MQA is Vaporware

[soxr]

22 minutes ago, PeterV said:

Well Fokus..let's ask MQA themselves, but also find a way to do proper A/B comparisons in the analogue domain. Is this possible or impossible? Even though loudspeakers and microphones have their own intrinsic (time-smear) flaws, why not test, measure, compare? 

Why are you changing the subject? As soon as a mastering engineer applies reverb or some similar effect, or edits a recording of instruments in a room or hall with natural reverb, the original signal from the instrument is combined with reverb / echo's and other distortions (either natural or electronically), smearing the audio. It is this smear that allows the ear to decode the real or virtual positioning info. It is this smearing that gives certain bands their signature sound. Imagine Metallica without guitar pedals? Without that fat sound?

All time smear in MQA products is "killed" using one of 32 predefined filters in the MQA render stage:

[PeterV]

I am not interested in measurements or graphs or reversed engineered software programs. All I care about is that MQA is contributing positively to the sound and that is just my personal observation. What I want to know is if this is due to the improvement in impuls response and as a result also to the reduction of time-smear in air. If my ears are capable to notice this en MQA claims are very clear about the reason and call this a 'paradigm shift' then all I care about is to get professional and objective confirmation. 

[fung0]

8 hours ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Well, you have your version of history and your opinion of what has been "well demonstrated". Others have their own.

 

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion - but not their own facts. And I can't help noticing that you've rebutted none of mine.

 

Quote

 

As a former venture capital executive, I would not waste my time talking to someone who had an investment idea based on developing an open technology standard.

 

 

What an odd thing to say. I can't imagine anyone coming to a "venture capital executive" with an investment idea based on developing a standard - open, closed or halfway ajar. Surely, most investment ideas would be based on developing products or services? And it's not at all difficult to cite products and services that have done extremely well, even though wholly dependent on open standards. (Every Internet business, for a start...)

 

More importantly, markets based on open standards do far better (especially in the long run) than even the most successful proprietary monocultures. Which is why big corporations continually invest in open standards, as IBM and Microsoft do with Linux, or JVC did with VHS, or Fraunhofer did with MP3. Clearly, standards do pay for themselves.

[esldude]

3 minutes ago, PeterV said:

I am not interested in measurements or graphs or reversed engineered software programs. All I care about is that MQA is contributing positively to the sound and that is just my personal observation. What I want to know is if this is due to the improvement in impuls response and as a result also to the reduction of time-smear in air. If my ears are capable to notice this en MQA claims are very clear about the reason and call this a 'paradigm shift' then all I care about is to get professional and objective confirmation. 

You have a few contradictions in your posting there.  You need to fix them or your post is non-sense.

 

All you care about is professional or objective confirmation.

 

You are not interested in measurements. 

 

Okay.  Good luck with that.

[fung0]

11 hours ago, Jud said:

Specifics?

 

Try searching "W3C" and "EME." Add "Tim Berners-Lee" if you need to. You should get a few hits...

[PeterV]

And off course, reverb and other natural or artificial sound is present in many recordings. With MQA we are talking about the existence of unwanted time-smear in recordings due to (cumulative)  aliasing effects. This is what they claim to be tackling, not the artist's signature of the sound. I just want to understand their philosophy and get confirmation how it works ( or doesn't...) Let's just  take a step back and look at MQA from another perspective to understand better if and how time-smear reduction works.

[PeterSt]

11 minutes ago, soxr said:

All time smear in MQA products is "killed" using one of 32 predefined filters in the MQA render stage:

 

I think this defines another confusing part;

If we, through such a DAC, switch on MQA after listening to it without MQA, it is clear that the filtering alone should give a vast audible difference (and if not then you are deaf or your system is etc.). But what has this to do with MQA ?

OK, that we can adjust the filtering in the DAC after a lot of (manufacturer) hoopla. But this is how this is to be done in software (there days).

 

So if this would be all what MQA adds for the rendering part, then just don't use that, hence don't get yourself an MQA DAC.

Or am I too simple now ?

[PeterSt]

1 minute ago, PeterV said:

Let's just  take a step back and look at MQA from another perspective to understand better if and how time-smear reduction works.

 

Yes, but that does not work because it's already there. Get yourself a Phasure DAC (remember, I am trying to sell DACs here ) and use XXHighEnd software with it. Engage Arc Prediction filtering (I now also try to sell software).

 

But seriously, with the software alone this can be achieved for most DACs (at least for the better). So I need to repeat : it is about the ADC process of which it is claimed that this is improved upon (and which is the part I would be interested in) but ... which seems to be in the rendering part of the process. But is it and can it ?

