MQA Deep Dive - I published music on tidal to test MQA

[RichB]

Careful, i was warned when saying something similar regarding twiin a past post.

Please take down this picture of my brother. you are not authorized to use it

I recant, the MQA purchase is among the most laudable examples of philanthropy.

- Rich

 

[Jimbob54]

I just saw that. If they offer plain CD quality flacs in the Hifi tier and MQA in the Hifi plus, I just hope that those CD quality flacs won't be just folded MQAs! That would be the cherry on top

I've not looked at the new tiers, but if hifi plus is just "master" rebadged, then I think one of the worse findings of all this work is that the hifi tier stuff is just folded mqa files. Which may then be just 13/44.1

Edit. Should have said some of the hifi tier stuff is folded mqa. Nothing to suggest all is, or will be.

 

[guenthi_r]

Audirvana trial is free if you want to check it. Anyone else want to try this? The file is the 2L #053 (bottom one):
http://www.2l.no/hires/

Only 88.2 khz possible:

 

[mieswall]

Too bad none of those sources are trustworthy.

Because 4 official patents, a paper endorsed by AES, and several articles written by three of the world's most prestigious audio magazines aren't, but the wrong tests measuring things the system is not intended to accomplish - prepared by two amateurs that didn't know what they were measuring-, those are the ones to be trusted... right?

Try to stop regurgitating and start arguing.

 

[TurbulentCalm]

Too bad none of those sources are trustworthy.

If that’s so can you provide this thread with some that are? If you haven’t already, this thread is so huge now I’m forgetting most of what I’ve read and it took my 6 hours yesterday to catch up.

Actually, if the sources only describe what that claim to be doing it’s still valuable in identify more ways to test MQA.

 

[bambadoo]

prepared by two amateurs that didn't know what they were measuring

@Archimago and @GoldenOne do you agree to the above?

Regarding patents. Here is an interesting read
Wavelet (= "origami") compression of audio signals
http://profesores.elo.utfsm.cl/~mzanartu/Documents/Wavelets Project.pdf

From 2005 based on articles from 1993 and 1998
B-splines are a special kind of wavelets (used in MQA)
Article from 1993
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/258086

BTW: A very smart person here where I live have found these. (not me)

 

[RichB]

Because 4 official patents, a paper endorsed by AES, and several articles written by three of the world's most prestigious audio magazines aren't, but the wrong tests measuring things the system is not intended to accomplish - prepared by two amateurs that didn't know what they were measuring-, those are the ones to be trusted... right?

Try to stop regurgitating and start arguing.

Of course, because they are repeatable measurements, unrefuted by MQA.

ASR includes measurements posted by accomplished amateur's. The response to measurements should be other measurements or technical in nature. The response is not to waive white-papers at people.
This is not the site to rely on pedigree for a good review.

The character assassination team is still hunting Archimago.

- Rich

 

[pjug]

Only 88.2 khz possible:
View attachment 126662View attachment 126663View attachment 126675

You are seeing 2l-053 as an 88.2K track? I have 96K. (the 96K file is titled 2L-053_04stereo-96kHz-24b.flac). But you are getting much better tracking in the unfolded part than I have been able to get. I wonder what I am doing wrong. What software are you using for recording?

 

[Raindog123]

“A Comparison of Clarity in MQA Encoded Files vs. Their Unprocessed State as Performed by Three Groups — Expert Listeners”
https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=19396

I think @Archimago refers to this one within his study

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2017/09/mqa-core-vs-hi-res-blind-test-part-ii.html


Definitely need more of these, but it’s a start. Too bad the MQA camp does not post anything of this - blind listening test - kind (or spectrum/noise measurements kind, or any measurements kind) to prove their theories.

 

[guenthi_r]

You are seeing 2l-053 as an 88.2K track? I have 96K. (the 96K file is titled 2L-053_04stereo-96kHz-24b.flac). But you are getting much better tracking in the unfolded part than I have been able to get. I wonder what I am doing wrong. What software are you using for recording?

I compared 2l-053 24/96 khz PCM with the 2l-053 MQA. Audirvana shows 24/352.4 khz but outputs only 88.2k (aka first unfold).
Recorded with Audacity via virtual cable as you say.
Comparing done with DeltaWave & Adobe Audition.

