davewantsmoore Posted June 20, 2016 Posted June 20, 2016 So if they can work their magic in six bits, then the real world issues are solved. Got you. ... or usually much less (than 6 bits). This size of the high-frequency content is typically extremely small. The size of the filters and other propriety information is not worth considering (tiny) .... also - due to the compute power expected by the decoder, it can be compressed very very efficiently.
Guest AndrewC Posted June 20, 2016 Posted June 20, 2016 Can tell a difference between a 24/192 and MQA mastered on same track? Does it playback fully decoded? Looks like mr.tangco is just a shill for lenbrook ::)
pretender Posted June 20, 2016 Posted June 20, 2016 (edited) May be I can share some of my subjective experiences from the last three weeks with MQA. My digital set up consists of a Touch with linear PSU ->USB out to Gustard USB/spdif converter ->Chord Qute HD which allows playback to 24/192 (Preamp: doge 8, Power amp: Lyngdorf SDA2175, Speakers Kef R500). I downloaded most free tracks from 2L recordings, each time comparing CD resolution, MQA, 24/96 and 24/192. The comparison between CD quality, 24/96 and 24/192 was interesting in itself because I had not done it before. The increment in tone/spaciousness/resolution was obvious with increasing file size. 24/192 indeed sounds impressive, it surely gives me more details than my vinyl set-up but does it sound good/true? Well this is where we all differ in our perception. I listen mostly to non-amplified music ensembles recorded during live performances (Jazz, Classical/Orchestral, Folkoric/world music) and I go to live music performances every couple of weeks. So this is the standard for me, I know how a string quartet or a jazz trio sound live. For me 24/192 sounds impressive but not much more musical than CD quality. And by that I mean that the individual instrument and voice in the band/orchestra, while playing together are hard to follow. It is difficult to explain but the music does not make full sense, the transients of violins playing together sound unrealistic, the voice does not communicate as it should. And after a while, I lose interest, start reading or do something else. It is very rare that I listen to a CD for start to finish, with full concentration on the music. I enjoy my CD collection but most of the time I am not sat in between the speakers... However my modest Vinyl rig (Technics SL7) can have all my attention for hours where the live feeling of the music is there. How come when Vinyl offers 60-70dB of signal to noise as opposed to 100+ for digital? This has been the digital conundrum for a long time. Enters MQA. Again the MQA file is played by my non-MQA dac and as a result the MQA file sounds nothing like the 24/192 version. The MQA version is much less spacious/airy and does not have the low noise floor of the 24/192 file. In fact, the spaciousness of the sound from the non decoded MQA file is close to the CD quality version of the file. So I guess this is why some people have said that they prefer 24/96 or 24/192 to non decoded MQA. However to my ears the contrary is true and even if MQA looses bits compared to 24/192, it sounds much better! (I can only guess how good it could be with a MQA enabled dac). The MQA files sound like real music. It is true that the tones of instruments are more saturated with MQA, more full, which might correspond to Eggcup mentioning a "clipped" sound. Individual instruments in the orchestra interact in a natural manner with realistic transients. It is the first time I hear a string quartet sounding so tight and natural in digital; it makes me jump on my seat every time. Of course all this is totally subjective but the end results is that the music makes sense to me, is involving and I stay in front of the speakers! I have to say that the difference which MQA brings is best heard at realistic levels compared to low volume listening. MQA represents a profound change; not about hearing more details but about putting all the pieces together in a coherent musical message. I am pretty sure that most vinyl lovers will embrace the new format. Edited June 20, 2016 by pretender
davewantsmoore Posted June 20, 2016 Posted June 20, 2016 How come when Vinyl offers 60-70dB of signal to noise as opposed to 100+ for digital? This has been the digital conundrum for a long time. Becuase SNR isn't of particularly high importance, unless you (drastically) don't have enough to represent the original audio.
