I've been delving into the murky doings of the MQA process. Given that
large companies like 'Warner' media have been said to have swiftly
generated MQA versions of their catalogue, people may find the results thus
far of interest. You can see what I've found out thus far here

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/MQA/investigated/MostlyQuiteHarmless.html
and
http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/MQA/GoldenOne/ChallengeAndResponse.html

I now have an MQA DAC and am exploring further... (pun alert). :-)

I did some other pages a few years ago that outline how MQA is claimed to
work and pondered if it was needed. Findable via the top 'Audiomisc' page.

More to come...

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Well that shut everyone up then!
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Jim Lesurf" <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:593b585b19noise@audiomisc.co.uk...
> I've been delving into the murky doings of the MQA process. Given that
> large companies like 'Warner' media have been said to have swiftly
> generated MQA versions of their catalogue, people may find the results
> thus
> far of interest. You can see what I've found out thus far here
>
> http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/MQA/investigated/MostlyQuiteHarmless.html
> and
> http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/MQA/GoldenOne/ChallengeAndResponse.html
>
> I now have an MQA DAC and am exploring further... (pun alert). :-)
>
> I did some other pages a few years ago that outline how MQA is claimed to
> work and pondered if it was needed. Findable via the top 'Audiomisc' page.
>
> More to come...
>
> Jim
>
> --
> Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
> Electronics
> https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
> biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
> Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
>

On 18/06/2021 09:09, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
> Well that shut everyone up then!
> Brian

A long time ago I found a bunch of HDCDs looking lost in Poundland
(Paula Cole, Sophie B Hawkins) - sounds good. Same with SACD, (Pink
Floyd DSOTM). Presumably the (remaining) CD consumer doesn't really buy
things other than 'red book' so the innovations for them are a bit
pointless.

Hearing a recording like ye are present in the recording studio, would
be a bit pointless anyway, as the aim of them in the recording studio is
to twiddle knobs to make something that sounds good in the limited
reduction stage of the home, car, radio.

Would MQA/HDCD/DSD/SACD recordings be released 'de-twiddled'? No.

A recording of a live non-studio event sounds quite different, quite
magical involving ambiance, and doesn't require any special recording
technology, can even be lo-fi and appreciated.

--
Adrian C

The few 'off the record' comments I've had from various people in the biz,
and at UK magazines, indicate that many are avoiding saying anything as it
is too 'political' from their POV. i.e. Many wish it would simply go away,
but don't want to say so.

For others, the methods are simply closed/confidential/magical. So have to
'take it or leave it, as is'.

A basic difficulty is that:

a) the practical details of how it works are hidden from view. Only general
overviews are available with key details witheld.

b) that includes companies who produce MQA encoded material NOT also
issuing copies of exactly went *into* the encoder. Instead if you buy their
'high rez' material as an alterinative to the MQA encoded version you now
tend to get what comes OUT of an MQA encode-decode cycle.

However there is now a lot of money behind MQA. e.g. Warner have encoded
their catalogue. And MQA CDs are now a 'thing' in some places.

Jim

In article <sahkcd$1el$1@dont-email.me>, Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)
<briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Well that shut everyone up then! Brian

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 18 Jun 2021 at 10:04:22 BST, "Jim Lesurf" <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> The few 'off the record' comments I've had from various people in the biz,
> and at UK magazines, indicate that many are avoiding saying anything as it
> is too 'political' from their POV. i.e. Many wish it would simply go away,
> but don't want to say so.
>
> For others, the methods are simply closed/confidential/magical. So have to
> 'take it or leave it, as is'.
>
> A basic difficulty is that:
>
> a) the practical details of how it works are hidden from view. Only general
> overviews are available with key details witheld.
>
> b) that includes companies who produce MQA encoded material NOT also
> issuing copies of exactly went *into* the encoder. Instead if you buy their
> 'high rez' material as an alterinative to the MQA encoded version you now
> tend to get what comes OUT of an MQA encode-decode cycle.
>
> However there is now a lot of money behind MQA. e.g. Warner have encoded
> their catalogue. And MQA CDs are now a 'thing' in some places.
>
> Jim
>
> In article <sahkcd$1el$1@dont-email.me>, Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)
> <briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> Well that shut everyone up then! Brian

It's difficult to know the best way to challenge MQA - you've certainly done
your bit by the looks of it.

