harsh
Minor Hero
Posts: 40 
|
Post by harsh on Jan 7, 2017 7:58:49 GMT -5
Last time I checked, MQA was not a lossless codec.
It's a destructive compression codec, like mp3/aac (with a few more refinements)
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jan 7, 2017 8:21:45 GMT -5
Last time I checked, MQA was not a lossless codec. It's a destructive compression codec, like mp3/aac (with a few more refinements) That's the way I've read it too. There is data lost... it's just not supposed to be audible. |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Jan 7, 2017 9:42:10 GMT -5
Last time I checked, MQA was not a lossless codec. It's a destructive compression codec, like mp3/aac (with a few more refinements) That's the way I've read it too. There is data lost... it's just not supposed to be audible. Comparing MQA to mp3 or aac is simply ridiculous no matter how you care to look at it.  The diagram above shows examples of system end-to-end impulse response (analogue–digital–analogue) for: typical linear-phase 192 kHz/24b and 48 kHz/24b (at 48kHz the response does not fit on the graph as it extends both ways to +/-4ms); also shown is the MQA response for the same 192 kHz input and the response of 2.5m of air at STP. |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jan 7, 2017 10:27:05 GMT -5
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_Quality_AuthenticatedMQA encoding is 'lossy';[9] it hierarchically compresses the relatively little energy in the higher frequency bands into data streams that are embedded in the lower frequency bands using proprietary dithering techniques. ....so it's like a "really" good MP3. I'm not really trying to troll, I frankly don't care that much. But it is still lossy and it does still use dithering. If it's a good codec that becomes popular, great. I'll use it. If it's a good codec that doesn't..... then it'll go the way of laserdisc, HD-DVD and Beta.
|
|
harsh
Minor Hero
Posts: 40
|
Post by harsh on Jan 7, 2017 11:21:47 GMT -5
The diagram above shows examples of system end-to-end impulse response (analogue–digital–analogue) for: typical linear-phase 192 kHz/24b and 48 kHz/24b (at 48kHz the response does not fit on the graph as it extends both ways to +/-4ms); also shown is the MQA response for the same 192 kHz input and the response of 2.5m of air at STP. You are right, MQA is not "only" a codec. It includes specific filters at AD and DA conversion, designed to avoid ringing and even trying to compensate filters included in AD and DA chips. But, no matter what, they store it in a lossy file... I don't see any reason why this is mandatory, except as an argument to convince streaming companies. (Won't cost more bandwidth than lossless cd quality) If they come up with a lossless MQA standard, I may reconsider my interest  |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Jan 7, 2017 11:51:30 GMT -5
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_Quality_AuthenticatedMQA encoding is 'lossy';[9] it hierarchically compresses the relatively little energy in the higher frequency bands into data streams that are embedded in the lower frequency bands using proprietary dithering techniques. ....so it's like a "really" good MP3. I'm not really trying to troll, I frankly don't care that much. But it is still lossy and it does still use dithering. If it's a good codec that becomes popular, great. I'll use it. If it's a good codec that doesn't..... then it'll go the way of laserdisc, HD-DVD and Beta. It's not like a "really" good mp3 because it is still fundamentally different from any and all other codecs, and in fact the question of being "lossy" comes from an outdated concept of resolution, but it certainly would appear that this discussion thread is persistently selectively lossy about that particular part of relevant information.  Further, MQA data burying (the proprietary dither being referred to here) doesn't alter the original noise floor of the signal in any way. Also, one important reason why MQA won't go the way of laserdisc, HD-DVD and Betamax is because the entire music catalog (yes, the whole thing) of Warner Music Group has already been converted to MQA, and, only a few months from now, the same will apply to both Universal Music Group and Sony Music. (Those are the three largest ones in the whole world). |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Jan 7, 2017 12:05:20 GMT -5
The diagram above shows examples of system end-to-end impulse response (analogue–digital–analogue) for: typical linear-phase 192 kHz/24b and 48 kHz/24b (at 48kHz the response does not fit on the graph as it extends both ways to +/-4ms); also shown is the MQA response for the same 192 kHz input and the response of 2.5m of air at STP. You are right, MQA is not "only" a codec. It includes specific filters at AD and DA conversion, designed to avoid ringing and even trying to compensate filters included in AD and DA chips. But, no matter what, they store it in a lossy file... I don't see any reason why this is mandatory, except as an argument to convince streaming companies. (Won't cost more bandwidth than lossless cd quality) If they come up with a lossless MQA standard, I may reconsider my interest A lot of people I know complain about the fact 24/192 FLAC files take up too much bandwidth. My internet download speed is 200 Mb/s, and I own a total of 45 TB harddrive storage space, but the amount of loss that is due to the MQA encoder is so incredibly small it doesn't matter to me at all because people here are obviously forgetting that virtually all modern DACs have DSP in them so in practice you can kiss losslessness goodbye REGARDLESS of MQA. |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jan 7, 2017 12:07:43 GMT -5
Hey, my usage of lossy was directly from the Wikipedia page. If you want to update it with some additional semantics, go for it. :-) :-) If everyone Is supposedly going MQA... then it sounds like it's not really a "choice". We'll be forced to use MQA, whether or not you care/like/prefer. I think many people don't care about a format... until it's in the limelight. But then again... we are a strange bunch.  |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Jan 7, 2017 12:24:56 GMT -5
Well, MQA is not an enforcement agency. They just aim to make things better.