Guest Eggcup The Daft Posted June 21, 2016 Posted June 21, 2016 (edited) I've been doing more reading. I found a couple of references to folding in different places. MQA doesn't just "fold" data once, as documented in the listening notes for the 2L testbench - so it folds the DXD files three times to get to 44.1. So presumably, as far as adapting to the speed of the DAC goes, it can "unfold" fewer times according to the DAC's speed and the processing capabilities built into the DAC or streamer: hence @@Sime's 88.2 speed with the Bluesound would be unfolding once, perhaps because of the streamer's processing capability. That means that the calculation is not, necessarily conceptually equivalent to fully decoding and downsampling, after all. Most of the descriptions of MQA out there miss this, and show a single fold to 44.1 or 48 from a higher speed. Another point to consider is that MQA calculates the temporal information when processing, which if done inside the DAC, renders jitter from up the line irrelevant. That may have relevance to some test results (as may reintroducing jitter when streaming decoded output). Edited June 21, 2016 by Eggcup The Daft
Guest Eggcup The Daft Posted June 21, 2016 Posted June 21, 2016 May be I can share some of my subjective experiences from the last three weeks with MQA. My digital set up consists of a Touch with linear PSU ->USB out to Gustard USB/spdif converter ->Chord Qute HD which allows playback to 24/192 (Preamp: doge 8, Power amp: Lyngdorf SDA2175, Speakers Kef R500). I downloaded most free tracks from 2L recordings, each time comparing CD resolution, MQA, 24/96 and 24/192. The comparison between CD quality, 24/96 and 24/192 was interesting in itself because I had not done it before. The increment in tone/spaciousness/resolution was obvious with increasing file size. 24/192 indeed sounds impressive, it surely gives me more details than my vinyl set-up but does it sound good/true? Well this is where we all differ in our perception. I listen mostly to non-amplified music ensembles recorded during live performances (Jazz, Classical/Orchestral, Folkoric/world music) and I go to live music performances every couple of weeks. So this is the standard for me, I know how a string quartet or a jazz trio sound live. For me 24/192 sounds impressive but not much more musical than CD quality. And by that I mean that the individual instrument and voice in the band/orchestra, while playing together are hard to follow. It is difficult to explain but the music does not make full sense, the transients of violins playing together sound unrealistic, the voice does not communicate as it should. And after a while, I lose interest, start reading or do something else. It is very rare that I listen to a CD for start to finish, with full concentration on the music. I enjoy my CD collection but most of the time I am not sat in between the speakers... However my modest Vinyl rig (Technics SL7) can have all my attention for hours where the live feeling of the music is there. How come when Vinyl offers 60-70dB of signal to noise as opposed to 100+ for digital? This has been the digital conundrum for a long time. Enters MQA. Again the MQA file is played by my non-MQA dac and as a result the MQA file sounds nothing like the 24/192 version. The MQA version is much less spacious/airy and does not have the low noise floor of the 24/192 file. In fact, the spaciousness of the sound from the non decoded MQA file is close to the CD quality version of the file. So I guess this is why some people have said that they prefer 24/96 or 24/192 to non decoded MQA. However to my ears the contrary is true and even if MQA looses bits compared to 24/192, it sounds much better! (I can only guess how good it could be with a MQA enabled dac). The MQA files sound like real music. It is true that the tones of instruments are more saturated with MQA, more full, which might correspond to Eggcup mentioning a "clipped" sound. Individual instruments in the orchestra interact in a natural manner with realistic transients. It is the first time I hear a string quartet sounding so tight and natural in digital; it makes me jump on my seat every time. Of course all this is totally subjective but the end results is that the music makes sense to me, is involving and I stay in front of the speakers! I have to say that the difference which MQA brings is best heard at realistic levels compared to low volume listening. MQA represents a profound change; not about hearing more details but about putting all the pieces together in a coherent musical message. I am pretty sure that most vinyl lovers will embrace the new format. Generally, the difference between MQA and non-MQA files should be relatively slight, and the bigger difference when decoded. I can't get my head around you hearing such a big difference. Actually, I don't understand what I'm hearing either - when I get the chance (my system's in the living room and currently not easily available for what's required) I'll repeat my tests.
davewantsmoore Posted June 21, 2016 Posted June 21, 2016 perhaps because of the streamer's processing capability Perhaps. If the MQA decoder is choosing 88.2, it is being told to select that.... this could be the reason. That means that the calculation is not conceptually equivalent Unsure what you mean exactly. Most of the descriptions of MQA out there miss this, and show a single fold to 44.1 or 48 from a higher speed. At playback, it only does one operation. Rendering into the target rate. It doesn't "unfold multiple times". "unfolding" is the just the way it gets described in some places for the non-technical.... as in when it's encoded - the high frequencies are "folded down into the 44.1khz container" ..... ie. trying to explain the meaning of "encapsulation" from this picture here ..... why saying we "fold" the high frequencies into the noisefloor of the 44.1khz audio.