ISTR (but can't find the link now) that the inventor/propagator did publish
quite a measured reply to a quite fierce assault on MQA. He basically asked
for more information to support the sorts of findings you've set out (IIRC) -
maybe pass it on to him?

--
Cheers, Rob

In article <ij35khFnk6pU1@mid.individual.net>, Adrian Caspersz
<email@here.invalid> wrote:
> On 18/06/2021 09:09, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
> > Well that shut everyone up then! Brian

> A long time ago I found a bunch of HDCDs looking lost in Poundland
> (Paula Cole, Sophie B Hawkins) - sounds good. Same with SACD, (Pink
> Floyd DSOTM). Presumably the (remaining) CD consumer doesn't really buy
> things other than 'red book' so the innovations for them are a bit
> pointless.

SACD means having a specific type of player mechanism that can read the
SACD layer. Rare, although some 'universal' BD players do this.

HDCD can now be decoded using software. I've put programs to do this on my
website. In fact, you can then process that back onto a CDR if you like,
and it may sound fine when played. Showing that the HDCD was a pointless
gimmick that just messed about with playing the original disc on a non-HDCD
player. (And as with SACD, most CD players can't decode HDCD.)

> Hearing a recording like ye are present in the recording studio, would
> be a bit pointless anyway, as the aim of them in the recording studio is
> to twiddle knobs to make something that sounds good in the limited
> reduction stage of the home, car, radio.

> Would MQA/HDCD/DSD/SACD recordings be released 'de-twiddled'? No.

Worse! Where media companies have previously sold 'high rez' versions they
are now changing many of these to what you get OUT of an MQA encode -
decode chain. So, either way, you get your chips with ketchup added by the
waiter.

As you say, the idea of a unique 'master' is a crock. The real source
material is generally multitrack, and each release may be a new 'master'
(sic) stereo mixdown.... which gets altered by MQA.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <sak6ee$avq$1@gioia.aioe.org>, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
wrote:

> It's difficult to know the best way to challenge MQA - you've certainly
> done your bit by the looks of it.

> ISTR (but can't find the link now) that the inventor/propagator did
> publish quite a measured reply to a quite fierce assault on MQA. He
> basically asked for more information to support the sorts of findings
> you've set out (IIRC) - maybe pass it on to him?

MQA people have tended to react fairly aggressively. You may be able to
find the YouTube examples where they essentially barracked someone
reporting what he'd found, etc. Bob Stuart and Peter Craven seem to be more
reasonable in their tone. But I can't say I agree with their arguments for
MQA.

What I'm finding I make public. Then up to others to form their own views.
The big problem is that the way MQA proceed hampers being able to do
genuine comparisons. In effect we can't easily get what was put INTO an MQA
encoder to compare it with what came OUT as a result. That was why GO's
being able to do this was useful.

Another difficulty it adds is that you can't use any non-MQA processing as
it causes the 'authentication' to fail. This may mean any tone or room
adjustments, etc, in the digital domain require 'MQA approved' software.
Thus even if you just want to alter the volume digitally you probably need
to do it via the MQA DACs' internal controls NOT one in your normal playing
software. In effect, MQA control and conceal their entire part of the chain
from MQA encoding to decoding if you want what the file contains.

At present I'm investigating via other approaches. One is that I now have
an MQA DAC. This is a Meridian Explorer 2 - so from the same stable as the
inventors of MQA. I will capture its output to examine when playing MQA
encoded files. I'm also doing some other tests. Plus looking at context.
e.g. wondering why they seem to obsess about time alignment of the ADC when
vastly bigger time misalignments arise elsewhere in the chain.

If people want to know more then I'd 'recommend' the long MQA threads on
'Pink Fish'. But they *are* long with a lot of bickering and diversions. So
you'd need to be keen to wallow though that to get to the meat. My results
and conclusions will simply appear on my website as and when I can get
things done.

