Jud Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 Would be interested in links to financial info on MQA and/or related entities. One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature. Link to comment
Popular Post The Computer Audiophile Posted March 27, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted March 27, 2019 40 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said: I thought MQA CD has mathematically less resolution than Redbook CD (is this incorrect?). It absolutely has to have less resolution because there is only so much room on the CD. They have to remove stuff to add the MQA stuff. It's all folded in there, but it's like a balloon Pushing in on one side makes the other side go out. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. I don't want to spread misinformation. Shadders and Samuel T Cogley 1 1 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
kumakuma Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 14 minutes ago, Jud said: Would be interested in links to financial info on MQA and/or related entities. Everything is here: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09123512/filing-history Jud 1 Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley Through the middle of my skull Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 Just now, kumakuma said: Everything is here: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09123512/filing-history It would also be nice for someone who knows the ins/outs of the filing requirements to tell us how companies get around publishing what they don't want to. It happens everywhere on Earth and I'd be shocked if there aren't several loopholes. Shadders 1 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
Popular Post crenca Posted March 27, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted March 27, 2019 I don't believe I disagree with @John Dysonin principle. Still, I think he would admit that the "atmosphere" around MQA has been awfully poisoned. MQA came out playing for keeps - the truth be damned. They had and still have the trade publications in their back pocket. They were and are willing to perpetrate what is essentially a fraud. This fraud, unlike the other common ones in Audiophiledom (for example, most of what Synergistic Research and cable companies sell) is at the bottom of our musical digital ecosystems. Those who went all in with them, trade publications, audiophiles who were too easily persuaded (and probably $purchased$ gear), and neutrals who don't have the desire or technical background to disambiguate some or all of the technical and/or market aspects of the MQA fraud have been complaining of "tone" and "civility" from the beginning. This too is part of the fraud, even when it is genuine. Virtue in service of vice is not virtue - it's just more vice. I asked a couple of weeks ago where do we go from here? We are "post-technical" with MQA - it's a fraud and indefensible on any level, even the subjective "I like its sound distortion" level because SQ was never what MQA was about. What do you think @John Dyson? I agree with @Rt66indierockin that there is in fact a zero sum aspect to MQA, in that they want to own the market and I want it to be bankrupt and liquidated. Will MQA have any lasting impact on Audiophiledom? For example, when (not if) the next Big Fraud comes along, will Audiophiles and down stream software/hardware providers be just a bit more skeptical? Shadders and MikeyFresh 1 1 Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
Dr Tone Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 I just sent my disappointment email off to prostudiomasters. I've bought dozens of albums from them over the years, it's sad to see them selling MQA, when they have "studio master" right in their name. MikeyFresh 1 Roon Rock->Auralic Aria G2->Schiit Yggdrasil A2->McIntosh C47->McIntosh MC301 Monos->Wilson Audio Sabrinas Link to comment
crenca Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 10 minutes ago, Dr Tone said: I just sent my disappointment email off to prostudiomasters. I've bought dozens of albums from them over the years, it's sad to see them selling MQA, when they have "studio master" right in their name. The objective/subjective divide is widely acknowledged, but what about the industry/consumer divide? As a consumer, you think words have meaning: "studio master" is something real with meaning - distinguished from other things and meanings. However, as an industry, what do words mean? "Studio master" is but a marketing term - something to be used and abused to sell you something - it has no intrinsic meaning. What would it look like if consumers actually pressed their position a bit (and boy, do we have a position!)? What if we demanded a bit of accountability? What would it be like if the industry in the forms of the trade publications and even "old guard" community audiophiles actually supported this? Nah, it will never happen 😋 Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
