advertisement


MQA

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry, I'm lost on this bootleg comment stuff. Perhaps, I've missed something in the previous 85 pages, I haven't read it all.
You can just ask mansr directly. Or not worry about it.

The easiest way to try MQA is by borrowing (or buying with return option) an MQA DAC - like the $150 IFI ZEN.
 
Perhaps you should offer them your consulting services, what with your deep understanding of the music business....

I've been reading your posts and I have generally respected the way you usually quite eloquently and politely state your points. And suddenly you go snarky on me? You done yourself down.
 
You can just ask mansr directly. Or not worry about it.

The easiest way to try MQA is by borrowing (or buying with return option) an MQA DAC - like the $150 IFI ZEN.

I will look into that at some point. I would probably just buy one at that price level and sell it on if it doesn't work out. I have a Lampizator Level 3/4 and an MDAC here - is the IFI ZEN going to outperform those DACs with MQA?
 
I read that MQA have 3 patents - Patents Assigned to MQA Limited

Much of the patent description information is gobbledygook to me. However, to me, it seems that MQA is a filter, noise shaping process which may improve the musical experience to some ears.

No, it isn't simply noise shaping. I looked at the patents some years ago and summarised what they say here:

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/MQA/origami/ThereAndBack.html

and

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/MQA/bits/Stacking.html

The result tends to be additional 'noise' and anharmonic components in the HF region.
However the patents omit key details so make it difficult to assess the full impact. AIUI MQA also block input-output comparisons. Although 'GoldenOne' on ASR seems to have managed this.

I formed the view that, indeed, noise shaping would do as well in terms of file size reductions and stream rate reducing as per:

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/MQA/intoshape/NoiseShapingHighRez.html

without the added deterministic anharmonics indicated by the patents. (And which GoldenOne's measurements seem to confirm.) Also, being free and open, cost nothing and can be fully scruntinised. Another alternative based on the cause of 'high rez' being inefficient is also point out here

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/MQA/cool/bitfreezing.html

However I wrote that mainly to show why genuine lossless compression a la FLAC doesn't do so well with 24 bit high rez due to the 'sea of noise bits' that carry nothing.

If you look up-thread you'll see I'm currently doing some more examination/analysis. I'll report on that when I get more info. Based on GO's files and ones released by 2L.
 
I will look into that at some point. I would probably just buy one at that price level and sell it on if it doesn't work out. I have a Lampizator Level 3/4 and an MDAC here - is the IFI ZEN going to outperform those DACs with MQA?
I have no idea. It's a cheapest MQA DAC with a good reputation and RCA outs. There are other MQA options at higher prices.

SMSL has one and Brooklyn Liberty is good.
 
No, it isn't simply noise shaping. I looked at the patents some years ago and summarised what they say here:

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/MQA/origami/ThereAndBack.html

and

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/MQA/bits/Stacking.html

The result tends to be additional 'noise' and anharmonic components in the HF region.
However the patents omit key details so make it difficult to assess the full impact. AIUI MQA also block input-output comparisons. Although 'GoldenOne' on ASR seems to have managed this.

I formed the view that, indeed, noise shaping would do as well in terms of file size reductions and stream rate reducing as per:

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/MQA/intoshape/NoiseShapingHighRez.html

without the added deterministic anharmonics indicated by the patents. (And which GoldenOne's measurements seem to confirm.) Also, being free and open, cost nothing and can be fully scruntinised. Another alternative based on the cause of 'high rez' being inefficient is also point out here

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/MQA/cool/bitfreezing.html

However I wrote that mainly to show why genuine lossless compression a la FLAC doesn't do so well with 24 bit high rez due to the 'sea of noise bits' that carry nothing.

If you look up-thread you'll see I'm currently doing some more examination/analysis. I'll report on that when I get more info. Based on GO's files and ones released by 2L.
You should always explain to people that you are only looking at MQA into non-MQA hardware effects, which is UNDECODED MQA.

Don't leave people with erroneous impression that you are describing numerical behavior of DECODED MQA.

You currently don't have an MQA DAC and you aren't using mansr's MQA decoder.

I shouldn't have to remind you this.
 
No, it isn't simply noise shaping. I looked at the patents some years ago and summarised what they say here:

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/MQA/origami/ThereAndBack.html

and

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/MQA/bits/Stacking.html

The result tends to be additional 'noise' and anharmonic components in the HF region.
However the patents omit key details so make it difficult to assess the full impact. AIUI MQA also block input-output comparisons. Although 'GoldenOne' on ASR seems to have managed this.