FWIW 'mansr' has put up code for examining and decoding MQA. But I'm not a
good enough programmer to understand it. And I'm trying to take a 'clean
room' approach myself. But the code may interest others. Links are on Pink
Fish.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 19 Jun 2021 at 10:21:18 BST, "Jim Lesurf" <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <sak6ee$avq$1@gioia.aioe.org>, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
> wrote:
>
>> It's difficult to know the best way to challenge MQA - you've certainly
>> done your bit by the looks of it.
>
>> ISTR (but can't find the link now) that the inventor/propagator did
>> publish quite a measured reply to a quite fierce assault on MQA. He
>> basically asked for more information to support the sorts of findings
>> you've set out (IIRC) - maybe pass it on to him?
>
> MQA people have tended to react fairly aggressively. You may be able to
> find the YouTube examples where they essentially barracked someone
> reporting what he'd found, etc. Bob Stuart and Peter Craven seem to be more
> reasonable in their tone. But I can't say I agree with their arguments for
> MQA.
>
> What I'm finding I make public. Then up to others to form their own views.
> The big problem is that the way MQA proceed hampers being able to do
> genuine comparisons. In effect we can't easily get what was put INTO an MQA
> encoder to compare it with what came OUT as a result. That was why GO's
> being able to do this was useful.
>
> Another difficulty it adds is that you can't use any non-MQA processing as
> it causes the 'authentication' to fail. This may mean any tone or room
> adjustments, etc, in the digital domain require 'MQA approved' software.
> Thus even if you just want to alter the volume digitally you probably need
> to do it via the MQA DACs' internal controls NOT one in your normal playing
> software. In effect, MQA control and conceal their entire part of the chain
> from MQA encoding to decoding if you want what the file contains.
>
> At present I'm investigating via other approaches. One is that I now have
> an MQA DAC. This is a Meridian Explorer 2 - so from the same stable as the
> inventors of MQA. I will capture its output to examine when playing MQA
> encoded files. I'm also doing some other tests. Plus looking at context.
> e.g. wondering why they seem to obsess about time alignment of the ADC when
> vastly bigger time misalignments arise elsewhere in the chain.
>
> If people want to know more then I'd 'recommend' the long MQA threads on
> 'Pink Fish'. But they *are* long with a lot of bickering and diversions. So
> you'd need to be keen to wallow though that to get to the meat. My results
> and conclusions will simply appear on my website as and when I can get
> things done.
>
> FWIW 'mansr' has put up code for examining and decoding MQA. But I'm not a
> good enough programmer to understand it. And I'm trying to take a 'clean
> room' approach myself. But the code may interest others. Links are on Pink
> Fish.
>
> Jim

Thanks - I might well take a look at the Pink Fish threads.

Reminds me a little of the DAB implementation - lot of rational arguments
simply ignored.

--
Cheers, Rob

On 19/06/2021 9:21 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <sak6ee$avq$1@gioia.aioe.org>, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
> wrote:
>
>> It's difficult to know the best way to challenge MQA - you've certainly
>> done your bit by the looks of it.
>
>> ISTR (but can't find the link now) that the inventor/propagator did
>> publish quite a measured reply to a quite fierce assault on MQA. He
>> basically asked for more information to support the sorts of findings
>> you've set out (IIRC) - maybe pass it on to him?
>
> MQA people have tended to react fairly aggressively. You may be able to
> find the YouTube examples where they essentially barracked someone
> reporting what he'd found, etc. Bob Stuart and Peter Craven seem to be more
> reasonable in their tone. But I can't say I agree with their arguments for
> MQA.
>
> What I'm finding I make public. Then up to others to form their own views.
> The big problem is that the way MQA proceed hampers being able to do
> genuine comparisons. In effect we can't easily get what was put INTO an MQA
> encoder to compare it with what came OUT as a result. That was why GO's
> being able to do this was useful.
>
> Another difficulty it adds is that you can't use any non-MQA processing as
> it causes the 'authentication' to fail. This may mean any tone or room
> adjustments, etc, in the digital domain require 'MQA approved' software.
> Thus even if you just want to alter the volume digitally you probably need
> to do it via the MQA DACs' internal controls NOT one in your normal playing
> software. In effect, MQA control and conceal their entire part of the chain
> from MQA encoding to decoding if you want what the file contains.
>
> At present I'm investigating via other approaches. One is that I now have
> an MQA DAC. This is a Meridian Explorer 2 - so from the same stable as the
> inventors of MQA. I will capture its output to examine when playing MQA
> encoded files. I'm also doing some other tests. Plus looking at context.
> e.g. wondering why they seem to obsess about time alignment of the ADC when
> vastly bigger time misalignments arise elsewhere in the chain.
>
> If people want to know more then I'd 'recommend' the long MQA threads on
> 'Pink Fish'. But they *are* long with a lot of bickering and diversions. So
> you'd need to be keen to wallow though that to get to the meat. My results
> and conclusions will simply appear on my website as and when I can get
> things done.
>
> FWIW 'mansr' has put up code for examining and decoding MQA. But I'm not a
> good enough programmer to understand it. And I'm trying to take a 'clean
> room' approach myself. But the code may interest others. Links are on Pink
> Fish.
>
> Jim
>
Thanks Jim. I've dipped my toes into this but, as you say, there's so much noise around the
subject. I appreciate reading your take on MQA.

