MQA is Vaporware

[Archimago]

@christopher3393

 

Interesting program at the NYC AES tomorrow. Bob Katz and Ian Shepherd seem to be very reasonable guys who I'm sure will do a great job talking about good mastering.

 

Bob Stuart seems to be a little out of place in that discussion though! Surely in the professional world, that abstract comes across a little ridiculous, doesn't it? "Seismic audio shift" - really!? Wonder if Stuart will keep using the phrase "paradigm shift" throughout the talk. Oi...

 

Apotheosis 

 

Also good to see stuff like the SE04 Lunchtime Keynote - Alex Case: After the Loudness Wars - Get "Louder" without the Fader today. Hope these kinds of discussions seriously permeate the minds of the audio engineers! Perhaps there's hope yet ahead...

 

http://www.aes.org/events/143/specialevents/?displayall

 

 

[Archimago]

2 hours ago, witchdoctor said:

The big day is Saturday, "Immersive Audio Super Saturday". Two channel technology is ancient and delapidated beyond all hope. Why do you think a show like RMAF has so many $50K+ systems on display? Because they are NECESSARY to get a decent result using 2 channel. Immersive audio is the witchdoctor's preferred sound reproduction system. Auro 3D and Ambeo are great for movies and music while atmos is more for movies. I think two channel is fine for the nearfield but a tinker toy for a main listening room compared to 10.1 auro 3D or ambeo. Bob Moses the AES Executive Director states 3D audio IS state of the art, and that's how the witchdoctor rolls. They are using a 9.1 system for the demos which will rock your world. They are using PMC active speakers for the demo. Witchdoctor studios uses 10.1 and can do 14.1 with DSP and active speakers as well. BTW, whether you use 2 speakers or 14 MQA blows away redbook in both setups, just saying.

http://www.aes.org/blog/2017/10/youre-surrounded-aes-new-york-2017s

 

Yes, I agree that multichannel surround is better and my personal preferred listening method only if it was done well - so many multichannel mixes are done poorly.

 

Not sure why I'd want MQA still though...

 

[Archimago]

3 hours ago, witchdoctor said:

Well if you are THAT interested here are links to the MQA related presentations. I can't send you the papers themselves but you can access them one of two ways. By joining the AES or by purchasing the paper as a non member.The papers have already been uploaded and are available. I recommend this one since the malcontents here seem obsessed with this topic. This study includes both objective data and subjective blind listening tests:

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=19340

Perceived Differences in Timbre, Clarity, and Depth in Audio Files Treated with MQA Encoding vs. Their Unprocessed State

The purpose of this engineering brief is to detail a planned experiment in examining any perceived differences in timbre, clarity, and depth between WAV and Master Quality Authenticated (MQA) audio files. A study proposes examining the responses of engineers, musicians, and casual listeners on whether any changes to timbre, clarity, and depth are perceived between WAV and MQA. A blind listening test is considered in a controlled environment using both professional and consumer level loudspeakers and headphones. Additional interests include a comparison of responses between the target groups on different listening mediums.

 

 

The abstract only talks about a "planned experiment" - did they actually do it with a paper showing the results?

 

This will be interesting...

 

[Archimago]

6 minutes ago, mansr said:

Whatever Bob Stuart told them to say. I've heard from people who ought to know that Bob Ludwig will say anything for money, and judging by Ian Shepherd's blog, shilling commercial products is part and parcel of what he does.

 

 

 

Let's hope they at least put in some good tips on high quality audio production... And less on paradigms and seismic shifts!

[Archimago]

16 minutes ago, mansr said:

They are both competent at their main jobs, AFAICT. I just don't trust them not to be influenced by monetary factors in situations like this.

 

Yeah. Every man has his price, I suppose...

 

Hopefully this and some of other AES talks get recorded and posted at some point.

 

[Archimago]

7 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I have a hard time following your comments. Now you're talking about people's likes and your concerns and whose call it is to convert libraries? None of that matters in this discussion. 

 

Exactly, Chris...

 

Some of the discussions are getting off track with peripheral issues like surround sound and the like. Let's just get down to "brass tacks" here, folks. The reality is this...

