Quantcast
MQA discussion at Denver RMAF - Page 2 - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
MQA discussion at Denver RMAF
Old 4th September 2017 | Show parent
  #31
Gear Head
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcgilroy ➡️
Very interesting observation audio-truth!

Will the chip-OEMs react, if so how?

As for the list of manufacturers and personalities having voiced concern about MQA: please include a link to the respective statement. I can't find Jürgen Reis and Rob Watts statements for example.

I also think Aureliac has an unclear stance on MQA.
Hi McGilroy,

The only chip maker I spoke to about it was ESS. When I explained the deal, they said there was no way that they wanted to be the "tax collector" for MQA. ESS started out in the DVD business, where there a literally dozens of licenses. They hated it then and don't want to do it again.

Auralic's statement can be found here:AURALiC firmware v5.0 adds web browser control, DSP engine | DAR__KO

"“This pretty much means we at AURALiC are saying no to MQA. We are no longer interested in their technology. We want to keep everything open but they want to keep it closed. We are not in the same boat. I don’t believe the very High End will benefit from MQA as it only degrades sound quality, not improve it.”

“We do not use any MQA technology, this is not MQA certificated or MQA licensed. We are up-sampling the file using our algorithm, applying our own in-house developed filter, to optimize sound quality, not just for a particular DAC but all devices.”

You can read Juergen Reis's comments in the "Archimago Blogspot", where he posts under "JR_Audio". They are scattered about and hard to find, but it is quite clear that he is no fan of MQA. I suspect he may have signed an NDA with MQA and can't be very vocal about his opposition. That is what happened with many, many companies. Just to find out anything about it they had to sign a (apparently very lopsided) NDA.

Hope this helps,
audio_truth
Old 4th September 2017 | Show parent
  #32
Lives for gear
 
FabienTDR's Avatar
 
Verified Member
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Tubb ➡️
the MQA thing seems like a total waste of time and effort to me,

reinventing a wheel that doesnt need it.
What I find interesting is how many "seasoned" people blindly jumped on that boat, while guys like Monty (a leading FLAC developer + much more) got laughed at for non high-end-ish appearance and a critical view on audiophilism in general.

MQA's "wheel" is a triangle. It doesn't solve anything, and doesn't run that well.

Most solutions to inexistent problems tend to be silly. MQA is no exception imho.

Ironically, FLAC literally blows away the whole MQA thing, by any perspective (be it superior tagging and meta data, better compression, higher fidelity, streamability, efficiency, much better pricing). And it already did 5 years ago.

The MQA charlatanry is cleverly decorated, and well packaged. But still a clear WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY (tm)
Old 4th September 2017
  #33
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
oh my god this place
Old 4th September 2017
  #34
Gear Addict
 
c1ferrari's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
People posting, here, may be in attendance at RMAF 2017:

MQA discussion

Have fun at the show!
Old 5th September 2017 | Show parent
  #35
Lives for gear
 
DSD_Mastering's Avatar
 
Verified Member
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucey ➡️
I'm happy to be there Bruce Don't understand the joke, please clarify.

If you want your name added to the CON list, I'm happy to do that.
I have been on several panels there throughout the years. Tough crowd them Audiophiles. Just ask Ethan!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by c1ferrari ➡️
Brian,

Bruce has been empanelled at high-end audio shows, previously.
Perhaps, I should have written -- impaled.
I've still got the scars to prove it!!
Old 5th September 2017 | Show parent
  #36
Gear Addict
 
Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by FabienTDR ➡️

MQA's "wheel" is a triangle. It doesn't solve anything, and doesn't run that well.
I wish you were right but this triangle gets more and more angles all the time and might just roll eventually:

https://www.musicweek.com/digital/re...-deezer/069660
Old 5th September 2017 | Show parent
  #37
Gear Addict
 
Verified Member
“All new releases will come out in MQA.”

Said Bill Gagnon, SVP Business Development at Universal Music Group.

IFA 2017: Hi-res audio for the mass market with LG, Sony, iFi | DAR__KO

The MQA train is picking up steam - in addition to Pioneer, Onkyo and Sony supporting Rotel, Electrocompaniet & dCS will also integrate MQA. Groovers, a Korean and Deezer a French streaming service will stream MQA.