Paul R Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said: It absolutely has to have less resolution because there is only so much room on the CD. They have to remove stuff to add the MQA stuff. It's all folded in there, but it's like a balloon Pushing in on one side makes the other side go out. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. I don't want to spread misinformation. I think this is a debatable point, as MQA can definitely support higher resolution than CD, but at the expense of some high frequency (very high frequency) information, additional alias products to deal with, and perhaps, some limits on dynamic range. Still better than CD, but... whether any individual file at MQA 16/44.1 is better compared to CD seems to be a crap shoot. High Res MQA always seems to be better than CD though. The issue of course, being that it is not as good as, or at least different from the nice original high res music. Arguments rage over if the differences are intentional, the result of hidden different mastering, beneficial or fake, cause or don't cause ear fatigue, and so forth and so on. It isn't really clearly defined anywhere from testing; too much bias to unravel when it comes to how it sounds. Arguments over what MQA is are clear cut. YMMV! -Paul Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC. Robert A. Heinlein Link to comment
John Dyson Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 Responding about MQA being problematical... IT is, it is one of the things that I did allude to about not being beneficial for the community at large. I didn't really want to make the observation totally MQA specific, even though it is the current subject of discussion (hopefully.) However, emotional responses show weakness. We all know that the MQA skeptics are more on the 'right side' of audio/music enjoyment than the MQA advocates (esp those who are trying to profit), and even getting angry is probably okay. However, overly emphasizing personal aspects of the discussion tends to show weakness. I know that the people involved don't see that aspect of things -- because they are locked up in the muddled mess. I know of a politician who keeps tripping himself up with personal invective, even when he is on top. It is so important to avoid that kind of 'discussion.' It is a delicate balance to mix the personal preference aspects vs. the hard-core scientific aspects of things. It is easy to leak into personal criticism -- best to stay away from personal criticism IF POSSIBLE. I DO NOT have all of the answers -- but when on the winning side (I truly wish there weren't 'sides'), it doesn't pay to 'beat dead horses', or continue complaining about the vanquished. John Link to comment
Popular Post Jud Posted March 27, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted March 27, 2019 1 hour ago, Samuel T Cogley said: I thought MQA CD has mathematically less resolution than Redbook CD (is this incorrect?). 1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said: It absolutely has to have less resolution because there is only so much room on the CD. A little more complicated (and I'm sure I don't have anything like a complete understanding either), but here goes: Resolution is usually given in two figures, left side being word length, right side being sample rate. Redbook resolution is 16/44.1 (16 bits per sample or "word," 44.1kHz sample rate). The left side is the easy one. MQA has to devote one or more of the bits in the 16-bit word to MQA information, like telling a DAC the file is MQA, and telling it which of the MQA upsampling filters to use. This results in each sample from an "MQA CD" being able to devote only about 13 bits to the music, if I remember correctly. This results in an 18dB decrease in the potential musical content before you hit the noise floor (about 6dB per bit, so about -96dB potential noise floor for regular CD vs. about -78dB potential noise floor for "MQA CD"). I have some doubt that there are CDs making use of even a 78dB dynamic range, but am interested to hear if anyone knows otherwise. The right side is more complicated. MQA claims it "folds" a 96 or 192kHz sample rate into the 44.1k Redbook resolution. What does an increased sample rate get us? It gives DAC filters an easier job of balancing two types of distortion, imaging and aliasing on the one hand (which cause low ultrasonic frequencies to interact with each other and audible frequencies, causing intermodulation and harmonic distortion), and ringing on the other. So "hi res" makes it easier to have good DAC filters, and good DAC filters can do a better job reproducing the original music with less distortion. There are two problems with this when it comes to MQA: First, we know the MQA DAC filters are designed to let through aliasing and imaging, causing intermodulation and harmonic distortion. This by itself pretty well negates the reason for hi res. Second, MQA uses lossy compression to do the "folding." This means the information the filters have to work with is not an exact copy of the original file, but a file that has lost information present in the original. This loss with respect to the original is by definition distortion. So whether material on an "MQA