I formed the view that, indeed, noise shaping would do as well in terms of file size reductions and stream rate reducing as per:

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/MQA/intoshape/NoiseShapingHighRez.html

without the added deterministic anharmonics indicated by the patents. (And which GoldenOne's measurements seem to confirm.) Also, being free and open, cost nothing and can be fully scruntinised. Another alternative based on the cause of 'high rez' being inefficient is also point out here

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/MQA/cool/bitfreezing.html

However I wrote that mainly to show why genuine lossless compression a la FLAC doesn't do so well with 24 bit high rez due to the 'sea of noise bits' that carry nothing.

If you look up-thread you'll see I'm currently doing some more examination/analysis. I'll report on that when I get more info. Based on GO's files and ones released by 2L.

Thanks Jim, I will have a read of this.
 
New to this thread, not sure what's it about, is it worth reading ?
The perpetual debate over MQAs virtues, or lack thereof, is best settled by personal listening.

The best example here is the OP, who posts Soviet style anti-MQA denouncement every day. He has never listened to MQA - and never will.
 
@DimitryZ do you have any affiliation with MQA, or are you just a happy end user? Perhaps I've missed something, but you do come across as very defensive of the technology in a way that, err someone like Bob Stuart and the MQA team would.

@mansr 's MQA Decoder sounds interesting! How do we get a copy of that?
 
I’m agnostic about MQA. I have it and I’m fine with it. I’m also fine without it. I do tend to find that opposition to it can appear disproportionately vehement at times, compared to just how many people really give a damn. Certainly as vehement as any defence of it. But, such is the way of forum debate about things like cables etc :)
 
The perpetual debate over MQAs virtues, or lack thereof, is best settled by personal listening.

The best example here is the OP, who posts Soviet style anti-MQA denouncement every day. He has never listened to MQA - and never will.

Thanks, think I will leave it for now
 
@DimitryZ do you have any affiliation with MQA, or are you just a happy end user? Perhaps I've missed something, but you do come across as very defensive of the technology in a way that, err someone like Bob Stuart and the MQA team would.
One does wonder what his motivation is for this, frankly, bizarre behaviour.
 
Like any new format, MQA needs a compatible decoder. Same as LPs, CDs, HDCDs and SACDs. Unlike many of those, but similar to dual layer SACD, MQA carries the standard resolution in LPCM and you can play it on standard DAC.
It was already showed earlier that this is not true. It not the same as red book cd data and that is why I do not like MQA.

MQA is more like ransom virus. It takes good data, encrypts them (for your benefit as they say) and then if you want original data back, you have to pay. With red book cd it is even worse. And they probably know it and it is looking like that - sorry, we screwed data, cannot get it back, we will not ask money for that, sorry.

At the begining there was talks about improving original flawed early A/D process, taking in account each individual case. Was it ever true? Is today A/D process still so bad that it can be easily fixed with some code and 35 or 150 dollar or whatever additional piece of hardware at the user side? If they found great solution for better sound, why they not going their own route, parallel to todays practice. No, instead they try to replace what we have today, insert themselves at every stage. They do not came to improve, they came to take over. I do not like that it is their business strategy, their business ethics. That is why I do not like to see them succeed. If they take parallel route and compete fair, no problems.
 
I figured out a way to extract an MQA decoder from Bluesound firmware and operate it as a stand-alone program. You need an ARM Linux system (or an emulator) to run it. The code is here: https://code.videolan.org/mansr/mqa/

This goes way over my limited understanding of these things, but perhaps you can explain in layman terms. Once the MQA code is decoded, what are we left with data-wise? Is it PCM that can be fed into a normal DAC? I'm wondering if it's possible to setup a small ARM/Linux streamer to feed the decoded MQA to a normal DAC?
 
You should always explain to people that you are only looking at MQA into non-MQA hardware effects, which is UNDECODED MQA.

Don't leave people with erroneous impression that you are describing numerical behavior of DECODED MQA.

You currently don't have an MQA DAC and you aren't using mansr's MQA decoder.

I shouldn't have to remind you this.

Indeed, no need. All people have to do is read my posting #1504 on page 76. ... and of course, comprehend what I actually wrote. :)
 
Stuart, yes mqa decodes into a pcm stream, that any dac chip can handle. Theoretically you could do the full decode in software and send the output to any dac that can do the sample rate. Of course their licenses explicitly block this
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top