mansr Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 3 hours ago, Fokus said: This is the process for a 384k master: -downsample to 192k with leaky MQA filter -downsample to 96k with leaky MQA filter -fold into 48k space using Quadrature Mirror Filter pair 1 (*) ============================================= -unfold 48k to 96k using Quadrature Mirror Filter pair 2 -upsample to 192k using leaky filter -upsample to 384k using leaky filter -light the blue LED The decoder may or may not upsample to the original rate of the master. It depends on the capabilities of the DAC chip and other parts. The blue light comes on regardless, of course. Link to comment
Shadders Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 3 hours ago, Fokus said: (* As an aside: the output of QMF1 is what people without MQA decoding have to listen to. QMF1 has to be optimised to allow a lossless split-join in the origami folding step. This is an extremely limiting constraint. This means that QMF1 cannot likely be optimised, at the same time, for optimal sound quality for non-MQA listening. This is mathematics.) Hi, What is the type and order of the Quadrature Mirror Filter ? Thanks and regards, Shadders. Link to comment
Fokus Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 2 minutes ago, mansr said: The decoder may or may not upsample to the original rate of the master. It depends on the capabilities of the DAC chip and other parts. The blue light comes on regardless, of course. Assuming sufficient capabilities, of course. Link to comment
Popular Post The Computer Audiophile Posted January 10, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted January 10, 2018 6 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said: Oh shut up. We are plenty experienced to not be at the whim of a first impression. I've heard valid MQA demos on several occasions. And you don't even understand how process standards like authentication differ from DRM. The real problem here are armchair idiots like yourself who can't respect a differing opinion. Go back to school and take a Debating 101 course and learn how to present some points backed up by some evidence before slamming the journalists who are working hard to explore audio. Telling people to shut up and calling them idiots isn’t allowed here at CA. If if you have evidence that someone is in fact an idiot, please put that forth and address the subject matter. Shadders, MrMoM, mcgillroy and 3 others 4 1 1 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
Fokus Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 46 minutes ago, Shadders said: What is the type and order of the Quadrature Mirror Filter ? It is not a filter type, but rather a relationship between two filters, so that when combined they satisfy (free of error) a specific criterion. In this case two QMF pairs have to be used to split a 96k signal into two bands that each can be sampled at 48k, so that after recombination the original 96k signal is obtained again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrature_mirror_filter It is my suspicion that the two origami folding QMFs do not reach their stop band exactly at 24kHz(*). In other words, both would alias badly when resampled to 48k. A direct consequence of this is that the baseband signal of a hi-res MQA file must be infected with aliasing. If and when the true nature of the encoding QMFs is revealed then this would constitute mathematical proof that the undecoded MQA signal is objectively inferior to CD-rate, contrary to MQA's claims. (* Why? Well ... this universe was not created for the sake of audiophiles, otherwise playing LPs properly would not be an insolvable problem. It would be one hell of a coincidence if a set of filters would at the same time satisfy an audiophile's needs and the double QMF criterion.) Link to comment
Popular Post Shadders Posted January 10, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted January 10, 2018 4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said: Telling people to shut up and calling them idiots isn’t allowed here at CA. If if you have evidence that someone is in fact an idiot, please put that forth and address the subject matter. Hi, As long as we can exclude ex-wives from presenting said evidence, then the rule is ok. Regards, Shadders. The Computer Audiophile and MrMoM 1 1 Link to comment
Shadders Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 1 minute ago, Fokus said: It is not a filter type, but rather a relationship between two filters, so that when combined they satisfy (free of error) a specific criterion. In this case two QMF pairs have to be used to split a 96k signal into two bands that each can be sampled at 48k, and which after recombination yield the original 96k signal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrature_mirror_filter Hi Fokus, Thanks. I do believe that there must be an order to the filter - to be able to split the two bands. In addition, every filter has a type - Bessel, Butterworth, Chebychev etc. which provides a type of passband amplitude and roll off, with or without in band ripple etc. Thanks and regards, Shadders. Link to comment
Fokus Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 12 minutes ago, Shadders said: I do believe that there must be an order to the filter - Of course. But with the present public knowledge we cannot know that order. It would be immensely interesting to have access to an MQA encoder. My first test would consist of pink noise steeply filtered below, and then above, exactly 24kHz, in each case studying the undecoded output signal. Link to comment
Shadders Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 Just now, Fokus said: Of course. But with the present public knowledge we cannot know that order. It would be immensely interesting to have access to an MQA encoder. My first test would consist of pink noise steeply filtered below, and then above, exactly 24kHz, in each case studying the undecoded output signal. Hi Fokus, Thanks. What is interesting is that correcting dispersion (temporal blur) is the crux of MQA, yet they use extremely high order filters (QMF) which will cause significant dispersion, and this is not corrected. Unless someone has evidence to the contrary ? Regards, Shadders. Link to comment
