96/24 MQA here in the UK.
1 Like
Yeah your right, 2 version
1 Like
That album sounds amazing, the regular non mqa version. Iâll try the Mqa version tonight, just for a quick comparison.
2 Likes
This troubles me, in effect the limits of the encoder define the boundaries of artistic expression? Phrases like:
- âsensible contentâ;
- âthe statistics change mid-songâ; or
- âthe audio does not resemble natural soundâ
sound like an attempt to define âmusicâ, this may prove problematic for those pushing the boundaries. There are a few things Iâd like an encoder to do, the main one is to express itâs limits in unambiguous technical terms. Surely itâs the creator or listener who decides whatâs âmusicââŚ
3 Likes
Is it even fair to compare lossless format (FLAC/ALAC PCM) to a lossy (MQA) one?
If Iâm not missing anything here, it would be more sensible to debate MQA vs. AAC/Vorbis/etc.
There certainly are those that cannot imagine anything could be developed that could be better than a 20 year old PCM format, and for them that is what they want. But I do think the comparison of MQA and PCM is fair.
As I stated at the start of this thread, 4 months ago, I found my response to MQA didnât fit with much of what is expressed here in terms of a preference for lossless PCM. Over the last 4 months, I feel more, rather than less, convinced that there are problems with lossless PCM, but recognise my views are rooted in the notion that listening to music is an aesthetic experience which, ultimately, is personal.
But why debate? Why not listen, and form your own view? That would be fair to all.
3 Likes
Those are intelligent questions. I donât suspect any of it is a worry based on whatâs been published. The Stuart/Craven paper in JAES has a lot of info that sounds like the Bob Stuart comments you quoted. It relates to the known 1/f roll-off of spectral amplitude with frequency. If you measure that and signal:noise, you should be able to predict aliasing and choose the right filters for the track. Impulsive electronic music would be okay too.
2 Likes
Canât agree more â the proof is in the pudding (or sound for that matter). And yet, the online forum as a medium is poorly equipped for music listening as theyâre designed for an exchange of ideas and debate.
I think people can also describe something they have discovered? Or some experience that impressed/excited/enraged them? A great reviewer (and not just of audio equipment) can take you on a journey, though in our world of monetised influencers, they may be harder to find?
The first issue is with the assumption the PCM file is a perfect representation of the original, or golden.
It is not. The way it was made introduced timing errors etc.
MQA tries to correct these errors introduced in the PCM. Thatâs (part of) the point of MQA.
Thereâs plenty of write ups about MQA but theyâre very difficult for a layman to understand.
3 Likes
But you do get improved timing resolution.
1 Like
No thatâs wrong.
MQA corrects phase (timing errors) in the PCM and stores it in the inaudible section of the file.
So itâs lossy in the sense itâs not a bit perfect copy of the PCM. But the PCM also has phase errors compared to the original which have been mitigated in the MQA file, i.e. the PCM is not perfect itself.
2 Likes
Not only âlaymenâ have to admit thereâs a difference between âdifficultâ and âimpreciseââŚ
Time smearing is not a pseudo science, itâs a fact.
1 Like
Once youâve read it, compare Claude Shannonâs CV to Bob Stuartâs, or the 2L guy. Iâll stick with knowledge of proven theory, i.e. fact, over dubious claims conveyed in pseudo science.
Youâll have more trouble dismissing Peter Craven and Michael Gerzon on this topic. Bob Stuartâs experience is hardly bad, and Shannon (Whittaker, Nyquist, Kotelnikov) have been advanced upon significantly by mathematicians in the last 15-20 years with whatâs called modern sampling. Start with the work of Michael Unser and then continue with the work of Vetterli, Marziliano, and Blu on Finite Rate of Innovation sampling. That work forms part of the sampling theory ideas in MQA.
Peter Craven is co-developer of MQA and a full time mathematician and DSP designer.
4 Likes
@Rockhound & @Neil_Russellâ- Neil your opinion is fine and Rockhound thanks for agreeingâ if Yâall donât like MQA donât listen to TIDAL âMastersâ or donât use TIDAL at all and just listen to Qobuz or for that matter Spotify(does ROON recognize Spotify?)âI personally enjoy A-B-Cing all formats vaporware or not(including A and B ing ROON & Audirvana) â that is what makes our âhobbyâ or âobsessionâ so much fun !!
Nice dialogue and responses so far
All I did was reply to your post stating â@Neil_Russell Because it has been beaten to death here and especially on Computer Audiophile/Audiophile Style(the thread MQA is Vaporware) its a dead horse and who really cares?â to which I replied âObviously many people care, or they wouldnât be participating in the numbers they areâ, which is 100% fact. I did not say anything about SQ, and I find it very strange for you to suggest I have. And, I donât support Tidal in any way, and in all likelihood never will. But Iâm glad itâs there for those who do want to use it. Iâm totally for allowing the market to have itâs way. I had both VHS and Beta VCRs back in the day, and didnât blink when the measurably better format lost the race. As MQA is totally closed off to being studied, measured and dissected by partial groups, we will never know if it is the VHS or the Beta of todayâs leading music formats. And only time will tell us who the winner will be, or even if either will be the winner. Thatâs up the you, me and the rest of the market collectively.
3 Likes
Time smear is a term used in MQA advertising. That is a fact.
4 Likes
It seems you need a reality check.
https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/mqa-time-domain-accuracy-digital-audio-quality
Time smearing is a term used throughout the literature of math, physics, astronomy, optical imaging, and audio. Itâs only new to people not familiar with it.
3 Likes