Assuming that it would be a degradation. And it almost certainly wouldn't be. Because it's snake oil. But we all know that some people will buy snake oil. It looks like Bluesound have.
They might be measurements, might just be illustrations, hard to say. You'll notice they don't mention any actual DUT for these graphs.
I assume they're at least mostly real despite the former doubtful comment.
They aren't that meaningful. You could say they're reducing post-ringing of filters by about 50%. However, you'll notice we're already in the microsecond regime for the "problematic" implementations. Consider that the decay time for in-room sound from speakers is already 1000 times longer than this on a good day.
Impulse responses of DACs aren't that interesting because the frequency response tends to be really flat anyway. He does show step response measurements for speakers... you can see how long the decay takes from a really exceptional specimen like the Neumann KH120:
There are a lot of people who want nothing to do with MQA, so I would have guessed they would try harder to please a wider market.
Oh crap, I didn't even catch that the time axis was in microseconds. And we're measuring speaker response in milliseconds. Yeah... chances of this being an audible problem is pretty close to nil.
I read this via the Node Icon thread.
It's possible that unlike old MQA, which seemed to pretty much always use the same filter despite the "set" that was provided to it, this time round they might have managed to implement different filters for different inputs. Old MQA was supposed to be able to switch filters in real time via metadata, remember? - but then, nobody ever saw that behaviour in the field, that I remember. So if we're lucky, we may get a sharp filter for standard resolution files anyway.
Actually it points in the opposite direction. If they were confident of the benefits of QRONO, they'd make it defeatable and let you do the comparison for yourself. If I was trying to sell a new technology under the discredited MQA banner that actually worked, I'd actually go further and build a blind AB preference test into the device.
Doesn't Figure 4 in the white paper give away how Qrono will handle 44K, 48K?
That would be assuming that the filter they are describing even gets used for handling those rates. In old MQA, the vast majority of conversions from those rates, at least, used exactly the same default filter as the higher rate files. I wouldn't trust the "white paper" as a real world descriptor of anything.
I didn’t realise that! Do you have links to more info?
www.musicbusinessworldwide.com
FWIW the Qrono filter in the Figure 4 of the white paper is very much the same as Roon's "Smooth, minimum phase" upsampling filter. So nothing you can't do without having Qrono (not that I would want to use such a filter). For filter choices applied to high sample rate files, does it really matter?
MQA's latest audio technology aims to reduce timing issues and put the soul back into your music
Qrono d2a arrives alongside Qrono dsdwww.whathifi.com
Trying to rise from the dead.
Here's hoping!
That's not a very scientific way of looking at a new technology
We don't know that it is a new technology yet, though. It appears to just be the old MQA filter switching "deblurring" stuff - that was hardly even used in old MQA - if the so called "White Paper" is anything to go by.That's not a very scientific way of looking at a new technology
I once wrote an post about this on ASR and unfortunately I can no longer find it. In one case, MQA was tested with a setup that still had bugs in the implementation of MQA and a firmware update was then made available after the measurements.
With their track record I'm not at all willing to give them any benefit of the doubt. They were so desiring of obsequious presentations in how they told us what MQA was doing. I'm willing to give them nothing. I'll assume they are still trying to repackage the same old crap one more time I'll assume that until someone proves otherwise.
I don't remember seeing that post. But are you prepared to challenge Archimago's measurements made with a mature DAC, or the portion of GoldenSound's work that didn't fall foul of his misunderstanding (which turned out to be shared by many others, of course) of what MQA actually did with its mechanism and lossy signal?
I used the Advanced Search, checking by year back to before your join date, for "MQA" and "firmware". Unless you managed to write a post about MQA and a firmware update on this forum, without using either of the terms MQA and firmware, either you did not write that post on this forum, or it was caught up in some of the deletions of posts in a couple of MQA threads that turned bad.