MQA is Vaporware

[Digital Assassin]

21 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

My opposition to MQA is mainly economic. Does it put money in the hands of artists? No it does not. For studios it is a simple capital project question. Does the cost of equipment and labor to record and encode MQA files have a revenue stream to justify making the conversion? The answer is no.

 

On the consumer side the market has rejected high resolution audio or there would be more than 20,000 albums available. On that basis we don’t need another high resolution format.

 

Then there are capacity issues. Very few studios can make high resolution recordings. The vast majority of music in the marketplace is mastered for CD. And only Warner and MQA can convert files to MQA.

 

There are technical issues my iPhone 7 can play files up to 24/48. Will a file format work with mainstream consumers if you need any other equipment than headphones for their  phones probably not.

 

Finally the economic argument high resolution supporters make to Apple, Amazon and Spotify is average revenue per user. It will take more than 20,000 albums to get people to pay more for enough high resolution music to change ARPU.

 

No paranoia, fear or hysteria.

Exactly, no fear or hysteria.

 

But anger, yup.

 

My main opposition is that even the fact that MQA got this far out of the gate, it will embolden other desperate,

failing digital designers to come up with a similar scheme to save them selves from the abyss.

 

They will take all the pages right out of the Stuart playbook.

 

Run "demos" at the numerous audio shows and have bright eyed bushy tailed obedient "reviewers'

proclaim they have heard the future of digital audio.

[james45974]

What would the point of MQA CD's be?  Who or what is the demographic/market that is still buying discs (I am, no viable streaming capability at my house) and would they look favorably on MQA?  The inclusion of MQA on CD might further erode the market for spinning discs, accelerating the downward market trend.

 

It has to be the streaming that the industry is looking at for MQA (as has been said many times already).  People are getting used to paying next to nothing for access to huge libraries of music, and MQA could give some sort of control over that revenue stream in terms of pricing or access.  I don't see the current streaming model lasting, you are either going to have to pay higher prices or have limited access.  If I was a conspiracy theorist I would say that the record companies are getting all of you used to the streaming paradigm before they start tightening the economic noose.

[Digital Assassin]

28 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Apple did.  At the time, they were certainly an upstart, and a competitor for the money to be made from music sales (while at the same time a contractual partner, so some of the money from those sales would go to the industry).  As I noted before, though, having felt burned by Apple's control over the product and share of the take, the industry is very unlikely to allow such an internal takeover again - like, for example, MQA.

Apple has never provided an alternative to the CD. They have, and still do, offer an inferior product.

[Digital Assassin]

5 minutes ago, james45974 said:

What would the point of MQA CD's be?  Who or what is the demographic/market that is still buying discs (I am, no viable streaming capability at my house) and would they look favorably on MQA?  The inclusion of MQA on CD might further erode the market for spinning discs, accelerating the downward market trend.

 

It has to be the streaming that the industry is looking at for MQA (as has been said many times already).  People are getting used to paying next to nothing for access to huge libraries of music, and MQA could give some sort of control over that revenue stream in terms of pricing or access.  I don't see the current streaming model lasting, you are either going to have to pay higher prices or have limited access.  If I was a conspiracy theorist I would say that the record companies are getting all of you used to the streaming paradigm before they start tightening the economic noose.

MQA on CD is beyond pointless...you have to purchase new hardware to hear the so called "unfold".

 

This industry is filled with some very smart people who produce very stupid ideas.

[Jud]

1 minute ago, Digital Assassin said:

Apple has never provided an alternative to the CD. They have, and still do, offer an inferior product.

 

And that is exactly what you are talking about potentially taking over the music industry now with MQA, right?

 

My point once more, irrespective of quality (because the industry certainly doesn't seem to respect it): Apple stole their lunch money once, in their opinions; they're not about to let MQA do it again.

[PeterV]

For some (non-believers..) MQA seems to be 'evil' but for me, this algorithm is a blessing. I am listening now almost 1 year to MQA remasters and compare them with the original FLAC or wave files. In almost all comparisons MQA wins. Only some DCC remasters sound better. With the Tidal stream, it's a no-brainer. Instead of 16 bit 44 kHz now I receive 24 bit 44, 48, 88.2, 96, 176, 192 and even 382 kHz.  So no vaporware at all..! It works, it upgrades the original files, since the time-smear is reduced and this effect is audible! Last week Donald Fagan Nightfly' A/B comparison is very convinvincing. 

