Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Rt66indierock

Stereophile Series on MQA Technology

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

51 minutes ago, beetlemania said:

OK, that's a start, Mr. Atkinson. Any chance you or Mr. Austin might highlight that in a full article rather than in the online comments at stereophile.com? It would be VERY useful to see this scaled for audiophile products rather than DVD players. How much more will a high-end DAC cost?

If the licence fee is a percentage of the product price, that could be quite a bit. If it's a fixed per-unit fee, it probably won't impact very expensive products much, seeing as relatively cheap ones can afford it. If the per-unit fee depends on the number sold, it could be anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mansr said:

If the licence fee is a percentage of the product price, that could be quite a bit. If it's a fixed per-unit fee, it probably won't impact very expensive products much, seeing as relatively cheap ones can afford it. If the per-unit fee depends on the number sold, it could be anything.

 

Yes, it's a big question mark and the leading print magazine will only talk about it where very few people are reading. My DAC already uses filtering very similar to what MQA does - but I'm supposed to believe that truncating the original file will make it sound even better? As a bonus, I get to pay even more if I want a new DAC!


Roon ROCK (Roon 1.6; NUC7i3) > Ayre QB-9 DSD > Ayre AX-5 Twenty > Thiel CS2.4SE (crossovers rebuilt with Clarity CSA and Multicap RTX caps, Mills MRA-12 resistors; ERSE and Jantzen coils; Cardas binding posts and hookup wire); Cardas and OEM power cables, interconnects, and speaker cables

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/7/2017 at 9:15 AM, Rt66indierock said:

Problem is MQA Ltd. hasn't developed the perfect filter. Charles Hansen was a friend and we recently had phone conversations about digital filtering. The last one seemed to be a brain dump on his filtering ideas shortly before he passed away. 

 

Isn't it the case that all "filters" cause temporal smearing and that, whether MQA actually does or not do this, interpolation of one kind or another (sinusoidal, B-spline, etc.) would work just like a filter does without the time smearing? I believe that Shannon indicated that interpolation is necessary to reconstruct an analog waveform and then someone else used a mathematical model to show that filtering was equal to interpolation in the frequency domain at a lower relative cost but did not address the issues of temporal smearing that such low-pass or brick wall filters cause?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Does anyone actually understand what "temporal smearing" means, in contrast for example to "jitter", and what MQA purports to do to fix it ?

 

In so far as I understand it, jitter has to do with the rate at which a stream of bits travel from point A to point B or match an ideally perfect master clock governing a system from end-to-end (i.e, from the original ADC to the final DAC). It's metaphorically like making an analog recording at a given speed then playing it back at a slightly different speed or varying speeds creating a type of distortion in the sound.

 

Temporal smearing is when different analog frequency bands in a signal get pushed out of phase or synchronization with each other for whatever reason. In the same sense that white light is made up of red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet light, an analog waveform can be composed of many different frequencies that stay aligned with respect to each other in nature, but fall out of sync somewhere along the line in digital sound reproduction (supposedly as a side of any brick wall filter that cuts the upper frequencies off abruptly assuming that the highest frequency in the signal or waveform is above the cut-off frequency of the brick wall filter) creating a type of distortion as well that is similar to, but not the same thing as,  jitter.

 

Observational evidence suggests that human hearing is far more sensitive to all types of temporal distortion than previously thought.

 

What MQA claims to do, independent of the compression or folding and and unfolding that occurs in the frequency domain, is to preserve the integrity of the time domain by avoiding excessive filtering, using interpolation instead to reconstruct the analog waveform, which has no practical effect in the time domain.

 

I have no way to prove or disprove what MQA claims to do or not do. It seems fairly clear, though, that we, as human beings, are far more sensitive to both jitter and frequency-dependent time or temporal "smearing" as described than was first thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Does anyone actually understand what "temporal smearing" means,

No, because it is meaningless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, mansr said:

Interpolation is a form of filtering.

 

No, actually, it's not at all. In mathematics, interpolation is defined as, "the process of determining the value of a function [or signal] between two points at which [the signal] has [specific] values", and filtration is defined as, "[the act of] pass[ing] (a liquid, gas, light, or sound) through a device to remove unwanted material." In short, interpolation restores missing information whereas filtration removes, as an example, hypothetically unwanted information. Shannon's proof rested specifically on the notion of interpolation, "Shannon's proof of the theorem is complete [when] he goes on to discuss reconstruction via sinc functions, what we now call the Whittaker–Shannon interpolation formula [...]"; it was only later that someone (I honestly don't have a name) found that, "The interpolation formula [as] derived in the Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem [...] can also be expressed as the convolution of an infinite impulse train with a sinc function [...]. This is equivalent to filtering the [signal] with an ideal (brick-wall) low-pass filter."  However, a brick-wall filter is defined as, "A certain type of low-pass filter exhibiting a steep cutoff slope which resembles a 'brick wall.' These filters are often found in A/D [and D/A] converters to prevent aliasing; while they are acceptable for this purpose their steep slope introduces unwanted side-effects on the audio signal, such as [frequency-selective] phase shift."--https://musicterms.artopium.com/b/Brickwallfilter.htm. I'm not sure if you're being a troll or just haven't done any real research/experimentation of your own, but all of what I quoted is a matter of fact, not opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Galileo365 said:

 