Guest Eggcup The Daft Posted June 21, 2016 Posted June 21, 2016 (edited) Unsure what you mean exactly. I've edited the original comment. At playback, it only does one operation. Rendering into the target rate. It doesn't "unfold multiple times". "unfolding" is the just the way it gets described in some places for the non-technical.... as in when it's encoded - the high frequencies are "folded down into the 44.1khz container" ..... ie. trying to explain the meaning of "encapsulation" from this picture here ..... why saying we "fold" the high frequencies into the noisefloor of the 44.1khz audio. Do you have a source for this? I think that they are actually using the term "fold" to describe the process they are using. The encapsulation is only part of the process anyway Perhaps a better way of saying what I meant (we can't be sure because there isn't a fully detailed description out there) is to say that when coping with a slower DAC, it undoes some of the folds, rather than all of them. For the comment about multiple "folding", see the 2L testbench listening notes:http://www.2l.no/hires/documentation/2L-MQA_Comparisons.pdf MQA uses a process called ‘music origami’ to ‘fold’ a high-sample-rate signal down to a smaller, lower-data-rate file which can be played back without a decoder. 2L-048 is folded once to 48 kHz 24 bit; 2L-120 has no folds; the others are folded three times from 352.8 to 44.1 kHz 24 bit. An MQA decoder will restore the original recording and ‘unfold’ it to optimally match its D/A converter. So, for example, on a mobile device, 2L-111 (which is from DXD) can be unwrapped to 44.1, 88.2 or 176.4 kHz whereas a higher-performance DAC can unfold all the way to 352.8 kHz. That description matches that in one of the videos on the subject on the MQA website. I wish people wouldn't just use video for such things, it's much harder to refer back to than a decent text document. It's pretty clear from the comment that the unwrapping is done to get to one of the points from the "folds" as described. Whether they do that by "multiple unfolds" or a single unwrapping process, we wouldn't know without having the source code in front of us. But, if the picture you show is correctly describing the encapsulation, they don't need to fold data from the highest data rate, do they? - the frequencies inside the triangle are fully captured in 176.4kHz. The additional impulse information is calculated, presumably using something similar to the technique described in Stuart's paper, isn't it? It looks like most or all of what we are being told about MQA, the specific process, is simplified. Edited June 21, 2016 by Eggcup The Daft
davewantsmoore Posted June 21, 2016 Posted June 21, 2016 Do you have a source for this? I think that they are actually using the term "fold" to describe the process they are using. The encapsulation is only part of the process anyway Yes, they use the term "fold" to explain that they are moving what is above the container rate (eg. 44.1khz) down to be stored in the noise which is below 44.1khz.... ie. The "analogy" they use is they are "folding" the audio, around the container rate.... and they can "unfold" it again. That makes it easy for people to understand. It's also been termed "origami" by some people. That is a correct description of the outcome. Stuff gets moved from above some sampling frequency, and represented in the noise below that sampling frequency ...... but "folding" per se is not literally HOW that happens. The MQA patent explains what is going on, if you can handle the patent lingo <gives me a headache>, and clearly understand how digital audio works, example lfrom the patent here At it's most basic level it is downsampling and upsampling of the audio, and encoding what is above the container rate in the noiselfoor for transmission. The patent is about inferring the areas where they gain an advantage. Having control over both the downsampling filters used, and the reconstruction filters used is a key one.
