Emotiva RMC-1 processor

[rhale64]

But where is the big announcement? I never saw one.

[yves]

Dec 7, 2016 15:34:21 GMT -5 KeithL said:

They seem to be making a lot of DIFFERENT claims... which is what makes it so confusing.

1) The idea of "end to end optimization" only works for new content.... if your master is a 30 year old analog tape then you can't control the first few steps of the process because they were done long ago.

If the 30 year old analog tape hasn't lost oxide, then the record company / copyright holder is encouraged to at least consider re-digitizing it through MQA Studio, and, failing that, the MQA encoder can still be used for deblurring the existing, flawed, digitized copy. But you can't travel back in time and re-record Mick Jagger's voice directly through MQA Studio by using an MQA certified ADC so the Stones in Mono vinyl Box Set is going to be your most accurate approximation to that time machine. You Can't Always Get What You Want... but I like this vinyl. Like... a LOT!

2) One minute they're talking about getting approval for the encoded content, and authenticating that what you're listening to is exactly what the studio intended. The next minute, or five minutes ago, they were saying that they'll encode whatever copy the studio sends them, and take the studio's word that they were given the best copy "because we aren't the quality police". While there's no direct contradiction there, one statement seems to suggest that they're going to go to great lengths to ensure that you get the best copy possible, while the other seems to suggest that they'll just feed whatever the studio sends them through the converter.

Giving the record companies / copyright holders a little nudge in the right direction is the best start, and, if MQA gains enough traction, maybe in a not too distant future MQA team will be able to really start putting the pressure on. Remember that Bob Stuart is, and always has been, a true music lover to boot so, as more and more people will start to recognize that sound quality matters, hopefully those who are still skeptical about MQA will eventually be converted.

3) They've as much as said that there are different LEVELS of processing. One is to carefully hand-process the recording and attempt to reverse engineer the flaws in the original conversion process based on research about the original equipment used to encode it. The other seems to suggest that their encoder is able to automatically detect and correct most common flaws. There is a clear implication that there will be a "basic version" and a "premium version" of this processing - so how will you know which one you got?

It is up to the record company / copyright holder to decide whether or not to hand out that extra information. At least you'll know that someone (the artist or the producer) vouched for the quality, you'll know there won't be audible watermarking, and you'll also know that blatant upsamples of Redbook CD material are rejected by MQA as well as that the automated signal analysis part of the MQA encoder is also on the lookout for oddities so basically it's a two way street, which IMO technically is better than a one way street, generally speaking (...in Antwerp, people know all about the quality aspects of car traffic).

4) Separate from all this, they are claiming that all "MQA certified DACs" not only have the ability to decode MQA, but also have been carefully optimized to deliver an accurate time response. (In other words, they're claiming that any DAC with their sticker on it has benefits that really have nothing specific to do with their process... although they contribute to that DAC being able to do a good job of reproducing their content.) On one hand, this could be useful. But, on the other, it makes it difficult to know if it's their content that sounds better, or if it's just a better sounding DAC it's playing through.

The mastering engineer is provided with the right tools to perform audible comparisons between MQA versions and the non-MQA version of the same recording. MQA certified DACs will be available in all price ranges so the end user can still audibly compare DAC performance both with MQA content AND non-MQA content; a Meridian Explorer 2 DAC is only $249 and gives a highly convincing demonstration.

5) I noticed that, in their technical descriptions, they did use the word "LOSSLESS" whenever possible to describe the parts of the process that are in fact lossless, and I don't recall a single instance of seeing the word "LOSSY" anywhere. They didn't lie, or even technically say anything that was specifically misleading, but they sure didn't go out of the way to describe MQA as "a new and better lossy CODEC" either.

The more relevant question is not about whether it is lossy, but rather, it's about how much quality is lost. Digital filters representative of contemporary Redbook CD content are losing two boatloads in quality compared to audio origami, while, on top of that, the MQA encoder is factually RESTORING real (non fake) quality due to the deblur. The net result is that MQA is better than lossless because the former corrects the unwanted time smear effect of non-MQA, real world PCM applications, and also because the amount that is lost due to audio origami is no bigger than the equivalent of sound waves traveling through only a few meters of air... a small drop in the ocean compared to the terrible time smear so very typifying of Redbook CD.

6) As you noted, a lot of people seem to agree that their processing makes the file sound DIFFERENT, and most seem to find the difference an improvement. However, it can often be difficult to determine the difference between different and better - especially if there's no option to compare both to the original, or to turn off the modification and compare the versions with and without it.

Some say Emotiva gear sounds different. Others (myself included) can very much hear that it does indeed sound better for real (big understatement).

