MQA is Vaporware

[Shadders]

15 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

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 ? ... 

Hi,

I see - you are implementing your own MQA decoding in software and presenting it using your own NOS DAC.

Te hardware with or without software can be workable - FPGA implementation of a filter - is more efficient. But then, some processor instructions may be just as efficient in some circumstances, or specific for a task such as AES encryption/decryption, video decoding functions.

I suppose as MQA is a subjective experience, then a partial, or near complete implementation is just as good.

Regards,

Shadders.

[soxr]

1 minute ago, PeterSt said:

 

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.

 

I zoomed in much further than this, and all I see are ultrasonics in the DXD file which are not in the MQA file.

MQA file also has HF hissing noise, but you need to boost a quiet passage with 45dB and turn up the volume to extremes to hear it. This part is the lossy HF frequency spectrum which goes to x2 rate, so the lossy data for the first unfold.

I don't see the plot of the waveform being seriously altered to make the transients sharper.
 

1 minute ago, PeterSt said:

 

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. 

I have an MQA dac. I don't like the sound of MQA. so I rather buy DXD files or real lossless PCM.
So what I want is highres without the "thinning" process that MQA applies via it's renderer.

My current DAC has a perfect impulse response, so what MQA would do on that DAC is a downgrade. Don't fix what ain't broken.

There are several brands that implement MQA not to risk losing any business, not because they like MQA.

[mansr]

8 minutes ago, soxr said:

See my other topic:

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

If you're referring to the fuzzy line displayed for the DXD file, this is due to the huge amounts of high-frequency ADC modulator noise this file contains:

The upsampled MQA file (obviously) has nothing above 24 kHz:

I don't think this has anything to do with the "deblurring" supposedly performed by MQA.

 

Try looking at 2L-111 instead. It has very little modulator noise to begin with.

[Shadders]

28 minutes ago, mansr said:

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

Hi,

Thanks - i understood that each DAC and hence the inherent IC that has been used, requires specific implementation of software to reverse the filter of that DAC IC ?

Some of the hifi texts online indicate that the final temporal smear introduced by the DAC filter is minimal, but to obtain the pretty light on the front of the DAC stating MQA, then full implementations required.

Regards,

Shadders.

[PeterSt]

1 minute ago, soxr said:

I have an MQA dac. I don't like the sound of MQA. so I rather buy DXD files or real lossless PCM.
So what I want is highres without the "thinning" process that MQA applies via it's renderer.

 

That was the Brooklyn, right ?

 

1 minute ago, soxr said:

My current DAC has a perfect impulse response, so what MQA would do on that DAC is a downgrade. Don't fix what ain't broken.

 

This is the problem; your DAC may have the perfect impulse response (mind has too and better ;-) but the audio file has not. So any story which tells that the file can be improved upon, I'd swallow happily (and so I did).

But this, of course, should not result in a twice the length for post ringing minimum phase filter. Now we lose and are lost.

[mansr]

1 minute ago, Shadders said:

I understood that each DAC and hence the inherent IC that has been used, requires specific implementation of software to reverse the filter of that DAC IC ?

That's what they want you to believe. Nevertheless, the impulse responses measured from the Dragonfly and Mytek Brooklyn are nearly identical to the filter coefficients extracted from Bluesound firmware. The deviation is well within expected bounds from noise and filtering associated with recording the analogue output.

[PeterSt]

8 minutes ago, Shadders said:

i understood that each DAC and hence the inherent IC that has been used, requires specific implementation of software to reverse the filter of that DAC IC ?

 

By now this seems to be a known fact. Now, with the notice that for sure something like that is part of the hardware implementation, does someone have a quote from a text or document where it is stated that this is part of the MQA design ?

Hey, I am only asking because I seem to have missed it. Again, something like that (DAC specifics) *are* in order, but I wonder whether I have seen the why of it. And we are mighty good in making up reasons for the unknown ...

[Shadders]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

That's what they want you to believe. Nevertheless, the impulse responses measured from the Dragonfly and Mytek Brooklyn are nearly identical to the filter coefficients extracted from Bluesound firmware. The deviation is well within expected bounds from noise and filtering associated with recording the analogue output.