Now we are back to square one, hence 24 hours ago; If the answer to the latter is No and it is also nowhere else, then the rendering part (HENCE an MQA capable DAC) is only adding things you are not asking for. Or you must be lucky that it works out for your ears and system etc.

 

Correct me where I'm wrong, please.

[PeterV]

Elsdude..apologies, a typo..I am not interested in measurements in the digital domain which are not related to any effect in the time domain...Off course I am interested in measurements, but those in the domain where my ears operate as well.. I am very interested in the time-smear claims. This is the core of MQA's claim of being capable to regenerate old recordings into a more analogue, natural sound. This week one of my favorite 80's albums by Donald Fagan - The Nightfly' was released on TIDAL in MQA. Perfect material for me to audition and compare. But how much better is the impuls response ans time Smear of this record in MQA compared to the original (digital) master? Is this measurable or not?

[Fokus]

46 minutes ago, PeterV said:

Well Fokus..let's ask MQA themselves, 

 

Didn't you notice that anything asked of MQA is handled with an expert lesson in obfuscation, handwaving, and newspeak?

[esldude]

1 minute ago, Fokus said:

 

Didn't you notice that anything asked of MQA is handled with an expert lesson in obfuscation, handwaving, and newspeak?

+1 million.

 

They have taken every possible opportunity to respond and side-stepped it with anything other than useful information.

[PeterSt]

5 minutes ago, PeterV said:

But how much better is the impuls response ans time Smear of this record in MQA compared to the original (digital) master? Is this measurable or not?

 

Allow me : Not.

Not, by the grace of not having test signals available which we can create ourselves from test signals we already have outside of MQA or create ourselves.

 

So ears is the answer.

But would you trust mine ?

[Fokus]

5 minutes ago, PeterV said:

The Nightfly' was released on TIDAL in MQA. Perfect material for me to audition and compare. But how much better is the impuls response ans time Smear of this record in MQA compared to the original (digital) master? Is this measurable or not?

 

The NF is an old digital recording, made at 1x rate and with analogue anti-aliasing filters. It may have ripple in the frequency domain. This could be redressed with inverse eq. It may have some aliasing in the top treble. This could be cut out with eq, at the cost of the top, of course. It sure has a lot of post ringing. This could only be removed with eq gradually filtering the treble. It has phase distortion. This could be corrected with an all pass filter. This would create pre ringing.

Nothing else can be done. There is no magic. None of this requires MQA.

 

But of course one could simply remaster the recording to make it sound nicer, and then slap on the letters MQA. This may sound better. But not thanks to MQA. There are plenty of tracks on Tidal that simply derive from better/different masters. This is sooooo obvious.

 

[PeterV]

I am only trying to combine what I am capable to hear and what I read about how MQA might work. For example this part in the excellent sound on sound review interests me a lot: 

 

" a single apodizing filter can be designed to compensate for the time-domain responses of any number of linear-phase brick-wall filters in the signal path, and without needing to know their exact number or precise types. This means that apodization is equally effective whether applied to a current conventional digital signal chain, or to an archive of historical digital recordings." 

 

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

[Fokus]

That is not a review but a regurgitation of MQA promo material.

 

That a single apodising filter can undercut a chain of orthodox, half band filters and thus totally dominate the impulse response is common knowledge and is not even relevant in this story.

 

did I mention obfuscation?

 

[soxr]

14 minutes ago, PeterV said:

I am not interested in measurements or graphs or reversed engineered software programs. All I care about is that MQA is contributing positively to the sound and that is just my personal observation.

 

All you care about is confirmation bias, almost in an evangelistic way. Any independent research you overlook and reject. At the same time you want the time smear proven and always hammer on your fallback argument.
 

Quote

What I want to know is if this is due to the improvement in impuls response and as a result also to the reduction of time-smear in air.

 

 

How are you going to do this without measurements? You contradict yourself.
 

Quote

If my ears are capable to notice this en MQA claims are very clear about the reason and call this a 'paradigm shift' then all I care about is to get professional and objective confirmation. 

You want OBJECTIVE proof but you reject measurements and any independent research? You contradict yourself.

This is not very scientific, as the scientific method requires peer review and those who make extraordinary claims, to prove them and allow others to duplicate it

[soxr]

3 minutes ago, Fokus said:

That is not a review but a regurgitation of MQA promo material.

 

It's one of his fallback articles. So the discussion always goes around circles.

