In some time, I think I'll do a null test using real top performing DAC to compare different versions of same recordings. And I think I'll use pkane's DeltaWave software. Whenever I have the time to do.
It could have trivially done that as well. But the market doesn't want that. The market wants the files as created in the "studio" as that sounds like it is better. What you are saying is why the hotel customer doesn't drink tap water instead of paying $5 for the Fuji bottle on the table. Even if they taste the same, some want the Fiji water thinking they are in a paradise for a minute or two. Don't change the value prop and then ask why they did this. They did it because there is market demand.
Actually, I participated in a blind water testing a few years ago at university. It was part of a presentation on the subject of "green washing", so not really a controlled study or something like that. The waters were in identical plastic glasses. However, you really could differentiate the different waters, especially the Fiji water. A lot of participants in the audience could point out which one was the Fiji water. But to this day I have never bought a Fiji water, so that's that.That's an apt analogy, but your analysis is incorrect. The expensive bottle water demand wasn't addressed. It was invoked by the beverage industry who created the demand. There's no health benefit to it for consumers over inexpensive bottled water. But the beverage industry makes money off of it. And I wonder how many people have done blind tasting tests to see if they can tell the difference between the more expensive bottle water and less expensive brands?
New member here, involved in a long running parallel thread on pinkfishmedia.
I think this simple look can elucidate the great lossy/lossless debate. We are leaving MQA's "deblurring" process out for now, since this a separate debate/controversy.
Let's put some numbers on the distortion expected in the types of codecs helpfully explained by Amir. In engineering, a useful excercise is called "order of magnitude analysis." It allows one to get approximate understanding of system behavior.
Mathematically Lossless Codec:
Mathematically perfect algorithm running on a real-world computer and network, will still have an error once in a great while. Let's pick a really tiny value - 1 in a billion or 1E-9. This results in the error against the original file of -180dB. Great performance!
Lossy codec:
Let's stipulate a very good algorithm that delivers an error of 1/10 of 1% or 0.001. This results in the error against the original file -60dB. Not bad at all!
MQA:
From graphs posted at PFM and elsewhere, "eyeball" MQA null against LPCM looks like -120dB, or 1 in a million (1E-6). This is clearly better than an excellent lossy codec but clearly not as good as mathematically lossless one.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1o79kijUug1Rg3Ne0aHM35oibMMPbWRK6/view?usp=drivesdk
(Red and Blue curves used for conservatively deriving 120dB number. Yellow vs. Green maybe more relevant and seem to overlap up to 35 KHz even more. If properly averaged and weighted the final number is likely to be smaller - i.e better null).
Let's consider what above numbers mean in the context of consumer audio replay:
Leaving aside a question of when do deviations become audible, one still needs a sound system that has amplification with low enough distortion and noise to actually playback these differences.
I own modern amplifiers with very low distortion and very high power - Emotiva XPA-1 gen.2. Their specifications list Signal to Noise at 89 dB at 1 watt and 117dB at full power (600w). Let's take an average of 103dB. Added distortion, though very small (-80dB), will make the total number worse.
So on my very low distortion system, I could at least theoretically be able to hear distortion in the lossy codec. However, both mathematically lossless and MQA distortion will be below the system's noise/distortion floor and, therefore, inaudible.
They will be entirely indistinguishable from one another to the listener and are, therefore, identical. The big debate about MQA lossy/lossless status is entirely meaningless for consumer reproduction.
I note that a lot of MQA criticism is essentially someone showing you some hard to see plots and insinuating that *something* is bad. In engineering we call it "arm waving." Once you put some numbers on the observed phenomena and place it in the context of actual system operational usage, one can make informed conclusions. Simple excercise above shows that mathematically lossless and MQA are identical in the context of home listening.
I welcome mansr and others to offer a competing simple analysis that challenges above numbers in a meaningful and substantial way.
It could have trivially done that as well. But the market doesn't want that. The market wants the files as created in the "studio" as that sounds like it is better. What you are saying is why the hotel customer doesn't drink tap water instead of paying $5 for the Fuji bottle on the table. Even if they taste the same, some want the Fiji water thinking they are in a paradise for a minute or two. Don't change the value prop and then ask why they did this. They did it because there is market demand.
Yes - but you need to continue the analogy. If you were the founder and operator of a web site called Water Science Review and your entire purpose was running scientific tests on different brands of water and you found that the $5 premium water bottles contained water that was no purer - and in some cases even less pure - than tap water from properly designed, properly maintained municipal systems, you would say so.