[Shadders]

7 hours ago, Digital Assassin said:

MQA on CD is beyond pointless...you have to purchase new hardware to hear the so called "unfold".

 

This industry is filled with some very smart people who produce very stupid ideas.

Hi,

If MQA offers DRM, then for the future it allows more control, for the present they can offer "supposed" hi resolution etc., all in a package that can play on CD players (no MQA decoding), or on a DAC with an MQA capability. All for one single pressing.

If the record companies offer high resolution downloads (non MQA) and MQA, and CD's that are redbook as well as MQA CD's, then ok - we have a choice.

If they are convinced that MQA offers more benefits such as DRM and extra revenue - and most people cannot tell the difference between MQA on CD and normal redbook CD, then we may lose that choice.

With DVD and Blu-Ray - the copy protection has been cracked, and we can copy to hard disk for ease of viewing.

With MQA on CD, and downloads - you lose quality of recording. (CD redbook reduced from 16bit to 13bit at best).

Regards,

Shadders.

[PeterSt]

While someone is in the mood anyway, here's another Peter with some thoughts :

 

I actually never ran into a hi-res album which worked for me. OK, those which do can be counted on one hand. I have close to a 2000, and I never ever play any of them. It is a waste of (quality playback) time.

Not so with MQA. And I am sorry to say it, but while MQA the most clearly sounds different, more and more it comes to my mind that it is bearable for me (and my system) because it is no hires at all. As a matter of fact, it is the only common denominator in all MQA against all Hires I have of the same albums. Well, when we like to be negative, it is.

 

As I told elsewhere, I built in a spectrograph function which can be run ad-hoc - or in batch over selected albums, and I did not find one so far which really looks like hires. Piles of noise, yes.

 

Still, I am on the verge of cracking MQA to the respect of making it sound better than normal CD (notice that I can tweak quite a lot because of having the software under my control, as well as the hardware). I guess that at this moment, when I would show it to 100 people, it would be 50-50 for what one likes better. Give it a few more months and MQA might start to win.

 

The other sad conclusion from the above and only if I am right on it, is that the change in sound can only spring from DSP. It is only that the DSP might not be in there explicitly, but be the result of the mangling to pack (encode) the format and its result at unpacking it, amongst which correlated ultrasonic frequencies and piles of noise.

I should also emphasize that I am NOT using any of the proposed filters, just because I don't use the intended hardware for it. One could also say : I go my own way with it, leave the rendering be, but have my own rendering. I even shut off any MQA D/A converter for that (rendering) matter, so the converter does not know it's MQA.

 

Is that a new approach or isn't it ... 

Peter

[PeterSt]

18 minutes ago, Shadders said:

(CD redbook reduced from 16bit to 13bit at best).

 

Assumed this is so indeed, we have a nice 3 bit of dither which could be more random than any kind of existing dither.

Or

... which is correlated to the music in a good fashion.

 

So yes, currently I could be seeking for the coincidental reason that might make sound MQA better than I'd expect from it (by now).

[Shadders]

12 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

While someone is in the mood anyway, here's another Peter with some thoughts :

 

I actually never ran into a hi-res album which worked for me. OK, those which do can be counted on one hand. I have close to a 2000, and I never ever play any of them. It is a waste of (quality playback) time.

Not so with MQA. And I am sorry to say it, but while MQA the most clearly sounds different, more and more it comes to my mind that it is bearable for me (and my system) because it is no hires at all. As a matter of fact, it is the only common denominator in all MQA against all Hires I have of the same albums. Well, when we like to be negative, it is.

 

As I told elsewhere, I built in a spectrograph function which can be run ad-hoc - or in batch over selected albums, and I did not find one so far which really looks like hires. Piles of noise, yes.

 

Still, I am on the verge of cracking MQA to the respect of making it sound better than normal CD (notice that I can tweak quite a lot because of having the software under my control, as well as the hardware). I guess that at this moment, when I would show it to 100 people, it would be 50-50 for what one likes better. Give it a few more months and MQA might start to win.