Cheers,
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
in the DSM"
David Melville

This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.

In article <sau691$pn9$1@dont-email.me>, ~misfit~
<shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Jim. I've dipped my toes into this but, as you say, there's so
> much noise around the subject. I appreciate reading your take on MQA.

More to come. :-) I now have a Meridian 'Explorer 2' MQA capable DAC and
have been using it to investigate other aspects of the behaviour of MQA.
I've been using a Benchmark ADC1 to capture its output for analysis. I'm
also fleshing out why their obsession with dispersion is little more than
an irrelevance, and the entire mythology of the 'Master'.

TBH my main practical concern is wrt the potential adoption of 'MQA Audio
CDs' becoming the norm *with no non-MQA release on CD*. One of the big
selling points of MQA is the claimed 'compatability' in being able to
'hide' the MQA encoded info in a way that causes no audible degrading in
something like a CD that has MQA compared with one that doesn't.

This tends to run into two snags.

1) MQA implicitly define what is and is not 'Music'. But can't/won't give a
clear definition, only handwaving about a '1/f spectrum'. (Used quite
vaguely.)

2) The above works when there is little or no 'extra audible info' anyway
to 'encode'. So examples that really test MQA are then dismissed as 'not
music'. Thus they set themselves up as the definers of what is, and is not,
'music'.

More widely, when you unpack all this and look at real recordings, and the
nature of human hearing they run into a set of implied contradictions.
Which seem to lead to the conclusion for something like MQA 'CDs' that the
material is only 'music' and can be 'compatibly' encoded if there is
essentially nothing audible to encode.

They also seem to assume that 'de blurring' studio ADCs is some kind of
magic bullet... but seem to have missed the behaviour of mics, speakers,
etc, often being *far* bigger sources of dispersions, etc. (In the process
they seem to re-write the basics of Information Theory as well! 8-] )

The key problem for anyone wanting to really investigate, though, is the
difficulty of finding what was put INTO an MQA encoder and be able to do a
standard probe-response comparison. Adopting MQA seems to lead to not being
able to get at the actual 'Master' fed into it, thus making testing the
claims a bit difficult.

That also seems to mean that if you stream/download a 'high res' version
you may now get what comes *out* of an MQA encode-decode, not what went it.
Or a different 'version' of some kind.

It's interesting to look into, but take time and effort to work through.
Stay tuned. :-)

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 23 Jun, noise@audiomisc.co.uk wrote:
> In article <sau691$pn9$1@dont-email.me>, ~misfit~
> <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thanks Jim. I've dipped my toes into this but, as you say, there's so
> > much noise around the subject. I appreciate reading your take on MQA.

> More to come. :-) I now have a Meridian 'Explorer 2' MQA capable DAC
> and have been using it to investigate other aspects of the behaviour of
> MQA. I've been using a Benchmark ADC1 to capture its output for
> analysis. I'm also fleshing out why their obsession with dispersion is
> little more than an irrelevance, and the entire mythology of the
> 'Master'.

FWIW I've now added this, based on capturing the output of the Explorer 2
MQA DAC

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/MQA/questions/QuriousAssumptions.html

More to come. But I remain underwhelmed by MQA. I keep feeling the 'M'
really stands for 'Marketing'...

