This is the central piont in your misunderstanding. Timing !I am simply in favor of progress.
And the time domain is now being addressed and optimised by MQALabs. See also my avatar
Did you read the link about CD systems and timing ?
-
Welcome to ASR. 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 Update
- Thread starter Steve H
- Start date
Did you read the link about CD systems and timing ?
Can't you answer on your own? Or just use AI or cut and paste from the Stuart and Craven paper like PV is doing if you are unable to use your own words..
Minimum phase filters like QRONO uses cause the high frequencies are played at the wrong time relative to low frequencies.
Figure 1 vs Figure 2 are linear phase vs minimum phase impulse responses, nothing more. I don't understand why the re-invention of minimum phase and noise shaping is worth even discussing or paying for. These were known and used for decades.
A minimum phase filter is not a proper reconstruction filter for DACs since it destroys phase response of the originally sampled waveform. It keeps the frequency response the same, but timing is changed throughout the bandwidth by introducing variable group delay (@NTK mentioned it earlier). Other than eliminating the initial delay that's produced by linear-phase FIR filters (and possibly the simplicity of implementation), there's no real benefit to minimum phase filters in a DAC. They are provably (mathematically) worse reconstruction filters than linear-phase FIR.
The pre-ringing that's touted by audiophiles and MQA/Lenbrook isn't present in a properly band-limited signal. What's more, there's no evidence that pre-ringing (if it is audible at all) sounds worse than post-ringing. Post-ringing in minimum phase results in a time "smear" that's twice as long as the "smear" of a linear-phase filter. All this FUD about pre-ringing is based on visuals of impulse responses of the two types of filters.
Curiously, I just added a feature to DeltaWave to undo the effect of a minimum phase filter in a recording. Should I call this anti-MQA or anti-QRONO?
It’s the post recording conversion.
Here’s a fair question. Do you hear the difference as they move the setting between -4 to +4?
It’s not the greatest demo since the narrator is talking, but this is again, measurable and testable.
Heck, maybe I should make some
Blind recordings and challenge people to find the flaw in QRONO or determine that there is no difference.
Please, no u-toob videos for doing sound comparisons or any real analysis. Produce some properly processed recordings with and without QRONO and then, let's do a proper comparison. Blind or using software tools designed for this task.
Yes its the optics of seeing the impulse curve with pre ring thats ”unnatural” but it’s hard to understand that this is because of the special test impulse involved which is an instant step afiak . A real sampled and bandwidth limited music signal is never instant it’s always some slope to it ?Figure 1 vs Figure 2 are linear phase vs minimum phase impulse responses, nothing more. I don't understand why the re-invention of minimum phase and noise shaping is worth even discussing or paying for. These were known and used for decades.
A minimum phase filter is not a proper reconstruction filter for DACs since it destroys phase response of the originally sampled waveform. It keeps the frequency response the same, but timing is changed throughout the bandwidth by introducing variable group delay (@NTK mentioned it earlier). Other than eliminating the initial delay that's produced by linear-phase FIR filters (and possibly the simplicity of implementation), there's no real benefit to minimum phase filters in a DAC. They are provably (mathematically) worse reconstruction filters than linear-phase FIR.
The pre-ringing that's touted by audiophiles and MQA/Lenbrook isn't present in a properly band-limited signal. What's more, there's no evidence that pre-ringing (if it is audible at all) sounds worse than post-ringing. Post-ringing in minimum phase results in a time "smear" that's twice as long as the "smear" of a linear-phase filter. All this FUD about pre-ringing is based on visuals of impulse responses of the two types of filters.
Curiously, I just added a feature to DeltaWave to undo the effect of a minimum phase filter in a recording. Should I call this anti-MQA or anti-QRONO?
Because its hard to understand its used in marketing often with quite less post ring thats looks ”good” again with the test impulse .
I should not give the marketing new ideas but why not compare pre ring with tape echo
Edit : marketing deliberately uses the ringing impulse knowing that the marks will think that this actually happens to the music signal.
Due to lay man thinking that transients in music are comparable to these test impulses
Isn't this the video where they had to turn off the comments because the pro community reacted so negatively? For technical reasons but also about outrageous cost for a plugin.
