MQA The Truth lies Somewhere in the Middle

[Shadders]

1 hour ago, lucretius said:

 

wank·er

ˈwaNGkər/

noun

vulgar slang•British

noun: wanker; plural noun: wankers

1. a person who masturbates (used as a term of abuse).

Hi,

Yes - that is the formal definition, but it can be used as a term of endearment. "Oh, you silly wanker", as per "Oh you silly idiot". The definition does not capture that.

 

Essentially, it is not the grave insult word that the definition suggests. The "F" word and "C" word are used to express negative views, but even the "F" word is used non-derogatory such as WTF.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

55 minutes ago, jabbr said:

This is all laughable ... particularly because everything that needs to be known about “deblurring” in every axis was developed decades ago... and trust me our universities & national labs & govt’s ability to deblur data in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s was vastly better than the MQA child’s play — that’s why they don’t want to open up the technology to be exposed to ... loud yawning & snoring from the audience.

Hi,

In fact reverse of dispersion was known by Newton.

 

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/171146/is-it-possible-to-implement-the-reversed-dispersion-of-a-white-light-beam-and-ho

 

What MQA are claiming is that they know the dispersal characteristics of every cable/mic/ADC etc., and applied the algorithm to perfectly reverse dispersion of each track. I do not believe that their system can do this. All it can do is perform an approximation.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

1 hour ago, Fokus said:

Anyway, for 2x material and higher MQA does not introduce phase distortion in the audible band. Their filters may be MPish, but they operate at higher frequencies and are very shallow. 

Hi,

Is the phase distortion of the MQA minimum phase filters greater than a linear phase filter ?

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

14 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

This doesn't accurately describe what I heard.  The instruments had more accurate imaging.  The bass, mids, and highs were fuller and more realistic.  There was less phase distortion.  Like Peter, I also record lots of string quartets, just not quite as good as he does.

 

With the MQA encoding, we heard more of the room which added realism.

Hi,

Have you ever heard of QSound :

 

http://www.qsound.com/

"QSound is a global supplier of audio software technology for mobile devices, headphones, Bluetooth devices, televisions, stereo PC multimedia equipment and other consumer electronics. QSound’s proprietary audio algorithms truly deliver a fuller, more natural and immersive audio experience - users hear the difference!!"

 

"QSound’s sonic technologies, algorithms and special effects include: polyphonic wavetable synthesizers, 3D (three dimensional) audio, multi-speaker system surround synthesis, virtual surround sound capability, 3D sound stage expansion, 3D positional audio, low/mid/high frequency spectral enhancement, reverberation, dynamic range control, equalization, and anti-saturation among others."

 

I would expect that MQA is just this - effects processing. They have used edge detection techniques to enhance the transients, messed about with the phase to make it "seem" more real. I have a QSound CD by Sting - sounds ok.

 

One aspect, MQA in their AES paper claim blur is the problem, but in fact linear phase filters do not add blur, and then MQA use minimum phase filters which actually introduce blur. So they claim blur in existing recordings is the issue when it is not, and then add it (blur) later. What a crap design.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

1 minute ago, PeterSt said:

 

I am afraid you mix up filter techniques with a general amount of ringing of them (which may exist in each of the techniques).

MQA claims (more or less indirectly) less ringing. And ringing implies said blur.

Hi,

If you examine their AES paper, they state blur is dispersion. Page 3 of their AES paper.

 

Can you provide the reference where MQA state ringing is blur ?. Thanks.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

1 minute ago, Fokus said:

 

As you have been told countless times, here and in other forums,  MQA are crusading against wiggly impulse responses and wide impulse responses. You only have to pick up the earliest papers on this topic by Peter Craven, and start connecting the dots from there on.

 

I am sorry I don't know by heart which year this started, but it is a bloody while ago.

 

Hi,

Being told is not proof. You need to present the proof which contradicts the MQA AES paper, page 3.

 

Maybe they changed tac ?

 

The problem is, if everyone keeps on stating blur is ringing, and the basis for the argument here (countless times) is against ringing being an issue or discussing ringing, then all an MQA representative has to do, is pop along here, quote their MQA paper that dispersion is blur, and EVERY argument discussing ringing as being blur is null and void.