 

Suppose we start with an original 24/192 hi-res file which I think most of us would agree would be able to encode all that human ears/minds can perceive and likely more (sure, we can argue this point but given that few recordings are even true 24/192, we can argue this elsewhere). Now, suppose we want to stream this because that's the model of music distribution we see as a growth industry and we want to decrease the data rate to an equivalent 24/48 file (as per Tidal).

 

We have 2 options currently:

1. We simply downsample to 48kHz while maintaining 24-bit resolution and give up the ultrasonic frequencies above 24kHz = STANDARD downsampling.

2. We sacrifice 24-bit depth to "typically 15.85 bits" (Bob Stuart's words), and encode the ultrasonic frequencies from 24-48kHz in a lossy fashion = voilà MQA encoding & decoding. Throw in some stuff about "deblurring" while you do this of course and claim you can recover everything else you need back to the "original" 192kHz (not true IMO). Plus turn on a LED telling us MQA decoding is happening and it's the "original" resolution (meaningless).

Which of the 2 do you choose? Do you think there's going to be a massive difference in sound quality?

Personally, I think solution 1 is just fine. 24/48 sounds great and in many cases would be easier to compress than MQA for streaming. Heck, we could zero out the last 4 bits and maybe compress a 20/48 stream for more data savings without worrying about anyone complaining. Plus, since time domain performance is linked with bit-depth, one could argue that maintaining true 24-bit resolution provides better time-domain performance below Nyquist.

 

Option 1 is easy to implement and sounds great IMO (I happily downsample 24/96 or 24/192 all the time to 48kHz). But Tidal and MQA presents to us option 2. Here are some concerns:

 

1. It adds complexity and cost (unnecessarily):

     a. We already have many high-resolution DACs out there. Do we need a new "format" that's not "fully" backward compatible?

     b. Only MQA-certified software / hardware for decoding. Reduces options for consumers.

     c. MQA versions of download such as what we see on 2L costs more than downsampled 24/96 (for example). Does selling MQA encoded files add a licensing fee passed on to consumers?

 

2. Technical concerns:

     a. It reduces the actual bitdepth to the aforementioned "typically 15.85 bits" and up to "17-bits" resolution when decoded. These numbers are from Bob Stuart.

     b. Reconstruction of the 1st unfold into 24-48kHz audio frequency is lossy in nature compared to the original. Are we sure we "need" this?

     c. MQA upsampling is done with "leaky" filters resulting in weak ultrasonic suppression of aliasing. Remember that DAC designers can easily program their devices to do this if this is felt to be preferable for their design. Also, we as consumers can choose to do this ourselves with software upsampling if we really think this is a good idea (software like HQPlayer for example).

     d. For those who want to do advanced DSP like room correction filters, ambisonic processing, surround processing, we cannot have access to the full digital resolution because of the proprietary MQA process. (This is a big deal IMO that limits flexibility and progress as we aim for better sound quality for hi-fi enthusiasts.)

 

3. Minimal audible difference - few actually claim to hear significant differences:

     a. Digital subtraction tests show little difference.

     b. Blind listening test with 83 listeners show no clear preference. (In fact, in some situations, standard hi-res was preferred.)

 

4. Unclear DRM implications:

     a. Already as in (1), MQA certified products like upgrading to MQA DAC adds expense and there are fewer software playback options. Presumably the hardware and software companies need to pay MQA for licensing costs which at some level needs to be covered by consumers.

     b. Potential future scrambling or stronger mechanisms to enforce playback only with licensed products at the expense of sound quality. This is not a reality currently but there are hints that this could happen.

 

I might have missed other arguments but these are the top-of-mind for me. I'm certainly happy to be wrong if evidence can be provided and how some of the technical pitfalls like item 2d can be circumvented. So far, no evidence that MQA can honestly improve sound quality, provide convenience, and ideally reduce cost for the consumer.

 

Again, why not just use a "flat" 24/48 stream for high-resolution audio and avoid all these potential complications and even potential hindrances to sound quality?!

 

[Archimago]

17 minutes ago, witchdoctor said:

The reality is I was already paying $20 a month to Tidal for FLAC and I know have an additional choice on 7000+ albums and counting. I can choose the FLAC version or the MQA version. Total premium price vs prior premium price= 0.