Also there is this: "Nugs.net now offers thousands of on-demand, MQA-encoded live concerts from artists including Metallica, Bruce Springsteen, and Dead & Company."

https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-news-ifa
Old 5th September 2017
  #38
Lives for gear
 
Analogue Mastering's Avatar
 
Verified Member
🎧 10 years
I'm curious when the DRM trojan will reveil itself. No one is signing up to such a redundant format without huge financial benefit. There must be SOMETHING on those powerpoint slides MQA sales is showing to these parties, but which is well kept under the hat for consumers.
Old 5th September 2017 | Show parent
  #39
Gear Guru
 
lucey's Avatar
 
Verified Member
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Analogue Mastering ➡️
I'm curious when the DRM trojan will reveil itself. No one is signing up to such a redundant format without huge financial benefit. There must be SOMETHING on those powerpoint slides MQA sales is showing to these parties, but which is well kept under the hat for consumers.
Greed and made up science is an easy sell to idiots and corporations.

The con began with the redefinition of "lossless" by MQA in their filed legal documents. When you can sell something as lossless as they do, it's even easier.
Old 6th September 2017 | Show parent
  #40
DAH
Lives for gear
 
DAH's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucey ➡️
Greed and made up science is an easy sell to idiots and corporations.

The con began with the redefinition of "lossless" by MQA in their filed legal documents. When you can sell something as lossless as they do, it's even easier.
With all the data provided here, what is your personal position towards this?
Old 6th September 2017 | Show parent
  #41
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAH ➡️
With all the data provided here, what is your personal position towards this?
Old 6th September 2017 | Show parent
  #42
Gear Guru
 
lucey's Avatar
 
Verified Member
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAH ➡️
With all the data provided here, what is your personal position towards this?
My position is clear in that post and elsewhere. Thus my invitation to the panel.


I'm interested in reference materials, from this thread.
Old 6th September 2017 | Show parent
  #43
DAH
Lives for gear
 
DAH's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucey ➡️
My position is clear in that post and elsewhere. Thus my invitation to the panel.


I'm interested in reference materials, from this thread.
Hey Brian, I have read a couple of posts of yours on mqa and gotta tell you I am sorry to have sceptically thought you are deciding what side to take and to watch Bob Ludwig to be PRO that. He definitely has lost a couple of prospect clients being pro that mqa (not me of course, I am too a nobody in both musical and financial sense).
And, one more PRO Brian Lucey head!
Old 7th September 2017 | Show parent
  #44
Gear Guru
 
lucey's Avatar
 
Verified Member
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcgilroy ➡️
“All new releases will come out in MQA.”

Said Bill Gagnon, SVP Business Development at Universal Music Group.

IFA 2017: Hi-res audio for the mass market with LG, Sony, iFi | DAR__KO

The MQA train is picking up steam - in addition to Pioneer, Onkyo and Sony supporting Rotel, Electrocompaniet & dCS will also integrate MQA. Groovers, a Korean and Deezer a French streaming service will stream MQA.

Also there is this: "Nugs.net now offers thousands of on-demand, MQA-encoded live concerts from artists including Metallica, Bruce Springsteen, and Dead & Company."

https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-news-ifa
Universal, who for so many years puts an audible watermark in digital releases. That Universal? They are a mega corp, no care for sonics.

Mid level corporations see money, too. Stuart is a salesman and is trying to make the case for the QUALITY of the product with the QUANTITY of market share. Creating demand for a need you didn't know you had, is shady marketing 101.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAH ➡️
Hey Brian, I have read a couple of posts of yours on mqa and gotta tell you I am sorry to have skeptically thought you are deciding what side to take and to watch Bob Ludwig to be PRO that. He definitely has lost a couple of prospect clients being pro that mqa (not me of course, I am too a nobody in both musical and financial sense).
And, one more PRO Brian Lucey head!
Thank you, yet no need. English is my only language, I don't know folks like you do any of it!

As said previously I was approached to support MQA on the West Coast a while back along side BL the Elder on the East. I listened and considered the ramifications, and passed.