|
|
|
|
Post by repeetavx on Jan 7, 2017 12:29:14 GMT -5
Ok, so what I've gathered from what I've read, MQA is circuit correction.
What I mean is that it seems that Meridian has worked to identify the common types of distortion that A/D and D/A conversions create. They then cut, boost and rearrange areas of the encoded audio signal that cause this distortion. With the goal of reproducing an output analog signal that is more faithful to the analog signal originally encoded.
Most of the people around hear seem to have no problem cutting and boosting frequency bands with their favorite room correction software. But now the idea of correcting the encoding and decoding process distortion is disparaged as "lossy". I have no problems with "losing" digital artifacts created by the A/D, D/A process.
I have no idea if they have succeeded to any usable amount, but I sure hope so. When I first read about MQA they talked about MQA certified DACs. That would make sense because they would be DACS that they have identified how they distort, and that their correction algorithm would correctly correct for.
I'm looking forward to seeing how well they've succeeded. If it's a gimmick, let it die. On the other hand if they've succeeded in their goal. I want it!
|
|
stiehl11
Emo VIPs 
Give me available light!
Posts: 7,269
|
Post by stiehl11 on Jan 7, 2017 13:59:27 GMT -5
I'm just trying to find what's interesting about it. More usable bits and higher sampling frequencies are always a good thing! But, there's already "more bits" and "higher sampling frequencies" readily and easily available. If they weren't, I'd be all over this like white on rice. I am very well aware of the encoding issues of analog to digital and I'm not doubting any of it (not sure why you bring it up). So far, I haven't seen anything that MQA does that makes me "excited" about it. In all seriousness it's probably going to sound a lot like HDCD... which is already out there (and pretty much dead). The only thing I'm seeing different is that it's proprietary and it makes someone else money. Stop by the nearest audiophile store and try it out like I did. I did a A/B comparison and MQA encoded files sounded better 95% of the time (Metallica in MQA sounded too relax). It's hard to describe, but it had no digital glare. You could turn up the volume more with MQA and not bother you. Make sure the DAC supports MQA. When you did your listening, did you use your own files or did you listen to theirs? I may do what you suggest if they a)allow me to listen to my own files, b) have MQA files that I already have a pretty good version of. Funny story, the first time I heard Emotiva's T1 speakers the first tracks played were through a computer (iTunes). I don't know whether it was the files played or how they had it hooked up, but something sounded very "off". When Damon put in some CDs through the ERC-3/XSP-1, there was a monster of a difference. The point I'm making is that I want to control the "A" file I'm going to be comparing to the "B" MQA file. |
|
stiehl11
Emo VIPs
Give me available light!
Posts: 7,269
|
Post by stiehl11 on Jan 7, 2017 14:06:17 GMT -5
MQA, in terms of "lossy" is like HDCD in terms of lossy; they're just rearranging the bits that we don't hear to be bits that carry information that we do hear.
|
|
stiehl11
Emo VIPs
Give me available light!
