MQA is Vaporware

[PeterSt]

27 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

I’m questioning if actually the sample rate is doubled at all. I like a confirmation from someone that should know. @wklie should know. If he will tell, is another story. Maybe @PeterSt has an idea ?

 

So in Roon (or elsewhere) the sample rate will actually be doubled, yes. It would be the same as me playing the 16/44.1 file and upsample it (by my own means of your choice) to 24/88.2. The difference is that you have the choice.

 

I hope it is clear now a little ?

[PeterSt]

2 hours ago, Dr Tone said:

3 hours ago, R1200CL said:

Will it that’s true, MQA have some explanations to do. Cause there isn’t anything to unfold. Then some sort of upsampling must happen, which is also hard to believe. 

 

How is it hard to believe?  Everything after the first unfold has always been upsampling to get back to the source sample rate.

 

When the source (used by MQA encoding) was 16/44.1, there indeed is no unfold, BUT e.g. Roon still upsamples it to (24/) 88.2.

So Roon fakes the lot (a lot). But admittedly depicted by MQA Ltd.

 

Notice, or disclaimer or whatever: This wasn't the original MQA plan to have it done like that. I must assume they changed the plan, and if not them, then all who follow the MQA edigm do (unlikely).

[R1200CL]

42 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Roon still upsamples it to (24/) 88.2.

So Roon fakes the lot (a lot). But admittedly depicted by MQA Ltd.

Not sure I follow you. 
The Roon decoder is a SW supplied by MQA Ltd. Agree ?

 

So then it’s the MQA decoder provided by MQA Ltd that upsamples.

[PeterSt]

56 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

The Roon decoder is a SW supplied by MQA Ltd. Agree ?

 

Nope. It is a SW decoder that complies to MQA rules (related to certification). 

[Dr Tone]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

 

When the source (used by MQA encoding) was 16/44.1, there indeed is no unfold, BUT e.g. Roon still upsamples it to (24/) 88.2.

So Roon fakes the lot (a lot). But admittedly depicted by MQA Ltd.

 

Notice, or disclaimer or whatever: This wasn't the original MQA plan to have it done like that. I must assume they changed the plan, and if not them, then all who follow the MQA edigm do (unlikely).

 

Why are you trying to throw Roon under the bus on this one?  Roon implemented what they were required to do by MQA Ltd and have said just that directly to R1200CL in his/her thread on the Roon forums.  Lumin personnel in the same thread have indicated the same requirements and that they implemented it the same way.

 

For everyone other than R1200CL, there is no confusion to what is going on here.

[R1200CL]

Yes, I’m confused. There seems to be an agreement (here in the tread) that no unfolding exist. That’s good. This is according to MQA explanations. (For a 16/44.1)
 

Then the MQA SW decoder is made by Roon under under MQA license.
But the decoder should be equal for all companies that deals with MQA. Rendering may is a bit different. ( But leave that for now). Wklie have deep knowledge here. No reason to debate. Also he has never said Lumin output 88.1 from the original transport rate, which is now claimed Roon does. 
 

So then Roon implants upsampling in the decoder under MQA blessing, even it’s against what MQA said how the end to end process is working. 
 

Also this will imply that renders downsamples back to 16/44.1. As those who tested reports the file shows up as 24/44.1. What a mess. 
 

 

[Dr Tone]

35 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

Also he has never said Lumin output 88.1 from the original transport rate, which is now claimed Roon does.

 

No, he said Lumin's MQA Core decoder does exactly the same thing and he was replying directly to you.

 

 

https://community.roonlabs.com/t/tidal-to-add-millions-of-master-quality-mqa-tracks/127573/217?u=drtone

[R1200CL]

I understand this will sound as I’m very stubborn:

Then all MQA decoders output wrong information 😂

 

If @wklie confirms that what the decoder displays is actually what is outputted in Lumin equipment, I may have to accept that MQA decoders is upsampling.

 

Here is another tread only about the topic. 
https://community.roonlabs.com/t/roon-core-decode-16-bit-mqa-to-what/131491

[lucretius]

4 hours ago, R1200CL said:

It has not been confirmed what the decoder actually do. Unfolding, upsampling, adding 8 zeros etc.

I think the encoding and decoding process is described in these AES papers. I don’t know. And I think whatever the code is doing, it’s a MQA secret. 

 

It’s noted your definition is upsampling. I disagree. I’m very confident it’s an display error in Roon. But those that truly knows, won’t tell. That’s very annoying.

 

The MQA Core Decoder (software) always outputs 88.2k/96k - 24 bit, regardless of (1) the transmission sample and bit rate, and (2) the original sample and bit rate of the pre-MQA file.  I have confirmed this with the readings on my DAC. 

 

That is to say:

 

44.1k-16bit (MQA 44.1k)     ->  Core Decoder  ->  88.2k-24bit

44.1k-16bit (MQA 88.2k)    ->  Core Decoder  ->  88.2k-24bit

44.1k-16bit (MQA 176.4k)  ->  Core Decoder  ->  88.2k-24bit

44.1k-16bit (MQA 352.8k)  ->  Core Decoder  ->  88.2k-24bit

 

44.1k-24bit (MQA 44.1k)     ->  Core Decoder  ->  88.2k-24bit

44.1k-24bit (MQA 88.2k)    ->  Core Decoder  ->  88.2k-24bit

44.1k-24bit (MQA 176.4k)  ->  Core Decoder  ->  88.2k-24bit

44.1k-24bit (MQA 352.8k)  ->  Core Decoder  ->  88.2k-24bit

 

48k-24bit (MQA 48k)   ->  Core Decoder    ->  96k-24bit.

48k-24bit (MQA 96k)   ->  Core Decoder    ->  96k-24bit.

48k-24bit (MQA 192k)  ->  Core Decoder   ->  96k-24bit.

48k-24bit (MQA 384k) ->  Core Decoder   ->  96k-24bit.

 

I hope that's clear.

 

[FredericV]

To come back on the question if studio's like 2L.no are deleting their real masters and only keeping the MQA versions as archival format: never going to happen. MQA is a consumer format, not a studio format.

It would not make sense to derive the SACD, Blu-ray + Atmos / Auro versions from lossy files with 17/88.2 resolution .... it's rather the opposite: MQA is just one of the many distribution formats provided by 2L.no and they will for sure keep their real masters (the ones they send to MQA before encoding into lossy versions).

[lucretius]

26 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

The MQA Core Decoder (software) always outputs 88.2k/96k - 24 bit, regardless of (1) the transmission sample and bit rate, and (2) the original sample and bit rate of the pre-MQA file.  I have confirmed this with the readings on my DAC. 

 

That is to say:

 

44.1k-16bit (MQA 44.1k)     ->  Core Decoder  ->  88.2k-24bit

44.1k-16bit (MQA 88.2k)    ->  Core Decoder  ->  88.2k-24bit

44.1k-16bit (MQA 176.4k)  ->  Core Decoder  ->  88.2k-24bit

44.1k-16bit (MQA 352.8k)  ->  Core Decoder  ->  88.2k-24bit

 

44.1k-24bit (MQA 44.1k)     ->  Core Decoder  ->  88.2k-24bit

44.1k-24bit (MQA 88.2k)    ->  Core Decoder  ->  88.2k-24bit

44.1k-24bit (MQA 176.4k)  ->  Core Decoder  ->  88.2k-24bit

44.1k-24bit (MQA 352.8k)  ->  Core Decoder  ->  88.2k-24bit

 

48k-24bit (MQA 48k)   ->  Core Decoder    ->  96k-24bit.

48k-24bit (MQA 96k)   ->  Core Decoder    ->  96k-24bit.

48k-24bit (MQA 192k)  ->  Core Decoder   ->  96k-24bit.

48k-24bit (MQA 384k) ->  Core Decoder   ->  96k-24bit.

 

I hope that's clear.

 

 

Something strange happens if I use my DAC as an MQA Renderer vs using the DAC as an MQA Decoder and Renderer:

 

44.1k-16bit (MQA 44.1k)  ->  Core Decoder (Roon) ->   88.2k-24bit  ->  MQA Renderer ->  44.1k – 24 bit (per DAC display)

 

44.1k-16bit (MQA 44.1k)  ->  MQA Decoder and Renderer  ->  44.1k – 16 bit (per DAC display)

 

 

 

 

 

 

[UkPhil]

26 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

The MQA Core Decoder (software) always outputs 88.2k/96k - 24 bit, regardless of (1) the transmission sample and bit rate, and (2) the original sample and bit rate of the pre-MQA file.  I have confirmed this with the readings on my DAC. 

