MQA is Vaporware

[Shadders]

36 minutes ago, Hifi Bob said:

Mastering engineers already have the choice of pretty much any filter they want—i.e. if there is any audible ‘temporal smear’, the M.E. can and will fix it using standard tools (iZotope etc.).

Hi Bob,

Thanks. So in essence, MQA is not required (has been stated many times on here and elsewhere).

Maybe someone could offer an app that provides an approximation to the MQA filters (32 of them) so we can pick and choose which one we like - on a phone or other ??

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

Ha ha, 50:50 chance you will like it.

Here's my mate, marmite.

[Shadders]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I suppose a die hard MQA supporter could suggest that the mqa filters aren't as bad as everyone says they are with results like that :~)

 

Hi,

Or, high resolution is not all that better than red book, and neither is MQA.

As with cables, people are told they are better, so people being told MQA is better, is all the encouragement they need to hear the better sound.

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

11 hours ago, james45974 said:

I wonder why I haven't seen more from various manufacturer's defending their latching on to MQA, NDA notwithstanding.

C'mon, anyone in MQA club, cannot talk about MQA club.

[Shadders]

1 hour ago, FredericV said:

Are MQA's NDA's in two ways? Do they protect both parties? What if MQA / Bob Stuart violates the copyright of the DAC designs of their MQA partners? What are the penalties? Or is it just a one way document, like most EULA's, where one party sets all the rules, and the other party has to blindly accept?

Hi,

What is intriguing is that MQA Ltd have to approve the DAC design.

Why would you need to approve the actual physical design of the DAC, if all MQA is, is just an IC ?

Could it be something to do with the requirement that the digitally unfolded signal cannot be sampled - for recording.

Does the design of the DAC have to include the physical protection of the DAC IC and MQA chip interface ?

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

16 hours ago, FredericV said:

In some implementations, MQA is basically an XMOS board with I2S in and I2S out, this allows all inputs to go through the MQA decoder.

In other implementations , the MQA decoder is sitting on the USB input board, so instead of USB -> internal I2S, the board has USB->I2S->MQA->I2S to backplane. This only works for USB.

In other implementations, a full MQA software decoder (doing first unfold + renderer) is sitting on an ARM based board, which also functions as network bridge.

Hi FredericV,

Thanks. The design seems easier than the secrecy that surrounds it.

Is a network interface required in all designs ?

Thanks and regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

7 hours ago, FredericV said:

DAC's with MQA don't check the network (for now) and lack a network interface, but DAC's support a unique serial for each decoder, which in theory can be tied to a user via DRM, when reading their patent. It can even be done offline, just like a DVD player checking if the region code on the disk matches what is in the firmware.

For MQA files, that could be (speculation) matching the serial nr of the dac to the serial nr encoded in the MQA file for a given user. So DRM could in theory encode some flags in a file so that it only plays on certain serial nr's of dac's (basically an access list). This would require some kind of synchronization scheme, where to user can enter the serial nr of his DAC when buying MQA files. Or the serial nr could be read via USB. But for this to work, there need to be an infrastructure that manages the ACL's and DRM.

So while current MQA files are not limited to certain users via DRM and access lists, once MQA starts to gain momentum, that could all change. It's already mentioned in their patent.
 

Hi FredericV,

Thanks. This is how i would have thought it will have to be done if no network access. The MQA DRM looks at the encrypted code in the MQA file and if it sees a different owner - may refuse to play the file. As you have stated, there needs to be a correlation between users account and DAC MQA IC serial number.

Perhaps this is part of the manual process that exists at the moment, with regards to the DAC manufacturer and MQA Ltd.

We will not know what is planned until it happens.

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

7 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

MQA is going to bypass audiophiles and go right for the general consumer.

 

[Shadders]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

This just sounds to me like another description of dither.  Or it could be of >24 (16?) bit math in the signal processing chain somewhere, I suppose, which is another pretty ordinary thing.  Or it could be a description of the driver’s operation versus Windows’ low level audio processing.

 

In other words, I have no idea.

Hi Jud,

If the system implements any dither which may have a triangular pdf, or other, then the result will be a triangular pdf (or other) regardless of the original LSB dither.

As such, there may be no detection operation in place, just the application of its own dither to mask the LSB errors ?

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

Hi,

I have read some of the references - but what is the 10x figure related to air, mean - why is it important ?

Thanks and regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

28 minutes ago, mansr said:

Nobody knows.

