Jump to content
IGNORED

Article: MQA: A Review of controversies, concerns, and cautions


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, mansr said:

You make a good point. However, our visual and auditory perception work in very different ways. Just consider that 25 frames per second is enough to produce a convincing video while audio requires a sample rate 1000 times higher to get anywhere close. We are far more sensitive to distortions in sound than in images. Audio with as much distortion as a good JPEG image is unlistenable. Tricks that work well for imaging and video rarely transfer to the audio domain.

All that scientific fact about moving images (I was talking about stills) ignores what I see about MQA. People with great ears (I was a union card holding musician until I was 30) talk about how MQA has more reality in the sense of environment. Which, given the de-blurring techniques, and noise feedback... makes a lot of sense.

 

Detecting distortions... all those image print techniques are based on taking advantage of our perceptions. I think MQA takes advantage of our perceptions. Not reality. Brains hear. They function at a pretty damn low sample rate.

 

Incidentally, I'm not talking about JPEG. Not even 100% JPG (although if you're willing to put up a big bunch of money I'll let you try to prove to me that you can ID JPG distortions.)  I'm talking about raw images, or 16 bit TIFFS, in color spaces way beyond Adobe RGB. Really, assumptions make... you finish it. I'm also not talking about Joe from the Street looking at images, I'm talking about high name recognition photographers.

BTW, I've spent my last few years building real time environments for visualizing brain activity in multiple types of visualization (fPET, fMRI, ERP) technologies overlaid... We may sample sound frequently but we don't use it. Your brain's activity sets early in a listening (or viewing) session and rolls it forward. Brains are lazy. Like humans.

 

And I suppose I'm assuming an ability to grasp analogies. I could well be wrong. Most of my work is based on cross domain analogies, but not everyone can do that.

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, ednaz said:

All that scientific fact about moving images (I was talking about stills) ignores what I see about MQA. People with great ears (I was a union card holding musician until I was 30) talk about how MQA has more reality in the sense of environment. Which, given the de-blurring techniques, and noise feedback... makes a lot of sense.

 

Detecting distortions... all those image print techniques are based on taking advantage of our perceptions. I think MQA takes advantage of our perceptions. Not reality. Brains hear. They function at a pretty damn low sample rate.

 

Incidentally, I'm not talking about JPEG. Not even 100% JPG (although if you're willing to put up a big bunch of money I'll let you try to prove to me that you can ID JPG distortions.)  I'm talking about raw images, or 16 bit TIFFS, in color spaces way beyond Adobe RGB. Really, assumptions make... you finish it. I'm also not talking about Joe from the Street looking at images, I'm talking about high name recognition photographers.

BTW, I've spent my last few years building real time environments for visualizing brain activity in multiple types of visualization (fPET, fMRI, ERP) technologies overlaid... We may sample sound frequently but we don't use it. Your brain's activity sets early in a listening (or viewing) session and rolls it forward. Brains are lazy. Like humans.

 

And I suppose I'm assuming an ability to grasp analogies. I could well be wrong. Most of my work is based on cross domain analogies, but not everyone can do that.

 

Unfortunately your allowing your imagination to get a bit carried away.  We have no problem with analogies, yours just does not work with MQA given what we actually know about waveforms (sound and digital) and how MQA works internally.  Also, it is simply not true that "people with great ears" report what you say.  Some do, but some don't.  The closer one gets to "insider status" in Audiophiledom, the more such creative defense of MQA becomes the norm.  The further you move away from it "people with great ears" report a worsening of the very things MQA defenders report.

 

Also, you appear to rely on the confidence game and who is saying what as opposed to what is said as Audiophiledom does.  

 

In other words, your "cross domain analogy" is a fail - it's bunk...

 

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment

I still don't get why one should listen to lossy MQA (whatever fantastic it is), if there is plenty lossless material out there?

