Jump to content
IGNORED

Article: MQA (for civilians)


Recommended Posts

So definitely HQP filtering with the MQA version plus whatever filtering accompanied the downsampling to 24/96, versus possible 1:1 filtering with the non-MQA file.

Correct.

NUC10i7 + Roon ROCK > dCS Rossini APEX DAC + dCS Rossini Master Clock 

SME 20/3 + SME V + Dynavector XV-1s or ANUK IO Gold > vdH The Grail or Kondo KSL-SFz + ANK L3 Phono 

Audio Note Kondo Ongaku > Avantgarde Duo Mezzo

Signal cables: Kondo Silver, Crystal Cable phono

Power cables: Kondo, Shunyata, van den Hul

system pics

Link to comment
As an audiophile, I see no need for the lossy compression part of it unless it's streamed. Even then, who cares about the sound quality for streaming? I don't see it as the major delivery method for audiophiles.

 

.

 

I think you're out of touch.

 

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

FLAC -> Jplay-> Jkeny Mk3 -> Audio-GD Ref 5->Hornshoppe Truth -> Music Reference EM7-> Hornshoppe Horned Heils

Link to comment
Who cares what you think.

A great amount of discussion on CA re Tidal suggests you're incorrect regardless of how little you care about what I think.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

FLAC -> Jplay-> Jkeny Mk3 -> Audio-GD Ref 5->Hornshoppe Truth -> Music Reference EM7-> Hornshoppe Horned Heils

Link to comment

Sorry if this is an amateurish question, I'm trying to understand if you will need to set up your software to decide how to pass the signal along.

 

In other words, one user may want a signal bypassing any software decoding and passing it right to an MQA capable DAC while those without an MQA DAC would want more done by playback software. (like Chris's example with the Meridian Explorer DAC)

 

Will there have to be some sort of toggle switch in software to direct it how the user wants it to handle MQA files?

 

Could one, or would one, want to have a completely unprocessed MQA track sent to the DAC to do all processes (decoding, rendering, etc., etc) and if so, I am assuming the software will need to have some sort of option to do that?

 

Hope that wasn't too confusing....

Aurender N10--> DCS Bartok w Rossini Clock—>Audio Research REF6 Pre --> Vandersteen M5HPA—>Vandersteen Quatro CT Speakers; AMG Giro Turntable w Lyra Delos Cartridge —> Audio Research Ref 3 PhonoPre

Link to comment

I still think a key question remains unanswered. What exactly does the customized tuning in a renderer or MQA-enabled DAC do? Your comment that software core decoding gives you 90% of the benefit is, I assume, your subjective assessment. Have you compared software-decoded MQA played on a non-MQA DAC to that same distribution file played on an MQA-enabled DAC or MQA renderer after core decoding (maybe on your Berkeley Alpha DAC Reference Series 2)?

 

Why is the customization 'a bit difficult' other than DAC-specific implementation details like the kind of FPGA or filters used in the qualifying product? I guess the question is what is the objective of the customization? How does MQA and the manufacturer decide 'are we there yet'? What are the success criteria? What happens in the rendering stage beyond unfolding the distribution file to the original sample rate?

Pareto Audio AMD 7700 Server --> Berkeley Alpha USB --> Jeff Rowland Aeris --> Jeff Rowland 625 S2 --> Focal Utopia 3 Diablos with 2 x Focal Electra SW 1000 BE subs

 

i7-6700K/Windows 10  --> EVGA Nu Audio Card --> Focal CMS50's 

Link to comment
Like it or not, MQA is as close as most people are ever going to get to mainstream musician music released by the big studios and it will likely be thru streaming.

I have no idea what you just said.

NUC10i7 + Roon ROCK > dCS Rossini APEX DAC + dCS Rossini Master Clock 

SME 20/3 + SME V + Dynavector XV-1s or ANUK IO Gold > vdH The Grail or Kondo KSL-SFz + ANK L3 Phono 

Audio Note Kondo Ongaku > Avantgarde Duo Mezzo

Signal cables: Kondo Silver, Crystal Cable phono

Power cables: Kondo, Shunyata, van den Hul

system pics

Link to comment

Real world example:

 

1. The studio creates a track at 24 bit / 352.8 kHz DXD.

2. The studio uses the MQA process on the track, packaging it as 24 bit / 44.1 kHz.

3. The consumer purchases or streams the 24 bit / 44.1 kHz track.

4. The consumer's playback system decodes and renders the track at 24 bit / 352.8 kHz DXD.

 

Chris,

 

DXD noise (legacy high frequency DSD's noise) is filtered before coding to MQA?