Hi,

Thanks. So, this seems to be marketing claims, or was this claim made by the interview with MQA Ltd ? In any case, this is not very promising, false claims.

Regards,

Shadders.

[mansr]

8 minutes ago, Shadders said:

So, this seems to be marketing claims, or was this claim made by the interview with MQA Ltd ? In any case, this is not very promising, false claims.

Maybe they once intended to do per DAC tuning but dropped it for some reason. Either way, it keeps getting brought up as the reason rendering can only be performed by the DAC, not in software.

[mansr]

On 6/25/2017 at 3:37 PM, miguelito said:

One my favorite albums is Prince's "Purple Rain". I have a few of the versions: CD, the very short lived 24/96 that showed up on HDTracks at some point, and the newly released 24/96 Painsley Park remaster expanded edition. For comparison purposes alone I captured the stream from the MQA version out of the TIDAL app using Audio Hijack. I compared the high res versions using Roon, no upsample.

On 6/28/2017 at 2:12 AM, miguelito said:

Yeap, you're right. I've redone it. Here are the plots:

 

New Expanded Editiion 24/96:

 

Older 24/96:

 

MQA unfolded to 24/96:

This still ain't right. I grabbed the MQA file from Tidal and ran it through a software decoder, producing this spectrum:

This is reasonably close to your spectrum of the true hi-res version with none of the mirroring around 24 kHz. Something in your setup is doing things you didn't ask for.

[Digital Assassin]

Thank you to St. Peter for the wad of MQA spam. 

[Digital Assassin]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

Maybe they once intended to do per DAC tuning but dropped it for some reason. Either way, it keeps getting brought up as the reason rendering can only be performed by the DAC, not in software.

Uh, they "dropped" it because they could only get a handful of manufacturers to pay the FEES, send their units, along with the blueprint for the design, and to sign strict NDAs.

 

They dropped nothing.  This notion was rejected. MQA was given a massive middle finger by smart industry players.

 

This is why you hear 95% of MQA zombies talk about software unfolding only unless they have a Meridian or MyTek DAC.

[mav52]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

Maybe they once intended to do per DAC tuning but dropped it for some reason. Either way, it keeps getting brought up as the reason rendering can only be performed by the DAC, not in software.

So does this mean, an MQA dac that gets certified will sound pretty much like all other MQA dacs ?

[soxr]

10 minutes ago, Digital Assassin said:

This is why you hear 95% of MQA zombies talk about software unfolding only unless they have a Meridian or MyTek DAC.

 

Furthermore, it was always claimed by MQA that full unfolding was not possible in software and you needed a DAC for this, which has been debunked by what's inside the bluesound library. The BS library that is an .so file (shared library) contains both the software for first unfold and renderer stage.

So Bluesound does full unfolding in software. It basically debunks the need for an MQA dac.
Also some of the fanboys claim the filters are analog and MQA is an analog end-to-end process, while hey listen to an NAD c390DD amp which is fully digital.

Which means MQA cheats. They do allow full unfolding + DSP on some of their own products (like the active Meridian DSP speakers) and they do also allow EQ after full MQA decoding on NAD:

https://support.bluesound.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/115007974948-MQA-and-EQ-functionality-

 

but at the same time limiting output to the first unfold in software like the tidal player and MQA software players.

So MQA maintains double standards.

 

[Digital Assassin]

6 minutes ago, soxr said:

 

Furthermore, it was always claimed by MQA that full unfolding was not possible in software and you needed a DAC for this, which has been debunked by what's inside the bluesound library. The BS library that is an .so file (shared library) contains both the software for first unfold and renderer stage.

So Bluesound does full unfolding in software. It basically debunks the need for an MQA dac.
Also some of the fanboys claim the filters are analog and MQA is an analog end-to-end process, while hey listen to an NAD c390DD amp which is fully digital.

Which means MQA cheats. They do allow full unfolding + DSP on some of their own products (like the active Meridian DSP speakers) and they do also allow EQ after full MQA decoding on NAD:

https://support.bluesound.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/115007974948-MQA-and-EQ-functionality-

 

but at the same time limiting output to the first unfold in software like the tidal player and MQA software players.

So MQA maintains double standards.

