advertisement


MQA pt II

Jim Audiomisc

pfm Member
From information theory perspective, MQA is an absolutely relevant and sane solution. FLAC is competitive at moderate recording rates, but quickly looses as the sampling frequency increases and noise shaping kicks in. I think Bob Stuart is actually correct here - active information management is required (as has long been recognized in video transmission). As we say in Russian - "mansr and JimA are nurvously smoking in the corner."
:)

I don't smoke. :)

People might like to look at these pages

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

and if they really want to get some idea of the Information Theory I can recommend a good (free) book, from, ahem, here

http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/InformationAndMeasurement_PDF_Book_pf.pdf
 
Interesting that you consider that may not be a fair comparison. Watching the video on that Dire Straits CD/MQA comparison, the first thought that popped into my head was that the different sample rates were not sound level matched, with the MQA appearing louder. As with the loudness wars, this translates in allot of peoples brains as "better".

The problem is that we don't *know* if an A/B is 'fair' unless we can know that only one relevant different has been made between A and B AND this is the difference we are wanting to judge. In this case that's a problem. Although the combination of the 2L examples and the GO ones do help make some sense of this. But this knot takes some untangling.
 
Oh no, maybe you'll like it. Dangerous...
How would you handle your expectation bias? ;)

I expect not to hear any difference. :)

Actually one reason I'm interested in a new DAC is to use higher sample rates for *measurement* purposes. I recently wrote a 'test bench' program that lets me use a computer as a combo of an arb-gen and scope+spectrum analyser+ THD+ etc. Being able to better define the 'probe' signals would be handy.
 
@Jim Audiomisc and others, wouldn't it be theoretically possible to have an optional filter on a DAC treat an LPCM file so it sounds indistinguishable from an MQA file? No secret sauce, no hocus pocus, no extra investment in hardware.

If yes, then DZ and others could have what they like without the other drawbacks.
 
Isn't the impact of this thread (and similar others) likely to be akin to the Streisand effect?

Without any hope of resolution, the existence of a controversy and its nature are brought to the attention of more and more people.

Exactly. This is free advertising for MQA who could really, really do with the promotion atm.


note that I am considering how to get an MQA DAC. :) The results I've got from the analysis thus far make that an interesting thing to try out.

There’s a IFI MQA DAC for sale in the classifieds, £100 I believe. They’re not too difficult to track down.

No wonder you didn’t answer the “how does it sound” question.

This is all a very bad joke, the main detractors of MQA don’t even own or have owned official MQA hardware? One of them is now “considering” buying one, in 2021, after how many years of “work” on the subject? Absolutely ridiculous.
And all the trolling aimed at one person who has the gall to like it by so-called intelligent members who seem to have lost all reason due to three little letters, I won’t post again as it seems pointless, I won’t get a straight answer just more deflection and going off on a journey to neverland.

What does MQA distortion sound like subjectively?
Depends on who you ask.

You question is a bit shallow.

Silly little troll, asking an opinion on how something sounds is shallow? It’s a bloody audio forum.

You are a perfect example of someone just along for the ride, doesn’t offer anything but childish one liners in the hope you’ll get a like or two, mingle in with whatever direction the crowd is going. Just another child in the crowd, a small child at that. And again, you couldn’t answer a simple, direct question, instead throw a few immature philosophical phrases in a vain attempt to look good.

You sir, are a muppet:rolleyes:
 
Bad publicity is better than no publicity. Right.

Tidal still has MQA content, and both Roon and Audirvana support MQA for some reason. I was considering Audirvana because of its Qobuz integration but I really don't feel comfortable supporting a music player that is tied in any way to MQA, so I upgraded from JRiver 23 to 27/28 and now I have no crashes when going from Qobuz to JRiver and back - as long as I close Qobuz before starting kernel streaming on JRiver.

I would not mind having an MQA filter as an option on a DAC. Then I can decide if music files taken through the "secret origami sauce process" is something I like or not. I would also not have to deal with all the other consequences of having music files only available as MQA. As you all know, MQA-files can only be properly MQA-unfolded using proprietary software and/or hardware. Even then I don't get the full information of an untouched file but instead an altered music profile because the MQA process involves the addition of "anharmonic elements and deterministic patterns" that will translate as noise in DACs without (and with?) the MQA-decoder in them. I'm looking forward to Jimaudiomisc's results.
 
Last edited:
Jim I have some of the original versions of the 2l sampler files, back from before they introduced mqa to their lineup, it might provide you a reference to see if they changed the pcm/dxd files at all when they introduced mqa.

