Well, thank you. I did already read some of the patents, but it looks like I have to take the time and read all the rest too.
Some concept description here and here. While high-level, and some terminology liberties taken in the picture, still attempting to demystify MQA by a top-level description.
1 Like
Don’t forget to follow the links, including to the research MQA is based on.
Spoiler: the temporal acuity of the hearing of owls and gerbils.
1 Like
I don’t know what’s in the links but do know the temporal acuity assumed in MQA and other audio processing. Human hearing has a time resolution limit of about 5 to 7 microseconds. That’s been shown for binaural as well as monaural hearing. Binaural means the minimum ITD, or interaural time difference, detectable by the two ears. This is known from psychoacoustics and auditory neuroscience.
1 Like
Thanks Google! I found a very good article on Sound on Sound
OK. Time to read …
Problem with that is that ■■ has been claiming his stuff is based on new research.
Archive.org is 503’ing mqa.co.uk right now, but there’s material from 2017 where their FAQ reads "MQA is based entirely on science. Specifically, it is based on new findings in Neuroscience (emphasis mine, capitalisation theirs) that have told us that the resolution of timing information is critical to our hearing and our ear/brain interaction.
I’ll repeat that for effect: “New findings that have told us that the resolution of timing information is critical to our hearing.”
The gerbils (they’re Mongolian, not that it’d make it even easier to take a cheap shot at those believing ■■’s claims) and barn owls thing you’d have gotten can from the AES paper citations if you’d bothered to look into them.
Here, have a more entertaining video version of the above by Christoph Engemann.
2 Likes
Bob Stuart detailed the neuroscience research he’s referring to in his peer reviewed paper below. He also included an extensive bibliography on neuroscience/psychoacoustics in the references at the end. The paper is a free download.
1 Like
If you’d bothered with clicking the link I posted for the video, you’d know that that is the the paper Dr. Engemann, Dr. Schlesinger, and myself are referring to.
The video link you posted is from 2017. The paper I linked is from May, 2019.
Engemann is probably referring to an early version of the paper from an AES convention in 2014, but the 2019 update is much more complete and better referenced on those same topics.
2 Likes
True: but then I’m not the one suggesting that they’re so dishonest that they adapted the citations they based their work on…
I mean, do you honestly think they would’ve done so if they hadn’t been called out on it (by Englemann and Schelsinger, but also by Chris Connaker), because I’d say that given the track record…
What I know about MQA as a company is that they are very small and very busy. Almost certainly they don’t keep up with these online diatribes against MQA. There are too many, and most are by people (especially certain of the ones you mentioned) who know little about the codec. Their paper in 2014 was written at the same time they were launching the product and, as a convention paper, wouldn’t have gotten the attention they gave to their later JAES paper. So I’m inclined not to overthink the significance of such criticism.
2 Likes
For the record, I am not against MQA… As soon as one understands that the MQA (as a technology) was invented and perfected to reduce BW utilization while preserving audible sound quality. And yes, they achieve it - data compression without sound degradation - by using advances in psychoacoustics, neuroscience, signal processing, etc… At the same time, the MQA technology - again, digital audio data packing and reconstruction - does not offer improvement of sound quality, compared to other popular methods of audio transfer and reproduction (eg, non-MQA hi-res or redbook PCM encoding (most with subsequent up-conversion filtering, and other shaping). Most modern digital audio systems are built on and use the aforementioned psychoacoustics, neuroscience, and signal processing advances in their signal processing.
What I (and to my understanding many others) are against, is MQA’s push to become a proprietary licensed monopoly of available audio streaming formats. And the methods - including marketing misinformation and enforcing MQA HW - the MQA Inc uses to achieve their business goal.
13 Likes
Been examining MQA technology for months now and came to this conclusion :
MQA is just a huge hoax.
‘UNFOLDING’ for 44.1/48kHz MQAs (95% of all the MQAs) = old school UPSAMPLING
-
Look at all the recent Warner 16bit 44.1kHz MQA releases. There is NO origami as there are simply are NO frequencies recorded higher than 22.05kHz. NOTHING to fold. (Nyquist theorem!)
-
You play a 16b 44.1kHz MQA, and you expect it to play as a 16bit 44.1kHz, and you do see 44.1kHz on the display of your DAC. But the MQA DAC is actually playing the upsampled 24bit 88.2kHz (or even 176.4kHz?) version. Up sampled versions almost always sound better. So it’s not because of MQA, but because of old school upsampling.
P.S. For those not believing 16b 44.1kHz MQAs play as 24b 88.2kHz (or 176.4 kHz?) : turn on “core decoding” in Roon. Then you can see in your signal path what the 1st unfold does. You’ll see a 16b 44.1kHz MQA becomes a 24bit 88.2kHz MQA. And keep in mind your DAC is doing a 2nd ‘unfold’ (upsampling) as well so it might become 176.4kHz in the end… yet the display shows 44.1kHz all the time.
So if you want to do honest comparisons between MQA and PCM you should compare the (4x) upsampled PCM with the MQA when doing so!
- MQA-CD. If its >48kHz (most are)… don’t even consider buying it. The higher frequencies (>24kHz) are folded into the lower 8 bits of a 24bit 44.1kHz MQA… and… those are completely lost on a 16bit medium. They just strip them off to put it on CD so there no more unfolding there neither. Yet they manage to ‘unfold’ it to 352.8kHz by… yes you guessed it … 8x upsampling !
Tidal removed the original PCMs. Why is that?? Because we are not allowed to compare, because they know they sound worse and we would find out.
MQA is not good for the artist. The consumer pays more (for less quality), but the money goes to the studio’s and MQA hardware sellers, NOT to the artist.