7) Note that it's not at all unreasonable to suggest that, by correcting certain legitimate problems, and only discarding truly useless information, their process might actually deliver a NET IMPROVEMENT in sound. However, I am also inclined to note that very few files have been made available for review, and I assume those were carefully chosen and subjected to the "premium level" of processing. In other words, we've heard that reviewers reacted favorably to a few dozen files, and we've also heard that all the thousands of albums in Warner's library have been "processed", but we haven't heard very many of those albums. (Of course they cherry picked the ones that came out well to send to reviewers... so would I. ) So, as far as I'm concerned, I'm still waiting to hear how much benefit we'll see on MOST albums..... if any. For starters, I'm waiting to see all those 'remastered Warner albums" available on Amazon (especially if they're supposed to sound better even on my non-MQA DAC.)

I'm still waiting to hear those disruptively cherry picked premium Emotiva Airmotiv S15 subwoofers myself, too!

8) They are also marketing their CODEC as being able to deliver a higher quality signal than others at reduced bit rates - which is indeed useful and valuable for streaming services and their customers. However, this is a whole different piece of the puzzle from the rest. Are we suggesting that every album you listen to on Tidal will benefit from ALL the improvements their processing offers? Or are we suggesting that they will be able to deliver a stream that sounds as good as the original CD - but not necessarily better - using less bandwidth? Or are we expecting both benefits? (If they actually deliver slightly better than CD quality over lower bandwidth, then they will have a very worthwhile product.... but that won't necessarily make a compelling argument to buy the other parts of their ecosystem.... like a special DAC. They're obviously trying to position it as a package deal... but that may not be the case.)

IIRC, we're talking genuine Hi Res quality at standard res, or Redbook CD data rates, and genuine ULTRA Hi Res quality (equivalent to 24-bit 384 kHz or higher) at normal Hi Res (24-bit 96 kHz or higher) data rates. Recording to DSD takes up a totally ridiculous amount of storage space or online server bandwidth by comparison, and, in a worst case scenario, MQA at Redbook CD data rate won't sound worse than non-MQA Redbook CD.

To me, the exact answers to all these questions are still somewhat vague......

Much as their promise that "MQA will deliver audio to you at the same quality or better than the master".... "but, of course, the studio doesn't actually want to give away the master".

It's only logical the fact that the studio usually doesn't want to give away its highest quality stuff in a single instant. Once it is out there, it is there to stay so it destroys the opportunity to secure future revenue, but MQA is not to blame for this fact, and part of the idea behind MQA is to provide the necessary means to create a paradigm shift in this regard... NOT to become an enforcement agency.

(When you sum up their claims, it sounds as if "the studio IS willing to give you the master - but only if you buy an MQA DAC to play it on"...... which is... interesting.)

There will be software decoders that allow non-MQA DACs to be used so the MQA decoder does not require hardware, but the decoder normally runs in the context of paired DAC(s). Ideally, the decoder should have direct access to the modulator in the DAC.

I'm waiting to see what actually happens.....
But, if they continue to deliver confusion, and don't back it up with some compelling results sometime soon, eventually people are going to lose interest.

Most of the confusion IMO is not being delivered by MQA, but by people jumping to all sorts of ridiculous conclusions about MQA.

Remember DVD-A ?
Remember HDCD ?

Remember vinyl ? www.theguardian.com/music/2016/dec/06/tables-turned-as-vinyl-records-outsell-digital-in-uk-for-first-time

Dec 7, 2016 12:43:45 GMT -5 edrummereasye said:

Thanks Keith, I stand corrected...and I should have recalled/realized that based on what I recall of how it works - you can't re-produce part of the signal "somewhere else" (lower amplitude/"down in the noise floor"/whatever) without over-writing what's there already. I suppose you could theoretically also include a losslessly-compressed version of the original information, and use it to re-construct the original, that would only make sense _if_ the information you were replacing compressed much better than the information you were putting there would...and wouldn't be the most elegant solution, even then.