And when members of your forum pointed out the flaws in those premium water brands' claims, you certainly wouldn't dismiss those flaws as unimportant and claim that your members were raising them only because they were ignorant and didn't understand the water market.
not to want to comment on MQA's filtering
Ay?I can't defend their choice of slow roll off filter.
"24/0.2", where did you get this formula from? AFAIK the null between -24.0 dBFS and -24.2 dBFS signals is at -56.86 dBFS.the differences look to be really small, a fraction of a dB. [...] I chose 0.2dB as representative. Taking the relatively low signal frequency of ~5000Hz, the level is ~ -24dB. 24/0.2=120.
this is not the same at all to be honest, it's more like comparing distilled water to chlorinated water and saying that both are completely healthy, and are both absolutely clean from life threatening germs. but distilled water is obviously the 'clean lossless' version.
Disclaimer here: don’t drink distilled water, it’s not healthy and can cause dehydration
Obviously.. just don’t want people to get crazy ideas.. we know where it leadsI just used it because of his description of water purity, it's the purist water there is.
Disclaimer here: don’t drink distilled water, it’s not healthy and can cause dehydration
Horrifying and hilarious at the same time. Thank you for spending the time and effort to transcribe all of that.I saw a number of points/questions written about things that I'd see referenced in MQA's material (including how they treat the various ranges being discussed on this page). So I figure, why not go straight to their videos on YT and see what they have to say, so we're talking apples to apples, here, and in a format that is easily readable and provides direct quotes.
Transcribing some of Bob Stuart's answers from a recent YouTube video posted May 1, 2021:
MQA (Master Quality Authenticated) explained (sponsored): youtube.com/watch?v=8L8Vo8_gKQQ
(Bob Stuart)
06:03+:
7:29+
8:21+
14:02+
MQA – An Introduction: youtube.com/watch?v=3i69U69pqu0
(Spencer Chrislu)
What is MQA?
What is the science behind MQA?
What is blurring?
What makes MQA such a small file?
What is authentication?
MQA Music Origami: youtube.com/watch?v=BrgjycGhoSM
(Bob Stuart)
MQA - Ringing and Filters: youtube.com/watch?v=drv9ESli5yI
(Bob Stuart)
From MQA's previous version of "Is MQA Lossless?" https://web.archive.org/web/20210515030602/https://www.mqa.co.uk/newsroom/qa/is-mqa-lossless
It has been since updated to:
With the elaboration:
this is not the same at all to be honest, it's more like comparing distilled water to chlorinated water and saying that both are completely healthy, and are both absolutely clean from life threatening germs. but distilled water is obviously the 'clean lossless' version.
and when MQA says they're better than lossless they are indeed better (not necessarily to the consumers) because they're smaller and easier to maintain on servers and give perceptually the same thing anyway.
but when they advertised their chlorinated water as distilled water that's a big no no. even if it is in practice no harm done.
No it doesn't sound like MQA. Demand for high-res audio has existed for decades. Remember SACD and DVD-A formats? They died and got replaced with lossy audio online. Fidelity went down instead of up. Tidal took the initiative to push high-res online and did so with MQA. That likely had an influence on big guys trying to now offer high-res. And they are offering it without MQA. So no way you can put the market demand at the feet of MQA. They are providing a solution just like MPEG-2 AAC did by enabling high sample rates and bit depths decades back. And unlike Fiji water, they are not trying to charge $5 for a penny worth of water. People selling massive DSD and PCM files online are doing that to some extent and again, without MQA.That's an apt analogy, but your analysis is incorrect. The expensive bottle water demand wasn't addressed. It was invoked by the beverage industry who created the demand. There's no health benefit to it for consumers over inexpensive bottled water. But the beverage industry makes money off of it. And I wonder how many people have done blind tasting tests to see if they can tell the difference between the more expensive bottle water and less expensive brands?
Sounds like MQA, right? MQA created the demand. And there's no benefit to consumers, but MQA is certainly going to make their money off it.
No it doesn't sound like MQA. Demand for high-res audio has existed for decades. Remember SACD and DVD-A formats? They died and got replaced with lossy audio online. Fidelity went down instead of up. Tidal took the initiative to push high-res online and did so with MQA. That likely had an influence on big guys trying to now offer high-res. And they are offering it without MQA. So no way you can put the market demand at the feet of MQA. They are providing a solution just like MPEG-2 AAC did by enabling high sample rates and bit depths decades back. And unlike Fiji water, they are not trying to charge $5 for a penny worth of water. People selling massive DSD and PCM files online are doing that to some extent and again, without MQA.
