MQA is Vaporware

[The Computer Audiophile]

43 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

Enough

 

While this argument may have been fun let’s get back to the topic MQA.

 

As I’ve talked with studio people one thing is getting clearer. MQA does change the sound of the master. The proponents of MQA say in general MQA is like a better DAC but it changes the master. These changes are generally described as linearity and image changes.  The opponents of MQA say it changes the soundstage of the master. There seems to be an agreement that there is an increased presence in the midrange but differing opinions on other changes to the sound.

 

I’ve discovered is MQA Ltd is recruiting mastering engineers to be area representatives. So when you hear a mastering engineer support MQA you have to ask two questions. One are they an area representative and did they receive equipment or other forms of compensation to say what they did.

 

Miguelito I thought about your system pictures a bit when I was traveling to New York City recently. I ‘m familiar with all the sources Bob Stuart uses to support detection of ultrasonics as basis for MQA. I use many of the same sources to say there isn’t any evidence a person’s brain will be affected by ultrasonics in a normal listening position at a concert say sixty to eighty feet from the stage. After looking at your system pictures I can’t see how enough ultrasonic energy would be above the noise floor of your listening space to be able to record differences in brain activity sitting on the couch. I have more doubt than ever about whether ultrasonics matter.

 

Finally, opponents of MQA have formed a group to collate, organize and disseminate information about MQA. The group includes people from high end audio manufacturers, major labels, studios and me.

Perhaps a special area of CA or curated thread could help organize / display the info. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

The new CA upgrade coming soon will enable a special area for topics like this that can contain attachments for white papers, videos, forums, images, etc... And all can have special moderators etc...

 

It's a cool feature I will implement after I return from vacation. 

[rickca]

1 hour ago, Rt66indierock said:

Finally, opponents of MQA have formed a group to collate, organize and disseminate information about MQA. The group includes people from high end audio manufacturers, major labels, studios and me.

Does this group have a name yet?

[Sal1950]

2 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

Finally, opponents of MQA have formed a group to collate, organize and disseminate information about MQA. The group includes people from high end audio manufacturers, major labels, studios and me

That's good to hear!

We need some voices beyond those on the MQA payola treadmill to get some real info out there. I hope they address things beyond the subjective guessing of SQ, and talk about the real issue of DRM like attributes. People deserve to know when someone is about to slap the handcuffs on them.

[rickca]

19 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

People deserve to know when someone is about to slap the handcuffs on them.

Even without DRM, MQA means handcuffs.  Some of the DAC manufacturers already understand this.  You are right though, most consumers are clueless and MQA wants them to 'just listen'.

[mansr]

2 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

That's good to hear!

We need some voices beyond those on the MQA payola treadmill to get some real info out there. I hope they address things beyond the subjective guessing of SQ, and talk about the real issue of DRM like attributes.

I can assure you they will.

[mansr]

4 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Perhaps a special area of CA or curated thread could help organize / display the info. 

Some information is of a nature that you don't want on this site. It could still be a good place for general discussion.

[asdf1000]

3 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

talk about the real issue of DRM like attributes.

 

Hi Sal, what attributes does this refer to? If you don't mind me asking 

Many thanks

[Sam Lord]

6 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

...I‘m familiar with all the sources Bob Stuart uses to support detection of ultrasonics as basis for MQA. I use many of the same sources to say there isn’t any evidence a person’s brain will be affected by ultrasonics in a normal listening position at a concert say sixty to eighty feet from the stage. After looking at your system pictures I can’t see how enough ultrasonic energy would be above the noise floor of your listening space to be able to record differences in brain activity sitting on the couch. I have more doubt than ever about whether ultrasonics matter....

 

I think air absorption is critical to discussions on ultrasonics.  If you are 60-80' feet away, you won't hear them.  But with close micing, nearfield monitors (maybe), headphones, and IEMs, there will be fidelity in those freqs, whatever the effect on our ears or brains.  And the phenomenon is important for DSD64 recording and playback as well, given the high level of ultrasonics in the coding.  But I don't have an opinion about how we react to that.  I will say that in spite of whatever ultrasonic content was present, I've had by far my best digital playback experiences hearing complex music at DSD64 and DSD128 (in that case resampled redbook using HQPlayer).  Have *still* not heard hires PCM to compare.

 

[Avoiding the main debate because I'm not caught up.]

[Sal1950]

33 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

 

Hi Sal, what attributes does this refer to? If you don't mind me asking 

Many thanks

Search is your friend. If you search this thread for DRM attributes under my user name you should easily find the answer to that from me and others.

Sorry but I've grown weary of covering the same material here over and over for 130 pages.

