Have You MQA'd?

[MerkinMuffley]

12 hours ago, mikebse2a3 said:

I thought this was interesting from Schiit about MQA.  Note: this was from 2016 but still seems to be a lot of confusion about MQA still today.

 

http://www.schiit.com/about/news/why-we-wont-be-supporting-mqa

 

miketn

 

Very interesting comments there, which do seem to indicate that this is a new "format" that requires a listener to  re-pay for music they own that isn't MQA. 

[joshnich]

Another respected Company that calls BS on MQA is Benchmark. 

 

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

[Chris A]

17 hours ago, artto said:

While the recordings were being A/B’d I was taking SPL measurements. Surprisingly, there were differences. What’s more surprising, is on the piano recording the SPL was 4dB higher (peak & average) on the original version verses the MQA version. Usually, the higher SPL version wins as subjectively “better”. Some recordings had as little as 0.1dB difference. And on those it was more difficult to tell any subjective difference. All this led me to the thought that the better the original recording was – as in being done “right” in the first place – then MQA had less and less or no effect. Pete McGrath agreed. We all thought the MQA version sounded best when there was any effect.

 

So, that’s it, from the horse’s mouth. That being said, nobody seems to know what MQA is actually doing or how it does it. I like what heard.

 

If any form of audio processing results in lower peak levels vs. the average level (RMS), what's occurring is that there are introduced phase shifts vs. frequency.  This could be from "minimum phase" issues, i.e., EQing the original source.  But it could also be an all-pass issue.  Decreasing peak levels relative to the RMS level--also known as crest factor--aren't good in that they result in lower clarity of the processed audio to human listeners.  BTW: I've found that horn lovers tend to value their clarity quite highly over those that prefer direct radiating sound. 

 

I've seen this when demastering music tracks.  When I find an inverse EQ curve that pulls the original tracks back to a more reasonable cumulative power spectral density (PSD) profile (i.e., the "minimum phase" portion of the problem), I find that the little peaks in the music suddenly reappear.  At that point, very small tweaks in EQ have disproportionate effect on the resulting sound, indicating to me (at least) that those higher frequency phase shifts aren't desirable, because the little peaks disappear more readily with any further EQ.

 

YMMV.

 

Chris

[Chris A]

I've read in numerous places that the original mp3 algorithm takes advantage of human hearing--the effect called "masking". The mp3 algorithm supposedly attenuates frequency sidebands immediately around the fundamental frequencies playing at that instant, thus reducing the amount of information in the music track, and making the resulting file sizes smaller.

 

I have to say that I'm not really thrilled with any audio format that throws away musical information.  It seems that there is always a waveform that comes along that the algorithm developers didn't test for that breaks the algorithm's effectiveness vs. human hearing processes. 

 

It makes a lot more sense to just reproduce the music as recorded, and leave the "squashing" of file sizes to some other domain of computation.  YMMV.

 

Chris

 

EDIT: it's always interesting to me that we spend so much effort trying to squash the audio, like on streaming applications.  But when you compare the audio to the video (even highly squashed video), the full resolution audio tracks without lossy algorithms applied are 10x to 100x smaller in terms of their respective bit rates.  Think about that for a moment.  Why do we put up with any audio data compression algorithms that are lossy in today's world of "universal broadband for everyone"?

[pbphoto]

56 minutes ago, Chris A said:

Think about that for a moment.  Why do we put up with any audio data compression algorithms that are lossy in today's world of "universal broadband for everyone"?

That's one of the arguments against MQA - they invented a problem that didn't need solving.

[Chris A]

I'm certainly not trying to squash the thrill of the moment...better is better. 

 

Chris

[artto]

2 hours ago, MerkinMuffley said:

 

Very interesting comments there, which do seem to indicate that this is a new "format" that requires a listener to  re-pay for music they own that isn't MQA. 

Yes, I've read this.

Schitt co-founder Jason Goddard wrote that about two years ago. It shows a biased, and lack-of-knowledge company position on this subject. The first clue is when anyone says "We (or I) believe". That's immediately tells me that they do not "know".

 

There's really too much for me to nit pick at in this particular article as it would create a very lengthy boring post. It's mostly a lot of complaining about situations that do not exist - in other words they don't get it (as least that was the case when this was written).

