Rt66indierock Posted October 4, 2018 Author Share Posted October 4, 2018 3 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said: Yes..although I am not sure about Srajan Ebaen. I found him to be incredibly rude and smug, but his sonic description have been rather accurate. Has he written about MQA? He refuses to write about MQA. And based on his life that I know about he hung around with some very unsavory people in Oregon. Link to comment
Brinkman Ship Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 2 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said: He refuses to write about MQA. And based on his life that I know about he hung around with some very unsavory people in Oregon. Not surprising..he shows little class from my direct experience... But nonetheless..ignoring MQA shows he is not a dummy. Link to comment
christopher3393 Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 OT, but for the record, Srajan Ebaen's Bio from 6moons: :http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/srajan/1.html "Philosophical beginnings. At eighteen and much to the chagrin of friends and relatives, this future scribe traveled to India to spend time in the ashram of the controversial mystic Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh who later became known simply as Osho. Osho gave him the name Dhyan Srajan which translates as 'creativity from meditation'. Srajan eventually abandoned his classical music studies to concentrate on these new pursuits. He emigrated to the US to become part of the Rajneeshpuram community in the high desert of Oregon. When that large-scale experiment ended and much of the community regrouped in the former Indian headquarters of Poona, he decided to stay in the US." "Credits. For world view and spiritual perspective, grateful acknowledgements go to his root teacher Osho as well as the American-born Avatar Adi Da Samraj, British-born Maitreya Ishwara and modern-day teacher Nirmala." This is a telling list. https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2018/apr/07/cult-oregon-1980s-terror-netflix-documentary-wild-country Link to comment
FredericV Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 4 hours ago, Archimago said: Wow, had to do a double take this AM. Looks like subjective folks including Hans Beekhuyzen is now claiming that "often the linear phase version sounds the best - at least to my ears" (7:47): Hmmm, minimum phase Meridian / MQA / Ayre / Pono filters on the way out? Is he about to jump on the Chord linear phase 1M tap filter bandwagon? As the world turns ?. OMG did he had a bad day? He repeats the same sentence "and since ...." at around 05:00 in the video And what about 88.4 (it should be 88.2) and 176.8 (it's 176.4) ... sorry Hans but do your research better ... Common PCM sample rates are all multiples of either 44.1 or 48 Khz. Now back on topic: The best filter to my ears is your intermediate phase filter:http://archimago.blogspot.com/2018/01/musings-more-fun-with-digital-filters.html I actually put it in our own product and gave it away as a free software update http://432evo.be/sqi I also put in the MQA alike filter with one cycle of post-ringing which you can find in my signature here at CA, but it can't beat the intermediate phase filter. The MQA alike filter just kills the decay of instruments. No thanks. Nice with EDM as it makes the kick very tight, but it ruins voices. The decay and post-echo in voices is reduced by MQA alike filters. It does not sound organic. We tested this on equipment that won best of show several times, including the Amphion's Krypton 3, the Conquistar speaker with their big RAAL ribbon open dipole and the Aries Cerat system that won best of show last year in Munich. On all these systems, you can very easily hear the differences between these filters. But even on a more modest budget you can hear it. The intermediate phase filter sounds so good I actually tweaked it Very organic, open, transparant without fatigue - all an audiophile can dream about. We use the intermediate phase filter on all our shows and our X-FI set just made it to the cover picture of the show report http://www.the-ear.net/show-reports/xfi-2018-pt1 Still waiting for part 2 but Trevor was impressed. Hans BH likes raspberry pi a lot, so maybe you can convince him to make a video about your goldilocks filter Designer of the 432 EVO music server and Linux specialist Discoverer of the independent open source sox based mqa playback method with optional one cycle postringing. Link to comment
Brinkman Ship Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 21 minutes ago, FredericV said: OMG did he had a bad day? He repeats the same sentence "and since ...." at around 05:00 in the video And what about 88.4 (it should be 88.2) and 176.8 (it's 176.4) ... sorry Hans but do your research better ... Common PCM sample rates are all multiples of either 44.1 or 48 Khz. Now back on topic: The best filter to my ears is your intermediate phase filter:http://archimago.blogspot.com/2018/01/musings-more-fun-with-digital-filters.html I actually put it in our own product and gave it away as a free software update http://432evo.be/sqi I also put in the MQA alike filter with one cycle of post-ringing which you can find in my signature here at CA, but it can't beat the intermediate phase filter. The MQA alike filter just kills the decay of instruments. No thanks. Nice with