MQA is Vaporware

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

For all the reasons endlessly discussed - consistency of input for DAC architecture, design, and measurement.  For DSP, for consumer verifiability, manipulation, and reversibility, for industry innovation, for just about everything important in the digital musical ecosystem!!

 

This was your answer to my question of "why it matters to the consumer if something is lossy from a sample rate conversion or a compression algorithm."

 

Come on.

[The Computer Audiophile]

23 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

Chris, a convincing case for MQA has not been made.

 

I don't disagree.

[mansr]

3 minutes ago, Jud said:

You will want to pay attention to what I am saying.  Once again, I repeat that MQA uses lossy compression.  This is the precise mathematical definition, and exactly the *opposite of* the one Bob/Meridian/MQA are using when they say they are using lossless compression in the sense of "audibly lossless."  This is touchy-feely stuff and not the precise mathematical definition.  Any disagreement?

I don't disagree with that. What Bob calls "lossless," everybody else in the industry has always called "psychoacoustically transparent."

 

Now your agreeing that MQA is lossy does not explain why you're trying to expand the definition of "lossy" to include pretty much everything.

[Jud]

4 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

 

Ok, so you have forgiven his sin of attempting to pull a fast one and then reversing course, and modifying or "clarifying" what he meant...the damage is done however and consumers are "confused" which was no doubt his intention because he is an "audio savant" and knew perfectly well what he was doing...

 

Whatever are you talking about?  What have I forgiven?

 

My discussions with regard to MQA and the term "lossy" have been consistent.  My subjective feelings about what the MQA process does to music have also been consistent.  (I've written here several times that I subjectively feel MQA files sound a little less good to me than their non-MQA 44.1 or hi res counterparts.)

 

So who exactly are you talking to, me or some construct you have in your mind of someone who supports MQA (which I don't)?

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

I don't disagree with that. What Bob calls "lossless," everybody else in the industry has always called "psychoacoustically transparent."

 

Now your agreeing that MQA is lossy does not explain why you're trying to expand the definition of "lossy" to include pretty much everything.

 

Wow, we agree on something (your first two sentences.)

 

To the consumer it doesn't matter how something is lost. It's the fact that something is lost that matters. If you want to split hairs and say sample rate conversion that chops off frequencies and bits isn't lossy, but compression that removes more frequencies and other items less readily audible is lossy, I guess you're entitled to do so.

[smartin]

Why do people care if a process is lossy (strictly definitionionally) if it is audibly transparent?  I think there is intellectual dishonesty on both sides.  As a consumer, I usually see lossy used derogatively, i.e. I prefer Tidal because it's not lossy like Spotify.  While it's possible a person saying that is objecting to the mathematically superior reproduction of Redbook over MP3, I suspect that sentence is more commonly used to convey an opinion about the sound quality.

 

Yes, MQA is mathematically lossy, but why does that matter at all in and of itself.  There is nothing inherently wrong with that.  The only aspect of 'lossy' that should matter (IMHO, and perhaps I am missing something) is how it effects sound quality.

 

I suspect people that say for example 'we don't need a lossy, DRM loaded, compression scheme' as part of a critique of MQA, use the word lossy fully knowing that for many people the 'lossy' part will be evaluated as an adjective describing its sound characteristics, and not purely as a statement of mathematical precision, devoid of subjective value.

 

In any event, I think this part of the discussion of MQA is pointless.  It's literally just arguing semantics.

[Jud]

26 minutes ago, mansr said:

The terms can certainly be applied without confusion to any mathematical transformation. However, they make little sense in the context of an operation that is by definition irreversible (e.g. bandwidth reduction).

 

 

24 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Would bandwidth reduction using a closed form filter be impossible?  If not, would it be reversible?

 

21 minutes ago, mansr said:

I don't disagree with that. What Bob calls "lossless," everybody else in the industry has always called "psychoacoustically transparent."

 

Now your agreeing that MQA is lossy does not explain why you're trying to expand the definition of "lossy" to include pretty much everything.