So yes...lossy, with "perceptual-encoding"...and maybe only "inaudible" stuff thrown away (though interestingly, they claim an audible difference on playback) But I'm not sure that airplane is going to fly...which may just be me - being an HTPC guy, I still recall a time when we had to go to great lengths to achieve "bit-perfect playback", and it's hard for me to imagine being satisfied with something that doesn't pass that test (plus the DTS-HD discs I use for testing bit-perfectness are actually of stuff I like

So, to address the question that my previous post was attempting to answer...and rather than rely on my obviously imperfect memory this time, I went to the website for info...(and I have to say, you have to dig deep to find any hint that it's NOT lossless; not sure if the white paper I read before is linked there or not). But anyway, the central claims to greatness (audio-quality-wise) seem to be (1) starting with the master recording (and being able to authenticate the result) (2) eliminating traditional A-D/D-A conversion methods (thus eliminating pre- and post-ringing, thus preserving timing information...they claim down to 8uS, or 15x better than 192/24). Supposedly the brain relies on this timing information to form a "3-D perception" of sound. They also claim that even on equipment without MQA decoding, it will sound "slightly better than CD"...and that their goal was "to do no more damage to sound than travelling a short distance through air" (~15 feet or so, IIRC). The other claim is that it does this all with a minimal footprint (file size), compared to traditional "high-res" files.

[Casey Leedom]

Hhmmm, call me dumb, but I just can't figure out what this "MQA" thing is.

Is it a new lossy format? If so, unless it offers really huge space savings for similar audio quality, I just don't see the point. Bandwidth and storage costs are just decreasing too fast to make any new lossy format interesting once you consider the cost of having to get it out into the field and get support on all the in-place equipment.

Is it a new method of automatically "cleaning up" existing recordings? That might be interesting since we have so many damaged recordings out there — some quite new. But I would hope that if this is the case, then it could point to where it was "fixing things" so a human engineer could oversee it and it should have th capability of output into legacy formats.

Casey

[KeithL]

Yes.

MQA is actually a conglomeration of several things... all being promoted as a single "thing".....
1) There is an MQA CODEC - which is a lossy CODEC that is supposed to be able to deliver streaming content at better quality than other options while still using less bandwidth
2) When the conversion process is run on existing content, it is claimed to improve the sound quality by fixing problems caused by the original A/D conversion process
3) The MQA encoded stream can be decoded by software, for example by the new Tidal client, or by a DAC or AVR that has hardware support for the MQA CODEC
4) DACs and other hardware devices that include MQA decoding are ALSO supposed to be "certified and optimized" to perform better in the area of time domain accuracy
5) One claim is that MQA encoded content can be played on ANY equipment, but will sound best when played on MQA-certified hardware
6) ANOTHER claim is that MQA encoded/fixed content will sound better even when played on non-MQA equipment
7) ANOTHER claim is that, because of the hardware optimization required, MQA hardware will make even non-MQA-encoded content sound better
8) Separate from all that, it will be possible to use "an end-to-end MQA workflow" when mastering new content to ensure the most accurate recording possible
9) As of recently, they are in fact claiming that there is "an automated process" that can still yield a useful improvement, and a better "premium process" which includes human intervention

And, yes, while I agree with you about bandwidth, presumably people who stream music all day on their phones with the limited data plans still care a lot about it.

Dec 9, 2016 11:21:15 GMT -5 Casey Leedom said:

Hhmmm, call me dumb, but I just can't figure out what this "MQA" thing is.

Is it a new lossy format? If so, unless it offers really huge space savings for similar audio quality, I just don't see the point. Bandwidth and storage costs are just decreasing too fast to make any new lossy format interesting once you consider the cost of having to get it out into the field and get support on all the in-place equipment.

Is it a new method of automatically "cleaning up" existing recordings? That might be interesting since we have so many damaged recordings out there — some quite new. But I would hope that if this is the case, then it could point to where it was "fixing things" so a human engineer could oversee it and it should have th capability of output into legacy formats.

Casey

[yves]

Dec 9, 2016 8:17:01 GMT -5 rhale64 said:

But where is the big announcement? I never saw one.

Similar to all the MQA music content from Warner Music Group, the big announcement is still waiting to be approved I guess.

[yves]

Dec 9, 2016 11:21:15 GMT -5 Casey Leedom said:

Hhmmm, call me dumb, but I just can't figure out what this "MQA" thing is.

Is it a new lossy format? If so, unless it offers really huge space savings for similar audio quality, I just don't see the point. Bandwidth and storage costs are just decreasing too fast to make any new lossy format interesting once you consider the cost of having to get it out into the field and get support on all the in-place equipment.

Is it a new method of automatically "cleaning up" existing recordings? That might be interesting since we have so many damaged recordings out there — some quite new. But I would hope that if this is the case, then it could point to where it was "fixing things" so a human engineer could oversee it and it should have th capability of output into legacy formats.