mansr Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 Where have they said that dispersion is what they mean by temporal blur? Link to comment
Popular Post Samuel T Cogley Posted January 10, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted January 10, 2018 7 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said: One thing you clearly are is a useful idiot. You are being manipulated by bad mastering engineers like Brian Lucey who stand to lose money from the MQA approach. By attacking honest journalists, you are creating large amounts of bad information that obscure the good news of more hirez music. As a result many readers of the CA community will be uninformed about MQA and may miss the advantage of large catalogs of music. Perhaps even worse, your constant attacks on those with a different opinion is scaring away good people from even wanting to participate on the board thereby lowering the quality of good discussion and exploration. When a community has a widespread reputation for having biased discussion and personal attacks, very few people with experience want to participate. And that is what has happened here. MQA talking points, self aggrandizement, and scolding the forum at large for not being more vendor-friendly. All in one post. A trifecta! You must not have read BLs concerns about MQA, because your (I mean Bob's) talking point misses them completely. MQA is supposed to be "Master Quality". How can that be true if the person who made the master wasn't even present for the MQA pass? Sure, the MQA talking point is that BL is disgruntled and wants to be paid (or something). It's fiction. BL's concerns are valid, and MQA has put some real effort into discrediting him. You're doing your part for Bob as well. And to your concern trolling about CA's "widespread reputation", what you really mean is vendors prefer forums where any dissent is quickly quashed. You know, places like Hoffman or your own clubhouse of "honest journalists". Just keep in mind that this forum is the only place on the internet where this kind of discussion about MQA takes place. Bob can post all the pro-MQA material he wants over at Part Time Audiophile. Oh, wait... MrMoM, mansr and Ran 2 1 Link to comment
FredericV Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 4 hours ago, Fokus said: This is the process for a 384k master: -downsample to 192k with leaky MQA filter -downsample to 96k with leaky MQA filter -fold into 48k space using Quadrature Mirror Filter pair 1 (*) Why does MQA encoding downsample twice, instead of downsampling directly from 384K to 96K in one step? 4 hours ago, Fokus said: ============================================= -unfold 48k to 96k using Quadrature Mirror Filter pair 2 -upsample to 192k using leaky filter -upsample to 384k using leaky filter -light the blue LED Same question for upsampling. Upsampling from 96K to 384K is much more efficient in one step, instead of wasting cpu cycles doing this in 2 steps. I speak from experience, as I once rewrote our own DSP steps and reached an 8x speed gain without any negative sound impact. What MQA is doing seems like a waste of resources including power and cpu cycles. Designer of the 432 EVO music server and Linux specialist Discoverer of the independent open source sox based mqa playback method with optional one cycle postringing. Link to comment
Fokus Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 11 minutes ago, Shadders said: yet they use extremely high order filters (QMF) which will cause significant dispersion, and this is not corrected. 1) there is nothing that forces the QMFs to be extremely steep, so your assertion is based on no evidence. 2) due to the QMF property the recombination of the two bands is totally lossless. This is proven: passing a 96k original through MQA gives a pretty decent copy of that original. Link to comment
Shadders Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 Just now, mansr said: Where have they said that dispersion is what they mean by temporal blur? Hi mansr, They have not. Temporal blur is dispersion. Temporal blur is a marketing term, which describes loosely what is happening, whereas dispersion is an engineering term, which many people are not aware of. In addition to this - they have stated filters cause temporal blur, and besides the amplitude and phase effects, dispersion is the only engineering understanding that filters cause, which will delay different frequencies a different amount. If you know that temporal blur is not dispersion, then what in engineering terms is temporal blur - as none of the many communications texts i have describe such a phenomena. Thanks and regards, Shadders. Link to comment
rickca Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 Deleted Pareto Audio AMD 7700 Server --> Berkeley Alpha USB --> Jeff Rowland Aeris --> Jeff Rowland 625 S2 --> Focal Utopia 3 Diablos with 2 x Focal Electra SW 1000 BE subs i7-6700K/Windows 10 --> EVGA Nu Audio Card --> Focal CMS50's Link to comment
Shadders Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 2 minutes ago, Fokus said: 1) there is nothing that forces the QMFs to be extremely steep, so your assertion is based on no evidence. 2) due to the QMF property the recombination of the two bands is totally lossless. This is proven: passing a 96k original through MQA gives a pretty decent copy of that original. Hi Fokus, Correct - it is my assertion that it is steep to remove aliasing ? As per your point 2., if the recombination is totally lossless, then dispersion is not an issue, hence MQA is not required. I assume a "pretty decent copy" is a lossy reconstruction. Regards, Shadders. Link to comment
