MQA is Vaporware

[PeterSt]

49 minutes ago, firedog said:

My experience with MQA is mixed: some albums sound better to me; some not too different, some worse. In none of the cases are any of the differences something I would term "revolutionary," "ear-opening", "completely different", or anything approaching the descriptions I've read by many people. 

 

The "some not too different" is quite crucial. This is something I seriously can not imagine (hence ran into). So it seems we must conclude that this is also about system capabilities.

(this includes the playback software edit : and its filtering ! ).

 

Quote

They sound to me something like the same level of I hear when comparing different masterings of the same record - I can hear a certain difference, and sometimes I think it is an improvement.

 

This too is crucial because I don't know about any different mastering versions which are different than a kind of "original" (FWIW) vs a Remaster. And here the Remasters loses in 100% of cases. What remains is those of which we don't know it (they all seem the same but compress differently) and there the least compressed always win (have fun with the so many versions of Doors albums, for example).

[mansr]

13 minutes ago, FredericV said:

There are some blanking initiatives, where the noise bits of the 24 bit capture are zeroed. As noise can't be compressed well when it needs to stay lossless, it costs a lot of bandwidth. Blanking the noise can achieve compression factors which are as good as MQA. It does not waste entropy thus bitrate can be reduced.

I believe both Dr Lesurf and Xivero suggested such workarounds.

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/MQA/cool/bitfreezing.html
https://www.xivero.com/xifeo/

There's nothing complicated about it. In fact, it's as simple as "sox in.wav out.flac dither -p 18". The Xivero thing analyses the audio data and determines the optimal bit depth to avoid losing any real information, but I guarantee you won't be able to hear any difference.

[copy_of_a]

41 minutes ago, FredericV said:

What is also interesting is in the first minutes he debunks the need for 32 bit and also has some reservations about 24 bit.

no, he does not. Timecode?

 

41 minutes ago, FredericV said:

At the same time, they are promoting a new 32bit fixed/192dB/352.8k DXD ADC and complete mastering workflow at their latest AES convention, while MQA encoding throws most of that away. In the video from Jaap, we actually learn that MQA is somewhere around 17 bits. So why capture in 32 bits 352.8K to keep an actual resolution of 17/88.2 (as DXD = 8x 44.1, they use 88.2 as first unfold for DXD) ?

Recording/Mastering/Processing/Encoding with headroom vs. Listening.

easy to understand even for a more or less clueless hobbyist like me...

[realhifi]

WelI I guess that’s your opinion although I don’t think it’s necessarily a widely accepted one. But hey, everyone has their opinion and they all can vote with their pocket books. 

[Fokus]

1 hour ago, FredericV said:

At the same time, they are promoting a new 32bit fixed/192dB/352.8k DXD ADC and complete mastering workflow at their latest AES convention,

 

192 dB

 

In what universe did this AES Convention take place?

 

[firedog]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

The "some not too different" is quite crucial. This is something I seriously can not imagine (hence ran into). So it seems we must conclude that this is also about system capabilities.

(this includes the playback software edit : and its filtering ! ).

 

HQP not good enough for you?

Maybe the difference is not so much what we hear, but how we react and describe it. I  tend not to describe differences as dramatic.

[Jud]

47 minutes ago, firedog said:

HQP not good enough for you?

 

He's got his own. 

[PeterSt]

49 minutes ago, firedog said:

Maybe the difference is not so much what we hear, but how we react and describe it.

 

Try to find one forum post wherever which describes SQ differences between operating systems. I am not talking about AO or Fidelizer stuff or any other means on top of the OS. Just the OS itself.

Now look in the Phasure forum where it is ALL about that, and almost only that (at times).

 

What does it tell ?

Well, at least that a whole group of very many people listen for different things and to a degree that certain OS versions are unlistenable.

Windows 7 SP1 ? super bad.

Windows 8 ? took me almost a full year to make it acceptable. We all heard phase anomalies.

Windows 8.1 ? ditched it from the start.

W10-10074 ? very special (still is) but with huge flavor.

