MQA
- Thread starter Rosewind
- Start date
- Status
Andrew L Weekes
Reverse Engineer
Hence my caveat of it being a problem that increasingly no longer exists and why MQA will die eventually.
Even in our backwards UK, where the goals for fibre rollout have been repeatedly diluted, the current investment is aimed primarily at areas that have poor broadband currently (e.g. rural areas) so this is being tackled, albeit slower than originally demanded by government.
I don't think MQA is the solution to the problem though, I personally think you'd be better sticking with lossless standard def in most cases, if BW is an issue.
Rosewind
Lost in Translation
Apart from the shivers running down my spine at the thought of the possibility that a lossy MQA master was used to produce this vinyl record, I find the Bruce Bot(c)nick quotation about deblurring interesting,This is a genuine query, my preferred format is vinyl, I do have Tidal and Qobuz subs and MQA capable DACs, I’m not fussed about it as a format but like many do not want it foisted on me, I want to make my own choice if I want the MQA version or not.
This guy has deliberately gone for an MQA master on the vinyl release. Not a band I collect so I won’t likely get to hear the record. I was surprised when I saw vinyl coming off MQA masters, thoughts, does his quote stand up to scrutiny?
On Amazon I found a Norwegian Jazz LP and nothing else after a cursory search so not yet a widespread thing it seems.
Particularly in light of the findings reported by Roy in the Norwegian Stereo+ article that I translated above. Here is the pertinent quotation from the Stereo+ article,
"Even though MQA brags that precisely de-blurring and dynamics are their
strong suits, it is my experince that Qobuz is even better at exactly these aspects."
So ...
mansr
Objectionist
MQA uses more bandwidth than the same audio data encoded with FLAC.
Well seeing this thread and the one on ASR, I’ve ended my Tidal account and have switched to Qobuz.
So far so good and it will be cheaper as I was paying the top Tidal price and don’t need or want the top end Qobuz service. There are only about 10 albums that are not represented when I moved my library from Tidal to Qobuz care of Soundiiz.
Even before these MQA threads emerged I’d tried and failed to hear a difference between my cd files and the MQA ones, using a Meridian Explorer 2 and several pairs of headphones. I could only detect a level change (the MQA ones being louder).
Maybe I am not a discerning enough listener.
I am not offended by the MQA sound as such it’s the fact I can’t detect a difference and the principle of the MQA offering, something is just not right with regard to what is going on.
So far so good and it will be cheaper as I was paying the top Tidal price and don’t need or want the top end Qobuz service. There are only about 10 albums that are not represented when I moved my library from Tidal to Qobuz care of Soundiiz.
Even before these MQA threads emerged I’d tried and failed to hear a difference between my cd files and the MQA ones, using a Meridian Explorer 2 and several pairs of headphones. I could only detect a level change (the MQA ones being louder).
Maybe I am not a discerning enough listener.
I am not offended by the MQA sound as such it’s the fact I can’t detect a difference and the principle of the MQA offering, something is just not right with regard to what is going on.
DimitryZ
pfm Member
I think you need to ask MANSR about his work on an open source MQA decoder. He seems uncharacteristically shy of this subject...Erm it could be functionally identical so long as it used 'clean room' methods given some limits. One is that any methods openly used before the patent could be used as they can't be claimed by the patent. e.g. using 'imprefect' filters to generate aliasing. The other is that a method may differ from the *novel* ones in the patents.
Using a an old fashioned NOR gate in a patented arrangement doesn't stop other people from using NOR gates.
Hence it seems to me to be quite possible that we could find someone devises an open source - at least partial - MQA decoder. Even if it can't use MQA as a brand name. it might perhaps be called a FAQE system, though with E = Enhancer.
Interesting to speculate if the bitflagging pattern that indicates MQA is protected. i.e. No-one could use that bit pattern. But the use of such patterns again isn't new. So an open FAQE creator could probably also be employed if someone thought a neat ideal.
That said, I guess a FAQE enhancer would be more useful and who knows, perhas each DAC producer could offer their own variety of reconstruction filters for the user to experiment with. A wider choice for users. Should be welcome for those interested in this sort of thing...
DimitryZ
pfm Member
Again, so much effort to quote other people's opinions! How about you own experience?Apart from the shivers running down my spine at the thought of the possibility that a lossy MQA master was used to produce this vinyl record, I find the Bruce Bot(c)nick quotation about deblurring interesting,
Particularly in light of the findings reported by Roy in the Norwegian Stereo+ article that I translated above. Here is the pertinent quotation from the Stereo+ article,
"Even though MQA brags that precisely de-blurring and dynamics are their
strong suits, it is my experince that Qobuz is even better at exactly these aspects."
So ...
mansr
Objectionist
I don't have any work on an open source decoder. Here's the link to what I have, again: https://code.videolan.org/mansr/mqa/
DimitryZ
pfm Member
And if they streamed MQA as FLAC, you could finally crack the encryption and publish a free decoder
DimitryZ
pfm Member
What does it do?
DimitryZ
pfm Member
Did you ever play DVDs when they were relatively new? The horrors of proprietary codecs!
DimitryZ
pfm Member
Is there anything more horrible than a studio monkeying about with a digital master before pressing it onto an LP? Buttering toast twice? I am screaming on the inside...
DimitryZ
pfm Member
The horrible answer is...contracts.
mansr
Objectionist
I suspect Tidal was struggling financially (we know they were) when MQA came along and offered them some cash in exchange for pushing their product.
DimitryZ
pfm Member
Sausage-making of business is so unsightly...I am clutching my pearls.
Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
Actually my reaction was more akin to bursting out in loud laughter at the utter absurdity of using an MQA master for an LP. It is rediculously inappropriate if you actually take seriously the claims MQA make. It would be a classic case of the people doing it shooting themself in the foot. Sadly, people may spend money buying it.
It will be even more laughable if the result *can* actually be MQA 'decoded'.
Stuart Frazer
pfm Member
Yes interesting analysis in that video. I am trying to understand MQA and what it gives the audiophile world. If it genuinely gives us better sound quality, then I'm all for that. However, some of the analysis and assertions within this video are alarming. Is MQA just a proprietary money-making exercise? I would like to see more independent and open analysis of the technology. I'm also coming across people who think MQA is louder and less dynamic than equivalent digital transfers. We don't need a supposedly audiophile format joining the loudness brigade in order to ear-muff people to think it is better.
mansr
Objectionist
There is no way it can. MQA is a digital process that requires the exact bits produced by the encoder to be fed into the decoder. That can't possibly happen if it has passed through an analogue medium.
- Status