[Sal1950]

21 minutes ago, Sam Lord said:

 

I think air absorption is critical to discussions on ultrasonics.  If you are 60-80' feet away, you won't hear them.  But with close micing, nearfield monitors (maybe), headphones, and IEMs, there will be fidelity in those freqs, whatever the effect on our ears or brains. 

I would love to see results of any human hearing tests that show people having positive response to ultrasonic frequencies. Most people don't hear anything much over 15k

[PeterSt]

6 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

There seems to be an agreement that there is an increased presence in the midrange

 

Agreed. And it is tiring on the long term up to annoying to those who try to perceive the music as background music (say like the family).

[PeterSt]

7 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

I have more doubt than ever about whether ultrasonics matter.

 

Two remarks about this :

 

1.

It shouldn't matter to the sense of how I propose digital filters is not far off from Meredian's ideas. Well, for the aliasing part that is (and not as an objective btw ). IOW, I listen to those filters for over 10 years by now and can compare with non-aliasing filters. Or less so. There is nothing wrong with that, when executed well (like the level of it in relation to the native (in-band) signal.

 

2.

Ultrasonics sure do matter. I have even been part in an explicit test the other day about a product addressing this (which is a speaker). To me the sound from this speaker (ultrasonic tweeter including nice filters etc.) was inaudible. That is, when listening to it when connected on its own. Where things go wildly wrong (my judgement) is when this is combined with normal audible frequencies. So yes it does matter, but it goes wrong because of intermodulation distortion (mind you, in mid air as I propose it).

 

My conclusion of this tweeter test is a. that indeed it is very much (did I say very much ?) audible, but all you *can* hear is distortion (how else I don't hear a thing from it on its own).

To me, MQA "acts" the same because of a too high level of aliasing. Say it freshens up the sound, but in a quite illegal way.

 

Let's keep in mind that a normal tweeter too has its natural roll off (at the upper side). This means that whatever my filtering means is spitting to the tweeter is not "working out" as such. No SPL is coming from it. Understand ? Now connect an ultrasonic speaker meant to emphasize all above 20KHz (in this case it was even 40KHz). Now real SPL comes from the actual distortion spit out (my filter and similar to what MQA would be doing but worse) and now this interacts with the normal signal and IM is your share.

 

I didn't measure anything of this so it is only reasoning about what could be happening.

Peter

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[PeterSt]

7 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Finally, opponents of MQA have formed a group to collate, organize and disseminate information about MQA. The group includes people from high end audio manufacturers, major labels, studios and me.

 

Wow. Envision me reading this sentence, underway thinking "and what about you then" ? and there came the plot.

Allow me to tell you that all the way through you seem to be able to present all the most balanced, never mind you start(ed) out biased. Very very well done.

[PeterSt]

Please allow me to put forward something which may look like advertising, but which is nothing of the kind. It should be interesting though ... (I put this forward on my own forum 3-4 weeks ago) :

 

Say that I created "a best" USB cable. Never mind about it really, but this was two years ago. Hundreds of people use it to great satisfaction. All I did was all I could to create it to USB specs et voilá. I never liked anything about MQA really.

Then I created a new USB cable (named the Lush) and now I am not really saying "never mind". This one is even more special because it was NOT made to USB specs. Explicitly not. And now I think there are too few MQA albums around ...

What the cable does is shifting the balance from ultra high and ultra accurate (which also is "sharp" as such) way more to the mid level. As how I say it, the highs "connect" now, as in smear. No individual digital spikes, but analog smear. And this is what really happens - this cable sounds as analogue as can be.

 

So what does this tell about MQA ?

I have no real verdict, but I feel that this cable filters something which should not be there with digital in the first place (but always is, sadly). And with the remark that it is the kind of opposite as the other cable (Clairixa, which exhibits super accuracy, might you sense what I mean with that) to me it is a kind of logic that it may filter out (or connects) a too harsh part of digital audio, MQA ahead because of its inherent wrongness (my judgement). What remains though is this mid which is more forward, which exhibits not only "mid" in general, but also super straight electric guitar strings (like from an electric jazz guitar).

 

Still it is so that when I am at 3/4 of an album like the Black Sabbath MQA (collection) I linked to the other day, I am thrown the remark that I must have changed something because all sounds sharp.

And this is so. But it is now on the edge of me maybe learning to like it, and a woman who has women ears to begin with (but audiophile ones this time).

 

The for me freighting thing could be that apparently MQA can sound right, but it will be subjective to whatever tweaks WHILE knowing MQA actually is wrong. And personal me can not stand that he may like something for the better which actually is wrong. Well, to some degree if it is related to my own filtering (but with the enormous difference that my filtering does not ring a thing).

 

As I told on the Phasure forum ... my brain should be biased because of the work I put into MQA in the software (2.08, not out yet). Still I try to be objective ...

