Jump to content

MQA Users & Discussion Thread


Guest AndrewC

Recommended Posts

Guest rmpfyf
1 hour ago, legend said:

To me the minimum phase sounded slightly less harsh – dare I say it, with less digital glare! Any change in the dynamics of the piano did not jump out at me.

My wife and quite a few others visiting also like the min phase the best. Just how much (to how little) changes on music type though, I imagine if one was listening to orchestral or electronica that you'd quite value having peak amplitudes in place. Maybe the aforementioned argument on ramming the resample freq as high as you can to get the time domain responses as short as possible might hold here if looking for a best all-round solution. 

 

It's interesting that both comments so far, whilst subjectively different on preference, do tell a story that's consistent with how the filters are employed. Both your ears are consistent with the science :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



19 minutes ago, rmpfyf said:

VHQ filters

The link/example I posted is using the VHQ option.

 

19 minutes ago, rmpfyf said:

The filter may 'act' as long in time but not with the same amplitude response magnitude.

Yes, obviously you can see that in the link/example I posted too.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that you didn't "go to the extreme" or do anything different what I posted ....  we just have a different read on the signficance of the results.

 

Studies show that where the rining is located in time is exceptionally important....  of course, less rining (at any time) would be preffered.... but it's all a trade off.

 

My point?.... by all accounts, including Archimago's own measurements (even though he tells people otherwise), MQA has "optimised" the response somewhat....   so I really do think there is something else in the mix here WRT what is going on.

 

Otherwise, what we are saying is that the pre/post ringing investigations which people have been doing for decades are all "wrong" wrt the audibility of phase, pre, and post ringing.

 

Especially when there is so much else going on with MQA.   "This one thing" seems super-unlikley to be it.

 

Edited by davewantsmoore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rmpfyf
44 minutes ago, davewantsmoore said:

The link/example I posted is using the VHQ option.

 

Yes, obviously you can see that in the link/example I posted too.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that you didn't "go to the extreme" or do anything different what I posted ....  we just have a different read on the signficance of the results.

 

Studies show that where the rining is located in time is exceptionally important....  of course, less rining (at any time) would be preffered.... but it's all a trade off.

 

My point?.... by all accounts, including Archimago's own measurements (even though he tells people otherwise), MQA has "optimised" the response somewhat....   so I really do think there is something else in the mix here WRT what is going on.

 

Otherwise, what we are saying is that the pre/post ringing investigations which people have been doing for decades are all "wrong" wrt the audibility of phase, pre, and post ringing.

 

Especially when there is so much else going on with MQA.   "This one thing" seems super-unlikley to be it.

 

 

I understand that you posted the VHQ option among your filter list though we're talking the same thing - your image focus on the whole filter implementation, I think the data immediately around the impulse is most important. 

 

I think the min phase option is extreme (it's 180 deg out at 14k) - it's possible to configure something intermediate. I didn't. It's possible to shorten the time domain response, I didn't. Could have done it at 96k to make it worse still though I don't think it's relevant.  Yes, it's an extreme example. It's certainly possible to do better. Of course MQA has a different implementation. The time domain responses are half the length for starters. You would not ship a product with filters as I've implemented. Most products shipping min phase or asymmetric filters do better than what I'd put together. I can breakout MATLAB to put together a filter that's truly obtuse but, again, within a sphere of what's listenable and likely to be implemented in shipping hardware... that'd be irrelevant. 

 

Half the giveaway that MQA cares much about time domain effects is, obviously, the sample output rates employed. 

 

I think you're overcomplicating it somewhat. MQA employs a variety of filter characteristics and can tend towards min phase designs as it suits on content - maybe. It'd be great to understand how the array of filters available are employed - there's certainly a bunch of filters it can play with. Linear, symmetric sinc filters were driven in part by sampling filters and time domain effects, partly by digital knowledge of the day and, frankly, to a good degree by what was understood to be 'good' - taking a vinyl rig to its nth degree effectively gives linear filter characteristics. Using signal processing techniques to shape this in an active manner is relatively (keyword relatively) new, particularly in a complete end-to-end analogue-to-analogue workflow.

 

There are a few things here that are not 'one sole thing' but 'many things' that change SQ markedly as an experience. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rmpfyf said:

taking a vinyl rig to its nth degree effectively gives linear filter characteristics

I'm not quite sure what you mean  (and purposefully not trying to assume anything).... The vinyl cannot have energy before the response .... so it's not a "linear (phase) filter".     