CD" purports to have a sample rate of 96kHz or 192kHz, (1) it doesn't take advantage of the sample rate to use better filters that produce lower distortion, and (2) it produces further distortion through lossy compression. Therefore, regardless of resolution numbers, an MQA CD cannot produce sound as close to the original as it is possible to produce with a non-MQA CD. Additionally, it has lower potential dynamic range. Whether any of this is audible is open for discussion. But if there is any sonic difference, it can only be in one direction: MQA cannot sound as close to the original as a file using better filters, and that hasn't been subjected to lossy processing. MikeyFresh, Hugo9000, Samuel T Cogley and 2 others 4 1 One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature. Link to comment
psjug Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 14 minutes ago, Paul R said: High Res MQA always seems to be better than CD though. How are you coming to this conclusion? I really have not seen this comparison done in any meaningful way using the same master. I don't think the McGill study included redbook, did it? That would have been worthwhile, I think. Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted March 27, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted March 27, 2019 11 minutes ago, Paul R said: I think this is a debatable point, as MQA can definitely support higher resolution than CD, but at the expense of some high frequency (very high frequency) information, additional alias products to deal with, and perhaps, some limits on dynamic range. Still better than CD, but... whether any individual file at MQA 16/44.1 is better compared to CD seems to be a crap shoot. High Res MQA always seems to be better than CD though. On an MQA CD, there is less than 1 bit per left/right sample pair in which to store any extra information. That's about 44 kbps. If mp3 at 128 kbps sounds bad, well... it's probably a good thing those high frequencies are inaudible. esldude, Shadders and MikeyFresh 1 2 Link to comment
Paul R Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 5 minutes ago, mansr said: On an MQA CD, there is less than 1 bit per left/right sample pair in which to store any extra information. That's about 44 kbps. If mp3 at 128 kbps sounds bad, well... it's probably a good thing those high frequencies are inaudible. Yes, you are correct of course. I was thinking of digital files, not a physical CD. -Paul Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC. Robert A. Heinlein Link to comment
Paul R Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 7 minutes ago, psjug said: How are you coming to this conclusion? I really have not seen this comparison done in any meaningful way using the same master. I don't think the McGill study included redbook, did it? That would have been worthwhile, I think. Absolutely - I should have said "seems to be better" - because it actually might not be. But people get that impression when they listen to it. Even me. -Paul Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC. Robert A. Heinlein Link to comment
Popular Post crenca Posted March 27, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted March 27, 2019 6 minutes ago, mansr said: On an MQA CD, there is less than 1 bit per left/right sample pair in which to store any extra information. That's about 44 kbps. If mp3 at 128 kbps sounds bad, well... it's probably a good thing those high frequencies are inaudible. Yikes at that. However, do we know if that is even being done? Would it surprise anyone that there is not even that - just the MQA data on filters and instructions to upsample. As @Jud points out, this would theoretically give room for better filtering, but MQA's filters don't actually implement this theoretical advantage - quite the opposite. So what is an MQA CD, exactly? It appears to just be an empty market niche offering. The Computer Audiophile and MikeyFresh 1 1 Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
Paul R Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 20 minutes ago, Jud said: But if there is any sonic difference, it can only be in one direction: MQA cannot sound as close to the original as a file using better filters, and that hasn't been subjected to lossy processing. Well said, but this is not entirely true. In some cases, an amp will produce notably better sound if you filter out the supersonic signal information. This is an example of removing the same kind of information without hard to, and actual improvement to the sound coming out of the speakers. Note: I am not saying that MQA necessarily improve the sound this way, just that it is in theory possible. I think the other factors, such as aliasing noise, would also be factors. Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC. Robert A. Heinlein Link to comment
