MQA is Vaporware

[mansr]

32 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

FLAC of studio masters aren't lossy. Of course I don't believe the internet degrades audio. 

At least we agree on something. Two things, even.

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, Jud said:

True, there's probably less research on the audible effects of sample rate reduction.

The research says as long as frequencies up to 20 kHz are intact, the change is imperceptible. But you already knew that.

[mansr]

10 hours ago, Jud said:

And here I thought there was research on time smearing, linear phase vs. minimum phase, apodizing filters, the effect of ultrasonics, etc.  No?

Is there more than anecdotal evidence that any of those things are perceptible?

[mansr]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

I don't disagree labels like MQA, but I can't figure out why they all wouldn't be onboard if it's as cut and dry as everyone thinks. 

Maybe some of them see the downsides. Linn certainly seems to.

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I removed the post in question

The person it was in reply to has spent the last couple of days incessantly belittling and ridiculing anyone who doesn't sing the praises of MQA. I don't mind that you deleted my post, but please consider why I posted it, even if it was a bit uncivil.

[mansr]

Master Quality Authenticated — “high-resolution” audio with … lossy compression.

Someone's unimpressed.

[mansr]

20 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Someone is smoking something as well ... "anyone trying to sell it to end consumers is committing fraud. The only advantage of hi-res audio is that it tends not to have LOUDNESS WARS mixes."

 

Both totally incorrect. It's not fraud to sell high resolution audio and the loudness wars are alive and well in high resolution. In fact, the high resolution is worse than the CD often. 

Yes, he misses the mark a few times. He still makes some valid points, IMO.

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Claimed here like a lot of things, but unproven.  I very seriously doubt it.  Unless independently proven, I think it is "fake news".

I don't think it is currently being done, but it is absolutely possible.

[mansr]

23 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I'm bummed that my position is deemed pro MQA. All I'm trying to do is balance the discussion.

Do you also want a "balanced" discussion about climate change or evolution vs creationism? You are more and more, as facts about MQA emerge, resembling the science deniers on those topics.

[mansr]

18 minutes ago, Don Hills said:

It's not being done now as far as I know. The point is that it has the capability.

 

(The metadata is in the control bitstream, not the "low order 8 bits". One of the bits in every sample is dedicated to metadata. Plenty of room.)

There's so much room, in fact, that much of it is completely unused, filled with zeroes.

[mansr]

17 minutes ago, lucretius said:

Why should the consumer care if the ADC (or other) encoder the producer used leaves a fingerprint within the MQA file? Is anyone suggesting that a (legitimate) seller of MQA files would encode unique information into each MQA file for each individual consumer, before the consumer downloads it, etc.? It seems absurd, but maybe I'm missing something? 

Not absurd at all. Such things have been done before.

[mansr]

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

By the way, MQA doesn't require the use of its own filters. Some DAC manufacturers will benefit from MQA's filter while others do it better themselves. 

As a consumer, you still have no say in which filters get used. The encoding side is what it is, and even if DACs differ, the choice there is limited to whatever MQA has certified.

[mansr]

9 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Not entirely true. 

 

It's not totally unlimited and wide open, but there are some choices. 

At least agree that the encoding filter is fixed for any given MQA file (the producer might have options). On the playback end, please tell me how to choose upsampling filters on, say, an Explorer 2. You're also skirting around the fact that without MQA, there wouldn't have been any resampling at all.

[mansr]

13 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Dude, I'm not skirting around anything. I just offered information that wasn't available previously and you're jumping all over me because it doesn't fit your narrative. 

 

Consumers never have a choice of encoding filter of the recording. That's the engineer's choice.  

 

On some DACs you'll be able to select filters. And the manufacturer won't have to use the MQA filter.

If we buy the studio master, no encoding is performed and thus no filter needs to be chosen. MQA adds a pointless downsample/upsample step, and we have little or no (depending on the DAC, per your revelation) say in the filters used here. When we have the original master, there is rarely any reason for us to downsample it at all. If we do choose to resample before the DAC, we have complete control over the process. I don't see why you feel the need to dismiss this as a "narrative."

[mansr]

4 hours ago, manisandher said:

He then equated temporal response with distance travelled through air

Did he provide any scientific explanation for this?

[mansr]

6 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I've been digging for information. That's how I found out companies can avoid using MQA filters.

I'll take your word for it, for now, but it would be nice it you could point to a source for this information. It's the first I've heard of it.

[mansr]

18 minutes ago, crenca said:

Well, my answer has to be no.  The reason however probably prevents you from going where you want to go:  I don't LIKE Coltrane.  I fully acknowledge his technical skill, his place in the cannon and his innovation, but I think he is WAY   "overrated" in several very important senses.  I don't like what he did to this song, and just about every other song - I don't LIKE his playing and as I have gotton older my tolerance for it shrinks with every passing year...right now I can only take about 15 seconds...

 

Now, if that opinion does not destroy my reputation nothing will

The fact that you think he savaged the song means you still recognised it. That's what Jud asked about, not whether you liked either version.

[mansr]

22 minutes ago, crenca said:

So is this min phase filter being applied after the MQA processing magic, and if so does that not add back in phase errors which is a (the?) central SQ selling point of MQA?

MQA is all minimum phase filters. Whatever they mean by "deblurring," if anything, phase errors has nothing to do with it.

[mansr]

17 minutes ago, crenca said:

Yes, but if I am not mistaken a min phase filter adds phase errors.  So this filter takes away what MQA giveth...right?

What MQA giveth is minimum phase filters and aliasing.

[mansr]

17 minutes ago, Jud said:

If you called that a phase "error," the vast majority of speakers would be guilty of the same.

Speakers are guilty of many things. Unfortunately, they're all we've got.

[mansr]

5 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

Based on a thread active today where I asked @jabbr a question on this (& convolution, kernel) it seems that deblurring is just an audio analog to an optical signal processing technique.

If you're talking about the deconvolution technique famously used to enhance images from the Hubble space telescope (before it was fitted with corrective lenses), that's not it. The issue there was that the focusing mirror had the wrong curvature resulting in the focal plane not coinciding with the camera sensor. Since the exact error was known, it was possible to enhance the captured images using a deconvolution process. As there is no such thing as an audio lens, the problem simply cannot occur in a recording, and hence the solution does not apply either.

[mansr]

34 minutes ago, Solstice380 said:

I think that the quantified effect of the ADC may be analogous to the lens error.

How do you figure? A lens operates in a minimum of two dimensions. Audio recording takes place in one (time) dimension. Indeed, there is only one time dimension, so where would focal blur be happening?

[mansr]

9 minutes ago, Don Hills said:

"If you aren't in business for fun or profit, you shouldn't be."

I always strive for both, fun and profit. If nothing else, a good profit can enable various kinds of fun.

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, Jud said:

Perhaps not always?  Were you striving for profit when adding SDM capability to SoX?

That wasn't a business venture.

[mansr]

7 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

It surprises me to see how many people argue for the artists to make more money in the music business and are for "the little guy" but when a group of artists purchase Tidal to start this train moving, many of these people have nothing but negatives to say and won't even support them.

Perhaps they don't consider Jay-Z an artist.