 

SPOT On.

 

This is why you see critics of MQA talk about the ever changing story.

 

They keep moving the goal posts as opposition mounts.

 

They had the sheer audacity to think that DAC designers would pack up demo units  and ship them en masse to the UK for Meridian to reverse engineer.  And pay for the privilege at that. What a hoot.

[mansr]

7 minutes ago, soxr said:

They do allow full unfolding + DSP on some of their own products (like the active Meridian DSP speakers) and they do also allow EQ after full MQA decoding on NAD

On the Bluesound/NAD, EQ is done between "core" decoding and final rendering. They take the output from the decoder and do the EQ DSP, then restore the LSB (containing the renderer instructions) from the pre-EQ signal.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

19 hours ago, fung0 said:

 

So... your argument is... we shouldn't worry until after it's already happened? Even though there are many good reasons to fear the worst. (These have been explained ad nauseam in this thread; it should not be necessary to repeat them.)

 

 

First you dismiss this "little company," then in the next breath acknowledge that it's working with "big media publishers, streamers, downloaders, etc." I think that group (essentially the entire audio industry) certainly does have the ability to "simply impose their will on us - all of us." And to re-write government regulations, if need be.

 

I suppose you're trying to be ironic in your mention of "sneaky DRM," but this is not a trivial concern, nor one without historical precedent. We know that big media publishers love DRM, and it is not at all unreasonable to fear that they'd take any opportunity to "sneak" it into the ecosystem.

 

 

Obviously, we are protesting. Are you speaking for or against our freedom to do that? Or are you simply reiterating that it's only okay to protest once the battle is over?

 

 

The size and profitability of today's advertising and marketing industries is solid proof that consumers are indeed "easily brainwashed" - especially when those who have any understanding of esoteric technological and market factors keep silent. As you seem to feel we should do.

 

 

You clearly have a wonderful understanding of how classic capitalism is supposed to work. But you have apparently failed to notice that almost none of that theory applies any more, in zero-sum markets that no longer have any room for expansion, and which are dominated by at most a handful of companies, all of which have a strong vested interest in collaborating as opposed to competing. (They openly speak of 'co-opetition,' when they're in a jocular mood.)

 

It's simply inconceivable that any upstart competitor could create a viable alternative to, say, the audio CD. And this is exactly what's so worrying about MQA: it seems to be making headway that can only be accounted for by strong support from the music industry. MQA is a format that's tailor-made to please the music industry, unnecessary (at best!) from the point of view of both audiophiles and average consumers. But if the big music publishers unanimously decide that all CDs shall be MQA-encoded, there's no market force that could stop them.

 

Under today's distorted form of capitalism, it makes perfect sense to argue early and loudly against use of technology in such a clearly anti-consumer way. If we don't speak up, right now, then who will... and when?

Yes, you have your MQA business scenarios, I have mine, which disagree.  Your "perfect sense" does not concur with my view.  My point is, and has been, that each of our constructs, both yours and mine, are based on assumptions rather than actual facts.  Neither of us can prove conclusively that our own forecast of future outcomes will come to pass.  And, we could argue ad infinitum without getting anywhere.

 

The prevailing dire and gloomy scenarios so pervasive here are purely matters of belief, not matters of fact, though many may be "dead certain" of the cataclysm that will ensue if MQA, God protect us, were to gain a sustainable foothold in the market.  But, it is all a house of cards not built on fact, and to my mind hardly worth the anger, harangues, insults and the jihad so pervasive through this entire thread, given the real uncertainties.

 

Sorry to be so out of step with everyone else here.  But, I just don't see enough credible evidence to fear the doom and gloom so many others here are confidently, glibly in many cases,  so certain of.  Trying to be fair and objective, I also fail to see conclusive proof of the alleged lies or fraud on the part of Stuart and MQA.  I remain myself a believer in neither the goodness or badness of MQA at this point, though I remain curious and as open minded as I am able to be about it

[PeterV]

I am the 'fanboy' as soxr, the 'hateboy' mentions in this thread. Yes, I own a NAD C390DD MQA certified Direct Digital Feedback Amplifier, including the BluOS MQA certified streamer module. I am aware of the architecture of this integrated DAC/amplifier and although it operates in 35 bit and 108 MHz masterclock, it is for sure converting the digital PWM signal into an analogue signal, since loudspeakers do not swallow digital signals Frederic :-)  I never claimed that the MQA filters are analog, but explained that MQA is an end-to-end process because temporal and other artifacts can only be minimized if the two ends cooperate in real-time in MQA the decoder/DAC is controlled by the encoder. 

