MQA discussion

[asiufy]

Steve,

I remember that episode, and it did reflect poorly on them. And I can only guess that they realized that, and now are fully onboard with comparisons, given that they've encoded several of Peter McGrath's own recordings, and he's now doing the exact comparisons that weren't being done before.

Earlier this year, I've also done AxB comparisons on MQA stuff at the LAAS event we hosted.

So, we can safely say that that episode a few years back is fully in the past, and nobody's afraid of doing comparisons. As I said, even a $2000 Mytek will show the improvements of the MQA versions.

Unfortunately, I can't help the techy folks that prefer information before listening, since I'm in no way affiliated with the MQA folks. But if anybody wants to have a good listen, including you, Steve, they're more than welcome to come over and listen here.


cheers,
alex

 

[KeithR]

It says something, but nothing concrete about the technical aspects I (and similar ones by others) raised - specifically, it says it's "different", not necessarily "better" than the original. I am going to make an effort to listen to this alleged "magic" at Goodwin's with the Berkeley Ref2+MQA soon, but I must admit, as a technical guy, skepticism is all over me.

i believe both of them had the same reservations. and obviously both are AES all-stars.

you boston guys should attend the MQA demo together and report back for us - now that would be interested reading

 

[KeithR]

one interesting thing for the forum - could Steve or Ron reach out to MQA to create a sub-forum to answer questions? that would be beneficial to all and help MQA get the early adopters its wants.

 

[Al M.]

As I said, even a $2000 Mytek will show the improvements of the MQA versions.

But MQA probably won't make it a super-DAC. It's all relative: In an enthusiastic MQA review,

https://www.audiostream.com/content/mqa-reviewed

the author states:
"I went through the entire MQA gamut with the [Mytek] Brooklyn where each recording sounded lovely. How lovely? Is MQA/Mytek the equal of the at-present MQA-less dCS Rossini? Of course not. We're not talking miracles."

 

[asiufy]

Al,

That has never been claimed, I don't even know why you're posting this...

 

[Al M.]

Al,

That has never been claimed, I don't even know why you're posting this...

Because I cannot escape the impression, rightly or wrongly, that MQA is portrayed as this wonder drug for digital.

Again, I am not against MQA, and as I said before, if it were to find mainstream acceptance as music medium I would certainly be interested.

Apart from that, I am still skeptical about some technical aspects.

 

[Al M.]

How about we do a main MQA thread, non-DAC specific?

I've posted this Forbes link elsewhere, as it reflects exactly my understanding of MQA wants to be and who they want to reach...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/meliss...-sound-in-the-digital-audio-era/#7f4e89bc14fe

Also, I've noticed a LOT of new albums added today! I haven't been able to listen to any yet, but these are some that caught my eye:

Lord "Pure Heroine" https://tidal.com/album/77632177
Ben Webster "Soulville" https://tidal.com/album/77647117
Serge Gainsbourg "Melody Nelson" https://tidal.com/album/77643435 (this one was quite shocking to see on Tidal at all, let alone in MQA!)
Rush "Moving Pictures" https://tidal.com/album/77623600
Stevie Wonder "Innervisions" https://tidal.com/album/77666298
The Who "Who's Next" https://tidal.com/album/77616121

I'll do some A x Bing tomorrow on those, as I know most of these albums pretty well, and I actually have them in multiple formats!


cheers,
alex

Alex, do you have an update on listening impressions?

 

[Kingsrule]

one interesting thing for the forum - could Steve or Ron reach out to MQA to create a sub-forum to answer questions? that would be beneficial to all and help MQA get the early adopters its wants.

They will never answer with complete transparency if they participate at all......

 

[ack]

i believe both of them had the same reservations. and obviously both are AES all-stars.

First, I will make a real effort to listen to MQA this weekend. Second and equally important, let's just say that Al, myself and others are scientists, and as such, we work with real data and proofs, not _just_ claims. Therefore, by our nature, anyone's claims are taken with a grain of salt, until we can prove them right or wrong - 'prove' is the operating word, and in all things audio, this means by listening as well as from a technical point of view.

