My Questions and Answers (MQA): An Interview with Andreas Koch

[jhwalker]

3 minutes ago, Nikhil said:

Just as an example - look up the Bughead software discussions on here.  BHE makes the sound glorious.  However it is based on adding among other things jitter to the signal to tune the sound.  The old CD marker tweak is another example of tuning the sound.  However none of these make claims of reproducing "Master Quality Authentication".

 

Please take a look at Mitch's article on time aligning the speaker drivers in his setup.  The complexity of this problem and the software needed to work on this is not trivial (and he is talking about speakers only).  To talk of time aligning the signal is simply not possible in the way MQA describes it.  Andreas Koch pointed to a hole in their approach which you may not have appreciated  i.e. the time distortion in the ADC stage.  Fact is the signal is being smeared by the entire chain including the electronics (group delay).       

Of course, the claim to remove "smearing" from the original is a bit silly - it's obvious there is a whole chain of mixing / level moves, involving various devices, etc., in just about every production.  You could scarcely correct for that whole lot, even if you had a complete record of each and every move!

Look, I'm not saying these arguments don't have merit - it's just really odd to me the sheer vehemence of the "discussion"; IMHO, it's more a smear campaign than an honest discussion of the pros / cons of the solution, with words like "fraud" and "fake" being tossed around indiscriminately and with very little provocation.  Brings up my instinct to protect against pile-ons

Anyway, I'll try to drop it, and not to take it so seriously.

[Don Hills]

4 hours ago, jhwalker said:

No.  You've misunderstood the sound quality argument.  It is *not* supposed to be "as good as" or "the same as" the original studio master *as it currently available*.  It is supposed to make it better, by correcting any smearing in the time domain caused by the original analog to digital conversion, as well as improving the time domain performance in the receiving DAC.  So it's entirely possible for it to sound better than the currently available digital files, just like it's possible to improve a digital photo file by careful deconvolution.

...

In turn, "No". It *IS* supposed to be the "same as the original studio master".  For all the already mastered and released music, MQA may "make it sound better" but it therefore makes it sound different than what was heard and approved in the studio. MQA only makes sense if the music is heard and approved through a full MQA ADC-DAC chain at the mastering stage.

[Jud]

5 hours ago, Don Hills said:

In turn, "No". It *IS* supposed to be the "same as the original studio master".  For all the already mastered and released music, MQA may "make it sound better" but it therefore makes it sound different than what was heard and approved in the studio. MQA only makes sense if the music is heard and approved through a full MQA ADC-DAC chain at the mastering stage.

Leaving aside MQA's exaggerated claims (certainly not as if they're the only audio enterprise doing *that*), I think we can put it a little less flatly, and say MQA certainly provides less value if it isn't heard and approved through the ADC process, and then "correction" provided at the DAC end to keep that approved sound intact.

Since it's unlikely that it's heard and approved through the ADC process, it provides less value than claimed by MQA, and than the words "Master Quality Authenticated" would imply.

This doesn't prevent it from offering value in two ways: (1) Some of the masterings that have been made available in MQA versions are of better quality than were previously available.  This is easy to hear, as large differences in mastering quality often are.  (2) Apodizing filters aren't a scam; no one thought this through their very long history until they became embroiled in this MQA business.  People have liked them or disliked them, but the theory behind them is clearly sound.  For people who like the result of the apodizing filters that *may be* applied in the MQA process at the ADC end (analysis by various people on this forum has shown that the filters used at the DAC end cannot be apodizing, as they provide too little "cut" to remove ringing), this is a benefit.

[Fokus]

Ironically there are no apodising filters in MQA...

[Jud]

6 minutes ago, Fokus said:

Ironically there are no apodising filters in MQA...

I noticed the analysis talking about the DAC end of things - did I miss information about ADC filtering?

[plissken]

13 hours ago, jhwalker said:

. . . and yet it still sounds *really* good.  In my mind, often better than the lossless hi-res version of the same music

I really don't understand the sheer venom of the attacks against MQA.  It may not be everyone's cup of tea, but I also don't understand why it simply *must* be destroyed, crushed under the heel of audiophilia.

Most likely has to do with all the sighted, subjective, evaluation.

[jhwalker]

Just now, plissken said:

Most likely has to do with all the sighted, subjective, evaluation.

Could be.

[mansr]

12 hours ago, jhwalker said:

It is supposed to make it better, by correcting any smearing in the time domain caused by the original analog to digital conversion, as well as improving the time domain performance in the receiving DAC.

There is no evidence to support that it actually does any of this.

[jhwalker]

15 minutes ago, mansr said:

There is no evidence to support that it actually does any of this.

. . . which is why I said "supposed to"

[Jud]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

There is no evidence to support that it actually does any of this.

Possible that it uses a reasonable apodizing filter at the ADC end, which permits the crappy filtering at the DAC end to cause less harm?

[mansr]

17 minutes ago, Jud said:

Possible that it uses a reasonable apodizing filter at the ADC end, which permits the crappy filtering at the DAC end to cause less harm?

And how does that accomplish "deblurring" or any of the other feats of magic they promise?

[Jud]

26 minutes ago, mansr said:

And how does that accomplish "deblurring" or any of the other feats of magic they promise?

I take from this that it's possible. 

"Feats of magic" = marketing bunkum

"Deblurring" = marketing rebranding of what any decent apodizing filter does, helping to remove ringing

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, Jud said:

I take from this that it's possible. 