 

The other sad conclusion from the above and only if I am right on it, is that the change in sound can only spring from DSP. It is only that the DSP might not be in there explicitly, but be the result of the mangling to pack (encode) the format and its result at unpacking it, amongst which correlated ultrasonic frequencies and piles of noise.

I should also emphasize that I am NOT using any of the proposed filters, just because I don't use the intended hardware for it. One could also say : I go my own way with it, leave the rendering be, but have my own rendering. I even shut off any MQA D/A converter for that (rendering) matter, so the converter does not know it's MQA.

 

Is that a new approach or isn't it ... 

Peter

Hi,

With regards to the other thread on the technical aspects of MQA - the aliased upper frequency (22.05kHz to 44.1kHz), and the lossy coding, then MQA will sound different - but better ???

I had a surround decoder which had Hall effect mode, science fiction film mode, action film mode etc., which was just DSP code.

If temporal smearing was the only issue, then we do not need MQA. Just reverse the blur and provide the file as required.

What MQA is as you have indicated is just modification of the process to get the best sound, and the claim it is what they heard when they recorded the album, is a false statement.

I had thought to build a DAC with a DSP that produced even order harmonics to make the recording sound "nice".

I have Pure Audio blu ray discs (24bit/96kHz) and they sound ok - slightly different - but i have heard CD's sound just as good.

So, MQA is just like a DSP mode on your surround sound processor - and anyone can do this if they have the right software, to obtain an equivalent effect.

Regards,

Shadders.

[PeterSt]

5 minutes ago, Shadders said:

With regards to the other thread on the technical aspects of MQA - the aliased upper frequency (22.05kHz to 44.1kHz), and the lossy coding, then MQA will sound different - but better ???

 

Haha, yes. But please mind this phrase :

 

22 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

So yes, currently I could be seeking for the coincidental reason that might make sound MQA better than I'd expect from it (by now

 

Shatters, maybe I should put forward to you (because you don't know me much) that I am working for over 10 years each and every day, testing for better sound quality. Most of the working day comprises of "designing" tweaks and which comprises the full audio chain (we really build each component of it), applying the tweaks for real (build them) and lastly listen for 3-4 hours each day. MQA, at first, also was such a tweak because I believed in the set up (believed is not really past tense here). Along the way I got to learn more of it (like we all did) and instead of debunking MQA I am more of the positive kind and try to see the possible virtue of it. No matter the virtues could not be intended in the first place !

Of course all starts with not hearing any super downsides readily. Do note though that MQA sure was unlistenable for me, at first. But because I have a bit of listening experience, one can say that when I hear something good in a "tweak", no matter the bad masks it mostly, I will try to undo the bad so the good remains. I do this with speakers, with amps, with playback software, with operating systems and with DACs. And cables.

And MQA.

 

So what's wrong for me with MQA is that it shows elements which are clearly for the better and this is nothing about filtering because the filtering is not engaged. Thus do notice that exactly nobody is talking about this (at least not on this forum) and what I do, is in fact illegal (because not intended by MQA). I apply my own filters and additionally the DAC applies nothing at all (it is NOS R2R).

 

To be the most clear : I am 100% against DSP of whatever kind, because it kills the sound (but I'd allow it for very low frequencies - just saying). So we agree on that one. But the indirect or unintentional DSP applied to MQA, works out for the better - or at least it seems that it can go towards that direction.

Btw, for those listening to MQA via Tidal's Desktop Player, forget any comparison with that because it s*cks all over (for me).

[PeterSt]

21 minutes ago, Shadders said:

What MQA is as you have indicated is just modification of the process to get the best sound, and the claim it is what they heard when they recorded the album, is a false statement.

 

This one is even more interesting because in theory you are correct. But this may depend on two erroneous assumptions :

1. That the DSP to make it sound better is really in there and explicitly (while I am confident it is not);

2. That the implied change because of the so-called DSP is there to improve such that one (we) is to hear the real deal. Nobody is claiming this (yes, we in here ).