Given that we believe - and have said nothing against - those who claim the MQA sound is superb, the focus is on the technical side of things. The Yggy folks approach MQA the same way, and I am sure many others. So let's talk about Meridian's claim that MQA addresses time-domain issues in the reproducing DAC: if you think about it, this says that all DACs have common time-domain issues, which no DAC manufacturer has ever identified or is able to fix, yet Meridian come along and they claim they can fix *ALL* DACs' alleged time-domain issues with some algorithm and they can do so with every track... magic. To put it mildly, this raises flags because it's so bold, because the next thing I could have said is that the claim is just full of it.

Therefore, from a technical point of you, the floor is open for anyone to show us how exactly they achieve this 'magic', and if the AES superstars you referenced have seen the data and felt comfortable about it, it can be made publicly available. If not, then they have probably seen nothing either, or it's anyone's guess what they have seen. In a nutshell, this is how science works.

 

[bonzo75]

And all this time I thought Keith was a nuclear physicist

 

[Al M.]

First, I will make a real effort to listen to MQA this weekend. Second and equally important, let's just say that Al, myself and others are scientists, and as such, we work with real data and proofs, not _just_ claims. Therefore, by our nature, anyone's claims are taken with a grain of salt, until we can prove them right or wrong - 'prove' is the operating word, and in all things audio, this means by listening as well as from a technical point of view.

Given that we believe - and have said nothing against - those who claim the MQA sound is superb, the focus is on the technical side of things. The Yggy folks approach MQA the same way, and I am sure many others. So let's talk about Meridian's claim that MQA addresses time-domain issues in the reproducing DAC: if you think about it, this says that all DACs have common time-domain issues, which no DAC manufacturer has ever identified or is able to fix, yet Meridian come along and they claim they can fix *ALL* DACs' alleged time-domain issues with some algorithm and they can do so with every track... magic. To put it mildly, this raises flags because it's so bold, because the next thing I could have said is that the claim is just full of it.

Therefore, from a technical point of you, the floor is open for anyone to show us how exactly they achieve this 'magic', and if the AES superstars you referenced have seen the data and felt comfortable about it, it can be made publicly available. If not, then they have probably seen nothing either, or it's anyone's guess what they have seen. In a nutshell, this is how science works.

Well said.

Adding to the technical skepticism, here is a paper by Benchmark Audio's John Siau (see also the links under "Additional Reading"):

https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/163302855-is-mqa-doa

Not sure how valid all his objections are, but the article does raise red flags in my mind.

 

[Lee]

At the LA show, I heard Peter McGrath and Bob Stuart's demo of MQA using some of Peter's minimally miked classical recordings. It was a setup from Sunny's Components using Wilson Alexx speakers and a T+A integrated which sounded great. Playing hirez files I believe at 24/96 or 24/88.2, the MQA version seemed to be more natural sounding with better bass and slightly better dynamics.

 

[awsmone]

Well said.

Adding to the technical skepticism, here is a paper by Benchmark Audio's John Siau (see also the links under "Additional Reading"):

https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/163302855-is-mqa-doa

Not sure how valid all his objections are, but the article does raise red flags in my mind.

+1

I am very interested in the technical side as removing preringing via an aphodising filter will smear the time domain

The only was to improve the time domain is in the frequency domain

This would require some form of interpolation or minimum sampling to predict

Clearly not something you can "guess" or would have the time to do manually, other than to check it sounded ok ?

 

[KeithR]

Given that we believe - and have said nothing against - those who claim the MQA sound is superb, the focus is on the technical side of things. The Yggy folks approach MQA the same way, and I am sure many others. So let's talk about Meridian's claim that MQA addresses time-domain issues in the reproducing DAC: if you think about it, this says that all DACs have common time-domain issues, which no DAC manufacturer has ever identified or is able to fix, yet Meridian come along and they claim they can fix *ALL* DACs' alleged time-domain issues with some algorithm and they can do so with every track... magic. To put it mildly, this raises flags because it's so bold, because the next thing I could have said is that the claim is just full of it.

Actually Charley Hanson said Ayre came up with something he believes to be similar in 2009. Check his AA posts.

 

[asiufy]

It hasn't been my perception that MQA aims to "fix" the final DA conversion, but really the initial AD.

Here's something I found that exemplies the MQA process of encoding, where the AD converter is taken into account, and its "sonic fingerprint" is supressed from the actual music, resulting in a the proverbial "veil" being lifted

http://bobtalks.co.uk/uncategorized/white-glove-1-carl-nielsen-piano-music/

 

[microstrip]

(...) Therefore, from a technical point of you, the floor is open for anyone to show us how exactly they achieve this 'magic', and if the AES superstars you referenced have seen the data and felt comfortable about it, it can be made publicly available. If not, then they have probably seen nothing either, or it's anyone's guess what they have seen. In a nutshell, this is how science works.