Hi mansr,

I thought so - i could not work out what it was about.

"it dunnarf sound good, tho" - cockney accent required when reading that quote.

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

5 hours ago, psjug said:

 

 

Because air attenuates ultrasonic frequencies transmitted >3m.  So a terrible problem (sarcasm).  See Page4 here

http://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20171005/17501.pdf

Hi,

Thanks. So, does this mean that they have equalised the ultrasonics such that if you are 1m away from your speakers you have a lot of ultrasonics, and if you are 3metres away from the speakers, you receive the ultrasonics as if you were 1metre away ?.

If ultrasonics are so important, then surely this will distort your perception, in that, the closer i am to the speakers, the greater the overdose of ultrasonics which would be unnatural ?

Also, if there were a guitar player (example) in the room, and i am 3 metres away from them, as is probably the case for people and the distance to their hifi speakers, then the ultrasonics would never reach me anyway (or will be significantly attenuated).

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

1 hour ago, PeterV said:

Hi McGillroy, nope, it is still one on my Bucket List :-)

 

Well, I might be naive and have (too?) much confidence in the information I have gathered on the Internet the last 2 years regarding MQA. But the taste is the proof of the pudding they say... So I am lucky to be able to compare TIDAL MQA Master Sound at the moment of these albums which I know very well. The list as published by meridianunplugged is extensive and my appreciation fo what MQA brings to me in my room has further increased. Right now I am listening to Boris Blank's album Electrified, and it sounds really amazing!  The noisefloor is very low, dynamics increased, I am sorry, but that's all the proof I need at the moment.  Bob Marley, Billy Holiday,  and more to discover this weekend.

I accept the fact that MQA is reluctant to provide further evidence. They patented their technology and what has happened since the introduction is that there has been both positive and negative response to it. The nay-sayers want to prove it is bad and that it is a scam, a closed, lossy format and only there to make money for MQA... I do not understand such a hostile approach to something new at all. I have the impression that if MQA would be open source, everybody will suddenly have other ad positive opinions. What is there to lose for those who do not like it? As a moderate end-user and appreciator of MQA and the TIDAL facilities to stream absurd high quality in my living room, there is very much to gain!  I jumped from 16/44 FLAC to much higher resolution and also am very sure that what I hear in Supertramp's album Crime Of The Century and Yello'Toy for example is better than anything else I have played here. So if it is just psycho acoustics and DRM (although it is not..) I really do not care!  It just sounds so much better..WOW!

 

 

I will try to do that at one time, maybe Morten Lindberg from 2L.no would be so kind to invite me. I am in contact now via Facebook and his comment regarding MQA compared to his personal DAT recording from the past and even his recent DSD and DXD albums is very clear and convincing when I asked him why the 2L.no webshop defines MQA downloads as 'original resolution' If any studio in the world is capable to compare the sonic signature of DXD, DSD and MAQ it would be 2L.no I would say. And guess what: they sell DXD,,DSD en HD PCM download side by side with MQA. No problem!  Just let the customer choose what their appetite is..!  And guess what: TIDAL is currently STREAMING all 2L.no albums in 24/352 defolded MQA and they do not worry to loose download business. A truely forward looking company this is. The same with all fabulously recorded albums from Eudora Records.  In total at the moment 95 MQA 24/352 albums on Tidal, 1757 of 24/192 albums and > 3000 24/96 , 24/48 and 24/44 albums.  So I cannot complain, just be glad!

Morten Lindberg from 2L.no  :

" Hi Peter! "MQA Original Resolution" is quite literally the sample rate and word-length used at each and every recording preserved thru editing mix and mastering into the MQA container. For recordings originating from our latest generation of the Horus AD converter the amount of deblur process is minuscular. For older recordings the deblur is more substantial. Yes, I would say that MQA is an even more fine-tuned sonic experience of our recordings than the straight PCM.e regarding deblur and PCM?

 What I find difficult to understand is why so many are afraid to trust their own sonic experiences? It’s my number one priority in masterclasses; not to tell the students what to hear, but to let their mental and physical guard down — be exposed — and trust what they hear." 

 

So would it help if I will visit his studio and listen? Well, indeed, but this is the recording engineer's quote so just accept this is genuine, as well as this made by David Chesky and Bob Ludwig. But still...try it at home. If you like it, enjoy it, if not, do not worry so much..! 

Hi PeterV,

As a simple question, not designed to generate a discussion, has there been any MQA download you have heard which is worse than the original or a high resolution download ?