Casey

Technically speaking, it is not a lossy format because, as a matter of true fact, it is PCM so it isn't even tied to any file format or streaming protocol (contrary to popular belief). However, PCM (and losslessly compressed PCM) are wasteful in that most of the data stored therein is not contributing to the part of sound quality that humans can perceive. So in the more practical sense, MQA is lossy in that the encoder encapsulates data by replacing a large part of the data that is useless to human hearing with other data that is useful. As a logical result from this, the audible quality will be increased after the encapsulated data has been retrieved from the PCM data, decoded, and finally merged with said PCM data in such way that we can hear the improvement engendered by it. Because no part of the PCM data that is useful to human hearing is getting replaced, and because the data is still PCM data, it can be played back, WITHOUT an MQA decoder through any normal (non-MQA) DAC that can accept PCM, without AUDIBLY losing sound quality. However, if the MQA decoder is present either in the DAC itself or via separate platform (hardware or hardware-and-software-combination), then the encapsulated data can be automagically retrieved, decoded, and improve ACCURACY of the AUDIBLE part of the signal. Thusly, if the PCM data is MQA, then if the MQA decoder is activated, it can be seen, and heard, as being better than the version of PCM data in which no part of the data has been replaced by the encoder. So from this particular standpoint, it is actually better than lossless. However... the encoding is lossy in the sense that you could decide to just skip the entire (lossy) process of MQA encoding/decoding, in which case you would end up with true lossless Hi Res PCM data as opposed to a (very) close approximation of said true lossless Hi Res PCM data, albeit the data rate (and the storage space required by it) would, then, be much higher due to being very wasteful indeed. The core essence here is in the fact that the slight loss that occurs due to the encoder is not just very slight, but extremely very very slight, and to the point of being microscopic in fact.

As for the cost of having to get it out into the field and get support on all the in-place equipment, I believe the pros outweigh the cons because storage and internet bandwidth may be cheap, but they're not THAT cheap. Further, MQA is much more than datacompression alone: it is also about provenance and about removing the time smear that occurs in both the ADC and the DAC so the main important point is to strive for higher fidelity sound.
www.tonepublications.com/review/why-mqa

[KeithL]

Technically speaking it is "a lossy CODEC packaged in a lossless PCM wrapper".
As part of the process, certain parts of the signal are "written over others", and the data that is written over is discarded - that is the definition of LOSSY.
(And, while there are options that are claimed to make your audio sound better, there is NO option to get back a bit-perfect copy of your original content.)
It is a perceptual CODEC because they decide which parts are "safe" to discard based on their preferred model of human hearing - and which parts it says we can't hear.
However, since it is incapable of delivering a bit-perfect copy of the original, under any circumstances, it is indeed lossy.
(The term "lossy" does NOT necessarily mean "sounds worse" although, with virtually all lossy CODECS so far, that has indeed worked out to be the case.)

Their argument is that their process makes a significant audible improvement, and little to no AUDIBLE loss, so the net result is an overall audible improvement.
The problem there is that, while "bit perfect copy of the original" is something we can easily confirm by measurement, "sounds better" ends up being a matter of opinion.
(Without a valid point of reference there's no way to differentiate between "a real improvement" and "an interesting coloration that some people seem to like".)

I suppose you could claim that is is "audibly lossless" - but, at least to me, that would signify that it can sound EXACTLY like the original.
(When you're talking about the accurate transmission of signals, where the goal is for the received signal to be identical to the original, any difference, even an improvement, is "a loss".)

The question of whether it "sounds as good" or "sounds better" is a different question.....

Dec 9, 2016 14:16:13 GMT -5 yves said:

Dec 9, 2016 11:21:15 GMT -5 Casey Leedom said:

Hhmmm, call me dumb, but I just can't figure out what this "MQA" thing is.

Is it a new lossy format? If so, unless it offers really huge space savings for similar audio quality, I just don't see the point. Bandwidth and storage costs are just decreasing too fast to make any new lossy format interesting once you consider the cost of having to get it out into the field and get support on all the in-place equipment.

Is it a new method of automatically "cleaning up" existing recordings? That might be interesting since we have so many damaged recordings out there — some quite new. But I would hope that if this is the case, then it could point to where it was "fixing things" so a human engineer could oversee it and it should have th capability of output into legacy formats.

