MQA part the 3rd - t't't'timing...

[gints]

He speaking about encoding, not format. You can have flac file with encoded material in MQA even without your knowledge.

 

[DimitryZ]

My view is that it is for the reasons already repeatedly discussed. i.e. That we might get cases where at least one of the following occurs:

1) The ONLY version (say, on a 'CD') is MQA when the buyer doesn't want that and wants a plain-to-22kHz LPCM Red Book Audio CD.

2) A CD turns out to be MQA encoded by has been 'imrpoved' by an idiot doing a reissue/reversion and has lost the ID pattern, so can't be MQA decoded.

etc.

The point here is choice. Which I'd expect you to support. And - as I've pointed out - the music biz has 'form as long as yer arm' in these respects.

I agree with buyers having choice. At the same time, I find your repeated concerns too vague.

1) Given that we have several music publishing formats, it's inevitable that some music is sometimes not available in some buyer's preferred format. This is a generic issue in consumer economics and exists everywhere all the time. The solution implied by your constant concerns in this area is unification of all distribution formats, which is antithetical to consumer choice.

2) All technology can be abused or misused. There is no way to prevent it except by strict government regulation or strict professional standards enforced through boards or other governing bodies, restricting access to practice. Since music reproduction is not critical to human life, health or financial legality, and because it's at an intersection of science and art, it's unregulated. Complaining about the results seem utterly pointless.

 

[DimitryZ]

Perhaps in return I can remind you that I tend to do things in my own ways. And a part of that is intitally to investigate the actual items of interest as the basis. I had in mind to contact people when/as it might seem useful. But do one thing at a time. I 'work' for myself, not you or 2L or anyone else here when I decide to investigate something that interests me.

My main intial concerns were:

1) That the effect of MQA encoding on Audio CD might be large enough to significantly degrade *non-MQA replay*. That would be a concern *regardless* of the 'provenance*, etc, of MQA.

2) To explore and understand how it works in practice and cut through the claims made by its inventors, etc, so I could explain it more clearly. Also to assess if there was any real 'need' for it given free open alternative that would save people the costs and bother.

I used the 2L examples as they are very convenient, but I used them 'as given' for the above purposes. I'm afraid it is your invention that this made me a member of your fanciful "Society". I'm just doing what researchers do.

That took a few months.

Having concluded that MQA is "mostly harmless" and probably also "mostly pointless" I'm content to let others make up their own minds, taking into account what I wrote as a part of that. The issue of 'provenance' arose because of the possibility that any 'change' or 'effect' shown up by the 2L examples might be for *non-MQA" reasons.

Given that the effects seem trivially small, I doubt that matters much. But having done the above it made sense to ask about it now we had some info about the actual differences.

So I asked, to check. I have a reply, and that is useful. I see no reason to doubt what I have been told. BUT as usual as an (ex-) academic scientist I have to keep "Take no-one's word for it" in mind as people can be mistaken. But it means that so far as the 2L files are concerned we can now be confident that changes that cause a version to differ from a simple standard downsample of the DXD *are* due to MQA. Thus we can 'assign' any changes that have an impact on MQA and non-MQA playback to MQA and not some other cause.

I am now working on other things. I may well return to this at some point. But if anyone else wants they can try pre-empting what I have in mind. So I can summarise what I'd plan to do next if they want to have a go.

BTW the only 'Societies' I belong to these days are the IEEE, AES, and IoP.

The issue is larger than your particular situation.

The main accusation leveled against MQA for many years, is that "WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT DOES." It appears regularly as part of every forum discussion, with various levels of vitriol. You yourself have repeatedly mused that MQA likely prevents the source material to be available, so as to hide it's process from study. It is a serious and pernicious accusation, repeated by many, thousands of times over many years. The result has been to discredit the process and authors behind it in the eyes of lots of people.

This accusation is and has always been PATENTLY FALSE. At the time of commercial release, carefully prepared examples of source material and resulting LPCM and MQA-encoded distributions have been made available for the public at large.

These resources demonstrated clearly WHAT MQA DOES. They could be easily listened to understand sonic differences or analyzed with a variety of tools to quantity them. Yet, through a concerted effort, they have been ignored and shoved under the rug in favor of a smear campaign. A not very clever substitution was made - WHAT (knowledge) was replaced with HOW (proprietary method) to perpetuate a myth of MQA's dishonesty.

And that is a bad, bad thing.

