MQA is Vaporware

[Rt66indierock]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Thanks or the comments. They go a long way toward a good discussion. I like that you really haven't speculated about the world coming to an end because of this. 

 

I don't like lossy compression either. However, we've all managed to accept the lossy CD quality music for years. Not many recordings were made at 16/44.1. Anything made above that and delivered on CD should be considered lossy. I don't believe there is a need for lossy compression either, but I wish I had some facts to support my belief (bandwidth and data plan cost globally etc...). The 4K were are streaming is incredibly lossy and via wired connections. 

 

I'm with you on the filtering, if this is 100% true. 

 

Yes, in the future there will be no way to play MQA with official hardware of software. It's not a question of if, but when. 

 

The DSP issue is one that I'd like further info on. I've been told that companies just need to work with MQA to solve the issue, but this information comes from MQA.

 

Bad for innovation right now, I agree.

 

 

 

I think the reasons for supporting MQA are much more flimsy and subjective from the consumer side of things. Then we get into speculation that it may be good for the rights holders and if it's good for them does it have to be bad for us? Most people believe that if something is bad for artists it's bad for us, so does the reverse hold true? There are tons of unknowns. 

 

 

 

Chris, a convincing case for MQA has not been made. If got a few of the albums available in Europe that I own multiple versions of in MQA I could write an article John Atkinson at Stereophile would not have a problem publishing. My opinion would not be significantly different from his, Kal Rubinson’s or John Darko’s on the sound quality. The difference is probably undetectable listening casually with background noise about 40dB in my office. Differences still would probably be undetectable when the background noise drops to 30 to 33 dB on a quiet evening listening casually.   Only when I’m in professional mode on a quiet evening would I expect to hear differences and they would be slight. John Darko reports more space between the instruments and Kal’s comments seem to imply there is is some DSP in MQA but I won’t know until I listen. And you have to put the differences in a context of are they better or just different? I don’t know.

 

As for the interests of the artists, streaming is bad for them and good for the consumer. Would consumers pay more if the artist got more revenue from streaming? Nothing in the current market says this would happen.

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Highly unlikely based how my views on MQA are attacked elsewhere. 

 

Chris, a convincing case for MQA has not been made. If got a few of the albums available in Europe that I own multiple versions of in MQA I could write an article John Atkinson at Stereophile would not have a problem publishing. My opinion would not be significantly different from his, Kal Rubinson’s or John Darko’s on the sound quality. The difference is probably undetectable listening casually with background noise about 40dB in my office. Differences still would probably be undetectable when the background noise drops to 30 to 33 dB on a quiet evening listening casually.   Only when I’m in professional mode on a quiet evening would I expect to hear differences and they would be slight. John Darko reports more space between the instruments and Kal’s comments seem to imply there is is some DSP in MQA but I won’t know until I listen. And you have to put the differences in a context of are they better or just different? I don’t know.

 

As for the interests of the artists, streaming is bad for them and good for the consumer. Would consumers pay more if the artist got more revenue from streaming? Nothing in the current market says this would happen.

 

Pretty much the same conclusion I came to back in February 2016.

 

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/ca/bits-and-bytes/My-First-24-Hours-With-MQA/

 

[crenca]

13 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Sure, we can use the proper mathematical definition.  Every CD is lossy then, because it comes originally from an SDM-encoded bitstream in an ADC that is almost certainly converted (in a lossy, irreversible conversion) to PCM at some resolution.  Every edit, effect, and all PCM conversions done thereafter (except if the latter would be done using a closed form filter, which no one uses) are mathematically irreversible and thus lossy.  Inside your DAC there are more mathematically irreversible and thus lossy conversions (again unless you are using a closed form filter for PCM conversions).

 

What MQA does is add a lossy *compression* step to these dozens of lossy conversions, in contrast to, for example, FLAC, which uses *lossless* compression.  So dozens of lossy steps versus dozens plus one.  Obviously a huge qualitative distinction! 

 

 

Jud, you have said this before - however the modulations going on inside ADC & DAC's is besides the point.  The point being the definition of a file, a format, a software encoded (or for that matter an analogue "encoded" format such as vinyl) piece of software that is a static "capture" of the signal/impulse.  "lossy" has definition in this domain, and it is this domain that is under discussion and important.  Why?  Because it is the "stuff" of what every DAC has to work with, every consumer has to work with.  It is also the point of attack by Bob's/Meridian's lies and it is where consumers should be aware of the obfuscation going on...

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, mansr said:

Words have meanings. Why is it so hard for you to accept that?