As said before, the only justification might be for Tidal or other streaming services, where the bandwidth is not broadly available

 

What else puzzles me, is that almost all manufactures jumped so quickly into MQA wagon, even quite respectful PRO-equipment,

why? It took years to get proper support for DSD, and even today not an every DAC supports DSD

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, ednaz said:

JPG = MP3

 

RAW = DSD

 

TIFF = FLAC

 

I agree with the others, we need to be cautious. So in this analogy, what do you make of MQA?

 

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

There are only two reasons I can think of why  someone would  say that MQA is not the BEST sounding format. NO other format comes close to the sound of MQA files.

1) That streaming MQA files will cause your business to fail. No one needs to buy high Rez files which do not sound as good as streamed MQA.

2)  You have not spent enough time listening to live music.......and you have spent to much time listening to CDs....

 

Its about the timing,  MQA gets it right, all other digital doesn't...Its that simple...and because the timing is correct, you will recognize more information in the recording.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, ednaz said:

All that scientific fact about moving images (I was talking about stills) ignores what I see about MQA. People with great ears (I was a union card holding musician until I was 30) talk about how MQA has more reality in the sense of environment. Which, given the de-blurring techniques, and noise feedback... makes a lot of sense.

"people with great ears" - only some of them, and almost all  in sighted tests. Have you not read all the reports of listeners (many in blind testing) that don't agree? Or those who hear that the "softening" and "more natural"  sound is also acdompanied by a loss of small detail?

 

And it still isn't clear that the "deblurring" is being applied they way they claim, or that a user can't achieve the same result without MQA, just by using different filters. 

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment
7 hours ago, ednaz said:

All that scientific fact about moving images (I was talking about stills) ignores what I see about MQA. People with great ears (I was a union card holding musician until I was 30) talk about how MQA has more reality in the sense of environment. Which, given the de-blurring techniques, and noise feedback... makes a lot of sense.

 

Detecting distortions... all those image print techniques are based on taking advantage of our perceptions. I think MQA takes advantage of our perceptions. Not reality. Brains hear. They function at a pretty damn low sample rate.

We know MQA messes with the phase of the signal. There are also hints at subtle EQ and trickery with the stereo spread. If you like those gimmicks, that's fine. Just don't foist them on everybody else. The noise MQA adds has nothing to do with perception. Most likely, the purpose is to mask the nasty artefacts of the MQA process, not from our ears, to which they are inaudible, but from measuring equipment.

 

7 hours ago, ednaz said:

Incidentally, I'm not talking about JPEG. Not even 100% JPG (although if you're willing to put up a big bunch of money I'll let you try to prove to me that you can ID JPG distortions.)

You might be surprised by the outcome. Luckily for you, I'm not going to put up "a big bunch of money" towards such a challenge.

 

7 hours ago, ednaz said:

And I suppose I'm assuming an ability to grasp analogies. I could well be wrong. Most of my work is based on cross domain analogies, but not everyone can do that.

That's getting dangerously close to an insult. Watch your step.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, ednaz said:

"Watch your step." What kind of comment is that? Lovely.

Just a piece of friendly advice.

 

2 minutes ago, ednaz said:

Not an insult at all, but a statement of fact. Most people don't do cross-analogy thinking very well. After 35 years of leading teams in neuro-science, computer code reverse engineering, photography, drug discovery, entity analytics, cryptography, human systems analysis, and more,

Jack of all trades, master of...

 

2 minutes ago, ednaz said:

People claiming they can detect jpg vs other file captures remind me of people who say they can always tell lossy compressed music files from non-compressed.

I can do that too often enough. Countless hours of codec testing does that to you.

 

2 minutes ago, ednaz said:

I can with a lot of music, but when you get Alabama Shakes running a DR of 3... can't any more. I think that may be part of what's going on in the MQA arguments, and is a variable I can't remember being explored.

Sorry, I lost your chain of thought.

 

2 minutes ago, ednaz said:

Wouldn't it be interesting if, instead of challenging their hearing or expertise, someone tried to understand it?

