Is MQA good enough to get Analog Guys to enjoy it? Or still cause Digital Fatigue?

[EuroDriver]

Thanks. Just one ignorant question - can you switch the "fixing" on and off when upsampling the files to DXD in the SGM? Or is it intrinsic to the HQ upsampling?

Hi microstrip,

When upsampling, there is always a manipulation. In its simplest form, often called "sample and hold", the original image is just repeated.

As far as I know the only set of conditions where the HQ Player user can turn off the digital filter and turn off the addition of dither is when keeping the output rate the same as the input rate (ie no upsampling). When the HQP user selects the filter choice setting [none] and the dither noise shape [none], there is no upsampling and no manipulation of the data stream.

On a separate note, we have started to test the Aqua Formula using Closed Form with NS 5 in the demo space at the workshop in Hengelo. Emile is very impressed with the sonic presentation, especially with live music. It's giving us a interesting sonic environment to further adjust the HQ Player and OS settings to get the sonics to a higher level.

Best Regards,

Ed

 

[asiufy]

because that is exactly what it is doing. it is using math to fix problems in the digital file. as opposed to simply through putting bit for bit 'bit perfect'. other commercial servers all only do 'bit perfect'. my ears tell me 'fixing' is the way to do it.

you know me well enough to realize I cannot explain it further. likely go to the Computer Audio forum where Jussi (the guy who wrote HQ Player) hangs out and ask your questions.

Mike & microstrip,

If I may, the "fixing" that HQplayer does is basically apply one of their upsampling algorhythms and digital filters, instead of relying on the DAC to do so. That way, you can use the DAC at its comfort zone, always feeding it PCM or DSD at optimum resolution/bit depth.

Think of HQplayer as dCS' own upsampler box. With a dCS system, the transport itself can upsample the source data, but it's usually better to use the separate upsampler box. And dCS provides a number of filter options on its DAC, and so does HQplayer.

 

[asiufy]

On a separate note, we have started to test the Aqua Formula using Closed Form with NS 5 in the demo space at the workshop in Hengelo. Emile is very impressed with the sonic presentation, especially with live music. It's giving us a interesting sonic environment to further adjust the HQ Player and OS settings to get the sonics to a higher level.

Best Regards,

Ed

Ha! Told you so


cheers,
alex

 

[EuroDriver]

No, that is not what it is doing.

Let me rephrase Mike's post

HQ Player is using high sample rate DSP with very high precision (bit depth) to
- reduce the audible digital artifacts which were created during the initial Analog to Digital conversion process
- intelligently extrapolate to make new images in between the original images
- shift the distribution of ringing before and after the sonic event

There is another set of clever stuff when HQ Player is converting PCM to DSD

 

[EuroDriver]

Ha! Told you so


cheers,
alex

I bow deeply to you as the first person we know of to try Closed Form with the Aqua Formula and achieve great results.

I was probably using TPDF with Closed Form in December, so I need to go back to school and read the manual

 

[rbbert]

Larry,

forgot to answer your question on the settings. i'll try to answer to the degree I understand it right now.

my Aqua Formula dac is a dxd capable PCM RTR ladder dac. so HQ Player is set up to up sample everything to dxd for inputting into the Formula dac. so dsd gets converted to dxd.

and currently I'm using 'Closed Form' and 'NS 5' as the settings.

I was under the impression (which I recently read on the Internet somewhere, no personal experience or testing) that no R2R DAC chip exists that does better than 21-22 bit performance, so I don't see how this RTR DAC has 32 bit performance. Or do you mean it processes the data at 32/352.8 (which is nothing special nowadays)?

 

[microstrip]

Let me rephrase Mike's post

HQ Player is using high sample rate DSP with very high precision (bit depth) to
- reduce the audible digital artifacts which were created during the initial Analog to Digital conversion process
- intelligently extrapolate to make new images in between the original images
- shift the distribution of ringing before and after the sonic event

There is another set of clever stuff when HQ Player is converting PCM to DSD

So it is not only upsampling and filtering - HQ has another type of processing. Do you have details on the operation I quoted in bold?

 

[Ken Newton]

Hi microstrip,

When upsampling, there is always a manipulation. In its simplest form, often called "sample and hold", the original image is just repeated.