Casey

Technically speaking, it is not a lossy format because, as a matter of true fact, it is PCM so it isn't even tied to any file format or streaming protocol (contrary to popular belief). However, PCM (and losslessly compressed PCM) are wasteful in that most of the data stored therein is not contributing to the part of sound quality that humans can perceive. So in the more practical sense, MQA is lossy in that the encoder encapsulates data by replacing a large part of the data that is useless to human hearing with other data that is useful. As a logical result from this, the audible quality will be increased after the encapsulated data has been retrieved from the PCM data, decoded, and finally merged with said PCM data in such way that we can hear the improvement engendered by it. Because no part of the PCM data that is useful to human hearing is getting replaced, and because the data is still PCM data, it can be played back, WITHOUT an MQA decoder through any normal (non-MQA) DAC that can accept PCM, without AUDIBLY losing sound quality. However, if the MQA decoder is present either in the DAC itself or via separate platform (hardware or hardware-and-software-combination), then the encapsulated data can be automagically retrieved, decoded, and improve ACCURACY of the AUDIBLE part of the signal. Thusly, if the PCM data is MQA, then if the MQA decoder is activated, it can be seen, and heard, as being better than the version of PCM data in which no part of the data has been replaced by the encoder. So from this particular standpoint, it is actually better than lossless. However... the encoding is lossy in the sense that you could decide to just skip the entire (lossy) process of MQA encoding/decoding, in which case you would end up with true lossless Hi Res PCM data as opposed to a (very) close approximation of said true lossless Hi Res PCM data, albeit the data rate (and the storage space required by it) would, then, be much higher due to being very wasteful indeed. The core essence here is in the fact that the slight loss that occurs due to the encoder is not just very slight, but extremely very very slight, and to the point of being microscopic in fact.

As for the cost of having to get it out into the field and get support on all the in-place equipment, I believe the pros outweigh the cons because storage and internet bandwidth may be cheap, but they're not THAT cheap. Further, MQA is much more than datacompression alone: it is also about provenance and about removing the time smear that occurs in both the ADC and the DAC so the main important point is to strive for higher fidelity sound.
www.tonepublications.com/review/why-mqa

[rhale64]

Well I want it to sound better even if it isn't bit perfect. Maybe that has been our problem all along.

If it can make it sound like analog but with the dynamic range and channel separation of digital. I am all in.

But I have never liked the sound of digital until just recently. It has always sounded harsh and glassed over. But the latest chips have improved on this.

Everything they say about MQA is what I want my music to sound like.

I am very glad Keith that you seem passionate enough about it one way or another. That to me means it is being watched by Emotiva. Which is all I ask.

[goodfellas27]

Dec 9, 2016 12:25:06 GMT -5 yves said:

Dec 9, 2016 8:17:01 GMT -5 rhale64 said:

But where is the big announcement? I never saw one.

Similar to all the MQA music content from Warner Music Group, the big announcement is still waiting to be approved I guess.

[KeithL]

Thank you.

My problem in general with MQA is that they make so many different claims... but the SPECIFICS seem to be sort of vague.
In the end it seems like they're trying to sell the "Brand", but without going into enough details, and deliberately ignoring others.
They want me to demand "MQA content" and buy an "MQA-certified DAC" without having details about exactly what each will do for ME.
(Obviously, if I ask my vendors for MQA content and an MQA DAC it will help THEM sell more licenses...)
How many of those songs I get on Tidal next year will have gone through the "premium hand-tweaked process" and how many through the automatic converter?
And, if they're streaming at much lower than CD bandwidth, will I actually get better sound quality than a CD, or just the same quality in less bandwidth?
When and where will I be able to buy the "new and improved remasters" of every album in Warner's library?
(If they really sound better on a non-MQA DAC, then I'll have a reason to buy them. And,
And how many of them will really sound significantly better? (Noting that, in the past, many remasters actually sounded worse).

I also don't like the way they "conflate" everything together.
If they really have a stand-alone process that can make existing content sound better - then I'd consider buying a black box (or a software program) that does THAT.
However, if that's the case, then I want to be able to feed in the original, and switch it on and off myself to see if I agree that it's better.
(If you're going to claim that you can improve something, I want the chance to compare the "original" and the "improved version" myself.)

And that bit where, one minute they're telling me that they're going to give me a copy that's exactly what the producer wanted me to hear....
And assure me that, since there's no DRM, I'll be able to make a copy of that file to keep which will play on ANY MQA-capable DAC....
And THEN say something like: "but, of course, the studios don't want to give their full quality masters to the customer".....
Seems to be a contradiction, and makes me wonder exactly what they're promising to deliver.

Dec 9, 2016 15:28:43 GMT -5 rhale64 said:

Well I want it to sound better even if it isn't bit perfect. Maybe that has been our problem all along.

If it can make it sound like analog but with the dynamic range and channel separation of digital. I am all in.

But I have never liked the sound of digital until just recently. It has always sounded harsh and glassed over. But the latest chips have improved on this.

Everything they say about MQA is what I want my music to sound like.

I am very glad Keith that you seem passionate enough about it one way or another. That to me means it is being watched by Emotiva. Which is all I ask.