I understand the desire to be, technically speaking, at the front end, from a marketing and fun aspect. Massenberg and Ludwig for example with this bandwagon. Hard as it is to resist the corporate gravy train and the thrill of new my ears tell me it's all about money for Mr. Stuart post Netflix killing the DVD biz. He's on record as saying 3 years ago that "all we could ever hear can be captured at 24 192" and now there is suddenly a problem with PCM that needs to be solved with this research that is "10 years" in the making. Huh? So yes, I believe MQA are exploiting more than innovating. Interfering more than facilitating. That's been stated in many ways elsewhere. Others like Arf think it's sounding great and doing things they can't do with their processing, things that have real value. I'm all for a debate on the sonics. I welcome discussion and a healthy competition of ideas.

Like many people my loyalty is to music in the end. No compromises for cash, no corporate games. This smells bad, so far, to me.

Drop some bits with dither. Use something like dbPoweramp for SRC. Stream the full files. So many cheaper and better options, and yet none of them pay as well if you're MQA.
Old 7th September 2017
  #45
Gear Guru
 
lucey's Avatar
 
Verified Member
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
So enough about my ideas ...

I want to learn about others views ... more links to tests or conversations. More info about who is PRO and who is CON, etc.
Old 7th September 2017 | Show parent
  #46
Gear Addict
 
Verified Member
Read the phrasing by Michael Drexler, VP, digital strategy and corporate development for Warner Music, here carefully:

“We’re talking about Gen X and Gen Z that are now discovering this hi-res audio. You saw it in the resurgence of vinyl sales that was mostly driven by the young generation

We don’t really have to educate the 40, 50 and 60-year-olds because they already know. They have CD collections at home, they already know the benefit."

CDs now are high-rez in label talk...

Makes strategic sense to frame anything above MP3/AAC like that. Divide and conquer, create leverage for price differentiation when negotiating with entities like Apple that actually bring the music to consumers.

Major labels talk hi-res audio: ‘It’s not a niche market’
Old 10th September 2017 | Show parent
  #47
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
 
Verified Member
5 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
I simply don't care about MQA. I don't talk about it, don't require it in production, and don't specify it for distributors.
Old 11th September 2017 | Show parent
  #48
Gear Guru
 
lucey's Avatar
 
Verified Member
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush ➡️
I simply don't care about MQA. I don't talk about it, don't require it in production, and don't specify it for distributors.
And I only care about the corporate control of music delivery, the the quality and integrity of music delivery
Old 12th September 2017
  #49
Lives for gear
 
Jerry Tubb's Avatar
 
Verified Member
🎧 15 years
My friend David Glasser has some very positive things to say about MQA, after listening.

So I'll reserve judgement until after I've actually heard it!

Best, JT
Old 12th September 2017 | Show parent
  #50
Gear Head
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Tubb ➡️
My friend David Glasser has some very positive things to say about MQA, after listening.
Hello Jerry,

It is rumored that MQA are paying (or otherwise compensating) people to say good things about their process, both in the consumer world and in the professional world. Or perhaps it happens in the reverse order - those who express a positive opinion on the sound are offered incentives from MQA. I don't know if Mr. Glasser falls into this category, but it might be worth asking him.

Best,
audio_truth
Old 12th September 2017 | Show parent
  #51
Lives for gear
 
Jerry Tubb's Avatar
 
Verified Member
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by audio_truth ➡️
Hello Jerry,

It is rumored that MQA are paying (or otherwise compensating) people to say good things about their process, both in the consumer world and in the professional world. Or perhaps it happens in the reverse order - those who express a positive opinion on the sound are offered incentives from MQA. I don't know if Mr. Glasser falls into this category, but it might be worth asking him.

Best,
audio_truth
David's always been straight up with me, and enjoys exploring new formats, so I would have to say No to the scenario you describe.

So I'll look forward to and ABCD comparison soon.

Best, JT
Old 12th September 2017 | Show parent
  #52
Lives for gear
 
FabienTDR's Avatar
 
Verified Member
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcgilroy ➡️
“We’re talking about Gen X and Gen Z that are now discovering this hi-res audio. You saw it in the resurgence of vinyl sales that was mostly driven by the young generation

We don’t really have to educate the 40, 50 and 60-year-olds because they already know. They have CD collections at home, they already know the benefit."
This is hilarious imho. The "new generation" organized worldwide lossless music delivery 15 years ago, for free. Well structured, complete and easy to browse music delivery. Just google any album, artist or song and add the suffix "FLAC". THIS is the competition they have to measure with.

