Thread: A question about MQA

Originally Posted by mep

We have some things in common. I have a DAC that unfolds all the MQA laundry and I have Tidal and Quobuz subscriptions. That means I have access to all the MQA files on Tidal and I can play any MQA album I want. I made the decision after listening to numerous MQA albums that basically I don’t care for listening to MQA. If other people love them some MQA and think it’s the best sounding digital out there, more power to them.

I've heard MQA fully unfolded as well, and don't care about it either.

Originally Posted by rbbert

This is going to degenerate into a personal squabble. You are making ad hominem attacks where I have tried to point you to actual facts that dispute your POV.

If you have read the MQA patent application and still feel it is lossless, then I apologize, although to my knowledge no one else who has done so has come to that conclusion (and there have been extensive on-line discussions of this).

If you understand and use AccurateRip but still feel that CD data corruption is common, I would like to see some evidence.

I would request that you either respond on point or don't respond at all.

If you insist that computer data does never corrupt, I can’t help you.

I posted a link to a case study at a high tech facility, where they discovered they had some data corruption cases in their systems. Surprisingly, they were not aware. If you don’t understand what it says in that article, I can’t help you.

The data does not deteriorate fast, and not in a predictable way, but it actually does corrupt through potentially many factors. But if that is not something they teach in nurse school, I can’t help you.

I think Governor Cuomo stated it well in one if his tweets last week: There is no remedy against ignorance.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by rbbert

If you have read the MQA patent application and still feel it is lossless, then I apologize, although to my knowledge no one else who has done so has come to that conclusion (and there have been extensive on-line discussions of this).

First of all, if you say you have read a patent application, that does not tell us anything about whether you actually understood a word about what was written in it.

Secondly, as you seem to be proficient in audio codec encoding an decoding, how do you explain this: How is it possible that they take one MQA audio file, play it back, and it is 16/44 audio. Then they take the same MQA audio file, play it back, and it is 24/96 audio.

Is that some kind of magic, or what is happening? Can you please explain how that is possible?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Al M.

I've heard MQA fully unfolded as well, and don't care about it either.

Personally, I have never met anyone who says MQA sounds always better.

What I have heard several people say, is that sometimes it sounds very good, sometimes it sounds ok, but it rarely sounds much worse than other formats.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'm going to stop quoting your (mostly) irrelevant posts and ask again.

Do you use and understand AccurateRip? If so, what is your evidence that data corruption on manufactured CD's is common (not that it can sometimes occur, that's one reason AccurateRip exists)? If you don't use and understand AccurateRip, your comments about CD data corruption can easily be ignored.

Apparently you have not read the MQA patent application, so you are really not in a position to make any comments about it, what it says, or what it means. FWIW, even Bob Stuart (in an unguarded moment) admitted at a HiFi show (I think RAMF) that MQA is not digitally (data) lossless.

You have been posting many assertions without posting any factual evidence to support them

Originally Posted by skbe

Thank you for the advice
And you think this really makes a difference?
At the fist place I don’t know what I should be concerned about. Do you know that windows copy deteriorates sound quality of audio files?
Since I don’t manage to find something elaborating this on the web, I would be interested if you have some material
Thanks

For audio files I have found Windows 10 to generally work well, but TeraCopy is easy to use and relatively inexpensive, and I prefer it for copying large (40-50 GB) video files.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TeraCopy

You say you have read the patent application, show that you have also understood it.

How is it possible that the very same audio file is in one scenario 16/44 and in another scenario 24/96?

And that’s not even difficult to explain.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by rbbert

I'm going to stop quoting your (mostly) irrelevant posts

Yes, quoting where I say you have read something, but not understood any of it... That would not be very flattering, would it?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Kuoppis

Yes, quoting where I say you have read something, but not understood any of it... That would not be very flattering, would it?

I'm going to stop quoting your (mostly) irrelevant posts (except this one, obviously) and ask again.

Do you use and understand AccurateRip? If so, what is your evidence that data corruption on manufactured CD's is common (not that it can sometimes occur, that's one reason AccurateRip exists)? If you don't use and understand AccurateRip, your comments about CD data corruption can easily be ignored.

Apparently you have not read the MQA patent application, so you are really not in a position to make any comments about it, what it says, or what it means. FWIW, even Bob Stuart (in an unguarded moment) admitted at a HiFi show (I think RAMF) that MQA is not digitally (data) lossless.

You have been posting many assertions without posting any factual evidence to support them

So far, your contributions to this thread seem to be

1) you like MQA
2) you know more than the rest of us
3) you don't actually have any useful information to contribute
4) you don't like to answer specific questions

if you disagree, prove me wrong, don't just assert it

With this whole patent application thing you are once more showing, you do not know what you are talking about. You do not have the slightest idea about software, or how software products are developed. That’s probably why you thought your home server is similar to what they are using at CERN .

To understand how the product works, you would need to read the specification. But of course, that they do not hand out to people like you. It also would not help, because as a nurse you would not understand that either.