 

I wish I had encountered this before AXPONA because Schitt Audio was there. They did however have a really good demo room sign outside their door. "Come on in and hear some really good Schitt from California" 

[MerkinMuffley]

The Benchmark post certainly EXPLAINS MQA in a mostly (to me) understandable way.  Clearly though, hardware makers are not going to want to be paying more license fees, or possibly hog-tying their own developments to a grand third party somewhat like Dolby. I'm pretty sure music producers also have no interest in adding a license to their cost roillup either. 

[MerkinMuffley]

PTP Solid 9 Turntable Origin Live Encounter tonearm with supernal cryo'ed rewire.

Grado Statement V2

Volti Audio Rival Loudspeakers

Current Issue McIntosh MC75  X 2

Silenzio by E music server

Benchmark DAC3

McIntosh C-22 re-issue Pre-amp

 

Wow - - never heard of "Volti" speakers before......something new every day.

[artto]

3 hours ago, joshnich said:

Another respected Company that calls BS on MQA is Benchmark. 

 

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

The Benchmark article is also about 2 years old. It demonstrates an even grosser misunderstanding of MQA. Right from the beginning it declares MQA DOA while comparing MQA to other (failed) "formats".

 

Repeat: MQA is NOT a "format". MQA can be "packed" with any of the mentioned "formats".

 

EDIT: perhaps "encapsulated" is a better description than "packed".

[artto]

19 minutes ago, MerkinMuffley said:

The Benchmark post certainly EXPLAINS MQA in a mostly (to me) understandable way.  Clearly though, hardware makers are not going to want to be paying more license fees, or possibly hog-tying their own developments to a grand third party somewhat like Dolby. I'm pretty sure music producers also have no interest in adding a license to their cost roillup either. 

Of course not.

That's for the market place (us) to decide. If the demand is there MQA will thrive. If not, good bye. Nothing lost. Same as it ever was.

[artto]

15 minutes ago, MerkinMuffley said:

PTP Solid 9 Turntable Origin Live Encounter tonearm with supernal cryo'ed rewire.

Grado Statement V2

Volti Audio Rival Loudspeakers

Current Issue McIntosh MC75  X 2

Silenzio by E music server

Benchmark DAC3

McIntosh C-22 re-issue Pre-amp

 

Wow - - never heard of "Volti" speakers before......something new every day.

Greg Roberts of Volti is a member of this Forum for years. He does absolutely beautiful cabinet/woodwork.

[artto]

2 hours ago, Chris A said:

 

If any form of audio processing results in lower peak levels vs. the average level (RMS), what's occurring is that there are introduced phase shifts vs. frequency.  This could be from "minimum phase" issues, i.e., EQing the original source.  But it could also be an all-pass issue.  Decreasing peak levels relative to the RMS level--also known as crest factor--aren't good in that they result in lower clarity of the processed audio to human listeners.  BTW: I've found that horn lovers tend to value their clarity quite highly over those that prefer direct radiating sound. 

 

I've seen this when demastering music tracks.  When I find an inverse EQ curve that pulls the original tracks back to a more reasonable cumulative power spectral density (PSD) profile (i.e., the "minimum phase" portion of the problem), I find that the little peaks in the music suddenly reappear.  At that point, very small tweaks in EQ have disproportionate effect on the resulting sound, indicating to me (at least) that those higher frequency phase shifts aren't desirable, because the little peaks disappear more readily with any further EQ.

 

YMMV.

 

Chris

I think you're heading in the right direction Chris. Although I suspect there's more to it. I'm still trying to track down the actual MQA patent in between everything else I have to do right now.

[Chris A]

Here is the patent application: https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2013186561A3/en

 

I don't know if the patent issued yet or not.

 

Chris

[Chris A]

Here it is: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9548055B2/en?oq=14406110

[artto]

Thanks Chris! You da man!!!

 

This, from the MQA patent sums up what the objective or intent is:

 

"The possibility of issuing a recording that is playable on standard mass-market players but also contains hidden information that allows a special decoder to retrieve additional bandwidth"

 

"However none has so far provided standard PCM playback compatibility while addressing the desire for lossless retrieval of an original higher-sampling-rate signal"     (as in 192Khz/24bit)

"and none has considered the question of how a decoder may provide an optimal experience to the listener at two different bit depths (for example for both 16-bit and 24-bit players)"

"Standard “legacy” PCM playback equipment that was not designed for use with the invention will typically receive or play only the top 16 bits"  "and will present the lossy representation to the listener with a bandwidth of approximately 0-20 kHz."