 

If you adhere to the MQA text, then there is no possibility that they can refute your argument.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

15 minutes ago, Fokus said:

 

 

This is from 2015, but Craven was hammering on this as early as 2004. It is the log(magnitude) of a channel's impulse response versus time. Conventional filters result in a wide response, described by BS as 'blurred' or 'dispersed', whereas short (but weak) filters have a narrow response. Whether these short filters are MP or LP is of secondary importance, although BS has a preference for MP as this shortens the attack side of the response even more.

 

Brought to you thanks to CA's copy-paste support. I really really wasn't prepared to find an external host to upload and link this image ...

 

Hi,

Yes - that picture is in the AES paper, page 11, referred to on page 12. They do state that this is the impulse response with the y-axis as a dB scale. On page 12 they refer to this as the pulse blur - essentially, they are saying less taps is less blur.

 

This does not change the fact that dispersion is blur, and the use of dispersion in the MQA context must be in regards to their publication - the AES MQA paper. They do not use dispersion meaning the longer impulse response.

 

Dispersion is an engineering term - but they do not use dispersion out of context. They use blur to mean many things. As such, their use of dispersion as indicated by me is correct.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

3 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

 

Spoken like a Fair Hedon  ?

Hi,

I just read the other thread- wasn't this obvious ? Brinkman Ship turns up a few days after Fair Hedon gets banned and makes similar comments to Fair Hedon, but obfuscates using MQA testing at his house - and we all fell for it ?.

 

I think most people worked it out, but weren't bothered.

 

Why was Brinkman Ship banned ??., his history has has been one of acceptable posting, so why ban ? He learned the lesson ?

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

He had multiple chances using the name @Digital Assassin before being banned, he had multiple chances using the name @Fair Hedon before being banned, then he told me to F Off. 

 

Just because he survived several warnings using the name @Brinkman Ship the rules still apply to him. 

 

Plus, I believe I know who he is and believe he is a writer in the industry. 

Hi,

OK - thanks. Didn't realise he was that rude as Fair Hedon.

 

Although, i did think it obvious it was Fair Hedon as Brinkman Ship. Maybe he will try again, and disguise himself as a non-english person trying to speak english. Allo Allo style (UK comedy program).

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

5 minutes ago, crenca said:

Bob Carver says this at the end of his essay on MQA:

 

"...MQA is a paradigm shift only in the sense that it allows Tidal to violate the listener’s privacy...."

 

What exactly is he referring in reference to end user privacy?

Hi,

I believe he is inferring that the streaming DAC sends back data to the streaming service. This is probably an instant fail due to GDPR. The EU is good for some things.

 

I do not have any streaming devices, so cannot use wireshark to analyse the packets. Maybe someone else can ?

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

6 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Doesn't this prove MQA works?  Bob is saying his test proves no difference in the files.  So MQA compressed a file and Carver finds no sound quality loss?  Isn't that demonstrating the value of MQA?

Hi,

The null test resulted in the MQA file being different to the CD file. If the two files were exactly the same, bit perfect, then the null value will have been -200dB or whatever the software treated as negative infinity.

 

This was not the case with the Bob Carver test. The null was -70dB, and from the article text was the analogue output of the DAC which was recorded.

 

What the Bob Carver test seems to be doing is comparing the CD version with the MQA CD version and the LPCM high resolution with the MQA high resolution version.

 

He does not state what the -70dB null test is referring to, but one must assume it is the difference between the CD 44.1kHz/16bit and the MQA equivalent. As such, the -70dB means there is a difference. What Bob Carver is saying is that he cannot hear it.

 

What we do not know is whether this difference is due to the "claimed" changes that MQA processing does to the audio, or it is the lossy encoding artefacts.

 

The test that does need to be done, is the comparison between an MQA CD and the original CD version - so we can see that if MQA CD's become the only CD available, and we assume that everyone on the planet does NOT purchase an MQA DAC, what the impact is to those people in terms of sound quality degradation due to MQA. Don't forget, we lose 3 bits for the MQA encoding - and this will automatically degrade the S/N for CD from 96dB down to 78dB.

 

My opinion is that everyone will NOT purchase a new DAC, or whatever the device is they play music back on, just because the labels and MQA are forcing them to, else they will forever more have a degraded sound. MQA is a pernicious attempt to force people to buy a new DAC or other to pay MQA Ltd royalties else ruin the sound for everyone if you do not comply.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

7 minutes ago, psjug said:

The 13 bits is for MQA-CD, right?  Sure you get less SNR in the audible, but on the other hand I'm sure the 3 bits give really great ultrasonics.  It's something like this:

 

MQA: Here's MQA

Consumers: How stupid do you think we are?

