Stereophile Series on MQA Technology

[NOMBEDES]

Don't you have to use speakers which have some sort of "time domain" capability in order to take advantage of time domain improvements?  Something like Vanderstine (sp) et al?  

[GUTB]

8 minutes ago, NOMBEDES said:

Don't you have to use speakers which have some sort of "time domain" capability in order to take advantage of time domain improvements?  Something like Vanderstine (sp) et al?  

 

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

 

[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. 

[GUTB]

The Zu system is called zu-griewe cabinet loading.

[semente]

32 minutes ago, GUTB said:

The Zu system is called zu-griewe cabinet loading.

Zu speakers are very low-fi. I'm surprised a connoisseur such as yourself would even mention them.

[Kal Rubinson]

2 hours ago, GUTB said:

One boutique maker uses a method that includes connecting the two speakers together to exchange information: http://vanlspeakerworks.com/theory.html

 

Nothing new here.  Polk did this decades ago.  So did others.

[GUTB]

All I'm saying is this: the younger generation has little to no interest in high-end audio. In the headphone world I would describe the high-end as hi-fi (vs lo and mid-fi). In 2 channel setups the quality scale seems broader so I use the high- mid- low- and ultra low-end scale.

 

Remember when you were a teenager and into your 20s you would salivate over exotic cars? You would probably never have one but you loved them anyway. That's our car culture at work. There was such a thing as high-end audiophile culture, but that appears to be dead -- not only does the newer generations not care about it, they actively dismiss and attack it. They could go to a show and listen for themselves but they just don't care to. Millenials aren't spending a few thousand on a VPI, Rega or Clearaudio, they're spending a hundred bucks on some ultra low-end AT, Crosley, etc. and putting them in the corner just to look cool. If they get interested in better audio it typically goes no further than a $200 pair of lo-fi headphones and some USB stick DAC. They won't lust after Utopias or HE1Ks. They won't get excited over the latest Cavelli or Woo amp.

 

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

6 minutes ago, GUTB said:

All I'm saying is this: the younger generation has little to no interest in high-end audio. In the headphone world I would describe the high-end as hi-fi (vs lo and mid-fi). In 2 channel setups the quality scale seems broader so I use the high- mid- low- and ultra low-end scale.

 

Remember when you were a teenager and into your 20s you would salivate over exotic cars? You would probably never have one but you loved them anyway. That's our car culture at work. There was such a thing as high-end audiophile culture, but that appears to be dead -- not only does the newer generations not care about it, they actively dismiss and attack it. They could go to a show and listen for themselves but they just don't care to. Millenials aren't spending a few thousand on a VPI, Rega or Clearaudio, they're spending a hundred bucks on some ultra low-end AT, Crosley, etc. and putting them in the corner just to look cool. If they get interested in better audio it typically goes no further than a $200 pair of lo-fi headphones and some USB stick DAC. They won't lust after Utopias or HE1Ks. They won't get excited over the latest Cavelli or Woo amp.

 

Isn't what you're saying here is if they're not like you, they're not legit audiophiles?  If they don't covet what you covet, they're mid-fi?    Your requisite covetousness bar for audiophiles is rather absurd IMHO. And FYI, Cavalli Audio no longer exists.

[beetlemania]

This thread has gone horribly off the rails. More so than the "MQA is vaporware" thread when many posts were criticizing Brian Lucey for compression!

 

My own assessment of Austin's latest article is that it says hardly anything new or noteworthy. I get the sense that upcoming articles will utterly fail to mention, never mind address, the many criticisms (sonic and otherwise) raised by multiple manufacturers, engineers, and industry professionals.

[Rt66indierock]

42 minutes ago, beetlemania said:

This thread has gone horribly off the rails. More so than the "MQA is vaporware" thread when many posts were criticizing Brian Lucey for compression!

 

My own assessment of Austin's latest article is that it says hardly anything new or noteworthy. I get the sense that upcoming articles will utterly fail to mention, never mind address, the many criticisms (sonic and otherwise) raised by multiple manufacturers, engineers, and industry professionals.

 

You are correct and I have a bunch of items on my check lists people haven't mentioned yet. 

 

 

[FredericV]

7 hours ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

Didn't the user "witchdoctor" use the term MQA haters ?. GUTB uses this too.

