MQA The Truth lies Somewhere in the Middle

[MikeyFresh]

11 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

It was just the encoding.

 

Far out man.

[Jud]

4 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

That's what was good about this demo.  It was just the encoding.

 

Loudness, for example, was carefully measured and equalized?

 

 I’ve wondered, since a friend and I have had the subjective reactions we did, and others have reacted more favorably, whether the reason is some folks’ taste for what they experience as the warmer, more exciting and organic sound of IMD. Certainly there are many people who love the sound of NOS DACs playing back RedBook material. The measurements of MQA filters seem to me to indicate this might be a possibility.

[Brinkman Ship]

10 minutes ago, esldude said:

Is this the SoundOnSound article you refer to in the video?

 

https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/mqa-time-domain-accuracy-digital-audio-quality

 

Note..the author of this article has since expressed extreme skepticism about Master Quack Audio, and called out BS on "mastering tools" that were promised and never appeared. It is all in the forum.

 

From the author, 2016.

 

"Yes, to receive the full benefit of the MQA system you do need an MQA-equipped D-A converter, which makes demo examples impractical. We did try to persuade them to process a bespoke analogue recording of our own making, so we could then offer readesr examples of a the same material as conventional high-res digits, standard digits and an MQA file (which is still supposed to convey some timing benefits when auditioned on standard D-As)... But they didn't want to do that... "

 

and

 

"However, MQA encode and decode plugins are due by the end of the year, so well revisit this then and will hopefully be able to provide some audio demos."

 

Take a wild  guess if those MQA plugins every actually arrived...

 

https://www.soundonsound.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=52874&hilit=mqa#p502074

 

 

[Brinkman Ship]

13 minutes ago, esldude said:

Is this the SoundOnSound article you refer to in the video?

 

https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/mqa-time-domain-accuracy-digital-audio-quality

 

He added this, telling exactly what he thinks of audiophool "journalists".

 

"Entirely unrelated, but it amuses me... I attended Prism Sound's launch last week of its new Callia converter -- essentially a hifi output-only version of the Lyra with support for DSD-over-DOP. The launch was held at British Grove studios and was attended by a bunch of hifi journalists amongst various 'great and good' pro-audio types. During a playback session through the DAC in Studio2's control room (over the big ATC SCM300s in the wall, in a very well treated acoustic) several of the hifi people commented with considerable surprise at how good a bog-standard 16/44.1 file sounded.   

The conversations I overheard did seem to confirm that adage that audiophiles use music to listen to their hifi...."

[esldude]

1 hour ago, Lee Scoggins said:

snip...

 

With the MQA encoding, the sound of the room became much more clear.  There was more fullness in the mids and bass and transients seemed more lifelike.  It seemed like the soundstage got both wider and deeper.  It wasn't subtle.  The MQA files sounded much better and more natural like live music in a real space.

 

snip.....

This is the prototypical description of every advance in digital audio.  Whether we are increasing bit depth, increasing sample rate, swapping out the latest USB cable, changing clocks, DACs ad nauseam.  And of course the ever popular IT WASN"T SUBTLE.

 

Now Lee, you clearly don't mind acting as the MQA spokesman.  Can you tell us why this not subtle difference you hear has not been demo'd.  Heck if I had a great new format that was NOT subtle, I'd never miss an opportunity to play un-encoded versions verses encoded into MQA versions.  So that hundreds and in time thousands of people could go tell everyone about the not subtle difference MQA makes.  Doubly-triply so on something already as well done as Peter McGrath's recordings.  MQA should just pay McGrath $1 million for just demo rights.  Everywhere 3 or more audiophiles show up, play this devastating unsubtle clear cut tremendous demo of how much improved MQA is vs no MQA.  If MQA did this, audiophiles would be lobbying labels to get with the program and get their catalog into MQA.  

 

Oh and we are back to the idea MQA improves upon even tremendously high quality recordings like McGrath's.  If that is the case, then why would any record company keep the originals.  Why they would be well advised to transfer the originals into the superior MQA format and use that for archival purposes.  Assuming we are to believe a lossy format, that is according to you inaudibly lossy, well actually no it is audible an improvement upon the original.  If they gave us the full set of family jewels we'd throw them in the trash because they are inferior to the MQA'd version and the level of inferiority is not SUBTLE.  

[esldude]

11 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Note..the author of this article has since expressed extreme skepticism about Master Quack Audio, and called out BS on "mastering tools" that were promised and never appeared. It is all in the forum.

 

From the author, 2016.

 

"Yes, to receive the full benefit of the MQA system you do need an MQA-equipped D-A converter, which makes demo examples impractical. We did try to persuade them to process a bespoke analogue recording of our own making, so we could then offer readesr examples of a the same material as conventional high-res digits, standard digits and an MQA file (which is still supposed to convey some timing benefits when auditioned on standard D-As)... But they didn't want to do that... "

 

and

 

"However, MQA encode and decode plugins are due by the end of the year, so well revisit this then and will hopefully be able to provide some audio demos."

 

Take a wild  guess if those MQA plugins every actually arrived...

