MQA Discussion

still-one said:
Say what? They didn't attack his credentials. They asked what his credentials were and who he was. They also asked for the files used and have "apparently" received no feedback.
Click to expand...

Must be the same “anonymous sources” the media uses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I don't know about the technical side but I do know you can hear a difference. Remember when we were young and had eq. Or at least I did. The big ADA 20 channel one. Inevitabley we would, or at least most I saw were a smiley face. Accentuating the highs and lows. I just listened to Led Zeppelin Lemon Song. I let HQ player do what it could between the base file and the MQA remaster. My DAC is not MQA. The remaster is more clear and has a lot more high frequency information. However, In finding the original more flat, I also found I heard the swing and rythem of John Bonhams drums more "in the groove". I rolled with the band more.

If the end of the graph is the addition of all that high frequency information, then I can see why many people gravitate to it. We think its added music. The clarity is another issue. It's nice and I don't see much reason to dislike it. But in the end, it's closing your eyes and getting into the groove that sets me free. Not analyzing the song. The original does it better, for me.
 
Kingrex said:
I do know you can hear a difference.
Click to expand...
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Sometimes better, sometimes worse.
After all the smoke clears, it's just yet another remaster of the same ol music, that they want you to buy. Oh and the equipment to play it.
 
Kingrex said:
I don't know about the technical side but I do know you can hear a difference. Remember when we were young and had eq. Or at least I did. The big ADA 20 channel one. Inevitabley we would, or at least most I saw were a smiley face. Accentuating the highs and lows. I just listened to Led Zeppelin Lemon Song. I let HQ player do what it could between the base file and the MQA remaster. My DAC is not MQA. The remaster is more clear and has a lot more high frequency information. However, In finding the original more flat, I also found I heard the swing and rythem of John Bonhams drums more "in the groove". I rolled with the band more.

If the end of the graph is the addition of all that high frequency information, then I can see why many people gravitate to it. We think its added music. The clarity is another issue. It's nice and I don't see much reason to dislike it. But in the end, it's closing your eyes and getting into the groove that sets me free. Not analyzing the song. The original does it better, for me.
Click to expand...

That a remaster in MQA can be better in some respects is merely an issue of careful attention in creating the remaster. It has nothing to do with an inherent superiority of MQA, which does not exist.

Like you, I find rhythm very important.
 
Overall, the linked video is a really poor presentation. Chris Conman has no idea what he's talking about and the MQA guys were caught with pants down and doing the zero logic ad hom, etc.
Funny though. :)
 
Mike said:
What’s his name?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


What does it matter? Once people know, they will say he is a nobody or lacks credentials to do the file analysis, or attack him personally or something else. In the meantime, the analysis of the file that many can do themselves remains unchallenged on a technical basis. I find that to be very telling.
 
JWhip said:
What does it matter? Once people know, they will say he is a nobody or lacks credentials to do the file analysis, or attack him personally or something else. In the meantime, the analysis of the file that many can do themselves remains unchallenged on a technical basis. I find that to be very telling.
Click to expand...

This may provide a good explanation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLmA82sn2Vw

Is MQA Lossless?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NHuwOgWYOo

But also, more importantly than all the measurements in the world - listening impressions:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nx1rZogSKU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy58d5Y4J_s

As Hans says: "Measurements that seem to proof MQA sound poorly. My ears tell me different....." And at the end of the day, that's all that matters - how it sounds.

Ah, it seems like only yesterday there was all these arguments against DSD and today it's accepted without much ballyhoo.

The bottomline is this: if people think MQA is total crap, then don't listen to it. But for those of us who have done comparisons for years (yes years), we hear differently.
 
There is a huge difference between DSD and what we are seeing with MQA. DSD is a recording format. MQA is a process of altering the recording. Everything that MQA can do can be done with filters in programs like HQPlayer and the like. There is no real need for it. If I want to adjust the file, to my liking, I can do that already with filters. I have heard two MQA demos and was not impressed at all. Yes, we all hear differently.
 
Mike said:
The bottomline is this: if people think MQA is total crap, then don't listen to it. But for those of us who have done comparisons for years (yes years), we hear differently.
Click to expand...
Therein lies the rub. If one thinks it sounds great, fine. That is a subjective preference. There is zero to argue.

But that isn't enough for the insecure. They must also have technical "backing"...and that's where things unravel. Hans??? His videos are total nonsense. Just like the RMAF presentation, the AES paper I linked, many many more, the technical arguments have been thoroughly debunked.
Notice they said the Lossless thing was removed from the MQA site AFTER the lie was exposed.
There is zero technical benefit to MQA. If you simply like the sound, there should be no argument at all.
 
JWhip said:
There is a huge difference between DSD and what we are seeing with MQA. DSD is a recording format. MQA is a process of altering the recording. Everything that MQA can do can be done with filters in programs like HQPlayer and the like. There is no real need for it. If I want to adjust the file, to my liking, I can do that already with filters. I have heard two MQA demos and was not impressed at all. Yes, we all hear differently.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I do think MQA can provide some additional benefits beyond typical EQ filtering, but fair enough. I think we can agree on one thing: until we see an Apple, Amazon, etc. jump into MQA, it's going to be a long road to haul. That being said, whatever your feelings on the technology, the folks at MQA have done a good job by constantly adding new partners across a variety of spectrums.
 
Mike said:
What’s his name?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Archimago [emoji6] not sure his real name would change much of the data/facts presented. All of which is out out there in extreme detail for anyone to review or refute. [emoji106]

My personal reasons have little to do with sound. If people like it, who am I to argue. However The business model and execution have a significant (negative) impact. Ask a mastering eng who spent his time and craft to get something perfected only to have it completely changed without any say or consent and is permanent.

Someone (bob) has pre determined what I should like



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top