Question about filters - MQA vs Hi-Res?

[mansr]

Then how do you describe this process? Duplicating the original samples without changing the amplitude values? If there is a technical term for it please name it.

You already said it: zero-order hold.

 

[ezra_s]

why ask, just let your ears tell you the difference.

There are a few files of all formats here you can download and test how it sounds or if you can hear differences:

http://www.2l.no/hires/

 

[Veri]

why ask, just let your ears tell you the difference.

There are a few files of all formats here you can download and test how it sounds or if you can hear differences:

http://www.2l.no/hires/

People can't seem to hear a difference with hi-res and downsampled hi-res, at all. The master is what matters.
https://reddit.com/r/audiophile/comments/6bh94e/why_24192_music_downloads_are_very_silly_indeed/
citing article https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

 

[bennetng]

why ask, just let your ears tell you the difference.

There are a few files of all formats here you can download and test how it sounds or if you can hear differences:

http://www.2l.no/hires/

What if the differences are audible, but unrelated to filtering?
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,111416.0.html

 

[Veri]

What if the differences are audible, but unrelated to filtering?
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,111416.0.html

Now that's odd. Almost like they're botched on purpose.

 

[ezra_s]

What if the differences are audible, but unrelated to filtering?
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,111416.0.html

different sources I'd say

 

[MalinYamato]

I am on the fence to invest in MQA, but have heard critics against MQA. Is it a marketing trick in order to incorporate DRM as they say? To include DRM on masters makes sense, but that MQA solely is based on requirement from music producers to incorporate DRM on their high-res sources seems unlikely, as other providers offer or plan to offer streams with the same resolution or higher without something like MQA without any complaints from music providers of master grade sources. For those who may receive 1080p and multichannel audio (H.264 + AAC ) streams there should be no issues to receive FLACs with higher resolution than 1,4m. So why bothering with MQA? My wild guess is that Tidal chose to adopt MQA to lower computational and outbound bandwidth cost. But, what will happen to MQA as such costs diminishes -- is it a thorn bird that sings and dies sooner than we may imagine? Lossless FLAC and ALAC purists go banana over everything that is lossy even though there is no perceived degradation in sound, yet so far I haven't heard of anyone who in a scientific and understandable way has pointed out flaws in the MQA specification or design, certainly not in the implementation. I am hoping for a guru on this site to pick up the ball and evaluate/review MQA as scientifically as Amir does with evaluating amps and dacs. If there is a problem with an audible significance, it would be valuable to know before omitting to MQA what causes the problem and where (in the specification, firmware or hardware): also whether the merits of using MQA is greater than the demerits of problems it introduces.

 

[mansr]

The bandwidth argument is bogus since MQA doesn't actually save anything compared to plain FLAC. Some files even get bigger.

 

[MalinYamato]

The bandwidth argument is bogus since MQA doesn't actually save anything compared to plain FLAC. Some files even get bigger.

Is it really so even after truncation of inaudible parts?

 

[mansr]

Is it really so even after truncation of inaudible parts?

You don't need MQA to do that.

 

[MalinYamato]

You don't need MQA to do that.

I am very curious about alternative, possibly more efficient, algorithms than what is being applied to output format according to the MQA specification. Do you have any in mind?

 

[mansr]

I am very curious about alternative, possibly more efficient, algorithms than what is being applied to output format according to the MQA specification. Do you have any in mind?

MQA discards everything above 48 kHz. There are free tools that do the same thing.

 

[MalinYamato]

Hey all,

So - I posted a thread a couple of weeks or so ago inquiring about potential DAC choices if selling the one I have to fund an MQA-compatible DAC, as I was using Tidal. I'm now giving the free trial of Qobuz a try to decide which service I want to stick with (so far, Qobuz has a few desired titles that Tidal does not, which is a plus), but noticed that Qobuz streams FLAC 24/96 instead of MQA.

Doing a bit of side-by-side comparing, there were a few MQA versions I actually liked the sound of a bit more than the 24/96 streams, but with some others, there was no real audible difference I could detect - I realize this is purely subjective, but I thought the MQA versions of stuff I preferred sounded a bit "warmer", or more lively (but both being great).

I found a technical article about how MQA works, and what caught my attention was something about how MQA uses a filter that supposedly reduces a "ringing" effect caused in all other digital audio formats when the analog waveform is reconstructed.

This has me curious - is this simply BS/marketing jargon for MQA? Don't all DACs use a filter of some type when reconstructing the analog waveform? And therefore, shouldn't it be possible to do anything MQA can (and more, as MQA supposedly isn't a truly lossless format?) with standard Hi-Res files using a filter to suit one's taste?

Just hoping to gain a better understanding of how it all works, and if MQA is all hype?

Thanks!

I am quite surprised about such engineering practices. Is the ringing eliminating filter applied to the signal prior compression and transmission or worse attached to XMOS?

 

[MalinYamato]

Well, in addition to the posts here, I did some digging through the MQA thread that was shared, and have come up with the following thoughts

- Any audible differences I may have heard between an MQA version of a track on Tidal versus its Qobuz counterpart (using the same DAC) would more than likely be a difference in the masters used than anything else.

- MQA doesn't appear to offer any real advantage to the consumer over existing digital formats, particularly as internet/phone technology improves and file size/download speeds become even less of an issue (if it's not that way already).

Would these be fairly sound conclusions? I'm starting to drop the idea of switching to a DAC that supports MQA - but would it still be worth having a DAC with more filter options? (Mine has 3).

Perhaps MQA was formed at times when

Well, in addition to the posts here, I did some digging through the MQA thread that was shared, and have come up with the following thoughts

- Any audible differences I may have heard between an MQA version of a track on Tidal versus its Qobuz counterpart (using the same DAC) would more than likely be a difference in the masters used than anything else.

- MQA doesn't appear to offer any real advantage to the consumer over existing digital formats, particularly as internet/phone technology improves and file size/download speeds become even less of an issue (if it's not that way already).

Would these be fairly sound conclusions? I'm starting to drop the idea of switching to a DAC that supports MQA - but would it still be worth having a DAC with more filter options? (Mine has 3).

You got a very valid point and as you indicate, hypothetically, the committee that formed MQA could not foresee such a massive increase in bandwidth and corresponding lowering of costs as we have experienced so far.

 

[mansr]

Perhaps MQA was formed at times when

MQA was announced in 2014.

 

[JustAnandaDourEyedDude]

aka Medium Quality Audio? Motives Questionably Authentic? Misrepresented Quality Alterations?

 

[MalinYamato]

aka Medium Quality Audio? Motives Questionably Authentic? Misrepresented Quality Alterations?

There seems to be a fashion to ridicule MQA without providing scientific proofs about weakness in the format or codec.

 

[RayDunzl]

There seems to be a fashion to ridicule MQA without providing scientific proofs about weakness in the format or codec.

Not me, I just ignore it as superfluous.

 

[mansr]

There seems to be a fashion to ridicule MQA without providing scientific proofs about weakness in the format or codec.

What makes you say that? I reverse engineered the decoder and found out quite a lot about how it works. It has been discussed at length here and elsewhere. I'm happy to provide answers to specific questions if you can't find them, but please stop with the silly accusations.

 

[Veri]

There seems to be a fashion to ridicule MQA without providing scientific proofs about weakness in the format or codec.

There seems to be a fashion to defend MQA without providing scientific proofs about it being worth its use as a format or codec, rather than plain lossy or lossless. Why a 'folded' lossy DRM format should exist, the answer is obvious, not for your enjoyment but for the $$$$