EDM as it makes the kick very tight, but it ruins voices. The decay and post-echo in voices is reduced by MQA alike filters. It does not sound organic. We tested this on equipment that won best of show several times, including the Amphion's Krypton 3, the Conquistar speaker with their big RAAL ribbon open dipole and the Aries Cerat system that won best of show last year in Munich. On all these systems, you can very easily hear the differences between these filters. But even on a more modest budget you can hear it. The intermediate phase filter sounds so good I actually tweaked it Very organic, open, transparant without fatigue - all an audiophile can dream about. We use the intermediate phase filter on all our shows and our X-FI set just made it to the cover picture of the show report http://www.the-ear.net/show-reports/xfi-2018-pt1 Still waiting for part 2 but Trevor was impressed. Hans BH likes raspberry pi a lot, so maybe you can convince him to make a video about your goldilocks filter How very strange. I know people who don't even have digital front ends, only vinyl, and are well versed in common sample rates. Link to comment
Jud Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 3 hours ago, mansr said: So-called ringing occurs only around step-like events in the input. OK, trying to figure out how this jibes with my prior idea that it was a step-like response of the filter to input at a particular frequency that resulted in ringing. Probably best to move this to a Q&A thread, I think, and out of this one. One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature. Link to comment
Rt66indierock Posted October 4, 2018 Author Share Posted October 4, 2018 31 minutes ago, christopher3393 said: OT, but for the record, Srajan Ebaen's Bio from 6moons: :http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/srajan/1.html "Philosophical beginnings. At eighteen and much to the chagrin of friends and relatives, this future scribe traveled to India to spend time in the ashram of the controversial mystic Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh who later became known simply as Osho. Osho gave him the name Dhyan Srajan which translates as 'creativity from meditation'. Srajan eventually abandoned his classical music studies to concentrate on these new pursuits. He emigrated to the US to become part of the Rajneeshpuram community in the high desert of Oregon. When that large-scale experiment ended and much of the community regrouped in the former Indian headquarters of Poona, he decided to stay in the US." "Credits. For world view and spiritual perspective, grateful acknowledgements go to his root teacher Osho as well as the American-born Avatar Adi Da Samraj, British-born Maitreya Ishwara and modern-day teacher Nirmala." This is a telling list. https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2018/apr/07/cult-oregon-1980s-terror-netflix-documentary-wild-country An episode of American history that should be erased. Link to comment
FredericV Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 29 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said: How very strange. I know people who don't even have digital front ends, only vinyl, and are well versed in common sample rates. And first he says he likes linear phase the most on dacs with selectable filters, and then he contradicts himself he likes MQA a lot, which does not implement linear phase but a modified minimum phase filter which messes up the frequency domain: and he continues to claim it's beneficial to buy an MQA dac .... Is this guy a complete joke? Brinkman Ship 1 Designer of the 432 EVO music server and Linux specialist Discoverer of the independent open source sox based mqa playback method with optional one cycle postringing. Link to comment
mansr Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 38 minutes ago, Jud said: OK, trying to figure out how this jibes with my prior idea that it was a step-like response of the filter to input at a particular frequency that resulted in ringing. Perhaps this is helpful: https://troll-audio.com/articles/filter-ringing/ Don Blas De Lezo 1 Link to comment
mansr Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 43 minutes ago, FredericV said: Is this guy a complete joke? That would imply an element of (unintentional) humour. Link to comment
Rt66indierock Posted October 4, 2018 Author Share Posted October 4, 2018 57 minutes ago, FredericV said: And first he says he likes linear phase the most on dacs with selectable filters, and then he contradicts himself he likes MQA a lot, which does not implement linear phase but a modified minimum phase filter which messes up the frequency domain: and he continues to claim it's beneficial to buy an MQA dac .... Is this guy a complete joke? Hans and colleagues Link to comment
