advertisement


MQA

Status
Not open for further replies.
Has Tidal sorted the problem with the same file source for both lossless FLAC and MQA?

I don't mind having MQA as a filter choice on a DAC so people can use it if they prefer that sort of equalised sound profile. To make that lossy filter the only choice for music would be a major set-back.
 
RoA said:
Like ... this 'much' ... ?

https://ifi-audio.com/products/zen-dac-v2/

Proof, if anything, that adding MQA does not need to cost the earth.

Of course, if Hifi manufacturers decide to make this a USP and increase RRP disproportionately ...
Click to expand...

My DAC doesn't do MQA. Replacing it would mean losing money on the sale and again when buying a replacement. And I'd have to find an MQA-able DAC with identical level of performance (or presentation to some people).
I don't enjoy changing gear (unless there's something audibly wrong that I know can be improved with an affordable replacement) or wasting money.
 
Rosewind said:
Has Tidal sorted the problem with the same file source for both lossless FLAC and MQA?

I don't mind having MQA as a filter choice on a DAC so people can use it if they prefer that sort of equalised sound profile. To make that lossy filter the only choice for music would be a major set-back.
Click to expand...

HQPlayer offers two (linear and minimum phase) versions of an MQA filter, not sure if it's supposed to be an equivalent or an improved version.
I've never tried it, there's no point in listening to a lower fidelity filter...

poly-sinc-mqa-lp
Linear phase polyphase sinc filter optimized for playing back MQA encoded content in order to clean up high frequency noise added by the MQA encoding. Also suitable for upsampling PCM sources of 88.2 kHz or higher sampling rate, especially for hires PCM recordings of 176.4 kHz or higher sampling rate. Very short ringing.

poly-sinc-mqa-mp
Minimum phase variant of poly-sinc-mqa.
 
tuga said:
My DAC doesn't do MQA. Replacing it would mean losing money on the sale and again when buying a replacement. And I'd have to find an MQA-able DAC with identical level of performance (or presentation to some people).
I don't enjoy changing gear (unless there's something audibly wrong that I know can be improved with an affordable replacement) or wasting money.
Click to expand...

Isn't the ability to replace components a much used audiophile argument for separates vs the possible obsolescence of integrated products?

New things appear though I would argue MQA is not exactly that anymore.

Fact is, you can buy MQA enabled products for not much money.

How do you know some of these are not as good as yours?

Of course if you have absolutely no interest in MQA it is hardly worth arguing about hardware.
 
Tidal's problem is likely to be that they only have immediate access to the lossy MQA music files. I hope they get it sorted.
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
The above 'summary' is incomplete. The additions are not simply 'noise'. They are deterministic patterns which include anharmonics. And neither the patents nor yet tests show this is fully undone by decoding. Indeed, what we have thus far (and implied by the appoach MQA use) make it likely that this cannot be fully undone, and the bulk of the changes may remain. This is something I am in process of investigating, though. Say more when I have results.
Click to expand...
You do understand that to hear this you need excellent hearing AND a super high resolution system?

For 99% of people it's a complete non issue.
 
Johnjo said:
I enjoy it, just listening to this. Yes, it is different to the FLAC, it is silky, ear friendly but subtle enough to not be sickly sweet. If that’s anharmonic distortion or whatever then that’s fine by me, so long as there is a choice of standard FLAC as well. I don’t like the idea of tarring all music with the one brush. I suspect the MQA process works better for this type of music.
kLy2Jnd.jpg
Click to expand...
Don't let JimA mislead you.

He is ALWAYS talking about undecoded MQA played in non-MQA equipment.

When MQA is decoded and rendered, the slight aharmonic noise above 16 KHz becomes the ultrasonic content of the original file.

By continuing to confound undecoded and decoded MQA, JimA is creating a confusion among the simple people who have never heard properly decoded MQA that it must be BAD.

Since he knows better, but has been repeating it for years, I must assume he is doing so on purpose.
 
Tintinabulum said:
I wish 1/2 of the effort people put in here to defeat the bogeyman could be put into feeding the hungry, doing something about the millions of refugees out there without adequate shelter (et.c). Such hate for a piece of software? Even within our countries there's huge moral problems and abuse going on. Can you care a bit more about humanity and less hate for a thing? Just saying, a lot of effort here going nowhere really, so many problems to solve...
Click to expand...
An excellent point that I have made as well.

Common hatred of MQA appears to help some feel part of a group where they belong.
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
That is something I have suspected for some time. However if people like anharmonics generated by (in IT terms) imperfect conversion then they can DIY whatever processes they like without MQA. Indeed some DACs essentially offer this, sometimes as a one reconstruction filter from a range offerred. It's fine with me because people can choose for themselves. You buy the dac/amp/speakers that you prefer. My only interest in that would be shedding light on the reasons, as knowing that may aid their future choices as they may know what to look for.

Hence, yes, I *suspect* some prefer MQA *because* of the changes the encode-decode process makes to the audio they hear. If so, the use of 'slow' or 'leaky' or 'lazy' or 'whatever you want to call them' reconstruction filters is a user choice. But it need not be included in the source material.
Click to expand...
A point that you can prove or disprove by using mansr's software decoder.

However, a more obvious technical point for your consideration is the fact that as shown in ASR video upthread, many or most hires files contain 90% ultrasonic noise and only 10% of data is music or musically related overtones. The rest is recorded junk or noise shaped junk.

By insisting on lossless, you demand that 90% of streaming bandwidth is devoted to junk AND that this high amplitude ultrasonic junk is fed through your stereo. Wasteful and stupid. One can argue about sonic merits, but MQA doesn't transmit 90% junk - it is properly discarded. Musically relevant triangle is extracted and saved, while junk is rightfully removed.

Video world, of course, has realized this and has moved away from lossless and has used compressed transmission for over a quarter century.
 
Last edited:
DimitryZ said:
wish 1/2 of the effort people put in here to defeat the bogeyman could be put into feeding the hungry, doing something about the millions of refugees out there without adequate shelter (et.c). Such hate for a piece of software? Even within our countries there's huge moral problems and abuse going on. Can you care a bit more about humanity and less hate for a thing? Just saying, a lot of effort here going nowhere really, so many problems to solve...


An excellent point that I have made as well.
Click to expand...

Admirable and universal, just like the answers at a beauty contest! but please, both, tell us more how you do it by passing time in this beautiful conversation?
or is it that may be spending your time to defend a software is increasing the world’s supply of clean water?
 
Rosewind said:
They should. If I bought lossless FLAC and received lossy MQA I would not be a satisfied customer.
Click to expand...
Can you hear above 16 KHz? I do but barely.

The chances are you probably wouldn't be able to tell undecoded MQA vs. CD FLAC in a blind test.
 
For you reasons does not matter, you like it and that is end of your interest. For some other people reasons matter. And they have right to express it, even repeatedly, without calling them names, like you expressing your liking here repeatedly.
 
EPear said:
Admirable and universal, just like the answers at a beauty contest! but please, both, tell us more how you do it by passing time in this beautiful conversation?
or is it that may be spending your time to defend a software is increasing the world’s supply of clean water?
Click to expand...
I simply think that hate-filled pile-ons with no understanding or experience are unfair.
 
gints said:
For you reasons does not matter, you like it and that is end of your interest. For some other people reasons matter. And they have right to express it, even repeatedly, without calling them names, like you expressing your liking here repeatedly.
Click to expand...
This is entirely untrue.

I have been encouraging those with technical abilities to gather more technical information.

There are several ways to understand - technical and experientially the main ones.

I have plenty of the latter, but I am always interested to learn the former.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top