I would like to bring to your attention the article I wrote about MQA Labs, published in an Italian web magazine. Should you be interested, here is the link:
https://www.afdigitale.it/mqa-labs-la-nuova-frontiera-del-suono-digitale/
Regards,
Giuseppe
An interesting read. Based on what I’ve seen, Lenbrook hasn’t learned from MQA’s past mistakes. MQA’s MA-part, which provided music lovers with traceability, was, in my opinion, its best feature—something they never delivered on—and what’s left is just another digital filter.
I reckon the only thing driving QRONO etc. is the prospect of proprietary DSP built into equipment, similar to Dolby (albeit that includes a hardware component.) That is, it’s just about chasing potential profit, not redefining sound quality.
As you said, only time will tell.
Thanks.
I had the chance to try out QRONO and other MQA Labs technologies, such as FOQUS and Endura. The article was already quite long, and I didn’t want to make it too heavy, but I plan to write a second part focused on my listening experiences.
What I can tell you is that all these technologies offer perfectly audible improvements, and I consider them genuine enhancements. While technologies like FOQUS and Endura are DAC independent, QRONO requires specific implementation. I tested it with the Lumin P1, where it provided a benefit that I consider significant.
I’ve read that some Lumin users prefer QRONOS whereas others do not. It is an entirely subjective sphere, and the proprietary nature means any potential improvements are unverifiable.
When perceived differences are large, I am suspicious, and consider them artificial. Subjectively, I find little difference between my analogue and digital sources, which tells me nothing is fundamentally wrong. Moreover, I find the temporal accuracy claims from MQA to be nothing more than marketing spin.
In contrast, room correction is more likely to provide verifiable improvements to the listening experience without colouring the source material.
Of course, everyone is at liberty to decide what they prefer.
I believe that critical listening and evaluation should be guided. To properly perceive differences, one must know what to listen for, which requires understanding the filter’s function. With QRONOS and other technologies like MQA, the focus should be on the ringing effect: that sort of duplicated image or temporal smear that is, in fact, quite simple to identify, especially when you listen to a guitar or any quick impulsive signal, as I’ve already described in the dedicated Lumin thread.
I think this is where we won’t agree. 
My thoughts on this are that we think we hear an improvement (difference) when we look for something claiming to be better. That’s just how our brains function. Do MQA’s new filters change how recordings sound? Maybe. Have they magically found a way to remove pre-ringing? No.
MQA’s marketing claims appear to be a contradiction: ringing is a consequence of band limiting a signal, so MQA has to work within the same reality as everyone else. You can’t remove frequencies that are already removed, which is why there is ringing. Filters only minimize the effect of ringing (which is more relevant when mixing and mastering than during music reproduction.)
You see, I believe there isn’t a culture of conscious listening, even among enthusiasts at least, not a widespread one. Simply put, the people who are listening don’t know what differences to expect. Audio memory, as far as I’m concerned, is very short-lived. To catch certain differences, you need to focus on the same specific details and listen to them multiple times. And even when doing that, there is a risk of getting confused.
I simply believe that, quite intelligently, they have capitalized on the MQA technology by removing the need for the proprietary container.
I don’t want to sound like MQA’s paladin defender, but having studied the matter a little, I can tell you that QRONO technology does not operate on MQA-encoded files because they have already internally eliminated the problem.
Regarding FOQUS, it is used for analog-to-digital conversion (the opposite of what happens in a DAC). This technology was chosen by ESS to be implemented within their chips. Meanwhile, Endura handles the master production phase and is perfectly compatible with QRONO.
I’d agree, and this is well documented. Indeed, playing the same section of music repeatedly using a different filter, DAC etc. is fraught with issues. And, as you say, it can be confusing, which implies that we only reliably listen in the moment (not having a trustworthy recollection of the previous selection.)
IMO, critical or conscious listening should be about the performance, composition, arrangement, lyrics etc., and not the playback mechanism and how this may influence the sound. I’d also argue that speakers have a far more important part to play when reproducing, for example, bass or cymbals etc. than the choice of filter.