 

DXD in point 4 has not the noise?

AuI ConverteR 48x44 - HD audio converter/optimizer for DAC of high resolution files

ISO, DSF, DFF (1-bit/D64/128/256/512/1024), wav, flac, aiff, alac,  safe CD ripper to PCM/DSF,

Seamless Album Conversion, AIFF, WAV, FLAC, DSF metadata editor, Mac & Windows
Offline conversion save energy and nature

Link to comment
I still think a key question remains unanswered. What exactly does the customized tuning in a renderer or MQA-enabled DAC do? Your comment that software core decoding gives you 90% of the benefit is, I assume, your subjective assessment. Have you compared software-decoded MQA played on a non-MQA DAC to that same distribution file played on an MQA-enabled DAC or MQA renderer after core decoding (maybe on your Berkeley Alpha DAC Reference Series 2)?

 

Why is the customization 'a bit difficult' other than DAC-specific implementation details like the kind of FPGA or filters used in the qualifying product? I guess the question is what is the objective of the customization? How does MQA and the manufacturer decide 'are we there yet'? What are the success criteria? What happens in the rendering stage beyond unfolding the distribution file to the original sample rate?

The two decoding stages are basically:

1- First "unfolding" step to 2x original rate. There's some lossy component here but it is fairly close to the original master for sampling frequencies below 88 or 96 (whichever is the 2x)

2- Second "rendering" step to whatever rate. This is mostly upsampling, little original information is preserved here. However, the interesting and innovative part of this is - according to mansr - that it seems there's code in the unfolded stream and the renderer understands this code and sets appropriate upsampling parameters in the DAC filter system.

 

In HQPlayer terms for example, it would be akin to choosing the best upsampling filter and it's parameters based in the music fed. If this is true, this is kinda cool and smart.

NUC10i7 + Roon ROCK > dCS Rossini APEX DAC + dCS Rossini Master Clock 

SME 20/3 + SME V + Dynavector XV-1s or ANUK IO Gold > vdH The Grail or Kondo KSL-SFz + ANK L3 Phono 

Audio Note Kondo Ongaku > Avantgarde Duo Mezzo

Signal cables: Kondo Silver, Crystal Cable phono

Power cables: Kondo, Shunyata, van den Hul

system pics

Link to comment

You see, in order to enjoy the full benefit of MQA one is forced to buy MQA DAC. If you have already invested thousand of dollars on a DAC, you are at the mercy whether the manufacturers are willing to buy MQA license and incorporate them as a firmware update. Now if MQA can offer a separate hardware decoder and sent the decoded signal to your existing DAC, isn't this going a lot of people happy?

 

MQA is a encode and decode systems, there's no point to argue whether undecoded, half decoded or full decode sound better, of course the answer is already here. The funny thing is MQA sells you 4 different ways to unwrap MQA and in all it tells you hardware decoding will eventually give you the best results.

 

So folks, if you want to experience the ultimate in MQA playback, ditch your existing DAC and buy a MQA DAC, and if you have the money, re-buy all your music collections in MQA. This will definitely make 'them' very happy indeed.

Link to comment

You see, in order to get the full benefits of MQA decoding, one is forced to buy a MQA DAC. If you have already invested thousand of dollars on your existing DAC, you are at the mercy whether the DAC manufacturers are willing to buy MQA license to incorporate them as a firmware update. if MQA can offer a hardware decoder and send the decoded signal to existing DACs, this will make a lot people happy.

 

MQA is a encode and decode system, there's no point to argue whether undecode, half decode and full decode sound better? Obvious the answer is already here. It is funny that MQA sells you 4 different ways to unwrap and tell you in all, the hardware decoding will give the best results.

 

So folks, if you want to listen to the ultimate in MQA decoding, ditch your existing DACs and buy a MQA DAC and if you have spare cash, re-buy all your music collections in MQA. This will definitely make them very happy indeed!

Link to comment
When I think about lossy, I ask myself what is lost. With MP3 and AAC real music is lost. With MQA I don't believe real music is lost. MQA changes digital, making existing terminology require more discussion than in the past.

 

I think, when we says "lossless" it is meant as "binary identity of original and unpacked audio stream".

 

Looks like, MQA have more wide meaning of this term.

AuI ConverteR 48x44 - HD audio converter/optimizer for DAC of high resolution files

ISO, DSF, DFF (1-bit/D64/128/256/512/1024), wav, flac, aiff, alac,  safe CD ripper to PCM/DSF,

Seamless Album Conversion, AIFF, WAV, FLAC, DSF metadata editor, Mac & Windows
Offline conversion save energy and nature

Link to comment
Lossy is by definition not as good as lossless.

