MQA is Vaporware

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, MikeyFresh said:

Yes but only with an MQA hardware decoder performing exactly 3.5 unfolds, it's the only way to get that special proprietary sample rate, and an authentic rendering of what the artist intended.

 

There's additional de-blurring as well, such that you are hearing it as if in the vacuum of space, with no atmosphere to smear the time domain at all.

 

There's more to MQA than you think... COMING SOON: a 4th Unfold reveals an alternate universe, and it's Lossless!

Just wait until we have 4K resolution sound files.

[lucretius]

Which version of the Eagles-Their Greatest Hits 1971-1975 album would you rather have:
 

MQA_24_192_dr.txt    Redbook_dr.txt

 

 

Which track of Fleetwood Mac's "Dreams" would you rather have:

 

MQA_24_96.flac_dr.txt  Redbook_dr.txt  HDtracks_PCM_24_96.flac_dr.txt

[lucretius]

Here is some evidence that (at least sometimes) the same files that are distributed to HDtracks are also used as input for conversion to MQA:

 

MQA_24_192_dr.txt  HDtracks_24_192_dr.txt 

 

For comparison, here's the Redbook version:

 

Redbook_dr.txt

 

[lucretius]

There's definitely some clipping on this MQA Hotel California album, however, the clipping isn't too severe.

 

HotelC-MQA_24_192_dr.txt

 

Why should there be any clipping?  Does clipping exist in the actual master?

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

Bob Stuart should have been given the Prince Andrew award for what he is trying to do to the music consumer.

 

I haven't seen The Party Prince in a long time.  I wish we could say the same about MQA.

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, UkPhil said:

The same test done with a Universal owned album,  the MASTER plays MQA wind it down to HIFI and we get PCM 44.1 at the moment 

 

 

 

So it depends on the particular album?

[lucretius]

6 hours ago, UkPhil said:

I am not aware of this ever been released in 24 bit commercially, 

the closest 24bit would the DVD audio layer which no doubt if extracted would be 24/48

 

Reissued as part of a box set on blu-ray in 5.1 surround 24/96:

 

 https://www.sonymusic.com/legacy/new-box-set-release-date-december-13-2019-pink-floyd-the-later-years/

 

[lucretius]

4 hours ago, firedog said:

The origami is about dropping so called "audibly insignificant" bits in order to produce a smaller file.

 

And these bits are "audibly insignificant" because hi-res is a ruse in the first place.  So Bob decided to replace something you cannot hear with something else you cannot hear + magic light + fake sample rate display.  But when we get down to MQA-CD, then we have another problem - reducing max dynamic range from 96dB to something significantly less.

[lucretius]

6 hours ago, FredericV said:

24/96 = one unfold
24/192 = one unfold + extra upsample step (MQA renderer to use their lingo) with their leaky minimum phase filter with one cycle of postringing

We did a lot of research into these upsample filters, and they all change the sound in positive or negative ways. Some aspects of the sound get better while others get worse. It is very difficult to create a filter for which all aspects are improved.

 

With respect to an MQA renderer, such as the Dragonfly DAC, all the renderer does in this case is select the MQA filter; there is no upsampling from 24/96 to 24/192.  Putting that aside, is there ever really an upsampling from 24/48 to 24/96?  Or is it a "perceptual" (to use Bob's words) upsampling?

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, lucretius said:

With respect to an MQA renderer, such as the Dragonfly DAC, all the renderer does in this case is select the MQA filter; there is no upsampling from 24/96 to 24/192.

 

49 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

There should be, or else the MQA-DAC-Decoder would not be able to play at a rate of 192 (or 352.8 for that matter). And they really do.

 

The Dragonfly DAC doesn't have the capability of playing 24/192.

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, lucretius said:

Putting that aside, is there ever really an upsampling from 24/48 to 24/96?  Or is it a "perceptual" (to use Bob's words) upsampling?

 

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

What I understood from an other developer, is that by standard all is upsampled 2x. Thus also the new 44.1's should be played as 88.2 ? This can be checked in Roon, if nothing has changed regarding this.

I myself can not check this, as I do not comply to this rule (this is what it is) of always upsampling.

 

You are right about Roon.  If the audio device is setup as "No MQA Support" in Roon, then Roon's "MQA Core Decoder" kicks in and does in fact upsample to 24/96:

 

 

 

OTH, if Roon's MQA Core decoder is turned off, and the file is sent bit perfect to the DAC, I'm not certain whether an MQA enabled (decoder and renderer) DAC does the upsampling*. Sure, you get the fake hires number on the display:

 

 

 

 

*In this case, what would be the point of the upsampling?  We already have the fake hi-res sample rate displayed on the DAC and the upsampling is not going to change the sound. I.e., the consumer already has his placebo!

 

[lucretius]

44 minutes ago, lucretius said:

OTH, if Roon's MQA Core decoder is turned off, and the file is sent bit perfect to the DAC, I'm not certain whether an MQA enabled (decoder and renderer) DAC does the upsampling*. Sure, you get the fake hires number on the display:

 

 

 

 

*In this case, what would be the point of the upsampling?  We already have the fake hi-res sample rate displayed on the DAC and the upsampling is not going to change the sound. I.e., the consumer already has his placebo!

 

 

When I send a PCM 24/96 file to my DAC and then stop play, the DAC still reads 24/94.  However, when I send an MQA 192 file to my DAC, during play the DAC reads 24/192 but as soon as I stop play, the DAC reads 24/48.  This leads me to believe that there is no upsampling done within the hardware. (Although, I could be wrong.)

