Stereophile Series on MQA Technology

[esldude]

8 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

To a non-audiophile, it’s convenient to focus of measurements because there’s a ton of sub-$100 Chinese shovelware that measures very well. Audiophiles measure with thier ears, and try to understand the relationship between sound and electrical measurements. The reason why something like an Ayre sounds so good is because they were built by the ear of a master craftsman, not from an electrical engineer’s student textbook.

What measures I have seen of sub-$100 DACs they don't measure well.  There is also no getting around the fact if gear of any price sounds different while measuring poorly, that sound even if preferred by some is a coloration.  These days such colorations can be applied to well made gear capable of high fidelity via DSP without the expense or limitations of hardware based coloration from the hands of a "master craftsman".

[esldude]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

Were you enlightened?

Maybe he was just posted.

[esldude]

48 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

In regards to speakers, I believe the factor is being time-correct, ie, not bieng smeared with certain crossover elements.

 

There’s also various technologies that help...Zu has a system I forget the name of. One boutique maker uses a method that includes connecting the two speakers together to exchange information: http://vanlspeakerworks.com/theory.html

 

You have the knack.  No, sorry, saying regular speakers are monophonic below 400 hz is wrong.  They aren't. Represents a misunderstanding of the effect of stereo described in Blumlein's patent in the 1930's. 

 

Now having difference voice coils will widen the stage some.  It is a very poor method for doing that.  One can much more simply add that in processing of the file.  Works like processing a mid-side recording.  More difference is wider with less center fill.  

 

Refering to the Van L speakerworks theory in your link. 

[esldude]

5 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Its like saying you can comment anonymously on the weekend because you aren’t working for anyone. His language and some searching lead me to believe he has violated the rules of CA. This has zero to do with the subject matter. 

I would assume had he PM'd you with his past affiliations and confirming none are currently active you would have left the account intact if that satisfied you.  Or depending upon what you learn perhaps not.  That way he wouldn't have torpedoed future employment publicly. 

[esldude]

3 minutes ago, beetlemania said:

 

To your credit, you have maintained far more integrity that than Mr. Harley. In fact, I apologize for including his name with yours.

 

Regarding MQA, it defies logic that a lossy file can be better than the original but, sure, it's possible some will prefer the modified sound. It would be interesting to compare an MQA encoded file with a 192/24 transferred with your QA-9.

 

And I hope that Mr. Austin's series includes the non-sonic issues raised by Linn Audio, among many others.

My initially impulse about lossy being better than original would be to agree.  However it is possible to be the reverse.  One could consider 48khz/24 lossy in a sense it filters out higher frequencies.  Yet doing so allows a format which is highly accurate at reproducing the sounds humans can hear.  So it isn't impossible for partial lossy encoding with particular filtering which has some advantages to work within the constraints of a given format to be humanly heard as better.  That is something of the claim of MQA.  I am not convinced it is true, but it can't be ruled out purely on the basis of simple logic.  That logic would be over-simplifying things potentially.  

 

In this case of MQA, I think the claims about blurring in time is conflating several things to fix a problem which isn't perceived aurally by humans at the expense of some imaging contamination and other factors.  Meaning MQA probably is of lesser rather than greater fidelity to masters vs getting those masters in the native sample rate and bit depth. 

[esldude]

4 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

With due respect, I'm really, really hard pressed to believe you have "fans".

Sounds like you haven't spent time reading super best audio friends forum. (SBAF btw not SABF)  Read up about plankton in headphone listening.  Although with all due respect the SBAF moderator accused GUTB of crapping up his plankton thread. 

[esldude]

3 hours ago, Archimago said:

snippage...

No... This is not elegant. It's sadly rather ugly. Objectively viewed from the perspective of consumer needs, this certainly does not appear like a refinement of sound quality or consumer convenience. I think that's quite obvious from the start because consumers did not ask for this!

 

You are correct consumers did not ask for this.  But audiophiles asked for the idea of this.  We have a serial lies situation about what MQA does vs what it claims.  The key selling point was asked for by audiophiles.  Access to the exact master file sound.  

[esldude]

2 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Maybe the word sounds nice to you, I don't have an opinion on that. But MQA's approach to digital audio
data encoding, in theory reducing all the stages between the input of the A/D converter to the output of the D/A converter to a transparent "pipe," was a back-to-first-principles approach that I found elegant in the extreme. YMMV.