We did. Successfully. That's what the article is all about. Did you read it?

Link to comment
10 hours ago, michael123 said:

almost all manufactures jumped so quickly into MQA wagon

 

Schitt, Linn, Ayre, MBL, Playback Designs - give these companies some love. PS Audio apparently has caved.

Roon ROCK (Roon 1.7; NUC7i3) > Ayre QB-9 Twenty > 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

Link to comment

Manufacturers, except a few, are very agnostic. If they see something that a buyer wants, they will add it. I don't think it is anything more than that.

Current:  Daphile on an AMD A10-9500 with 16 GB RAM

DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC 

Pre-amp - Rotel RC-1590

Amplification - Benchmark AHB2 amplifier

Speakers - Revel M126Be with 2 REL 7/ti subwoofers

Cables - Tara Labs RSC Reference and Blue Jean Cable Balanced Interconnects

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, botrytis said:

Manufacturers, except a few, are very agnostic. If they see something that a buyer wants, they will add it. I don't think it is anything more than that.

Yes, it is just a tick box.  I don't think you can see it as an implicit endorsement of MQA in any way.

 

I would be interested in the cancellation process, although I am sure it is behind the NDA.  If company X decides not to include MQA capability anymore what are the possible penalties.

Jim

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, botrytis said:

If they see something that a buyer wants, they will add it. I don't think it is anything more than that.

 

Linn and Schiit each put anti-MQA statements on their webpages. Charles Hansen lit every forum on fire with his disdain for MQA. MBL and Playback were more reserved publicly but still resolute. PS Audio came out anti but more recently added MQA. I guess that's your "very few" qualifier.

Roon ROCK (Roon 1.7; NUC7i3) > Ayre QB-9 Twenty > 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

Link to comment
1 minute ago, beetlemania said:

 

Linn and Schiit each put anti-MQA statements on their webpages. Charles Hansen lit every forum on fire with his disdain for MQA. MBL and Playback were more reserved publicly but still resolute. PS Audio came out anti but more recently added MQA. I guess that's your "very few" qualifier.

 

I was just pointing that out. Not really good or bad.

 

Don't forget, Linn also produces music and has a very fine label for it. I think that is WHY they were adamant about it. 

 

Benchmark also put out a scathing blog post on MQA but they also think nothing is needed beyond 96/24 (that is another can of worms).

Current:  Daphile on an AMD A10-9500 with 16 GB RAM

DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC 

Pre-amp - Rotel RC-1590

Amplification - Benchmark AHB2 amplifier

Speakers - Revel M126Be with 2 REL 7/ti subwoofers

Cables - Tara Labs RSC Reference and Blue Jean Cable Balanced Interconnects

Link to comment

Add Naim & AKDesigns to the list of MQA sceptics.

 

Benchmark, Schiit, Linn, Naim, Ayre, MBL, Playback, PS Audio etc - if your little format manages that some of the most reputable names in consumer audio publicly question your integrity you got a problem.

 

Not to speak of professional audio: apart from Mytek there is not a single studio ADC/DAC manufacturer that supports MQA.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, botrytis said:

Manufacturers, except a few, are very agnostic. If they see something that a buyer wants, they will add it. I don't think it is anything more than that.

I certainly wouldn't go out of the way for MQA. The little bit of testing I tried (low patience level) led me to think it did seem to make a difference with some music - at least in what I heard. Music where I thought, OK, that's a little better was: music with a lot of spatial information, like live albums where you can hear the venue, music with a lot of dynamic range, combos and not orchestras. All that on headphones. But not a lot, and not consistently. Made me think that part of what it does is upsampling with a little tweak of spatial reverb. Interesting that the filter post-rings.

 

What difference I thought was there was less than what a slight upgrade in DAC would beat - if I had an incremental dollar I'd buy a dollar of incremental DAC performance.

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...