 

The whole point is that any (bribed etc.) mastering engineer who claims that he hears what was happening during the recording ... I can hear too. OK, I am no God, hardly a Guru and surely a geek, but I do have those instruments to compare with, so I compare with those. Plus I come from a family where half of them plays in orchestras, are singers or drummers and what not.

Do not forget : I am not there yet as my wife still gets tired of MQA and women's ears are crucial (I say). There's a strength and stiffness in the sound which makes it real but which is tiring at the same time (thus something should not be real at all). I am 100% confident that such a thing can not be DSP-d in. I am even confident that this wasn't make on purpose. However, parts of the whole process make it net work for the better. This could be the "dither" I mentioned. Also don't underestimate what HF noise does to a system or maybe even you. Maybe even think of DSD (HF noise) and why people like that for the better.

[PeterSt]

Quote

Too much "presence" in a recording makes the resulting "forwardness" tiring (i. e. Lyrinx recordings). 

 

Although from another thread (by semente) ... that.

[Shadders]

40 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Haha, yes. But please mind this phrase :

 

 

Shatters, maybe I should put forward to you (because you don't know me much) that I am working for over 10 years each and every day, testing for better sound quality. Most of the working day comprises of "designing" tweaks and which comprises the full audio chain (we really build each component of it), applying the tweaks for real (build them) and lastly listen for 3-4 hours each day. MQA, at first, also was such a tweak because I believed in the set up (believed is not really past tense here). Along the way I got to learn more of it (like we all did) and instead of debunking MQA I am more of the positive kind and try to see the possible virtue of it. No matter the virtues could not be intended in the first place !

Of course all starts with not hearing any super downsides readily. Do note though that MQA sure was unlistenable for me, at first. But because I have a bit of listening experience, one can say that when I hear something good in a "tweak", no matter the bad masks it mostly, I will try to undo the bad so the good remains. I do this with speakers, with amps, with playback software, with operating systems and with DACs. And cables.

And MQA.

 

So what's wrong for me with MQA is that it shows elements which are clearly for the better and this is nothing about filtering because the filtering is not engaged. Thus do notice that exactly nobody is talking about this (at least not on this forum) and what I do, is in fact illegal (because not intended by MQA). I apply my own filters and additionally the DAC applies nothing at all (it is NOS R2R).

 

To be the most clear : I am 100% against DSP of whatever kind, because it kills the sound (but I'd allow it for very low frequencies - just saying). So we agree on that one. But the indirect or unintentional DSP applied to MQA, works out for the better - or at least it seems that it can go towards that direction.

Btw, for those listening to MQA via Tidal's Desktop Player, forget any comparison with that because it s*cks all over (for me).

Hi,

From your comments - you stated MQA was not listenable at first. So have you become accustomed to it ? Now you can determine the best parts - the tweaks that work ?

Whether it is the DSP code, FPGA code, filters, algorithm etc., MQA is supposed to deblur the signal, so we hear it how the people in the studio heard it. What MQA seems to be doing is deblur and "more", and the "more" is not proven to be of benefit (theoretically), although it sounds "nice".

So the "more" is nothing but effects, and the code can be implemented on any platform ?

Regards,

Shadders.

[PeterSt]

10 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Whether it is the DSP code, FPGA code, filters, algorithm etc., MQA is supposed to deblur the signal,

 

I think that is a mis conception, but easy to adopt for those who hardly can know (because not knowing the internals of MQA). The deblurring is supposed to come from MQA's filters, although I don't think (mind the think) that this is stated anywhere explicitly. So if we put this the other way around : if this is not coming from MQA's filters, it is to come from a Master which lacks the ringing already. I think people stipulated that, but what I recall from it, it remained stipulation only. You could also say : if THAT could be true please !

 

So yes, MQA is supposed to deblur the signal, but this is supposed to be done in the rendering part, hence with the filters we see passing by these days. But careful, because these filters assume (this is implied) that no ringing is there in the first place, and that this thus has been removed in an earlier stage. And I don't think this is the case.

