That would be even better, less chance that additional noise and filtering would interfere with the comparison.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
MQA: A Review of controversies, concerns, and cautions
- Thread starter mitchco
- Start date
- Status
That would be even better, less chance that additional noise and filtering would interfere with the comparison.
watchnerd
Grand Contributor
watchnerd
Grand Contributor
I thought this summed up the sonic issues rather nicely:
"I have no doubt that the differences people are hearing from MQA are real. But what is causing those differences? If the cause is different masters being used, then any difference, good or bad, shouldn’t be attributed to MQA -- it’s simply a difference between two master files. It’s not unlike how a new mastering of a recording released on CD can sound markedly better or worse than, or just different from, an earlier mastering.
Insofar as aliasing goes, then, it’s valid to point to the file formats. MQA Ltd. seems content with so much aliasing, but most digital engineers will tell you that aliasing is to be avoided because it pollutes the audio signal with frequencies not in the original recording -- i.e., noise. Such noise is, by definition, distortion, and makes the result less faithful -- i.e., of lower fidelity -- to the source. Is the frequency-related distortion of aliasing what some are hearing in MQA files? Obviously, more work needs to be done in this regard; Miller’s measurements are telling, but only the tip of the iceberg."
watchnerd
Grand Contributor
It's lossy so.....do you mean "bit-perfect lossy"?
derp1n
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2018
- Messages
- 479
- Likes
- 629
I mean the digital result of the complete MQA decode process - not captured from analog outputs.
From a quick search around it looks like the best you can get is the output result of MQA Core, which is only part way there.
NorthSky
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2016
- Messages
- 4,998
- Likes
- 945
That first paragraph, and what you have highlighted; it is exactly what my post was about. You hit the spot right on. And the rest of the conclusion from that article is . . . "enlightening".
You've read the article; most people don't take the time. Instead, most often, they judge, criticise the poster, want to talk very quickly, say their opinion, me me me, like if they were alone in the dark and talking to their own shadow, as experts...all that jazz.
Silence is golden. Observing and reading and not judging is refreshing, good for the brain.
...Like a black & white photograph. ■□
MQA I don't run after it, it can find me without me looking for it.
People really take it @ heart; I like that...passion.
Last edited:
As a community I’d love to see us do more testing of MQA vs everything else but for reasons of consistency I’d like I point out those aggressively protective and observably insecure (from watching that video in op) MQA guys should of already done all the testing and published it in the public domain. They should be coming out the gates guns blazing with all sorts of objective test results , listening tests data etc
Why that’s not the case one can only speculate and if those speculations carry a negative narrative within the ‘Audiophile ‘ community (no one else cares) the MQA folks need only look at themselves to lay blame.
Of course they just need to get the sticker on electronics and prime a few salesmen while whispering in the ear of the recording and music distribution industry about protecting revenue streams, they need not give a toss about the consumer we are the putzes in this game to be lied to and literally be shouted down (again see video ).
Iv nothing more to say, let’s look into it from a testing stance and then discuss the resulting data. Maybe Bob S can make a donation to ASR as we’d be doing his job for him just like with schiit.
Why that’s not the case one can only speculate and if those speculations carry a negative narrative within the ‘Audiophile ‘ community (no one else cares) the MQA folks need only look at themselves to lay blame.
Of course they just need to get the sticker on electronics and prime a few salesmen while whispering in the ear of the recording and music distribution industry about protecting revenue streams, they need not give a toss about the consumer we are the putzes in this game to be lied to and literally be shouted down (again see video ).
Iv nothing more to say, let’s look into it from a testing stance and then discuss the resulting data. Maybe Bob S can make a donation to ASR as we’d be doing his job for him just like with schiit.
watchnerd
Grand Contributor
How do I get MQA plugins for ProTools so I can master stuff in MQA?
I've never seen this advertised, so I've no idea how any new music is going to be created with it.
(Tidal's MQA remastered streams, on the other, are almost surely driven by scripts, given there are 1 million of them now)
I've never seen this advertised, so I've no idea how any new music is going to be created with it.