 

Not "pretty much everything," only, as you agree above, mathematical transformations to which the terms "lossy" and "lossless" can be applied without confusion and sensibly (in which regard I anticipate your answers regarding bandwidth reduction via closed form filtering - if it is possible and indeed reversible I'll continue to use the terms; if not, I won't, though I will continue to use them in the context of interpolation, where conversions using closed form filters are indeed reversible, with other filters not reversible).

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, Jud said:

Would bandwidth reduction using a closed form filter be impossible?  If not, would it be reversible?

Bandwidth reduction means cutting off the high-frequency content. Once that has been done, it is gone forever no matter what kind of filter was used. It can no more be restored than can colour to a black-and-white photograph.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, smartin said:

Yes, MQA is mathematically lossy, but why does that matter at all in and of itself.  There is nothing inherently wrong with that.  The only aspect of 'lossy' that should matter (IMHO, and perhaps I am missing something) is how it effects sound quality.

 

I totally agree. Everything is lossy compared the original performance. What matters is how much loss people find acceptable.

[Jud]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

Bandwidth reduction means cutting off the high-frequency content. Once that has been done, it is gone forever no matter what kind of filter was used. It can no more be restored than can colour to a black-and-white photograph.

 

Then I'll restrict my use of the terms to interpolation.

[Sal1950]

1 hour ago, crenca said:

No doubt true - but there customers will continue reading...  (even if just a handful).

+1

The hope can only be that others, whether regular members or google search directed, will end up here and have an opportunity to learn " the rest of the story".  One not being perpetuated by those with $ in the game.

 

44 minutes ago, Jud said:

But in any case, before we went off on this tangent about definitions, I was saying MQA's use of lossy compression was unnecessary.  Do you think it audibly degrades quality?

 

Aren't you one of the "everything matters" crowd here.

[Jud]

Just now, Sal1950 said:

Aren't you one of the "everything matters" crowd here.

 

And in fact my subjective feeling, if you read a few comments above this (or elsewhere on the forum where I've said it several times), is that MQA files don't sound as good to me as their non-MQA counterparts.  (This is aside from cases where the masters are different.  Better masters are better sounding to me, regardless of whether or not they're MQA.)  But I was asking mansr. 

[Sal1950]

8 minutes ago, Jud said:

But I was asking mansr.

And I was winking.

 

[Jud]

Just now, Sal1950 said:

And I was winking.

 

 

And I was smiling. 

[crenca]

28 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

This was your answer to my question of "why it matters to the consumer if something is lossy from a sample rate conversion or a compression algorithm."

 

Come on.

 

No, no "come on" here

 

Really, that is the thing about the ground you walk on - it effects everything because well, it is the ground you walk on.  Your question is too broad for a comment box - which part of everyting do you want to discuss - and why because it is already discussed endlessly here on almost every thread?

 

Behind the context of a subjectivist "why does it matter - I only care what it sounds like and if I can't here it then it does not matter" is an entire engineering world where math matters...

 

 

[crenca]

29 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Whatever are you talking about?  What have I forgiven?

 

My discussions with regard to MQA and the term "lossy" have been consistent.  My subjective feelings about what the MQA process does to music have also been consistent.  (I've written here several times that I subjectively feel MQA files sound a little less good to me than their non-MQA 44.1 or hi res counterparts.)

 

So who exactly are you talking to, me or some construct you have in your mind of someone who supports MQA (which I don't)?

 

Have you forgotten that Bob and company changed their tune when others questioned there misuse of the term "lossy" in their marketing materials?  Perhaps so - whatever I was referring back to that...

[smartin]

2 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

No, no "come on" here

 

Really, that is the thing about the ground you walk on - it effects everything because well, it is the ground you walk on.  Your question is too broad for a comment box - which part of everyting do you want to discuss - and why because it is already discussed endlessly here on almost every thread?

 

Behind the context of a subjectivist "why does it matter - I only care what it sounds like and if I can't here it then it does not matter" is an entire engineering world where math matters...

 

 

 

I actually think this is where the intellectual dishonesty comes in.  From a purely mathematical standpoint, MQA is lossy, but it is nearly certain that is it audibly transparent, not subjectively, but mathematically.  Using an objectivist argument to convey a subjective assessment that is objectively false...

[crenca]

27 minutes ago, smartin said:

Why do people care if a process is lossy (strictly definitionionally) if it is audibly transparent?.... It's literally just arguing semantics.