 

The question was asked in January to Bluesound:

 

One of the features of MQA is that it can fix errors in D/A conversion and to do so, it must be tuned to each make/model of a downstream DAC chip.

Bob Stuart quote: 'Full software decode is not possible because the DAC must be known and characterized. MQA is an analog to analog process."

According to the company, the more MQA knows about the gear responsible for A/D and D/A conversion, the better it can eliminate and/or correct for unwanted digital artifacts introduced by the conversion process. MQA does this by applying specific filters and processing based on the actual gear in use on the A/D encode side and on the DAC decode side. MQA is, ideally, an end-to-end technology. One of the most sonically important corrections these filters make, according to the company, is in the time domain. The company refers to this as "de-blurring". MQA is an end-to-end process because temporal and other artifacts can only be minimized if the two ends cooperate in real-time; in MQA the decoder/DAC is controlled by the encoder.

But what happens if there is no traditional D/A conversion with a DAC? A bluesound powernode 1 for example converts the digital audio signal (PCM) through a digital sound processor (DSP) into a pulse width modulation (PWM) signal that directly drives the speakers. In this concept there's no DAC involved, so is there a) nothing to be fixed because this system has no design flaws like jitter or b) MQA doesn't come to its full potential because the DAC stage is missing or cannot be corrected?

 

Answer by Bluesound:

The DAC in the Powernode (and POWERNODE 2) is fully MQA certified. There still has to be a DAC of some sort to drive your analog speakers  That being said C is much closer to A than B (at least in our alphabet...)

[PeterV]

By the way soxr, please read this article, it will enlighten you.. MQA is not cheating with the Bluesound functionality to offer EQ in the digital domain. The end-to-end data integrity is maintained. They offer even more extensive EQ in a portable MQA player like the Pioneer XDP-100R which I purchased for very reasonable price a few months ago.  unfolding to 24/384 and no problems with EQ...

 

http://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/mqa-time-domain-accuracy-digital-audio-quality

[fung0]

1 hour ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Yes, you have your MQA business scenarios, I have mine, which disagree.  Your "perfect sense" does not concur with my view.  My point is, and has been, that each of our constructs, both yours and mine, are based on assumptions rather than actual facts.  Neither of us can prove conclusively that our own forecast of future outcomes will come to pass.  And, we could argue ad infinitum without getting anywhere.

 

The prevailing dire and gloomy scenarios so pervasive here are purely matters of belief, not matters of fact, though many may be "dead certain" of the cataclysm that will ensue if MQA, God protect us, were to gain a sustainable foothold in the market.  But, it is all a house of cards not built on fact, and to my mind hardly worth the anger, harangues, insults and the jihad so pervasive through this entire thread, given the real uncertainties.

 

Sorry to be so out of step with everyone else here.  But, I just don't see enough credible evidence to fear the doom and gloom so many others here are confidently, glibly in many cases,  so certain of.  Trying to be fair and objective, I also fail to see conclusive proof of the alleged lies or fraud on the part of Stuart and MQA.  I remain myself a believer in neither the goodness or badness of MQA at this point, though I remain curious and as open minded as I am able to be about it

 

My own objections to MQA have nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of the company's assertions. My concern is simply that proprietary 'standards' (an oxymoron if ever there was one) are a horribly bad idea, and must be forcefully resisted at all times.