Archimago Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 9 hours ago, FredericV said: OMG did he had a bad day? He repeats the same sentence "and since ...." at around 05:00 in the video And what about 88.4 (it should be 88.2) and 176.8 (it's 176.4) ... sorry Hans but do your research better ... Common PCM sample rates are all multiples of either 44.1 or 48 Khz. Now back on topic: The best filter to my ears is your intermediate phase filter:http://archimago.blogspot.com/2018/01/musings-more-fun-with-digital-filters.html I actually put it in our own product and gave it away as a free software update http://432evo.be/sqi I also put in the MQA alike filter with one cycle of post-ringing which you can find in my signature here at CA, but it can't beat the intermediate phase filter. The MQA alike filter just kills the decay of instruments. No thanks. Nice with EDM as it makes the kick very tight, but it ruins voices. The decay and post-echo in voices is reduced by MQA alike filters. It does not sound organic. ... Cool implementation man ?... Will have to give it a listen at some point. 8 hours ago, FredericV said: And first he says he likes linear phase the most on dacs with selectable filters, and then he contradicts himself he likes MQA a lot, which does not implement linear phase but a modified minimum phase filter which messes up the frequency domain: ... LOL. I didn't even realize HB dragged out MQA later because I couldn't bear to finish watching it until I read your message. "But even non-MQA files clearly benefit from these MQA filters according to me and some colleagues." (~11:00) Yeesh... Can't wait for his part 2 video on jitter... Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile. Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism. R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press. Link to comment
FredericV Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 25 minutes ago, Archimago said: Can't wait for his part 2 video on jitter... Do we need a full video for that? Maybe one pictures is enough. Don't know if Hans knows the gimp, but gimp's ripple effect with a large enough period size is a nice simulation: and how better explain it in layman terms If the jitter is severe enough, the signal can no longer be decoded: but that does not happen often in digital audio Designer of the 432 EVO music server and Linux specialist Discoverer of the independent open source sox based mqa playback method with optional one cycle postringing. Link to comment
esldude Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 Something to ask about. Ran across an iFi Nano I-one DAC review which has firmware that when MQA is enabled, SPDIF output is disabled. This is whether the input is MQA or anything else. https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/review-and-measurements-of-ifi-nano-ione-dac.4754/post-106158 It also then prevents filter choices that were available with this device unless you roll back to previous firmware and forego MQA. https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/review-and-measurements-of-ifi-nano-ione-dac.4754/post-106160 So this device which could be used to feed USB to an SPDIF output on this device loses functionality if it is MQA enabled. How nice of the MQA to do this for owners of that DAC. Prevent hardware capabilities from functioning that the owner paid for. But no DRM here. Maybe more like HRM (hardware rights management). The Computer Audiophile 1 And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. Link to comment
adamdea Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 17 hours ago, Archimago said: Wow, had to do a double take this AM. Looks like subjective folks including Hans Beekhuyzen is now claiming that "often the linear phase version sounds the best - at least to my ears" (7:47 Hmmm, minimum phase Meridian / MQA / Ayre / Pono filters on the way out? Is he about to jump on the Chord linear phase 1M tap filter bandwagon?? Maybe but it is possible to have a foot on both bandwagons without apparent discomfort even though they are heading in opposite directions, isn't it @John_Atkinson. You are not a sound quality measurement device Link to comment
firedog Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 40 minutes ago, esldude said: Something to ask about. Ran across an iFi Nano I-one DAC review which has firmware that when MQA is enabled, SPDIF output is disabled. This is whether the input is MQA or anything else. https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/review-and-measurements-of-ifi-nano-ione-dac.4754/post-106158 It also then prevents filter choices that were available with this device unless you roll back to previous firmware and forego MQA. https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/review-and-measurements-of-ifi-nano-ione-dac.4754/post-106160 So this device which could be used to feed USB to an SPDIF output on this device loses functionality if it is MQA enabled. How nice of the MQA to do this for owners of that DAC. Prevent hardware capabilities from functioning that the owner paid for. But no DRM here. Maybe more like HRM (hardware rights management). I own one of those but run it on the previous (5.2) firmware which is non MQA. I asked iFi about this. It isn't the fault of MQA or HRM, per se. The device doesn't have the capacity to do both MQA and also act as a USB>SPDIF converter. To allow it to do MQA, they need to devote one of the cores to it, and they sacrificed the core that previously did SPDIF. They therefore give users a choice: one firmware version without MQA and with the SPDIF out, and another with MQA, but the SPDIF out is eliminated. Here's their actual response: Just to be clear, yes, there are insufficient resources on the 8-core devices to run MQA renderer AND SPDIF out. This is what is fitted, so there is no debate why it is not there. If there was an SPDIF out, it would just be the same signal as the MQA core decoder in the software decodes. The same is true for any other SPDIF out under MQA. In other words, it would be the same as loading firmware 5.2 (no MQA) and setting the software (Tidal, Roon, Audirvana) to output the first unfold digital signal (88.2/96kHz). The device fed via SPDIF would then require an SPDIF based MQA renderer component to perform the rest of the MQA unfolding in the DAC fed via SPDIF. esldude 1 Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three . Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
