advertisement


MQA pt II

Some time ago someone put up a link to an MQA patent/paper that outlined their use if 'alternating kernels'. I'd though I'd taken a copy, but now can't find it. I've looked back about 20 pages of this thread so far, but can't find it. Can someone re-post it as that'd be useful. Ta! :)
 
Thanks. :) They cover what I had in mind, although I seem to recall a different form of the 'magic triangles' diagram that showed alternating spikey and rectangular shapes for /2 decimation into two substreams at half rate. The idea being these could then be used to give a 'baseband + correction' split.
 
BTW as well as sorting out some output captures I've been pondering the 1/f nature of music, etc. One aspect being as per this http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/temp/Hearing.png

It plots the Ashihara HF audiblity results against a mean/peak specta plot from a fairly 2L file. The broken lines are the hearing thresholds in the presence of pink noise. (Red blobs for the most sensitive subjects.) Does imply that the far HF is largely irrelevant and could be filtered off - along with its noise - to give smaller flac files without milarky. In effect given that sensitivity dies at HF you need a very 'non-musical' bit of music in MQA terms for the fatr HF to matter at all. Even if we ignore mics, speakers, etc.
 
In case anyone has forgotten, here is how Tony L sumnarised the MQA question,

As a somewhat disinterested onlooker who has no actual use for it I find the whole MQA thing fascinating. The reason it is so interesting is how, unlike much of audio, it actually simultaneously spans pretty much all areas of real controversy within this market. I think I'd use the following category headings:

a) Political; corporate behaviour, closed-loop proprietary technology, licensing, Right To Repair, lack of test data etc.

b) Technological; how does it actually work, what is the evidence, does it’s performance meet the marketing claims etc, how ‘lossless’ is it, can it ‘correct’ a full studio to end-user encoding chain etc etc?

c) Subjective/objective; is it ‘transparent’ or is it ‘coloured’, can you spot it on a blind-test etc etc?

It is rare to find something that is top-tier argument fodder in every single category!

From my perspective a) is the area that interests me the most. I guess I’m one of Jim Austin’s ‘internet libertarians’ in this regard. I just don’t see a need for a new proprietary licensed format in a world that already has copious bandwidth, FLAC, Apple Lossless etc. If it is better subjectively and people prefer it then make it open source and more long-term sustainable and environmentally responsible by not enforcing closed-loop proprietary technology on an increasingly open and distributed music industry.

PS Obviously b) and c) are both hindered by a).
 
I really like MQA, it's not something I search for, but many times I have been listening to something and it sounds really good, I glance at the app and see that it is MQA.

I have zero interest in what it is or how it works, it just sounds great, so I am happy it exists, whatever it is.
 
For you and others who like what MQA does, I really hope that a simple MQA-type filter will do the trick so a free choice between MQA-free LPCM FLAC and MQA-filtered LPCM FLAC will be available.

As long as some titles are being released and re-released as MQA only, so all files have been filtered and altered according to how MQA think music ought to sound or ought to have sounded in the first place, I am dead against lossy and re-equalized MQA.

I don't want anyone to be tied to one flavour only and that flavour not even being the same quality (resolution, equalization and bit depth) as lossless redbook cd and hi res LPCM Flac.

We had finally reached a time when redbook LPCM Flac and hi res had become available. Then MQA stepped into the great chain of music and wanted a step back to a proprietary codec that was and is not lossless and is not free to play back at full Autenticated Master Quality without an MQA DAC.

Please create the MQA filter as a choice on DACs so the user can choose to play back LPCM FLAC files the way MQA Ltd. want them to sound. Then I can play back the same LPCM files without that filter. Everyone wins.
 
Last edited:
flutteringwow said:
I have zero interest in what it is or how it works, it just sounds great, so I am happy it exists, whatever it is.
Click to expand...

But it does raise the question: Would you have preferred what was fed INTO the MQA encoder to what comes OUT of the MQA decoder? It is difficult to know if they prevent us from being able to compare IN with OUT and just give us other different versions of the mythical master...

And for all we know at this point it may be that you like the added dispersion. Which can be done without MQA and added to other material you have if you wish, for free.
8-]
 
Having just been using sox to pre-process some files for passing though the DAC I'm now wondering if sox is also good for applying dispersions. Not something I've looked at in the past. But may be handy for experiments. And maybe sometimes would give a result someone prefers.
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
Having just been using sox to pre-process some files for passing though the DAC I'm now wondering if sox is also good for applying dispersions. Not something I've looked at in the past. But may be handy for experiments. And maybe sometimes would give a result someone prefers.
Click to expand...
The 'fir' effect can be used to apply an arbitrary filter (up to some maximum length).
 
What would the Primare NP5 cost without MQA?

If the idea is to have as much DAC market penetration as possible, MQA capability may not add much to the price of MQA-capable DACs. Then when enough people have MQA capable DACs anyway, the music industry may decide to go that way as most music listeners won't care or know about the difference anyway.
 
Rosewind said:
What would the Primare NP5 cost without MQA?

If the idea is to have as much DAC market penetration as possible, MQA capability may not add much to the price of MQA-capable DACs. Then when enough people have MQA capable DACs anyway, the music industry may decide to go that way as most music listeners won't care or know about the difference anyway.
Click to expand...
This new Np5 is the MKII version and is pretty much the same price as the MKI, which was not MQA enabled. I am a Primare fan but have not road tested MQA. Obviously there are many who have reservations about MQA, yet here is another manufacturer getting on board. Are there any any manufacturers who were once on board with MQA and have since abandoned it?
 
Rosewind said:
MQA capability may not add much to the price of MQA-capable DACs. Then when enough people have MQA capable DACs anyway, the music industry may decide to go that way as most music listeners won't care or know about the difference anyway.
Click to expand...
Most music is played on smartphones these days and for them the BOM cost absolutely does matter
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
BTW as well as sorting out some output captures I've been pondering the 1/f nature of music, etc. One aspect being as per this http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/temp/Hearing.png

It plots the Ashihara HF audiblity results against a mean/peak specta plot from a fairly 2L file. The broken lines are the hearing thresholds in the presence of pink noise. (Red blobs for the most sensitive subjects.) Does imply that the far HF is largely irrelevant and could be filtered off - along with its noise - to give smaller flac files without milarky. In effect given that sensitivity dies at HF you need a very 'non-musical' bit of music in MQA terms for the fatr HF to matter at all. Even if we ignore mics, speakers, etc.
Click to expand...
snap- I was looking at the Ashihara results the other day and thinking- Would any of the audible tones be "legal" signals according to the MQA encoder?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top