W10-14393.0 ? the one to go for, so far.

 

But did you know it ?

These differences are so huge, that nobody believes or can understand that each of those OSes outputs the same (bit perfect) data. I don't believe it as well. Still it is so.

Nothing to work out here now, but an indication that there could be so much more beyond what we normally listen for and by means of what (this is how the player really is crucial).

 

Now I think of it, firedog, I think you saw some posts about the Lush USB cable. Why would it be that since this cable I started to like MQA much better ? To be honest I don't know the answer yet, but I don't think you own one. So there is our crucial difference #1. And I did not set this up. It just happened.

 

Audioooooooooomg

[crenca]

7 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

These differences are so huge, that nobody believes or can understand that each of those OSes outputs the same (bit perfect) data. I don't believe it as well. Still it is so...Now I think of it, firedog, I think you saw some posts about the Lush USB cable. Why would it be that since this cable I started to like MQA much better ? ... And I did not set this up. It just happened....

 

 

I will just let that sink in for a bit... 

[#Yoda#]

FYI: http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2017/10/mqa-dcs/

 

"The high end audio world is littered with Format-First Audiophiles who now more than ever shop with a “No MQA, No Deal” approach, especially when it comes to big ticket items like those offered by dCS."

 

I'd like to know who the mentioned audiophiles are. ?

[Jud]

2 hours ago, Fokus said:

 

192 dB

 

In what universe did this AES Convention take place?

 

 

If you hold all the electronics in the chain at close to absolute zero, have no acoustic to electrical transitions anywhere (so everything starts and ends as files - edit: until the playback transducer, probably headphones/IEMs), keep it all 32 bit, play back in the world’s finest anechoic chamber (http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170526-inside-the-quietest-place-on-earth), and listen between heartbeats and breaths (and try not to move, even your eyes), you might get what, 2/3 of the way there?

[realhifi]

24 minutes ago, #Yoda# said:

FYI: http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2017/10/mqa-dcs/

 

"The high end audio world is littered with Format-First Audiophiles who now more than ever shop with a “No MQA, No Deal” approach, especially when it comes to big ticket items like those offered by dCS."

 

I'd like to know who the mentioned audiophiles are. ?

If it’s true I wouldn’t blame them one bit. I have an acquaintance that has all ARC Ref gear, gorgeous turntable setup, suberb Mac based digital into a  Metrum Pavane Dac into DeVore loudspeakers and obviously loves it. BUT, he recently wanted to hear what the fuss was about MQA so he purchased a Meridian Explorer 2 and started listening to the MQA files available on Tidal. He said it’s some of the best digital he’s ever heard and he said he can’t imagine getting a Dac that didn’t have MQA ability in it. He’s shopping.  

[Shadders]

6 minutes ago, realhifi said:

If it’s true I wouldn’t blame them one bit. I have an acquaintance that has all ARC Ref gear, gorgeous turntable setup, suberb Mac based digital into a  Metrum Pavane Dac into DeVore loudspeakers and obviously loves it. BUT, he recently wanted to hear what the fuss was about MQA so he purchased a Meridian Explorer 2 and started listening to the MQA files available on Tidal. He said it’s some of the best digital he’s ever heard and he said he can’t imagine getting a Dac that didn’t have MQA ability in it. He’s shopping.  

Hi,

So, all we need is for mansr to create an application that emulates the key aspects of the filtering/transfer function/coding process for MQA, and we can then process all our files accordingly, getting MQA for free. And it would be lossless too.

Hurrah.

I would be willing to contribute funds towards that development.

Regards,

Shadders.

[witchdoctor]

51 minutes ago, #Yoda# said:

FYI: http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2017/10/mqa-dcs/

 

"The high end audio world is littered with Format-First Audiophiles who now more than ever shop with a “No MQA, No Deal” approach, especially when it comes to big ticket items like those offered by dCS."

 

I'd like to know who the mentioned audiophiles are. ?