For myself, i can only hear absolute minimal differences between red book and high resolution 24bit/96kHz, if any at all.

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

8 minutes ago, PeterV said:

 

Hi Shadders, thanks for asking. The search for the best MQA version compared to other remasters is just as interesting and difficult as it used to be when doing so in the past. It is really something which takes time to appreciate and 'feel' the difference between a 16/44 of a true 24/96 or 24/192 remastered version of one specific album. When doing such comparisons at home, I always try to standardise the source from which I am listening. With 16/44  - 24/192 comparisons I play and compare these playing direct from a high-speed USB stick into the streamer. Then, first audition in the sweet spot with eyes closed, or preferably, in the dark at night. Then I listen to the music more passively, either reading and lying on our couch etc.  It is interesting that ears and brains respond differently under different circumstances.  I also visit audio shows and high-end audio dealers frequently. What strikes me is that in most cases, it is possible to recognise what is happening in the listening room during demonstrations already outside in the hallway. If it catches me I will go in and listen carefully. I do have a memory for sound, we all have (fortunately!)  and again, it is personal an biased by taste and memory. Sometimes it captures immediately, like my first listening session to Melco streamers, played on the new Dynaudio series. Really wonderful without MQA! and probably better than at my home with MQA.... So it is important to acknowledge that it is all relative. Therefore I was glad that during my first truly high-end MQA demo where I was lurking to hear The Doors 'Riders on the storm' for the first time, the sales manager himself demonstrated that the DCG non-MQA version sounded better!  That was an honest demonstration, but the mono version of a Frank Sinatra recording astonishing in MQA.. so much presence that I and the rest of the audience were very impressed. With the recent release of Supertramp COTC I was very excited when I listened to it, it was really emotional to me since it is a very special album to me for various reasons. So, that is nice. Do I say that it cannot be better anymore? NO, it probably will sound even more impressive when I listen to an ultra fast high-end horn loudspeaker system, who knows.. But all in all, over 95% of the MQA versions are convincing to my ears. There is an intrinsic technological and audible difference between 24/44 and 24/352  MQA unfolds. The only way to test it is to listen to it under various conditions. 

Hi,

Thanks for the reply. I listened to someone's Youtube comparison of MQA and standard high resolution, and to repeat the statements on here, MQA did sound thin, and standard high resolution was more full bodied sound.

That assumes that one can actually hear differences as recorded by the persons Youtube demonstration, and my speakers in the laptop can provide such a differentiation.

My current project is an active 3 way transmission line speaker - where on the scale on impact, speakers seem to make the most difference for me.

As long as it makes you happy, then no one can really argue otherwise.

This site has provided a detailed analysis of the technical aspects on MQA, and my interpretation is that given the unnecessary engineering approach of MQA, then we have to question the system design, and whether it is a beneficial system. One can probably emulate the MQA effect using a third party processes which is open, and based on some reverse engineering of MQA.

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

27 minutes ago, PeterV said:

 

Excellent sense of humor PeterSt ..!  ff hapje eten voordat  ik straks Frederic weer een potje ga treiteren... ;-) Helemaal paranoia die vent in zijn panische gedoe om over mijn werk te gaan beginnen.. wat is die diep gezakt zeg..!

Hi,

Using Google translate for those who do not speak Dutch :

Quote

"to eat food before I get to Frederic again ... ..-)
Paranoia that guy in his panic hassle to start over my work .. what's the matter?"

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

7 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Haha, good that it is a poor translation. Anyway, Frederick can read Dutch.

Yeah, let's all start talking Dutch ! You guys first.

 

The funny thing is we all don't mean it really. BUT we are Dutch. OK, and a Belgian. Some say there's a difference. Belgians are more polite. Don't you notice ?

Hi PeterSt,

I think we have a good idea what is meant - from the nouns and verbs.

My favourite herb is Coriander.

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

[Shadders]

6 minutes ago, realhifi said:

If it’s true I wouldn’t blame them one bit. I have an acquaintance that has all ARC Ref gear, gorgeous turntable setup, suberb Mac based digital into a  Metrum Pavane Dac into DeVore loudspeakers and obviously loves it. BUT, he recently wanted to hear what the fuss was about MQA so he purchased a Meridian Explorer 2 and started listening to the MQA files available on Tidal. He said it’s some of the best digital he’s ever heard and he said he can’t imagine getting a Dac that didn’t have MQA ability in it. He’s shopping.  