 

Examples:

When applied room correction, there is lossy processing.

When applied digital volume control, there is lossy processing.

 

But for this cases we have more benefits: fixing of problematic resonances, avoiding overloading distortions.

AuI ConverteR 48x44 - HD audio converter/optimizer for DAC of high resolution files

ISO, DSF, DFF (1-bit/D64/128/256/512/1024), wav, flac, aiff, alac,  safe CD ripper to PCM/DSF,

Seamless Album Conversion, AIFF, WAV, FLAC, DSF metadata editor, Mac & Windows
Offline conversion save energy and nature

Link to comment
Hi Miguel -

 

Blue sounded better to me in the 24/192 HDTracks hi res version than in the MQA version "unfolded" to 24/192 by software, both upsampled to DSD256.

 

How were you listening to it?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

 

Hi Jud,

 

How did you "unfold" the 24/192 MQA version in software?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

Owner of: Sound Galleries, High-End Audio Dealer, Monaco

Link to comment
When I think about lossy, I ask myself what is lost. With MP3 and AAC real music is lost. With MQA I don't believe real music is lost. MQA changes digital, making existing terminology require more discussion than in the past.

 

Sure, in MQA, the baseband up to 22/24kHz (depending if the MQA file is 44/48kHz) is lossless down to a good bit-depth. This in itself makes the sound more accurate than any typical MP3/AAC file. The lossy parts apply to the ultrasonic stuff which by definition is somewhat hard to hear :-). Sure, MQA wants us to believe that the lossy ultrasonics make it sound better, maybe some will prefer the upsampling algorithm (minimal phase filtering...), but overall, IMO it's all rather subtle. The question is whether one cares to spend money on specific MQA-decoding hardware for this small change.

 

Fair enough, MQA Core in software achieves "90%" of the sound. I would say it's more like 99.9% when decoded to 24/88 or 24/96 of an original high quality mastering (as opposed to loud compressed masterings which might strain suboptimal filters).

 

Ultimately, the market will decide on the value of this coding technique. Let's see in a few months when the novelty wears off...

 

Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile.

Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism.

:nomqa: R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press.

 

 

Link to comment

Is there available documentation which confirm that the mastering communities widely find that a lossy file which has been modified by the MQA dsp is superior to its untouched lossless original?

 

Indeed. As far as I am aware this claim is not substantiated outside of the MQA marketing campaign.

Link to comment
You see, in order to enjoy the full benefit of MQA one is forced to buy MQA DAC. If you have already invested thousand of dollars on a DAC, you are at the mercy whether the manufacturers are willing to buy MQA license and incorporate them as a firmware update. Now if MQA can offer a separate hardware decoder and sent the decoded signal to your existing DAC, isn't this going a lot of people happy?

Taking what has been said and speculating some:

MQA decoding seems to be separated in two steps as I described above. The second step is more about upsampling than pulling any real information. The unfolded MQA stream (ie the software decoded stream to 88 or 96) seems to include some information for the "rendering" step that effectively sets up the parameters of the upsampling filter in the DAC - that is given the source it programs the DAC with fine-tuned upsampling parameters.

 

If this interpretation is correct then a couple of things seem to be clear:

1- Given a widely used DAC chip, the renderer could set up proper upsampling parameters - this seems useful

2- For high end DACs, especially those with non-standard DAC chips (my DAC does not have a chip at all but a discrete DAC), this is a moot point - I very much doubt any of this is doable

 

So is this a "good thing"? I think it is for those DACs that could use the tailored programming. Should you freak out and think your world is in danger because you cannot use this very last step, which is questionable for many DACs? Certainly not.

NUC10i7 + Roon ROCK > dCS Rossini APEX DAC + dCS Rossini Master Clock 

SME 20/3 + SME V + Dynavector XV-1s or ANUK IO Gold > vdH The Grail or Kondo KSL-SFz + ANK L3 Phono 

Audio Note Kondo Ongaku > Avantgarde Duo Mezzo

Signal cables: Kondo Silver, Crystal Cable phono

Power cables: Kondo, Shunyata, van den Hul

system pics

Link to comment
The two decoding stages are basically:

1- First "unfolding" step to 2x original rate. There's some lossy component here but it is fairly close to the original master for sampling frequencies below 88 or 96 (whichever is the 2x)

2- Second "rendering" step to whatever rate. This is mostly upsampling, little original information is preserved here. However, the interesting and innovative part of this is - according to mansr - that it seems there's code in the unfolded stream and the renderer understands this code and sets appropriate upsampling parameters in the DAC filter system.