mansr Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 38 minutes ago, firedog said: I own one of those but run it on the previous (5.2) firmware which is non MQA. I asked iFi about this. It isn't the fault of MQA or HRM, per se. The device doesn't have the capacity to do both MQA and also act as a USB>SPDIF converter. To allow it to do MQA, they need to devote one of the cores to it, and they sacrificed the core that previously did SPDIF. They therefore give users a choice: one firmware version without MQA and with the SPDIF out, and another with MQA, but the SPDIF out is eliminated. Here's their actual response: Just to be clear, yes, there are insufficient resources on the 8-core devices to run MQA renderer AND SPDIF out. This is what is fitted, so there is no debate why it is not there. Their code must be horribly inefficient if this is true. 38 minutes ago, firedog said: If there was an SPDIF out, it would just be the same signal as the MQA core decoder in the software decodes. The same is true for any other SPDIF out under MQA. In other words, it would be the same as loading firmware 5.2 (no MQA) and setting the software (Tidal, Roon, Audirvana) to output the first unfold digital signal (88.2/96kHz). The device fed via SPDIF would then require an SPDIF based MQA renderer component to perform the rest of the MQA unfolding in the DAC fed via SPDIF. This is correct. I guess it hasn't occurred to them that someone might still want that functionality. Link to comment
mansr Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 50 minutes ago, adamdea said: Maybe but it is possible to have a foot on both bandwagons without apparent discomfort even though they are heading in opposite directions, isn't it @John_Atkinson. Sounds like something JCVD would do. adamdea 1 Link to comment
mfsoa Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 I'd like to see MQA explain what they mean by this "...just as the artist intended..." line. This tells me, the consumer, that each artist is involved with the MQA-ing of their catalog for which, in the case of deceased artists, I conclude that this is not possible and that MQA is not delivering what they say they are. (I know I know, seems impossible, right?) Do they really mean "The artist want their material to sound good, and MQA sounds good, therefore MQA is just as the artist intended" ?!? esldude 1 Link to comment
Popular Post adamdea Posted October 5, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted October 5, 2018 4 minutes ago, mfsoa said: I'd like to see MQA explain what they mean by this "...just as the artist intended..." line. Whatever it means I'm sure that it's entirely sincere and coherent. My only concern is that it might lead to bands splitting over artistic differences. I doubt that John and Paul would have been able to reach agreement on which leaky filter to use on the second unfold. esldude, mansr, The Computer Audiophile and 1 other 3 1 You are not a sound quality measurement device Link to comment
Popular Post adamdea Posted October 5, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted October 5, 2018 2 hours ago, mansr said: Sounds like something JCVD would do. I assume that you are familiar with his seminal work Time-blur Cop in which he plays both of two twins one of whom prefers linear phase filters and the other who is obsessed with pre-ringing but who are united equally in their love of the martial arts. esldude and The Computer Audiophile 1 1 You are not a sound quality measurement device Link to comment
james45974 Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 what I find interesting is that MQA has become nothing more than an punch line. Maybe the question should be asked at the forum: "why should MQA be taken serously?" Archimago 1 Jim Link to comment
christopher3393 Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 What would "The Death of MQA" MEAN, other than an opportunity for a few audiophiles to dance on its grave? Link to comment
Popular Post Archimago Posted October 5, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted October 5, 2018 6 hours ago, james45974 said: what I find interesting is that MQA has become nothing more than an punch line. Maybe the question should be asked at the forum: "why should MQA be taken serously?" At this point, I think it's just stating the obvious for folks here following along why MQA is so disliked. I know Chris wants to keep the discussions open and "balanced" but the word "controversial" IMO doesn't even really describe the issues here! "Deceit", "fraud", "lies", "deception" are perhaps more apt, but since many of us are more gentlemanly, we might not use these words as freely. Having said this, I do believe this talk will be important as a document of record that is more likely to bookend the latter days of MQA than the "birth of a new world". And I think Chris will do a great job as someone who has been open with allowing the community to express the major concerns while listening to the "pro" side since Chris did also publish a Q&A with Bob Stuart in the early years. For the general audience that might not know of CA or these threads, I think there are some issues that can be brought out in this "presentation of record" which I hope will eventually end up on YouTube for all to see whether broadcast live or not on Sunday... 