 

Looking at the MQA filters as a stand alone phenomenon, is also not allowed - I'd say. They - or whatever it is for real in real MQA renderer life - are supposed to work in conjunction with a specific DAC and - and this is MQA's story - also anticipating the ADC used. This, and now it is my story, is too much of ballony to be able to be the truth. Maybe someone thought that it could work like that, but it already can't because a multitude of ADC's can have been in order to record the (studio) album.

Now what IS told (by MQA) is that the "deblurring" (but IIRC the term is not used as such) is happening in anticipation of the ADC used, and now it is BS to apply that at the rendering stage. It should be in the Master (file we receive) already. So see, now things become vague because it is not consistent any more. Nice story, nice feature, but not consistent UNLESS it is in the master file for real. And the masters *are* different, as far as I can see. Always.

 

On a side note, a previous time I talked about this, Miska jumped in with the apodizing filter and that it exists for a long time already. This is related, but I feel to see how it is the same.

One other thing would be that the MQA guys should think that they can perform better than any self-respecting ADC. And if I would be working on such a project, I would surely think the same. Anyway notice that if that would not be the thinking, all is moot and a made up story.

 

Right, with this post I feel 10x more vague than MQA itself. I am sure you will agree.

Including inconsistencies.

But anyway all these things are on my mind, and nothing is decided for what's really happening.

[Shadders]

5 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

I think that is a mis conception, but easy to adopt for those who hardly can know (because not knowing the internals of MQA). The deblurring is supposed to come from MQA's filters, although I don't think (mind the think) that this is stated anywhere explicitly. So if we put this the other way around : if this is not coming from MQA's filters, it is to come from a Master which lacks the ringing already. I think people stipulated that, but what I recall from it, it remained stipulation only. You could also say : if THAT could be true please !

 

So yes, MQA is supposed to deblur the signal, but this is supposed to be done in the rendering part, hence with the filters we see passing by these days. But careful, because these filters assume (this is implied) that no ringing is there in the first place, and that this thus has been removed in an earlier stage. And I don't think this is the case.

 

Looking at the MQA filters as a stand alone phenomenon, is also not allowed - I'd say. They - or whatever it is for real in real MQA renderer life - are supposed to work in conjunction with a specific DAC and - and this is MQA's story - also anticipating the ADC used. This, and now it is my story, is too much of ballony to be able to be the truth. Maybe someone thought that it could work like that, but it already can't because a multitude of ADC's can have been in order to record the (studio) album.

Now what IS told (by MQA) is that the "deblurring" (but IIRC the term is not used as such) is happening in anticipation of the ADC used, and now it is BS to apply that at the rendering stage. It should be in the Master (file we receive) already. So see, now things become vague because it is not consistent any more. Nice story, nice feature, but not consistent UNLESS it is in the master file for real. And the masters *are* different, as far as I can see. Always.

 

On a side note, a previous time I talked about this, Miska jumped in with the apodizing filter and that it exists for a long time already. This is related, but I feel to see how it is the same.

One other thing would be that the MQA guys should think that they can perform better than any self-respecting ADC. And if I would be working on such a project, I would surely think the same. Anyway notice that if that would not be the thinking, all is moot and a made up story.

 

Right, with this post I feel 10x more vague than MQA itself. I am sure you will agree.

Including inconsistencies.

But anyway all these things are on my mind, and nothing is decided for what's really happening.

Hi,

Yes - my interpretation is that the master file you receive has had the de-blurring already implemented. The filters in each device is an inverse filter (MQA requirement in code/hardware) of the DAC IC FIR filter (assumed FIR) such that the smear from that FIR filter in the DAC, is minimised.

The only way that MQA Ltd can deblur the master file is if they know the recording chain equipment ?

Or is it best guess from analysing the master file ?

Who knows. In any case - we have a process that is perhaps good engineering (removal of temporal smear and sounds "nice") and a process that makes it sound "nicer", which is perhaps superfluous engineering.

The secrecy of the entire process does not help, so we are being told it is better, and we have to use subjective experience to assess this. But, from some of the basics we do know, some aspects of the implementations (aliasing), are bad engineering - but it sounds "nice". Perhaps the bad engineering aspects are nice because as per LP/vinyl, it is noise which is preferred ?, and all MQA is this approach ?

Regards,

Shadders.