MQA: Here's MQA-CD

Hi,

For MQA CD. despite it degrading sound for everyone on the planet, unless you purchase the MQA DAC, it also essentially becomes a monopoly.

 

Which is either MQA are going to degrade your sound, or you have to pay them for a new DAC to get close to what CD was in the first place.

 

I wonder if the EU are aware of the monopoly intentions of MQA Ltd, should the labels force MQA CD's being the only offering. Would it be difficult for it to be proven that the labels and MQA Ltd are working together to create a monopoly ??.

 

I think it would be easy, since the major labels are shareholders in MQA Ltd. So forcing MQA CD's upon everyone would mean the labels get a cut of the hardware sales. Very uncompetitive.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

Hi,

Did a search on Amazon to see if there are any MQA CD's. There are now a few more :

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Espresso-MQA-Bob-James-Trio/dp/B07FDKXD1C/ref=sr_1_2?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1539801387&sr=1-2&keywords=mqa

 

The product description states :

MQA is an award-winning technology that delivers the sound of the studio. Imagine being present at the original studio performance of your favourite recording artist. Every nuance, every subtlety, every tiny drop of emotion delivered to your ears. MQA CD plays back on all CD players. When a conventional CD player is connected to an MQA-enabled device, the CD will reveal the original master quality.

 

What the product description does NOT state is that when playing an MQA CD through a CD player or streamer that is NOT MQA enabled, that the sound is degraded compared to a normal CD (that is S/N=78dB as opposed to S/N=96dB for normal CD).

 

I think that this aspect should be noted for every MQA CD sold, and if people do not have the MQA enabled DAC that they should purchase the non-MQA CD ?

 

What laws cover this in the requisite countries ?

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

17 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

Whereas Bob Stuart's work is detailed in peer-reviewed publications.

Hi,

None of MQA's papers have been peer reviewed.

 

The Hifi press are journalists, not engineers belonging to a professional institution that conducts peer reviews.

 

An engineering peer review is where the MQA paper has appeared in the IEEE journals or transactions, making it open for analysis and feedback.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

12 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Hi,

The paper was not peer reviewed. The MQA paper consistently misuses the term blur to mean dispersion, and long filter impulse responses. Blur is NOT a technical engineering term.

 

AES represents Audio ENGINEERING Society. No engineering institution would ever allow such a basic error or misuse of a term, or even the use of a non-engineering term.

 

Linear phase filters do not introduce dispersion across the passband - yet the MQA paper states that each filter is blameless, and then proceeds to state that cascading each results in dispersion. Basic systems analysis will tell you that cascading linear systems creates a linear system and does NOT cause dispersion if each component does NOT cause dispersion. The MQA paper is seriously wrong here - yet no peer picked up upon this fact.

 

Another engineering error - linear filters do not introduce dispersion, yet MQA states that they do. MQA is supposed to reverse dispersion, and then they implement minimum phase filters which introduce dispersion. They are saying one thing, but engineering the opposite. No peer noticed this aspect.

 

It is obvious from these simple examples, that the AES does NOT peer review.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Here’s the music distribution patent. 

 

https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2014125285&tab=PCTBIBLIO&office=&prevFilter=&sortOption=Pub+Date+Desc&queryString=FP%3A(Stuart+Craven)&recNum=14&maxRec=52

Hi,

From the patent, the user key indicates that an MQA file can be tied to one specific DAC only, and cannot be used on another device.

Although this is for streaming - it is still valid for downloads purchased too. Full control of every file purchased.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

10 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

As for music in its purist form, Stuart and team are trying to correct for timing issues in ADCs post-mixing board.  Isn't that an approach for getting closer to what happened in the studio?

Hi,

Please see :

https://www.xivero.com/blog/hypothesis-paper-to-support-a-deeper-technical-analysis-of-mqa-by-mqa-limited/

 

There are no timing issues. If you read the paper referenced, it shows the proof that MQA is a scam.

 

Your previous mistake on the CD format indicates that your technical ability is approaching nil. If this is the case, and you are in agreement, can you reply stating that you have very little technical understanding. Thanks.