The witchdoctor will not buy a new dac that doesn't offer MQA. I think I will start a #nomqanodeal  hashtag

[witchdoctor]

11 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

So, all we need is for mansr to create an application that emulates the key aspects of the filtering/transfer function/coding process for MQA, and we can then process all our files accordingly, getting MQA for free. And it would be lossless too.

Hurrah.

I would be willing to contribute funds towards that development.

Regards,

Shadders.

Did you say contribute funds? WOW! I will send you a link to my kickstarter page ASAP. What is your budget? If it is more than $100 you should just get an Audioquest Dragonfly MQA DAC instead.

[fung0]

5 hours ago, firedog said:

I'm pretty sure that if MQA was making the revolutionary and game changing difference I keep reading about, then it should be obvious to almost anyone, much like the difference between old standard TV and HD TV is (even when it is compressed), or as Chris said, the improvement of 1080p over the old standard - you see it right away and it is clearly better. 

 

If even the small differences were consistently positive for MQA, I'd have a better opinion of it, but that isn't what I hear. I don't see any great advantage to it. 

 

And again, if it was just another format choice, I'd be fine with it. I could choose to get an MQA remaster or not in many cases. But I don't think that is what is going to happen and I don't think that is the intent.

 

This is very well put. Attempts to make this debate about sound quality are mis-conceived.

 

Even the most glowing reports place any possible sonic advantage of MQA at no better than 'extremely subtle' - while the many less-positive reports (not to mention essentially all detailed technical analysis) indicate no better than placebo levels of improvement, at best, and at least subtle levels of sonic degradation, at worst. Even by the most charitable reading of available evidence, MQA is clearly not a significant step forward in audio quality compared to FLAC/PCM or DXD. And very possibly a slight step backward.

 

Against that, we have the format's numerous, overt and absolutely undeniable practical drawbacks. It's lossy, it's proprietary, it's expensive (at every point in the distribution process), and it introduces mild DRM (with a significant chance of truly onerous DRM in future) into a distribution system that is at last almost entirely free of it. To counterbalance these negatives, MQA would need some sizable positives... and, very clearly, there are none to be had. (Other than the thrill of buying yet another shiny new DAC.)

 

The onus is very much on the pro-MQA camp - and especially MQA Ltd. - to provide a strong justification for such a highly disruptive new format. This they have utterly failed to do. When pressed, they repeatedly fall back on lauding the vague, highly subjective and all-but-inaudible 'coloration' of MQA encoded music. That sort of argument is enough to sell one DAC over another, but not even remotely sufficient to sell a whole new industry-wide audio format.

 

Summing up everything stated so far in this thread (and I have read it all): it's fail, fail, fail for MQA. And yes, that's absolutely taking into account all glowingly subjective reports from people who just love MQA. Folks: you're free to love whatever you love - but you'll have to pardon the rest of the world if it asks a better reason to reshape itself than according with your emotions.

[Shadders]

Hi,

Off topic, just for a bit of fun, see the following story.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41669400

 

The comments section should make you laugh. Or cry.

Regards,

Shadders.

[fung0]

5 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I agree the differences in video are much easier to see, but if 1080p was delivered better, 99 percent of people wouldn't care about 4k. 

 

For instance, HDR could have been added to 1080p video. Even the most ardent fans of UHD agree that HDR is the more important part of the spec.

[crenca]

14 minutes ago, fung0 said:

 

For instance, HDR could have been added to 1080p video. Even the most ardent fans of UHD agree that HDR is the more important part of the spec.

 

The understanding is that HDR is a 4k only feature that the industry is using to keep the consumer on the upgrade train.  

 

I know, let's get the audio market to emulate the video market through the adoption of a proprietary, DRM standard like they use!  "End to End" and all that other consumer friendly lock in!!  

[#Yoda#]

2 hours ago, realhifi said:

If it’s true I wouldn’t blame them one bit. I have an acquaintance that has all ARC Ref gear, gorgeous turntable setup, suberb Mac based digital into a  Metrum Pavane Dac into DeVore loudspeakers and obviously loves it. BUT, he recently wanted to hear what the fuss was about MQA so he purchased a Meridian Explorer 2 and started listening to the MQA files available on Tidal. He said it’s some of the best digital he’s ever heard and he said he can’t imagine getting a Dac that didn’t have MQA ability in it. He’s shopping.  