Hi, EuroDriver, please forgive me for correcting a few things. I dislike assuming for myself the role of accuracy police. I do so only for the sake of any newcomers who might be reading the thread.

Sample & Hold operation is something apart from the mechanism which produces the repeating ultrasonic image bands. The image bands manifest out of the DAC's sharply slewing discretely stepped analog output. These bands are produced whether or not the DAC holds it's present output level before moving to the next level (sample & hold operation. Also known as, zero-order hold). The DAC's output could just as well return to zero immediately after each sample rather than hold (wait) at each current level. All that upsampling interpolation does is suppress the undesired image bands.

The consequence of sample & hold operation is that it overlays a low pass shaped frequency response mask which softly rolls off the high treble. Most audio DACs are S&H based and require that the inherent treble roll off be equalized to obtain a flat overall response.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I was under the impression (which I recently read on the Internet somewhere, no personal experience or testing) that no R2R DAC chip exists that does better than 21-22 bit performance, so I don't see how this RTR DAC has 32 bit performance. Or do you mean it processes the data at 32/352.8 (which is nothing special nowadays)?

you have entered a knowledge zone beyond my pay grade. hopefully Edward or someone can comment.

 

[jeromelang]

I have began to notice that on some streamer devices/services, music sound "fresher" if you select a new track to play that is different from what was playing before. However, if you play back the same track again that was already playing, the soundstage would be collapsed. It is as if everytime a different track is selected to play in the midst of playing something else, the devices "clear themselves of residual memory" and devout their replenished resources to playing the brand new track with fervour. Repeating the same track again does not trigger the same memory clearout, and as a result (due to some unknown factor) sound quality suffers.

This is very easily audible with youtube videos.

Does any pc based playback software that you know of perform the same "residual memory cleansing" before commencing playing a new track?

 

[rsorren1]

Is MQA good enough for guys who primarily listen to Analog to enjoy it? Or does it still have "digital downsides"?

From my experience, MQA while good does not sound better than my turntable. Period. However, I have only experienced MQA using the Tidal desktop app played to my DAC at 96/24 through USB. That said, the Masters on Tidal really do sound good. In most all instances they sound better than the 44.1/16 versions from Tidal Hi-fi through USB. I am very encouraged by this. Hi-res streaming sounds really good. But better than my turntable? Afraid not yet.

 

[a.dent]

Having read through this thread I see only two posts from people who have actually listened to MQA. There is a lot of conjecture in this thread about how CD quality is good enough but really you owe it to yourselves to have a listen to MQA. I reckon you'll soon change your tune.

From my listening over the last 4 weeks, MQA properly decoded is equally as pleasing to listen to as vinyl. It is seriously better than CD and 44.1/16 files. So, yes, I think most analog guys will enjoy it. Just don't expect to be impressed by undecoded MQA files though. To me they are slightly worse than CD.

To get a taste of MQA listen through the Tidal App on Mac or Windows. You get up to 96/24 resolution. (it costs nothing to trial Tidal)

As for the Digital Fatigue question. Well I think that's the DACs fault, not the file.

 

[a.dent]

From my experience, MQA while good does not sound better than my turntable. Period. However, I have only experienced MQA using the Tidal desktop app played to my DAC at 96/24 through USB. That said, the Masters on Tidal really do sound good. In most all instances they sound better than the 44.1/16 versions from Tidal Hi-fi through USB. I am very encouraged by this. Hi-res streaming sounds really good. But better than my turntable? Afraid not yet.

Ahh great. Someone else who has actually listened to MQA.

You probably have much better vinyl gear than I do. I find MQA and vinyl pretty close SQ-wise.

 

[Yuri Korzunov]

If compare analog and digital, I can't understand, why considered what MQA distinguished by usual high-resolution at sample rate identical unfolded value?

MQA is compression method only and can't improve sound without distortions, isn't it?

 

[a.dent]

If compare analog and digital, I can't understand, why considered what MQA distinguished by usual high-resolution at sample rate identical unfolded value?

MQA is compression method only and can't improve sound without distortions, isn't it?

Have you listened to it properly decoded?