 

[lucretius]

26 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

It's a 24/48 file that the hardware is instructed to upsample by MQA indicators inside the file. 

I know the theory 🙂.  But how can I be certain the DAC is really doing the upsampling?

[lucretius]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

MQA certification mandates the DAC upsample doesn't it?

I don't know -- you are probably right.

[lucretius]

11 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

There certainly are limits for such items like the DragonFly and the power it has to upsample and supported sample rates, but for the most part I believe a DAC must just look at the selected filter and final sample rate specified in the file and use it. Such a convoluted way of doing things. 

 

 

 

In regards to the Dragonfly, MQA Limited has this to say:

"An MQA Renderer will indicate ‘stream lock’ but is not able to decode an MQA stream or Authenticate it.

This type of device is available for portable applications (such as active headphones or portable amplifiers) and for silicon integration.  MQA Renderers provide analog output only through their managed D/A conversion."

 

Perhaps the phrase "managed D/A conversion" is meant to cover the limitations for such items like the Dragonfly?

 

 

 

 

 

[lucretius]

Why aren't the labels releasing MQA 192 and MQA 96 (and MQA 88.2) files directly to the consumer and not just to streaming services?

[lucretius]

7 hours ago, lucretius said:

Why aren't the labels releasing MQA 192 and MQA 96 (and MQA 88.2) files directly to the consumer and not just to streaming services?

 

6 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Perhaps because only four people would buy it. 

 

And yet they thought it was wise to release MQA-CD cds to the consumer (at least in Japan).

[lucretius]

12 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

It would be a sad day indeed if the financial backers of MQA were able to force the music consumer into accepting the contaminated brandy that is MQA music.

 

The music consumer should reject MQA altogether and not let themselves be forced into a world of MQA only music.

 

Warner is the spearhead of the effort to force MQA on the music consumer.

 

Boycott Warner.

 

Boycott MQA.

 

Save your ability to choose and not be forced to drink the contaminated brandy.

 

Why boycott just Warner?  What about Sony and Universal?

[lucretius]

18 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Would be interesting but what’s Apple’s leverage? Record Kind of Bluish?

 

And I thought only the screens had a bluish tint. 🙂

[lucretius]

7 hours ago, R1200CL said:

Yes, I noticed (some) albums is only MQA. Now actually 2 versions of MQA. 16 and 24 bit. This doesn’t make sense at all. Why this 16 bit version ? Anyone has a good explanation ?

 

16 bit MQA -> Premium level subscribers ($9.99 USD a month)

24 bit MQA -> HiFi level subscribers ($19.99 USD a month)

 

For comparison, Qobuz:

(up to) 24/192 flac -> $14.99 USD a month ($149.99 USD billed annually)

 

 

[lucretius]

5 hours ago, firedog said:

What do you mean? Not to digital, to the world.  Robert Harley compared it to a discovery on the level of Copernicus-a scientific revolution.....

 

Let's not forget @John_Atkinson's "birth of a new world".  I wonder if he still feels that way?

[lucretius]

3 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

I will never be a part of the "blue light" cult.  I will never drink the contaminated brandy.

 

Watch out for those blue lights:

 

 

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, Cebolla said:

 

With just the LSB being used for MQA encoding (cannot contain hi-res - just used to set the blue light, plus gets the MQA renderer to upsample as necessary up to the bogus indicated original sample rate & apply the indicated MQA filter), the implication is that MQA-CD is actually 15 bits (44.1kHz only), rather than the 13 bits sometimes mentioned.

 

According to the patent diagram, the 0-24kHz is mapped to the 13 MSB bits .  The next 3 bits are then used to trigger the blue light and selection of the MQA filter, etc.*  That would make MQA-CD 13 bits -- not just 13 bits but 13 bit playback with a leaky filter.  [For 24 bit MQA, HF -- 24-48kHz -- seems to be packed into the 4 LSB bits (bit 21 to bit 24).]

 

*Further, more than 1 bit is needed to indicate authentication, filter selection and, possibly, sample rate.  Also, note that the 8 LSB bits in a 24 bit MQA file are not involved in the MQA authentication process -- the file will still authenticate when those bits are dropped.

 

 

[lucretius]

7 minutes ago, UkPhil said:

Would this be the concept to hide all the upsamping they were pushing on CD, with these being just straight 16bit they don’t need any of that craziness so wouldn’t 15bit be a truer figure even so it’s still reducing the audio capability regardless 

 

More than 1 bit is needed to indicate authentication, filter selection and, possibly, sample rate.  (The upsampling scheme for 24 bit MQA appears hidden in LSB bits 17 to 20.)

[lucretius]

3 hours ago, Cebolla said:

 

That doesn't appear to happen in practice:

 

 

Having said that there does appear to be scope in the actual MQA decoder to allow just 8 bits PCM (0-24kHz), so far worse than mentioned in the patent!

 

 

Sure, like mansr said, any specific numbers mentioned in the patents may just be examples.  However, 3 or 4 bits do not become 1, etc.  And we know from tests, that the 8 LSB bits in a 24 bit MQA file are not involved in the MQA authentication process. And, in the case of 16bit MQA, there's no way one bit alone is used to indicate authentication, filter selection and sample rate  -- so, I doubt that mansr seen files with 15 bits of PCM and 1 bit MQA.  Note that mansr's last statement (re 14-bits) contradicts what he said about 15 bit PCM/1 bit MQA files.