 

Maybe it is caused by the fact that Europeans are potentially not so much brainwashed by biased media like "audiophiles" on other continents because MQA is not really an important topic in the European HiFi press . Personally I know several "audiophiles" with absolutely sophisticated audio gear far above $ 100,000 and none of them ever wasted his time and money to think about to exchange his DAC because of MQA ability. 

[mcgillroy]

19 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

The forceful support of MQA could be seen as an indication of how those totally on the bandwagon view the state of the industry. They see it as being in such bad shape that any new change nudging people to purchase new items or music or encourage more commerce, is seen as good.

 

So you basically saying that parts of the industry view MQA as a chance to grow the high-end market?

 

Growth beyond the usual upgrade cycles hardware-manufactures depend on? 

 

In any case an important point.

 

But given the fact that we are talking about an massively overcrowded market with long term shrinking demand where the only money made is either said upgrades or ultra-overprized statement items, vendors putting their eggs in a basket with a rent-seeking entity like MQA is pretty naive. Or desperate.

 

Any growth that might occur if more people demand high-rez will give MQA more leverage to sap away at your profits. On top of which MQA can force its own upgrade cycles for the next new feature, betterment, DRM-enchainment one up.

 

Beyond that why should the market grow? As with mobile the new domestic-music-playback market opened up by smart-speakers + streaming will be won by convenience not by quality. 

 

[FredericV]

32 minutes ago, mcgillroy said:

 

So you basically saying that parts of the industry view MQA as a chance to grow the high-end market?

Our industry is a difficult one. The younger generation doesn't really care about high quality. They just want instant audio in an acceptable quality. The current gen of audiophiles is almost at it's end. We have maybe 10 to 20y left. Look at CES: this year it was a flop, several years ago it was overcrowded.

So watching the RMAF video that Chris streamed, it was stated that MQA could bring the new generation to buy high-end, because they see the MQA light on their phone, and maybe get interest in buying more gear associated with high-end.

Someone once asked me: why do you attack MQA? Our business is already very hard, with MQA we give them a new reason to buy something. TBH I don't think MQA will save the business.

Some years ago I was hooked into the DSD hype. I actually had:

- antelope platinum
- auralic vega
- all iFI models including the micro DSD

I almost never used DSD. I had all my collection pre-rendered by foobar into 24/88.2 files and that worked very acceptable. DSD was just a checkbox on my feature list that I wanted to have. About a year ago, I decided to buy a new DAC based on sound, not on the fact if it had DSD or MQA. So i bought the Metrum Adagio, and some months later I bought the Vitus SS-025 to pair with it. The combination is magic to my eyes.

I wanted a DAC that had a very good performance with my existing collection, which is mostly redbook rips.

I was addicted to the sound of R2R dacs compared to my previous delta sigma dacs.
In the meantime delta-sigma is catching up with ESS PRO chipsets but not yet matching the SNR of R2R, this is why I also have a Mytek Brooklyn & Manhattan 2 to play with.

I want choice but don't care about MQA checkboxes. I buy these dac's for their sound or because it serves well in my lab.

The brooklyn is very interesting because it can show if S32_LE actually contains 32 bit or zero padded 24 bit.
This is my LAB dac, I pair it to a simple set of aktimate speakers to do some quick testing.

[Shadders]

12 minutes ago, FredericV said:

I was addicted to the sound of R2R dacs compared to my previous delta sigma dacs.
In the meantime delta-sigma is catching up with ESS PRO chipsets but not yet matching the SNR of R2R, this is why I also have a Mytek Brooklyn & Manhattan 2 to play with.
 

Hi FredericV,

Can you clarify the meaning of the SNR of an R2R DAC ?

My understanding was that current delta sigma DAC's provided better S/N than R2R ?

Are you referring to the Philips R2R DAC IC which sells for £60 or more ?

Or a discrete R2R DAC such as MSB ?

