MQA

[John Phillips]

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 ...

I wonder if anyone can explain what this particular blurring is, in fairly precise terms. I assume from the term it's something to do with the central "phantom image" (which BTW is a fundamental weakness of two-channel stereo anyway - covered extensively in Floyd Toole's "Sound Reproduction: ..." book).

And exactly what is it that causes it in the production process?

 

[mansr]

I wonder if anyone can explain what this particular blurring is, in fairly precise terms.

The MQA people have been talking about (de)blurring from the start without ever managing to even vaguely define what they mean by the word.

 

[Robert]

Did you ever play DVDs when they were relatively new? The horrors of proprietary codecs!

There is a difference between having no choice, e.g. when DVD was the dominant video format, and audio today when we have access to many non MQA high res options without this proprietary nonsense riding our backs.

 

[Timcat]

However - as your last point shows - a method may be different to the original.

Another point this brings out is: If they took you to court saying you'd duplicated their method, they'd then be telling everyone "This open method is exactly what we use" and thus it would no longer be confidential.

Their patent *can't* cover methods like using a non-Nyquist reconstruction filter because many people have used those for many years in many forms.

So 'manner' in this case really would mean a duplicate. And if you did that without knowing their hidden details you can't be said to have stolen details they kept hidden. Nor be blamed for choosing them lacking the knowledge of which specific filter values, etc, they use.

Have you read the HDCD patents? They make an interesting comparison with MQAs in this area.

The test for infringement is: does the allegedly infringing method/product lie within the scope of a valid claim in the patent? If it does, it infringes. If it lies within the scope of a claim, but was also known or obvious before the patent's priority date, the claim in question would be invalid and there would be no infringement. However, if a claimed method or product includes known features, but combines them in a novel and non-obvious way, then it could be valid and, thus, infringed by an unlicensed product or method that combines them in the claimed way.

So, a proprietor need not allege that an infringer has duplicated their commercial method in order to show infringement. Equally, a competitor can prove invalidity by showing that a method known before the patent's priority date, not necessarily the exact same one that the proprietor uses commercially, lies within the scope of the patents' claims.

If I got any closer, I would be guilty of commenting on the specifics of the MQA patents, which I cannot do, but I hope the above helps!

Finally, no I haven't read the HDCD patents, as they are outside my normal (technical) area of practice.

 

[gustav_errata]

There is a difference between having no choice, e.g. when DVD was the dominant video format, and audio today when we have access to many non MQA high res options without this proprietary nonsense riding our backs.

Perhaps a more apt comparison would be HDMI, with regards to studio-friendly encryption and a license fee for device implementation that gets passed on to consumers for little to no consumer benefit.

 

[Stuart Frazer]

If MQA can be pressed on to analogue vinyl, am I right to think that MQA is a sound filter in this regard?

 

[Octavian]

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.

Most audiophiles do not care. For them vinyl is good, as is mqa, because they read it in a hifi mag. What then could possibly be better than mqa on vinyl? Facts are the enemy.

 

[Rosewind]

No. Disinformation is.

 

[DimitryZ]

There is a difference between having no choice, e.g. when DVD was the dominant video format, and audio today when we have access to many non MQA high res options without this proprietary nonsense riding our backs.

Then you don't have a problem - just don't use it.

 

[DimitryZ]

Most audiophiles do not care. For them vinyl is good, as is mqa, because they read it in a hifi mag. What then could possibly be better than mqa on vinyl? Facts are the enemy.

Lack of actual listening experience is the real enemy.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

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.

Formally, we can't be absolutely certain. But it seems, erm, a bit unlikely, plus a rather extreme amount of effort. My first thought was to wonder how accurately the turntable would have to rotate to cope with a 44.k1 bit pattern sequence without 'jitter' losing track. Then how well centered the LP would need to be. Then how it would cope with the noise level, then... I stopped as that seemed enough to make it crazy.

But of course, if MQA is simply and 'effect' due to adding anharmonics below the cutter and stylus resonances none of that matters. Or is this simply a joke or a spectacular example of the gullibility/greed/who-could-care-less-ness of some in the music mastering biz?!!

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

If MQA can be pressed on to analogue vinyl, am I right to think that MQA is a sound filter in this regard?