Yes, see @pkane post above.
pogo
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2020
- Messages
- 2,751
- Likes
- 1,114
Is it confirmed that Peter Veth is doing this?
No, but if you read the paper (1st reference given in the Foqus white paper) you can see it is just parroting of that. I don't think PV has a technical background but you could ask him how much training he has on the subject of signals and systems.
What gap in knowledge are you talking about? Can you ever say something specific? I think you don't don't know this stuff well enough to identify another person's gaps in knowledge on the subject. Now prove me wrong if you would like and engage on the points that have been made on this thread. I doubt you will do that.
You're repeating stuff you obviously don't understand. How about we leave that conversation where it is, on the other forum, and you can post your opinions there? You're adding nothing here except for links and quotes to marketing BS posted from the other thread.
How can you judge his knowledge if you lack the knowledge yourself.
pogo
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2020
- Messages
- 2,751
- Likes
- 1,114
I can't see any signs of this and he seems to know the new procedures very well. I haven't seen this knowledge depth anywhere else. But we can leave it at that at this point. Other sources will certainly shed more light on the new technologies for us in the near future.
@boxerfan88
I got banned from the thread.
Last edited:
danadam
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2017
- Messages
- 1,531
- Likes
- 2,399
I find it somewhat funny that some people worry, that the inaudible ringing added by linear-phase filters will somehow change their perception of the music but at the same time they seem to be OK with minimum-phase filters removing the ringing that is part of the genuine signal. (Admittedly though, equally inaudible).
Here's a recording of some Paiste cymbals made at 176.4 kHz sampling rate. The original spectrum around the place of interest looks like this:
So the ringing marked below is the signal itself and not some ringing caused by filters. And here's:
Oh no! Won't it time-smear the sound of the cymbal? Or maybe it makes it better than in real life?
Here's a recording of some Paiste cymbals made at 176.4 kHz sampling rate. The original spectrum around the place of interest looks like this:
So the ringing marked below is the signal itself and not some ringing caused by filters. And here's:
- top: the original file
- middle: band-limited to 20 kHz with linear-phase filter
- bottom: band-limited to 20 kHz with minimum-phase filter
Oh no! Won't it time-smear the sound of the cymbal? Or maybe it makes it better than in real life?
Last edited:
While all for a good technical debate, agree that lobbying is not that. After several complaints and some rule violations, a break from this thread seems in order.
boxerfan88
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2018
- Messages
- 1,333
- Likes
- 1,659
Oh..what happened? Was that just an advisory comment? Or someone got banned from the thread?
Not that this is important news, but if Lenbrook's streaming service does ever launch it looks like they quietly changed plans about being exclusively MQA:
Jan 2025 in https://www.soundstagesimplifi.com/index.php/feature-articles/275-mqas-second-chapter
That’s a big reason why Lenbrook opted not to offer both FLAC and MQA content. “If we were going to replicate the industry’s catalog in both MQA and PCM, that was going to be a lot more expensive for us, and we’d have to pass that cost along,” Jbara explained.
Oct 2025 in https://www.afdigitale.it/mqa-labs-la-nuova-frontiera-del-suono-digitale/
As Mike clarified, the platform will not be limited exclusively to the MQA format:
"The service will accept whatever version the label or rights holder deems best. It won't be exclusively MQA content, but will also integrate PCM audio from any label that prefers to submit that."
Jan 2025 in https://www.soundstagesimplifi.com/index.php/feature-articles/275-mqas-second-chapter
That’s a big reason why Lenbrook opted not to offer both FLAC and MQA content. “If we were going to replicate the industry’s catalog in both MQA and PCM, that was going to be a lot more expensive for us, and we’d have to pass that cost along,” Jbara explained.
Oct 2025 in https://www.afdigitale.it/mqa-labs-la-nuova-frontiera-del-suono-digitale/
As Mike clarified, the platform will not be limited exclusively to the MQA format:
"The service will accept whatever version the label or rights holder deems best. It won't be exclusively MQA content, but will also integrate PCM audio from any label that prefers to submit that."