 

https://www.soundonsound.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=52874&hilit=mqa#p502074

 

 

Come on man, I was waiting on Lee's confirmation, then I was going to drop the other shoe.  You didn't give me a chance. 

 

MQA does have this very poor record of delivery things like that don't they.  Hmmmmmm, wonder why that is?  I believe Mark Waldrep never got his MQA files either.  Its only been like 3 or 4 years.  Maybe they should have let him cloud encode a few. 

[Brinkman Ship]

1 minute ago, esldude said:

This is the prototypical description of every advance in digital audio.  Whether we are increasing bit depth, increasing sample rate, swapping out the latest USB cable, changing clocks, DACs ad nauseam.  And of course the ever popular IT WASN"T SUBTLE.

 

Now Lee, you clearly don't mind acting as the MQA spokesman.  Can you tell us why this not subtle difference you hear has not been demo'd.  Heck if I had a great new format that was NOT subtle, I'd never miss an opportunity to play un-encoded versions verses encoded into MQA versions.  So that hundreds and in time thousands of people could go tell everyone about the not subtle difference MQA makes.  Doubly-triply so on something already as well done as Peter McGrath's recordings.  MQA should just pay McGrath $1 million for just demo rights.  Everywhere 3 or more audiophiles show up, play this devastating unsubtle clear cut tremendous demo of how much improved MQA is vs no MQA.  If MQA did this, audiophiles would be lobbying labels to get with the program and get their catalog into MQA.  

 

Oh and we are back to the idea MQA improves upon even tremendously high quality recordings like McGrath's.  If that is the case, then why would any record company keep the originals.  Why they would be well advised to transfer the originals into the superior MQA format and use that for archival purposes.  Assuming we are to believe a lossy format, that is according to you inaudibly lossy, well actually no it is audible an improvement upon the original.  If they gave us the full set of family jewels we'd throw them in the trash because they are inferior to the MQA'd version and the level of inferiority is not SUBTLE.  

Let me save you a ton of time and torture..because this is all your going to get from MQA Boy:

 

 

[Brinkman Ship]

2 minutes ago, esldude said:

Come on man, I was waiting on Lee's confirmation, then I was going to drop the other shoe.  You didn't give me a chance. 

Shoot! Sorry! I stole your thunder..apologies...?

[Shadorne]

30 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Loudness, for example, was carefully measured and equalized?

 

 I’ve wondered, since a friend and I have had the subjective reactions we did, and others have reacted more favorably, whether the reason is some folks’ taste for what they experience as the warmer, more exciting and organic sound of IMD. Certainly there are many people who love the sound of NOS DACs playing back RedBook material. The measurements of MQA filters seem to me to indicate this might be a possibility.

 

Definitely I agree with your comments.

 

Phase distortion may be another major issue from using minimum phase filters. What I hear on MQA doesn’t sound like IMD - it sounds like phase distortion. Of course this could be DAC dependent - some DACs may not handle the higher HF noise levels in MQA files and introduce IMD in the audible range. Anyway it is pretty obviously wrong. Deeper and wider Soundstage as described by Lee Scoggins is exactly what phase distortion will do - imaging is simply less accurate so everything sounds bigger and further away - this is the “hole in the Soundstage” that @Brinkman Ship alluded to in his extensive listening comparisons. I hear it too. The better the D to A conversion the more precise and tight the soundstage up to a point of diminishing returns where no futher improvement can be made and one reaches the limit of the soundstage image intended in the recording. Anything that widens the soundstage is de facto less precise. Tellarc found that classical listeners preferred a less precise soundstage - hence their recording techniques. So personal preference plays a role here - some may like the blurring that MQA brings...

[Brinkman Ship]

5 minutes ago, Shadorne said:

 

Definitely I agree with your comments.

 

Phase distortion may be another major issue from using minimum phase filters. What I hear on MQA doesn’t sound like IMD - it sounds like phase distortion. Of course this could be DAC dependent - some DACs may not handle the higher HF noise levels in MQA files and introduce IMD in the audible range. Anyway it is pretty obviously wrong. Deeper and wider Soundstage as described by Lee Scoggins is exactly what phase distortion will do - imaging is simply less accurate so everything sounds bigger and further away - this is the “hole in the Soundstage” that @Brinkman Ship alluded to in his extensive listening comparisons. I hear it too.

Yes, and unsophisticated listeners like Scoggins hear it as a deeper soundstage, when if fact, the soundstage is being destroyed.

[Shadorne]

29 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Yes, and unsophisticated listeners like Scoggins hear it as a deeper soundstage, when if fact, the soundstage is being destroyed.

 

Well I don’t think soundstage is “destroyed” - rather a stronger statement than I would subscribe to. I would say the music is still perfectly enjoyable in MQA format or the original hi-resolution unadulterated file but soundstage most certainly is NOT improved by MQA processing. Timbre is also slightly off but it is really only above 3 KHz that any timbral change begins to appear, IMHO. I think the minimum phase filtering is adding group delay to the highest frequencies (above 10KHz mostly) so the highest harmonics don’t match the phase of the fundamental and this audibly affects the way transients sound.

