC, typically the highest input rate supported by the DAC chip. If this is 176.4/192 kHz, the x2 filter used. If it is 352.8/384 kHz, the x4 filter, and so on. This is unrelated to the displayed rate, which is simply copied from the metadata, even if it is higher than the DAC chip supports. In other words, the displayed rate is a lie.

[Shadders]

32 minutes ago, mansr said:

The core decoder, the so-called 1st unfold, uses compressed data from the low 8 bits to fill in the frequencies up to 44.1/48 kHz resulting in a sample rate of 88.2/96 kHz. The filters we're discussing are not used at this stage.

 

It is up to the DAC how non-MQA data is handled. Some upsample to some higher rate using an MQA-provided filter, some do not.

 

The renderer, or 2nd unfold, simply upsamples the 88.2/96 kHz core decoder output to the internal rate used by the DAC, typically the highest input rate supported by the DAC chip. If this is 176.4/192 kHz, the x2 filter used. If it is 352.8/384 kHz, the x4 filter, and so on. This is unrelated to the displayed rate, which is simply copied from the metadata, even if it is higher than the DAC chip supports. In other words, the displayed rate is a lie.

Hi,

Thanks.

So, if i apply the x2 filters to the 192kHz Octave calculations, i can then see effect of the MQA filters on the band limited pulse.

 

As an aside - the PCM5252 latest TI DAC seems to offer linear and minimum phase filters with a stop band of -60dB. The IC has a mini DSP, so the units flexibility means it could offer some processing as the designer sees fit.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[asdf1000]

On 5/2/2018 at 10:42 AM, Dr Tone said:

 

Please don’t be Apple or Spotify and we’ll be alright.

 

This guy says he's heard whispers it's Apple:

 

https://forum.psaudio.com/t/will-spotify-ever-stream-hi-rez/6255/49

 

@The Computer Audiophile the same whispers you heard?

[The Computer Audiophile]

20 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

 

This guy says he's heard whispers it's Apple:

 

https://forum.psaudio.com/t/will-spotify-ever-stream-hi-rez/6255/49

 

@The Computer Audiophile the same whispers you heard?

No. 

[Patrick Cleasby]

What do you know Chris?

 

[Rt66indierock]

9 hours ago, Em2016 said:

 

This guy says he's heard whispers it's Apple:

 

https://forum.psaudio.com/t/will-spotify-ever-stream-hi-rez/6255/49

 

@The Computer Audiophile the same whispers you heard?

 

The MQA people have been whispering about Apple for a while. But MQA won't help Apple gain market share so what's the point?

[HalSF]

With maximum skepticism, I can barely maybe imagine Apple *acquiring* MQA if they thought the engineering and SQ were legit, and were willing to demonstrate why. 

 

What I seriously can't imagine is Apple embracing MQA licensing, thus siccing the entire rabid global horde of the Apple tech press on the so-far obscure toxic scandal vibe surrounding MQA, blowing it up into a major controversy about audiophile snake oil and yes, vaporware. 

[labjr]

With any luck Apple will buy MQA and it will be mothballed like HDCD was shortly after it was acquired by Microsoft? Although it doesn't seem likely.

[mansr]

10000

 

This is no longer a vapourthread.