[PeterSt]

40 minutes ago, Shadders said:

From your comments - you stated MQA was not listenable at first. So have you become accustomed to it ? Now you can determine the best parts - the tweaks that work ?

 

Hi Shadders,

 

This is not so easy to explain, as it is a combination of things plus that it is (thus) combined with the playback software and its possible settings. You might not know it, but XXHighEnd can be tweaked to such an extent that even I need more than a life time to find any "best" setting, might it exist. And these settings relate to the filters used, which filters inherently don't ring, but *are* different (for the few to choose from).

 

While the above is one aspect only, I also deal with ever changing / improving DAC features. In this case this is minor because IIRC since MQA only the internal USB Isolator has been added (of course this is a great change, but it is relatively minor still).

 

What really did the job was a new USB cable, which was almost made for the purpose. Well, sort of, but I really saw it coming because I knew what I was working on. This is all related to the USB cable I was using previously, and which was too "direct" for MQA. In itself hard to explain, but think in terms of "too well following". This is no joke and I see you thinking "how can one make an USB cable doing that". Well, I did, and I did it explicitly.

So if you now envision MQA to be too much forward and also envision the reasons for it, you can work on a cable lessening that. But to be really honest, I did it out of curiousity to see what could be achieved with a USB cable if I'd make it for audio instead of "the best USB". The latter was Clairixa and the former the Lush. Either name represents its sound very well.

So if you know could hear MQA as how I perceived it myself (all hard and way too direct) then you can see how the one cable may change that character when the cable is exchanged for the other.

 

Btw, in case you seek for proof of others and MQA ... nobody has this (XXHighEnd version) yet.

 

Thanks,

Peter

[PeterSt]

23 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Perhaps the bad engineering aspects are nice because as per LP/vinyl, it is noise which is preferred ?, and all MQA is this approach ?

 

Hi,

 

Very hard to imagine. However, might they work similarly to me, then who knows. But it seems far sought. Anyway :

 

What thus Lush cable does (and I described it on my own forum a couple of weeks back) is "connecting" individual wave cycles. I know, this is too far out to ever come up with, but this *is* what I attempted. You can say it smears as hell, but in a "too narrow pipe" fashion. So there is no ringing in order and no digital filter or analogue filter could do it (as they all ring). Maybe it is best to call it "shaping" (of the tops of wave cycles). And now this cable suddenly sounds analogue as LP. I am serious.

 

Before someone asks me how I'd think this may ever happen in a USB cable which only passes on digital data, even in packeted form ... no answer. But my approach has been in a fashion as if it was an analogue cable (like an interlink) *because* I could hear the very same properties for the conductor material as we can perceive from loudspeaker cable. The stupid thing is, I was already hearing that myself, and then someone came for audition and he described the very same without knowing a thing about any USB cable (test, which was active at the time). And *then* I started working with it.

This is also how I could predict the aid for MQA.

 

I know, this is totally crazy.

Peter

 

PS: By now I am writing in the wrong thread about this cable, but alas.

[Shadders]

23 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Hi Shadders,

 

This is not so easy to explain, as it is a combination of things plus that it is (thus) combined with the playback software and its possible settings. You might not know it, but XXHighEnd can be tweaked to such an extent that even I need more than a life time to find any "best" setting, might it exist. And these settings relate to the filters used, which filters inherently don't ring, but *are* different (for the few to choose from).

 

While the above is one aspect only, I also deal with ever changing / improving DAC features. In this case this is minor because IIRC since MQA only the internal USB Isolator has been added (of course this is a great change, but it is relatively minor still).

 

What really did the job was a new USB cable, which was almost made for the purpose. Well, sort of, but I really saw it coming because I knew what I was working on. This is all related to the USB cable I was using previously, and which was too "direct" for MQA. In itself hard to explain, but think in terms of "too well following". This is no joke and I see you thinking "how can one make an USB cable doing that". Well, I did, and I did it explicitly.

So if you now envision MQA to be too much forward and also envision the reasons for it, you can work on a cable lessening that. But to be really honest, I did it out of curiousity to see what could be achieved with a USB cable if I'd make it for audio instead of "the best USB". The latter was Clairixa and the former the Lush. Either name represents its sound very well.