My next step is to look at the 'temporal' aspects of MQA and the way it
apparently carpet-bombs material with added dispersion, etc. Plus comparing
their apparent obsession with 'correcting' (sic) the recording's ADC and
its impulse response whilst ignoring far bigger effects elsewhere - e.g.
microphones. It also looks possible to correct the dispersion using 'sox'.
The snag being to capture the output of the DAC as you can't alter the MQA
encoded source material because it then loses the 'authentication' and
doesn't get 'decoded'.

Since I can capture the output with an ADC I can experiment with that. But
most users won't be able to do it that way. *However* I understand that
'roon' can decode in software and then outputs a digital stream which can
be sent to a non-MQA DAC. If so, it should be possible for roon users to
divert that via something equivalent to a sox fir. :-)

(Pun alert!) Time will tell... 8-]

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 10:09:26 +0100, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 23 Jun, noise@audiomisc.co.uk wrote:
>> In article <sau691$pn9$1@dont-email.me>, ~misfit~
>> <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Thanks Jim. I've dipped my toes into this but, as you say, there's so
>> > much noise around the subject. I appreciate reading your take on MQA.
>
>> More to come. :-) I now have a Meridian 'Explorer 2' MQA capable DAC
>> and have been using it to investigate other aspects of the behaviour of
>> MQA. I've been using a Benchmark ADC1 to capture its output for
>> analysis. I'm also fleshing out why their obsession with dispersion is
>> little more than an irrelevance, and the entire mythology of the
>> 'Master'.
>
>FWIW I've now added this, based on capturing the output of the Explorer 2
>MQA DAC
>
>http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/MQA/questions/QuriousAssumptions.html
>
>More to come. But I remain underwhelmed by MQA. I keep feeling the 'M'
>really stands for 'Marketing'...
>
>My next step is to look at the 'temporal' aspects of MQA and the way it
>apparently carpet-bombs material with added dispersion, etc. Plus comparing
>their apparent obsession with 'correcting' (sic) the recording's ADC and
>its impulse response whilst ignoring far bigger effects elsewhere - e.g.
>microphones. It also looks possible to correct the dispersion using 'sox'.
>The snag being to capture the output of the DAC as you can't alter the MQA
>encoded source material because it then loses the 'authentication' and
>doesn't get 'decoded'.
>
>Since I can capture the output with an ADC I can experiment with that. But
>most users won't be able to do it that way. *However* I understand that
>'roon' can decode in software and then outputs a digital stream which can
>be sent to a non-MQA DAC. If so, it should be possible for roon users to
>divert that via something equivalent to a sox fir. :-)
>
>(Pun alert!) Time will tell... 8-]
>
>Jim

You know, Jim. Life is far too short for yet more made-up solutions to
made-up, non-existent problems. This is almost a definition of the way
religion works.

d

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

In article <60dc5ac0.12919296@news.eternal-september.org>, Don Pearce
<spam@spam.com> wrote:

> You know, Jim. Life is far too short for yet more made-up solutions to
> made-up, non-existent problems. This is almost a definition of the way
> religion works.

Yes. Alas, we are probably going to get MQA, like it or not.

It may not suit users. But it suits the suits. They can 'resell' things
with a nice new 'Go faster'... erm 'MQA' sticker. And it also means 'single
inventory' rather than a series of different types of file or disc.

Warner has apparently already run its catalogue though MQA. And MQA Audio
CDs (sic) have been appearing for some time already.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On Thu, 01 Jul 2021 09:38:16 +0100, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote:

>Warner has apparently already run its catalogue though MQA. And MQA Audio
>CDs (sic) have been appearing for some time already.
>
>Jim

Does this mean a new edition of the Red Book?

d

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

In article <60ddd8bb.4772125@news.eternal-september.org>, Don Pearce
<spam@spam.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Jul 2021 09:38:16 +0100, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
> wrote:

> >Warner has apparently already run its catalogue though MQA. And MQA
> >Audio CDs (sic) have been appearing for some time already.
> >
> >Jim

> Does this mean a new edition of the Red Book?

No. The claim is that MQA is 'compatable'... hence the conundrums which I
explore on my webpages wrt MQA.