 

[RichB]

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

I think @Archimago refers to this one, within his study

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2017/09/mqa-core-vs-hi-res-blind-test-part-ii.html

Here is the short descrition:

This paper aims to examine perceived clarity in MQA encoded audio files compared to their unprocessed state (96-kHz 24-bit). Utilizing a methodology initially proposed by the authors in a previous paper, this study aims to investigate any reported differences in clarity for three musical sources of varying genres. A double-blind test is conducted using three groups—expert listeners, musicians, and casual listeners—in a controlled environment using high-quality loudspeakers and headphones. The researchers were interested in comparing the responses of the three target groups and whether playback systems had any significant effect on listeners’ perception. Data shows that listeners were not able to significantly discriminate between MQA encoded files and the unprocessed original due to several interaction effects.

Okie dokie.

- Rich

 

[pjug]

I compared 2l-053 24/96 khz PCM with the 2l-053 MQA. Audirvana shows 24/352.4 khz but outputs only 88.2k (aka first unfold).
Recorded with Audacity via virtual cable as you say.
Comparing done with DeltaWave & Adobe Audition.

Oh wow, I didn't notice that on Audionirvana. I wonder why the MQA is 88K when the original is 96K? Anyway, I recorded again at 88K, but still my spectra do not track as well as yours. Hmm...
I will try a different computer later.
Edit: I found the problem. I was using VB-cable which is not bit perfect, and I didn't know that. Stupid of me not to read the web site when I downloaded that software. Anyway I switched to VB-HIFI-cable and now my spectra are exactly like in Post #1543 by @guenthi_r above. Thanks to @guenthi_r for doing that to let me know that I was doing something wrong.

 

[gatucho]

Because 4 official patents, a paper endorsed by AES, and several articles written by three of the world's most prestigious audio magazines aren't, but the wrong tests measuring things the system is not intended to accomplish - prepared by two amateurs that didn't know what they were measuring-, those are the ones to be trusted... right?

Try to stop regurgitating and start arguing.

Why every other lossless format when subjected to "amateur" testing holds, while MQA requires being defended by "professionals"?
It either is lossless or isn't. The amateur testing showed without any doubt that MQA isn't. All the additional arguing from the professionals is trying to convince us amateurs that we shouldn't care.

Keep trying... Plain, direct facts will always prevail over smoke and screens

 

[mansr]

Because 4 official patents, a paper endorsed by AES, and several articles written by three of the world's most prestigious audio magazines aren't, but the wrong tests measuring things the system is not intended to accomplish - prepared by two amateurs that didn't know what they were measuring-, those are the ones to be trusted... right?

Try to stop regurgitating and start arguing.

If you want to show that someone isn't a liar, citing that same person isn't going to work.

 

[mieswall]

Of course, because they are repeatable measurements are unrefuted by MQA.

ASR includes measurements posted by accomplished amateur's. The response to measurements should be other measurements or technical in nature. The response is not to waive white-papers at people.
This is not the site to rely on pedigree for a good review.

The character assassination team is still hunting Archimago.

- Rich

Jisus man, how many times do we have to repeat the same? Those "repeatable"measurements are measuring the wrong things:

1- square waves, high amplitude white noise, and presumably big amplitude impulse tones completely outside the maximum amplitudes of the music the system is programmed for, as all of them contain upper octaves and ultrasonic in high amplitudes. MQA is not intended to register high amplitude in ultrasonics, because there is NO MUSIC with that profile, and because that space is better used for custom filters fixing time domain issues. If you understand what MQA does (and if both accomplished amateurs are in fact accomplished, they knew it BEFORE doing those tests), you don't need a test to know a square wave will not perform OK.

2- A bit perfect match that by definition is impossible, as MQA replaces those below the noise floor with dithered information. Again, what an accomplished MQA reviewers should know in advance.

3- To make things worse, MQA assumes the noise band is dithered; these tests omitted that basic step, and so, the algorithm is fed with wrong information. It is obvious the multitude of anomalities would occur doing that.