Plus then you have all the disadvantages with MQA : you cannot transport >96kHz digitally because the MQA DAC has analogue outputs only; you cannot change the volume by software; DJs need at least 2 MQA DACs (2x the cost) … etc
Bye bye MQA and Tidal, I switched to Qobuz now and I’m finally getting the REAL masters again.
6 Likes
Glad you switched. [Moderated].
1 Like
At least I did a real effort comparing MQA and non-MQA (using a full decoder!)
and examining the technical details of the format (which made me realize the decoder = an upsampler). I compared using headphones (MQA lost in all cases there) and on speakers (difference less but still audible and MQA lost there as well).
Most MQA believers are just saying “MQA sounds better” without doing any real comparisons and
without even looking up / understanding the technical data about MQA, which turns out to be a fairy tale about upsampling, they just don’t call it that way, they call it unfolding.
Have a nice day.
Just to give another perspective, I have spent many a long hour listening to the different versions, and found the focus on real or constructed technical data unhelpful.
Presumably you saw this before:
Here is a bit more detailed feedback on my experiences, albeit with some qualification re: context.
Being at work does not make for an easy testing scenario, and so what I have been able to do today has been limited to using a Hugo 2, via a Cayin iHA-6 amp into Mr Speaker Ether headphones.
I have stuck with streaming platforms as that is what I am more likely to use going forwards. I will report more over the weekend, and recognise what a different experience it is when one applies scrutiny to a subjective experience…was I mistaken? Noticing something on the fly, when you just stop and notice how much you are enjoying something, and then check what it is, is a less fraught process…being a reviewer in an age of social media must feel akin to having a gun at your head.
So what follows is an initial account of comparing Qobuz Flac and Tidal MQA, all at 16/44.1 sample rates. I have tried to best match the versions, and heard no substantial difference in terms of volume. Because the Hugo 2 has no MQA Decoding or Rendering, the comments relate to a Roon decode of MQA alone…no subsequent unfold.
‘On the Border’ - Al Stewart
Qobuz: Sounds really great! Acoustic guitars and percussion flying, string synth noises soar. Nice.
Tidal MQA: The speed and pace of the music now rockets ahead, the instruments sound ‘tighter’, more defined, and the string synths soar in a manner that seems more defined in space, and with a greater dynamic range, and perhaps sweeter. It sounds more gripping, driven, and urgent.
‘One of These Days’ - Pink Floyd
Qobuz: The howls of the wind at the beginning sound chilling, and I really like the small noises wide of the soundstage. When the basses start, right and left, there’s a nice bounce, and the organ ‘ping’ swoops down, placed perfectly in the middle.
Tidal MQA: The wind noises sound smoother yet the howl has greater dynamic range; it starts more quietly but then becomes more of a roar. Those little noises seem quieter, but clearer, placed more precisely in the soundstage. When the basses come in, you could argue they sound less rich, but they also sound tighter, and the rhythm has more urgency. The organ ‘ping’ swoops precisely in space, and the notes seem to stop sharply, again more precisely, giving the track a much tighter feel and drive. It is more compelling musically, and the foot taps more.
‘Air et Choer’ - Gluck ‘Orfeo et Eurydice’ - Eliot Gardiner
Qobuz: This is not a good recording - 80s digital recording of a great performance which I love. When the sublime Barbara Hendricks starts to sing, her voice is lovely, but somehow there seems to be an offkey ‘sourness’ to the accompaniment that does not make it an easy listen.
Tidal MQA: Still not a great recording by any means…no magic occurring here. However, the accompanying instruments sound sweeter and more tuneful. But when Hendricks sings, her voice seems to soar, and the quality of her top notes are ravishing; stops you in your tracks. Much greater sense of her range, and the dynamics seem much greater overall; more dramatic. But still not great.
So for me there are advantages to the MQA versions, and if pushed, I would consider Tidal MQA as superior to Qobuz, as I would Qobuz to high sample rate MP3 or AAC…if I can have an MQA version, I will probably prefer it. I now find Qobuz sounds more ‘digital’ and pale besides Tidal MQA.
Now I might consider that MQA is processed in a manner that is aligned with my preferences for a sweet sound, pulsing rhythms, and a greater sense of dynamic range. But I am still so impressed that if all I am listening to is a batch conversion of Redbook albums, it sounds this good, and unexpected.
It will be good to test more with the Devialet Expert Pro 1000s over the weekend, as my experience with them is that they highlight the sweetness and tunefulness more…perhaps rightly so. I also suspect that the context of a testing environment (let alone during a working day) is not what one needs to appreciate a performance and may diminish some of the differences.
1 Like
Hello Richard:
Thanks for the comparison! I am also trying to figure out differences between the various formats but not too far into it yet.
For Pink Floyd’s One of these Days, I am not able to locate an MQA version - actually, non of the Floyd albums are MQA, from what I can tell. Can you possibly point me to the correct version? I would like to compare with the various physical versions too.
Regards,
Zubair
Really sorry that Pink Floyd MQA is not available in all regions; hopefully that will happen soon.
Irrespective of the pros and cons of MQA, everyone should at least be able to sample the versions for themselves.
Somewhere, a lawyer may be considering this simple freedom.
Thanks, Richard.
What region is Pink Floyd MQA currently available in? I am in the US.
Yes, it would be great for all regions to have the same formats but, we don’t live in a simple world 
Regards,
Zubair
Never mind… I just found out that the MQA versions are available in Europe. In the US Pink Floyd is distributed by Sony Music so no MQA here.
At least that is what Google turned up.
Regards,
Zubair