 

Perhaps you're just talking about the phase  (ie.  whether it's flat from 0 to 20khz)

 

2 hours ago, rmpfyf said:

It'd be great to understand how the array of filters available are employed 

According to the documentation chosen according to how the original was encoded, and/or the playback device.

 

.... but it seems it's very early days for this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rmpfyf
1 hour ago, davewantsmoore said:

I'm not quite sure what you mean  (and purposefully not trying to assume anything).... The vinyl cannot have energy before the response .... so it's not a "linear (phase) filter".     

 

Perhaps you're just talking about the phase  (ie.  whether it's flat from 0 to 20khz)

No, amplitude response. Think about the movement of the stylus - they're not vertical cuts at infinite precision - think of what the mechanical response is like for a 'better' tonarm etc assy. The peak might be shifted in time though the 'ultimate' response is essentially linear and highly-damped, a large portion of which is dictated by characteristics of the mastering method. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



11 hours ago, legend said:

But I think this is where we differ.  To me the minimum phase sounded slightly less harsh – dare I say it, with less digital glare!

It's not surprising to find differences of interpretation. 

I think where we differ has more to do with our playback hardware.

 

Great DACs don't sound "digital" or have "glare" if driven by a very low jitter transport.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Roon v1.5 now does first mqa unfold in software and still allows for dsp related functionality to be done after unfolding.

 

The trick is it extract the renderer instructions before doing the DSP, after that, it embedded back into the stream. If no DSP is applied, then the stream already contains the embedded renderer instructions after the decoding stage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neat trick with Roon and MQA

 

I have an old iFi micro iDSD and the latest firmware version adds MQA.

 

The iOS TIDAL app doesn’t support MQA but with Roon, I can set the iPhone as an end point and enable full MQA compatibility and also DOP.

 

Both methods worked fine over the USB camera connector with the status LED showing MQA and DSD correctly when playing those files.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Neat trick with Roon and MQA

 

I have an old iFi micro iDSD and the latest firmware version adds MQA.

 

The iOS TIDAL app doesn’t support MQA but with Roon, I can set the iPhone as an end point and enable full MQA compatibility and also DOP.

 

Both methods worked fine over the USB camera connector with the status LED showing MQA and DSD correctly when playing those files.

 

...........and how did it sound?

 

(Audio)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Guest AndrewC

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=19396

 

A Comparison of Clarity in MQA Encoded Files vs. Their Unprocessed State as Performed by Three Groups — Expert Listeners

 

This paper aims to examine perceived clarity in MQA encoded audio files compared to their unprocessed state (96-kHz 24-bit). Utilizing a methodology initially proposed by the authors in a previous paper, this study aims to investigate any reported differences in clarity for three musical sources of varying genres.

 

A double-blind test is conducted using three groups—expert listeners, musicians, and casual listeners—in a controlled environment using high-quality loudspeakers and headphones. The researchers were interested in comparing the responses of the three target groups and whether playback systems had any significant effect on listeners’ perception.

 

Data shows that listeners were not able to significantly discriminate between MQA encoded files and the unprocessed original due to several interaction effects.

 

 

Finally, results from a proper scientific study... At least as far as clarity is concerned, AES' listening test results show that there's no statistically signfiicant difference with MQA vs. source PCM. So, all the BS from MQA, Stereophile, and TAS about how amazing it sounds etc, is bogus (or just in comparison to low-rez MP3) :)

 

Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Music Media and Technology Critical Listening Room @ McGill University

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Finally, results from a proper scientific study... At least as far as clarity is concerned, AES' listening test results show that there's no statistically signfiicant difference with MQA vs. source PCM. So, all the BS from MQA, Stereophile, and TAS about how amazing it sounds etc, is bogus (or just in comparison to low-rez MP3) :)

 

So?  What does that means?  MQA DID deliver.  

 

MQA made no claims that they enhanced the source PCM file.  MQA want to transport the "master tape experience" to the consumers....so now, you listen to master tape with "no statistically significant difference with MQA vs. source PCM".....isn't this the goal of MQA?

 

(Audio)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So?  What does that means?  MQA DID deliver.  

 

MQA made no claims that they enhanced the source PCM file.  MQA want to transport the "master tape experience" to the consumers....so now, you listen to master tape with "no statistically significant difference with MQA vs. source PCM".....isn't this the goal of MQA?