I understand that. Indeed, I never had much of an issue with that innovative idea, even though it proved to be redundant. What I take issue with is the misdirection and mythology surrounding ringing and smearing—yes, they exist, but not in any meaningful way for audio playback—plus the lack of transparency from MQA.
At the end of the day, it is just another minimum phase filter (which, incidentally, is why there’s no pre-ringing.) Until MQA publishes the maths behind their filter, I’d rather stick with the accuracy and sharpness of a linear phase filter found in all my equipment.
As I said in my OP, I see Lenbrook/MQA as a business that wants to put badges on Hi-Fi gear for a fee. I don’t think the Hi-Fi industry needs that right now.
Did you mean the ‘A’ part? Everything digital can be authenticated using digital signatures. I don’t see a need to reinvent the wheel for audio.
I think time told already, but, as you said, Lenbrook doesn’t seem willing to listen. I’m sure time will smear such attempts to monetize gimmicks.
Yes, I meant authentication, i.e., the provenance of the mastering. But I’m talking about the idea, not the implementation (and not only the technical.) However, MQA and the labels couldn’t be trusted in this regard.
There was a discussion about this some years ago.
Is there an English translation? I would love to read. I also agree with your responses to mjw, especially with regard to critical listening. There is a big difference between preference and accuracy which leads to confusion, especially if one does not know what a particular instrument should sound like.
Isn’t that what I said? Preference doesn’t equate to better, and without transparency, we know nothing about accuracy.
Ultimately, this discussion is about the pulse response of filters used in a DAC, i.e., minimum or linear phase. Both types have potential trade-offs, but the current MQA marketing is misleading because it uses intentional fallacy. For instance, they say they eliminate pre-ringing. But this is incorrect since their choice of filter uses minimum not linear phase, and has an entirely different impulse response.
Whilst I haven’t listened to Qronos, I have, in the past, performed AB testing of MQA. What I found, on occasion, was unusual placement of instruments typically seen together, i.e., drum kit. This could be attributed to phase shift caused by a minimum phase filter. But this unnatural effect wasn’t universal.
Anyway, such filters are far more important in music production than reproduction, and in many ways this discussion places far too much importance on a very minor issue. But isn’t that what marketing is all about?
Great article. Highly Interesting. Anyone concerned about these things should look at HQPlayer. If any technology fixes all the digital temporal issues then it is HQPlayer. I believe the audible issues of digital stem from digital upsampling filters (the basis of all chip DACs) which cause reflective echoes due to the sinusoidal nature of their pass band equiripple. This can be demonstrated mathematically. Julian Dunn was the first audio engineer to postulate that these upsampling artifacts might be why high-resolution digital audio is preferred. (High resolution files do not need to undergo as much upsampling from chip based upsampling algorithms)
I know many will disagree with the logic of sample theory math and what we know about human hearing: Ringing from D to A classic sinc impulse response conversion is not audible (being above hearing range as it is close to Nyquist frequency)
Seems that Lenbrook is trying to brow beat a new life into a now irrelevant and failed product. If MQA ever had any original merit, it was in aiming to preserve higher quality versus bandwidth, but now a decade or so later, Internet bandwidth with extensive fiber optic is a non issue (as least for most audiophiles, and even in Peru !!!). And proposing yet another HW or SW proprietary solution for a negligible minority market is simply yet another lame duck.
Meanwhile, those of us sincerely interested in optimizing our quality of reproduction at home know the truth: the primary variables to address are still our loudspeakers and their often uncontrolled interactions with the poor acoustics of our rooms. So why waste effort and $$$ on exotic and highly controversial technical minutiae, that in the end are destined to become just another passing phase in marketing fashion for susceptible audiophiles. Amen.
PS: thus clearly the mainstream of electro-acoustic research is now devoted to DSP solutions to improve the loudspeaker/room acoustic interface, as long recognized by the most serious high end makers such as Steinway Lingdorf…
Part 2 of my MQA Labs feature is out! We move past the introduction and dive straight into the listening test of the new QRONO, FOQUS and Endura technologies.
https://www.afdigitale.it/mqa-labs-la-prova-dascolto-qrono-foqus-endura
