MQA is Vaporware

[lucretius]

36 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

 

I have a Schiit Gungnir MB (obviously no MQA support whats so ever) and in Roon 'Device Setup' I have it set to "no MQA capability".  I pay a Tidal MQA track (in this case something from Charles Lloyd's "Vanished Gardens"), and Roon indicates (in the Signal Path) it is "Authenticating" to 96kbs and I get the tell tell sound of the USB relays clicking on the Gumby to confirm that indeed, it is receiving a 24/96 PCM stream.

 

I change over to "Decoder and Renderer" in 'Device Setup'.  First, I play a 16/44 file to reset DAC (hearing the relays click), and then I play same MQA track and...wait for it...Roon authenticated MQA and I hear the DAC click to accept the 24/96 stream!

 

Roon has blown your experiment by not behaving as you expected - you captured a decoded MQA file...

 

1.  The thing is, I can check for this, since I have an MQA DAC.  If Roon does the first unfold, I will not get a blue light on the DAC.  For example, if set to "no MQA capability", there will be no light.  And if I set Roon for "renderer only", then the DAC will have a magenta (not blue) dot.

 

2.  We can go on and on but this is irrelevant.  The fact is that I can capture an MQA stream bit perfect.  If software had mangled the stream, this would not be the case.

[lucretius]

12 minutes ago, mansr said:

Why don't you share a short sample? Then someone could verify that your capture process is working properly.

 

OK. Here is a small slice of the file. I would have uploaded the whole file/track, except that Audiophile Style prevents it. 

slice.flac

 

I should also mention that this was my first successful capture of an MQA file. So I also added the metadata to see if that would change anything.

[lucretius]

19 minutes ago, new_media said:

 

Roon sees this as an MQA file.

 

So does my DAC!

[lucretius]

26 minutes ago, crenca said:

Just an update:  I checked under advanced device settings and I have "Enable MQA Core Decoder" set to 'off' as well, so apparently Roon is ignoring settings and decoding MQA now matter what.  Now why would they do that?  Another "bug" (an example:  up until the most recent update MQA was privileged over the equivalent or better Hi Res from Qobuz) that just happens to go MQA's way?  

 

Anyone else with Roon and a non-MQA DAC who can correlate this behavior?

 

 

 

Out of curiosity, what happens if you set the MQA Capabilities to "Decoder and Renderer" while keeping the Enable MQA Core Decoder set to "No"?

[lucretius]

47 minutes ago, Paul R said:

I think the DAC capabilities take precedence.  I have your exact settings on this DAC, and this is what it reports. I am unclear if the DAC is unfolding any further though.

 

Can you log into the microrendu and see what it reports?  And the DAC attached to the microrendu, what does it display/report?

 

I have a similar path and the signal is sent bit-perfect to my DAC (per the DAC's display):

 

 

 

 

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, Sonicularity said:

Here is the Roon signal path with MQA decoding enabled:

 

 

 

 

I see that when the software decoder is turned on, you get "MQA Core Decoder" in the path.  Now we know what we should be looking for.  Thanks.

[lucretius]

50 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

"RHAPSODY INTERNATIONAL INC. ADDS MQA STUDIO QUALITY AUDIO TO ‘POWERED BY NAPSTER’ PLATFORM SERVICE"

 

https://www.mqa.co.uk/customer/news/post/napster-and-mqa?fbclid=IwAR0Sg3BmDcJYHheACSBfhsGpT5BA7gJMw-geYxDGaE7B7oNQ0_EfbRRmtM8

 

Napster's Premier Plan is cheaper than Tidal's or Qobuz's top tier plan.

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, james45974 said:

I don't have an MQA capable DAC and frankly MQA doesn't interest me but I have a question.  When you play MQA through Tidal for instance is there any kind of tag that shows who "authenticated" the files?  I would think that to be somewhat of a "purist" that only tracks authenticated by the original ARTIST are truly authenticated.  Anything else is somewhat of a bastardized version of "authentication".  Who cares if the the engineer or producer or custodian "authenticated" the track.

 

Most, if not all, of the MQA tracks on Tidal were batch processed from existing material at the label(s).

[lucretius]

4 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

95%, 5%, large population is 384. I hit that at my second show in 2016. Before I wrote the original post.

 

There's always the question of randomness.

[lucretius]

8 hours ago, firedog said:

I'm pretty sure this site does that, as it has more visitors than some of the "big" traditional audio sites. 

 

Serious question: What are some of those "big traditional audio sites?

[lucretius]

35 minutes ago, mansr said:

MQA allows including ID3 tags in the "authenticated" data. Does that answer the question? 

 

What do you mean?  Aren't the tags at the beginning of the file? (And MQA is consistent with flac files with vorbis comments.)

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

The permeability applies one way only. While an editor cannot prevent writers who left from working for whomever they wish, he certainly can prevent them from working for audio manufacturers etc while they are contributing to the magazine. I have done so.

 

As long as the 'writer', who works for an audio manufacturer, does not review any products related to his employer, his employer's competitors, and his employer's business partners, what does it matter if he/she contributes to the magazine?

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, firedog said:

People can hear what they've trained themselves to hear. Many of these same people SAY they can't tell tell the difference between an mp3 and a CD - until you point out the differences to them a few times - and then they somehow can hear the difference.

 

How significant can the 'difference' be if special training is required to hear it?

[lucretius]

18 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

19 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

Ok, so significance is in the eyes, or in this case the ears, of the beholder? So are you saying that significance is subjective and that this is a fact?

Absolutely.

 

Significance is in the ears of the beholder, only after he/she receives 'special training'.

 

Perhaps @The Computer Audiophile is saying that the underlying 'objective' reality is perceived in different ways?

 

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, Tintinabulum said:

My understanding is that you need a fast (high bandwidth) amp to fully benefit from the improvements, why is this so implausible? 

 

Almost all modern amps have a bandwidth going up to 50 kHz, many go up to 100 kHz, some go to 200 kHz. The bandwidth of hi-res music is one half the sample rate:

 

e.g.

44.1 -> 22.05

48    ->  24

88.2 -> 44.1

96    ->  48

176.4 -> 88.2

192 -> 96

 

Therefore, almost all (modern) amplifiers can fully resolve a 96 kHz sample rate.  Many (modern) amplifiers can fully resolve a 192 kHz sample rate. Add to this that it is questionable whether there is any audible benefit gained from going from a 96 kHz sample rate up to a 192 kz sample rate or higher.  It's almost like you'd have to go out of your way to find an amplifier that cannot resolve hi-res music (vintage equipment?).

 

OTH, speakers are another story.

 

[lucretius]

14 hours ago, firedog said:

It's a philosophical question. The objective difference between 192k or 256k mp3 and CD isn't huge. Neither is the difference between CD and hi res.  How important that difference is to you is subjective. Some people don't care even when they know it's there and can hear it; other's find they get the most enjoyment out of music when they can playback and hear every nuance. 

 

Bravo! Your case is well stated. Nonetheless, I have to disagree. I agree with John Dyson's post on the subject.

 

But I am curious about one thing.  In your signature line, you mention the Kii Three speakers in both your main and secondary system (very nice speakers BTW -- I am wiping up the drool). IIRC, the frequency range specified for Kii Three speakers is 30Hz to 25kHz.  Therefore, any sample rate over 48kHZ appears to be wasted, since the top end of the speakers is 25kHz. So why the Kii Threes if you believe that  there is some difference between 48kHz and 96 or 192kHz sample rates?

[lucretius]

16 hours ago, Tintinabulum said:

why not bone up on hifi?

 

Talk about "boning up on hifi" --- In the early eighties, I acquired a cheap CD player, then I got rid of my turntable and LP's.  Then almost 20 years later, "audiophiles" and the audiophile press convinced me that I was missing out on something by not having a turntable.  So I acquired another turntable (and some LPs).  This turned out to be a mistake. In no way is a turntable/LPs better than  a CD player/CDs.  Then, sometime in the mid-2000's, "audiophiles" and the  audiophile press convinced me of the benefits of DVD-A and SACD.  So I acquired a universal disc player and starting acquiring SACD's (and 1 DVD-A).  Again, this turned out to be a mistake.  DVD-A and SACDs were not really any better than CDs (mastering is everything).  Then maybe about 5 years ago, "audiophiles" and the audiophile press convinced me of the benefits of hi-res music files.  So I acquired a DAC that could play these hi-res files. Yet again, this turned out to be a mistake.  Music files with a greater than 48kHz sample rate are no better than CDs (again, mastering is everything).  Then along comes MQA -- I don't even want to go there, LOL!  This leads me to my question: If I wanted to "bone up on hifi", then who exactly should I listen to?

[lucretius]

17 minutes ago, firedog said:

One - I can't be 100% sure that differences between hi-res formats are anything other than mastering. 
Two, I don't really understand the question. I don't know of any human that can hear above 20khz - and I don't come close anymore. But I don't understand how that is relevant.
Any good argument for superiority of higher res formats doesn't rest on humans being able to hear extremely high frequencies, or on speakers/systems being able to reproduce them as analog output,  no matter what the system. 

 

This is from @Teresa and appears to be the main argument for hi-res:

 

"No one (to my knowledge) has ever said we can hear ultrasonic frequencies. The reason to reproduce them is because musical instruments have overtones as high as 102.4 KHz."

 

" … audio energy exists as upper overtones of musical instruments and has an effect on the lower frequencies which we do hear directly. When listening to music we hear the fundamental note and its overtones shape the timbre, this is why an oboe and a clarinet sound different when playing the same note as their overtone series is different. The more overtones available to shape the timbre of the fundamental tone the more accurate the timbre is IMHO."

***********************

 

So the question is: How can this benefit be achieved if some part of the audio playback chain (including speakers) does not reproduce the ultrasonic frequencies?

[lucretius]

9 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Because the interaction that results in changes in the audible range has already occurred in the performance and can be captured without ultrasonic frequency response in the reproduction chain.

 

Overtones are overtones. If you cut the ultrasonic overtones out, they cannot affect the audible range.

[lucretius]

56 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Why do you think that a microphone cannot transduce intermodulations?  

 

I suspect the answer involves the difference between radio frequencies and sound frequencies. However, I'll let the technical folk answer this one. In any case, it sounds like you are suggesting that ultrasonic sound is distortion.

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

BTW, are you aware that many microphones - especially many of the most well regarded vintage ones - can't capture ultrasonics, or even anything approaching 20khz? Or that tape machines in studios were often purposely setup not to be able to record anything over 15khz or so? Yet many who listen to 96k or192k digital transcriptions of these tapes would make the same claim as you - that its the (non-existant) ultrasonics in their hi-res files that is responsible for their good sound. 

 

Huh?  I am making the claim that the sample rates larger than 48kHz are unneeded (doesn't improve the audible range -- and especially when there are no or limited ultrasonic sounds in the higher frequencies) and many cases, unwanted (there exists ultrasonic sound in the higher frequencies but it is nothing but a source of distortion).

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Nope.  I intentionally did not use that word.  Intermodulation is the result of interaction of two signals.  If the interaction is inherent, useful or appreciated, as in the case of interaction between the ultrasonic and in-band output from a musical instrument, it is not distortion.  OTOH, if it is introduced by an external device and represents something that was not present in the original performance, the same phenomenon would be described as intermodulation distortion.   It's like the home definition of a weed.  If you need/want/like it, it's just a plant.

 

Isn't what you described as intermodulation also called intermodulation distortion (IMD)?  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodulation.  In which case, it is distortion -- whether you prefer it or not is up to you.

[lucretius]

4 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Analyses I performed 20 years ago showed that many recordings, even from analog sources, had music-related content  above 20kHz.

See https://www.stereophile.com/features/282/index.html

 

Note that one of the letters published in response to this article was written by Bob Stuart.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

 

Here, you are referring to ultrasonic overtones as music.  You are ending the argument by presupposing the existence of music.

 

[lucretius]

31 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Yes, the >20kHz content is correlated with the sounds of recorded musical instruments.  When the music stops the overtones disappear.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

 

First, does it have an effect on the audible range? Second, if it does have an effect, is it "musical"?

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, Paul R said:

There is no dispute that output power drops as frequency rises. However, I do expect most modern speakers have audible - or at least measurable - output above 13khz at most listening positions, and find the claim they do not to be rather unbelievable.  

 

OTH, most speakers do not have a frequency range sufficient enough to reproduce hi-res -- i.e. the ultrasonic sound is cut out, so there can be no benefit to hi-res.  For example, your Harbeth speakers have a range of 75Hz - 20kHz ±-3dB; even the very top frequecies of a 48kHz sample rate file will get cut off. (But that's OK, you couldn't hear it at your age, anyway.)