1. A discussion that MQA is clearly not "lossless". Lossless codecs recover exactly the same signal/data that was entered into the system. A 24/192 WAV/FLAC/AIFF/WV/APE, etc. sent to MQA for encoding is not recovered as the exact 24/192 signal on the other end. MQA must "square" with this fact... The fact that at the start they called it "lossless" and they used the word "exact" when advertising this to audiophiles. IMO this is dishonest and while we can try to be "fair" and "balanced", in my books, that already inevitably brings into question the values of MQA as a company and their agents. 2. Where are the technical merits for MQA? a. Is the first "unfolding" with a lossy technique supposed to be beneficial? (Remember, this covers the 22/24-->44/48kHz spectrum.) b. How does the system impact even the most significant 16 bits of the audio data? Is it still "high res" if even a full 16 bits of the original audio data can be "molested"? c. Are these "leaky" filters (extracted with Mans' reverse engineering and thanks to the Audioquest Dragonfly) beneficial? Where is the evidence? With kind of research did they use to derive this? d. In concert with (b), can the "pro" side provide evidence that there are time-domain benefits? With what evidence did MQA promote to audiophile magazines that MQA was "better than high-res" (as per TAS) - generally said to be because of this time-domain benefit? e. How can MQA-CD be justified? Only 16/44.1 to work with! What is the definition of "high resolution", again? (Just like what is their definition of "lossless"?) 3. Beyond technical arguments, definitions, and "truth". What was the point, honestly? a. Was it data compression for streaming? We can handily already say that lossless techniques like 18/96 FLAC already can do what MQA does in bitrate with >16-bit resolution and no need for "leaky"/imaging/"aliasing" filters. We also know that other companies already can demonstrate lossless 24/96+ streaming (eg. Qobuz). So in 2018, will MQA concede that their compression is not needed (even if it were technically decent)? b. Was the real purpose the protection of "studio master" assets all along? Maybe the companies just didn't want their full 24-bit/96+ masters out in the wild anymore so they needed people to believe that a 24/48 (or 44) MQA file was just as good - for now of course, until the next remaster from the true "crown jewels" and the sonic mystique of these said "jewels" further revealed ad infinitum with each remaster. c. Was it for some kind of weak DRM with the crypto signatures which we know don't even really work to "authenticate" the lossy ultrasonic portions? I'm sure you guys can think of more... I do hope that a representative for MQA is on hand to answer for some of these rather straightforward questions/issues even if a bit uncomfortable as they may arise! 3 hours ago, christopher3393 said: What would "The Death of MQA" MEAN, other than an opportunity for a few audiophiles to dance on its grave? Some things deserve to be terminated because they were not conceived with truth and honesty in mind. I think there is cause for celebration sometimes. To see the end of MQA is a "win" and a vote from the audiophile community that "you can't fool everyone all the time"... And that maybe audiophiles are not all audiophools who can be taken for a ride no matter how good the propaganda and perceived power of the "official" audiophile press. There are in fact facts that must be taken into consideration no matter what some "respected", or "golden eared" individual or elder statesman (ie. Bob Stuart) says. It "MEANS" companies like MQA should be developing worthwhile technology and not depend on their advertising departments to deliver questionable expectations to participants in the hobby and be rewarded. It means that a company cannot hold a fancy party at The Shard and think that satisfying those invited (presumably power brokers and influential journalists) will achieve much. It also means that mouth pieces (eg. certain cheerleaders, shills, online sites strongly influenced by the Industry, and the "mainstream" audiophile magazines) are weak. Not just to audiophiles at large but also to the Industry they serve. It's a wake-up call... Time to act like actual journalists. Time to discern truth not by repeating or offering mere opinion. Time to serve the hobbyists by providing education, and insightful critical thought. Look at the comments people leave on web sites like TAS when they post a review... It means it's time to rekindle respect. mansr, adamdea, jerri5 and 13 others 11 2 3 Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile. Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism. R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press. Link to comment
mansr Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 1 hour ago, Archimago said: 3. Beyond technical arguments, definitions, and "truth". What was the point, honestly? Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now