My eye likes the rectangular dither...
-
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
restorer-john
Grand Contributor
AudioSceptic
Major Contributor
Thanks. I wasn't arguing against MQA per se. I was arguing against current hi-res in general, with MQA as an "add-on".Well, things are less clear here. Prior to MQA being rolled out, Bob Stuart and crew published peer-reviewed research/double blind tests showed that people could tell the difference (to P<0.05) that if you resampled the high-res file to 44.1 kHz, the effect could be audible. Therefore, their mission became preserving the high sample rate, not because people could hear ultrasonics, but because filters could impact the audible band.
Bob took this to another level then saying "timing" in audio matters and therefore if you can preserve 192 kHz sampling, you should. Don't ask me to defend this bit because I can't.
There is also some conjugate filtering which in practice doesn't seem to be in use.
My position in all of this is different. If a file is available in 24/96 kHz, I want it before someone tries to convert it to 16/44.1. I have no need for their conversion. That conversion is lossy of course so all this talk about MQA being lossy is for not. My other hope was that high-res audio would come without loudness compression. In some of the AB tests of MQA to no-MQA content, it is clear to me they have access to better masters than what is already released. That, makes an indisputable difference in fidelity.
Indeed, I know of no one who has made it their mission to try to encode high-res content for us as MQA has. They are likely spending some effort to try to find better masters at times if what I heard in demos is true.
Anyway, I get MQA for free in Tidal. Roon decodes it for me for free as well. Someone wants to cry that I am getting ripped off, doesn't have a leg to stand on.
You say that (2) could be due to filter effects and not to genuine audibility of > 22 kHz content, and this was in a test with, it seems, some contentious conditions. Where does that leave my other assertions? I really want someone to show me I'm wrong.
I'm not against all hi-res, just against the illogic of 24 bits x 96 k, or the even more absurd 192 k. I'm for a realistic standard of 20 bits x 64 k. Enough to contain everything we can hear, plus a bit of "slack", and lots of passband for gentle anti-aliasing filters. Few recordings even properly exploit the CD standard, so I'm being optimistic, I know, but 20 x 64 k is only ~1.8x CD bit-rate so it's a modest increase in file size/streaming rates.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,696
- Likes
- 37,430
If you amplify to the point you can hear the noise floor, triangular and shaped are much 'nicer'. Without including varying level you also miss the audible noise floor modulation of rectangular dither.
When you've painted yourself into a corner, your only way out is by digging.
Again, irrelevant argument by appeal to authority. Who’s claiming he’s not a good engineer?
Doesn’t mean his product is a quality product, or that his marketing is honest, and that his market goals are good for the music buying public.
MQA’s marketing has been what most would call either purposely unclear or downright deceptive, including both outright falsehoods and half truths designed to deceive the public. Look at their web site today: it still claims that unlike MP3, MQA delivers “100%” of the music. Clearly to most people that means “lossless”. Which isn’t true. The MQA versions of 24/352 files (2L) are 17/88, and of 24/384 are 17/96.
I can give more examples, but you’ll just reject them out of hand, because Bob is such a respected engineer.
Do you listen with your eyes?
Personally, I'm more interested in real-world content, not artificial test signals.
How about some nice slow fadeouts? And what about the modulation distortion rectangular dither creates?
Meridian advises to use triangular dither, why not rectangular if it looks so much better? And how do they know that rectangular dither is the typical type used by manufacturers?
I think that if you have to game your tests by referencing 0 dBFS to 120 dB SPL, use special test recordings with full 16-bit dynamic range and use a substandard dither, just to make hi-res audio seem kinda-sorta worth it in marginal percentage of tests, then maybe hi-res really isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Yes, and MQA is about making sure that doesn’t happen.
Thanks. I wasn't arguing against MQA per se. I was arguing against current hi-res in general, with MQA as an "add-on".
You say that (2) could be due to filter effects and not to genuine audibility of > 22 kHz content, and this was in a test with, it seems, some contentious conditions. Where does that leave my other assertions? I really want someone to show me I'm wrong.
I'm not against all hi-res, just against the illogic of 24 bits x 96 k, or the even more absurd 192 k. I'm for a realistic standard of 20 bits x 64 k. Enough to contain everything we can hear, plus a bit of "slack", and lots of passband for gentle anti-aliasing filters. Few recordings even properly exploit the CD standard, so I'm being optimistic, I know, but 20 x 64 k is only ~1.8x CD bit-rate so it's a modest increase in file size/streaming rates.
I like hi-res if it delivers a song closer to the master. Isn’t one of the rationals for delivering music at 24bit/X kHz is because it was mastered at 24bit/X kHz so we get it unmolested and not down-sampled? In my opinion it’s more about that, rather than about being able to hear anything in the ultrasonics or the lower registers of the dynamic range. MQA is molesting the file.
Amirm's solution to this predicament was to paint himself red ha ha
Amirm has just asked me to ask a Ukrainian IT company to look into firedogs internet search history ..
"Impeach impeach"
"Impeach impeach"
restorer-john
Grand Contributor
Steve H
Member
You probably should look at the audited financial statements. For 2008 and 2009 they show 148 and 142 employees. And related party transactions are disclosed.
AudioSceptic
Major Contributor
Monty says it better than I ever could. <https://xiph.org/video/>. Even if you're OK with the increased (wasted?) file size, the losses might be greater than any gains you might expect from being supposedly closer to the original master.
To me MQA is a distraction, a side-show. Digital audio has become like vinyl. That belongs in another thread, though.
AudioSceptic
Major Contributor
OT but great series 'Hatton Garden'. Timothy Spall was epic.
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2018
- Messages
- 1,137
- Likes
- 1,498
Nah, you argue about MQA until that paint's dry.
OP
- Joined
- May 24, 2016
- Messages
- 643
- Likes
- 2,408
- Thread Starter
- #1,079
Hey folks, I originally posted the link to @Archimago 's article to have a technical/scientific discussion on MQA. Is this not an audio science forum?
Are there any further technical analysis of MQA that can be shared? Has there been any scientific analysis that refutes any of Archimago's and @mansr measurements? Can any of these experiments be repeated by others with gear? I want to see measurements and graphs! (Thanks @RayDunzl for contributing). This is why I come here.
How about more audio science and less...
Are there any further technical analysis of MQA that can be shared? Has there been any scientific analysis that refutes any of Archimago's and @mansr measurements? Can any of these experiments be repeated by others with gear? I want to see measurements and graphs! (Thanks @RayDunzl for contributing). This is why I come here.
How about more audio science and less...
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,696
- Likes
- 37,430
Last edited:
- Status
