John Atkinson: Yes, MQA IS Elegant...

[Brinkman Ship]

 

Zen & the Art of A/D Conversion:

 

"In a series of recent feature articles for Stereophile, Jim Austin has examined how the controversial MQA codec works: "MQA Tested, Part 1," "MQA Tested Part 2: Into the Fold," "MQA Contextualized," "MQA, DRM, and Other Four-Letter Words," and, most recently, "MQA: Aliasing, B-Splines, Centers of Gravity." I doubt there is a Stereophile reader who is unaware of the fracas associated with MQA, and I have been repeatedly criticized on web forums for describing its underlying concept as "elegant."

 

But elegant it is, I feel. MQA Ltd.'s Bob Stuart has described the goal of MQA as being to reduce to "plumbing" everything between the original analog signal fed to the analog/digital (A/D) converter and the analog signal output by the digital/analog (D/A) converter, other than routing the signal from the original event to the end-user's system. In other words, the A/D conversion of the output of the microphone preamps (in a purist recording) or the mixing console (in a conventional recording), the transmission, storage, and subsequent D/A conversion will be transparent, except for an ultrasonic rolloff equivalent to a signal path of a few feet in air."

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/zen-art-ad-conversion#bf4kky2Hi5SiOKXP.99

[Brinkman Ship]

Um. do you mean to say that despite the fact it is lossy, proprietary, includes aliasing and distortion, and is NOT a true representative of the master, and an empty fee generator..it is WAY COOL elegant??

 

?

[Brinkman Ship]

15 minutes ago, DarwinOSX said:

MQA rocks.  Loving it on Tidal.

[Brinkman Ship]

34 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

If his take on DSD was any indication (he seemed to me to still be pretty pissed at Sony's poor attempt to take over the market with copy-protected SACDs, and thus had no time for anything related to SACD, including DSD), I can just imagine.   

Not entirely true...

 

Hansen became much more neutral about DSD as a recording medium..yes he was not happy about DRM'd SACDs, but began to realize the appeal of DSD..very analog, slightly softer transients...altthough he still preferred 24/192 PCM himself.

 

IN FACT, he published his own DSD/PCM comparison with the Ayre ADC-

 

Unfortunately, the link no longer works, but here is a link from this forum.

 

You find it interesting that if I remember correctly, it was basically a 50/50 split on preference. I personally

preferred the DSD files.

 

 

 

[Brinkman Ship]

1 hour ago, FredericV said:

 

I can clearly hear the difference between standard minimum phase upsampling, and minimum phase upsampling where the post-ringing is reduced to one cycle + aliasing. So this test is very stupid:
 

The reason why is very simple: MQA's aliasing is correlated to the music signal, while in the above simulation, we compare uncorrelated noise with an attenuated music signal. There are even youtube video's where you can see this correlated aliasing in action.

Hans Beekhuyzen is another MQA influencer who use the same simplified "fake" tests where he fails to disclose how he created his listening samples, like in the time smear video. When someone then asks the more technical questions, he answers his channel is not scientific but for lay persons.

 

why are we surprised when Stereophile employs one of the kings of pseudo science, Fremer? there has never been a fantastical claim by manufacturers he did not parrot. Cable with internal vacuums anybody>?

[Brinkman Ship]

What i find most distasteful is the false equivalency between Ayre/Hansen and MQA/Stuart.

 

Nice try. A very calculated move, and I suspect if Hansen were alive they would never have had the guts.

[Brinkman Ship]

21 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

For the record, I have never referred to people who post to forums like this as "'nasty', ignorant, and troublesome." However, I do think, judging from many of the comments in this thread, that people often don't actually read what I wrote before commenting. So it goes.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

 

Perhaps he was referring to this post, by "jeffhenning"

 

"...in fact, usually, very little knowledge is what is exhibited by people who are dilettante A-holes with strong opinions about audio that disagree with you, John.

MQA is rather brilliant. While I understand why it’s not being universally adopted, most people who aren’t engineers who have strong opinions about it don’t even understand basic audio recording and engineering.

Give them the credence they deserve (none)."

 

[Brinkman Ship]

40 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

If you read my article (which isn't specifically about MQA but about A/D conversion in general), you should note that the filter I mention that is free from ringing is the Ayre QA-9's antialiasing filter at 2Fs and 4Fs rates in the its "Listen" setting. Yes, the QA-9's Listen filter allows for image energy to fold back below Nyquist but both Charley Hansen and Bob Stuart have pointed put that at 2Fs and 4Fs rates, there is very little musical energy to be aliased.

 

Ayre's reconstruction filters in its D/A converters are minimum-phase types that ring, either for a short time (Listen) or longer (Measure). The Ayre D/A filter that doesn't ring is an experimental type that Charley Hansen sent me during the discussions we had on this subject before he passed away and that I refer to in the article; it is not available to owners of Ayre D/A processors. So as very few commercial recordings have been made with the Ayre QA-9's Listen filter, it would appear that if removing so-called "temporal bur" is indeed something that improves sound quality for the reasons I explain in the article,  the MQA process is one of the few commercially available end-to end solutions that would do that. If...

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

..except, there is no "if", virtually all non industry linked listeners feel not only does it NOT improve the sound, but it makes it worse.

[Brinkman Ship]

3 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

You're welcome.

 

 

The QA-9 is a now-discontinued A/D converter that used a moving-average filter (12 samples at a time IIRC) at its 2Fs and 4FS rates. My article shows that while the  Measure anti-aliasing filter is a (short) minimum-phase type, the Listen filter produces a impulse response, examined in the digital domain, with no ringing before or after. The Ayre D/A converters don't have such a filter; while Charley Hansen and his team created a complementary reconstruction filter to that in the QA-9, this is not available to owners of Ayre DACs.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

With all due respect to Ayre, the fact their ADC did not sell, proves it provided a solution the industry did not need, or was not willing to pay for. And that applies 10,000 x more to MQA.

[Brinkman Ship]

Just now, John_Atkinson said:

 

You do understand that I am not "jeffhenning"?

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

Oh, yes, clearly. That was not implied.

[Brinkman Ship]

Way to go Archimago!

 

"Where's the "elegance" again in MQA?

 

Which part is the "brilliant innovation"?

 

How exactly is this lossy compression system "high resolution" even?

 

Presumably this is the last of Stereophile's series on MQA. Showing a few impulse responses "encapsulates" all there is to the claim of "deblurring", I suppose.

 

What else to say but time to move on."

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/zen-art-ad-conversion#JlXqZWCETlhmggx7.99

[Brinkman Ship]

2 minutes ago, daverich4 said:

 

Really? Virtually all? I don’t. 

Of course you don't. Your posting history makes it clear you are a member of the MQA Defenders Of The Universe.

[Brinkman Ship]

Interesting exchanges between Doug S. of Soundstage and Atkinson-

 

https://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/vt.mpl?f=critics&m=93444

[Brinkman Ship]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

Considering the microscopic market share and mostly lackluster reaction, I do wonder about the level of attention given by the audio press and forum members here. 

Chicken or egg? If the press never mentioned MQA again..don't you think MQA related posts would eventually sputter into zero?

[Brinkman Ship]

11 hours ago, Ryan Berry said:

 

Perhaps more accurately is that Ayre has never believed in forcing people to use our technology, which would have been required to implement such a filter.  To take advantage of the complimentary filter with the QA-9, every recording would have to have been done with the QA-9.  The filter on its own was pretty unappealing when used with recordings done on a different A/D converter, so its usefulness was mainly in a closed system, where the user could record their LP's using a QA-9 and playing them back through an Ayre DAC.  But doing so really reduced the usefulness of the DAC and toggling filters on and off isn't something we've ever really felt was enjoyable.  We'd prefer to just listen to the music, not fumble around with this filter vs. that filter.  In fact, the only reason we even have the Measure filter on our products is for reviewers to keep the Minimum-Phase filter from getting in the way of measurements.  I posted the below on another forum, but in respect to avoiding preferring one forum over another, I'll post it here too:

 

Interesting article by John. While we at Ayre (myself especially) have been very diligent in staying silent regarding MQA since Charley's passing, who was quite...outspoken on the subject; out of respect to Charley, I cannot help but to comment now.

 

Charley's objections about MQA, despite his focus on the topic, was never primarily about the technology. We've known for quite some time that the filters are similar, which, coupled with the other things Ayre does with the DAC, is likely why Charley and I were never leaping at the opportunity to usher in a new era of music and felt that PCM simply sounded better. Where Charley and I disagreed was Charley's opinion that everyone hearing otherwise must be "shills". I believe to this day that people reported what they hear, but there were a number of factors in play that altered their perspective. Having a version of a minimum-phase filter, for example, could make many DACs suddenly sound what is in our opinion better.

 

Charley's objections were the nature in which he perceived that the technology was being handled. The reason Charley spent hours on end explaining what we do and how we do it, John, is because Charley (and by extension, Ayre) believed in making music accessible to as much of the world as possible. Charley strongly believed that music made the world a better place and many of the conflicts around us would have been reduced if people spent more time enjoying music. He would talk at length about why we used this transformer, how our filters work, why we chose solid state over tubes, why we use zero-feedback and fully-balanced designs with discrete components not because he was bragging about it, but because he wanted others -- both listeners and manufacturers -- to compare what we've heard to see the difference for themselves. His hope was that if music sounded better, people would want to listen to it more and the world would be a better place.

 

I don't know if I could see all of that, but I can absolutely agree that we need more music in our lives and that the way to do it is to draw more people to music by making it sound better than it had degraded to during the MP3 era. Ayre never was about getting huge and rich...Charley and I would always disagree about what the "maximum amount" Ayre should make without losing its soul and reason it exists. Instead, Ayre was about bring people music through any means possible.

 

Charley was always outspoken about technologies like DSD and MQA because he felt that they threaten this freedom of music. Embracing one could jeopardize being able to get music in PCM format, for example, and ultimately the world would be the less for it. So he railed and gnashed his teeth and screamed until people would listen to him, because in many ways, Charley was extraordinarily frustrating...but he was almost always right.

 

While you may feel that MQA's implementation of a similar technology to Ayre's Minimum-Phase filter is an unexpected tribute to Charley, John, I in all due respect must disagree. If MQA threatens the availability of music in any other format, then the technology remains a direct slap in the face of everything Charley spent the vast majority of his life working towards. It undermines the hours he spent in pain at a computer desk typing out post after post talking about why Ayre does X or how to improve someone's system through this or that simple step. I cannot predict what the end goal for MQA is and will not speculate on such; but I do know that was how Charley felt right up until his passing and that nothing in the implementation would ever feel like a compliment or tribute to him. My hope is that Charley's feelings in the matter prove to be wrong, but only time will tell there.

Hi Ryan:

 

thanks very much for this post. Very heartfelt, and I personally found it very informative.

 

I see you posted the same at AA, and the responses and your follow ups are also eye opening.

 

Your insights are very much appreciated.

[Brinkman Ship]

2 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

John wanted MQA for reasons he has stated here and elsewhere. He was criticized from the beginning and then intensity increased to the point we are now. MQA is largely discredited.  

 

John lost control of the debate about the value of MQA and maybe his comments about elegance are to justify the parts of MQA he values.

 

He makes excellent recordings using minimum phase filters but I wonder what the difference would be if I recorded the same session with a hand held Sony digital recorder. But then I don’t listen to that kind music often. The music I listen to I prefer linar  phase filters  in both recording process and listening.

 

Invoking  Charles Hansen to support that Bob Stuart is on the right track means John wasn’t getting a clear picture of Charles Hansen thoughts about digital filters. 

 

MQA is cobbled together from disparate pieces and ideas. It had one overreaching objective create a royalty stream. Nothing elegant about that. John’s opinion deserves criticism both for both his analysis of MQA piece by piece and tarnishing the legacy of Charles Hansen by including him in a defense of Bob Stuart’s ideas. 

Please...print, and frame.

[Brinkman Ship]

With all the criticism of TAS and Stereophile for their technical coverage of MQA, what gets somewhat lost is their

SUBJECTIVE praise of MQA, without deviation. Harley, Stone, JVS, Atkinson, Austin,  Lasgana, Fremer, and now shamefully Dudley (who did I leave out?) have offered nothing less than ridiculous opinions of MQA sonically that virtually no real world listeners have experienced.  That is the area I find truly as galling as not not giving an equal voice to industry heavy hitters who do not agree with them.

[Brinkman Ship]

22 minutes ago, firedog said:

I like his record reviews and have bought recordings on his recommendations. Have stopped given his equipment reviews much thought because: a)  he seems to never have heard an MQA recording that isn't the most fantastic thing in the history of audio, and b) because in a recent review of Bricasti he amps he connected them up in a way not approved by the manufacturer and then complained that they didn't sound like they should in the review. 

JvS is an utter charlatan as a reviewer. Just read his Jadis mono block debacle. He would not have a clue how to properly set up a system with a gun to his head...clearly he can’t hear his way iut of a paper bag either.

[Brinkman Ship]

13 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

I thought it clear from my post that Mytek has such an ADC. Some recording and mastering engineers in the NY area have been beta-testing it.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

Please ask your Jim Austin why when asked about MQA ADCs he replied that anybody who asked about such a device had no understanding of what MQA is. It turns he clearly has no understanding..I bet he is still doing his 'research"...

[Brinkman Ship]

3 minutes ago, mansr said:

There would be very little point in that. MQA encoding has to be the very last step after final mastering. You can't do any mixing or editing whatsoever of MQA-encoded content.

That is not what they are selling. They are selling and "end to end" solution..and you could theoretically do editing and mastering with the "MQA Mastering Tools" that Stuart promised over 3 years ago..in fact he paid several mastering engineers to discuss this scenario.