Popular Post John Dyson Posted March 27, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted March 27, 2019 8 minutes ago, mansr said: On an MQA CD, there is less than 1 bit per left/right sample pair in which to store any extra information. That's about 44 kbps. If mp3 at 128 kbps sounds bad, well... it's probably a good thing those high frequencies are inaudible. Funny also -- the high frequencies are the most difficult to gain a lot of compression digitally -- it is best to compress the low frequencies where the energy is being used. There is less redundancy in the higher frequencies, and LOTS of redundancy in the low frequencies, but a lot of energy also normally spent there. Digitally compressing the lower frequencies tends to be more effective, and like some of the original enhanced TV systems -- they would have passed the high frequencies unmolested. The compressed signal wouldn't be viewable by legacy TVs, but the compression would both be efficient and require less signal power to convey the high frequencies of the signal also. So, by trying to get effective compression of the high frequencies -- well -- it can be done, but would be of poorer quality relative to doing the compression 'correctly'. Apparently, the reason for stealing the bits isn't so much to improve the audio quality, but to secret away some kind of encryption. I TRULY do not know much about MQA, but I do understand many aspects of digital compression (all the way down to KLT stuff.) John Kyhl and Jud 2 Link to comment
crenca Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 30 minutes ago, John Dyson said: I DO NOT have all of the answers -- but when on the winning side (I truly wish there weren't 'sides'), it doesn't pay to 'beat dead horses', or continue complaining about the vanquished. John I respect your perspective - however the horse keeps getting up...or whatever the right analogy is. What then? I wonder if you are not declaring victory too early. You understand, others understand, but those who don't keep talking and spamming this thread. Also, I don't get the sense that Audiophiledom is about good (or just adequate) technical knowledge, common sense, community, principles, or anything related to all that. So having those things and asserting them certainly won't do much about the MQA's of this hobby. Bob S started with audiophiles and the audiophile "community" for a reason: he understood that it was here that the fraud would be most accepted. Ishmael Slapowitz 1 Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
Paul R Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 3 minutes ago, John Dyson said: Funny also -- the high frequencies are the most difficult to gain a lot of compression digitally -- it is best to compress the low frequencies where the energy is being used. There is less redundancy in the higher frequencies, and LOTS of redundancy in the low frequencies, but a lot of energy also normally spent there. Digitally compressing the lower frequencies tends to be more effective, and like some of the original enhanced TV systems -- they would have passed the high frequencies unmolested. The compressed signal wouldn't be viewable by legacy TVs, but the compression would both be efficient and require less signal power to convey the high frequencies of the signal also. So, by trying to get effective compression of the high frequencies -- well -- it can be done, but would be of poorer quality relative to doing the compression 'correctly'. Apparently, the reason for stealing the bits isn't so much to improve the audio quality, but to secret away some kind of encryption. I TRULY do not know much about MQA, but I do understand many aspects of digital compression (all the way down to KLT stuff.) John I *think* the compression and data storage depends upon the amplitude difference - low amplitude in the high frequency range of course, more room to convole data into the signal. As noise in this case, but still. Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC. Robert A. Heinlein Link to comment
John Dyson Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 3 minutes ago, crenca said: I respect your perspective - however the horse keeps getting up...or whatever the right analogy is. What then? I wonder if you are not declaring victory too early. You understand, others understand, but those who don't keep talking and spamming this thread. Also, I don't get the sense that Audiophiledom is about good (or just adequate) technical knowledge, common sense, community, principles, or anything related to all that. So having those things and asserting them certainly won't do much about the MQA's of this hobby. Bob S started with audiophiles and the audiophile "community" for a reason: he understood that it was here that the fraud would be most accepted. Be ready every time they come back for 'punishment', but no need to condemn. It' d be nice to rid the world of the MQA 'scourge', but as long as there is money to be made.... John Link to comment
