DimitryZ
pfm Member
What you don't get in this process is the choice of one of 32 reconstruction filters that are passed to an MQA DAC by the core decoder.
MQA
- Thread starter Rosewind
- Start date
- Status
DimitryZ
pfm Member
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2017/09/mqa-core-vs-hi-res-blind-test-part-i.html?m=1
Famous blind testing of MQA/LPCM 2L material by the arch blogger.
I'm this test, MQA was kneecapped by using only unfold (no render) and LPCM was reconstructed with MQA-style filter to make them harder to tell apart. Even with all of that response highlights were:
Even split in preferences.
Speaker listeners preferred MQA, headphoners liked LPCM
Recording people and "golden ears" preferred MQA.
Younger people preferred LPCM.
This conclusively proves that as I have been saying all along "MQA competes with hires LPCM within a margin of audiophile personal/system preferences."
One may still dislike MQA for other reasons, but it's not for sound quality. That part is very, very good.
Famous blind testing of MQA/LPCM 2L material by the arch blogger.
I'm this test, MQA was kneecapped by using only unfold (no render) and LPCM was reconstructed with MQA-style filter to make them harder to tell apart. Even with all of that response highlights were:
Even split in preferences.
Speaker listeners preferred MQA, headphoners liked LPCM
Recording people and "golden ears" preferred MQA.
Younger people preferred LPCM.
This conclusively proves that as I have been saying all along "MQA competes with hires LPCM within a margin of audiophile personal/system preferences."
One may still dislike MQA for other reasons, but it's not for sound quality. That part is very, very good.
DimitryZ
pfm Member
I am a pretty happy end user. No affiliation with MQA or any audio business for that matter.
If you argue with a dozen detractors at once, it's difficult to always maintain composure.
DimitryZ
pfm Member
Indeed quite so. Many people coming to this thread have no idea of the MQA functional digram and triple system modalities.Indeed, no need. All people have to do is read my posting #1504 on page 76. ... and of course, comprehend what I actually wrote.
By rarely describing these differences to casual reader, you leave a distinctive impression that you are speaking for all of MQA, instead of only one way (most limiting way) of using it.
But you know that. I will make sure I flag your posts with a polite disclaimer.
Stuart Frazer
pfm Member
Thanks sq. As I understand it: MQA seem to have worked hard to develop a means of copy protection by the way it unfolds the data, which then cannot be reconstructed (it becomes lossy!). Of course the Labels will love this aspect, as it stops file sharing distribution piracy! I'm sure without this aspect, and all the licenses for royalties to pay the MQA Directors etc, MQA could be done much easier and cheaper with a plug-in module into existing PCM DACs. This is all about control and money greed to me.
DimitryZ
pfm Member
You are entirely incorrect. There is no copy protection or DRM in MQA.
You are free to copy a file and play it on any device and give it to a friend.
The only crypto in MQA is for DAC authentication to prevent bootleg decoders. You have to buy a licensed DAC to fully decode the non-flac hires content.
That is it. Done and done.
Please read this to educate yourself:
https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-drm-and-other-four-letter-words
Also incorrect about "easier and cheaper with a plug-in module." All modern DACs have this module already - front-end firmware running in fast computing device for data preprocessing, filtering and a number of other things. MQA simply reprograms part of the code for its own data processing needs.
Stuart Frazer
pfm Member
Hey, what happened to the polite and eloquent @DimitryZ ? You have definitely gone snarky on me now and are dissing me unfairly. I hope that satisfies your ego. I have never professed to being an expert in MQA and that should be clear to see from my questions and postings. I'm here to learn more and to try and understand it. I expect there are a few others out there looking in here frightened to contribute or speak-out because of the tone of some of this thread and the way you post.
DimitryZ
pfm Member
You don't seem frightened at all.
You wrote a strongly worded post, full of MQA misconceptions, ending with a judgement "all about control and greed." What happened to learning about something first?
To that end, I provided you with an informative link and corrected your misunderstanding of modern DAC architecture.
"Dissing you unfairly?" - not at all. I pointed out that you were wrong and gave you correct information. What you do with it is your business.
mansr
Objectionist
We know what those filters are, and we know how the signalling works. Applying the indicated filter is trivial. Not that one would want to. They are terrible.
flutteringwow
She called me baby, like an old romantic
It's a recurring theme with DZ...