 

Yes (?), eventually, maybe, sometime in the not too distant future we may have the bandwidth to stream to anyone, and everyone, simultaneously stream "hi-res" audio (such as 192/24 or 8x DSD) without compromising performance. But right now it puts a significant load on the system, especially wireless (WiFi)

 

 

[Kevin S]

I understand virtually none of the technical mumbo jumbo beyond the point that MQA manipulates, changes and oragamis the original source. And all of this is being accepted and applauded by many in the audiophile world who would otherwise proclaim any manipulation of the “absolute sound”, even slightly, by the use of a mere tone control for example, to be blasphemy. For me, this would indicate that there are reasons other than sound quality for MQA to even exist. And it’s acceptance by those otherwise opposed to any manipulation of the source is to be viewed with suspicion and skepticism. 

[artto]

Much has been said about premiums ($) and royalties ($$$) and DRM. But, this for audiophiles, high-end audio, hi-resolution stuff, right? The "bleeding edge" always pays more up front until it becomes more mainstream, or no longer required at all.

 

Personally, I think it's kind of ridiculous that anyone who is interested in the very best sound reproduction possible ($$$$$) is going to complain about royalties or premiums. The prices we pay for our hardware & software are way beyond most people's idea of sanity. Are you really not going to buy that $1300 Oppo UDP-205 just because Oppo chose to pay MQA a royalty? I doubt it. People such as us are paying $50 for a Dave Brubeck 45rpm vinyl disc (not me - vinyl is a dead horse as far as I'm concerned). 

 

BTW, you do realize that packaged media (tapes, records, CD, DVD-A, etc) are all dead-end at this point, don't you? It's all going to be online, stream it anywhere, anytime, any format you want. Yes, you will be subscribing to some kind of service. But consider this. Why spend even a $100 a year on physical recordings if you can hear master quality recordings - anything you want, for just a little bit more per year. Tidal already has 30,000+ tracks of MQA material (about 2500 albums - more than most people have in their possession. And they're just getting started. And they will have competition. And eventually it won't cost "extra".

[artto]

44 minutes ago, Kevin S said:

I understand virtually none of the technical mumbo jumbo beyond the point that MQA manipulates, changes and oragamis the original source. And all of this is being accepted and applauded by many in the audiophile world who would otherwise proclaim any manipulation of the “absolute sound”, even slightly, by the use of a mere tone control for example, to be blasphemy. For me, this would indicate that there are reasons other than sound quality for MQA to even exist. And it’s acceptance by those otherwise opposed to any manipulation of the source is to be viewed with suspicion and skepticism. 

 

Well, I for one, have heard the difference for myself. I also have played music professionally. And I also have 25+ years of live on-location recording experience, both analog & digital. My point of reference and opinion are "qualified".

 

And for those who claim to be "purist" for not using things like tone controls are simply misleading themselves. That point of view demonstrates a very naive understanding of recording music, the reproduction process and all the things that are of far greater influence on what they hear - like the room they listen in.

 

Believe me, I've done enough live recording to know what things actually sound like and what can/cannot be achieved. If all recordings were "perfect", and everyone heard everything exactly the same way, and every recording studio had exactly the same setup, and everyone's preferences were the same, you would still have to make adjustment on your own playback system to make sound right - but if you weren't there, what is your point of reference? If you don't have a point of reference, how can you make any objective decisions as to what is "right or wrong"? How do you know how accurate your playback system is? (you don't)

 

Just as most musicians really need to listen to music more (in the way we do), so do audiophiles need to get involved with some experimental recording and room acoustics. When I first joined this Forum some 16 years ago there wasn't a thing mentioned about room acoustics. Now it's much more common on any audio forum and people are starting to pay attention.

 

IMHO a person willing to spend $200,000 on a speaker system would be better off spending $5000 on their whole system, and the other $195,000 on a really, really good room. And they should have made some recordings of sounds familiar to them so they can compare how well their system reproduces it. The front end (the recording) and the back end (the room) are the two most important components. Yet this is where most people lack the most experience and interest. 

 

I've heard the same recording(s) with & without MQA. There IS a difference. And from my experience it was for the better. I want it. And I'm in the process of trying to get some of my recordings MQA processed.

[Kevin S]

I am curious. When comparing the original master recording to the MQA recording, wouldn’t the goal be for the MQA recording to sound identical, as opposed to better, different or worse?