 

Peter

[esldude]

I think someone needs to create a digital cable that sounds DIGITAL.  Something with the crystalline clarity that makes a diamond envious.  The awe inspiring blackness of silence like looking into a black hole.  Total sharp edged super delineation with zero smear, no inherent softness, only the pure digital TRUTH.  Listening to music should be like jacking directly into the neocortex of the musician to experience the agony, ecstasy, the love, the loss, the happiness, the blues everything another person feels with ultimate digital directness. 

 

That is the cable I want someone to develop.

 

Then that cable would reveal MQA for what it is, and what it is not.

 

 

[esldude]

2 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

I would love to see results of any human hearing tests that show people having positive response to ultrasonic frequencies. Most people don't hear anything much over 15k

You think that has anything to do with the size of the Organ of Corti being such that it really only works to about 15 or 16 khz?   The size being physically related to the sound frequency detected.  The size of the basilar membrane runs out of a place for the sound at 20khz if that.  I mean they gave a Nobel prize to the fellow who figured this out. 

 

So maybe he was wrong or maybe there are additional Nobels in the future of some boutique audio designers.  Maybe they'll win the first Nobel in medicine without even having a lab. 

[k-man]

Delete

[PeterSt]

9 minutes ago, esldude said:

Something with the crystalline clarity that makes a diamond envious.

 

Well, that is Clairixa. Look at its name ...

 

9 minutes ago, esldude said:

Then that cable would reveal MQA for what it is, and what it is not.

 

Indirectly I just talked about that. With the Clairixa cable MQA makes me mad.

[PeterSt]

57 minutes ago, k-man said:

Delete

 

That wasn't necessary I think. But I sure thought of deleting my own post (we essentially said the very same at the very same time, but you were still first )

[AJ Soundfield]

4 hours ago, Sam Lord said:

 

I think air absorption is critical to discussions on ultrasonics.  If you are 60-80' feet away, you won't hear them.  But with close micing, nearfield monitors (maybe), headphones, and IEMs, there will be fidelity in those freqs, whatever the effect on our ears or brains. 

No need to guess, I linked several studies thanks to Bob Stuart referring them (!!) that show unequivocally that adult humans >20yrs old can't hear >20k (a few 12 yr old kids may be the exception). That is in lab conditions, nearfield, with specialized supertweeters, etc.

50-70yr old audiophiles with there large stats and typical bling domes/horns, please! LOL

Most of those self assessed elite aural athletes are the absolute worst performers in real soundwaves listening tests (no peeking). In large scale studies such as at Harman and Microsoft, etc,. self identified "audiophiles" were consistently the worst performers. Worse than untrained listeners off the street. Chances of them hearing >20k is zero. Feeling "relaxed" and all that 85kHz Japanese pseudo-science  is another story.

The good news for them is that it seems MQA can indeed be audible in the audible bandwidth, aka anharmonic aliasing distortion allowed by the "lazy" filter at the AD, then "folded" backed into the audio band. "Authentically" like the artists even 30yrs ago intended.

If studios allow this crap at the AD stage without alternatives, that would be a shame.

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 hours ago, mansr said:

Some information is of a nature that you don't want on this site. It could still be a good place for general discussion.

 

I'd love to see it. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

9 hours ago, rickca said:

Does this group have a name yet?

MQ-Nay :~)

[Sal1950]

4 hours ago, esldude said:

I think someone needs to create a digital cable that sounds DIGITAL.  Something with the crystalline clarity that makes a diamond envious.  The awe inspiring blackness of silence like looking into a black hole.  Total sharp edged super delineation with zero smear, no inherent softness, only the pure digital TRUTH.  Listening to music should be like jacking directly into the neocortex of the musician to experience the agony, ecstasy, the love, the loss, the happiness, the blues everything another person feels with ultimate digital directness. 

 

That is the cable I want someone to develop.

 

Then that cable would reveal MQA for what it is, and what it is not.

 

 

Don't bother, the guys at BlueJeansCable beat you to it.

You might have to save up a bit for it cause it is a little pricey. Terminated, 2.0 runs about $.25 cents a foot and 3.0 will set ya back a full $1 a foot.  

Yes, it's a little expensive, but hey if you want good Hi Fi, some times you got to spend the big bucks!!

[Kal Rubinson]

5 hours ago, esldude said:

You think that has anything to do with the size of the Organ of Corti being such that it really only works to about 15 or 16 khz?   The size being physically related to the sound frequency detected.  The size of the basilar membrane runs out of a place for the sound at 20khz if that.  I mean they gave a Nobel prize to the fellow who figured this out. 

This is true.

3 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Feeling "relaxed" and all that 85kHz Japanese pseudo-science  is another story.

Indeed.  They even admit that they have no explanation of how such signals are transduced.