And you can’t explain even the simplest basics in the patent application you say you have read.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Kuoppis

With this whole patent application thing you are once more showing, you do not know what you are talking about. You do not have the slightest idea about software, or how software products are developed. That’s probably why you thought your home server is similar to what they are using at CERN .

To understand how the product works, you would need to read the specification. But of course, that they do not hand out to people like you. It also would not help, because as a nurse you would not understand that either.

And you can’t explain even the simplest basics in the patent application you say you have read.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Is it buried in this thread or has it been posted?...the uspto patent application link for MQA. Design or Utility patent? Interested in reading it for myself. Please post or re-post the USPTO link. Thanks.




EDIT, FOUND IT:

http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...DN/20180167081

Originally Posted by MikeCh

Is it buried in this thread or has it been posted?...the uspto patent link for MQA. Design or Utility patent? Interested in reading it for myself.

I have not seen it here. And to be honest, it’s not that relevant at all. It’s just something a couple wannabe MQA critics obsessed with, trying to get some credibility.

A patent application is typically just a sketch of some detail of an associated product. It does usually not tell what a final product actually does or does not do. It just outlines basic concepts, hardly explains the entire product.

Therefore, when some guys are boasting with ‘having read the patent application’, like our nurse here trying to get some credibility, they just expose themselves as ignorant show-offs.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

EDIT, FOUND IT:

http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...DN/20180167081

I think you can get the entire patent somewhere on this page

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2018/0167081.html

There is also an interesting analysis here

https://www.xivero.com/downloads/MQA...eses-Paper.pdf

The technical discussion of MQA only relates to its lossy nature, which is not necessarily related to its sound. As this author points out, all earlier lossy codecs have eventually been found unsatisfactory for critical listeners. That doesn't mean that will always be the case, of course.

EDIT, FOUND IT:

http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...DN/20180167081

Originally Posted by Kuoppis

With this whole patent application thing you are once more showing, you do not know what you are talking about. You do not have the slightest idea about software, or how software products are developed. That’s probably why you thought your home server is similar to what they are using at CERN .

To understand how the product works, you would need to read the specification. But of course, that they do not hand out to people like you. It also would not help, because as a nurse you would not understand that either.

And you can’t explain even the simplest basics in the patent application you say you have read.

And you still can't manage to answer specific questions or address anything directed at you (your all so important contribution #4 above) But you manage to misrepresent and twist others' words quite handily

EDIT, FOUND IT:

http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...DN/20180167081

EDIT, FOUND IT:

http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...DN/20180167081


Sorry for all the confusion.

My head exploded reading the MQA Patent Application description. LOL

So, we have a link to a US patent application. What does it tell us?

Not much at all. It just opens up a bag of additional questions. What it does not tell us, is how MQA has been implemented, how MQA sounds or whether MQA is any good for consumer audio.

We have nursie-boy here on this thread claiming technical this or that, about things he lacks any meaningful insight into. A medical professional, that’s just nonsense.

Nursie stated earlier he does not like the MQA business model, which is perfectly fine. Now he is posting pseudo-technical comments, completely out of his depth, trying to argue the technology is no good. Because he does not like the MQA business model.

So, let’s open that patent app bag a bit:
- What part of MQA does the application refer to?
- Does it cover the entire product, or just parts of it?
- Is it the only patent application related to MQA?
- This a US application, how does it relate to int’l filings?
- This is an application, what was approved, is anything approved?
- How does the patent app relate to any MQA product in-market?
- What parts of the patent application are used in MQA, if any?
- How does the application relate to actual specs?
- Which part of MQA is it referring to?
- Encoding/ decoding?
- Folding/ unfolding?
- Compression rate?
- Audio origami?
- Transport?
- ...

There are more questions than answers. A patent application tells us pretty much nothing about an actual product any company chooses to make, and release to the market. The company is not obliged to use any parts of a patent application in an actual product.

There are also many reasons to file an application. To protect a technology, to stake a claim in order to prevent someone else from entering an area, to support a technology to develop into a certain direction, to prevent a technology from developing into a certain direction. And so on.

So, some layman reading one patent application, even if he would understand it, gets us exactly nothing.

Originally Posted by skbe

Anyone have seen a serious article about copying a digital file deteriorating the file with the use of say clean windows copy/paste? I heard this sentence here and I’ve been searching the net and I cannot find something convincing. This making me do nightmares!

To set your mind at ease, reliable data transfer protocols incorporate error detection and retransmission. This ensures a perfect copy is made over the Internet, on your personal computer, or for whatever else. The only times this will fail is if the original data is corrupted or something is broken, perhaps due to a physical failure, in which case you should be informed of this. For example your computer would tell you there was a disk error, and the copy attempt would fail so you know it did not work.

Furthermore, this checking for errors happens along the entire chain, often layered on top of each other. For example if you wanted to copy a file on your personal computer's hard disk to a friend's computer across the country, there will be checks when the file is read from your hard disk disk, when the data is packaged for transmission, when it is sent over your local network, when it is sent over the Internet, when it is sent over your friend's network, when the data is unpackaged, and when the file is saved to your friend's computer's hard disk.