[yves]

Dec 9, 2016 14:53:16 GMT -5 KeithL said:

Technically speaking it is "a lossy CODEC packaged in a lossless PCM wrapper".
As part of the process, certain parts of the signal are "written over others", and the data that is written over is discarded - that is the definition of LOSSY.

The irony is that the loss that occurs yields an improvement in accuracy. And besides... which modern ADC or DAC do you know that doesn't alter the bits in order to improve on accuracy?

(And, while there are options that are claimed to make your audio sound better, there is NO option to get back a bit-perfect copy of your original content.)

By vouching for the MQA version, the artist/producer already effectively confirms that there's simply no need to go back to a bit-perfect copy of the original content anyway in the first place. As an end user you have the right to disagree with the artist's/producer's decision, and you can always stick to a version that the artist/producer doesn't like as much as the MQA version... if you already have it or if you can still grab it.

It is a perceptual CODEC because they decide which parts are "safe" to discard based on their preferred model of human hearing - and which parts it says we can't hear.

True, that. Then again, Redbook CD still also is based around the fact that someone has decided we can't hear the time smear effect of steep digital anti-alias filters...

However, since it is incapable of delivering a bit-perfect copy of the original, under any circumstances, it is indeed lossy.
(The term "lossy" does NOT necessarily mean "sounds worse" although, with virtually all lossy CODECS so far, that has indeed worked out to be the case.)

They have already explained the fact that the loss due to the encoder is the equivalent to sound waves traveling through only a few meters of air. This loss is far smaller than many think, but everyone is still completely free to disagree, just like everyone is still free to disagree that the time smear effect of digital filters representative of digital audio at 44.1 kHz sampling frequency is far more audible to humans than it.

Their argument is that their process makes a significant audible improvement, and little to no AUDIBLE loss, so the net result is an overall audible improvement.

Yes.

The problem there is that, while "bit perfect copy of the original" is something we can easily confirm by measurement, "sounds better" ends up being a matter of opinion.

In this particular case, though, it ends up being a matter of agreeing/disagreeing with the artists' opinion and or the producer's because they're the people who sign off on it. The more relevant problem here, IMO anyway, can be described as "garbage in, garbage out"... which is still something we can still also easily confirm by measurement of the fact that a bit perfect copy of garbage is still only a garbage copy.

(Without a valid point of reference there's no way to differentiate between "a real improvement" and "an interesting coloration that some people seem to like".)

IMO if an artist/producer signs off on it, then that already can make for a very good point of reference especially if this "someone who likes it" happens to be the artist I love. If I am among those "some people who seem to like it", then that makes for an even better point of reference because in fact "liking it" is the very reason why I listen to music in the first place, and, like it or not, in the end we all purchase our listening gear and music albums because of something "we seem to like" about it/them, and that is also regardless of measurements... despite that measurements can still be very useful of course... but our own personal opinions of what we measure, what we should measure, how we measure, and how we should measure aren't necessarily always perfect so my brain comes at it from different directions.

I suppose you could claim that is is "audibly lossless" - but, at least to me, that would signify that it can sound EXACTLY like the original.
(When you're talking about the accurate transmission of signals, where the goal is for the received signal to be identical to the original, any difference, even an improvement, is "a loss".)

If you only move your head a quarter of an inch, it already sounds different due to the acoustics of the room. There can be no such thing as "accurate transmission", but you can measure the analog signal that comes out of a studio microphone, just like you can measure the ringing artifacts that come out of a digital filter vs. unfiltered. So, based on those specific measurements, you can apply accurate corrections in the digital domain. (Preferrably, these accurate corrections will be ones that can be audible to humans). Like I said before, the bits are typically still being altered even if all you do is run them through a modern ADC or DAC because typically there will be DSP going on inside these units too. But technically, MQA is PCM so the codec also is PCM, which is still a lossless codec anyway after all. Despite that, there is processing going on in MQA so yes, the bits are altered. This process is not really a codec in the strictest sense of the word, but anyway. It involves a technique called data encapsulation. The encapsulated data does, however, involve a codec (other than the PCM codec). It is this other codec that is lossy. More specifically, it's the part of it that contributes the least amount, in pure terms of human audibility, to the final sound. I.e. it's the part of it that addresses the highest frequency band of the spectrum. Whereas the rest of the spectrum is still encoded losslessly. The spectrum is divided into frequency bands to allow each band (excepting the lowest frequency band) to be encapsulated, into the lowest frequency band, at a distance of 3 bits (or more) below the noise floor of the actual music recording itself. At that distance below the noise floor, and assuming normal amplification, humans can't hear that bits have been replaced with the encapsulated data. Bits that contain nothing but benign noise are random. The encapsulated data is coded in such way that it sounds the same as a benign noise. I.e. the bits that contain the encapsulated data appear as if they're random (despite that the reality is they're not random). The fact that the spectrum has to be divided into frequency bands implies bandlimiting so I suppose the filters required for that might be part responsible for the very slight degradation that occurs.