 

See https://www.stereophile.com/content/ive-heard-future-streaming-meridians-mqa

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

How is this more elegant than simply streaming the actual unprocessed unadulterated master file in full?  The method of reducing bandwidth is not nearly so elegant as FLAC.  Nor transparent, nor bit perfect.  Quite a bit has been altered to reduce the bandwidth and claim audible transparency.  None of that is elegant vs simply providing the actual original file. 

 

You speak of reducing stages between input of AD and output of DA.  Provide us with the actual original file unmolested and there are no stages.  You can't reduce something that isn't there.  The pipe is not only transparent it is non-existent in any other sense.  How does complicating that about 4 ways strike you as elegant?

[esldude]

2 hours ago, GUTB said:

 

I'm also familiar with Archimago's "work", and most of his objections are based on FUD. Among all the anti-MQA personalities, Archimago is possibly the most openly peddling an agenda.

 

The concept of building a controlled end-to-end music consumption cycle that links the mastering engineer, commercial distribution and the end consumer playback system via a single technology solution is, in fact, elegant.

We have that in toto already.  Record and master your music.  Provide that master file bit for bit.  DONE.  END to END.  All we require is honesty in what is provided.  You know how we can get that without MQA?  Let mastering engineers provide a checksum we can hash with what is provided.  Nothing else is required. 

[esldude]

Magical mystery tour.

 

They want to take you away.

[esldude]

1 hour ago, Em2016 said:

Putting aside the potential for DRM (we all agree this would be bad but just put aside for a small moment):

 

Is MQA unfolding up to 24/96 agreed to be a better than CD quality streaming solution? Assume the same master is used.

 

Something better than CD quality but not as good as the true 24 bit master?

 

So it’s something in between?

 

Or are we saying it’s not as good as even CD quality? Assuming same master is used.

 

Without unfolding, it compromises CD quality.  MQA has hinted some benefits even unfolded, but I doubt that is true.  Unfolded it compromises full 24/96 based upon what has been shown in how it works currently.  So something in between is perhaps best that can be said of it. 

 

On the one hand we have MQA saying the low level differences in CD vs MQA CD are inconsequential.  Then out the other side of their mouth MQA CD unfolded is audibly beneficial.  Sorry, one of those claims is necessarily false, and perhaps both of them are false.  

[esldude]

Austin's claims are so much the same as MQA's the by line should have read, Written by Jim "Bob Stuart" Austin. 

 

This is so disingenuous it makes me want to vomit.  

 

Is it a Freudian slip that the origami illustration uses a dollar bill?  You can't make this stuff up.  

 

Finally, we need to decide whether MQA is good or bad for music. We audiophiles probably won't get to decide MQA's fate, but we do get to have an opinion.—Jim Austin
 

So now though pitched initially toward audiophiles and sold as a boon for sound quality we are told, eh, audiophiles don't get to decide anyway.  They can have an opinion.  (for all the good it will do them is left unsaid)

[esldude]

From JA's writing:

 

If an MQA file is played without MQA decoding, the sound quality will be that of the baseband file—ie, the same as a CD—(hold on here JA, we already know from work of others it is an adulterated version of a non_MQA CD) meaning that the record company need stock only a single inventory. As well as the bandwidth benefit for streaming, there is another commercial benefit for the record industry with MQA that is not true of lossless-packing schemes such as FLAC: The record company will no longer be selling a clone of their hi-rez master. Instead, they are selling something that might well sound identical to the master, or even better than the master, but doesn't allow the master to be re-created.
 

So a benefit is rather than selling a clone of the master they sell something not a clone that sounds identical to the master. HUH?

 

Even more HUH? here we are again with something sounding even better than the master.  Yes, that is right.  A benefit is not having to sell a clone of the master, but selling a non-clone that sounds better than the master.  Yeah right.  That JA thinks we'll swallow this is a disgusting insult. 

 

So this is presumably why all three big record companies are on board.  Rather than sell master clones they'll sell us non-clones that sound better than the masters?   Bizarro world.   

[esldude]

22 minutes ago, Indydan said:

 

With that reasoning, one could argue that mp3 only discards the unimportant bits of music. So mp3 is also lossless in that sense. The mental gymnastics and wanking by the MQA people is disingenuous. 

Well just to be clear, the people who created mp3 didn't claim or think it was transparent.  It was an attempt to make it as close to transparent as possible while greatly reducing bit rate in the days when bandwidth was much more restricted. Improvements have made it near transparent at higher bit rates though still not transparent.  So they are throwing away bits of music less important rather than unimportant.  

 

But otherwise, yes I agree with you, it is a case of disingenuous mental gymnastics in the case of MQA.