Audio Asylum Thread Printer
Get a view of an entire thread on one page
|For Sale Ads|
In Reply to: RE: MQA Loses Part of Spectrum on Some Tracks? posted by Charles Hansen on May 29, 2017 at 23:23:05
Charles, it is good to have you back in the Asylum but it seems you've come to play Jedi mind tricks on us "MQA is not the filter you are looking for". I agree there are concerns and questions but I also understand the business implications if MQA becomes widely adopted and it seems to me that you are treading a fine ethical line, especially by starting your own thread.
> > it is good to have you back in the Asylum < <
Thank you for the kind words!
> > it seems you've come to play Jedi mind tricks on us < <
Not your logic follow am I... :)
> > I also understand the business implications if MQA becomes widely adopted and it seems to me that you are treading a fine ethical line. < <
If MQA becomes widely adopted, it will create strong incentives for end users to purchase new hardware that will extract the maximum performance possible from MQA-encoded files. If a hardware manufacturer's primary motive were to maximize profit, they would surely welcome a never-ending stream of changes requiring the customer to constantly upgrade their hardware. (That is the definition of planned obsolescence.) It would seem that all DAC manufacturers would stand to profit if MQA becomes widely adopted.
Perhaps I am missing something. What exactly is the "fine ethical line" you believe I am treading?
Perhaps one of the most differentiating features of a DAC is the filter and some companies have developed their own, with Ayre being at the forefront. MQA turns that filter into commodity, all adopting DACS will have the same filter and that unique selling point is lost. Several such companies have stated that they will not support MQA, which I fully understand. I assume Ayre is the same and you are more interested in MAQ failing than succeeding - hence my ethical comment. Do you have plans to support MQA?
> > Perhaps one of the most differentiating features of a DAC is the filter and some companies have developed their own, with Ayre being at the forefront. MQA turns that filter into commodity, all adopting DACS will have the same filter and that unique selling point is lost. < <
Thanks for the clarification. Regarding custom filters, Ayre is actually fairly far from "the forefront". Together Wadia and Theta were the first with custom filters in the late 1980s. In the 1990s dCS joined and those three have perhaps been the most prominent companies with custom filters. Ayre did not join the fun until January 2009 and today there are perhaps a dozen different companies around the world that "roll their own", including Playback Design (Andreas Koch), EMM Labs (Ed Meitner), PS Audio (Ted Smith), Chord (Rob Watts), and many more - most recently Auralic. Unsurprisingly, different custom filter designers have different theories about what constitutes a "better" digital filter.
In my experience, digital filters are one of about a half-dozen major design aspects that will significantly affect the sound of a digital product. Also important are the analog circuitry, the power supplies, the clock implementation, the DAC chip itself, and the presence or absence of any DSP algorithms (such as Asynchronous Sample Rate Conversion - ASRC - and many others). I would be loathe to rank the importance of them, but would agree that the digital filter (or lack thereof, in the case of "non-oversampling") plays an important factor in the overall sound quality.
Any DAC manufacturer can license MQA's technology, and that apparently includes using MQA's filter (or having them customize their filter to "compensate" for the "deficiencies" in whatever digital filter is in the product - be it custom or off-the-shelf). As far as I can tell it turns out that the MQA filter is much closer to what Ayre has developed than anything else of which I am aware. In contrast, the Watts Transient Aligned (WTA) digital filter used in Chord products takes an almost diametrically opposed approach (as noted in the "Conclusion" of JA's recent Stereophile review, linked below). However in either case there is nothing that precludes any company from licensing MQA's technology and using the MQA filter for MQA files and the custom filter for all other files. Schiit Audio (which sells products both with custom digital filters and stock ones built into the DAC chips) is one of the manufacturers choosing not to support MQA for the time being. Their press release of a year ago is available here:
"Asked if there was any chance Schiit Audio might support MQA if it became the dominant format in the market, Moffat answered, 'If it becomes the dominant audio technology, or even a very popular second-place format, we would have to evaluate it in the same way we evaluate other lossy compression standards, such as home theater surround formats, Bluetooth codecs, and MP3 variants.'"