 

Unfortunately, your optimistic "business scenarios" in this regard are not supported by historical information. Here are just a few examples of bad standards that have been implemented by corporate will-power, at great expense to both consumers and markets:

• Sony literally killed digital recording and distribution by incorporating DRM in the DAT standard, which would otherwise have been eagerly adopted by legions of musicians and concert-tapers.
• Sony pushed Blu-ray as the video-disc standard by monopolistically low-balling its PlayStation 3. BD displaced the arguably superior (and far less DRM-infested) HD DVD standard. Many early adopters got burned. Disc sales never recovered.
• Standalone media boxes like the Apple TV, WDTV and newer Kodi players use superior, open-standard formats such as h.264 and h.265. But even now they're being held back from market success by intense opposition from the content industry, even though both engineering and common sense make it clear that this is how home entertainment ought to work.
• Microsoft adopted eternal updates, added a loony 'tiled' interface, replaced Toolbars with 'Ribbons,' and added privacy-destroying 'telemetry' to Windows. User protests (very similar to the one now tackling MQA) were ignored, because (like the music-publishing cartel), Microsoft has a hammerlock on its market.
• For similar reasons, Microsoft has refused to adopt open document standards. Many people and organizations have protested, to no avail. Microsoft continues to change ("upgrade") its proprietary standards, inconveniencing billions of users in order to drive software sales.
• W3C recently inserted DRM into the Word Wide Web standard, against vast opposition from users and advocacy groups, and with support only from corporate participants, including Google, Microsoft and Netflix. This is a clear case in which we didn't yell loudly enough.

On the other hand, there are also numerous examples of public will - or competition, where it has existed - overcoming potentially devastating mis-steps:

• ARC tried to lock up file-compression. Zip triumphed, purely by virtue of the willingness of the personal computing world to make a huge shift in established habits. (PC users were a very rational, focused bunch back then. Unlike, say, today's audio enthusiasts...)
• Adobe gained de facto control over digital fonts, with PostScript Type 1. This became a huge roadblock to the evolution of desktop publishing. Microsoft (yes, the same Microsoft) fought back with TrueType, and today we have OpenType.
• Adobe voluntarily released its PDF standard royalty-free, enabling the creation of endless software tools, and ensuring universal acceptance of the format.
• Sony released a consumer video recorder. The content industry was outraged, and fought a massive legal battle against it. Sony (yes, the same Sony) dug in its heels and won, opening a vast new market for home video.
• When Sony refused to license its Beta technology on reasonable terms, everyone else - consumers included - adopted the more-open VHS standard. Eventually, even Sony was forced to go with the flow. (I still own an excellent Sony VHS machine.) To this day, many fans claim Beta was superior. But openness won.
• Digital recording eventually recovered from the DAT (and DCC) debacle, owing purely to an upsurge in illicit MP3 distribution, driven entirely by users with zero corporate input or support. (Apple rode that wave rather shrewdly.) Fraunhofer imposed only very modest royalties, ensuring that MP3 could become a universal standard, and allowing evolution of projects like LAME, a user-driven encoder far superior to Fraunhofer's own.
• Recently, the emerging medium of virtual reality was headed for a nightmarish future of multiple standards. Valve Software and groups like Khronos pushed for open standards, and front-runner Oculus was at last persuaded to sign on. (Microsoft, unfortunately, remains a stubborn outlier, and could still end up needlessly fragmenting the market.)

There are many other tales that could be told, from various markets related to media and digital technology.

 

At this point in history, it's been well-demonstrated that open standards are vital, enabling maximum progress for consumers and maximum profit for businesses. It is also obvious that open standards don't always materialize by the grace of the market's 'invisible hand.' Or survive in the face of corporate onslaught. Sometimes, consumers and experts need to speak up.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi @PeterV, releasing someone's name to the public, who wishes to remain anonymous, is against the rules here at CA. I've removed identifying information from your posts. 

[PeterV]

OK, no problem, there are reasons for hiding someone's identity and I am totally not surprised with this guy that he requires this...

[The Computer Audiophile]

People's employment has been jeopardized due to their real names being released here on CA. 

 

I don't wish to help people interested in such nefarius activity. 

[Jud]

20 minutes ago, fung0 said:

W3C recently inserted DRM into the Word Wide Web standard, against vast opposition from users and advocacy groups, and with support only from corporate participants, including Google, Microsoft and Netflix.

 

Specifics?

[mansr]

12 minutes ago, PeterV said:

OK, no problem, there are reasons for hiding someone's identity and I am totally not surprised with this guy that he requires this...

Why don't you tell us a little about yourself? You could start with how much you get paid to be an MQA shill.