MQA: A Review of controversies, concerns, and cautions

[LF78]

No need to involve an analogue step. Here's the spectrum of an MQA-CD file, the same file after decoding, and the high-res original:
View attachment 35310

This is very interesting. Any analysis or data about the added - noise? - above 15 kHz?

 

[MOCKBA]

People can't hear a sound with frequencies above 20,000 Hz.When listening to a personal music system with stock earphones at a maximum volume, the sound generated can reach a level of over 100 dBA, loud enough to begin causing permanent damage after just 15 minutes per day! A clap of thunder from a nearby storm (120 dB) or a gunshot (140-190 dB, depending on weapon), can both cause immediate damage. Why people want something above CD quality ( 44,100 Hz and 16bit )? I can see the following reasons:
1. Knowing that I have something better than others make me feel good (it is the reason that most music in my collection recorded with 96KHz/24bit, or 2,8 MHz/1bit or better)
2. Quality of modern filters isn't so good, so up sampling make them work better

MQA is a way of scientifically deceiving people giving them poor quality music with possibility of correct it using a special DAC. I wouldn't use MQA even if it was offered for free.

More interesting how Apple will manage the situation. They always prefer to create own technologies, like own OS, own programming language, own MP3 and FLAC formats, own video format... So licensing MQA or purchasing a patent are not options. More likely Apple will just ignore MQA.

 

[RayDunzl]

So licensing MQA or purchasing a patent are not options.

Apple might have bought a couple of patents along the way...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Apple#Acquisitions

 

[Eirikur]

More interesting how Apple will manage the situation. They always prefer to create own technologies, like own OS, own programming language ...

Apple usually steals 3/4 and then creates some stuff of their own... for example, Apple used FreeBSD and Mach as the basis for Darwin (which underpins MacOS and iOS), i.e. they had a fully fledged and stable UNIX + real-time kernel to start with.
In the best Apple style they take from the community, but don't give (much) back.

PS: I used to develop database applications running on FreeBSD + SolidDB back in the 1990s, it was rock solid but rather spartan. Still, all X utilities worked and it was even able to support the (then) big-ass 19" Cornerstone grayscale monitor with its own proprietary ISA videocard. Razor-sharp images of 1600x1200 at 85Hz refresh rate.

 

[Sal1950]

In the best Apple style they take from the community, but don't give (much) back.

I remember way back when, there was much talk about the Safari browser build would trickle down to the Linux platforms, but we saw little of it.

 

[krabapple]

Well, I did not show you the previous attempts where I failed. But once I find a spot that is different, then everything falls in place.

Ding ding ding. There you go again.

Now how does that relate to 'hearing a difference' when you don't zoom in on a 'spot' and A/B it over and over , possibly at elevated level, until you can reliably hear one? How does it relate to a typical 'audiophile's claim, say, Robert Harley's, to be able to hear such differences upon first exposure, without going through your procedure?

 

[Sal1950]

How does it relate to a typical 'audiophile's claim, say, Robert Harley's, to be able to hear such differences upon first exposure, without going through your procedure?

Baloney that sells magazines.

 

[krabapple]

Bob Stuart is an authority. Don't confuse reality with high-school debating logic. You best download his peer-reviewed papers and read and learn from them.

Bob Stuart at this point is a salesman. His scientific rep started taking a hit around the time he published the flimsy "Coding for High-Resolution Audio Systems" in JAES in 2004 -- basically a FUD treatise in support of his 'hi rez' business ventures. Which publication btw caused a fair bit of consternation and dissent among fellow JAES members.

A peer reviewed paper can still be wrong. Or poorly peer reviewed. No scientist actually argues 'well, it's in a peer reviewed paper, therefore authoritative/right'. Laughably far from it. How many scientific conferences have you attended lately?

 

[krabapple]

Agreed, but we can't discount the stereo hi-rez releases that have been remastered by some wizards like Steven Wilson. The increase in SQ could have been just as easily done on a Redbook CD, but the tag of HiRez sells product.

Wilson doesn't do mastering ( or re-mastering). He does remixing. Then someone else masters it for release on consumer media. Or not, in which case you get a 'flat' release of the mixdown master (or original master tape). I.e., nothing done to it after mixdown.