I wish them good luck at trying to rip off the next generation. They are typically smarter than the previous! Not that the music industry already burned its fingers (better: risked its whole existence) trying to patronize this generation.
Old 12th September 2017 | Show parent
  #53
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by audio_truth ➡️
Hello Jerry,

It is rumored that MQA are paying (or otherwise compensating) people to say good things about their process, both in the consumer world and in the professional world. Or perhaps it happens in the reverse order - those who express a positive opinion on the sound are offered incentives from MQA. I don't know if Mr. Glasser falls into this category, but it might be worth asking him.

Best,
audio_truth
On hearing that someone actually likes the MQA process, your first reaction is to imply that person is on the take? Perhaps you should try another alias besides audio truth.
Old 12th September 2017 | Show parent
  #54
Gear Addict
 
Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Tubb ➡️
So I'll look forward to and ABCD comparison soon.

Best, JT
One of the reasons for the criticism of MQA is their steadfast refusal to allow such comparisons.

MQA was introduced late 2014, almost three years ago. To this day no third-party listening tests with volume controlled samples from the same masters have taken place.

That should tell you something.

From my own experience MQA sounds different in their presentations. If these differences stem from different mixes/masterings, their codec and/or other factors remains unclear.

Reverse engineering of MQA so far has shown that the sonic differences can be attributed to some well know filter-formats that could easily implemented in any DAW & without the MQA licensing baggage.

The closest thing to an independent MQA-listening test are the files provided by Archimago here:

https://archimago.blogspot.de/2017/0...-decoding.html

Give it a try - it's an interesting test. I undertook it with three subjects on two different systems and saw surprisingly consistent results.
Old 12th September 2017 | Show parent
  #55
Gear Head
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by glassmaster ➡️
On hearing that someone actually likes the MQA process, your first reaction is to imply that person is on the take? Perhaps you should try another alias besides audio truth.
Hello David,

Thanks for showing up in this thread. Brian Lucey has requested additional information, both pro and con, on the MQA process. Perhaps you will have some input for him, presumably on the pro-side as you feature MQA capabilities on your website. However it should be noted that your website repeats misleading and/or false claims made by MQA:

1) "Now, along comes MQA (Master Quality Authenticated), a means of delivering high-resolution audio that overcomes a major obstacle: MQA files are only a little larger than CD-quality wavs, and thus are easy to stream reliably."

This is an apples (WAV) to oranges (FLAC) comparison, as MQA files are roughly double the size of CD-quality FLAC (which is currently used by the lossless streaming services). Therefore MQA requires twice the bandwidth (and file storage size) as CD-quality streaming files.

2) "MQA files can be decoded to high resolution, up to 384k/32 Bit"

This is simply not true. The maximum resolution of an MQA file is roughly equivalent to 17 bits (it varies through the audio band due to their noise-shaping dither used to reduce the bit depth). Furthermore test have shown that there is no such thing as a "double fold" (for quad-rate source material) or a "triple fold" (for octal-rate source material). Instead all audio data above 48kHz (Nyquist of double-rate) is simply discarded. What MQA refers to as "encapsulation" of audio data above 48kHz is in reality just aliases of the audio data below 48kH allowed through their "leaky" filters.

An accurate statement would be that "MQA files can be decoded to high resolution, up to 96k/17 bit". Please note that the loss of resolution from 24 bits to 17 bits is audible in at least some cases. A good example is the famous "whisper" overdub Jim Morrison recorded for the track "Riders on the Storm". This is quite easily heard on the 96/24 remaster made by producer/engineer Bruce Botnick about 10 years ago for The Doors box set and available from HD Tracks. However it is much more difficult to hear once the MQA processing has been applied. Try it and see for yourself.