No, actually, it's not at all. In mathematics, interpolation is defined as, "the process of determining the value of a function [or signal] between two points at which [the signal] has [specific] values", and filtration is defined as, "[the act of] pass[ing] (a liquid, gas, light, or sound) through a device to remove unwanted material." In short, interpolation restores missing information whereas filtration removes, as an example, hypothetically unwanted information. Shannon's proof rested specifically on the notion of interpolation, "Shannon's proof of the theorem is complete [when] he goes on to discuss reconstruction via sinc functions, what we now call the Whittaker–Shannon interpolation formula [...]"; it was only later that someone (I honestly don't have a name) found that, "The interpolation formula [as] derived in the Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem [...] can also be expressed as the convolution of an infinite impulse train with a sinc function [...]. This is equivalent to filtering the [signal] with an ideal (brick-wall) low-pass filter."  However, a brick-wall filter is defined as, "A certain type of low-pass filter exhibiting a steep cutoff slope which resembles a 'brick wall.' These filters are often found in A/D [and D/A] converters to prevent aliasing; while they are acceptable for this purpose their steep slope introduces unwanted side-effects on the audio signal, such as [frequency-selective] phase shift."--https://musicterms.artopium.com/b/Brickwallfilter.htm. I'm not sure if you're being a troll or just haven't done any real research/experimentation of your own, but all of what I quoted is a matter of fact, not opinion.

Mansr is def not a troll and is highly knowledgeable. He can be a little dismissive at times but due to his young age...19??....we make allowances in deference to prodigious talent ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

temporal smear is usually made on a bagel - I suggest toasting them and choosing something taxonomically distant


"The overwhelming majority [of audiophiles] have very little knowledge, if any, about the most basic principles and operating characteristics of audio equipment. They often base their purchasing decisions on hearsay, and the preaching of media sages. Unfortunately, because of commercial considerations, much information is rooted in increasing revenue, not in assisting the audiophile. It seems as if the only requirements for becoming an "authority" in the world of audio is a keyboard."

-- Bruce Rozenblit of Transcendent Sound

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Mansr is def not a troll and is highly knowledgeable. He can be a little dismissive at times but due to his young age...19??....we make allowances in deference to prodigious talent ?

 

OK, I see, Audiophile Neuroscience. Thank you. I was once 19, too, and naturally gifted (or so I have been told) in the areas of predicate logic, binary math, and software design and development, relying primarily on my intuition until I more formally educated myself both at college and afterwards. I just learned early on not to dismiss any idea out of hand simply because it contradicted my own thoughts or ideas; but that's more an issue of personal style and humility than anything else. I will say, just because I'm in the mood to do so, that whatever prodigious talent Mansr has, if he or she wants to grow and learn and hone his or her own skills, that listening before you talk or a least explaining why you believe something to be true will likely get you farther than being dismissive. Although, that is his or her burden to bear alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Galileo365 said:

 

OK, I see, Audiophile Neuroscience. Thank you. I was once 19, too, and naturally gifted (or so I have been told) in the areas of predicate logic, binary math, and software design and development, relying primarily on my intuition until I more formally educated myself both at college and afterwards. I just learned early on not to dismiss any idea out of hand simply because it contradicted my own thoughts or ideas; but that's more an issue of personal style and humility than anything else. I will say, just because I'm in the mood to do so, that whatever prodigious talent Mansr has, if he or she wants to grow and learn and hone his or her own skills, that listening before you talk or a least explaining why you believe something to be true will likely get you farther than being dismissive. Although, that is his or her burden to bear alone.

 

Before you embarrass yourself any further by drawing conclusions based on erroneous information, you should know that Audiophile Neuroscience's comment about Mansr being 19 was a reference to his youthful appearance, not his actual age. 


“All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone listening to music.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Before you embarrass yourself any further by drawing conclusions based on erroneous information, you should know that Audiophile Neuroscience's comment about Mansr being 19 was a reference to his youthful appearance, not his actual age. 

 

Oh, well, what can I say? I'm new here. <grin>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Before you embarrass yourself any further by drawing conclusions based on erroneous information, you should know that Audiophile Neuroscience's comment about Mansr being 19 was a reference to his youthful appearance, not his actual age. 

 

Plus, I have to say that, regardless of Mansr's age or level of experience, I still feel ethically-bound to offer him the same unsolicited advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Galileo365 said:

 

Plus, I have to say that, regardless of Mansr's age or level of experience, I still feel ethically-bound to offer him the same unsolicited advice.

Haha yes my apologies .it was a good natured dig at his youthful appearance ....and sometimes his replies.i think he is in his 30s or maybe 40s but only guessing. Still a young age.

he is the maintainer of sox.

Welcome to the forum!!Cheers 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Galileo365 said:

 

Plus, I have to say that, regardless of Mansr's age or level of experience, I still feel ethically-bound to offer him the same unsolicited advice.

 

Welcome to CA!

 

 


“All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone listening to music.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Galileo365 said:

..  if he or she wants to grow and learn and hone his or her own skills, that listening before you talk or a least explaining why you believe something to be true will likely get you farther than being dismissive. ...

 

You would do well to take your own advice.

He was right, by the way. In the current context, interpolation is performed with a filter. He knows this because he's disassembled and analysed the software in several MQA decoders.

 


"People hear what they see." - Doris Day

The forum would be a much better place if everyone were less convinced of how right they were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Galileo365 said:

I want to see the evidence myself or at least have it explained. I will not put any faith into a comment or conclusion made by someone who's only defense appears to be, "Because I said so".

 

Right, for instance someone like Bob Stuart?


no-mqa-sm.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...