 

 

Big sigh...

 

Because we are NOT talking about a "process" - we are talking about particular encoding methods within the history of digital music (mp3 vs 16/44, 16/44 vs 24/96, etc. etc.).  This is the reality that matters and not a "subjectivist" impression of this or that.  It matters because it has matter and always will matter...

[crenca]

1 minute ago, smartin said:

 

I actually think this is where the intellectual dishonesty comes in.  From a purely mathematical standpoint, MQA is lossy, but it is nearly certain that is it audibly transparent, not subjectively, but mathematically.  Using an objectivist argument to convey a subjective assessment that is objectively false...

 

Dishonesty right back at you - it is the opposite of what you say, it is not "audibly transparent" at all!

 

So, how do we tell the truth?

 

Well, one way is empirically (you know, math and "objectivist" stuff like that) and where do we find that...oh yea, in the encoding method...so it does matter after all.

 

Not interested in your subjectivist "certainties" - this hobby is already filled with that crap - I am interested in one of the few areas where we can agree (or not) on empircal grounds...

[smartin]

1 minute ago, crenca said:

 

Dishonesty right back at you - it is the opposite of what you say, it is not "audibly transparent" at all!

 

So, how do we tell the truth?

 

Well, one way is empirically (you know, math and "objectivist" stuff like that) and where do we find that...oh yea, in the encoding method...so it does matter after all.

 

Not interested in your subjectivist "certainties" - this hobby is already filled with that crap - I am interested in one of the few areas where we can agree (or not) on empircal grounds...

 

On what are you basing your statement that is is not audibly transparent?  I'm not basing my statement on anything subjective.  Based on what mansr has posted (granted he has added the caveat that he can imagine a scenario where it might not be, albeit he has not seen that), and Archimago's analysis, mathematically (objectively) I am very dubious of any claim of difference, either positive or negative.

[andifor]

5 hours ago, witchdoctor said:

 

"even though they would never buy the album"
BINGO, you got it. That is the bottom line, the "inconvenience" this causes to pirating music and the expense of buying music is what bothers the malcontents the most.
 

 

(not so) funny fact, from the movie, not the audio business:

- My blu-ray player was not able to play some of my officially / legally bought blu-ray movies. After ripping them, I could enjoy them on my computer.

 

(even less) funny fact (we talked some time ago, about switching off our audio equipment):

- All the decoding / descrambling of the DVDs consumed the power of on average nuclear plant. That's a figure I read some 10 years ago. I guess, it's rather higher by now with DVDs, blu-ray and other DRM protected data. But as I can't prove this statement, it might not count as fact.

[crenca]

6 minutes ago, smartin said:

 

On what are you basing your statement that is is not audibly transparent? 

 

Try to keep up...I am not arguing/evaluating on the subjectivist level at all (i.e. the "audibly transparent").  I am saying that Bob/MQA intent all along was to pull the thinking around their product to this level however and based on this thread they were nothing but successful...

[Sal1950]

First MP3, next MQA

 

Gizmodo reported yesterday that Fraunhofer Institute for Integrated Circuits IIS, developer of the MP3 audio data-compression system, has terminated the licensing program that allows companies to create MP3 encoders and decoders. This is probably not sad news for many audiophiles, who disdain the format’s lower audio quality compared with uncompressed CD quality. But there’s no doubt that MP3 fundamentally changed the face of music distribution, which makes it important in the history of our hobby.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

19 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

No, as I've told you before Fitz, what MQA may or may not sound like is totally irrelevant to issues at hand. I know you see that but you continue to chose to ignore them.

No, Sal.  Sorry, but I do not see that, nor am I ignoring anything.  Again, you or anyone has a perfect right to not like it or to see other overriding negatives.  But, I am not seeing the huge negatives you continue to raise.  Your arguments ring hollow to me, over and over.

[Jud]

54 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Have you forgotten that Bob and company changed their tune when others questioned there misuse of the term "lossy" in their marketing materials?  Perhaps so - whatever I was referring back to that...

 

I have no idea what MQA did in its marketing materials, never having read any of them except for one technically oriented white paper.