(Tidal's MQA remastered streams, on the other, are almost surely driven by scripts, given there are 1 million of them now)
Last edited:
solderdude
Grand Contributor
When you want the better master of MQA then we simply have to wait till someone gets the idea to record the analog output of a fully unfolded MQA stream in 192/24 FLAC (which would be overkill) and put that on the web somewhere.
Better masters without the need to own an MQA decoder/DAC... of course this would be illegal and piracy.
Better masters without the need to own an MQA decoder/DAC... of course this would be illegal and piracy.
NorthSky
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2016
- Messages
- 4,998
- Likes
- 945
Oppo 205 --- MQA & Roon
• https://community.roonlabs.com/t/oppo-udp-205-mqa-via-usb-in-is-now-live/44308
• https://community.roonlabs.com/t/oppo-udp-205-mqa-via-usb-in-is-now-live/44308/59
• https://community.roonlabs.com/t/oppo-udp-205-mqa-via-usb-in-is-now-live/44308
• https://community.roonlabs.com/t/oppo-udp-205-mqa-via-usb-in-is-now-live/44308/59
Last edited:
Yes, making sure truth and fairness gets a chance. Two sides playing dirty pool suffocates that concept.
Our nose better be damn clean as we criticize MQA. No argument better be made that "they did this so it is fair for us to do it too."
I have zero commercial relationship with MQA. I do consider Bob Stuart a professional colleague and one of our luminaries in audio. Show disrespect to him in that regard and you will motivate me to speak up.
I also think PCM format is very wasteful. And that a perceptual coder which reduces bandwidth requirements especially when it comes to high-resolution content very valid. And having a layered format is good even though it does reduce efficiency.
I don't think it is disrespectful to Bob to say that MQA is just an exercise in generating a licensing revenue stream with a product that isn't actually needed.
Bandwidth is a non issue and will continue to become cheaper. MQA may reduce costs for the streaming companies but it is of no benefit to the end consumer who has to buy systems supporting this proprietary format to simply (at best) stand still.
Where I would absolutely criticise Bob is his obviously deliberate avoidance of allowing comparative controlled testing of the system to demonstrate its alleged sound quality benefits. If it actually produced appreciable benefits why wouldn't he allow this to happen?
My own assessment of MQA has concluded the majority of differences I heard were due to different mastering / replay conditions. I essentially ignore MQA, it's a complication I don't need.
Last edited:
Not have the tech background to respond to this I would have what is to me a common sense answer/question.
Now if you were to start with any 24/192 recording, do the fold/unfold thing, then compare that to the original file, If the deblurschit process is working it's magic the file should both sound different and measure different.
How do you determine if this is a "benefit" ?
Yes it's different, but if different from the original master file, how can that possibly be considered an improvement except in a subjective ( but less than accurate) way? That's not what the producer heard at the console?
You can compare to an analogue mastertape, so you have your reference. MQA version will either sound noticeably closer to the original tape or not.
You can't do this with directly digitally recorded material as you don't know what it sounds like prior to going though an ADC.
You can't do this with directly digitally recorded material as you don't know what it sounds like prior to going though an ADC.
If you can run multiple loops through digits->DAC->analog->ADC->digits->DAC-> (repeats) and not be able to discern differences between the iterations (seems like that's been demonstrated somewhere here), then where does the "don't know what it sounds like prior to going though an ADC" fit into the picture?
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2018
- Messages
- 6,652
- Likes
- 9,406
Does anybody know for sure whether MQA streamed audio is watermarked by the major labels?
Agreed, but this is simply what you would theoretically do in a pure test.
Yes, it can be done quite easily using the Bluesound MQA library and my tools from https://code.videolan.org/mansr/mqa.
mansr, just so I understand this. If you started with any 24/192 PCM recording, did the MQA folding thing, and then used your tools, the resultant file would be bit perfect identical to the original PCM file?
Of course not. MQA is a lossy process. What you get is exactly what an MQA DAC would be sending into its chip without any additional losses from an analogue loop.
- Status