 

In HQPlayer terms for example, it would be akin to choosing the best upsampling filter and it's parameters based in the music fed. If this is true, this is kinda cool and smart.

 

The metadata in the decoded stream instructs the renderer which of 16 predefined interpolation filters to use, and they are all terrible. The DAC-specific tuning, if indeed there is any, could consist of minor tweaks to these filters. It would be necessary to poke around inside a few different DACs to say for sure.

Link to comment
Examples:

When applied room correction, there is lossy processing.

When applied digital volume control, there is lossy processing.

 

But for this cases we have more benefits: fixing of problematic resonances, avoiding overloading distortions.

 

Those examples are not comparable to a distribution format. DSP room correction should be seen as part of the reproduction chain where it serves to more accurately recreate the analogue sound wave reaching your ears. The D/A conversion itself is also "lossy" but I think most would agree it is still necessary.

 

Looking at distribution formats, the distinction is quite clear. Either a format preserves all the information of the original, or it does not. When people fret over whether provably lossless formats such as FLAC nevertheless might degrade the audio ever so slightly, one would think actually lossy (even if only a little) formats, MQA included, would be completely out of the question.

Link to comment

Ever since MQA was announced 2 years back we are still speculating today how it works and how it is presented into consumers end. I believed it is most 'confusing' format ever introduced into a music world. So much debates and angry expressions have been going on in many forums.

 

I will never buy into it as a digital downloads but streaming to be can be an improvement especially going from MP3 to FLAC and to MQA, provided I don't have pay any higher premium. The same goes to hardware too, not going spend just to get the 'ultimate decoded' out from it.

Link to comment
Ever since MQA was announced 2 years back we are still speculating today how it works and how it is presented into consumers end. I believed it is most 'confusing' format ever introduced into a music world. So much debates and angry expressions have been going on in many forums.

 

I suspect the confusion is deliberate in order to detract attention from the hidden DRM features.

Link to comment
I suspect the confusion is deliberate in order to detract attention from the hidden DRM features.

 

The fact that what you call "DRM" is being used is not hidden, certainly. Are you referring to what the "DRM" hides? It's not hiding the original content, which is already irretrievably gone.

 

For MQA itself, what it may serve to do (speculation on my part) is not hide anything very effectively, but to make a better argument for copyright violation if it's cracked. Thus it's a mechanism for protecting MQA's intellectual property, which is the processing. There does not seem to be a terribly high opinion of the processing, so what is protected is not something terribly valuable in the opinion of lots of people, though of course MQA would differ.

 

So the potential danger is not any sort of DRM, and it is probably inaccurate or even misleading to keep referring to it as that. The potential danger is that the music industry would in a wholesale fashion move to MQA and thereby deprive the music consuming public of access to the originals. Let's keep our eyes on the actual potential problem rather than just stirring up anxiety with (IMO) rather inaccurate labels.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
Those examples are not comparable to a distribution format. DSP room correction should be seen as part of the reproduction chain where it serves to more accurately recreate the analogue sound wave reaching your ears. The D/A conversion itself is also "lossy" but I think most would agree it is still necessary.

 

Looking at distribution formats, the distinction is quite clear. Either a format preserves all the information of the original, or it does not. When people fret over whether provably lossless formats such as FLAC nevertheless might degrade the audio ever so slightly, one would think actually lossy (even if only a little) formats, MQA included, would be completely out of the question.

 

Agree. Distribution format is other case. I wondered, why (almost?) nobody comparing MQA nad FLAC?

 

MQA give about 2 times more compression comparing FLAC (looks to 2L's samples), but some losses there.

 

Technical analysis by Archimago show what mp3 have more losess, than MQA Archimago's Musings: COMPARISON: Hardware-Decoded MQA (using Mytek Brooklyn DAC)

 

May be for economy internet band (especially mobile) the size have sense.

AuI ConverteR 48x44 - HD audio converter/optimizer for DAC of high resolution files

ISO, DSF, DFF (1-bit/D64/128/256/512/1024), wav, flac, aiff, alac,  safe CD ripper to PCM/DSF,

Seamless Album Conversion, AIFF, WAV, FLAC, DSF metadata editor, Mac & Windows
Offline conversion save energy and nature

Link to comment
The fact that what you call "DRM" is being used is not hidden, certainly. Are you referring to what the "DRM" hides? It's not hiding the original content, which is already irretrievably gone.

 

There is an option within MQA to encrypt the entire audio stream making it completely unplayable on incompatible hardware. Is that not DRM?

Link to comment

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...