 

[DimitryZ]

Yes. And similar happens in many topics, not just MQA. However I'm not responsible for what others may say or believe.

However my general conclusion is that MQA isn't worthwhile, but is mostly harmless - with the rider that this 'harmless' conclusion excludes my expectation that the 'music biz' *wil*l screw up some examples - as their track record indicates. The more toys you give them, the more ways they have to screw up their output whilst selling it as a "newer, better version" to the punters.

GO's test got noticed because he advertised it. The open question I still have in mind is: How many examples will arise when someone produces an example that "isn't music" in MQA terms, but gets released and bought anyway? Time will tell, but I doubt the number will be zero.

The theme of lack of responsibility for others actions is hard to argue with.

And yet, as an important influencer, you may choose to be concerned if your posture relative to a controversial subject is providing soil for rather more vulgar interpretations.

Your concerns with "music biz" are noted but are no more relevant to MQA then to hundreds of other related subjects and technologies.

 

[DimitryZ]

Not very useful advice for people who can only play the CD layer, though.

You can't always get what you want. The very nature of a free market creates situations where some consumers are happy and others are not. Generally, the system attempts to keep most consumers happy. Having lived under an alternative system, where we all got the same, but most weren't happy, I will take what we have here.

The practical advice is to look at the back of the case where format logos are.

 

[DimitryZ]

And how would you do that when the commercially only available source of a music work is MQA or stripped MQA?

How people fail to understand how MQA is trying to wiggle itself sneakily into everything.

With DOLBY ATMOS literally taking over backed by billions from Apple, why do you still fear-monger about MQA replacing everything?

 

[gints]

I understand that there is choice and you can switch between Dolby Atmos and stereo versions. Did Dolby manifested that they want all music to be recorded and stored in their Atmos format? Never cared about Apple anyway.

Do not know much about how to analyze sound. There is picture from programm called Spectro. Capture1 is wav file from MQA CD disc ripped on computer without any knowledge about MQA. Capture2 is from ordinary CD and it looks similar to other files from ordinary CD.

What is it 'snow' on top of capture1? Is there because of MQA data? Middle looks unusual clear. Is it because of good work at mastering? Frequency looks lifted closer to 20K.

 

[DimitryZ]

I understand that there is choice and you can switch between Dolby Atmos and stereo versions. Did Dolby manifested that they want all music to be recorded and stored in their Atmos format? Never cared about Apple anyway.

Do not know much about how to analyze sound. There is picture from programm called Spectro. Capture1 is wav file from MQA CD disc ripped on computer without any knowledge about MQA. Capture2 is from ordinary CD and it looks similar to other files from ordinary CD.

What is it 'snow' on top of capture1? Is there because of MQA data? Middle looks unusual clear. Is it because of good work at mastering? Frequency looks lifted closer to 20K.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ef7igqmnqusz4dx/Capture 1.PNG?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/r55afuozegknei6/Capture 2.PNG?dl=0

All companies strive toward higher market penetration, with 100% always the goal.

The "selling point" of Atmos is that it's smart audio with total universality accross all listening setups - from phone speakers to headphones to standard stereo to complex multi-channel home theater systems. If you expressed concerns over MQA aiming to be a universal format, Atmos just raised that by an order of magnitude.

Your choice to switch off Atmos is one decision by Apple away from being removed. With Amazon also pushing Atmos and Spatial Audio, I would be seriously concerned for two channel music listening. Blase, or even supportive posture toward Atmos audio by the same people who are vehemently against MQA is quite incomprehensible to me.

I would direct technical questions to @Jim Audiomisc , @mansr and @Werner who all have considerable expertise in signal processing. Your plots do seem to have different titles.

 

[gints]

All companies strive toward higher market penetration, with 100% always the goal.
The "selling point" of Atmos is that it's smart audio with total universality accross all listening setups - from phone speakers to headphones to standard stereo to complex multi-channel home theater systems.

Ok, I thought Atmos is mostly about spatial audio. Will see how it will develop into something universal. 3D TV did not last long.
100% ? I believe, private company monopoly is actually forbidden in many countries.

 

[DimitryZ]

Ok, I thought Atmos is mostly about spatial audio. Will see how it will develop into something universal. 3D TV did not last long.
100% ? I believe, private company monopoly is actually forbidden in many countries.

Consider your DVD or Blu-ray collection. All proprietary codecs you pay royalties on every time you buy one. And a worldwide monopoly.