Option 1- Pay $10 a month for standard 320k streams

Option 2- Pay $20 a month for FLAC and MQA streams

 

Witchdoctor's don't roll with "fine", witchdoctor's roll with hirez MQA.

Whatever...

This is the key to the whole MQA matter. If you think option one sounds great more power to you. Save the $10 a month and rock out.

An audioquest dragonfly dac is $100 granted, using it is not complex and you can use it at home or on the road. I was already paying $20 a month so dropping MQA on me was 0 out of pocket above my cost for FLAC.

Whatever...it is still worth the $10 a month premium to me. You are fine with option one, NP.

The question will be answered differently depending on who you ask. To me it is worth $10 extra a month, to others maybe not, granted.

I agree rhat DRM implications are UNCLEAR

 

 

Fascinating answers WD.

 

You see, I am cool with anyone spending $10 and buying a $100 AQ Dragonfly Black. Glad you like the sound...

 

Beyond the money to buy a DAC or stream from TIDAL. Beyond the licensing $ to MQA. What of the evident limitations to the sound resolution this encoding system imposes? What of the loss of freedom to DAC designers? What about the loss of freedom to do one's own room correction and other forms of sound processing at full resolution? These are arguments based on fact, not preferential opinion.

 

As a man who has your studio set-up with thoughts about enveloping sound quality and multichannel capability (great thread BTW that you started today), do you think that MQA is a step forward to promote the interests of enthusiasts who might want to keep options open in the future? Or does doing it MQA's way lock us into what Bob Stuart, et al. deems to be the way forward with their vision of what "studio sound" is supposed to be?

 

I'm glad you agree that DRM implications are unclear. Is there even any need to entertain this possibility when "flat" hi-res audio is already great and in truth, much of the developed world already has the bandwidth to just stream lossless compressed 24/96 if we wanted to?

 

[Archimago]

Hey WD:

"This train has just left the station and the questions you are asking are important but I think a little bit overblown."

 

IMO, the only thing overblown is how much better MQA is supposed to sound! Yes, it's left the station without passengers and IMO not enough coal to get to its destination.

 

"Every form of sound reproduction has limitations. The limitation in the music industry is not SQ, it is sadly the artists are being ripped off. They just got a workaround from being under the labels thumb because of Prtools. What technology gives it takes away because that enabled pirating on a massive scale. Artists make more money with streaming. If MQA attracts more customers to buy streaming services it is a win for the artist, the label, and the customer. MP3's screwed the labels yes, but they mainly screwed the artist and in the long run the customer. To me that is the limitation MQA can hopefully address. Offering a quality product that customers will prefer over pirating."

 

You think MQA can't be pirated? As if we can't already access the hi-res stream and notice it lacking. In what way does MQA increase interest in streaming? Others have asked already, but is there any evidence that TIDAL's Hi-Fi subscription increased as compared to Spotify or Apple Music in the last year or a sustained boost from MQA availability?

 

"As for DAC designers have you seen the MQA partner page? They are adapting quickly. My Bluesond Node was $500 and I think I will get the new iFi MQA BL dac when it is available. DAC designers are engineers, they learn quickly (or just complain which I see MANY of them doing, yeesh)"

 

Yes, I've seen the page. So what? Doesn't mean it'll sell. Yes, engineers can learn to incorporate the MQA firmware (remember, it's just a firmware upgrade for most devices)... That's not the point. The issue is that MQA is doing things that are not necessarily in the best interest of sonic reproduction and takes away freedom when one is locked in.

 

"My room correction works fine streaming MQA through the Node via analog out. I use Audyssey via my Marantz 7702. I can't speak for the guys using software based DSP.

As for what other enthusiasts plan for the future the industry is pivoting to hirez, immersive audio, and I believe vinyl remains the fastest growing segment. As a percent of sales it is still small but the growth rate is good."

 

But why do I want to go through another ADC/DAC step for room correction!? While I agree that it'll sound good, clearly this is not best practice to extract the highest fidelity! This is an audiophile forum where people buy $$$$$ gear, sometimes believe in exotic cables, USB dejitter devices, power filtration, special footers, maybe even green pens... And you're advocating doing something that can compromise hi-res digital? Come on man!

 

Let's stick to MQA. No need to talk about vinyl here.

 

"As for MQA being a lock I think it is a key. DSD and HIREZ PCM are expensive to buy at $20+ a pop and SACD , BR Audio and DVD-A discs aren't any cheaper. I had less than 20 "hirez" recording before MQA. Now I have a kick ass library of 7000+ hirez MQAalbums PLUS about 2 dozen curated MQA playlists. My total out of pocket software cost =0 (I was already paying $20 a month before MQA). If you would have told me a year ago I would have access to a library of 7000+ hirez albums I would have never believed you. So for me MQA unlocked the hirez vault rather than locked it."

 

First, the hi-res vault didn't contain many gems anyway. Let's be honest. So unless the mastering quality changes very substantially, people aren't going to pay money for it (considering so many audiophiles already question the difference hi-res makes). Secondly, it could have been done without imposing the restrictions and questionable hype which IMO is not good news for consumers. Like I said, 24/96 compressed lossless streaming can already be done and Qobuz even can do 24/192. If you think hi-res is such a big deal, you should be fighting for that... True "studio master" quality down to 24-bits, not the "typically 15.85 bits" of MQA.

[Archimago]

Greetings @Charles Hansen.

 

Good point Mans about the Marantz and the ADC/DAC step. Had forgotten that most of these are being done in 48kHz and only a few even in 96kHz...

 

Witchdoctor:

Please, this isn't "malcontentment". One cannot engage in a disagreement by using adjectives like that without justification. There's barely any MQA out there which is probably why the only people who have much of an opinion are audiophiles on forums like this. I think if you know us, you'd realize that most are rather happy, engaged, passionate people. But if one cares about something, what's wrong with voicing dissatisfaction? This is the place for people who know a thing or 2 about the topic to be able to voice objections!

 

IMO, it's fine that you like MQA and are willing to pay for something you find value in. Glad you're happy with that. Others have objections based on the facts of the matter beyond personal listening. You have not countered those facts. There is therefore no real debate to be had with you.

 

All the best in your pursuit.

[Archimago]

16 minutes ago, witchdoctor said:

Archimago:

 

The level of vitriol from the malcontents is over a $10 a month decision. Better to take that passion and direct at things that matter in the world. How music lovers spend their money and spare time is up to them. They shouldn't be shamed by a bunch of geezer crusaders.

 

 

 

Please, let's not be so concrete in our thinking. If it was only about the $10/month, that would not be an issue.

 

It's the idea that the system would even consider standardizing on something that many here feel to be a backward step in the broader issues of fidelity, potential for progress and benefit to the consumer (eg. unclear DRM implications).

[Archimago]

3 minutes ago, jabbr said:

The basic principle is that data formats should be open, documented by an open implementation though other  implementations can be proprietary.

 

The idea of standardizing on a proprietary closed format is to be strongly avoided.

 

A whimpy counter argument is a joke.

 

Absolutely. Openness is a core component to progress and ultimately a good thing for consumers.

[Archimago]

1 hour ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

I might agree with you if he wasn't treating the forum like Twitter.  Most of his "content" is quick-hit posts.  He's being thoroughly disingenuous.  He never elaborates on any of his posts.  He has no desire to make a case, he's just spamming.  Honest advocacy is, of course, a good thing.  But this has all the earmarks of a guerilla marketing campaign.  I don't care if he claims to like helping starving children.  It's not the thing he's advocating for, it's how he's doing it.  I see that Chris likes your post.  Perhaps this is the MQA "balance" he was hoping for? 

 

Yup. This. There's no conversation here that WD engages in. It's all rather tangential as far as he's concerned.

 

I wonder, as an experiment... If nobody posts anything here (because there is nothing to discuss since MQA isn't really "vaporware"), will WD just keep posting these quick-hits and just keep talking to himself???

 

Or maybe he'll just start another MQA thread?

 

IMO, the amount of negative sentiment and understanding about MQA out on the net is of adequate critical mass that it's basically dead at this point. Just like it was quite clear that Pono was toast many months before the virtual doors shuttered. Regardless of the cheerleaders' empty praises.

 

[Archimago]

4 hours ago, Confused said:

...

One thing I am not clear about is the MQA claim about correcting 'time smearing' in 'historic' analog to digital conversions.  So if the make / model is known for the ADC that was used for the original tape to digital transfer, then MQA have some specific filtering or techniques that can correct for errors / inaccuracies from the original ADC.  Is there anything in this?  I am not sure if this aspect has been fully debated, confirmed, debunked or whatever.  Maybe it has and I have missed it?  If this ADC 'polishing' technology does have any merit, it occurs to me that it could (if allowed my MQA) be used outside of the MQA folding and unfolding nonsense.  You could correct the original ADC to the maximum extent possible and the end result could be straight PCM.

...

 

 

Regarding the "de-blurring". You are correct, whatever DSP they do or believe that they are doing must be referring to prior to the "folding" step. This is because they believe that the undecoded file (in 24/48 or 24/44) sounds "better" than standard Redbook - their explanation being that some "deblurring" has already occurred.

 

Clearly the algorithms used can be a separate DSP plug-in to be used in the studio. If they believe it is of value, they could have just sold the plug-in to studios and left the consumer alone. Years ago, I've also suggested that they just release some "de-blurred" 24/192 or even DXD files for consumers to try and listen for benefits before all the proprietary "origami".

 

The fact that MQA have done nothing of practical value to address questions of this nature and instead deflect questions in vague, tangential ways as WD has demonstrated throughout this thread clearly worsens things for them.

 

Clearly, this is not the way to engage enthusiasts in a small hobby knowing full well that many do come from technical backgrounds and can see through various levels of misdirection. I assume they think all audiophiles must read articles like those in TAS and sheepishly follow the wise words of these gurus... 

[Archimago]

On 2017-11-17 at 1:28 AM, Fair Hedon said:

This, in particular, I find sickening. The notion that if a great digital product does not have an MQA Ready logo on the front, it

is somehow not competitive. Sickening.

 

Imagine... Penalized for not including as a feature set a form of DRM. 

[Archimago]

21 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

Since Stereophile's Jim Austin is going to do a series on MQA technology I wrote him a letter on Audio Asylum.

 

Dear Jim Austin,

 

On October 21, 2017 you said you don’t understand the technology behind MQA and yet you are going to write a series about it?

Your series should make interesting reading because in that same October 21, 2017 response to stehno you called him an idiot “for not at least considering that they (Peter Craven and Bob Stuart) might understand things better than you do.” For you to be intellectually consistent you now have to consider others may understand things better than Peter Craven and Bob Stuart do.

 

In your series on MQA Technology I would like the following addressed at a minimum.

1.       I want you to look at the research supporting the technology of MQA and tell me if it supports the claims MQA Ltd is making. Next I want you to tell me if the math supports the claims MQA makes. To write objectively about the research and the math you will have to analyze both sides pro MQA and anti MQA.

2.       Moving on the filters MQA uses they are not new  so I want to know why MQA Ltd decided to use these filters when so many others have chosen not to use these types of filters. 

3.       MQA uses Peter Craven’s patented method for degrading files and reconstructing them. Why is this step necessary? Following this train of thought why aren’t other methods of file compression equally as valid as the method MQA uses?

4.       People in studios who were shown MQA found that it changed their masters in 2014. It took until last month at the AES convention in New York City for MQA Ltd to acknowledge the problem and promise a solution so engineers could hear how the final product would sound. I want to know why MQA needs to change the master when other high resolution files don’t change the master.

 

You have made a few comments defending the industry and the press for its lack of technical rigor concerning MQA. You actually indicted the industry and the press. This is why people outside the industry realized if the technology behind MQA was going to be examined that we would have to do it ourselves.  And we did on the Computer Audiophile site starting January 2, 2017.

 

Sincerely,

 

Stephen

 

Nice letter to Mr. Austin, Rt66Indie...

 

Hmmm, a series in Stereophile, eh? This is going to be an interesting exercise in journalistic independence and critical thinking. After all of the arguments over the years and the facts of what MQA is about being known already in so many ways, the presentation of this "series" will be interesting.

 

Will Austin actually talk about facts as opposed to his own subjective impressions?

Will he just call up a bunch of people to interview as if having a bunch of voices on the "pro" side carries much weight in the face of objective analysis?

Will he bother presenting the opinions of those who voice objections against MQA?

Will he/Stereophile create their own diagrams and illustrations independently or run images and ideas fed to them by MQA Ltd. / Bob Stuart?

Will they actually bother to do their own blind testing with some kind of controls?

 

Let's see if there are truly some journalists left at Stereophile or if they (and the audiophile press in general) are nothing more than the advertising arm of an industry. Should one even bother to hope for the latter these days?!

 

[Archimago]

4 hours ago, crenca said:

 

1)  Will Austin actually talk about facts as opposed to his own subjective impressions?

A:  Only the "facts" of so much of audiophiledom, the assertions of this or that product/company.  For example he will use terms like "Hi Res" without any definition, not bothering to explain that MQA is in fact a lossy facsimile of actual Hi Res PCM.  Bit depth will be something "perceived", and math will have nothing to do with it.

 

2)  Will he just call up a bunch of people to interview as if having a bunch of voices on the "pro" side carries much weight in the face of objective analysis?

A:  Yes, but he will also glue bits and pieces of these interviews together in what appears to be a coherent and believable story of MQA.  He is a storyteller first and foremost, and has to tow the line of his pro-MQA, anti consumer publication

 

3) Will he bother presenting the opinions of those who voice objections against MQA?

A:  Yes, in a negative light and then he will repeat the unverifiable marketing verbiage of MQA.  What else can he do?  How MQA really works is behind the black box of IP/DRM.

 

4)Will he/Stereophile create their own diagrams and illustrations independently or run images and ideas fed to them by MQA Ltd. / Bob Stuart?

A:  No, only MQA supplied information of any kind.  What other kind of information is there besides pro-consumer based reverse engineering? As a likely NDA signor (and certainly working for those who are) he is not even allowed to do otherwise.

 

5)Will they actually bother to do their own blind testing with some kind of controls?

A:  No

 

 

 

 

 

Okay Crenca,

 

The bets are down. Let's see if this is exactly what the article series ends up looking like .

 

Semente: Yup. Someone's getting paid...

 

 

[Archimago]

20 hours ago, Indydan said:

 

He's waiting for Bob Stuart to provide him with more persuasive talking points...

 

And busy duking it out on Steve Hoffman's forum...

 

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/my-new-article-series-on-mqa.723574/page-26

 

[Archimago]

9 hours ago, FredericV said:

Scoggie busted once again, using EXTERNAL AUTHORITY argument:

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/my-new-article-series-on-mqa.723574/page-26#post-17937777
 

 

Yes the intermediate phase filter as described by Archimago is technically better than the minimum phase filters MQA is using:

 

Minimum phase messes up the phase, and soundstage suffers from this. To get the time domain precision of MQA, you'll need a variant with one cycle of postringing. To accomplish this, we need to allow aliasing in the filter.

It's clear that Scoggie is a cheerleader for MQA, just like Peter Veth. They all use the same arguments. They never reply to technical arguments, change the discussion using the GO LISTEN or EXTERNAL AUTHORITY argument.





 

 

Just as a point of clarification. Remember that the MQA filter is extremely weak. As a result if we plot it out like in the graphs above, it will actually not "smear" the waveform visually as obviously as that minimum phase 95% pass setting I used above (which is a proper strong antialiasing filter). In any event, the general concept that linear phase filtering will not cause phase shift compared to minimum phase filters remains...

[Archimago]

36 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Very interesting that Hoffman himself (no doubt receiving a TON of PMs from Scoggins) made a statement that's basically ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

 

And having spent years reading the forums over there, I can say with confidence that once you've lost Metralla (one of the original forum members from 2002), you're done.  And it sure looks like even he is not impressed with Scoggins' MQA lovefest.

 

Scoggins has gone so far to suggest that cable skeptics are not qualified to evaluate MQA because, well, if they can't hear the increase in sound quality that happens when high end interconnects or power cables are used, they certainly won't hear the awesome benefits of MQA.

 

I really don't think Scoggins was expecting this level of push back on what he considered a "friendly" forum (Hoffman).  And the fact that all those critical posts about MQA are still there and threads are not locked or vanished tells me that Hoffman has decided to let MQA face withering fire.