3) Finally nobody should be blamed for attempting to increase the amount of business they are doing. If you have heard MQA and like what it does, and feel there is a market for it, it only makes sense to add that capability to your facility. It would appear from reading your website that you have added two things (presumably in addition to training):

a) A Mytek Brooklyn DAC
b) The MQA Pro emulator software, whereby you can hear what sonic changes [B][I]might[B][I] be introduced by MQA processing (which cannot actually be performed at your facility)

Since you cannot charge for MQA encoding that must be implemented elsewhere (currently by MQA themselves, and perhaps some day by the 3 major record labels), one wonders what is in it for Airshow from a financial standpoint. How much extra does it cost the client to receive MQA processing? Does Airshow receive any financial incentives from MQA for referring a project to have MQA processing added? How much did Airshow pay for the MQA emulator software and Mytek Brooklyn DAC? Were the prices paid available to any mastering studio? If so, will those prices be "forever" or are they special introductory prices?

Again, I am not trying to be a hard-ass. Times are tough for everybody (in almost every business besides Wall Street ). The bottom line is a value exchange - an artist or producer wants to have the very best mastering they can to deliver the very best product to the public they can. The mastering studio earns their money by offering both expertise and specialized equipment that simply is not available elsewhere. Yet if some of that equipment and training is being subsidized by MQA in a quest to gain market share for MQA, how is that any different from the infamous payola scandals of AM radio in the '50s?

Thanks for your participation,
audio_truth
Old 12th September 2017 | Show parent
  #56
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 15 years
Your reply has many errors, and makes some false assumptions. For one, MQA files ARE roughly the same size as single speed PCM; in fact it's possible to deliver MQA on an audio CD, and I think several boutique labels have done so.

MQA encoding is not necessarily a simple just-push-play operation, and that's the reason for studios, particularly mastering studios, to be involved in the process.

The places for doing MQA encoding will obviously grow. There is a whole universe of music our there not affiliated with the 3 major labels and the smaller ones which have endorsed and adopted MQA for streaming. I think it's safe to assume that MQA is aware of this.

I can't comment on MQA's business, and I certainly won't comment on mine either, but I will definitely say that there is no money or other quid-pro-quo involved here. (Though at times I've wished otherwise.) I paid list price for the Mytek DAC. So knock off the "payola" innuendos and nonsense.

And I have done A/B comparisons of some of my 192-24 masters with the same music streaming as MQA over Tidal, through the same DAC. If I didn't like the results, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Old 12th September 2017 | Show parent
  #57
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
 
Verified Member
5 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Audiotruth,

Please fill out your Gearslutz profile. Then we can know if you are anybody.
Old 13th September 2017 | Show parent
  #58
Gear Guru
 
lucey's Avatar
 
Verified Member
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush ➡️
Audiotruth,
Please fill out your Gearslutz profile. Then we can know if you are anybody.
Seems a bit rude ... especially as you said earlier in the thread you don't care about MQA

Any one post, from anyone, is full of ideas. Credibility, or being "anybody" is something that gives weight to certain ideas for some readers. Yet an idea or argument NEED NOT be from a source you or others feel is credible to be valid on the merits.


-----

So Glasser I want to be sure I hear you right ...

You're saying that with the PM M2, a recording at 192/24 knocked down to 24 48 MQA is better on the DA than simply recording at 48/24?

This was dynamic / natural / spacious music or dense modern pop music with compression, distortions, limiting, etc.
Old 13th September 2017 | Show parent
  #59
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by audio_truth ➡️
Hello David,

Thanks for showing up in this thread. Brian Lucey has requested additional information, both pro and con, on the MQA process. Perhaps you will have some input for him, presumably on the pro-side as you feature MQA capabilities on your website. However it should be noted that your website repeats misleading and/or false claims made by MQA:

1) "Now, along comes MQA (Master Quality Authenticated), a means of delivering high-resolution audio that overcomes a major obstacle: MQA files are only a little larger than CD-quality wavs, and thus are easy to stream reliably."

This is an apples (WAV) to oranges (FLAC) comparison, as MQA files are roughly double the size of CD-quality FLAC (which is currently used by the lossless streaming services). Therefore MQA requires twice the bandwidth (and file storage size) as CD-quality streaming files.