There seems to be something of a general trend - manufacturers that have developed their own digital filters tend to be less enthusiastic about MQA than those who strictly use off-the-shelf filters. There are at least two inferences that could be made from this. The first is that companies with custom filters would not want to give up a potential competitive advantage by having the entire industry converge to one single digital filter. The other is that they have a deeper understanding of how digital filters actually work, and therefore have more insight into the advantages and disadvantages of MQA's encode/decode process.
Every audiophile is free to form their own opinions on everything. Just as with the "upsampling" craze of 15 years ago, one can attempt to evaluate MQA by understand the technical underpinnings, or simply listening to it. Similarly they may attach whatever motives they wish to any manufacturer. In my experience one of the best rules comes from the Watergate inquiry - "Follow the money".
As always my posts are strictly my own opinions, and not necessarily those of my employer or mailperson.
Actually when I think about custom filters Wadia is the first company that comes to mind but I thought if I buttered you up a little you would answer my question. Butter wasted. I'll put you down in the 'less enthusiastic about MQA' camp that makes me a little concerned that your recent posts are not to praise MQA but to bury it. Shilling your own products on the forum is not allowed, IMHO that should include anti-shilling the competition.
> > IMHO that should include anti-shilling the competition. < <
Not only do I agree with you, but believe the rules already *do* ban "anti-shilling the competition". Do you believe that *any* hardware manufacturer is competing with MQA?
As noted previously, any and all hardware manufacturers are free to license and use MQA's technology. Even Schiit said they would re-evaluate their anti-MQA position should it ever become an important market force. It seems to me that the vast majority of hardware manufacturers are still in evaluation mode. There have been several early adopters announced, but to the best of my knowledge only two companies are actually shipping MQA-equipped DACs (three if you count the recently upgraded AudioQuest USB DACs, which apparently only qualify as MQA "renderers" as the unfolding must be performed via software - either the Tidal app or Audirvana for Macs only).
It seems to me that there are two main reasons for a DAC manufacturer to adopt MQA. The first would be if it were deemed to provided a true technological advantage, and the second would be to able to sell customers a new product with a new feature. In my opinion the latter would only be ethical if one believed the former, especially given the extremely limited content available. On the other hand if at some point there becomes a significant number of titles available *only* in one format, it only makes sense for DAC manufacturers to support that format (as implied by Schitt Audio).
As usual, strictly my personal opinion and not necessarily that of my employer or milk-man.
I think Mr Hansen is a straight shooter of the highest order. An an ethical businessman.
I think he is just for MQA failing from the perpspetive of a music consumer and a digital engineer.
In fact one could argue in speaking out against MQA, he maybe going against his own interests if it manages to fool the masses and catch on...without "MQA Ready" digital products he will lose out financially.
> > in speaking out against MQA, he maybe going against his own interests < <
Thanks for the kind words. For what it's worth I wasn't so much "speaking out against MQA" as I was simply surprised to find a seemingly obvious glitch in the process uncovered by a hobbyist who, while clearly being technically astute, is clearly not a digital audio engineer.
As always my posts reflect only my opinions and not necessarily those of my employer or house-cat.
...Aside from any technical glitches,...MQA has been markerted as a solution for problems that don't exist.
Bandwidth? Utter nonsense.
'Authentication" absolute crap.
An intelligent algorithm that can 'de-blur" timing errors of multiple ADCs? Well you know....
Couple that with a constantly changing story...first it was for downloads, then it was just for streaming,...first it had to be applied at the mastering stage...oops, no, it can be a post mastering process...it is lossless...well, no, it is not.
And the press has pivoted with every new story.
Charlatanism at it's very best. Or worst, depending how you look at it.
Post a Message!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: