MQA is Vaporware

[Pibroch]

2 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

If Spotify is smart,  (I hope they are),  they'll introduce a lossless stream sans HDA/MQA and it's costs, for $15 a month and put some nails in the Tidal coffin.

How would consumers benefit from Spotify losing one of its main competitors?

[Sal1950]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I'd love to see cheaper lossless, but the labels set the price, so I don't envision it happening anytime soon. 

Really, the labels tell Tidal and Spotify exactly how much they must charge per month for the service they provide?

[Sal1950]

13 minutes ago, Pibroch said:

How would consumers benefit from Spotify losing one of its main competitors?

If there's room for multiple providers, others would fill the void.

[The Computer Audiophile]

8 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

Really, the labels tell Tidal and Spotify exactly how much they must charge per month for the service they provide?

 

Yes. Sad but true. 

 

Remember when Apple wanted its service to be like $5 per month? But no, the labels said they needed to charge $10.

 

The labels hold the goods. You want their music, you charge what they say. When piracy was a concern, Apple dictated the price of a song was $0.99. The labels had no choice. Now, the tables have turned. 

[Sal1950]

27 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Yes. Sad but true. 

 

Remember when Apple wanted its service to be like $5 per month? But no, the labels said they needed to charge $10.

 

The labels hold the goods. You want their music, you charge what they say. When piracy was a concern, Apple dictated the price of a song was $0.99. The labels had no choice. Now, the tables have turned. 

That sucks,

Just makes me even less concerned over PTP sharing.

[Sal1950]

2 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

My (limited) understanding is that the "MQA stream" will replace the CD quality stream, so there would be no need for 3 tiers; this seems to be the only thing that makes sense.

34 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Yes. Sad but true. 

 

Remember when Apple wanted its service to be like $5 per month? But no, the labels said they needed to charge $10.

 

The labels hold the goods. You want their music, you charge what they say. When piracy was a concern, Apple dictated the price of a song was $0.99. The labels had no choice. Now, the tables have turned. 

 

Makes me even more doubtful that Tidal will continue in the long term to offer a HDA stream for the same cost as the Redbook. Time will tell I guess.

[Jud]

7 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

If by "*different*" you mean that it doesn't 'sound' like a derivative, then agreed; sometimes it takes a computer analysis to demonstrate it is a derivative.

 

I mean something we really would consider a different melody, with different chord progressions, but simply being in the same key.  On the other hand, something with the same chord progressions that we'd consider the identical melody, but in a different key, might well share fewer notes/pitches with the original.

 

I'm just pointing out that the way our brains match patterns can sometimes be rather unintuitive.

[lucretius]

4 hours ago, Jud said:

I'm just pointing out that the way our brains match patterns can sometimes be rather unintuitive.

 

Agreed. But why does this make it silly to seek a little more accuracy in music reproduction?

[Jud]

10 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

Agreed. But why does this make it silly to seek a little more accuracy in music reproduction?

 

I'm sure we agree it isn't silly in the least.  But this goes back to the question @The Computer Audiophile asked about how measurements correspond to what we hear as "accurate," meaning most nearly reflecting what was recorded.  What I'm saying is we should be prepared for non-intuitive relationships there, in other words that the most common measurements (for example frequency response curves for speakers) may not be of the characteristics most important for our brains to think of something as "real."

[lucretius]

24 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I'm sure we agree it isn't silly in the least.  But this goes back to the question @The Computer Audiophile asked about how measurements correspond to what we hear as "accurate," meaning most nearly reflecting what was recorded.  What I'm saying is we should be prepared for non-intuitive relationships there, in other words that the most common measurements (for example frequency response curves for speakers) may not be of the characteristics most important for our brains to think of something as "real."

 

OK. I think the making it "real" part should be done at the mastering level, leaving consumer equipment manufacturers the task of creating equipment that will play the music as the mastering engineers intended (or as close as they can get).

[Jud]

23 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

OK. I think the making it "real" part should be done at the mastering level, leaving consumer equipment manufacturers the task of creating equipment that will play the music as the mastering engineers intended (or as close as they can get).

 

Don't want to belabor the point, but I think a concrete example may help:

 

Some speakers, mine included, have a crossover design that is linear phase and is not dispersive, that is, time through the crossover filter is constant for all relevant frequencies.  This pretty much unavoidably creates a "hump" in the speaker's frequency response curve.  So which sounds more "accurate" to the brain: The localization and imaging allowed by the linear phase non-dispersive crossover design, or a speaker with a flatter frequency response curve that lacks these localization and imaging characteristics?  If you can't have both, which is the better goal for most realistic reproduction of the recording?

[lucretius]

33 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Don't want to belabor the point, but I think a concrete example may help:

 

Some speakers, mine included, have a crossover design that is linear phase and is not dispersive, that is, time through the crossover filter is constant for all relevant frequencies.  This pretty much unavoidably creates a "hump" in the speaker's frequency response curve.  So which sounds more "accurate" to the brain: The localization and imaging allowed by the linear phase non-dispersive crossover design, or a speaker with a flatter frequency response curve that lacks these localization and imaging characteristics?  If you can't have both, which is the better goal for most realistic reproduction of the recording?

 

Fair enough.  Sometimes (usually) choices must be made.

