Jump to content
Rt66indierock

MQA is Vaporware

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Don Hills said:

 

The tl;dr summary: "Ringing" happens when the filter has to cut off energy at or above its cutoff frequency.  Good luck trying to find a musical instrument that produces any significant energy above 96 KHz, and even more luck finding a microphone capable of recording it.

 

 

 

Yes excellent post. 

 

Only one thing to add to the above. 

 

Yet even more luck finding a human who can hear 96 khz ringing.  :P


To paraphrase Rick James, "sighted listening is a helluva drug".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Don Hills said:

If you prefer your education in video form, start here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG9jemV1T7I

You may find the section from 3:00 to 16:00 most relevant.

Next, go here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM

I strongly recommend watching the whole video. Pay particular attention from about the 17:20 mark.

 

Scoggins has been trashing Monty Montgomery for years.  I don't think those videos will sway his "beliefs" that have been spoon fed to him by manufacturers.  I especially like the dropping of three names in one sentence:


 

Quote

 

In looking at the Xiph Neil Young page, there are lots of problems. Here are some observations:

1. They don't present any actual scientific evidence themselves. There are no controlled listening tests either proving or disproving the benefits of 24/192 hirez.

2. They do present papers via links and their own spin on papers which suggest no discrimination between 16/44 (!) and 24/96.

3. They ignore any links to the Ohashi study which showed listeners discriminating hirez from 16/44.

4. This is the biggest one for me. No rebuttal of Bob Stuart's Coding2 paper or Mike Story's paper or Dan Lavry's paper. Mike Story's work is not even mentioned. These don't support Xiph's view but are written by very well respected digital researchers. If Xiph had credibility, those well-known papers would have been discussed in detail.

5. The entire page is pretty much a litany of digital artifact discussion but not really a structured argument against 24/192.

 

 

On Planet Scoggins, Monty Montgomery is a Flat Earther.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was a little amusing that Lee suggested that mqa algorithm "requires" encryption.   Is there any such thing in the wild, a computational algorithm that "requires" encryption for it to be solved?


Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, crenca said:

I thought it was a little amusing that Lee suggested that mqa algorithm "requires" encryption.   Is there any such thing in the wild, a computational algorithm that "requires" encryption for it to be solved?

 

In my experience over at Hoffman over the years, Scoggins has close to zero technical knowledge himself.  He just parrots what he's told by manufacturers, and holds them in the highest regard as the ultimate experts.  When he's challenged on one of his technical claims, he simply retreats to "that's what X told me, and he's more of an expert than you".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, crenca said:

I thought it was a little amusing that Lee suggested that mqa algorithm "requires" encryption.   Is there any such thing in the wild, a computational algorithm that "requires" encryption for it to be solved?

Hi,

Bitcoin requires digital signing using public and private keys :

https://www.coindesk.com/math-behind-bitcoin/

Regards,

Shadders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Ahhhh, but he never specified that.......

 

Well, my point was that does there exist a computational algorithm, for which to be completed, "requires" encryption.

 

Well of course, and that would be encryption algorithms!  However, everything else (including MQA's encoding scheme) would not "require" encryption because the point is not encrypted itself.  Encryption is present in MQA to serve the purpose of "management" of end users (and DAC manufactures, mixing engineers, etc.) digitally.  Lee is suggesting, ostensibly because he was told by MQA's PR people but I actually doubt that - he is just making it up as he goes along, that somehow the folding process of MQA would not work without it being buried behind encryption.

 

I am not sure even Bitcoin qualifies (could be wrong), because in a world populated with angels (as opposed to men), bitcoin could work without the need for encryption.... :)


Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Well, my point was that does there exist a computational algorithm, for which to be completed, "requires" encryption.

 

Well of course, and that would be encryption algorithms!  However, everything else (including MQA's encoding scheme) would not "require" encryption because the point is not encrypted itself.  Encryption is present in MQA to serve the purpose of "management" of end users (and DAC manufactures, mixing engineers, etc.) digitally.  Lee is suggesting, ostensibly because he was told by MQA's PR people but I actually doubt that - he is just making it up as he goes along, that somehow the folding process of MQA would not work without it being buried behind encryption.