The highest accuracy tolerance resistors i can find is 0.01%, which will not provide a THD better than delta sigma DAC's.

(i am assuming that S/N is also similar to THD).

Regards,

Shadders.

[FredericV]

1 hour ago, Shadders said:

Hi FredericV,

Can you clarify the meaning of the SNR of an R2R DAC ?

My understanding was that current delta sigma DAC's provided better S/N than R2R ?

Are you referring to the Philips R2R DAC IC which sells for £60 or more ?

Or a discrete R2R DAC such as MSB ?

The highest accuracy tolerance resistors i can find is 0.01%, which will not provide a THD better than delta sigma DAC's.

(i am assuming that S/N is also similar to THD).

Regards,

Shadders.

To get these specs, the trick is as follows:

By shifting the lower 12 bits of a 24 bit signal into a separate converter and threating them as upper 12 it has a unique architecture. The signal is matched with the 12 bits that were not shifted in the analogue stage, resulting in an astonishing -140dB S/N ratio.

It's digital + analog unfolding 24 bit into multiple dac's and then combining them in the analog domain, off course the dac that does the lower 12 bits but converted in the uppers 12 bits for optimal SNR need to be attenuated by 72dB if I can still calc 

This was with the Pavane, their previous model. It reached -140db noise floor. The Adagio extends on the architecture of the Pavane, and has a very clever volume control. It reaches -155dB noise floor.

What Metrum has done is much more clever in the style of "less is more". They control the volume by regulating the voltage on the ladder networks. This determines the max voltage at the output of the dac.

Some other manufacturers have an R2R network, after which they put another resistor based volume control, which you can hear clicking. MSB products and several others work that way.  The Metrum does not like pre-amps: if you put a pre-amp in between, you will most likely downgrade.

This is why I ordered the Vitus SS-025 after I invested in the Adagio, so I no longer have to use the resistor based volume control in my previous Vitus RI-100, which is now my backup amp. My RI-100 is now used for nearfield testing with Amphion One 18 and Two 18.

I used to have both Pavane and Adagio in an AB shootout:



The Adagio has a perfect impulse response. I've seen the measurements from Cees: there is no pre- or postringing, just a pulse and nothing else. So in case of Metrum, MQA can't correct what ain't broken. With delta-sigma it's different. A pulse going through up/oversampling always has ringing added by digital filters.

This is why MQA uses minimum phase, not to add pre-ringing. To get rid of the (accumulated) post-ringing, they try to suppress it in the renderer phase. I'm not convinced post-ringing is bad for music, only pre-ringing.  Our ears are sensitive to pre-ringing. Post-ringing is not an issue.

MQA's time smear argument only applies to delta-sigma dac's.
 

[Shadders]

5 minutes ago, FredericV said:

To get these specs, the trick is as follows:

By shifting the lower 12 bits of a 24 bit signal into a separate converter and threating them as upper 12 it has a unique architecture. The signal is matched with the 12 bits that were not shifted in the analogue stage, resulting in an astonishing -140dB S/N ratio.

It's digital + analog unfolding 24 bit into multiple dac's and then combining them in the analog domain, off course the dac that does the lower 12 bits but converted in the uppers 24 bits for optimal SNR need to be attenuated by 72dB if I can still calc 

This was with the Pavane, their previous model. It reached -140db noise floor. The Adagio extends on the architecture of the Pavane, and has a very clever volume control. It reaches -155dB noise floor.

What Metrum has done is much more clever in the style of "less is more". They control the volume by regulating the voltage on the ladder networks. This determines the max voltage at the output of the dac.

Some other manufacturers have an R2R network, after which they put another resistor based volume control, which you can hear clicking. MSB products and several others work that way.  The Metrum does not like pre-amps: if you put a pre-amp in between, you will most likely downgrade.

Hi FredericV,

Thanks for confirming. Not working it out, i assume the accuracy of the 72dB attenuation of the 12bits which will be the lower order bits, has less impact on the overall (less THD) than the use of 0.01% accurate resistors ?.

Thanks and regards,

Shadders.