4- Even if all of the above were not an issue, even then you wouldn't get that pretended bit-perfect match, because the system is intended to be lossless compared with analog input; but to fix the flaws of that input (by correcting time domain issues) if instead that input is digital.

5- If MQA were performing as bad as their conclusions say, the plots above ( that even then are incomplete, since they are comparing a 352K input with a 88.2 Khz output, leaving information the system has registered unprocessed) wouldn't have the degree of coincidence they have. Then... something must be wrong with those tests, don't you think?

What you are questioning is the very definition of the MQA design (noise shaping, encapsulation of data in noise bands, limited amplitude in high frequencies, deblurring of time domain information, etc), because all of that differs with your immaculate conception of how perfect a simple Redbook file is. If so, you don't need to backup your criticism in test trying to demonstrate the things the system is not intended to do.

 

[gatucho]

Jisus man, how many times do we have to repeat the same? Those "repeatable"measurements are measuring the wrong things:

1- square waves, high amplitude white noise, and presumably big amplitude impulse tones completely outside the maximum amplitudes of the music the system is programmed for, as all of them contain upper octaves and ultrasonic in high amplitudes. MQA is not intended to register high amplitude in ultrasonics, because there is NO MUSIC with that profile, and because that space is better used for custom filters fixing time domain issues. If you understand what MQA does (and if both accomplished amateurs are in fact accomplished, they knew it BEFORE doing those tests), you don't need a test to know a square wave will not perform OK.

2- A bit perfect match that by definition is impossible, as MQA replaces those below the noise floor with dithered information. Again, what an accomplished MQA reviewers should know in advance.

3- To make things worse, MQA assumes the noise band is dithered; these tests omitted that basic step, and so, the algorithm is fed with wrong information. It is obvious the multitude of anomalities would occur doing that.

4- Even if all of the above were not an issue, even then you wouldn't get that pretended bit-perfect match, because the system is intended to be lossless compared with analog input; but to fix the flaws of that input (by correcting time domain issues) if instead that input is digital.

5- If MQA were performing as bad as their conclusions say, the plots above ( that even then are incomplete, since they are comparing a 352K input with a 88.2 Khz output, leaving information the system has registered unprocessed) wouldn't have the degree of coincidence they have. Then... something must be wrong with those tests, don't you think?

What you are questioning is the very definition of the MQA design (noise shaping, encapsulation of data in noise bands, limited amplitude in high frequencies, deblurring of time domain information, etc), because all of that differs with your immaculate conception of how perfect a simple Redbook file is. If so, you don't need to backup your criticism in test trying to demonstrate the things the system is not intended to do.

IDK,
1)if noise band will be assumed higher than 13bits, then why do why care about high res music?
2)for 44khz 16bit, the only "possible" benefit of MQA is added ultrasound.
3) it is easier to demonstrate audibility under 13bits than over 22khz!


One can argue that if lower than 13 bit is imperceptible, then ultrasonics (with a similarly lower power BTW) would be EVEN MORE IMPERCEPTIBLE.
You can't have it both ways.

So MQA is offering me:
1) compressed ultrasonic content that I will never hear.
2) added under13bit noise (which it should still be demonstrated to be really uncorrelated with the encoded signal, which hasn't)
3) additional price, both in SW and HW.
4) a lot of complications to ensure the "bit perfect" chain (which has been demonstrated not to be really required)

So NO, this amateur music lover still isn't convinced

 

[scott wurcer]

What you are questioning is the very definition of the MQA design (noise shaping, encapsulation of data in noise bands, limited amplitude in high frequencies, deblurring of time domain information, etc), because all of that differs with your immaculate conception of how perfect a simple Redbook file is. If so, you don't need to backup your criticism in test trying to demonstrate the things the system is not intended to do.

Let me guess, you don't actually understand any of this.

 

[Raindog123]

So NO, this amateur music lover still isn't convinced

The guy‘s a bot programmed to spit the same five sentences, with variations, once a day every day. At some point we just need to stop wasting our breath on him...

 

[mansr]

Let me guess, you don't actually understand any of this.

No need to guess. All he's done is parrot MQA talking points. I wonder how much they pay.

 

[AdamG]

Feeding trolls can be fun at first. Then they move in, get comfortable and grab the remote.