MQA's pitch is that it is a more efficient way of doing the delivery.
Huh? I just showed you how MQA cuts file size substantially relative to Flac:If MQA is sonically identical for all intents and purposes, then two questions naturally present themselves:
- Is there any non-sonic reason to prefer MQA over other formats? In other words, do we need MQA?
- Is there any non-sonic reason that MQA might actually be actively detrimental? In other words, does MQA create problems for music consumers that could be effectively addressed if MQA disappeared?
To the first question, your analysis clearly shows that the answer is No - we don't need MQA. It solves a problem that doesn't exist, it produces none of the audible benefits MQA (the company) claims for it, and so on.
You just demonstrated why. We keep reading these talking points the anti-MQA camp has put together as if they are true and well-researched. They are not in the slightest.Now, for whatever reason, Amir has chosen to take all of these objections to MQA and lump them under the heading of "people who are not in the industry waving their hands and not understanding how the business works and not understanding technology." That is not a persuasive argument, and I'm honestly mystified as to why he is so insistent on making it.
I have not done controlled testing of undecoded MQA versus original to know the sonic effect. Objectively it is a degradation.Can you please clarify whether or not you think undecoded MQA is an acceptable or desirable format for digital music delivery for hi-fi purposes?
Huh? I just showed you how MQA cuts file size substantially relative to Flac:
The MQA version maintains the music content instead of all the ultrasonic noise and is able to achieve much better compression ratio. And contrary to what someone says, it is absolutely comparable to 176 kHz because there is nothing to encode above 88 kHz so it just does a resample to get the DAC to play at that sample rate.
You didn't just go through downloading those files to see the large difference in wait time as I did. Try to download some of the monstrosities out there like DSD256. We are talking insane file sizes there. MQA convinces the high-res seeking audiophiles that MQA is all they need. If they succeed it means that we don't have to distribute those insane file sizes for high sample rate PCM and DSD. This is pro consumer and pro music distributors. It is the reason MQA has gotten the design wins it has.
Your premise that MQA is sonically the same is also incorrect and not backed by any science. As I post, Stuart et. al. published peer reviewed paper that demonstrated audibility of filtering high sample rates to lower. You don't have anything like that. So no way you can make that claim.
You just demonstrated why. We keep reading these talking points the anti-MQA camp has put together as if they are true and well-researched. They are not in the slightest.
Then comes the bit about me. You do realize that all of my dashboard tests for DACs uses 24-bit signals, yes? If I did not, the highest SINAD would be 97 dB! Look at my SINAD graph:
The cut off for orange to green is 100 dB. If I used 16 bit format, nothing to the left of the orange bucket would exist and part of that bucket would be truncated as well. All the work that is put in there to achieve transparency and reduce noise and distortion would be thrown out the window. As much as I advocate best in class hardware execution, I also advocate best in class content format and 16 bit 44.1 is NOT it. It never has been.
Anyone who wants to make these arguments needs to first get educated by reading and understanding Bob Stuart's paper I cited before:
Coding for High-Resolution Audio Systems*
J. ROBERT STUART, AES Fellow
And pay attention to graphs like this:
View attachment 132753
You see how threshold of hearing is exceeded with 16 bit content? See how the threshold of hearing is there which is created using psychoacoustic research and listening tests?
Is 16/44.1 'good enough?' Sure. It is. So is a $9 dongle. We could close the forum and that will be that. But personally I like us to strive for excellence. It costs nothing in most cases. Why on earth do we make content owners filter down 24 bit to 16 bit for example? What possible need is there for them to continue to do that in the age of online delivery as opposed to fixed CD standard?
Most video production is done at 48 kHz. Why do we force that converted to 16 bit if we want to release that soundtrack?
A 16 bit/44.1 kHz channel was wonderful and great for its time in CD. It was a massive improvement over analog formats. But time has come to let go of it and let the original content be delivered. If it is PCM format, I take it. If it comes in MQA, I take it. I feel better either way knowing that someone in some place did some format conversion that was a) never documented and b) who knows if it is optimal.
Bottom line, you have built a bunch of arguments on faulty, non-researched positions. Don't use them as assumptions and then run with them. This has been the problem from day one on these MQA arguments. Learn the topic and don't run with talking points. Above all, don't repeat them over and over again when they have been addressed.