I must confess that for me it is mostly audiophile curiosity ... I do not expect "visions" concerning high-end. And I appreciate opinions when they are supported and detailed.

I was a skeptic concerning DSD until I have experienced it in my DAC in my system. But then I had to believe my ears ...

As Al. M pointed "official science" tells us that redbook is perfect. I have followed Devialet remarkable improvements along many years, most were just firmware. None of them is "scientifically" explained.

 

[Al M.]

It hasn't been my perception that MQA aims to "fix" the final DA conversion, but really the initial AD.

Here's something I found that exemplies the MQA process of encoding, where the AD converter is taken into account, and its "sonic fingerprint" is supressed from the actual music, resulting in a the proverbial "veil" being lifted

http://bobtalks.co.uk/uncategorized/white-glove-1-carl-nielsen-piano-music/

From the link:
"Using conventional digital converters and processing, audio has been blurred more than we realise and in a way that makes it unnatural, remote and lacking immediacy."

It is this kind of hyperbole that makes me skeptical and incredulous. Unnatural, remote and lacking immediacy? Really? I mean, REALLY? I have plenty CDs where in my system the music grabs you with impactful immediacy *), just like with vinyl elsewhere. And I have heard stunning naturalness partially in my system, but even more so elsewhere, where we marveled, for example, how incredibly realistic piano sounded on the best recordings on Redbook CD -- with a coherent, rich and weighty harmonic envelope, with incredible cleanness and clarity, also in the high register, and with perfect decay of tones.

Perhaps MQA is even better than this, and it will be interesting to experience it -- but it is ridiculous to claim that everything with digital so far was 'wrong'. If you need MQA to go from a 'remote' to an immediate sound something is wrong not with digital as such, but with digital through your system.

That talk about MQA reminds me of the hyperbole when SACD was introduced as a 'savior' from the allegedly 'rotten' CD format.
________

*) and not as an artifact of 'flatness' -- my system is very good at portraying spatial depth

 

[microstrip]

It hasn't been my perception that MQA aims to "fix" the final DA conversion, but really the initial AD.

Here's something I found that exemplies the MQA process of encoding, where the AD converter is taken into account, and its "sonic fingerprint" is supressed from the actual music, resulting in a the proverbial "veil" being lifted

http://bobtalks.co.uk/uncategorized/white-glove-1-carl-nielsen-piano-music/

If it is not dependent on DAC why would they need to insert the decoding in the DAC and certify it?

As far as I understood this example addresses pre-historic audio ADCs from a 1991 DAT consumer machine - modern digital systems claim to have impulse response with zero pre- or post-ringing.

 

[asiufy]

Francisco,

The decoding in the DAC is to guarantee the "Authenticated" bit of MQA, so they have control over what the DAC is doing with their signal, and thus present to the end-user a unified experience. "Master Quality Authenticated".

As for the example, I do agree with you that most modern ADCs have less of that "fingerprint" that they talk about. But A LOT of music was put to digital back in the 80s/90s, with those early ADCs... Matter of fact, when I was doing my initial AxBs early this year, I've noticed that most of the modern (digital) recordings didn't present that big of a difference when going MQA than the older stuff.

 

[awsmone]

Francisco,

The decoding in the DAC is to guarantee the "Authenticated" bit of MQA, so they have control over what the DAC is doing with their signal, and thus present to the end-user a unified experience. "Master Quality Authenticated".

As for the example, I do agree with you that most modern ADCs have less of that "fingerprint" that they talk about. But A LOT of music was put to digital back in the 80s/90s, with those early ADCs... Matter of fact, when I was doing my initial AxBs early this year, I've noticed that most of the modern (digital) recordings didn't present that big of a difference when going MQA than the older stuff.

I think this is correct
ADC which had low frequency rate sampling 44.1/48/88.2 create preringing of the high frequencies filtered off

High frequency sampling 192 or greater the upper end of the frequencyies is below 1/2 the sampling frequency and there is no preringing as there are no frequency being filtered off, and also fulfills Nyquist by being band limited without an antialiasing filter