advertisement


MQA

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jim Audiomisc said:
To clarify:

1) I'm quite happy with well produced and played LPCM.

2) I'm also satisfied that a method like noise shaped FLAC of the kind outlined on one of my webpages will reduce the filesizes and stream rates by amounts comparable with MQA and that this alternative is free, open, and doesn't require a new DAC or anyone to pay for MQA.

3) I also have a Benchmark ADC which I think can do quite decent captures.(*) So I'd be happy to try using this to examine what 'unfolded' MQA material is like. *Provided* I can get both MQA files *and* files of what was input to the MQA encoder to create them, and an MQA DAC which people regard as 'good'. But this means someone would need to give/loan me the DAC as I personally have no interest in owning one. And the relevant files. (if the 2L ones would do, OK, but we need 'assurance' that they *are* what went into the encoder. Which I people keep saying MQA refuse to allow. So I guess I'd also need a 2L statement on that.

4) As I've said more than once: My main interest at present here is the impact which may arise when someone plays MQA material on a non-MQA system. Given past examples like HDCD this is as likely as night-follows-day if MQA becomes common. So it *will* matter for some. That's why my current focus on that. But this is also preliminary to the question:

5) Does MQA decoding totally remove the artifacts which encoding generates? So far as I can see, it doesn't, and probably can't. In which case at least some portion of them will remain in 'properly decoded MQA' output. Hence if MQA continues I will eventually want to address (3).

(*) Plus a pile of other DACs and ADCs to compare if that were useful.

Hope that helps. :)
Click to expand...
It doesn't help at all.

You are intent on setting up multiple conditions to make properly decoded MQA to LPCM comparison impossible. And, therefore, you leave me with an impression that you have an agenda.

The process is simple. Someone versed in tech should take MANSR's public domain, software-only MQA decoder and process 2L MQA encoded music file (or reasonably long excerpts) into fully decoded LPCM. Baseline LPCM and MQA decoded LPCM should be:

1. Analyzed with standard tools for standard metrics.

2. Published, so that audiophiles can listen to both through standard, non-MQA hardware.

Both MANSR and yourself appear to be running away from this open and transparent process.
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
Again for the sake of clarity: I'm not interested in being expected to be an arbitor of what sounds 'good' or 'bad'. My taste isn't the same as everyone else. And I'm now pushing 70 years old and won't ever hear 15kHz again. My interest is in evaluating things like the level and form of added artifacts, noise, etc which others can then decide for themselves may or may not be something that affects what the 'like' or 'dislike', or be a reason for that. And by doing so, contrast MQA with alternatives like simple noise shaping that avoids such artifacts and can be freely used.

Matter of well-informed choice. Yours to make, not for me or anyone else to tell you.
Click to expand...
Your role in my proposed experiment would be to provide analysis of the technical comparison. Same thing you are doing now but with PROPERLY DECODED MQA.
 
mansr said:
How it sounds is unimportant. Best case, it's an added cost without audible degradation. There is no scenario where MQA is desirable, even if indistinguishable from lossless PCM.
Click to expand...
Again, that part would be not of your concern.

Just decode it for the public and do your technical analysis vs. baseline LPCM.
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
5) Does MQA decoding totally remove the artifacts which encoding generates? So far as I can see at present, it probably doesn't, and probably can't. (**) In which case at least some portion of them will remain in 'properly decoded MQA' output.
Click to expand...

......and if only MQA have the unadulterated files or worse they're deleted/never kept, us consumers have an inferior single sourced product.
 
DimitryZ said:
It doesn't help at all.

You are intent on setting up multiple conditions to make properly decoded MQA to LPCM comparison impossible. And, therefore, you leave me with an impression that you have an agenda.

The process is simple. Someone versed in tech should take MANSR's public domain, software-only MQA decoder and process 2L MQA encoded music file (or reasonably long excerpts) into fully decoded LPCM. Baseline LPCM and MQA decoded LPCM should be:

1. Analyzed with standard tools for standard metrics.

2. Published, so that audiophiles can listen to both through standard, non-MQA hardware.

Both MANSR and yourself appear to be running away from this open and transparent process.
Click to expand...

So far as I'm concerned anyone who wants to is welcome to try the software. But I'm interested in what people will get when they buy and use a DAC.

If anyone is making this 'impossible' it would be MQA refusing access to what was fed into the MQA encoder. Up to others if they'd like me to do what I outlined, otherwise.

TBH I still have the feeling that your approach to arguing about this undermines your case. Throwing out personal accusations/implications may not be helping you at all.

Anyway, time for a cup of tea and some cake, I think... :)
 
mansr said:
How it sounds is unimportant. Best case, it's an added cost without audible degradation. There is no scenario where MQA is desirable, even if indistinguishable from lossless PCM.
Click to expand...
Good point. I agree. I can't see how it could objectively be better.
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
So far as I'm concerned anyone who wants to is welcome to try the software. But I'm interested in what people will get when they buy and use a DAC.

If anyone is making this 'impossible' it would be MQA refusing access to what was fed into the MQA encoder. Up to others if they'd like me to do what I outlined, otherwise.

TBH I still have the feeling that your approach to arguing about this undermines your case. Throwing out personal accusations/implications may not be helping you at all.

Anyway, time for a cup of tea and some cake, I think... :)
Click to expand...
The problem is the software decoder requires some amount of technical knowledge and I think access to a Unix platform.

MANSR wrote the software and he is an obvious person to decode 2L files. At that point either himself or others (yourself?) can analyze and compare them to baseline LPCM. Those audiophiles who are interested, can listen to both with non-MQA hardware.

So far all I read are reasons to not participate in this open and transparent process.
 
DimitryZ said:
I do. But with $150 MQA DACs available, it's a hardly a large one in the context of an audiophile systems.
Click to expand...
That only works if it can be shown to be superior to LPCM, objectively...e.g. deblurring actually occurs (measurably across the spectrum).
 
nostromo said:
That only works if it can be shown to be superior to LPCM, objectively...e.g. deblurring actually occurs (measurably across the spectrum).
Click to expand...
Hence my challenge to make MQA samples available to those without an MQA DAC.

And to make MQA decoded bitstream available for analysis vs. baseline LPCM.
 
DimitryZ said:
And, therefore, you leave me with an impression that you have an agenda
Click to expand...

GXJzqqe.gif
 
nostromo said:
That only works if it can be shown to be superior to LPCM, objectively...e.g. deblurring actually occurs (measurably across the spectrum).
Click to expand...
To show that, one would first have to define what deblurring means, something MQA have not been able to do. If, for sake of argument, deblurring is a real thing, MQA is still unnecessary. Whatever it is, the labels could perform it and distribute the processed files as standard FLAC. Of course, then Bob Stuart wouldn't collect royalties from DAC sales...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top