[ev13wt]

NO i am sasying the testing method is bad. Not that mqa is good or bad and it is not a true or fair evaluation. So many people are trash talking mqa and have not tried it and believing this would be a true representation of mqa is wrong is what i was pointing out.

I still dont know if i am for or against mqa as of yet, but i do believe it deserves the propper testing method before people jump to conclusions anx condem it. I do have the ability to decode it properly, i just dont have enough media or time with it yet.

You would probably also say that recording an LP (record) to digital is not the same thing as the LP. You would be right - its not the same thing. BUT You will never know the difference if I play both back in your system at your house, switching between CD and LP (volume matched).

I would bet money you won't be able to tell me which is digital and which is LP.


If you can wrap your head around this, you will also realize that the "package being delivered" is quite separate from the "delivery van model" used to deliver it. It is still the same package.

 

[gregorio]

So many people are trash talking mqa and have not tried it and believing this would be a true representation of mqa is wrong is what i was pointing out.

No, you haven't pointed anything out. Stamping your feet and saying "it's not fair" does not qualify as pointing something out, not here in the sound science forum at least! Your reasoning for why it's not fair does not appear to have any merit and you have not answered my last two questions at all, let alone provided reasoned, rational answers.

On the other hand, is Archimago's test perfect? No, virtually no tests are, especially when testing perceptions, so the question as far as science is concerned is not that a test is imperfect but how that/those imperfections affect our confidence in the results and conclusions! BUT (!!!) so far, Archimago has not published his full methodology, any results or any conclusions and therefore you are being a hypocrite! You are doing exactly what you accuse others of, you are "trash talking" this test before Achimago even makes any conclusions/claims! This is entirely different to those of us "trash talking" MQA. MQA have made bold claims for their product and the evidence they've used to support those claims (and indeed the evidence they've ignored/failed to mention), results in an extremely low level of confidence that those claims are anything more than complete marketing BS. We therefore have a very good, solid basis on which to "trash talk" MQA's claims, unlike you and your "trash talking"!!

G

 

[jagwap]

No, you haven't pointed anything out. Stamping your feet and saying "it's not fair" does not qualify as pointing something out, not here in the sound science forum at least! Your reasoning for why it's not fair does not appear to have any merit and you have not answered my last two questions at all, let alone provided reasoned, rational answers.

On the other hand, is Archimago's test perfect? No, virtually no tests are, especially when testing perceptions, so the question as far as science is concerned is not that a test is imperfect but how that/those imperfections affect our confidence in the results and conclusions! BUT (!!!) so far, Archimago has not published his full methodology, any results or any conclusions and therefore you are being a hypocrite! You are doing exactly what you accuse others of, you are "trash talking" this test before Achimago even makes any conclusions/claims! This is entirely different to those of us "trash talking" MQA. MQA have made bold claims for their product and the evidence they've used to support those claims (and indeed the evidence they've ignored/failed to mention), results in an extremely low level of confidence that those claims are anything more than complete marketing BS. We therefore have a very good, solid basis on which to "trash talk" MQA's claims, unlike you and your "trash talking"!!

G

He has pointed something out: the varying filters MQA calls up are designed to match the DAC filters: digital AND analogue. So if you do not use an MQA approved DAC, you are not getting the full MQA decode.

Now if the idea of this blind test is only test the software decode of the MQA, and it appears it is, then that is a valid test, but does not answer if MQA has something extra going on when you talk about the temporal stuff. So he has something to say, but you appear not to want him to.

 

[gregorio]

[1] He has pointed something out: the varying filters MQA calls up are designed to match the DAC filters: digital AND analogue. [2] So if you do not use an MQA approved DAC, you are not getting the full MQA decode. [3] Now if the idea of this blind test is only test the software decode of the MQA, and it appears it is, then that is a valid test, but does not answer if MQA has something extra going on when you talk about the temporal stuff.

1. The claim by MQA is that is cures "temporal blurring" not just of the DAC but of the entire recording and reproduction chain! As has been explained in either this or other MQA threads, the "temporal blurring" caused by typical (even cheap) DAC's filters is utterly insignificant compared to the "temporal blurring" which occurs during recording, mixing and mastering AND, it's both impossible and generally undesirable for MQA to even attempt to "cure" this.