 

This will help people rephrase their arguments in a specific way for you to understand.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

Hi,

I propose that we ask Brian Lucey to return, to discuss with the "proponents of MQA" the benefits of MQA, and its claimed authentication. Amongst other things.

 

There is one proviso - that NO ONE discusses the loudness wars or compression. MQA only.

 

?

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

9 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

There is nothing in it for me except for some articles to write on the subject.

 

I've been pro-MQA simply based on what I am hearing in demos.  I believe most here are not giving MQA a fair chance in terms of what it is capable of in the areas of sound improvement, offering more hirez access, and potentially providing a way to give artists more money from streaming their content.

Hi,

I do not understand this.

 

Please correct me if i am wrong, but do artists make any significant money from streaming ? if they don't from normal streaming such as MP3, or other, then how is high resolution going to help them ?

 

From comments i have seen, streaming business is of little benefit to many artists.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

5 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

The theory is that with MQA, you establish a higher pricing tier on the streaming service. With the extra revenue, the labels can pay more to the artist.

 

If you talk to label people, they realize that they need to pay the artist more and they feel they have to solve that problem.  They realize this is a huge problem that is not healthy for the industry.

Hi,

I still do not understand.

 

If people are happy with MP3, or the existing services, and MQA has a higher pricing tier, why would people pay more for MQA when they get what they want with MP3 or other ?

 

If streaming is a no win situation for the music industry - why do they persist with it ?

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

28 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

Really? Yet Stereophile continues to thrive in the Internet Age. Obviously we didn't get the memo ?

Hi,

I think this is because the old people do not use the internet and still subscribe to paper publications.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

8 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Or, free online viewers are numerous enough to justify advertising which is almost certainly the main source of income for the magazine.

 

That's how you thrive in the internet age.

Hi,

Maybe - but at the same time, the influence of such publications is becoming smaller.

 

The younger generation do not care about hifi - hifi is in serious decline. Not sure how long they will last as being relevant - the tech magazines seem to be thriving - glossy publications, little detail, and minimal geek hifi content.

 

I think that the older publishing people as are the music industry are still living in the past - they had full control, but then the internet means people do not have to be told what to think.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

23 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Why do Artists need Labels at all?

Because you would not know if they are Indie, Pop, Rock, Ambient, or other.

[Shadders]

28 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

I really don't see this.  If DRM was a primary factor, they would want to see it in use but we have not a single documented case of DRM being used in an MQA file after even thousands of tracks being released in MQA.

 

Many of the labels carry heavy debt loads.  As a result they are focused on revenue growth.  MQA is a way to sell premium pricing in exchange for better quality sound.

Hi,

If no one is interested in high resolution format, and MQA is an increased cost in the streaming chain, why does MQA therefore mean more sales or customers, or more profit for the music labels ?

 

What is it about MQA that means everyone will suddenly want to stream more than they are already doing so at the moment ?

 

Only people interested in hifi will be bothered, and i can see from the forums that many are not bothered.

 

The only way the record labels can grow revenue is if they can somehow, force one file can only be played on one device. How on earth are they going to do that ?

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

6 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

It's sort of a push/pull situation.  One key (pull) is for there to be consumers who want the full unfold quality.  The second key (push) is streaming services offering it.  Then it become ubiquitous and we see how many consumers want to get the higher quality tier.

 

Like I mentioned earlier: it has to offer value to everyone in the ecosystem for it to work: labels, streamers, consumers, and hardware makers.

 

As for cost to add MQA: that is not an issue as it's a small royalty far less than the additional tier revenue and then the some encoding done in the cloud.

Hi,

As far as i know, nobody really much cares for high resolution in the hifi world, and i do not know anyone who cares about high resolution in the non-hifi world.

 

There is no pull. If people like MP3 as they already do - then MQA will provide no push because customers won't sign up to it.

 

As an aside, i pay £10 for a newly released CD. It probably costs 50pence to make in its entirety. Why are the labels losing money on this ?

 

If streaming is not already making the labels money - then how is MQA going to help ?. Prices will have to go up significantly.

 

If music labels are not making money from streaming, then surely they should remove access to their catalogue ?

 

Does it not seem odd to you that we have a thriving music industry, and it is alleged that no one is making any money from music sales or streaming ?

 

Regards,

Shadders.