 

(Audio)

 

 

It is not what they can't deliver but there are many 'claims' that were made over the years that MQA mastered version actually 'sound' better than the original mastered version, mostly claimed through 'de-blurring' technique.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It is not what they can't deliver but there are many 'claims' that were made over the years that MQA mastered version actually 'sound' better than the original mastered version, mostly claimed through 'de-blurring' technique.

 

 

No, that is not my understanding.  I think I was in a session in RMAF where Meridian was doing the demonstration and explain the process and their policy.  They are simply trying to convey the "Master Tape experience".  The record company will never provide the consumers a "Master Tape" copy of the album.  But MQA allows the transfer of that file though MQA process to your living room, while protecting the copyright of the original source file.  MQA will receive the "Master Tape" quality files from the record company and will keep inventory in their server.  There is no talk about enhancing the source file.

 

(Audio)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest AndrewC

So?  What does that means?  MQA DID deliver.  

 

MQA made no claims that they enhanced the source PCM file.  MQA want to transport the "master tape experience" to the consumers....so now, you listen to master tape with "no statistically significant difference with MQA vs. source PCM".....isn't this the goal of MQA?

 

(Audio)

 

Of course they did!! Thats one of the main arguments against MQA! Either you forgot or missed that whole point :P

 

They - meaning MQA, ST, TAS and other media types - claim that MQA improves the sound and makes it better than the high-rez PCM they originated from because of MQA's "de-blurring" techniques at both encoding and decoding stage.

 

Their views are typified by coverage such as this;

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/meridians-mqa-one-listeners-impression

 

...Next I heard Herbie Hancock's version of Joni Mitchell's "The River" in 24/96. Not only were the subtle inflections of Corinne Bailey Rae's voice more audible with MQA, but the color and roundness of Hancock's piano also really stood out. The sound of brushes on drums seems far more defined and realistic than without MQA.

...

 

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqas-sound-convinces-hardened-showgoers

 

...

Next up was McGrath's 24/88.2k recording of Michael Tilson Thomas and the New World Symphony performing the start of Mahler's Symphony 5. Because MQA encoding is most effective when the recording and mastering equipment are known, McGrath had previously informed Stuart and the MQA team that he had used a Meitner ADC and Grado mikes.

 

It was immediately apparent how much deeper I could listen into the soundstage with MQA. Due to MQA correction of minute timing errors, special relationships were clarified to a significant extent.

...

 

 

https://darko.audio/2016/06/an-inconvenient-truth-mqa-sounds-better/

 

...

Put simply: because it sounds convincingly better than the normal, non-MQA’d 24bit/96kHz file. Lest you thought MQA was just a way to pack, transmit and then unpack hi-res audio via what Bob Stuart calls “audio origami” or “encapsulation”, it isn’t. It’s that. But also more.

...

 

The AES paper proves this is bogus, at least as far as clarity is concerned :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Guest AndrewC

I am sorry.  But you are mixing MQA with ST, TAS.

 

MQA is MQA.  ST and TAs are publications.

 

(Audio)

 

Alamak Audio, I'm talking about MQA the company, not the technology, when I say that they're claiming it sounds better than original high-res PCM.  i.e. http://www.mqa.co.uk/ - I think you're missing alot of Stuart/MQA's early commentary on their technology.

 

ps: May I suggest you re-read this thread from the beginning :)

 

pps: by the way, MQA themselves, and many of the media have now backed off (or toned down) claims that MQA sounds better than the original PCM masters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://ifi-audio.com/mqa-firmware/

 

The updated firmware works across all their products.

 

Magenta is the official MQA LED colour on iFi machines. However, on legacy machines without the Magenta LED option, when an MQA file is played, the LED colour will be White/Yellow corresponding to the 384kHz file being played

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said, MQA = Master Quality Authenticated.

 

MQA holds the Master Tape quality PCM file and transport it into your living room using the lossy protocol.  If the AES paper's findng is true then they would had achieved their goal because what you hear in your living room is as best as the Master Tape would sound because there is "no statistically significant difference with MQA vs. source PCM"

 

(Audio)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said, MQA = Master Quality Authenticated.

 

MQA holds the Master Tape quality PCM file and transport it into your living room using the lossy protocol.  If the AES paper's findng is true then they would had achieved their goal because what you hear in your living room is as best as the Master Tape would sound because there is "no statistically significant difference with MQA vs. source PCM"

 

(Audio)

 

Then we don’t need MQA, the existing PCM is good enough... with no lossy components to worry about!

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...
To Top