In Layman’s terms, temporal blur would be hearing the sound of a note before it actually happens. An example in electronic audio would be a “sharp roll off” impulse filter that has audible pre-ringing and post-ring. Post-ringging isn’t an issue as much because it’s usually masked by the music itself.I think probably not. But perhaps if you define what you think temporal blur is, we'd stand a better chance of telling you whether that is a thing or not.
MQA Time-domain Accuracy & Digital Audio Quality
Even at high sample rates, standard PCM audio ‘smears’ important timing information. A new digital format, MQA, promises vastly improved time-domain accuracy — without the huge file sizes.www.soundonsound.com
In Layman’s terms, temporal blur would be hearing the sound of a note before it actually happens.
Music in particular contains no steps or impulses, even the sharpest cracks you hear are relatively slow build-ups, as far as digital processing is concerned.
Transients don't look like Impulses.
Two small hardwood blocks, clapped together (loud) and recorded in-room. It's a real snappy sound.
Looking at the one marked:
And closer...
And closer...
And closer, individual samples dotted...
Because whatever extra processing MQA DACs are capable of doing they only apply it when it’s an MQA file.Would you be able to explain why there wouldn’t or couldn’t be a change in SQ by the way a MQA DAC handles a signal?
Speaking of reputable reviewers...I fooled around with a number of MQA-enabled DACs, many of which defaulted to the MQA-specific filter. However, when I manually chose among the non-MQA filters and aurally compared the sound on non-MQA sources with the MQA filter, I always preferred the sound of several non-MQA filters.
So, my experience is different from yours and I know of no reason why the MQA filter would be optimum for non-MQA source material.
I’m referring to minimum-phase filters which have only a post-echo in their impulse response. Although you have other undesirable artifacts.This is a misconception. You would not hear the sound of a note before it is played. You’d hear the build-up of a step or impulse response, which is the way a step or impulse response will always be heard in the real world. There are no steps or impulses in reality (that would require an infinite amount of energy), what you hear or experience is always spread out over time.
Music in particular contains no steps or impulses, even the sharpest cracks you hear are relatively slow build-ups, as far as digital processing is concerned. Assuming the digital processing chain has sufficient bandwidth, of course. There are of course steeper sound impulses in nature than we can hear, but since our hearing apparatus is bandwidth limited there is little point in over-engineering the digital processing bandwidth by too much. I’d say a factor of two to four is more than enough.
Maybe I am misunderstanding some things. But a sound in nature doesn’t actually “build up”. But some electronic impulse response filters induce this unnatural build-up or pre-ring. This isn’t as much as a problem for the post-ring. But I’m just trying to learn, so...
Wrong: https://troll-audio.com/articles/time-resolution-of-digital-audio/16/44.1 only gives us 23µs time resolution.
Or watch the obligatory Monty video:
Because whatever extra processing MQA DACs are capable of doing they only apply it when it’s an MQA file.
Not a charity but a trick. By applying the MQA filter universally to all content (including hi-rez non-MQA content for which it is suboptimal), any comparisons the use might make to compare MQA to non-MQA versions of the same content would be biased against the non-MQA content.Otherwise MQA would be opening up an audiophile charity.
Not so. I do not know if it is still so but, originally, the Mytek Brooklyn DAC would not switch impulse filters based on the presence/absence of the MQA flag. If the user chose the MQA filter, it was universally applied to all content until the user chose otherwise. With DACs that do not permit user filter choice, one does not know if the filters are switched.
Not a charity but a trick. By applying the MQA filter universally to all content (including hi-rez non-MQA content for which it is suboptimal), any comparisons the use might make to compare MQA to non-MQA versions of the same content would be biased against the non-MQA content.
I'd like to hope so but can you offer some evidence of it?I think this was relevant for the very early DACs released with MQA support, but for recent designs this is not typical at all.
I'm sure the 'MQA light' only lights up when there is MQA meta-data in the PCM stream.I'd like to hope so but can you offer some evidence of it?
The Dragonfly DACs use one of the ESS chip built-in filters for non-MQA material. Which one depends on the model. Although they deny it, iFi DACs use one of the MQA filters (I don't recall which one) as default. Some other DACs have been observed to use a normal filter until an MQA file is played, after which they will use the MQA filter for everything until a power cycle. There is no consistent behaviour here.I'm sure the 'MQA light' only lights up when there is MQA meta-data in the PCM stream.
DACs with no selectable filters as you mentioned (DragonFly series from AudioQuest comes to mind) would indeed apply the filter to all content but this is far from typical in 2022 in my opinion.
Most DACs nowadays have selectable filters, and the MQA filter is either not available for normal use at all or is not the default choice.
Well, OK but that does not say anything about the impulse filter in use.I'm sure the 'MQA light' only lights up when there is MQA meta-data in the PCM stream.
See the two posts above. Note that this behavior makes it difficult for A/B comparisons in addition to the need for tedious changes whenever playing music without paying close attention to format, e.g., normal music playing.Most DACs nowadays have selectable filters, and the MQA filter is either not available for normal use at all or is not the default choice.