Which of course was the case with SACD, untill recently.

 

[Werner]

The main accusation leveled against MQA for many years, is that "WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT DOES."

Where have you been since 2014? Right from the start we had a fair inkling of what it does, based on the blurbs, papers, and patents. Through the years this was refined and proven in steps, thanks to the work of people like Mans. The Golden files, compromised as they are, still added a few more nuggets of knowledge. We know what it does. We know how stupid and useless it is what it does. Wool, eyes, pulling and stuff.

repeatedly mused that MQA likely prevents the source material to be available, so as to hide it's process from study.

I am still not aware from any demonstration where MQA offered the original and the MQA version for comparison, plus evidence that neither was tampered with at some stage. One would think that an honest and open comparison would be part of any attempt to set a new standard, not?

This accusation is and has always been PATENTLY FALSE. At the time of commercial release, carefully prepared examples of source material and resulting LPCM and MQA-encoded distributions have been made available for the public at large.
These resources demonstrated clearly WHAT MQA DOES. They could be easily... analyzed with a variety of tools to quantity them.

The L2 material is not exactly conducive to a quantitative analysis. And it is not representative of what a major label would do. You really think that people did not look at these files?????

With DOLBY ATMOS literally taking over backed by billions from Apple, why do you still fear-monger about MQA replacing everything?

Many people who know a thing or two about audio, signal process, and perception started this anti-MQA crusade over six years ago. At that time it was a very bad idea. It still is. Apple+Atmos may be an even worse idea from the point of view of traditional audiophilism. But that is not my war anymore. Sun Tzu and stuff.

 

[Werner]

1) Given that we have several music publishing formats, it's inevitable that some music is sometimes not available in some buyer's preferred format. This is a generic issue in consumer economics and exists everywhere all the time. The solution implied by your constant concerns in this area is unification of all distribution formats, which is antithetical to consumer choice.

That's not Jim's point.

Of course not all music is available in each and everyone's favourite format.

Jim's point is that we are now at a point in time where it is not even guaranteed anymore that we have access to unadulterated CD-level material. In other words: the most widely-spread lossless format is being compromised. And for no good reason.

 

[DimitryZ]

Where have you been since 2014? Right from the start we had a fair inkling of what it does, based on the blurbs, papers, and patents. Through the years this was refined and proven in steps, thanks to the work of people like Mans. The Golden files, compromised as they are, still added a few more nuggets of knowledge. We know what it does. We know how stupid and useless it is what it does. Wool, eyes, pulling and stuff.

I have been right here, not getting angry, but rationally using available information to listen and make up my own mind.

I am not part of any "we" you speak of - just an independent audiophile interested in best replay at any given time.

am still not aware from any demonstration where MQA offered the original and the MQA version for comparison, plus evidence that neither was tampered with at some stage. One would think that an honest and open comparison would be part of any attempt to set a new standard, not?

But it has been, right at the inception, and made available to all of us on the 2L workbench. And yet rational evidence has been ignored and unfounded assertions of obfuscation and fraud have been made. Beyond the free examples, anyone could have had music mastered in any MQA mastering house.

The L2 material is not exactly conducive to a quantitative analysis. And it is not representative of what a major label would do. You really think that people did not look at these files?????

There is ZERO reason why these files are in any way not conductive to analysis. The only argument is that the 6 year MQA encoder likely has been considerably improved since then. Even the notoriously finicky @Jim Audiomisc has pronounced them suitable for this purpose.

DXD master ==>MQA encoder==>MQA distribution. First and last are published. What else do you want? And where is that analysis, that it was claimed MQA was preventing from being done, by "hiding the input?"

Many people who know a thing or two about audio, signal process, and perception started this anti-MQA crusade over six years ago. At that time it was a very bad idea. It still is. Apple+Atmos may be an even worse idea from the point of view of traditional audiophilism. But that is not my war anymore. Sun Tzu and stuff.

And that's the problem right there. Instead of actually analyzing available information and presenting results, you "started this anti-MQA crusade." It's good for us to understand that it was a purposeful effort to destroy this format, by individuals who made that decision for all of us.

That's just...not cool.

 

[DimitryZ]

That's not Jim's point.

Of course not all music is available in each and everyone's favourite format.

Jim's point is that we are now at a point in time where it is not even guaranteed anymore that we have access to unadulterated CD-level material. In other words: the most widely-spread lossless format is being compromised. And for no good reason.