The question of whether it "sounds as good" or "sounds better" is a different question.....

Too true. But given the fact none of the DSP that occurs in modern high end ADCs and DACs is bit perfect, the question of whether MQA is lossy still comes from an outdated concept of resolution.

Dec 9, 2016 14:16:13 GMT -5 yves said:

Technically speaking, it is not a lossy format because, as a matter of true fact, it is PCM so it isn't even tied to any file format or streaming protocol (contrary to popular belief). However, PCM (and losslessly compressed PCM) are wasteful in that most of the data stored therein is not contributing to the part of sound quality that humans can perceive. So in the more practical sense, MQA is lossy in that the encoder encapsulates data by replacing a large part of the data that is useless to human hearing with other data that is useful. As a logical result from this, the audible quality will be increased after the encapsulated data has been retrieved from the PCM data, decoded, and finally merged with said PCM data in such way that we can hear the improvement engendered by it. Because no part of the PCM data that is useful to human hearing is getting replaced, and because the data is still PCM data, it can be played back, WITHOUT an MQA decoder through any normal (non-MQA) DAC that can accept PCM, without AUDIBLY losing sound quality. However, if the MQA decoder is present either in the DAC itself or via separate platform (hardware or hardware-and-software-combination), then the encapsulated data can be automagically retrieved, decoded, and improve ACCURACY of the AUDIBLE part of the signal. Thusly, if the PCM data is MQA, then if the MQA decoder is activated, it can be seen, and heard, as being better than the version of PCM data in which no part of the data has been replaced by the encoder. So from this particular standpoint, it is actually better than lossless. However... the encoding is lossy in the sense that you could decide to just skip the entire (lossy) process of MQA encoding/decoding, in which case you would end up with true lossless Hi Res PCM data as opposed to a (very) close approximation of said true lossless Hi Res PCM data, albeit the data rate (and the storage space required by it) would, then, be much higher due to being very wasteful indeed. The core essence here is in the fact that the slight loss that occurs due to the encoder is not just very slight, but extremely very very slight, and to the point of being microscopic in fact.

As for the cost of having to get it out into the field and get support on all the in-place equipment, I believe the pros outweigh the cons because storage and internet bandwidth may be cheap, but they're not THAT cheap. Further, MQA is much more than datacompression alone: it is also about provenance and about removing the time smear that occurs in both the ADC and the DAC so the main important point is to strive for higher fidelity sound.
www.tonepublications.com/review/why-mqa

[brutiarti]

Please stop quoting

[hosko]

Yes please stop quoting yourself. If we wanted to read something you have already said we can scroll back

[yves]

Dec 9, 2016 17:53:49 GMT -5 KeithL said:

Thank you.

My problem in general with MQA is that they make so many different claims... but the SPECIFICS seem to be sort of vague.
In the end it seems like they're trying to sell the "Brand", but without going into enough details, and deliberately ignoring others.
They want me to demand "MQA content" and buy an "MQA-certified DAC" without having details about exactly what each will do for ME.
(Obviously, if I ask my vendors for MQA content and an MQA DAC it will help THEM sell more licenses...)
How many of those songs I get on Tidal next year will have gone through the "premium hand-tweaked process" and how many through the automatic converter?
And, if they're streaming at much lower than CD bandwidth, will I actually get better sound quality than a CD, or just the same quality in less bandwidth?
When and where will I be able to buy the "new and improved remasters" of every album in Warner's library?
(If they really sound better on a non-MQA DAC, then I'll have a reason to buy them. And,
And how many of them will really sound significantly better? (Noting that, in the past, many remasters actually sounded worse).

I also don't like the way they "conflate" everything together.
If they really have a stand-alone process that can make existing content sound better - then I'd consider buying a black box (or a software program) that does THAT.
However, if that's the case, then I want to be able to feed in the original, and switch it on and off myself to see if I agree that it's better.
(If you're going to claim that you can improve something, I want the chance to compare the "original" and the "improved version" myself.)

And that bit where, one minute they're telling me that they're going to give me a copy that's exactly what the producer wanted me to hear....
And assure me that, since there's no DRM, I'll be able to make a copy of that file to keep which will play on ANY MQA-capable DAC....
And THEN say something like: "but, of course, the studios don't want to give their full quality masters to the customer".....
Seems to be a contradiction, and makes me wonder exactly what they're promising to deliver.