I find his 5.1 remixing track record spotty at best. And his 2-channel remixes rarely if ever 'replace' the originals in my hearing.

 

[Sal1950]

I find his 5.1 remixing track record spotty at best. And his 2-channel remixes rarely if ever 'replace' the originals in my hearing.

Simply a matter of subjective preference, not an absolute result.

 

[krabapple]

You may not care what they're called, I do. If something is described as HiRes, but can't possibly be, then that's fraud, and I don't want to be taken in by fraud. Words and their precise meaning matters to me a lot.

S.

What is hi rez anyway? Anything above a certain threshold of measured performance?

Releases sourced from analog tape, with its inherent noise, euphonic distortion, and other measurable deficits in comparison to even CD rate digital -- can they be called 'hi rez'? Ditto anything released on vinyl?

 

[DonH56]

Picked up a pair of "hi-res" reading glasses at Wal-Mart. Total rip-off, tiny little print on the back of the BD box is still hard to read.

 

[scott wurcer]

Ding ding ding. There you go again.

Now how does that relate to 'hearing a difference' when you don't zoom in on a 'spot' and A/B it over and over

I've seen this before and have to give some level of agreement. The extreme example is the noise floor cheat for 16 vs 24bit quantization. We, at least I, don't listen to a song for a single incidental rim click on a drum kit to have an exact presentation.

As for Bob Stuart, he is a smart accomplished guy. I wouldn't think of judging his decisions but personally I would not feel fulfilled professionally engaging in such an enterprise that does not IMO advance the SOTA in any useful way. Some may not know that the major IC manufacturer's (I assume all or most) were approached by the music industry to hard code DRM in all DAC's and A/D's, they got the one finger salute.

 

[GrimSurfer]

Picked up a pair of "hi-res" reading glasses at Wal-Mart. Total rip-off, tiny little print on the back of the BD box is still hard to read.

Maybe you didn't buy the optional long arms. They pass the objectivity test by measuring longer. They work, even though they look kind of goofy (failed in subjective testing).

 

[Sal1950]

What is hi rez anyway? Anything above a certain threshold of measured performance?

Releases sourced from analog tape, with its inherent noise, euphonic distortion, and other measurable deficits in comparison to even CD rate digital -- can they be called 'hi rez'? Ditto anything released on vinyl?

Agreed, I still support Mark Waldrep's position that the only true Hi Rez are digital recordings that were captured from the mic's using something better then Redbooks 16/44.1 and kept that way thru the entire production chain to the listeners source. Anything that started with anything less than that is NOT a High Resolution recording, It's just it's source placed in a big bit bucket, so what?

 

[HammerSandwich]

Picked up a pair of "hi-res" reading glasses at Wal-Mart. Total rip-off, tiny little print on the back of the BD box is still hard to read.

My father also had trouble with those. I improved them after a week or so... by removing the factory sticker from the lens.

 

[splattened]

Well it can be hard when guys have their shorts hiked up , on the belt line is fine in this case but @amirm did stray low with one , keep them up champ! .

Any more of that and I will be forced to take a point off

I'm not caught up on the thread yet. I'm just wondering if you ban Amir from the forum, do you do the measurements then or how does that work?

 

[bidn]

On the other hand, it is entirely possible that a) MQA enabled Tidal to get into high-res streaming and b) that prompted Amazon and Qobuz to get into the same (without MQA) to compete with Tidal. In that sense, it has done us great good, not the other way around.

For info.:
Re. Qobuz, this is not the case. They are the first to have streamed high-res, having done so already for a few years here in Europe (and always in lossless manner unlike MQA) .

 

[LuckyLuke575]

Agreed, I still support Mark Waldrep's position that the only true Hi Rez are digital recordings that were captured from the mic's using something better then Redbooks 16/44.1 and kept that way thru the entire production chain to the listeners source. Anything that started with anything less than that is NOT a High Resolution recording, It's just it's source placed in a big bit bucket, so what?

I don't know about microphones, but taking a 192 / 24 sample of a 15 ips master recording tape qualifies as high res in my book.

 

[Julf]

I don't know about microphones, but taking a 192 / 24 sample of a 15 ips master recording tape qualifies as high res in my book.

And what is the benefit of a 192 kHz sample rate with material that only goes to 24 kHz or so, and with a SNR lower than the 16 bit range?