 

I am not sure even Bitcoin qualifies (could be wrong), because in a world populated with angels (as opposed to men), bitcoin could work without the need for encryption.... :)

Hi,

Hmmm, scrambling a data stream requires a pseudo random generator - which is the basis for encryption. Not sure if the scrambled data stream is scrambled or encrypted.

 

Of course MQA operation does not require encryption since it is possible to just scramble the data stream, so every knows the key (to prime the PRNG/PRBS), and anyone can decode.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, new_media said:

 

If I purchased an MQA-encoded album and wanted to listen to it on anything other than an officially licensed MQA device, it would be worse than redbook quality.

 

I don't care if that's DRM by your definition, it is by mine, and I would buy a CD over MQA encoded files every single time.

 

I guess that hangs on what you mean by a "device".  Providing you are using software that does  the initial decode, then you can enjoy up to 96kHz sent to your existing DAC.  For example, as Barrows has confirmed in the Ultra Rendu thread "To be clear, the files start as 24/96, and the "first unfold" delivers all of the resolution of the original files".  

 

While it's true that 24/96 doesn't set the world on fire these days, it's not the case that you'll be getting < CD quality.  My own listening using XXHighEnd to feed MQA to my non-MQA DAC confirms this.  Of course, if others are right about DRM, maybe this is a loophole that will be closed one day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, crenca said:

 

 

Sigh.  Norton, honestly your lost in the details & claims of MQA to give you 24/96.

 

 

I was  quoting from the Sonore sub-forum on this site, not the claims of MQA. I presume that if the Ultra Rendu delivers 24/96 on first unfold (subject presumably to 96kHz MQA source  file)  then other initial software decoders do the same. For example,  XX High End clearly shows 24/96 input too.  Am I wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, mansr said:

The software decoders output 24/96, yes. How many of those 24 bits actually hold useful information is another matter.

 

I take your point, but is anyone really  suggesting that the initial decode gives less than CD quality?  I can understand (and maybe hear) that this may be the case with the  undecoded stream.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Don Hills said:

@mansr, did you plot the coefficients of the rejoining filter? It should tell us about the encoding filter.

I haven't found them. Well, I've found a whole lot of filters, but I'm not sure how it all fits together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, vmartell22 said:

I don't do streaming other than in the car, where I am yelling at the kids, swearing at other drivers and barely controlling the road rage... so do not care about SQ, etc... just want to tame the beast...

 

You should take a mindfulness course. Streamed in MQA.


"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira Pascoaes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Don Hills said:

 

The DRM mechanism is present in all MQA files. Strong encryption is used to encode the "hi res" part of the data (the 24-48 KHz part stored in the lowest 8 or so  bits of each sample.) Currently the upper bits ( 0-24 KHz, 15-17 bits) are unencrypted, but the format allows for encrypting most of the upper bits as well. As I've explained to you before, I believe it'll play out the same as HDCP has done for the HDMI standard. No enforcement of rights in the initial stages until the format becomes ubiquitous, then increasing enforcement. 

 

As for revenue stream, it's not so much about revenue. It's about control. The labels see their loss of revenue as being caused by a loss of control. They want the control back.

 

3460.jpg


"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira Pascoaes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tony Lauck said:

When encoding information that is correlated to the music (and this includes the folded high frequency content) the encoded information must be scrambled or "whitened" into pseudo-noise to convert distortion artifacts into noise artifacts. This can be done using pseudo-random number generators which involve no cryptographic algorithm, it can be done using cryptographic one-way hash functions which accomplish the same effect with more confidence, or it can done with encryption algorithms which use a key to control access to the encoded information.  All three of these methods will achieve the same technical result from an audio quality perspective, albeit with different hardware implementation costs.

Hi Tony,

This would not be possible - as you have stated, it is a one way hash function, and the data that goes in, is not reversible (in practice), and the hash output is generally a lot smaller than the input data stream.

Regards,

Shadders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...