So if you know could hear MQA as how I perceived it myself (all hard and way too direct) then you can see how the one cable may change that character when the cable is exchanged for the other.

 

Btw, in case you seek for proof of others and MQA ... nobody has this (XXHighEnd version) yet.

 

Thanks,

Peter

Hi,

I thought that MQA Ltd were very stringent on the DAC implementation - so, the tweaks that are applied in any instance may be in breach of the MQA Ltd requirements.

The USB cable - i have not used USB audio - but the galvanic isolation has been shown to reduce jitter.

Maybe, if the USB cable has just an effect as MQA, then MQA improvements are minimal ?

Regards,

Shadders.

[soxr]

44 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

Yes - my interpretation is that the master file you receive has had the de-blurring already implemented. The filters in each device is an inverse filter (MQA requirement in code/hardware) of the DAC IC FIR filter (assumed FIR) such that the smear from that FIR filter in the DAC, is minimised.

Deblur is done in the renderer. The original master waveform (eg DXD) vs upsampled decimated MQA with minimum phase: no evidence that the decimated file has been pre-processed. But it contains a metadata field so that the renderer knows which one of the 32 filters to use.

[mansr]

46 minutes ago, Shadders said:

The filters in each device is an inverse filter (MQA requirement in code/hardware) of the DAC IC FIR filter (assumed FIR) such that the smear from that FIR filter in the DAC, is minimised.

The evidence so far suggests that there are in fact no DAC-specific filters.

[mansr]

1 minute ago, soxr said:

Deblur is done in the renderer. The original master waveform (eg DXD) vs upsampled decimated MQA with minimum phase: no evidence that the decimated file has been pre-processed. But it contains a metadata field so that the renderer knows which one of the 32 filters to use.

What is that figure supposed to show?

[soxr]

Just now, mansr said:

What is that figure supposed to show?

See my other topic:
 

"studiomaster" is one the original 2L.no files
The other is the related mqa file with sox rate -vsM 352800

 

[PeterSt]

Just now, Shadders said:

I thought that MQA Ltd were very stringent on the DAC implementation - so, the tweaks that are applied in any instance may be in breach of the MQA Ltd requirements.

 

Haha, Yes, if there would be a DAC implementation. But there isn't any. So his is software only, and quite explicitly so. Of course it helps if the DAC isn't again adding any filtering, and our NOS1a/G3 does not do that.

Clearly you recognized that I am only in this thread so sell DACs. 

 

In the end you will be right. This now is because the software should pass on the audio stream unaltered when an MQA DAC is the endpoint. But the software just does not support that. It always passes on the audio stream in altered fashion or otherwise my filtering does not work. And this was just a prerequisite for MQA. They knew.

 

It has been a subject before :

What's wrong with the MQA spec and software players which can decode, is that software players these days (mine ahead and this time HQPlayer as a second) want to filter in-software. If I can't do that, our DAC is of no use as it has been developed explicitly to receive filtered (reconstructed) audio data. It is NOS all right, but not allowed to operate like that.

We can say that after all facts I am forced to use software only, because software + hardware or hardware alone, is just not a workable option (and I really tried). And so I am now approaching it via a nice backdoor. And it even could work for the better.

It was about better sound, right ?

or ? ... 

[PeterSt]

6 minutes ago, soxr said:

Deblur is done in the renderer. The original master waveform (eg DXD) vs upsampled decimated MQA with minimum phase: no evidence that the decimated file has been pre-processed. But it contains a metadata field so that the renderer knows which one of the 32 filters to use.

 

Hi soxr,

 

I have been following your work via your reporting about it in CA. Great effort you did there.

But do notice that showing /observing / analyzing a graph at this zoom level can never tell you anything.

Also, by these means (and in that other thread) you claim that there's no difference in the upsampling vs what MQA makes of it. And without looking I tell you : no sample is the same.

 

Additionally, upsampling vs what MQA does not sound the same at all. It even can't as the upsampling filters are never the same (so they already sound different among each other). And if you claim you can't hear the difference, when you are in the neighborhood, you are welcome.