davewantsmoore Posted June 21, 2016 Posted June 21, 2016 we can't be sure because there isn't a fully detailed description out there Sure there is. https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=WO&NR=2014108677A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=3&date=20140717&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP
davewantsmoore Posted June 21, 2016 Posted June 21, 2016 Perhaps a better way of saying what I meant (we can't be sure because there isn't a fully detailed description out there) is to say that when coping with a slower DAC, it undoes some of the folds, rather than all of them. I know what you mean. Let's write it another way though. If the playback hardware is not powerful enough. The decoder could possibly be programmed to choose a "low" rate as the target sampling rate. ie. The decoder in the bluesound is preconfigured to choose 88.2/96 (because it isn't powerful enough). So let me repeat. The "folds" are just a way to explain it to you in simple terms. There are NO "folds" in practice. It doesn't take 44.1 and "unfold" it 88.2, and unfold it again to 4x, and again to 8x. I know they say this: "MQA uses a process called ‘music origami’ to ‘fold’ a high-sample-rate signal down to a smaller, lower-data-rate file which can be played back without a decoder. 2L-048 is folded once to 48 kHz 24 bit; 2L-120 has no folds; the others are folded three times from 352.8 to 44.1 kHz 24 bit. " .... but it is just a way to explain it to regular people who have no idea what a "filter" is ..... but understand how you can fold up a piece of paper to make it smaller. It's pretty clear from the comment that the unwrapping is done to get to one of the points from the "folds" as described. Whether they do that by "multiple unfolds" or a single unwrapping process, we wouldn't know No. You're inferring things from their description of the "concept", that just don't happen in practice. There are no "points in the fold". It doesn't have to "get to one of them". The MQA decoder can choose the target sampling rate. It can even be a non-mulitple rate. eg. It is possible to render a 352.8 source, packed into 44.1 MQA, out at 96khz if that was somehow desirable. The decoder chooses the rate, computes a reconstruction filter, and renders the audio. The techniques employed avoid the usual issues with resampling from one "multiple" to another (eg. converting 88.2khz to 192khz).
davewantsmoore Posted June 21, 2016 Posted June 21, 2016 But, if the picture you show is correctly describing the encapsulation, they don't need to fold data from the highest data rate, do they? "fold" .... is simply the layman way they explain what they are doing. In that picture again .... we are looking at a 96khz source, being packed in 48khz MQA.... we "fold" at 48khz, and we put what is at "c" into the pink box (in the noise floor).
Guest Eggcup The Daft Posted June 21, 2016 Posted June 21, 2016 Sure there is. https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=WO&NR=2014108677A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=3&date=20140717&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP Now you're being naive: the patent describes the essential concepts, to prevent the method being copied, and almost certainly does not describe the actual implementation of the technology. If it described the exact implementation then it would be open a rival implementing a similar but different implementation of the idea. And the picture is itself almost certainly a simplification, or maybe a description of part of the process being used.
pretender Posted June 22, 2016 Posted June 22, 2016 (edited) Generally, the difference between MQA and non-MQA files should be relatively slight, and the bigger difference when decoded. I can't get my head around you hearing such a big difference. Actually, I don't understand what I'm hearing either - when I get the chance (my system's in the living room and currently not easily available for what's required) I'll repeat my tests. Technically speaking it is probably a small difference between MQA and non-MQA and when I say that I prefer the later to 24/192, this is not a typical audiophile quantisation. Actually in audiophile terms, most people would probably describe 24/192 as better than undecoded MQA. It is just that the music feels much better to me with MQA. I think that it is only true if one has a strong connection with the specific music in the first place. 2L recordings only offers limited free downloads and I connected with the classical pieces because I already knew them inside out. But for the majority of people who do not listen to classical music, I think that they will have to wait until their favourite music is released in MQA to feel the difference. Waiting for TIDAL our saviour, I hope he comes sooner than Godot... Edited June 22, 2016 by pretender
davewantsmoore Posted June 22, 2016 Posted June 22, 2016 Now you're being naive: the patent describes the essential concepts, to prevent the method being copied, and almost certainly does not describe the actual implementation of the technology. I don't really agree. It describes everything but the specific filters being employed (for example, up and down sampling, noise shaping, or what methods the encoder uses to detect elements it would like to compensate) .... someone who can implement an "MQA like system", will also have enough knowledge to work out some suitable filters for themselves. Put it this way. Tell me something you think it important.... and I'll show you where it is in the patent, or I'll explain why it doesn't really matter for the discussion which is happening here.
davewantsmoore Posted June 22, 2016 Posted June 22, 2016 And the picture is itself almost certainly a simplification Sure. The picture is just intending to show that stuff above a certain frequency is encoded, and then stored within the noiselfoor below that frequency.