2. As you state, there are only MQA "approved" DACs, MQA do not make DACs themselves, all MQA is doing is providing the software/firmware to decode the MQA stream but the DACs themselves are not designed or made by MQA and they are therefore all, to some degree, going to be different. It maybe that to license the MQA firmware and make an "approved" DAC that the DAC manufacturer has guidelines regarding they type of filter they design into their DAC. If this is the case, then the type of filter MQA may require has already been published (in their patent for example) and indeed, Archimago has stated that this is the type of filter he has employed. So when you say an MQA approved DAC, which MQA approved DAC? There are going to be differences between them and I very much doubt that MQA is going to write custom firmware for every single one of them.

3. Firstly, as you say, "if the test ... then that is a valid test", we don't know the the "if" part yet. Archimago has not published his full methodology, the data/results or conclusions yet. @chef8489 stated the test was unfair, which is different to what you're stating (that it could be valid/fair depending on the methodology, results and conclusions). Secondly, depending on exactly what conclusions Archimago publishes, it might indeed be possible to draw some valid conclusions about MQA's "temporal blurring" claims, baring in mind point #1 above.

G

 

[pinnahertz]

1. The claim by MQA is that is cures "temporal blurring" not just of the DAC but of the entire recording and reproduction chain! As has been explained in either this or other MQA threads, the "temporal blurring" caused by typical (even cheap) DAC's filters is utterly insignificant compared to the "temporal blurring" which occurs during recording, mixing and mastering AND, it's both impossible and generally undesirable for MQA to even attempt to "cure" this.

Part of the confusion may be that people generally think of "temporal blurring" (that term was made up by MQA!) as an on/off, present or absent thing. The temporal response of filters is dependant on the filter design. Stacking filters in the recording chain, as G has pointed out, compounds the degree of temporal response anomaly. It is, therefore, impossible to compensate for an undefined temporal response. Assuming anything, and not nailing the degree of correction exactly, just adds more anomaly by over-compensating.

That's why there's a problem with the entire MQA "temporal blurring" concept.

Attempting to evaluate MQA by auditioning files, even if using an ABX protocol, is simply invalid because of the lack of provenance for either test file. There's all sorts of opportunity for re-mastering in the chain that leads to either file. That exact problem exists when comparing any two distributed files of any format or resolution.

 

[RIGATIO]

So, reading the results of the test- many people CAN hear differences Or its just my subjective interpretation? Isnt it obvious that MQA is better? Maybe slightly but still better. And if a small difference is not important to you, so what actually are doing on head-fi, many of u having a music equipment worth sometimes 5.000 usd and more? U still believe in a huge upgrade in sq spending even 3 times more? Everything u do folks when it comes to the music experience, u do for a slight upgrade..

 

[gregorio]

[1] Isnt it obvious that MQA is better?
[2] Everything u do folks when it comes to the music experience, u do for a slight upgrade..

1. No, it's obvious that MQA is worse. It MUST be worse, it's a lossy format! What the Archimago test indicates is that the technical inferiority of MQA is largely/entirely inaudible.
2. Exactly, so why would we spend additional money for potentially a slight degrade or at best no upgrade/difference?

G

 

[RIGATIO]

1. No, it's obvious that MQA is worse. It MUST be worse, it's a lossy format! What the Archimago test indicates is that the technical inferiority of MQA is largely/entirely inaudible.
2. Exactly, so why would we spend additional money for potentially a slight degrade or at best no upgrade/difference?

G

Oh, didnt know its a lossy format. From what I know its just a "packed" or kinda "zipped" format, where the less important frequencies, from 24 to 96 kHz are hidden below the noise level and then they are "unpacked" during decoding. So where is the loss?

 

[bigshot]

The "unpacking" doesn't result in a bit perfect copy of the original file. It's lossy. Not that it makes any difference to the sound quality. I'm sure that AAC256, redbook, 24/96. DSD and MQA probably all sound exactly the same.