Or is this the usual term as per the facebook group - to call people exposing the truth, as a hater of MQA ?

Regards,

Shadders.

Peter Veth was using the word hater, even attacking me via personal messages using the "hater" word all the time.
I also encountered a user Bob Okeson on facebook which I blocked, as he was also using the "hater" word.

These MQA opinion makers which are everywhere on the internet like it's a full time job, always use the same arguments.
It's like arguing with flat earthers.

I have a love/hate relationship with MQA:

- thanks to MQA, I did a lot of research into PCM and learned a lot = LOVE
- thanks to MQA, I also invested a lot of time in researching resamplers = LOVE
- thanks to MQA, we have the Ayre filter implemented via SOX = LOVE

This was possible thanks to Archimago, Mansr, Xivero, Dr Lesurf' and several others. The topics on CA were also very enlightening.

-> so we benefit

but what I truly despise about MQA:

- selling a modified version of the master as Master Quality
- claiming this is what the mastering engineer heard -> it's not (see Brian Lucey's masterings and the MQA encodes without his permission /  approval)
- secretly pushing the minimum phase filter which degrades PCM when implemented in a "cheap" way on hardware with very limited cpu power (like addressed by Auralic's CEO and many others)
- mk2 versions of existing DACs with sound like SH* when MQA started to mess with it's design, and some MQA module is in the chain in the mk2 and not in the mk1 version
- fake authentication of a file, where the mastering engineer did not agree to his work being altered
- claiming PCM is wrong, and MQA solves everything
- the DRM aspects of MQA including phone home and deliberate degrading features
- the misleading marketing
- not fully compatible with open source, but upsampling with SOX is an alternative without even using the first unfold

-> this is what Auralic is also doing: they upsample MQA with minimum phase and they also figured out how to modify SOX
-> we came to the same result, without looking at the exact code Auralic is using, and the sox recipes they have configured or modified

I'm very happy that I connected the dots and have a working SOX version of  Ayre's / MQA's upsampler, where I could duplicate some of MQA's claims, but with the knowledge that redbook PCM already has picosecond timing resolution, which is ignored by MQA's marketing.

I would never enforce this filter, but leave it open as a choice. For some music it may improve things. But it's not something you can enforce on everything. It will actually degrade certain music, which is why the blind test of archimago came to a mixed conclusion.

Without MQA, there would never have been such a deep discussion about PCM and why it's still something good In the end, MQA's time domain hocus pocus is implemented ..... via PCM.

[Don Hills]

On 12/15/2017 at 11:33 AM, GUTB said:

 

Do you have a MQA DAC?

 

That's your standard response when you don't have a constructive one.

Convince me of the relevance of the answer to the discussion, and I'll provide it.

[crenca]

3 hours ago, GUTB said:

All I'm saying is this: the younger generation has little to no interest in high-end audio. In the headphone world I would describe the high-end as hi-fi (vs lo and mid-fi). In 2 channel setups the quality scale seems broader so I use the high- mid- low- and ultra low-end scale.

 

Remember when you were a teenager and into your 20s you would salivate over exotic cars? You would probably never have one but you loved them anyway. That's our car culture at work. There was such a thing as high-end audiophile culture, but that appears to be dead -- not only does the newer generations not care about it, they actively dismiss....

 

 

 

 

I gave you a thumbs up GUTB because I think you are right up till the point I stopped quoting you - "high end" is historically the successor to "high fidelity" and as such is a failure.  It lost the consumer in its almost-no-value add ons of bling, voodoo and confidence/personality game based "art", etc.  The newer generation is simply not interested in this scam (for several reasons), and only an older generation (that currently have deep pockets) is sustaining it.  The older High Fidelity culture is returning, with its built in sense of value, more natural subjective/objective balance, and realism.  This is a good thing of course.

 

On topic, I would only add that today (my feelings change day to day) I feel pretty good about MQA in that its supporters are appearing more and more desperate with each passing month...

[psjug]

Back to "MQA Tested, Part 1"...

Here is the response of the linear phase DAC, when input is MQA encoded impulse:

Fig.4 Benchmark DAC3 HGC, impulse response (one sample at 0dBFS, MQA-encoded, 48kHz sampling, 100µs/horizontal div.).