The problem is that, now, all the details for Audio CD are long out of
patent. So a messed-about disc can be sold as an "Audio CD", and if you can
"hear music" you can be told it is as described. If the quality has been
degraded, well you bought it "as is" unless there is a clear flaw in the
manufacture like a hole or similar that means the channelbit data stream
can't be read.

What they *can't* legally do us use the old Logo for Audio CD. That remains
a trademark which is protected. Although I doubt anyone would actually be
prosecuted in practice.

Hence the CDs already around which are actually HDCDs - and thus not 'Red
Book', either. Some of them having no markings to warn the buyer. In
essence, MQA is "HDCD on stilts".

Alas, many people in Hi-Fi don't want to comment. Too 'political'. Although
I think many wish MQA would simply go away, but aren't willing to openly
say so.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 23/06/2021 8:42 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <sau691$pn9$1@dont-email.me>, ~misfit~
> <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thanks Jim. I've dipped my toes into this but, as you say, there's so
>> much noise around the subject. I appreciate reading your take on MQA.
>
> More to come. :-) I now have a Meridian 'Explorer 2' MQA capable DAC and
> have been using it to investigate other aspects of the behaviour of MQA.
> I've been using a Benchmark ADC1 to capture its output for analysis. I'm
> also fleshing out why their obsession with dispersion is little more than
> an irrelevance, and the entire mythology of the 'Master'.
>
> TBH my main practical concern is wrt the potential adoption of 'MQA Audio
> CDs' becoming the norm *with no non-MQA release on CD*. One of the big
> selling points of MQA is the claimed 'compatability' in being able to
> 'hide' the MQA encoded info in a way that causes no audible degrading in
> something like a CD that has MQA compared with one that doesn't.
>
> This tends to run into two snags.
>
> 1) MQA implicitly define what is and is not 'Music'. But can't/won't give a
> clear definition, only handwaving about a '1/f spectrum'. (Used quite
> vaguely.)
>
> 2) The above works when there is little or no 'extra audible info' anyway
> to 'encode'. So examples that really test MQA are then dismissed as 'not
> music'. Thus they set themselves up as the definers of what is, and is not,
> 'music'.
>
> More widely, when you unpack all this and look at real recordings, and the
> nature of human hearing they run into a set of implied contradictions.
> Which seem to lead to the conclusion for something like MQA 'CDs' that the
> material is only 'music' and can be 'compatibly' encoded if there is
> essentially nothing audible to encode.
>
> They also seem to assume that 'de blurring' studio ADCs is some kind of
> magic bullet... but seem to have missed the behaviour of mics, speakers,
> etc, often being *far* bigger sources of dispersions, etc. (In the process
> they seem to re-write the basics of Information Theory as well! 8-] )
>
> The key problem for anyone wanting to really investigate, though, is the
> difficulty of finding what was put INTO an MQA encoder and be able to do a
> standard probe-response comparison. Adopting MQA seems to lead to not being
> able to get at the actual 'Master' fed into it, thus making testing the
> claims a bit difficult.
>
> That also seems to mean that if you stream/download a 'high res' version
> you may now get what comes *out* of an MQA encode-decode, not what went it.
> Or a different 'version' of some kind.
>
> It's interesting to look into, but take time and effort to work through.
> Stay tuned. :-)

Thanks Jim. I sure will stay tuned. Appreciate your work.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
in the DSM"
David Melville

This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.

In article <sdiqfa$8r2$1@dont-email.me>, ~misfit~
<shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23/06/2021 8:42 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> Thanks Jim. I sure will stay tuned. Appreciate your work.

Just to keep people up-to-date: I've recently put up another item on MQA at

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/MQA/OnImpulse/RingingInArrears.html

This looks at the way it seems to impose a specific form of 'reconstruction
filter' and claims to 'correct' the ADC used during producing the original
recordings. Along the way it goes though the basics of assement by 'impulse
function', sets the wider context, etc.

A previous page shows the results I got by capturing the output of the
Meridian MQA-decoding DAC.

The overall conclusion from my POV is, as before, "Mostly Harmless. Mostly
Pointless" TBH. Essentially a waste of the money that gets syphoned off to
MQA. And - like so many other 'toys' given to the music biz, probably
another way for them to screw up some of what they release.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html