Hi,

So, all we need is for mansr to create an application that emulates the key aspects of the filtering/transfer function/coding process for MQA, and we can then process all our files accordingly, getting MQA for free. And it would be lossless too.

Hurrah.

I would be willing to contribute funds towards that development.

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

Hi,

Off topic, just for a bit of fun, see the following story.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41669400

 

The comments section should make you laugh. Or cry.

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

12 minutes ago, FredericV said:

I was addicted to the sound of R2R dacs compared to my previous delta sigma dacs.
In the meantime delta-sigma is catching up with ESS PRO chipsets but not yet matching the SNR of R2R, this is why I also have a Mytek Brooklyn & Manhattan 2 to play with.
 

Hi FredericV,

Can you clarify the meaning of the SNR of an R2R DAC ?

My understanding was that current delta sigma DAC's provided better S/N than R2R ?

Are you referring to the Philips R2R DAC IC which sells for £60 or more ?

Or a discrete R2R DAC such as MSB ?

The highest accuracy tolerance resistors i can find is 0.01%, which will not provide a THD better than delta sigma DAC's.

(i am assuming that S/N is also similar to THD).

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

5 minutes ago, FredericV said:

To get these specs, the trick is as follows:

By shifting the lower 12 bits of a 24 bit signal into a separate converter and threating them as upper 12 it has a unique architecture. The signal is matched with the 12 bits that were not shifted in the analogue stage, resulting in an astonishing -140dB S/N ratio.

It's digital + analog unfolding 24 bit into multiple dac's and then combining them in the analog domain, off course the dac that does the lower 12 bits but converted in the uppers 24 bits for optimal SNR need to be attenuated by 72dB if I can still calc 

This was with the Pavane, their previous model. It reached -140db noise floor. The Adagio extends on the architecture of the Pavane, and has a very clever volume control. It reaches -155dB noise floor.

What Metrum has done is much more clever in the style of "less is more". They control the volume by regulating the voltage on the ladder networks. This determines the max voltage at the output of the dac.

Some other manufacturers have an R2R network, after which they put another resistor based volume control, which you can hear clicking. MSB products and several others work that way.  The Metrum does not like pre-amps: if you put a pre-amp in between, you will most likely downgrade.

Hi FredericV,

Thanks for confirming. Not working it out, i assume the accuracy of the 72dB attenuation of the 12bits which will be the lower order bits, has less impact on the overall (less THD) than the use of 0.01% accurate resistors ?.

Thanks and regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

3 minutes ago, FredericV said:

It's more complex than it looks:

http://www.the-ear.net/review-hardware/metrum-acoustics-pavane-digital-analogue-converter-dac

They use this splitting to work around the problem you are explaining:

"But why manipulate the data stream? Well, whatever R2R converter is used, problems always arise with the LSB part, because the signal is smaller and at a lower level irregularities occur, non-linearity arises and digital noise becomes part of the analogue signal. "

Hi FredericV,

Thanks again. I wonder if the THD generated by a simple 24bit R2R ladder is audible ?, more than any non linearity caused by the dual 12bit R2R DAC summation?

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

16 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

240Hz is wonderful.  It makes a big difference to me in providing the “illusion of reality” when I watch movie scenes involving people in motion, or sports.  I noticed it immediately in the store displays when it first came out.  Bought a TV that has it and couldn’t be happier.

 

3D: Generally agreed, though I did watch the Masters golf tournament broadcast in 3D, and it helped immeasurably in understanding the lay of the greens and knowing how putts would break.

Hi,

Yes - increase in frame rate is of a benefit compared to the increasing of resolution for HDTV :

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp-pdf-files/WHP169.pdf

 

"We assert that a higher capture and display frame rate leads to a step change in picture quality regardless of the spatial resolution."

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

33 minutes ago, witchdoctor said:

The issue with those dacs is they cost $$$ and I don't know that they will work at home, in a car, in a phone, etc. The funny thing is even if you play an MQA file through a non MQA dac you can still get the first unfold of the track.

Hi,

Do you mean, you get 13bits instead of 16bits, and there is no unfolding without an MQA DAC ?

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

Hi,

The term "malcontent" is an erroneous noun to be used in this instance.

 

"a person who is dissatisfied and rebellious"

 

MQA Ltd have no authority, nor are they an authority.

All i can see here on this site are capable engineers stating the facts which just seem to oppose the MQA Ltd claims.

Regards,

Shadders.