 

Good point Samuel,

I was wondering why Hoffman would come out and make a comment since he's typically in the background. Probably a fair bet that Scoggins or someone of the same mindset clicked on the "Report" link to some of the comments more than a few times :-).

 

[Archimago]

Probably not unreasonable to consider that maybe ML is resurrecting that old blog post because his material is becoming less and less relevant and insightful.

 

Must "cash in" on all the clicks being dedicated to MQA on forums perhaps!?

 

[Archimago]

6 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I’m sure people will take the bait and comment up a storm. 

 

I'm sure that thought has crossed many minds. Just sayin'.

 

Oh yeah... Plus the fact that he banned so many people from posting comments. Imagine if he could have had hundreds of responses to a post like that and the thousands of eyeballs adding to the discussion. Alas, opportunity lost... Such is the price of monetization through pure advertising.

 

[Archimago]

Thanks guys for the discussion around "aliasing" and "imaging" and proper use of the terminology.

 

But damn shame about the Hoffman thread...

 

[Archimago]

14 hours ago, Fokus said:

 

 He found nothing new, he only documented it more explicitly.

 

'minimum phase', 'induced phase shift', and '40-50us delay of the high' all amount to the same.

 

The overload/distortion behaviour was also known.

 

And it must be remarked here that the filter Archimago tested is the oversampling filter for non-MQA CD-rate material, and presumable for MQA CD-rate as well. But this filter may, or may not, play a role in the decoding of high-res MQA. We simply do not know at this stage.

 

Hi Fokus,

Yes, ultimately I'm certainly not saying that this is demonstration of something we do not know or intuit from before. Since Man's work and revelations of all the filters used in MQA - which includes the ones they use for hi-res - we can intuitively state that what MQA is doing results in group delays across the board with each of those filters demonstrated (though perhaps to varying degrees).

 

What I have not seen in any of the magazines/diagrams of course is anyone put it as explicitly which was the whole point of that post. To show with an actual MQA DAC the temporal nature of that filter in the context of everything else like the THD+N the filter induces, the frequency anomalies (imaging), the intersample overload, and now the phase anomaly/group delay...

 

The last piece of MQA's mythology that we should consider discussing and asking of MQA is that it "improves" time-domain accuracy. Beyond just showing the impulse response and talk of ringing and such. Or be impressed by claims of 5us this and that based on "neuroscience" or whatever.

 

Already, we know that the technique reduces bit-depth, employs lossy techniques, introduces imaging, has been shown to cause aliasing distortions even when downsampling to the 44/48kHz container, adds harmonic and non-harmonic distortion. Now we explicitly add to the mix temporal distortion inherent in the filter - which is not only significant for MQA CD's but also when all those 44.1/48kHz albums are upsampled for 88/96kHz "unfold" (stuff like Ed Sheeran, Beyonce, Bruno Mars, etc. already on Tidal)...

 

I'm sure most of us already are either aware or suspicious... Beyond "time domain" claims, there is nothing left of MQA that suggests that it is "better" in any way. It literally IMO is just a shell made of promises and claims to incorporate the cryptographic signature, and control "authenticated" playback whether on one's computer or thru DAC firmware.

 

[Archimago]

On 2018-04-03 at 3:51 AM, mevdinc said:

Here's a review of the Meridian Ultra DAC.
It seems the article talks more about the MQA format than the DAC itself.
 

http://www.hifiplus.com/articles/meridian-audio-ultra-dac-digital-converter/?page=3
 

 

Yup. Might have missed it but I don't think real hi-res 24/96+ files were even played/tested in the review! And I gather Meridian doesn't do DSD either.

 

BTW guys, what's the relationship between Hi-Fi+ and TAS?

[Archimago]

14 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Check out this thread

 

Jim Austin spews some of the most blathering piffle you will ever see.

 

He continually touts his status as a "physicist", not a digital engineer, yet persists in ignoring

digital engineers with regards to MQA. I wonder how he would feel if digital engineers spouted

nonsense about physics?

https://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/vt.mpl?f=critics&m=92442

 

 

Just responded to the man.

 

Sigh... MQA/Austin must keep the myth of ringing going and ensure that the "beauty" of the minimum phase, slow roll-off filter remain virginally desirable.