 

Lossy = something is lost. 

[Jud]

Just now, mansr said:

 When have either of those discussed compression algorithms? Their products do not even use them.

 

Mike Moffat very definitely has discussed the term "lossy," in the sense of mathematical irreversibility, with regard to sample rate conversion and the accompanying filtering.  Miska has of course discussed his filters, closed form and otherwise, in the context of reversibility/irreversibility, but I am not certain whether he ever referenced those conversions as "lossy" or "lossless."

 

Just now, mansr said:

I think there's a chance that it might for some inputs. Since I haven't listened to every available MQA track, I can't say whether it has happened yet.

 

I'll "jump the gun" rather than waiting for you to listen to every available track and ask, of those you have listened to, do you think it has degraded sound quality?

[crenca]

15 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Strange, since I've been part of discussions of those terms in other places.    (Thus the references to PCM sample rate conversions via closed form filters.)

 

Not the usual/widely used definition and (this is the important point) NOT the way Bob/Meridian mean when they misuse the term for their own purposes...but of course you already know that.

[crenca]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Lossy = something is lost. 

 

Nope.  Not in the context of formats of digitally encoded music

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Jud said:

I'll "jump the gun" rather than waiting for you to listen to every available track and ask, of those you have listened to, do you think it has degraded sound quality?

 

@mansr doesn't listen to music, he looks at it. Sound quality has nothing to do with what one hears, it's how it looks.

 

I couldn't resist taking a jab at the self proclaimed "obstructionist." :~)

[crenca]

1 minute ago, Jud said:

 

Mike Moffat very definitely has discussed the term "lossy," in the sense of mathematical irreversibility, with regard to sample rate conversion and the accompanying filtering.  Miska has of course discussed his filters, closed form and otherwise, in the context of reversibility/irreversibility, but I am not certain whether he ever referenced those conversions as "lossy" or "lossless."

 

 

 

 

Perhaps it is because he is aware of the usual definition of the term in the context of software encoded formats...

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, crenca said:

 

Nope.  Not in the context of formats of digitally encoded music

 

So MQA isn't lossy just because something is lost?

[crenca]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

So MQA isn't lossy just because something is lost?

 

Nope, but then you already know that...

 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Whether it's a sample rate conversion from 24/96 to 16/44.1 or a compression scheme going from 24/96 WAV to 16/44.1 AAC, something is lost and there's no going back to the original. 

[crenca]

To obfuscate the term "lossy" by expanding the discussion to the law of entropy is useless and just adds to the esoteric and voodoo nature of this whole hobby.  It is of course straight from Bob's (and every other voodoo product) playbook as well...you boys should be ashamed of yourselves

[Jud]

2 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

 

Jud, you have said this before - however the modulations going on inside ADC & DAC's is besides the point.  The point being the definition of a file, a format, a software encoded (or for that matter an analogue "encoded" format such as vinyl) piece of software that is a static "capture" of the signal/impulse.  "lossy" has definition in this domain, and it is this domain that is under discussion and important.  Why?  Because it is the "stuff" of what every DAC has to work with, every consumer has to work with.  It is also the point of attack by Bob's/Meridian's lies and it is where consumers should be aware of the obfuscation going on...

 

 

"Lossy" and "lossless" have only one precise definition, a mathematical one.  "Lossless" = mathematically reversible, "lossy" = mathematically irreversible.  I agree this definition is used by far most often in the context of compression.  However, I've read at least one engineer who was working on digital audio filtering before some of us were born use those terms to refer to the filtering accompanying sample rate conversion.  Certainly the mathematical definition is exactly the same.  The only question is whether it is appropriate to use the term when talking about something other than compression.

 

And of course this is only interesting if we want to quibble about definitions.  I'm not sure why that's necessary, since I'm agreeing with you and mansr that MQA unnecessarily uses lossy compression (and even further, that the "unnecessary" part distinguishes it from such formats as MP3 and AAC).  Perhaps mansr wants to be able to apply the term "lossy" exclusively to MQA because it has pejorative connotations and so far in his listening he hasn't noticed a sound quality difference?

[crenca]

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Whether it's a sample rate conversion from 24/96 to 16/44.1 or a compression scheme going from 24/96 WAV to 16/44.1 AAC, something is lost and there's no going back to the original. 

 

Again, besides the point and not relevant to the definition.  There is no "original" because all recordings are facimilies of original signal/impulse.  On this level, there is nothing to go back to...so what?

 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, crenca said:

To obfuscate the term "lossy" by expanding the discussion to the law of entropy is useless and just adds to the esoteric and voodoo nature of this whole hobby.  It is of course straight from Bob's (and every other voodoo product) playbook as well...you boys should be ashamed of yourselves

 

Rather than claim the moral high ground, perhaps you could explain why it matters to the consumer if something is lossy from a sample rate conversion or a compression algorithm. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, crenca said:

 

Again, besides the point and not relevant to the definition.  There is no "original" because all recordings are facimilies of original signal/impulse.  On this level, there is nothing to go back to...so what?

 

 

 

 

Great, then why even discuss lossless or lossy? Oh wait, it helps your argument against MQA.

[mansr]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

Whether it's a sample rate conversion from 24/96 to 16/44.1 or a compression scheme going from 24/96 WAV to 16/44.1 AAC, something is lost and there's no going back to the original. 

Here you are demonstrating your ignorance. AAC does not alter the sample rate or bit depth per se. Depending on the parameters chosen, an encoder may elect to filter out high frequencies (since these are the least audible), but the decoder would still return the original sample rate.

[crenca]

2 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

 

  Perhaps mansr wants to be able to apply the term "lossy" exclusively to MQA because it has pejorative connotations and so far in his listening he hasn't noticed a sound quality difference?

 

 

Perhaps, perhaps not.  Even if we could read his mind it would not matter because no matter what his motivations are he is EMPIRICALLY CORRECT!  Within the domain of software encoding (i.e. digital music software) it is TRUE...

[Jud]

11 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Not the usual/widely used definition and (this is the important point) NOT the way Bob/Meridian mean when they misuse the term for their own purposes...but of course you already know that.

 

You will want to pay attention to what I am saying.  Once again, I repeat that MQA uses lossy compression.  This is the precise mathematical definition, and exactly the *opposite of* the one Bob/Meridian/MQA are using when they say they are using lossless compression in the sense of "audibly lossless."  This is touchy-feely stuff and not the precise mathematical definition.  Any disagreement?

[crenca]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Rather than claim the moral high ground, perhaps you could explain why it matters to the consumer if something is lossy from a sample rate conversion or a compression algorithm. 

 

For all the reasons endlessly discussed - consistency of input for DAC architecture, design, and measurement.  For DSP, for consumer verifiability, manipulation, and reversibility, for industry innovation, for just about everything important in the digital musical ecosystem!!

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, Jud said:

"Lossy" and "lossless" have only one precise definition, a mathematical one.  "Lossless" = mathematically reversible, "lossy" = mathematically irreversible.  I agree this definition is used by far most often in the context of compression.  However, I've read at least one engineer who was working on digital audio filtering before some of us were born use those terms to refer to the filtering accompanying sample rate conversion.  Certainly the mathematical definition is exactly the same.  The only question is whether it is appropriate to use the term when talking about something other than compression.

The terms can certainly be applied without confusion to any mathematical transformation. However, they make little sense in the context of an operation that is by definition irreversible (e.g. bandwidth reduction).

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, mansr said:

Here you are demonstrating your ignorance. AAC does not alter the sample rate or bit depth per se. Depending on the parameters chosen, an encoder may elect to filter out high frequencies (since these are the least audible), but the decoder would still return the original sample rate.

 

Rather than name calling, perhaps you could decide to purposely understand my comments. When delivering an album the mastering engineer will deliver a 24/96 to the label for download stores and a lossless ALAC version to Tidal and an MP3/AAC version to Spotify. Of course AAC doesn't alter the sample rate, thats a decision by the person doing the conversion when they create the distribution file. 

 

 

 

 

[Jud]

Just now, mansr said:

The terms can certainly be applied without confusion to any mathematical transformation. However, they make little sense in the context of an operation that is by definition irreversible (e.g. bandwidth reduction).

 

 

Would bandwidth reduction using a closed form filter be impossible?  If not, would it be reversible?

[crenca]

2 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

You will want to pay attention to what I am saying.  Once again, I repeat that MQA uses lossy compression.  This is the precise mathematical definition, and exactly the *opposite of* the one Bob/Meridian/MQA are using when they say they are using lossless compression in the sense of "audibly lossless."  This is touchy-feely stuff and not the precise mathematical definition.  Any disagreement?

 

 

Ok, so you have forgiven his sin of attempting to pull a fast one and then reversing course, and modifying or "clarifying" what he meant...the damage is done however and consumers are "confused" which was no doubt his intention because he is an "audio savant" and knew perfectly well what he was doing...