 

[Yuri Korzunov]

Have you listened to it properly decoded?

No.

"MQA brings you the missing 90% – the full, rich experience – without any loss of convenience."
http://www.mqa.co.uk/customer/how-it-works

Sorry for my English, but if I correct understand this quote, MQA is slightly lossy (original and decoded signal is not binary identical).

When compared 2 audio sources need provide loudness difference lesser 0.5 dB.

Also proper double blind test is not home work.

 

[a.dent]

No.



Sorry for my English, but if I correct understand this quote, MQA is slightly lossy (original and decoded signal is not binary identical).

When compared 2 audio sources need provide loudness difference lesser 0.5 dB.

Also proper double blind test is not home work.

It is slightly lossy but only in the inaudible high frequencies. The lossy part had my OCDs going crazy_____until I listened to it.

I won't attempt to get into a technical discussion because I'm not very good at that stuff. I usually go on what sounds good to me.

 

[Yuri Korzunov]

It is slightly lossy but only in the inaudible high frequencies. The lossy part had my OCDs going crazy_____until I listened to it.

I won't attempt to get into a technical discussion because I'm not very good at that stuff. I usually go on what sounds good to me.

I don't worry about loses.

I'm wondering why distinguished MQA and same (to unfolded value) uncompressed digital resolution when compared with analog signal?

 

[Legolas]

Ahh great. Someone else who has actually listened to MQA.

You probably have much better vinyl gear than I do. I find MQA and vinyl pretty close SQ-wise.

Some in the audio industry claim that vinyl has much higher resolution especially in the crucial midrange. It reminds me of film v digital in cameras. Film has a higher range / tolerance in the highlights and shadow, and can retain more detail. Software can extract as much as there is in the dats, but there is a cliff where there will be nothing, no detail, and in film it can go beyond that in many cases. The problem is it also has grain, just like vinyl has a higher level of background noise. However, it has also been suggested by some audio reviewers that a certain level of background noise in the music (to our ears) can help the perceived amount of detail our ears can take in.

I am quoting from others in the industry here, and have no idea if this is all true, but I have used film in pro cameras for years, and lately big digital backs, and even though digital has equaled, maybe surpassed film in many areas, IMO it hasn't beaten it in all areas. Quite possibly digital audio is the same? And the things vinyl does well still sounds more attractive to the human ear.

It is fascinating we are all still trying to extract the best out of digital audio 25 years on, when at the start of it we were told it was 'perfect' and the answer to all our dreams....

 

[Al M.]

Some in the audio industry claim that vinyl has much higher resolution especially in the crucial midrange. It reminds me of film v digital in cameras. Film has a higher range / tolerance in the highlights and shadow, and can retain more detail. Software can extract as much as there is in the dats, but there is a cliff where there will be nothing, no detail, and in film it can go beyond that in many cases. The problem is it also has grain, just like vinyl has a higher level of background noise. However, it has also been suggested by some audio reviewers that a certain level of background noise in the music (to our ears) can help the perceived amount of detail our ears can take in.

I am quoting from others in the industry here, and have no idea if this is all true, but I have used film in pro cameras for years, and lately big digital backs, and even though digital has equaled, maybe surpassed film in many areas, IMO it hasn't beaten it in all areas. Quite possibly digital audio is the same? And the things vinyl does well still sounds more attractive to the human ear.

To your human ear, you mean. Please do not generalize. I have heard top vinyl setups, and they do sound attractive, and can sound very real. But I am not sure if they sound more real than digital. When I go to concerts of live unamplified music I often hear a bite and hardness *) to the sound that I feel well represented by PCM digital, even though I also hear this from top analog in a number of cases. This as opposed to lesser analog (including lesser pressings/masterings) that sounds unnaturally smooth to my ears; I also have become suspicious of so called 'fluidity' in reproduction -- live unamplified music mostly doesn't sound particularly 'fluid' to me.

As for grain, this is an issue with some digital, and also mine may have slight traces of it, even though I mostly don't notice it. But I know someone who only listens to analog at home who hears no grain at all from a dCS Rossini or Vivaldi -- from plain Redbook CD.

_______________

*) as opposed to artificial electronic harshness