 

1. Jim Austin writes "This response is mostly linear-phase, though the asymmetry suggests some nonlinearity in the phase response."  WTF is "mostly linear-phase"?  Wouldn't it be more honest to say the response has lost the linear phase symmetry while at the same time retaining the pre-ripple?  In other words it looks kind of f'd up?

2.  Why didn't he show the response of the minimum phase and slow roll-off filters to the MQA encoded impulse?  I don't see how it could be an oversight that these were not included.

3. Can the people on here who are much smarter than me figure out how what modification MQA is making to the impulse such that it that would result in the response shown in Figure 4?
 

[FredericV]

11 minutes ago, psjug said:

Back to "MQA Tested, Part 1"...

Here is the response of the linear phase DAC, when input is MQA encoded impulse:

Fig.4 Benchmark DAC3 HGC, impulse response (one sample at 0dBFS, MQA-encoded, 48kHz sampling, 100µs/horizontal div.).

 

1. Jim Austin writes "This response is mostly linear-phase, though the asymmetry suggests some nonlinearity in the phase response."  WTF is "mostly linear-phase"?  Wouldn't it be more honest to say the response has lost the linear phase symmetry while at the same time retaining the pre-ripple?  In other words it looks kind of f'd up?

2.  Why didn't he show the response of the minimum phase and slow roll-off filters to the MQA encoded impulse?  I don't see how it could be an oversight that these were not included.

3. Can the people on here who are much smarter than me figure out how what modification MQA is making to the impulse such that it that would result in the response shown in Figure 4?
 

Is this deliberate degrading / making the transient more complex, and being undone back to normal by MQA's renderer filters?



http://archimago.blogspot.be/2017/07/measurements-mqa-filters-on-mytek.html

[GUTB]

1. There are no MQA supporters on this forum. I'm essentially the only one. Some of you guys have an extrodinarily misplaced sense of oppresaion.

 

2. MQA haters are named such because they have an emotional response against MQA. My support for MQA comes simply from subjective factors. 

 

3. The younger generation not only dismisses high-end audio they also show no interest in mid-end sound unless it can be had for less than $1000 in which case they will sometimes show passing interest.

[Fokus]

I actively dislike MQA entirely for objective reasons. There are no emotions involved.

 

As an engineer and a scientist I see it for what it is, and it is to be stopped before it causes the industry more damage.

 

This said, I am also getting bored with this all. I guess that is an emotion.

[Shadders]

1 hour ago, GUTB said:

1. There are no MQA supporters on this forum. I'm essentially the only one. Some of you guys have an extrodinarily misplaced sense of oppresaion.

 

2. MQA haters are named such because they have an emotional response against MQA. My support for MQA comes simply from subjective factors. 

 

3. The younger generation not only dismisses high-end audio they also show no interest in mid-end sound unless it can be had for less than $1000 in which case they will sometimes show passing interest.

Hi,

I do not understand why you use the word support. MQA is not a football team, or rugby team. No one supports PCM, MP3, or A N Other format. It is just a format,

 

Regarding haters - no one is hating or emotional about MQA - on this site, there is just science and engineering, exposing the MQA falsehoods.

 

What is emotional is perhaps the reaction to those people who deny the engineering/science exposing MQA, yet fully believe the MQA claims that science of MQA is valid, when it is not - trying to fool people.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[mcgillroy]

Bashing the younger generation certainly is the dumbest strategy deployed in the MQA debate – yet.

 

Crecna has it right about high end vs Hifi, Charles Hansen too made the point that Gen X and Gen Y suffer the results of financialization and have very different purchasing power and monetary outlooks than their parents and grant parents. They simply can’t afford the overpriced status totems their baby boomer relatives desperately erect in order to somehow bring back the good old times when Keith & Mick were wrinklefree.

 

Last not least Gen X & Y are enjoying historically good sound for little money. Your standard room corrected AV–receiver feed with Spotify sounds more accurate than your seventies or eigthies hifi rig.

 

On top of that the Head–Fi community is full of well educated techies that know a thing or two about sampling theory and signal processing. Trying to sell these “kids” a new format with over the top bullshit marketing about Shannon-Nyquist somehow being wrong simply does not fly with that demographic.