Let me know, no bother to stick them on my G-drive for you.
 
Jim I have some of the original versions of the 2l sampler files, back from before they introduced mqa to their lineup, it might provide you a reference to see if they changed the pcm/dxd files at all when they introduced mqa.

Let me know, no bother to stick them on my G-drive for you.
I have full copies of the 2L files from February 2017 and October 2018, between which times the MQA files were changed. Both versions claim to be authentic. Funny how that works.

Of the PCM files corresponding to the MQA samples, some are timestamped in 2013 (definitely predating MQA), some in 2016 but earlier than the MQA versions, a couple on the same day, and one later than its MQA counterpart.

The Internet Archive also has some old copies of the site: https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html
 
Silly little troll, asking an opinion on how something sounds is shallow? It’s a bloody audio forum.

You are a perfect example of someone just along for the ride, doesn’t offer anything but childish one liners in the hope you’ll get a like or two, mingle in with whatever direction the crowd is going. Just another child in the crowd, a small child at that. And again, you couldn’t answer a simple, direct question, instead throw a few immature philosophical phrases in a vain attempt to look good.

You sir, are a muppet:rolleyes:

Don't call yourself a troll. You're only ignorant and rude.
 
@Jim Audiomisc and others, wouldn't it be theoretically possible to have an optional filter on a DAC treat an LPCM file so it sounds indistinguishable from an MQA file? No secret sauce, no hocus pocus, no extra investment in hardware.

If yes, then DZ and others could have what they like without the other drawbacks.

I can't answer your main question at present because we don't know enough about MQA to tell. However the provision of 'alternative' filters on DACs can include ones that alias. And some people seem to prefer this. The filter-folding could be mimic'ed in principle. But no-one really knows what the 'shapes' bit does outside MQA. The patents don't explain more than the general idea.
 
I have full copies of the 2L files from February 2017 and October 2018, between which times the MQA files were changed. Both versions claim to be authentic. Funny how that works.

Of the PCM files corresponding to the MQA samples, some are timestamped in 2013 (definitely predating MQA), some in 2016 but earlier than the MQA versions, a couple on the same day, and one later than its MQA counterpart.

The Internet Archive also has some old copies of the site: https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html

There may have been changes to the 2L files. The reasons I say that will become clearer when I get to making my results available as they are intriguing. However the main thing I'd recommend is people to follow the usual approach in science. This is that others should see if they can DIY their own analysis/tests to see if they get similar results to mine, once they have seen mine. That way we can pick up errors, omissions, and false assumptions in an open way.
 
I don't smoke. :)

People might like to look at these pages

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

and if they really want to get some idea of the Information Theory I can recommend a good (free) book, from, ahem, here

http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/InformationAndMeasurement_PDF_Book_pf.pdf
Sure, Jim, one can come up with an infinite number of data management, compaction and compression systems other than MQA.

However, any such system will have a tricky time being adopted, because just as with MQA, people who understand such things far less than even me will demand LOSSLESS.

Currently available practical hires choices are MQA and FLAC. Your very long demonstration that one can think up MQA alternatives in no way demonstrates lack of its superiority to FLAC in data density.
 
Sure, Jim, one can come up with an infinite number of data management, compaction and compression systems other than MQA.

However, any such system will have a tricky time being adopted, because just as with MQA, people who understand such things far less than even me will demand LOSSLESS.

That's one reason I suggested noise shaping and/or bitfreezing correctly applied. :)

BTW People have used noise-shaping for years. Just a matter of using it in the appropriate way.

More tomorrow. I just popped in whilst cooking dinner and waiting for the overn.
 
That's one reason I suggested noise shaping and/or bitfreezing correctly applied. :)

BTW People have used noise-shaping for years. Just a matter of using it in the appropriate way.

More tomorrow. I just popped in whilst cooking dinner and waiting for the overn.
Jim, I understand that you are very proud of your passion for the scientific method and your new discoverings.

But you do understand that there is literally nothing new or novel in your writings (at least the ones you linked to)?

Correction:
On reflection, above is negative and unnecessary snarky. My point, expressed more neutrally, is that there are a multitude of data compaction techniques (FLAC, TIFF, MLP, etc.) and more data compression techniques (JPEG, AAC, MPEG, VC, etc) that have been developed over decades for sound, image and video applications. What you described in your links are foundational concepts that have long been incorporated into various free and commercial codecs.
 
Last edited:
DZ, I understand you are very proud of yourself and like to hear your own voice.

But you do understand that there is literally nothing new or truthful in your drivel?
 


advertisement


Back
Top