Either the people doing it assume it can be 'decoded' or that it is an 'effect' to make the sound nicer (without decoding) or simply that it will sell. They may simply have listened, decided they liked it, and used it. Or it is just a gramophone wind-up as distinct from a wind-up gramophone. I *hope* it is the latter for the sake of all involved.

 

[Yank]

This is exactly what I mean - a large group of MQA detractors viciously hounding one or two MQA supporters to force them out.

[sam kinison] Oh you're a martyr! [/sam kinison]

Utter nonsense, no one is trying to silence you. Besides, you'll always come back for the last word.

In this case, what you posted is personally disgusting. I am a lifelong Democrat and a strong supporter of liberal values. You, of course, know this. And moderators think this is all good British fun.

Then why do you use their tactics?

 

[George J]

I thought this was an interesting review:

M

I watched that video. I don't think I have ever seen a YouTube post that is more damning of anything replay related.

All that MQA need do is allow third parties to test their assertions in a transparent way. The truth would be revealed in a way that would shut down the argument once and for all ... and, surprise surprise, MQA will not do that ...

Tells me all I need to know, even without being able to replicate the work done by the poster of this video.

Remarkable work.

Best wishes from George

 

[Yank]

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 ...

So Botnick is hearing here, for the first time, what any properly set up stereo playback system has been able to do since the late 1950s?

 

[Stuart Frazer]

I thought this was an interesting review:

M

I watched that video. I don't think I have ever seen a YouTube post that is more damning of anything replay related.

All that MQA need do is allow third parties to test their assertions in a transparent way. The truth would be revealed in a way that would shut down the argument once and for all ... and, surprise surprise, MQA will not do that ...

Tells me all I need to know, even without being able to replicate the work done by the poster of this video.

Remarkable work.

Best wishes from George

The response from MQA makes interesting reading.....

 

[DimitryZ]

[sam kinison] Oh you're a martyr! [/sam kinison]

Utter nonsense, no one is trying to silence you. Besides, you'll always come back for the last word.



Then why do you use their tactics?

I most certainly do not. I point to lack of alignment of your concerns with an empirical record over several years as well as lack of personal experience.

Your response is to try to associate me with Roger Stone.

 

[DimitryZ]

I watched that video. I don't think I have ever seen a YouTube post that is more damning of anything replay related.

All that MQA need do is allow third parties to test their assertions in a transparent way. The truth would be revealed in a way that would shut down the argument once and for all ... and, surprise surprise, MQA will not do that ...

Tells me all I need to know, even without being able to replicate the work done by the poster of this video.

Remarkable work.

Best wishes from George

Unfortunately, the new anti-MQA hero (goes by GoldenOne) has chosen not to reveal anything about the actual equipment he used in his tests.

Yet this is completely fine for those demanding transparency from MQA.

 

[George J]

Dear Dimitry,

As I wrote earlier, "all MQA need do is allow third parties to test their assertions in a transparent way. The truth would be revealed in a way that would shut down the argument once and for all ..."

The reluctance to do this - a vacuum of information - leaves them vulnerable to those who would see them damned as well as those who are open minded. Nature abhors a vacuum. MQA need to step up and allow for much more transparency, which if they are right in their assertions will do them nothing but good. So far that is not their policy.

Please be sure that my points concern MQA, and are no personal slur on anyone more inclined to like MQA.

Best wishes from George

 

[DimitryZ]

Dear Dimitry,

As I wrote earlier, "all MQA need do is allow third parties to test their assertions in a transparent way. The truth would be revealed in a way that would shut down the argument once and for all ..."

The reluctance to do this - a vacuum of information - leaves them vulnerable to those who would see them damned as well as those who are open minded. Nature abhors a vacuum. MQA need to step up and allow for much more transparency, which if they are right in their assertions will do them nothing but good. So far that is not their policy.

Please be sure that my points concern MQA, and are no personal slur on anyone more inclined to like MQA.

Best wishes from George

But George, why would a company open their proprietary software to competition?

Their business model depends on clients paying licensing fees. If their trade secrets are revealed, they will go bankrupt.

I agree it would be great if companies opened their IP for everyone. But that doesn't happen.

If you want to play with MQA you have to pay them money and sign an NDA.