 

That is to say:

 

44.1k-16bit (MQA 44.1k)     ->  Core Decoder  ->  88.2k-24bit

44.1k-16bit (MQA 88.2k)    ->  Core Decoder  ->  88.2k-24bit

44.1k-16bit (MQA 176.4k)  ->  Core Decoder  ->  88.2k-24bit

44.1k-16bit (MQA 352.8k)  ->  Core Decoder  ->  88.2k-24bit

 

44.1k-24bit (MQA 44.1k)     ->  Core Decoder  ->  88.2k-24bit

44.1k-24bit (MQA 88.2k)    ->  Core Decoder  ->  88.2k-24bit

44.1k-24bit (MQA 176.4k)  ->  Core Decoder  ->  88.2k-24bit

44.1k-24bit (MQA 352.8k)  ->  Core Decoder  ->  88.2k-24bit

 

48k-24bit (MQA 48k)   ->  Core Decoder    ->  96k-24bit.

48k-24bit (MQA 96k)   ->  Core Decoder    ->  96k-24bit.

48k-24bit (MQA 192k)  ->  Core Decoder   ->  96k-24bit.

48k-24bit (MQA 384k) ->  Core Decoder   ->  96k-24bit.

 

I hope that's clear.

 

I don't use Roon, but Tracy Chapman recent 16/44.1 conversion when run via Volumio software using Tidal to my Project DAC hardware MQA only shows 44.1 when played  

[lucretius]

2 minutes ago, UkPhil said:

I don't use Roon, but Tracy Chapman recent 16/44.1 conversion when run via Volumio software using Tidal to my Project DAC hardware MQA only shows 44.1 when played  

 

See my later post.  The DAC seems to display something different if it is a renderer or decoder + renderer or if it is non-mqa.

[R1200CL]

Thanks @lucretius , then we have some sort of conclusion.

I wish Bob could explain. I’m still thinking this goes against everything he says. Or maybe never said, but how I interpreted his foggy site. 
 

Edit. 
Seeing your and @UkPhil latest post again raises interesting questions, as this align with my other questions/statements. 

[lucretius]

Just now, R1200CL said:

Thanks @lucretius , then we have some sort of conclusion.

I wish Bob could explain. I’m still thinking this goes against everything he says. Or maybe never said, but how I interpreted his foggy site. 

 

Although I am certain about what the software Core Decoder is outputting, when the DAC is set to be a renderer or a decoder + renderer, I am getting some confusing readouts.

[The Computer Audiophile]

7 minutes ago, FredericV said:

To come back on the question if studio's like 2L.no are deleting their real masters and only keeping the MQA versions as archival format: never going to happen. MQA is a consumer format, not a studio format.

Exactly. Consumer's can't have the real thing. I guess. 

[GUTB]

5 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

I have zero interest in a proprietary loosy format especially when the sonic benefits are marginal at best.

So, you don't care about sonic benefits. Your difficulty with MQA seems to be philosophical or ethical. I can't argue against that.

[lucretius]

19 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

Although I am certain about what the software Core Decoder is outputting, when the DAC is set to be a renderer or a decoder + renderer, I am getting some confusing readouts.

 

 

One file (44.1k-16bit-MQA44.1k), three different displays of sample rate and bit rate:

 

44.1k-16bit (MQA 44.1k)     ->  Core Decoder (Roon) ->  Non-MQA DAC          ->  88.2k-24bit

 

44.1k-16bit (MQA 44.1k)     ->  Core Decoder (Roon)  ->  MQA Renderer DAC ->  44.1k – 24bit

 

44.1k-16bit (MQA 44.1k)     ->  MQA Decoder and Renderer DAC                      -> 44.1k – 16bit

 

 

What I conclude from this:  MQA is a f**king mess.

 

 

 

[R1200CL]

26 minutes ago, FredericV said:

To come back on the question if studio's like 2L.no are deleting their real masters and only keeping the MQA versions as archival format: never going to happen. MQA is a consumer format, not a studio format.

I have Morten’s email and phone if you really would like to ask him this question. 
I think most of us understand he isn’t deleting the masters. 
Chris tweet was of cause to tease him. 

[bogi]

7 minutes ago, lucretius said:

44.1k-16bit (MQA 44.1k)     ->  Core Decoder (Roon) ->  88.2k-24bit (per non-MQA DAC)

44.1k-16bit (MQA 44.1k)     ->  Core Decoder (Roon)  ->  MQA Renderer DAC ->  44.1k – 24 bit

44.1k-16bit (MQA 44.1k)     ->  MQA Decoder and Renderer DAC  -> 44.1k – 16 bit

It seems the artist trunk much whisky and could not decide ... then they had to provide all options the artist wished!

[John Dyson]

45 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Exactly. Consumer's can't have the real thing. I guess. 

From what I have seen/heard, consumers almost NEVER get the 'real thing' on commodity commercial stuff.  It is totally sickening and saddens me.

[GUTB]

6 hours ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

You are as delusional as the Orange Cheetoh. "Time Domain Correction" is a complete and utter farce, a fabricated phrase that gullible parlour audiophiles can lap up.

 

"Time Domain Correction" at the expense of resolution? At the expense of aliasing and distortion?

 

And Archimago actually showed us it makes timing errors WORSE.

 

But that is the Orwellian world we now live in.

 

I'll drop by Archimago's site at some point. I was very unimpressed by his earlier anti-MQA hobbyhorse and responded to it in detail which went without substantive answer, I'll see what he's come up with now.

 

Weather or not MQA's time domain is fakery is not something which can be determined by looking at a frequency plot of a rendered MQA file. As Jim Austin -- a PhD in physics -- over at Stereophile commented that the only way to test the time domain claims is with the participation of MQA Ltd. No one here, and not Archimago, has the ability to do so.

 

Setting aside whether or not MQA sounds better, it seems that everyone who has actually listened to MQA through a MQA DAC reports that it can sound very different. Many albums I could detect no difference. Many albums I could detect only a slight improvement. Some albums have shown a huge difference, the first one such I was immediately suspicious that there were EQ-ing going on. I have since then begun to suspect this perception of increased volume, or forwardness, as if one were leaning into the mic, is an illusion from improved time domain performance. I noticed that in my vinyl system, many of my records displayed a clear and obvious improvement of dynamics over the digital versions of the same album. This is what has sent me chasing after a digital solution to this gap for the last few years. I wonder if what I was actually hearing in the records was the correct time domain information. You can't blame different masters either. Hit up Tidal for Confederation:

https://tidal.com/browse/album/50641444

This is a Sheffield Lab direct-to-disc recording, the album was directly transcribed to wax in real time with the performance. Completely analog to start to finish. The Tidal version is essentially a needledrop done by a professional mastering engineer. Now when you listen to this album, you'll probably find nothing wrong with it. It sounds fine. Except you have no idea what the record from 1977 sounds like. It's a different experience. It may give the impression of being more forward, but in reality, it's the sense of reality, of higher highs and deeper dips, that dynamic power and contrast which is so pleasing and life-like. Everyone knows that vinyl is nosier, more distorted, has less (usable) bandwidth, etc. So what is it? What if it just boils down to the lack of timing errors endemic to digital? What if Stuart's theory is correct and it's this timing information what actually makes hi-res sound better than Redbook?

 

[PeterSt]

4 hours ago, Dr Tone said:

 

Why are you trying to throw Roon under the bus on this one?  Roon implemented what they were required to do by MQA

 

Am I ?

 

6 hours ago, PeterSt said:

So Roon fakes the lot (a lot). But admittedly depicted by MQA Ltd.

 

So not Roon's fault at all.

[UkPhil]

40 minutes ago, GUTB said:What if Stuart's theory is correct and it's this timing information what actually makes hi-res sound better than Redbook?

 

Bob Stuart is not saying Hi Res is better than Red Book he doesn’t particularly care if it’s 16/44.1 or 24/192 analogue archives or digital archives, he is selling the theory of one proprietary file for all with the ability of taking away consumer choice, Tidal was just a platform to test this project, once the three majors have converted all the back catalogue which is being worked on now it won’t take long to start sending these files to other lossless platforms. Why would you want at best 17/96 as a replacement to industry standard PCM ? 

[PeterSt]

7 hours ago, kumakuma said:

I have zero interest in a proprietary loosy format especially when the sonic benefits are marginal at best.

 

+++