 

[Fokus]

33 minutes ago, PeterV said:

. With MQA we are talking about the existence of unwanted time-smear in recordings due to (cumulative)  aliasing effects. 

 

The irony...

 

MQA claim that the ringing of ANTI aliasing filters is detrimental to sound quality. They tackle this by introducing aliasing effects in their masters. The opposite of what you stated.

 

 

Now for something objective. Ringing is clearly audible ... IF it happens at an audible frequency. For CD production the filter ringing is at 22kHz. Most adults really cannot hear this. For hires production the filter ringing at two or four times higher a frequency. Not even dogs are bothered.

 

MQA solves a non-problem. This would be perfectly fine, if only it were not a closed standard, excluding a large installed base of hardware and software, if it did not exclude existing DSP, and if it did not include a mechanism for DRM.

 

But this may be too objective for you?

 

 

 

 

 

[PeterSt]

21 minutes ago, PeterV said:

This week one of my favorite 80's albums by Donald Fagan - The Nightfly' was released on TIDAL in MQA. Perfect material for me to audition and compare. But how much better is the impuls response ans time Smear of this record in MQA compared to the original (digital) master?

 

Peter. I just looked and I will rephrase what Fokus already told, but which possible goes beyond you and others :

The Nightfly is presented to you as an MQA album in native 48KHz. This means that it won't be 96KHz or more. It is and remains 48KHz.

 

The impulse response would be poor because of this, normally. Say that it is just CD quality and for CD quality to reconstruct, steep filtering is necessary in order to let drop the frequency to 0dB at 24KHz (half of 24KHz). This implies a high amount of ringing and that is your smear.

Might it be helpful, here's the spectrograph of the 2nd track :

 

As you can see, apart from some anomalies, no data above 24KHz. Not even noise, which at least proves that their workflow regarding this 48KHz is OK. It also proves that nothing is faked here (no fake hires).

 

One more thing for additional confusion :

I was promised that "no Hires" MQA albums were going to be there just the same. The benefit ? that ADC thing. This is an example of at least the existence of MQA without being Hires (I found some more).

The confusion is of course and again about the "where" of the ADC "counteraction".

 

Peter

 

 

 

 

[Fokus]

Beyonce's Lemonade is another example of a 1x MQA release. And then there is that one 2L recording that came off DAT.

 

The Beyonce is interesting in that even the normal release shows gradual filtering starting well below 20kHz, and there is a big hole from 20k upwards, iirc. Full MQA playback clearly shows the hardly filtered upsampling that is going on, almost like a NOS DAC.

 

This as an aside.

 

[PeterSt]

6 minutes ago, Fokus said:

The Beyonce is interesting in that even the normal release shows gradual filtering starting well below 20kHz,

 

I recall to see something strange in that too, but I forgot (and no lust to look again). But :

The other day I looked at the earlier Jay-Z albums and it looks as if they were used to "play with" and see what MQA could do. They are also the oldest MQA's in there (Tidal). Anyway not suitable to play the MQA's because half of the tracks not being MQA encoded at all, etc.

I just looked for Lemonade, and the MQA seems to have been put up earlier than the normal CD (but no guarantee).

[PeterV]

I will take the challenge immediately to do A/B comparison just by listening..even with ears like you describe esldude. But some measurements in air will be helpful to get confirmation, that's an objective parameter I would say.

[soxr]

14 minutes ago, PeterV said:

I will take the challenge immediately to do A/B comparison just by listening

 

http://archimago.blogspot.be/2017/07/internet-blind-test-mqa-core-decoding.html

[soxr]

50 minutes ago, Fokus said:

 

The irony...

 

MQA claim that the ringing of ANTI aliasing filters is detrimental to sound quality. They tackle this by introducing aliasing effects in their masters. The opposite of what you stated.

 

They trade mistake A with mistake B. A trade-off. It's in their AES paper. In the hope that one is audible and the other not, without providing scientific proof, just anecdotal proof. Smoke and mirrors.

 

50 minutes ago, Fokus said:

MQA solves a non-problem.

 

I just talked to the CEO of a well known audio company. Confirmed that it is a non-problem.

 

[FredM]

1 hour ago, soxr said:

 

All you care about is confirmation bias, almost in an evangelistic way. Any independent research you overlook and reject. 

 

+1

it's going in circles like this..

@Peter please consider not to jump on each MQA post you disagree with (based on your own listening preferences). I have a dejavu with the other discussion in the Dutch topic, which turned into a childish debat. Personally I think it's a pity when this happens here again. Please agree to disagree, and move on.