DimitryZ
pfm Member
Sure they are.
That's why half of us preferred them in blind testing, and with kneecapped MQA, as well.
Is that a royal "we" you use or are you part of a hacking collective?
Last edited:
DimitryZ
pfm Member
Read the link. If you call the authentication crypto in MQA DRM, you are misusing the term.
If you call the requirements for a licensed hardware to fully decode a new format, that's called patent licensing and again, not DRM.
If they ever had any actual DRM designs, Stuart definitely and publically rescinded them at the link.
Lately, anti-MQA people use DRM to mean "stuff in MQA."
It's real nonsense.
Stuart Frazer
pfm Member
I'm here to learn, but I'll do that within the thread with my own questions. You seem to want to set the rules here, but I don't subscribe to that. You seem to spend an extraordinary amount of time posting and defending MQA. It seems to me that either you have allot of time to kill and little to do, or that your account is actually manned by MQA to post.
To me, it seems that MQA do want to control and dominate the audio markets with this technology. IMO that is "control and greed", especially when paying a Director £422k on losses of over £4m. If MQA succeeds, it will be the end users who ultimately pay those bills.
So, having learnt more about MQA, I now understand there is apparently no DRM within MQA. However, there are authentication markers.
The other bit I'm trying to get my head around is the MQA instructions decoding/rendering process. MQA allow that to be done integral within an MQA approved DAC. Why don't they produce a small box that does that between a streamer and DAC so consumers can use their own existing DACs? MQA would still be earning from the license fee and it would allow many more existing DAC users like myself to add MQA to their system instead of buying newer MQA approved DAC technology.
Stuart Frazer
pfm Member
I missed this bit or you added it subsequently. If modern DACs have this module already, then why can't they just be reprogrammed with the MQA Instruction-set? Of course, the MQA Authentication light would be missing on older DACs, but you seem to suggest it is possible. It would save allot of wasted DACs and MQA could still charge a license fee.
DimitryZ
pfm Member
So we are back at the constantly repeating point in the thread that an incredulous Phishie accuses me of being an MQA troll, since it must seem impossible that someone who have listening to MQA for over four years may actually like it.
Mansr can explain the decoding and rendering process, though he will do it with tons of derision and insults.
Congratulations on understanding the DRM issue.
For your "box" suggestion, it's impractical for technical and economic reasons. Technically, MQA needs to take over the DAC front end computing engine "firmware" to do upsampling and custom filtering. It essentially augments the standard DAC code and takes over digital domain duties when MQA flag is detected. If this is done in an external box, it will have to have additional custom programming to null out or suppress DAC's internal engine.
Further, anytime you put hardware in a box, it becomes expensive. Currently, MQA adds about $30 in the $150 cost of IFI ZEN DAC,. You can't retail an empty box for that little money.
DimitryZ
pfm Member
They can...if they pay MQA $30-50 (upper number is my guess) licensing fee. On 3 out of 4 MQA DACs I own, there is no "light." It just displays "MQA" and a fakish upsample frequency of the original "stripped down" or "data mined" LPCM original (depending on your feelings about MQA).
mansr
Objectionist
Copy prevention is a rare feature of file based DRM (as opposed to physical formats like SACD). File based DRM instead restricts meaningful access to the contents. The most restrictive variants encrypt the content, only releasing the decryption key after the player has authenticated itself with a remote server. When that server inevitably goes offline, all content is rendered inaccessible.
MQA doesn't go quite that far. Here, the content is encoded with a secret algorithm and access is only granted to those in possession of a licensed decoder. Anyone else gets a version with artificially reduced quality. This is still very much a management of your digital rights, aka DRM.
Stuart Frazer
pfm Member
@DimitryZ as I said from the start of my postings in this thread - I am open to MQA if it sounds good to my ears when I eventually get to hear it. In terms of your postings, I'm just amazed that an individual happy MQA user spends so much time defending the technology from sceptical phishies! I would much prefer to use that time enjoying the MQA listening! No offence intended.
Thanks to all for answering and clarifying my posts and questions thus far.
Thanks to all for answering and clarifying my posts and questions thus far.
- Status