ipeverywhere Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 6 minutes ago, Paul R said: Absolutely - I should have said "seems to be better" - because it actually might not be. But people get that impression when they listen to it. Even me. -Paul Play 45 seconds of a song someone loves. Then hit the "loudness" button and play the same 45 seconds. I'd bet money the person prefers the 45 seconds with loudness on. Now make them listen to the whole album on repeat for 3+ hours. After being totally fatigued from the EQ'ing / other crap loudness generally does I would also bet that person prefers loudness off for the rest of their listening session. This was my audio journey with MQA (decoded/first unfold in software, I do not have MQA hardware). Initial there was a "WOW! That's alive and fun and different." But then after a few hours with it I found it to be really fatiguing to listen to. It just started to sound processed, digitized, emphasized in the wrong places, and generally overdone. Like those early HDR photos. Some people will love the MQA filters over their current redbook set-up and I totally get that. Heck, I don't even use the DAC in my CD player anymore because I prefer what my external DAC is doing when I use the player as transport. Doesn't mean my external DAC is "better". I just prefer it. There are fundamental reasons to stop MQA from polluting what gets streamed / downloaded into our homes. But I don't put as much value in debating if sound quality is one of those things. MQA, for some people, will sound better than what they are used to. Doesn't matter if bits are missing. Heck, an EQ'd/room corrected 128kbps MP3 that better matches someones listening environment might very well be preferred over a 24/192 file. Who am I to tell that person their preference is wrong even if I can scientifically document why I'm right? Ralf11 1 Link to comment
Popular Post Rt66indierock Posted March 27, 2019 Author Popular Post Share Posted March 27, 2019 2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said: It would also be nice for someone who knows the ins/outs of the filing requirements to tell us how companies get around publishing what they don't want to. It happens everywhere on Earth and I'd be shocked if there aren't several loopholes. The UK plugged a big one. If a member (shareholder) is a public company then the small companies exemption doesn't apply. Reinet Investments the money behind MQA Ltd is publicly traded. That seems to mean audited financial statements are required. kumakuma, Hugo9000 and The Computer Audiophile 1 2 Link to comment
Popular Post ipeverywhere Posted March 27, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted March 27, 2019 Question as it's unclear to me (I may have missed this page somewhere): Is MQA really "compressing" the higher frequencies or using something like ADPCM to sample them? If it's ADPCM I wouldn't call that "compression" in the way most people think of lossy compression. When I think of lossy compression I define that as a filter literally throwing away specific parts of the waveform so that those parts don't need to be encoded digitally. ADPCM is very different. ADPCM doesn't have any concept of what's in the waveform. ADPCM is literally throwing away entire samples. It does this in a way that those missing samples can be reconstructed on the other side. This generally gives you an _extremely_ close duplication of the waveform with only half the bits required (or however many bits equate to how many samples you're willing to throw away). That's an oversimplification of how ADPCM works but.... I'm trying to understand if reconstructing the MQA "compressed" part is an ADPCM function to totally reconstruct the missing samples or if it is truly lossy compression where some parts of the waveform were never samples to begin with. It may be a combination of both. Kyhl and The Computer Audiophile 2 Link to comment
Popular Post Ishmael Slapowitz Posted March 27, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted March 27, 2019 30 minutes ago, crenca said: I respect your perspective - however the horse keeps getting up...or whatever the right analogy is. What then? I wonder if you are not declaring victory too early. You understand, others understand, but those who don't keep talking and spamming this thread. Also, I don't get the sense that Audiophiledom is about good (or just adequate) technical knowledge, common sense, community, principles, or anything related to all that. So having those things and asserting them certainly won't do much about the MQA's of this hobby. Bob S started with audiophiles and the audiophile "community" for a reason: he understood that it was here that the fraud would be most accepted. Someone asked out loud when Mr. Lee's replacement would arrive, it seems they were here all along...continuing to cast doubt on established facts, play both sides when convenient, circular arguments...rinse repeat. Oy vey.🤣 MikeyFresh and crenca 1 1 Link to comment
Ishmael Slapowitz Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 12 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said: The UK plugged a big one. If a member (shareholder) is a public company then the small companies exemption doesn't apply. Reinet Investments the money behind MQA Ltd is publicly traded. That seems to mean audited financial statements are required. Bob Stuart probably hates Companies House with a passion...😆 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