 

BTW I don’t believe we hear the shape of the leading edge of transients even if nerve impulses triggered from cilia in each ear can be compared in time and used to accurately locate the left/right source of the sound (distortion around the pinea seems to allow front to rear detection) It seems we hear frequency response behaviour over time much more than anything else. It takes at least one if not a boatload more cycles to create something intelligible and decodable to our ears/brain as music and timbre - so phase relationships are very important and should be preserved as accurately as possible in a high fidelity system. Minimum phase filters only belong in mixing studios where high Q filters may be used to perform tricks on single tracks of a multi track recording. Minimum phase filters don’t belong in home audio reproduction.

[FredericV]

2 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

What they did was enlist the label staff.  The new innovation was they put the encoder in the cloud so the labels can encode the tracks themselves.

 

Source?

[sandyk]

15 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Yes, and unsophisticated listeners like Scoggins hear it as a deeper soundstage, when if fact, the soundstage is being destroyed.

 

I get it that you don't like MQA, and question the need for it as I do, when  it can't possibly be any better than the high res versions already available for download, and almost certainly not quite as good.

 

 However , do you have to be so bloody rude about it while continually  repeating the same old tired images ?

 

 

[Brinkman Ship]

Just now, sandyk said:

 

I get it that you don't like MQA, and question the need for it as I do, when  it can't possibly be any better than the high res versions already available for download, and almost certainly not quite as good.

 

 However , do you have to be so bloody rude about it while continually  repeating the same old tired images ?

 

 

yes.

[FredericV]

2 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

We listened to orchestral works, choral works, and string ensembles.  Peter's recordings are really excellent without the MQA encoding but the MQA encoding made a pretty noticeable difference.  With the MQA encoding, the sound of the room became much more clear.  There was more fullness in the mids and bass and transients seemed more lifelike.  It seemed like the soundstage got both wider and deeper.  It wasn't subtle.  The MQA files sounded much better and more natural like live music in a real space.

 

Peter's view on MQA was not going to save a bad recording but that it made his good recordings great.

Coming from an MQA spokesperson, this has zero value and it's off topic. Has the material been peer reviewed by third parties? Why can't research show the same conclusion?

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=19396

 

"Data shows that listeners were not able to significantly discriminate between MQA encoded files and the unprocessed original "

[SoundAndMotion]

13 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

yes.

Why?

[Fokus]

52 minutes ago, Shadorne said:

 - so phase relationships are very important and should be preserved as accurately as possible in a high fidelity system.

 

So you are audibly aware of the attrocious phase distortion caused by your speaker’s tweeters?

 

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.

 

1x rate may be a different story, but that is bound to be dominated by the huge imaging caused by MQA, and subsequent system IMD.

 

[SoundAndMotion]

47 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

yes.

... and you like your own post... didn't know you could self-like!

[esldude]

42 minutes ago, FredericV said:

Coming from an MQA spokesperson, this has zero value and it's off topic. Has the material been peer reviewed by third parties? Why can't research show the same conclusion?

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=19396

 

"Data shows that listeners were not able to significantly discriminate between MQA encoded files and the unprocessed original "

Fake news, fake news!

 

It should read, "Data shows that listeners found it was not subtle to significantly discriminate between MQA encoded files and the uprocessed original".  

[FredericV]

LeeS: "You are removing stuff that's not audible .... if it's inaudible do we care?"

My questions still have not been answered by LeeS:
 

Quote

So what's the point of the first unfold, recovering one octave of ultrasonics above the baseband signal - which are inaudible unless you are a cat / dog / bat / .... ? Do we care? Why go through all the hassle of encryption/folding/drm if the secret part in MQA's 24 bit distribution files (which do not contain 24 bit audio ) is inaudible after unfolding?

And who decides how much we can throw away before it starts to become audible?

 

[esldude]

42 minutes ago, FredericV said:

Coming from an MQA spokesperson, this has zero value and it's off topic. Has the material been peer reviewed by third parties? Why can't research show the same conclusion?

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=19396

 

"Data shows that listeners were not able to significantly discriminate between MQA encoded files and the unprocessed original "

Fake news, fake news!

 

It should read, "Data shows that listeners found it was not subtle to significantly discriminate between MQA encoded files and the uprocessed original".  

[firedog]

15 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

This is the Zapruder film of MQA RMAF.

I haven't watched it....did someone's head get blown off? 

[esldude]

Lee was back and to the left.  Back and to the left.

[sandyk]

54 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

yes.

 

 Then you are no better than the talking heads from MQA that you despise so much !

[firedog]

2 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

That's what was good about this demo.  It was just the encoding.

And as in all MQA "demos" you are probably told beforehand which recording is which, and which one sounds better. No chance for bias creeping in there....

And btw, the Mytek DAC plays back all material with MQA filters once MQA is activated, unless you manually go in and switch the filtering each time. So did you do that, or did you cripple the demo of the non-MQA files by playing them back with the inappropriate MQA filters?