Popular Post tmtomh Posted August 8, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 8, 2019 This is fascinating - thank you @mansr, along with @John_Atkinson and the others who've run these analyses. This is the kind of progress (not to mention converging to consensus on basic facts) that can happen when everyone becomes willing to engage about MQA's technical aspects. Currawong, Ran, Sonicularity and 9 others 8 4 Link to comment
Popular Post botrytis Posted August 8, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 8, 2019 5 minutes ago, tmtomh said: This is fascinating - thank you @mansr, along with @John_Atkinson and the others who've run these analyses. This is the kind of progress (not to mention converging to consensus on basic facts) that can happen when everyone becomes willing to engage about MQA's technical aspects. I totally agree. Thank you both!!!! John_Atkinson, tmtomh and Currawong 3 Current: Daphile on an AMD A10-9500 with 16 GB RAM DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC Pre-amp - Rotel RC-1590 Amplification - Benchmark AHB2 amplifier Speakers - Revel M126Be with 2 REL 7/ti subwoofers Cables - Tara Labs RSC Reference and Blue Jean Cable Balanced Interconnects Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted August 8, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 8, 2019 11 minutes ago, tmtomh said: This is fascinating - thank you @mansr, along with @John_Atkinson and the others who've run these analyses. This is the kind of progress (not to mention converging to consensus on basic facts) that can happen when everyone becomes willing to engage about MQA's technical aspects. I'm somewhat surprised by the reactions. There is nothing here that hasn't been known for years. crenca and tmtomh 2 Link to comment
Popular Post botrytis Posted August 8, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 8, 2019 Just now, mansr said: I'm somewhat surprised by the reactions. There is nothing here that hasn't been known for years. It is true. BUT, this is the type of information that is hard to refute and since @John_Atkinson is also showing this, it bring more credence to the arguments. Again, Thank y'all who are doing this. MikeyFresh and tmtomh 1 1 Current: Daphile on an AMD A10-9500 with 16 GB RAM DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC Pre-amp - Rotel RC-1590 Amplification - Benchmark AHB2 amplifier Speakers - Revel M126Be with 2 REL 7/ti subwoofers Cables - Tara Labs RSC Reference and Blue Jean Cable Balanced Interconnects Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 2 minutes ago, mansr said: I'm somewhat surprised by the reactions. There is nothing here that hasn't been known for years. Maybe I'm missing something, but I think the shock is because it seems that JA agrees (somewhat) with your analysis. Link to comment
mansr Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 1 minute ago, Samuel T Cogley said: Maybe I'm missing something, but I think the shock is because it seems that JA agrees (somewhat) with your analysis. Yes, that is indeed surprising. Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 4 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said: Maybe I'm missing something, but I think the shock is because it seems that JA agrees (somewhat) with your analysis. I wouldn't put words in his mouth. daverich4 1 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
Popular Post Samuel T Cogley Posted August 8, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 8, 2019 1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said: I wouldn't put words in his mouth. And I'm not. That's just gross Chris! 🙂 The Computer Audiophile and crenca 2 Link to comment
manisandher Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 35 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said: The latter has a much cleaner spectrum, though the aliased product at 86kHz lies close to the same level. I know @mansr has already pointed this out, but you really should refer to this as 'imaging' and not 'aliasing'. esldude 1 Main: SOtM sMS-200 -> Okto dac8PRO -> 6x Neurochrome 286 mono amps -> Tune Audio Anima horns + 2x Rotel RB-1590 amps -> 4 subs Home Office: SOtM sMS-200 -> MOTU UltraLite-mk5 -> 6x Neurochrome 286 mono amps -> Impulse H2 speakers Vinyl: Technics SP10 / London (Decca) Reference -> Trafomatic Luna -> RME ADI-2 Pro Link to comment
botrytis Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 12 minutes ago, manisandher said: I know @mansr has already pointed this out, but you really should refer to this as 'imaging' and not 'aliasing'. Imaging is a brain phenomenon, not a file issue. I am not aware of how one can measure imaging in a file since your ears and brain determine that. Ishmael Slapowitz 1 Current: Daphile on an AMD A10-9500 with 16 GB RAM DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC Pre-amp - Rotel RC-1590 Amplification - Benchmark AHB2 amplifier Speakers - Revel M126Be with 2 REL 7/ti subwoofers Cables - Tara Labs RSC Reference and Blue Jean Cable Balanced Interconnects Link to comment
Popular Post Sonicularity Posted August 8, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 8, 2019 33 minutes ago, mansr said: I'm somewhat surprised by the reactions. There is nothing here that hasn't been known for years. The Computer Audiophile, MikeyFresh and crenca 3 Link to comment
mansr Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 1 hour ago, John_Atkinson said: Here are both the spectrum of the Mytek Brooklyn's analog output rendering mansr's original file, 10kHz at 0dBFS, which he says may have had some clipping (or inter-sample overs), and his new file, 10kHz at -3dBFS. The latter has a much cleaner spectrum, though the aliased product at 86kHz lies close to the same level. John Atkinson Technical Editor, Stereophile There are a few things happening here. First we have the 10 kHz tone that's actually in the file. Then we have the 86 kHz image created by the MQA filter. At 20 kHz and 30 kHz we have harmonics (distortion) of the 10 kHz tone. The spikes at 66 kHz, 76 kHz, and 96 kHz are the result of intermodulation between the 10 kHz and 86 kHz frequencies. No idea what's going on at 94 kHz. Anyone care to speculate? MikeyFresh 1 Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted August 8, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 8, 2019 56 minutes ago, Sonicularity said: Well, in this case I appear to have stolen my own idea. MikeyFresh, JSeymour, Sonicularity and 1 other 1 1 2 Link to comment
mansr Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 1 hour ago, botrytis said: Imaging is a brain phenomenon, not a file issue. I am not aware of how one can measure imaging in a file since your ears and brain determine that. Different meaning of imaging. esldude 1 Link to comment
crenca Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 1 hour ago, mansr said: I'm somewhat surprised by the reactions. There is nothing here that hasn't been known for years. There is knowledge (facts, truth) and then there is knowledge (culture). Look at that that comment by Brian Lucey @Ishmael Slapowitzposted - it's the formal talking to the latter (i.e. Jim Austin, Stereophile and the industry insider "let's give MQA yet another benefit of the doubt" writeup). MikeyFresh 1 Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
Popular Post psjug Posted August 8, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 8, 2019 1 hour ago, mansr said: I'm somewhat surprised by the reactions. There is nothing here that hasn't been known for years. For me, presenting it this way where we see what the leaky filters do to a simple waveform drives it home a little more. It looks a lot like a filterless DAC. Also, I guess we can take away from this that if we are force-fed MQA it is better to just do the first unfold and ditch the renderer? The Computer Audiophile, esldude, maxijazz and 2 others 4 1 Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted August 8, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 8, 2019 8 minutes ago, psjug said: Also, I guess we can take away from this that if we are force-fed MQA it is better to just do the first unfold and ditch the renderer? That is what I've been saying for years. MikeyFresh, Rt66indierock and Josh Mound 1 2 Link to comment
FredericV Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 2 hours ago, firedog said: Okay, are we agreed now that the MQA renderer/filters distorts the waveform? At least it's good to see that those who first questioned the need for peer review, now are part of peer reviewing @mansr test signals. I call this progress. I consider the second unfold a modified upsampler, which clearly distorts the waveform. Some time ago we played with @Archimago's goldilocks filter and since then I could even care less about MQA's weird upsampling filter. A very similar recipe as MQA's minimum phase leaky upsampler with one cycle of post-ringing can be found in my signature. I do not like this filter. MikeyFresh 1 Designer of the 432 EVO music server and Linux specialist Discoverer of the independent open source sox based mqa playback method with optional one cycle postringing. Link to comment
Popular Post tmtomh Posted August 8, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 8, 2019 1 hour ago, Samuel T Cogley said: Maybe I'm missing something, but I think the shock is because it seems that JA agrees (somewhat) with your analysis. Previously no one in the established audiophile press (except @Kal Rubinson, who's always pleasant and willing to engage fully) has been willing to actually discuss the technical issues of MQA (or the business-model ones for that matter) - the editors and writers if Stereophile and TAS who've joined up since this thread started (and perhaps because of what they heard about this thread) adopted self-appointed civility police and fact-checker roles and explicitly refused to engage on any other level. So the willingness to engage in technical discussion is a breakthrough and makes this latest exchange noteworthy. MikeyFresh and crenca 1 1 Link to comment
crenca Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 20 minutes ago, psjug said: For me, presenting it this way where we see what the leaky filters do to a simple waveform drives it home a little more. It looks a lot like a filterless DAC. That is the philosophy that Bob S/MQA Ltd. is presenting as both something new and true. Yet, a "filterless DAC" is old and "an opinion" (depending upon what you believe about "ringing", preference of phase, etc.). Not that the "Audio Press" has explained this to you... 20 minutes ago, psjug said: Also, I guess we can take away from this that if we are force-fed MQA it is better to just do the first unfold and ditch the renderer? Yes - though I still have questions about the relative pros and cons when compared to just playing MQA as a pseudo 24/48 file (i.e. not unfolding/decoding it) in a force-fed MQA world. Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
mansr Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 3 minutes ago, FredericV said: I consider the second unfold a modified upsampler It is an upsampler, plain and simple. MikeyFresh 1 Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted August 8, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 8, 2019 3 minutes ago, tmtomh said: Previously no one in the established audiophile press (except @Kal Rubinson, who's always pleasant and willing to engage fully) has been willing to actually discuss the technical issues of MQA (or the business-model ones for that matter) Two more exceptions: Paul Miller (Hi-Fi News) and Doug Schneider (Soundstage). Sonicularity, MikeyFresh, The Computer Audiophile and 1 other 3 1 Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted August 8, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 8, 2019 9 minutes ago, crenca said: Yes - though I still have questions about the relative pros and cons when compared to just playing MQA as a pseudo 24/48 file (i.e. not unfolding/decoding it) in a force-fed MQA world. If you are stuck with an MQA file, your best option is to decode but not "render" it. Even if the high-frequency content coming out of the decoder is slightly distorted (and sometimes entirely fake), it cleans up the pseudo-noise in the base band of the encoded file. vavan, crenca and tmtomh 1 2 Link to comment
Popular Post psjug Posted August 8, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 8, 2019 2 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said: Maybe I'm missing something, but I think the shock is because it seems that JA agrees (somewhat) with your analysis. JA seems to agree that the results are valid. But I assume he still maintains that leaky filters are OK because the impulse response is so visually appealing. crenca, FredericV and Samuel T Cogley 2 1 Link to comment
Popular Post church_mouse Posted August 8, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 8, 2019 For the non-experts, like me, is this suggesting that if we want to start screwing up our music then get the MQA version. However, if you want to complete the job make sure you get an MQA Dac too? Kind of a ‘‘double whammy‘‘. The Computer Audiophile, crenca, tmtomh and 2 others 1 4 David MacMini, Mytek Manhattan I DAC, Avantone The Abbey Monitors, Roon 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