This is not an MQA unique problem in any way. Music formats always changed over the years and you never had any guarantees that you would be able to get every piece of music in your preferred format in perpetuity, even in your obviously favored CD.

When vinyl was being phased out, I bought many hundreds of $ worth of records, instead of complaining about the injustice of it all. I hated the screechy sound of early digital.

If you feel really threatened by worldwide MQA takeover (which is absurd - I personally would be pleasantly surprised if it was around in 5 years), you should buy lots of Redbook CDs now to protect your listening future.

However, even if I didn't want to pay a few dollars for full MQA replay, I would happily take "Mostly Quite Harmless/Mostly Quite Pointless (c) @Jim Audiomisc" undecoded MQA over legit bad sounding perceptually lossy multi-channel Atmos auto-mixed to two channels. The latter frankly sucks.

 

[Werner]

Instead of actually analyzing available information and presenting results,

Which is exactly what was done. And the results of that made clear that MQA was utterly useless and potentially harmful. The knowledge gained through the years only reinforced that position.

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

Which is exactly what was done. And the results of that made clear that MQA was utterly useless and potentially harmful. The knowledge gained through the years only reinforced that position.

As reminded above, Jim has classified the process as mostly harmless. Jim has been the leading specialist about the technology side on here. Is that enough to satisfy you?

What else do you want?

 

[DimitryZ]

Which is exactly what was done. And the results of that made clear that MQA was utterly useless and potentially harmful. The knowledge gained through the years only reinforced that position.

Where is this analysis of the 2L DXD masters and the resultant MQA distributions that shows harmfulness?

Perhaps I missed it, which is certainly possible and I stand corrected.

I do see Archimago's careful comparisons of Tidal files and conducting MQA DBTs. I see @mansr doing hard work of repurposing of MQA firmware into a standalone software decoder. I see considerable recent efforts by @Jim Audiomisc to determine potential harm of undecoded MQA.

What I don't see is an analysis of the only publically available pre and post MQA encoder files from 2L. Which is of course where one would start if one was interested in quantifying the actual system response. The latter would be an intellectual prerequisite before condemning it to destruction.

And that would have logically occurred 5 or 6 years ago - prior to the "start of the anti-MQA crusade" by yourself and others.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

You can't always get what you want. The very nature of a free market creates situations where some consumers are happy and others are not. Generally, the system attempts to keep most consumers happy. .

Not quite. In a situation like 'music' where IPR tends to lead to monopolies over specific types of item (e.g. the work of a given artist) the 'market' aims at keeping the *company* and its shareholders 'happy'. This comes from maximising profits, etc. The impact on the meaning of 'happy' for consumers then varies. Hence, as exampled by your first statement about, not all consumers are always 'happy'.

In a truly competitive situation that might be different. But often we get more like "take it or leave it". And in some cases this is combined with incomptence by those generating the items on offer. As exampled in many cases by what I and others have documented over the years.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

I understand that there is choice and you can switch between Dolby Atmos and stereo versions. Did Dolby manifested that they want all music to be recorded and stored in their Atmos format? Never cared about Apple anyway.

Do not know much about how to analyze sound. There is picture from programm called Spectro. Capture1 is wav file from MQA CD disc ripped on computer without any knowledge about MQA. Capture2 is from ordinary CD and it looks similar to other files from ordinary CD.

What is it 'snow' on top of capture1? Is there because of MQA data? Middle looks unusual clear. Is it because of good work at mastering? Frequency looks lifted closer to 20K.

I don't know anything about the software you use or the files you analysed.

But MQA consistently adds a low level 'process noise hill' in the HF region. And that might be the cause of the 'snow'.

 

[DimitryZ]

Not quite. In a situation like 'music' where IPR tends to lead to monopolies over specific types of item (e.g. the work of a given artist) the 'market' aims at keeping the *company* and its shareholders 'happy'. This comes from maximising profits, etc. The impact on the meaning of 'happy' for consumers then varies. Hence, as exampled by your first statement about, not all consumers are always 'happy'.

In a truly competitive situation that might be different. But often we get more like "take it or leave it". And in some cases this is combined with incomptence by those generating the items on offer. As exampled in many cases by what I and others have documented over the years.

I believe I clearly stated "most" not "all."

And consumer should generally examine the item prior to purchase. Looking at it front and back is advisable.