"Feats of magic" = marketing bunkum

"Deblurring" = marketing rebranding of what any decent apodizing filter does, helping to remove ringing

An apodizing filter works by using an early roll-off to remove the high frequencies that would otherwise cause ringing. Removing high frequencies is the opposite of "deblurring" for any reasonable definition of common words.

[Jud]

Just now, mansr said:

An apodizing filter works by using an early roll-off to remove the high frequencies that would otherwise cause ringing. Removing high frequencies is the opposite of "deblurring" for any reasonable definition of common words.

marketing rebranding != "any reasonable definition of common words"

I'm certainly not here to defend anything MQA might be doing, just speculating as to what (if anything) the terms they use in their marketing may mean.

[Norton]

3 hours ago, plissken said:

Most likely has to do with all the sighted, subjective, evaluation.

Sorry if this is heretical to some on this site, but isn't that what other people simply call "enjoying the music"?

[Jud]

Norton, your avatar is currently the victim of horizontal stretching as a result of being brought in from the old version of the site.  You may like it that way  , but if you don't, just re-upload your avatar photo and that will fix it.

[Norton]

Thanks for the alert, not sure Sir Edward would have appreciated being "horizontally stretched"...

[plissken]

1 hour ago, Norton said:

Sorry if this is heretical to some on this site, but isn't that what other people simply call "enjoying the music"?

I think some of it comes from tidbits where old albums are in MQA and the source couldn't have been any better than an equivalent 12 bits of resolution but the gushing in reviews continues on about MQA vs other lossless formats like 24/96 etc...

[Fitzcaraldo215]

19 hours ago, mansr said:

So his arguments against MQA are somehow invalid because he has expressed pro-DSD views elsewhere?

Nope, not what I said.  I just cautioned considering the source.  I would suggest similar caution if Bob Stuart or Mark Waldrep were to criticize DSD.  And, so on.

[audiventory]

35 minutes ago, plissken said:

I think some of it comes from tidbits where old albums are in MQA and the source couldn't have been any better than an equivalent 12 bits of resolution but the gushing in reviews continues on about MQA vs other lossless formats like 24/96 etc...

MQA considered as full recording-playback system, as I understand.

Thus there need to compare full systems PCM vs MQA vs DSD.

Comparing records out of system is incorrect.

But comparing systems also impossible.

Because may be compared implementations of systems only.

[mansr]

1 hour ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Nope, not what I said.  I just cautioned considering the source.  I would suggest similar caution if Bob Stuart or Mark Waldrep were to criticize DSD.  And, so on.

An argument should be evaluated on its own merits regardless of who made it. Only in cases of argument from authority does the person enter the picture.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

4 minutes ago, mansr said:

An argument should be evaluated on its own merits regardless of who made it. Only in cases of argument from authority does the person enter the picture.

Disagree.  Part of the evaluation of any argument is who is making it, their background and potential bias. Do you believe Press Secretary Sean Spicer in his comments about his boss, President Donald Trump?

In this case, Koch may indeed be correct about MQA, but he is from a competitive camp commercially, as his background reveals.  I do not believe he is impartial. 

There are also many assertions he makes that are speculative and that neither he nor anyone has any proof for, if you wish to be truly objective.  You might legitimately say the same about some claims made by MQA on their own behalf.

[mcgillroy]

17 hours ago, jhwalker said:

Of course, the claim to remove "smearing" from the original is a bit silly - it's obvious there is a whole chain of mixing / level moves, involving various devices, etc., in just about every production.  You could scarcely correct for that whole lot, even if you had a complete record of each and every move!

Look, I'm not saying these arguments don't have merit - it's just really odd to me the sheer vehemence of the "discussion"; IMHO, it's more a smear campaign than an honest discussion of the pros / cons of the solution, with words like "fraud" and "fake" being tossed around indiscriminately and with very little provocation.  Brings up my instinct to protect against pile-ons

Anyway, I'll try to drop it, and not to take it so seriously.

Could you please point me to evidence where Andreas Koch, the Linn, Shiit Xivevo folks smear MQA?

These are very knowledgeable people who happen to ask some good, hard questions. So far MQA, Bob Stuart or anybody else throwing their weight behind the format - including you - fail to address these questions.

One of the questions raised is nothing less than if MQA actually decreases the temporal accuracy! That is 100% counter their marketing claims and should be taken very seriously.

But "temporal blur" aside - what definitely is known and at this point acknowledged even by MQA reps is that MQA is giving up absolute fidelity to the source.

Instead MQA offers a different presentation. That is Ok, and some people like you might prefer this form presentation. But this could be achieved without the licensing and DRM baggage MQA comes with. A baggage that might have very real systemic consequences for the music-ecosystem.

If you like your Picasso instagramed and your Monet de-blurred so be it.

What I want to hear is what the artist intended to deliver. MQA does not give me that. MQA gives me something else and on top of that introduces new costs in the musical value chain.

 

[audiventory]

15 hours ago, mcgillroy said:

One of the questions raised is nothing less than if MQA actually decreases the temporal accuracy!

 

Does you mean MQA here as full recording-playback system or file format only?

[botrytis]

Some more interesting MQA information - it sounds like 'Engineered for iTunes'.

 

http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2017/03/highresaudio-com-calls-for-a-deeper-technical-analysis-of-mqa/

 

and also this....

 

http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2016/05/schiitting-on-mqa/