 

 

[crenca]

54 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Don't want to belabor the point, but I think a concrete example may help:

 

Some speakers, mine included, have a crossover design that is linear phase and is not dispersive, that is, time through the crossover filter is constant for all relevant frequencies.  This pretty much unavoidably creates a "hump" in the speaker's frequency response curve.  So which sounds more "accurate" to the brain: The localization and imaging allowed by the linear phase non-dispersive crossover design, or a speaker with a flatter frequency response curve that lacks these localization and imaging characteristics?  If you can't have both, which is the better goal for most realistic reproduction of the recording?

 

 

The transcendent third option - an active (DSP) crossover that get's you the linear phase with no FR hump.  Oh, our glorious have-our-cake-and-eat-it future  

[Jud]

5 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

 

The transcendent third option - an active (DSP) crossover that get's you the linear phase with no FR hump.  Oh, our glorious have-our-cake-and-eat-it future  

 

Just about all the DSP I know of uses minimum phase rather than linear phase filters (also, I believe the Meridian apodizing filters were minimum phase, and I would be surprised if the MQA filtering *wasn't* minimum phase).

[mrvco]

11 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

 

Makes me even more doubtful that Tidal will continue in the long term to offer a HDA stream for the same cost as the Redbook. Time will tell I guess.

 

Less than half of Tidal's subscribers are paying for the Hifi (lossless Red Book) tier now.  I don't don't see any evidence that MQA has done anything to boost Tidal's Hifi subscriber numbers.  Certainly if all those lossy 'Premium' subscribers didn't jump at the opportunity to pay +$10 for lossless Red Book, then I don't see the marginal benefit of MQA motivating them to pay an extra $10/month either.  If they have a sufficiently hi-res rig, ears and/or ego to benefit from MQA, then they're inevitably already a Hifi subscriber.

 

Where would MQA be today without Tidal?  Some sample files on 2L.no/hires presumably.  MQA needed Tidal far more than Tidal needed MQA.  I fully expect that MQA made it worth Tidal's time and effort to add MQA support.

[crenca]

6 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Just about all the DSP I know of uses minimum phase rather than linear phase filters (also, I believe the Meridian apodizing filters were minimum phase, and I would be surprised if the MQA filtering *wasn't* minimum phase).

 

 

I was reading a review of Legacy's Wavelet system (which among other things is an external, active DSP based crossover) and I am pretty sure the point was made that linear filters were used.  I will see if I can locate the article...

[mrvco]

7 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Just about all the DSP I know of uses minimum phase rather than linear phase filters (also, I believe the Meridian apodizing filters were minimum phase, and I would be surprised if the MQA filtering *wasn't* minimum phase).

 

With MQA enabled on the Brooklyn, it is locked to the 'MPH' (Minimum Phase) filter regardless of whether the stream includes MQA or not.

[crenca]

53 minutes ago, mrvco said:

 

With MQA enabled on the Brooklyn, it is locked to the 'MPH' (Minimum Phase) filter regardless of whether the stream includes MQA or not.

 

So is this min phase filter being applied after the MQA processing magic, and if so does that not add back in phase errors which is a (the?) central SQ selling point of MQA?

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, mrvco said:

 

With MQA enabled on the Brooklyn, it is locked to the 'MPH' (Minimum Phase) filter regardless of whether the stream includes MQA or not.

Perhaps the reason one can disable MQA on the Brooklyn. 

[mansr]

22 minutes ago, crenca said:

So is this min phase filter being applied after the MQA processing magic, and if so does that not add back in phase errors which is a (the?) central SQ selling point of MQA?

MQA is all minimum phase filters. Whatever they mean by "deblurring," if anything, phase errors has nothing to do with it.

[crenca]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

MQA is all minimum phase filters. Whatever they mean by "deblurring," if anything, phase errors has nothing to do with it.

 

Yes, but if I am not mistaken a min phase filter adds phase errors.  So this filter takes away what MQA giveth...right?

[mansr]

17 minutes ago, crenca said:

Yes, but if I am not mistaken a min phase filter adds phase errors.  So this filter takes away what MQA giveth...right?

What MQA giveth is minimum phase filters and aliasing.

[mrvco]

4 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Perhaps the reason one can disable MQA on the Brooklyn. 

 

I haven't asked the Mytek folks yet, but I'm wondering whether it is possible for the DAC to detect MQA data in a stream and switch to MPH from either of the other two filter options in real-time (in a future firmware update).

[The Computer Audiophile]

11 minutes ago, mrvco said:

 

I haven't asked the Mytek folks yet, but I'm wondering whether it is possible for the DAC to detect MQA data in a stream and switch to MPH from either of the other two filter options in real-time (in a future firmware update).

 

This is how it "should" be, but mine is just a layman's opinion. 

[Jud]

5 hours ago, crenca said:

 

So is this min phase filter being applied after the MQA processing magic, and if so does that not add back in phase errors which is a (the?) central SQ selling point of MQA?

 

4 hours ago, crenca said:

 

Yes, but if I am not mistaken a min phase filter adds phase errors.  So this filter takes away what MQA giveth...right?

 

No, it's part of MQA.  A minimum phase filter changes phase characteristics of the signal, but this is known and intentional.  If you called that a phase "error," the vast majority of speakers would be guilty of the same.