Dec 9, 2016 15:28:43 GMT -5 rhale64 said:

Well I want it to sound better even if it isn't bit perfect. Maybe that has been our problem all along.

If it can make it sound like analog but with the dynamic range and channel separation of digital. I am all in.

But I have never liked the sound of digital until just recently. It has always sounded harsh and glassed over. But the latest chips have improved on this.

Everything they say about MQA is what I want my music to sound like.

I am very glad Keith that you seem passionate enough about it one way or another. That to me means it is being watched by Emotiva. Which is all I ask.

You can't expect them to just give away all of their trade secrets I guess. A lot of the specifics have already been covered elsewhere, but I also still find it difficult to understand every part of the details because some of the technical subjects raised in the Q&A linked below are too advanced for me.
www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-questions-and-answers

[Casey Leedom]

Should we just rename this the "MQA Argument" thread?

Casey

[rhale64]

Well some of us are pushing for it in the RMC. That was my original question. And people are explaining both sides.

I would love it in a processor.

[stiehl11]

Dec 10, 2016 18:25:21 GMT -5 rhale64 said:

Well some of us are pushing for it in the RMC. That was my original question. And people are explaining both sides.

I would love it in a processor.

Has anyone heard this product (MQA)? Or, are we just going off "reviews" and marketing? Will it take extra licensing? Will it take extra hardware? If this product isn't out yet, I don't know why anyone would be so adamant about having it in a future processor. I think once it's out in the market place then it should be considered.

[goodfellas27]

I heard it at my loca dealers. Sound excellent; Smooth warm sound.
I compared it to the CDs (Tidal) and MQA sounded better. Some songs were remastered in MQA at a lower volume. I guess removing the volume war BS with no dynamics.

We also did A/B with just the core file (no MQA DAC) and it works fine. The MQA files had better imagin. I am guessing the deblur. The Metallica Enter Sandman sounded lower in MQA, the CD give me the raw power on that sound, but overall, MQA took it with just the core file.

With DSD it was harded to tell, but MQA had more air and space to the soundfild. No bad since the file size is tiny in comparison to DSD.

[rhale64]

Dec 10, 2016 19:13:48 GMT -5 stiehl11 said:

Dec 10, 2016 18:25:21 GMT -5 rhale64 said:

Well some of us are pushing for it in the RMC. That was my original question. And people are explaining both sides.

I would love it in a processor.

Has anyone heard this product (MQA)? Or, are we just going off "reviews" and marketing? Will it take extra licensing? Will it take extra hardware? If this product isn't out yet, I don't know why anyone would be so adamant about having it in a future processor. I think once it's out in the market place then it should be considered.

I am going off of all these PM's and all the information I keep gathering.

I haven't heard it because I don't have enough disposable cash right now to buy a DAC with it.

I wanted to buy the Brooklyn DAC but would rather not have to.

If it was included in my next processor then I would not need to buy another piece of equipment to get it.

And what if this MQA does take off and we spend all this money on our next flagship processor just to have to buy another component to use it. When it could have been included if taken seriously enough.

These are just my opinions. And I do realize that others have differing opinions.

[stiehl11]

Dec 10, 2016 20:23:58 GMT -5 rhale64 said:

Dec 10, 2016 19:13:48 GMT -5 stiehl11 said:

Has anyone heard this product (MQA)? Or, are we just going off "reviews" and marketing? Will it take extra licensing? Will it take extra hardware? If this product isn't out yet, I don't know why anyone would be so adamant about having it in a future processor. I think once it's out in the market place then it should be considered.

I am going off of all these PM's and all the information I keep gathering.

I haven't heard it because I don't have enough disposable cash right now to buy a DAC with it.

I wanted to buy the Brooklyn DAC but would rather not have to.

If it was included in my next processor then I would not need to buy another piece of equipment to get it.

And what if this MQA does take off and we spend all this money on our next flagship processor just to have to buy another component to use it. When it could have been included if taken seriously enough.

These are just my opinions. And I do realize that others have differing opinions.

I'm all for adding MQA to a video processor if it only adds a few dollars to the purchase price. From everything that I've seen, it's no better than <insert CODEC here> that no one is using because it's hard to out-do hi-rez files. Bandwidth is cheap and if the only difference between this and the highest resolution version is that it's "smaller" or uses less bandwidth then I see no real market for this product.

As for adding "another piece of equipment to get it", that's the point of having separates. It's why we buy processors and pre-amps and DACs and amps and different sources rather than getting everything in a one box solution. This way, when something new comes out, we don't have to buy everything again; just what we want.

And, as you said, just my opinion. And we can have differing opinions.