 

[castleofargh]

Oh, didnt know its a lossy format. From what I know its just a "packed" or kinda "zipped" format, where the less important frequencies, from 24 to 96 kHz are hidden below the noise level and then they are "unpacked" during decoding. So where is the loss?

if you could encode something in MQA(which you can't as a consumer), and decode it, the digital output would not be the original digital data. that's why it's called lossy. the generation loss justifies that name as opposed to zip, flac, wave... the cause for loss isn't unique, they can encode part of the ultrasounds in a lossy way(no idea if it's systematic, the patents weren't clear enough for me). they can attenuate the ultrasonic content so that the data can fit(again that may be a track specific choice, they could also leave it alone and instead discard more bits in the audible range, they seem to have options). they apply dither as a reconstruction step. all of which on their own would justify the lossy label.
in a more practical/interesting aspect, MQA has to discard several lower bits of the original 24bit master to make room for the encoding of the extra samples while fitting in a lower sample rate container. so the original master will always be of higher resolution(not that there is anything of interest in the least significant bits on any 24bit master). MQA is mostly just an unusual combination of bit depth and sample rate, they'll contain something like say 14/192 or maybe 17/96 instead of 16 or 24/whatever. that's IMO the fundamental difference, they'd rather have more samples than more bits. the rest is less relevant IMO. how the band limiting is done when the file is already at 96khz or higher, we really have to be paranoid to give a crap. as for the packaging into something like 24/48 PCM containers, it doesn't serve any purpose aside from letting people listen to a degraded 13/48 or maybe15/48 on non MQA devices. they don't provide an encoder, they bring back DRMs, you need special DACs for full reconstruction, but they let us listen to a non decoded poorer version on a cellphone if we like. peculiar choices when it comes to compatibility and open access.

don't tell anybody but I'm not a fan of MQA.

 

[RIGATIO]

if you could encode something in MQA(which you can't as a consumer), and decode it, the digital output would not be the original digital data. that's why it's called lossy. the generation loss justifies that name as opposed to zip, flac, wave... the cause for loss isn't unique, they can encode part of the ultrasounds in a lossy way(no idea if it's systematic, the patents weren't clear enough for me). they can attenuate the ultrasonic content so that the data can fit(again that may be a track specific choice, they could also leave it alone and instead discard more bits in the audible range, they seem to have options). they apply dither as a reconstruction step. all of which on their own would justify the lossy label.
in a more practical/interesting aspect, MQA has to discard several lower bits of the original 24bit master to make room for the encoding of the extra samples while fitting in a lower sample rate container. so the original master will always be of higher resolution(not that there is anything of interest in the least significant bits on any 24bit master). MQA is mostly just an unusual combination of bit depth and sample rate, they'll contain something like say 14/192 or maybe 17/96 instead of 16 or 24/whatever. that's IMO the fundamental difference, they'd rather have more samples than more bits. the rest is less relevant IMO. how the band limiting is done when the file is already at 96khz or higher, we really have to be paranoid to give a crap. as for the packaging into something like 24/48 PCM containers, it doesn't serve any purpose aside from letting people listen to a degraded 13/48 or maybe15/48 on non MQA devices. they don't provide an encoder, they bring back DRMs, you need special DACs for full reconstruction, but they let us listen to a non decoded poorer version on a cellphone if we like. peculiar choices when it comes to compatibility and open access.

don't tell anybody but I'm not a fan of MQA.

Oh man, thanx for an amazing reply Im impressed My information about MQA was from a couple articles dedicated to audiophiles but from what i see, saying "loseless" is just a marketing. It just sounds like loseless but technicaly is not. Was never deep into it, so i really appreciate your knowledge. Actually im a fan of DSD format, which for me sounds really analog and natural (like it better than hi-res, for me is just a feeling of naturalness and fullness).

 

[bigshot]

See the link in my sig, "CD Sound Is All You Need"

 

[RIGATIO]

See the link in my sig, "CD Sound Is All You Need"

Thats for sure, but i bet that when u listen to the DSD, u can feel something more, like bit more of richness. Or its just my brain. Actually i probably cant write much about it, just have pioneer xdp-300r as source, so just writing about my impression.

 

[bigshot]

Expectation bias is what you're hearing there.

 

[old tech]

Expectation bias is what you're hearing there.

That is most likely but it also could be that the MQA title has come from a better master or remaster. If that is the case, you are not really comparing apples with apples.