Guest Eggcup The Daft Posted June 22, 2016 Posted June 22, 2016 I don't really agree. It describes everything but the specific filters being employed (for example, up and down sampling, noise shaping, or what methods the encoder uses to detect elements it would like to compensate) .... someone who can implement an "MQA like system", will also have enough knowledge to work out some suitable filters for themselves. Put it this way. Tell me something you think it important.... and I'll show you where it is in the patent, or I'll explain why it doesn't really matter for the discussion which is happening here. I'll take "doesn't really matter" and move on. Your expertise is wasted in arguing over this!
davewantsmoore Posted June 22, 2016 Posted June 22, 2016 arguing It's unfortunate you see it that way. Just trying to help.
Guest Eggcup The Daft Posted June 22, 2016 Posted June 22, 2016 It's unfortunate you see it that way. Just trying to help. Sorry. It felt like arguing from this end.
Guest AndrewC Posted June 24, 2016 Posted June 24, 2016 The jig is up as more people get to hear MQA… Effectively nothing more than modern day compression technique ;D http://www.avsforum.com/mqa-demo-at-the-show-newport-2016/ … Some audio reviewers claim that MQA-processed and decoded files actually sound better than the original master files because MQA reduces the “temporal blur” found in the upper harmonics of high-res digital recordings. I did not hear any improvement in this listening session. Still, it was remarkable to have heard no difference between the unprocessed and MQA files with a fifth to a tenth of the bit rate; this is akin to bringing uncompressed CD down to 256 or 128 kbps. …
mr.tangco Posted June 27, 2016 Posted June 27, 2016 Hi Andrew, we've never met but you've taken upon yourself to call names on an Internet forum simply because someone (myself) expressed an opinion that you disagree with. Thanks for showing that an old bird with 4000 posts can be as misguided as a newbie with the terimity to express an opinion. Having paid for my equipment with my own hard earned money just like you did and enjoying the musical output does not make me "a shill for lenbrook" as you so carelessly tossed your post into the forum. I cannot pretend to have golden ears backed up with workshop measurements, but I came into the forum thinking that the average local fan of hifi would have higher standards than those that patronize other overseas forums. I read over a period of weeks XP threads with very polite discourse and extremely constructive criticism and feedback, and I must say that many posts which I appreciated were your own. Having had a minute to share what I enjoy on this forum and stating a price tag on a sale item that I bought and enjoyed too was evidence enough to get labeled as a shill. And logging back in to see the response, you, a senior forum member gave was really a nice surprise. Thanks, I really appreciate a "welcome to the forum you shill" response. Well let me not take up more of your time. To each his own, I suppose.
Guest AndrewC Posted June 28, 2016 Posted June 28, 2016 Hi Andrew,... I didn’t disagree with your opinion, I specifically said you "look like a shill" because both of your first 2 posts ends with URL pointers to Lenbrook, plus you didn't bother to answer the simple and genuine question posted by MusicEar; all typical telltale sign of a shill. ;) If you’re somehow connected to Lenbrook, just come out and say so, no harm no foul, others vendors posts in the forum all the time, but don’t play games pretending. That said, let us know categorically you have absolutely no connection whatsoever to Lenbrook - not an employee, not some shop buddy etc. - and I’ll be more than happy to apologise unreservedly for supposing you might be a shill :)
Guest AndrewC Posted June 29, 2016 Posted June 29, 2016 Looks like Universal is also considering MQA, but as expected, their main interest is in streaming only ;) http://www.mesalliance.org/2016/06/24/industry-execs-more-streaming-remains-key-to-high-res-audio-success/ Industry Execs: More Streaming Remains Key to High-Res Audio Success ... UMG sees MQA as an “exciting technology” that addresses the bandwidth requirements for the transport of high-resolution audio streaming, Belcher said. UMG has “not officially signed on to MQA yet – we’re still in the business terms” stage, he said. MQA can also be used for mastering, but “we’re not looking at that right now,” just the “transport solution,” he said. ...
MusicEar Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 Another manufacturer Benchmark has something to said about MQA... DOA? https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/163302855-is-mqa-doa
DJQ Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 so this is the acclaimed MQA thread. visited a fellow forumers place to have a go at aurender with mytek. heard the MQA tracks on mytek... ok so what am i listening to? i can vaguely tell the difference. ok ok i strain my ears and close my eyes. slightly more life on MQA playback. my 2 cents i hear more diff playing DSD over USB native Asio. :P
Recommended Posts