Posts: 7,269
|
Post by stiehl11 on Jan 7, 2017 14:09:01 GMT -5
Also, one important reason why MQA won't go the way of laserdisc, HD-DVD and Betamax is because the entire music catalog (yes, the whole thing) of Warner Music Group has already been converted to MQA, and, only a few months from now, the same will apply to both Universal Music Group and Sony Music. (Those are the three largest ones in the whole world). So, they've destroyed/deleted all other digital versions of their music catalog (including the masters) and only the MQA versions remain? |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Jan 7, 2017 14:42:31 GMT -5
Ok, so what I've gathered from what I've read, MQA is circuit correction. What I mean is that it seems that Meridian has worked to identify the common types of distortion that A/D and D/A conversions create. They then cut, boost and rearrange areas of the encoded audio signal that cause this distortion. With the goal of reproducing an output analog signal that is more faithful to the analog signal originally encoded. Most of the people around hear seem to have no problem cutting and boosting frequency bands with their favorite room correction software. But now the idea of correcting the encoding and decoding process distortion is disparaged as "lossy". I have no problems with "losing" digital artifacts created by the A/D, D/A process. I have no idea if they have succeeded to any usable amount, but I sure hope so. When I first read about MQA they talked about MQA certified DACs. That would make sense because they would be DACS that they have identified how they distort, and that their correction algorithm would correctly correct for. I'm looking forward to seeing how well they've succeeded. If it's a gimmick, let it die. On the other hand if they've succeeded in their goal. I want it! Yeah, there has been a lot of (mostly useless) bruhaha about hardware requirements and MQA certified DACs... questions that have already been answered under "DECODERS" and "ABOUT DACS" in this Q&A article: www.computeraudiophile.com/content/694-comprehensive-q-mqa-s-bob-stuart |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jan 7, 2017 14:49:42 GMT -5
Well, MQA is not an enforcement agency. They just aim to make things better. " owned and licensed by MQA Ltd." Aim to make money, you mean....an open source codec is altruistic. A proprietary licensed codec, even if it's better.... it's really about making a buck. I'm sorry if this seems nitpicky, but.... I agree with repeetavx: "I'm looking forward to seeing how well they've succeeded. If it's a gimmick, let it die. On the other hand if they've succeeded in their goal. I want it!" |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Jan 7, 2017 14:59:02 GMT -5
Also, one important reason why MQA won't go the way of laserdisc, HD-DVD and Betamax is because the entire music catalog (yes, the whole thing) of Warner Music Group has already been converted to MQA, and, only a few months from now, the same will apply to both Universal Music Group and Sony Music. (Those are the three largest ones in the whole world). So, they've destroyed/deleted all other digital versions of their music catalog (including the masters) and only the MQA versions remain? No. But now that they've finally invested in MQA you can bet both shoes on that they aren't going to let it die easily.  |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Jan 7, 2017 15:20:19 GMT -5
Aim to make money, you mean.... |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jan 7, 2017 19:51:19 GMT -5
I'm profoundly uninterested in the business of MQA (which is, most assuredly, designed to make money). Nor am I particularly curious about the mechanics of MQA. What I want to know (and haven't been able to hear for myself, yet), is how MQA SOUNDS. If it's as good as some reviews say, then i want some. If it's as bad as some other reviews say, then I don't want to bother.
And if it's good enough, then I don't care if they make money on it. Good for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jan 7, 2017 19:54:17 GMT -5
I'm profoundly uninterested in the business of MQA (which is, most assuredly, designed to make money). Nor am I particularly curious about the mechanics of MQA. What I want to know (and haven't been able to hear for myself, yet), is how MQA SOUNDS. If it's as good as some reviews say, then i want some. If it's as bad as some other reviews say, then I don't want to bother. And if it's good enough, then I don't care if they make money on it. Good for them. Will you be doing a DBT of MQA vs any other codecs? Maybe flac? |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jan 7, 2017 20:19:17 GMT -5
I'm profoundly uninterested in the business of MQA (which is, most assuredly, designed to make money). Nor am I particularly curious about the mechanics of MQA. What I want to know (and haven't been able to hear for myself, yet), is how MQA SOUNDS. If it's as good as some reviews say, then i want some. If it's as bad as some other reviews say, then I don't want to bother. And if it's good enough, then I don't care if they make money on it. Good for them. Did you get my message about MQA releasing a software MQA decoder for specific applications? It means you do not need a MQA enabled DAC to get the benefit of MQA playback. It will work on a regular DAC as long as the application supports it. Not sure which applications they are though. |
|