[mansr]

6 hours ago, psjug said:

Back to "MQA Tested, Part 1"...

Here is the response of the linear phase DAC, when input is MQA encoded impulse:

Fig.4 Benchmark DAC3 HGC, impulse response (one sample at 0dBFS, MQA-encoded, 48kHz sampling, 100µs/horizontal div.).

 

1. Jim Austin writes "This response is mostly linear-phase, though the asymmetry suggests some nonlinearity in the phase response."  WTF is "mostly linear-phase"?  Wouldn't it be more honest to say the response has lost the linear phase symmetry while at the same time retaining the pre-ripple?  In other words it looks kind of f'd up?

2.  Why didn't he show the response of the minimum phase and slow roll-off filters to the MQA encoded impulse?  I don't see how it could be an oversight that these were not included.

3. Can the people on here who are much smarter than me figure out how what modification MQA is making to the impulse such that it that would result in the response shown in Figure 4?

What we're seeing here is the convolution of the linear phase filter with something that isn't a simple impulse. The honest thing would be to provide those test files for all to look at in whichever way they choose. Obviously, that's never going to happen.

[mcgillroy]

52 minutes ago, mansr said:

What we're seeing here is the convolution of the linear phase filter with something that isn't a simple impulse. The honest thing would be to provide those test files for all to look at in whichever way they choose. Obviously, that's never going to happen.

 

We could still ask.

[FredericV]

So why does the article about Mytek's impulse response is being compared to upsampling? Same applies for all those canned articles which explain MQA's time domain hocus pocus, like the sound on sound article which is used by all the MQA key opinion makers.

Shouldn't this ring a bell to those readers not following up on CA and Archimago, that MQA is based on upsampling?

[arcman]

I'm actually coming around to MQA. Two things that I knocked from the beginning:

 

           1. confusing---you need this to unfold that....but only partial unfold if you only have this

 

           2. Lack of mid priced ($500-$900) non usb options.

 

I get the manufacturers arguments against:

 

           1. Another licensing fee for products that are already considered priced to high

 

           2. Another feature to support via firmware upgrades, etc

 

After finally getting my system set up to utilize the USB/MQA capabilities of my DAC, I can appreciate how MQA sounds. Does it sound better than a comparable HI REZ PCM file? I don't think so. However, the difference over REDBOOK is apparent. The MQA version of RUSH Moving pictures and Hotel California (Eagles) sounds fantastic. 

 

I appreciates Mastering Engineer's perspective. Would that perspective change if the engineer was paid to produce an MQA version of the files as well? Hard telling. 

 

If MQA were introduced back in 2000 around the time SACDs were starting up, I think MQA would have won out. Basically any $79 drug store cd player could play the MQA cd as normal. If the player had a digital out, all the audiophile had to purchase was a dac or receiver with MQA capabilities.

 

I am now in the mindset that MQA is wonderful (I knocked the hell out of it before). I do not believe or hear (with equipment I have) and better sonic benefit over PCM. Maybe the bandwidth advantage for streaming...but I would not even stream MQA over a cellular network. 

 

Too bad Apple does not have any major interest in the audiophile world.  Apple has the products, catalog, and infrastructure to really give us a wonderful choice. But then again, if Apple went audiophile, we would probably have fewer choices from some other great companies.

[Bystander]

9 minutes ago, arcman said:

 Too bad Apple does not have any major interest in the audiophile world.  Apple has the products, catalog, and infrastructure to really give us a wonderful choice. But then again, if Apple went audiophile, we would probably have fewer choices from some other great companies.

I'd be hugely surprised if Apple touched MQA with a 10ft pole. We still might see ALAC-compressed Hi-Res PCM Audio or at the very least literal CD quality audio from them at some point, although I would expect Spotify to beat them to it.

[NOMBEDES]

Oh boy.  Here is my take on why younger people don’t indulge themselves in higher end Audio equipment.

 

As wealth accumulated to fewer and fewer families,  wages became stagnant.  After all the money that goes to the vampire squid has to come from some place!

 

Add on student debt, housing costs, and the general expense of existence.....they just don’t have the money. 

 

Of of course there are other factors ...... but I like to follow the money.

 

 

 

 

.