Fokus Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 6 minutes ago, FredericV said: Why does MQA encoding downsample twice, instead of downsampling directly from 384K to 96K in one step? That was just for the explanation. Maybe MQA uses sequential steps, maybe all in one go. It probably depends on whether they have developed their filter herd for /2 steps only, of for all possible source and target rate combinations. But this does not matter. We are discussing concepts, not implementations. Link to comment
Fokus Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 Just now, Shadders said: , if the recombination is totally lossless, then dispersion is not an issue, hence MQA is not required. No. MQA's fight with blur is at the top of the signal band, in our 96k example at 48kHz. If the QMFs injected their own blur, for whatever reason, then this would affect the area of 24kHz. But we know from spectral analysis that after unfolding the 24kHz area does not seem to be damaged: 'pretty good'. Link to comment
Popular Post rickca Posted January 10, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted January 10, 2018 7 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said: The real problem here are armchair idiots like yourself who can't respect a differing opinion. Go back to school and take a Debating 101 course and learn how to present some points backed up by some evidence before slamming the journalists who are working hard to explore audio. The industry insider credentials and connections you reference in your Part-Time Audiophile article are irrelevant to debating the merits of MQA. Mordikai and MrMoM 1 1 Pareto Audio AMD 7700 Server --> Berkeley Alpha USB --> Jeff Rowland Aeris --> Jeff Rowland 625 S2 --> Focal Utopia 3 Diablos with 2 x Focal Electra SW 1000 BE subs i7-6700K/Windows 10 --> EVGA Nu Audio Card --> Focal CMS50's Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted January 10, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted January 10, 2018 6 minutes ago, Shadders said: Hi mansr, They have not. Temporal blur is dispersion. Temporal blur is a marketing term, which describes loosely what is happening, whereas dispersion is an engineering term, which many people are not aware of. In addition to this - they have stated filters cause temporal blur, and besides the amplitude and phase effects, dispersion is the only engineering understanding that filters cause, which will delay different frequencies a different amount. If you know that temporal blur is not dispersion, then what in engineering terms is temporal blur - as none of the many communications texts i have describe such a phenomena. Thanks and regards, Shadders. "Temporal blur" doesn't need to be anything at all beyond a made-up marketing term. Tony Lauck, sarvsa and Mordikai 3 Link to comment
Shadders Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 1 minute ago, Fokus said: No. MQA's fight with blur is at the top of the signal band, in our 96k example at 48kHz. If the QMFs injected their own blur, for whatever reason, then this would affect the area of 24kHz. But we know from spectral analysis that after unfolding the 24kHz area does not seem to be damaged: 'pretty good'. Hi Fokus, Dispersion appears across the entire audio band - it is just to what degree it occurs at which frequency. Spectral analysis will not prove whether dispersion affects a specific band unless you have the before and after results - that is, the audio file before dispersion, and the audio file after dispersion (the damaging filtering as per MQA claims). Regards, Shadders. Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 8 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said: Oh shut up. We are plenty experienced to not be at the whim of a first impression. I've heard valid MQA demos on several occasions. And you don't even understand how process standards like authentication differ from DRM. The real problem here are armchair idiots like yourself who can't respect a differing opinion. Go back to school and take a Debating 101 course and learn how to present some points backed up by some evidence before slamming the journalists who are working hard to explore audio. 7 minutes ago, rickca said: The industry insider credentials and connections you reference in your Part-Time Audiophile article are irrelevant to debating the merits of MQA. Don't be so hard on poor Lee. Can't you see he's working hard here? Link to comment
Shadders Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 6 minutes ago, mansr said: "Temporal blur" doesn't need to be anything at all beyond a made-up marketing term. Hi mansr, OK - there can be two approaches - temporal blur is made up by MQA and does not exist, and everyone is being scammed that it does exist. Alternatively, temporal blur is dispersion, and engineering analysis shows that this can never be corrected. Probably better to cover both aspects to ensure that false claims by MQA can be countered. Regards, Shadders. Link to comment
Fokus Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 20 minutes ago, mansr said: "Temporal blur" doesn't need to be anything at all beyond a made-up marketing term. Come on. Ever since Craven's first papers on the subject, back in 2006 or so, we surely all know they are on a crusade against the ringing seen in the impulse response of steep low-pass digital filters, especially linear phase filters. The audiophile face of MQA is all about avoiding visible ringing by not using any steep filters in the signal path. Leaky filters are selected, allegedly on a per-case base, so that any aliasing falling below 20kHz is of the same order as the programme's innate noise. This of course ignores the inconvenient fact that the aliasing can only be low when the signal content at the filter's transition is low too, in which case its ringing would be low as well. When it comes to blur, MQA is a solution without a problem. When it comes to streaming hi-res, MQA is a solution without a problem. opus101 1 Link to comment
Fokus Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 18 minutes ago, Shadders said: Dispersion appears across the entire audio band - Think linear phase. Still the standard in production ADCs and SRCs. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now