2) "MQA files can be decoded to high resolution, up to 384k/32 Bit"

This is simply not true. The maximum resolution of an MQA file is roughly equivalent to 17 bits (it varies through the audio band due to their noise-shaping dither used to reduce the bit depth). Furthermore test have shown that there is no such thing as a "double fold" (for quad-rate source material) or a "triple fold" (for octal-rate source material). Instead all audio data above 48kHz (Nyquist of double-rate) is simply discarded. What MQA refers to as "encapsulation" of audio data above 48kHz is in reality just aliases of the audio data below 48kH allowed through their "leaky" filters.

An accurate statement would be that "MQA files can be decoded to high resolution, up to 96k/17 bit". Please note that the loss of resolution from 24 bits to 17 bits is audible in at least some cases. A good example is the famous "whisper" overdub Jim Morrison recorded for the track "Riders on the Storm". This is quite easily heard on the 96/24 remaster made by producer/engineer Bruce Botnick about 10 years ago for The Doors box set and available from HD Tracks. However it is much more difficult to hear once the MQA processing has been applied. Try it and see for yourself.

3) Finally nobody should be blamed for attempting to increase the amount of business they are doing. If you have heard MQA and like what it does, and feel there is a market for it, it only makes sense to add that capability to your facility. It would appear from reading your website that you have added two things (presumably in addition to training):

a) A Mytek Brooklyn DAC
b) The MQA Pro emulator software, whereby you can hear what sonic changes [B][I]might[B][I] be introduced by MQA processing (which cannot actually be performed at your facility)

Since you cannot charge for MQA encoding that must be implemented elsewhere (currently by MQA themselves, and perhaps some day by the 3 major record labels), one wonders what is in it for Airshow from a financial standpoint. How much extra does it cost the client to receive MQA processing? Does Airshow receive any financial incentives from MQA for referring a project to have MQA processing added? How much did Airshow pay for the MQA emulator software and Mytek Brooklyn DAC? Were the prices paid available to any mastering studio? If so, will those prices be "forever" or are they special introductory prices?

Again, I am not trying to be a hard-ass. Times are tough for everybody (in almost every business besides Wall Street ). The bottom line is a value exchange - an artist or producer wants to have the very best mastering they can to deliver the very best product to the public they can. The mastering studio earns their money by offering both expertise and specialized equipment that simply is not available elsewhere. Yet if some of that equipment and training is being subsidized by MQA in a quest to gain market share for MQA, how is that any different from the infamous payola scandals of AM radio in the '50s?

Thanks for your participation,
audio_truth

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucey ➡️
Seems a bit rude ... especially as you said earlier in the thread you don't care about MQA

Any one post, from anyone, is full of ideas. Credibility, or being "anybody" is something that gives weight to certain ideas for some readers. Yet an idea or argument NEED NOT be from a source you or others feel is credible to be valid on the merits.


-----

So Glasser I want to be sure I hear you right ...

You're saying that with the PM M2, a recording at 192/24 knocked down to 24 48 MQA is better on the DA than simply recording at 48/24?

This was dynamic / natural / spacious music or dense modern pop music with compression, distortions, limiting, etc.
Yes, most definitely. Decoded MQA vs original 192/24 master. Material was dynamic rock, sourced from analog tape mixes. It's easy to get hung up on the clever sample rate "origami", but the temporal deblurring is, i think, a very important innovation.

It's also easy enough to toggle MQA decoding on/off on the Mytek (and I assume other DACs as well). Comparing decoded MQA with the raw Tidal stream on a range of material, the results range from barely noticeable, to a nice improvement (to me, at least).
Old 13th September 2017
  #60
Lives for gear
 
FabienTDR's Avatar
 
Verified Member
🎧 5 years
Not sure if it has been posted before, but here's an extremely deep analysis of the process:

https://www.xivero.com/blog/hypothes...y-mqa-limited/


this is also where I quoted the following plots from (in the other MQA thread):


A typical, "proper" Sinc Nyquist filter (note the equal scales):



Input:



Surprise, here's the output:




Lucey, a major point in my opinion would first be "where exactly is the problem with established technology?".
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 28766 views: 3047860
Avatar for Macaroni
Macaroni 10 hours ago
replies: 208 views: 12608
Avatar for WarmJetGuitar
WarmJetGuitar 7th February 2021
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump