Jump to content

MQA Users & Discussion Thread


Guest AndrewC

Recommended Posts

Guest rmpfyf
4 hours ago, eltech said:

@rmpfyf

Can you please explain to me why a conventional oversampling filter  as used in most CD player and DACs is getting such negativity thrown at it?

 

Nothing wrong with beautiful sinc filtering save the pre-ringing, which for many is audible. It's not the average ripple state, it's how it's employed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Guest rmpfyf
2 hours ago, Snoopy8 said:

Have been following this thread with interest. It seems that there are 3 groups, Yes, No and NEM.

There are also those that have listened to it, get it, and don't appreciate how it's licensed. Not just about the ears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, rmpfyf said:

 

Nothing wrong with beautiful sinc filtering save the pre-ringing, which for many is audible. It's not the average ripple state, it's how it's employed. 

Ok, then can you give me your subjective opinion of the difference in sound between different filters? If you can, is it an apples to apples comparison, or is it Redbook vs high res? Or is the only way to compare different filter to get:

*A DAC with selectable filters

*Or a DAC with MQA functionality?

 

I do hear some differences with high sample rates, but I don't think they are so dramatic as to be deal makers or breakers.

 

I personally find the clarity of the DAC to be the major factor contributing to my enjoyment of the music, and equally, the quality of the master. 

As an example, a dynamically limited, noise reduced, remixed master won't sound good to my ears even on a top quality DAC, but a great master will. 

 

The best masters Ive found 99% of the time, the pre 1995 early release CDs which just had the master tape run into an ADC.

 

They sound natural, and just like the vinyl, but without the well known vinyl limitations.

 

But, there's a trick, you have to hunt down the best CD master. Different countries releases have different masters. Example below. Choirboys have three different masters for this album. I have confirmed from listening, and analysing the waveform and spectrogram, each master is different, and one does sound better than the others. At least one of them was made from a misaligned tape head/ or deteriorating or 2nd generation tape and sounds worse than the others.

 

How do you know what master you are getting? How do you know what the sound quality will be like? Well you just don't know until you hear it.

 

I have a Canadian CD of Pearl Jam "Ten" it sounds just like the vinyl master. The Australian CD sounds nothing like it. It's a totally different master! Both versions are original first pressings.

 

Do the major labels do this to make the fans hunt the best master? Is it deliberate or by accident? I don't know.

 

But I am dubious if the major labels have historically not cared too much about providing a consistent high quality sound, that all of this will be resolved with master quantity authentication. It's not in their interests to do it. They don't want people having the master. It's not good for business apparently? Seems that pre 1995 they'd occasionally sneak a master quality CD out and make you hunt for it.

 

Sorry about the long post, but it takes a while to explain these things.

 

 

 

 

 

 

IMG_20180318_160707210.jpg

IMG_20180318_165821236.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Volunteer
9 hours ago, legend said:

In order to make progress we have therefore relied on hypotheses that have been only partially or indirectly verified. The invention will thus be explained on the basis of the following hypotheses: - The ear does not behave as a linear system

So they've come up with a hypothesis that has not been verified and used that as pretty much the entire basis for their product...

 

actually, on second thoughts, they've just rediscovered a much earlier hypothesis which can be stated thus: "there's a sucker born every minute "

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



40 minutes ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

 

 

actually, on second thoughts, they've just rediscovered a much earlier hypothesis which can be stated thus: "there's a sucker born every minute "

Especially audiophools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/03/2018 at 5:49 AM, legend said:

‘Blurring’ occurs when music signals are converted to and from the digital domain and are the result of the filters used to block ‘aliasing’ effects at higher frequencies.  The basic idea is that frequencies higher than half the sampling frequency (the Nyquist frequency) result in confusion/distortion during either the analog-to-digital (ADC) or digital-to-analog conversion (DAC).  For CDs the sampling frequency is 44.1 kHz and so the Nyquist frequency is 22 kHz and blocking the higher frequencies needs filters that unfortunately ring like bells in the time domain and so blur sharp transients/impulses.  And the steeper the filters the greater the ringing.

Chord DACs have linear filters with no aliasing. Regardless, MQA doesn't really solve any problems other than how to make money all over again for the recording companies. If there are any arguments against what Archimago has posted, it would be in proving the science in his article wrong, not attempting character assassinations of him, as some are trying to do.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, wolster said:

Gee, there is a lot of hate for MQA in this thread.
Frankly, I'm not interested in the technical arguments. I just know that, when I am browsing Tidal, using my Bluesound Node 2, I find myself looking for MQA albums because they sound good.

 

I cant speak for everyone but  there have been plenty of put-downs of other software ( other people's favourites)  arguing  MQA is superior. Its actually rare for dissenters from "the gospel according to MQA" to get any traction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rmpfyf
1 hour ago, eltech said:

Ok, then can you give me your subjective opinion of the difference in sound between different filters? If you can, is it an apples to apples comparison, or is it Redbook vs high res? Or is the only way to compare different filter to get:

*A DAC with selectable filters

*Or a DAC with MQA functionality?

 

I do hear some differences with high sample rates, but I don't think they are so dramatic as to be deal makers or breakers.

 

I personally find the clarity of the DAC to be the major factor contributing to my enjoyment of the music, and equally, the quality of the master. 

As an example, a dynamically limited, noise reduced, remixed master won't sound good to my ears even on a top quality DAC, but a great master will. 

 

The best masters Ive found 99% of the time, the pre 1995 early release CDs which just had the master tape run into an ADC.

 

They sound natural, and just like the vinyl, but without the well known vinyl limitations.

 

But, there's a trick, you have to hunt down the best CD master. Different countries releases have different masters. Example below. Choirboys have three different masters for this album. I have confirmed from listening, and analysing the waveform and spectrogram, each master is different, and one does sound better than the others. At least one of them was made from a misaligned tape head/ or deteriorating or 2nd generation tape and sounds worse than the others.

 

How do you know what master you are getting? How do you know what the sound quality will be like? Well you just don't know until you hear it.

 

I have a Canadian CD of Pearl Jam "Ten" it sounds just like the vinyl master. The Australian CD sounds nothing like it. It's a totally different master! Both versions are original first pressings.

 

Do the major labels do this to make the fans hunt the best master? Is it deliberate or by accident? I don't know.

 

But I am dubious if the major labels have historically not cared too much about providing a consistent high quality sound, that all of this will be resolved with master quantity authentication. It's not in their interests to do it. They don't want people having the master. It's not good for business apparently? Seems that pre 1995 they'd occasionally sneak a master quality CD out and make you hunt for it.

 

Sorry about the long post, but it takes a while to explain these things.

 

To my ears linear is sharper, and min phase is easier to listen to - the music is clearer. That's partially because as I've applied the filters the impulse response is higher in amplitude with the linear phase, and there's more energy after the impulse with the min phase (see http://src.infinitewave.ca/, compare SoX VHQ min and linear phase). The minimum phase sounds more natural on most music. I imagine if you were listening to a lot of big orchestra stuff that the linear phase might win out. It's certainly punchier. You could make linear phase sound extremely natural I imagine by upsampling to a point where the pre-ring in the time domain is extremely small, then again, the same would apply to a min phase filter. Certainly moving up in frequency (even if just upsampling) isn't a bad thing in either instance. 

 

I'll admit I went in with severe prejudices against minimum phase because I saw the phase plots first and went ah, crap, that's a pretty significant curve there, we're 180deg out by 15kHz, this I'm going to hear. Sounded quite pleasant in the end. Naturally one can tweak filter parameters and an intermediate solution might be best, though it's going to depend on material, playback frequency and a bunch of other things. That (at least some of) MQA's filter isn't symmetrical isn't a surprise, the pre-ring IMHO is audible. 

 

The major enjoyment in my music comes from jitter reduction. I'm happy with the DAC and can't afford another to swap in / out (a second DAC is being designed for a different room), though computer audio jitter is the bane of my rig's existence, mostly because I am cheap and plan solutions carefully (no disrespect to anyone, had I the means I'd contribute more money, time or both to this game). The DAC is a very nice R2R design you're familiar with. Next comes mains quality, and again this is function of my local distributor barely doing their job. I'd tell you DAC, amps and speakers matter, and they do, I'm just not in a position to change them. These are my limitations and are not to be imposed on anyone else.

 

Agree with your views on mastering. Too quickly we forget that someone with talent and very trained ears crafts a work for us to hear. Amusing you mention PJ's Ten, I fell into the same conundrum. I've been sold by some that there are occasional attempts to make masters that'll sound good on iTunes or whatever else compressed. Who knows. Generally the old stuff sounds better, and there's nothing wrong with a good CD. Hires allows easier filtering and occasionally less compromises, though 8x the frequency doesn't equal a sound that's 8x better, far from it. Done poorly the results are certainly much worse, IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

So they've come up with a hypothesis that has not been verified and used that as pretty much the entire basis for their product...

 

actually, on second thoughts, they've just rediscovered a much earlier hypothesis which can be stated thus: "there's a sucker born every minute "

 

It has been verified by tests by an American physicists. This has been discussed in depth in hi-res debates on SNA. you were not paying attention? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



4 minutes ago, LHC said:

 

So do you think Legend is an audiophool since he gets what Bob Stuart is claiming? 

Don't read too much into my comment.

 

I was really just agreeing with Sir SZ. Audio fads come and go and this will be no different but I think there is ample evidence to suggest that MQA is grotesquely over hyped, by the people standing to make the most money from its promotion

 

My comments were not and won't be, personal and were directed at precisely nobody.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, rantan said:

Don't read too much into my comment.

 

I was really just agreeing with Sir SZ. Audio fads come and go and this will be no different but I think there is ample evidence to suggest that MQA is grotesquely over hyped, by the people standing to make the most money from its promotion

 

My comments were not and won't be, personal and were directed at precisely nobody.

 

I think just about everyone here agrees the marketing and promotion of MQA leaves a lot to be desired. Legend admitted so himself. So, the issue here is not about fads.

 

The issue is that Sir SZ cynically dismissed a hypothesis of Bob Stuart that underpins the reasoning for MQA to target improved time domain behaviour. He is not interested in whether there are scientific evidence that backs up this hypothesis. He just want to brand people who buy into the hypothesis as 'fools'. Your comment doesn't help. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, rmpfyf said:

though computer audio jitter is the bane of my rig's existence,

That's why I moved away from computers.

 

57 minutes ago, rmpfyf said:

Next comes mains quality

I'd say filtering and obtaining low noise and ripple DC power rails inside the equipment. Most commercial products don't make much effort here. But, yes mains quality matters. The stereo sounds best late at night.

Edited by eltech
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LHC said:

 

 He just want to brand people who buy into the hypothesis as 'fools'. Your comment doesn't help. 

Be that as it may, my comments stand, because what people are buying into is a falsehood, based on nothing but marketing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



@rmpfyf

Thanks for your comments about filters.

 

Do you think you'd notice a change of filter if you were playing an album, you walked out of the room, then someone changed the filter without you knowing, then you came back into the room? I suppose I'm asking if you think the difference is quite noticeable or subtle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, rantan said:

Be that as it may, my comments stand, because what people are buying into is a falsehood, based on nothing but marketing.

 

How do you know it was a 'falsehood'? Are you saying 'truth' can never be mixed with marketing? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, rantan said:

That depends on how diluted you wish your truth to become.

 

What I wish does not matter. It is just how the world is, complex, interwoven, interdepended. People crave simplicity, like black and white answers, silver bullets. It is not always possible. Most things are many shades of grey (or diluted in your word).

 

An illustration of this is what Toole called 'the circle of confusion'. (see http://seanolive.blogspot.com.au/2009/10/audios-circle-of-confusion.html). What Toole posit is that the entire chain of events from recording of music, processing, and finally played back by speakers interacting with the room and our ears are so complex and interdepended, that is really hard to determine the 'cause and effect' in creating good reproduced music. Standardising many of the free variables would allow one to get a handle over this circle of confusion, as argued by Olive in his article.

 

MQA does offer us a chance to introduce standardisation, predominately to the recording, processing and playback in the digital domain. Isn't that a good thing from the point of view of breaking the circle of confusion? Yes, it is vertical integration, but how is status qua any better? It always comes back to the question - are the compromises tolerable for the gain promised. Or maybe people just want a free lunch. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rmpfyf
37 minutes ago, eltech said:

That's why I moved away from computers.

 

Ha! 

 

37 minutes ago, eltech said:

I'd say filtering and obtaining low noise and ripple DC power rails inside the equipment. Most commercial products don't make much effort here. But, yes mains quality matters. The stereo sounds best late at night.

 

Best at night = same here

Ripple on the rails = I have some caps that need replacement! (Soft bzzz)

 

31 minutes ago, eltech said:

@rmpfyf

Thanks for your comments about filters.

 

Do you think you'd notice a change of filter if you were playing an album, you walked out of the room, then someone changed the filter without you knowing, then you came back into the room? I suppose I'm asking if you think the difference is quite noticeable or subtle?

 

Yeah. We do a bit of this. Mind you it's not a 'holy crap that's different' as you walk into the room, more a sit for a few seconds, consider it and it's apparent something's changed. Music dependent too. 

 

Mind you changing the CPU the music playing software occupies, or the LAN MTU, or a bunch of other stuff is also audible. 

 

And this is Redbook upsampled to 96kHz which is where I'm stuck at the moment (the Amanero is a 32-bit device spitting out 32-bit I2S, the TDA1541A takes has bandwidth for 96kHz 32-bit I2S only - awaiting simultaneous mode, 16-bit and 384kHz flexibility). I'm thinking the higher you go the less noticeable the differences are (it may just present as a directional 'better' with very small differences around this for systems capable of extremely resolute reproduction).

 

This is IMHO the nice part about MQA for streaming, the ability to shorten time responses with higher frequency content baked into the file container. Yes, you can play with the filter too to get even better responses. A contact in this space far more talented than I sent over docs for one of these https://www.engineered.ch/products/s8-quad-dac-upsampler/, gives you an idea of what's possible in this space. 

 

Mind you I think the MQA licensing model is atrocious and I hope a freeware or otherwise better licensed project comes to light making this sort of codec more accessible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



2 minutes ago, rmpfyf said:

Best at night = same here

From my experience, best at night has to do with noise floor instead of power. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rmpfyf
3 minutes ago, Sime said:

From my experience, best at night has to do with noise floor instead of power. 

I see you have noise generators in your home too :)

 

Mind you the reactive power issues in my street were hilariously bad and since resolved by my electricity distributor, and did clear up typically post 9PM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, eltech said:

That's true, but they are related and inseperable

Sorry, what I actually meant was environmental noise floor. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...
To Top