Reliable data transfer is how we control the Mars rovers, medical devices, cars, etc.

Originally Posted by NekoAudio

Reliable data transfer is how we control the Mars rovers, medical devices, cars, etc.

Dear NekoAudio, please apologize the boldness of my assertion, but it is my belief, that as an audio dealer you re-sell products made by others for a margin, but you do actually not control Mars rovers.

And this is my very point: please let the people who control Mars rovers, control the Mars rovers. And please do not pretend, that you even remotely understand the basics of how a Mars rover is controlled.

But of course, I might be mistaken and you are moonshining at Lockheed Martin, while selling audio products.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by skbe

Why Lumin support MQA decoders and renderers if it is a fraud ?

Lumin supports MQA because you need MQA decoding to get the most out of Tidal Masters. Without MQA decoding you're not getting all the musical information in the Tidal Masters.

We also have users who have MQA CD rips. Again you need MQA decoding to get the most out of MQA CD.

My position is that we give users a proper platform to compare MQA against something else. (Not all MQA DAC manufacturers can say this because some of them run non-MQA PCM music through MQA filter.) If you happen to like at least a few MQA music, I'm glad we spent the money and resources to benefit some users. If you don't like it after listening to it on a Lumin, I feel that we also served a purpose.

Originally Posted by skbe

True!
And no one answered the first questions I asked when opening this thread:
Is a file FLAC 24b 96k MQAed in 96k needs a third unfold/rendering unfold? Or decoding this MQA file is enough to make it comparable to the same file labeled "HiRes" in 24b 96k?

You need at least MQA Core decoding (first unfold) using Lumin or Roon or Tidal app or Audirvana to recover the embedded musical information. This is the minimum you need for a comparison. Using Lumin analog output hardware or MQA DAC you get MQA rendering, which gives you a more prominent MQA sound signature.

Originally Posted by rbbert

As far as Lumin or Roon or any other software/firmware stating "lossless"

Lumin app and front panel do not state it to be lossless.

Roon signal path can show lossless for core decoding, but it has a different meaning from what everybody assumes.

If I understood the brief, the first fold carries the 16/44 standard, the 2nd fold gets up to 24/96, roon, and the others wlkie mentioned will do, then we have to look at our hardware for the 3rd or 24/192 to decode? I keep reading these explinations and eventually something's going to stick.

Originally Posted by steve59

If I understood the brief, the first fold carries the 16/44 standard, the 2nd fold gets up to 24/96, roon, and the others wlkie mentioned will do, then we have to look at our hardware for the 3rd or 24/192 to decode? I keep reading these explinations and eventually something's going to stick.

I have not done a comprehensive analysis, but my experience has been that the vast majority of the MQA files are 24/44.1 or 24/48 before unfolding (except for the MQA CD's, which are obviously 16/44.1). Trying to get 24/96 (much less 24/192) into a 16/44.1 container results in a lot of lossiness (lost data). And according to the much maligned patent application, much of the extra bit depth above (or perhaps more properly "below") 16 is used for the encoded "hi-res" content.

Originally Posted by rbbert

And according to the much maligned patent

A patent application does not a patent make. Unless someone can point out the actual patent number that was granted, everything posted here is in reference to a "patent application". This does not mean that MQA is not a truly patented design. If it is, someone please share the USPTO granted patent number.

Anyone can file a patent application, but please realize there are differences between a patent application and an actually granted patent from the USPTO.

In other words the two terms are not interchangeable.

Whether or not a patent was granted, the application describes in clear terms (without the specific firmware coding involved) how MQA works. My earlier post did not include the word "application" but it should have (my mind works faster than I type)

I think I posted earlier here and many times elsewhere that I have no special fondness for MQA's sound. On some albums, it seemed to sound better, but those were all "classic" albums which have had many different masterings over the years, so I'm not sure the better sound was MQA. In any case, despite Tidal's convenience and low cost I have never renewed any of my (now 3) trial subscriptions. And yes, according to both the Tidal app and Oppo, I do have an MQA DAC.

Originally Posted by rbbert

Whether or not a patent was granted, the application describes in clear terms (without the specific firmware coding involved) how MQA works.

Indeed. For that reason there's no point getting hung up on whether it's a patent application or an actual patent.

Originally Posted by steve59

If I understood the brief, the first fold carries the 16/44 standard, the 2nd fold gets up to 24/96, roon, and the others wlkie mentioned will do, then we have to look at our hardware for the 3rd or 24/192 to decode? I keep reading these explinations and eventually something's going to stick.

To avoid confusion, it's best to avoid the terminology of counting how many unfolds.

In technical MQA literature and Roon, we standardize the terminology on two stages:
1. MQA Core decoding from 44.1kHz to 88.2kHz, or 48kHz to 96kHz.
2. MQA Rendering from 88.2/96kHz to the optimal (hidden) playback rate as determined by DAC manufacturer and MQA Ltd.

The combination of 1 and 2 is known as Full MQA Decoding, as supported in all Lumin analog output products.

Hardware with feature 1 alone is known as MQA Transport, as in Lumin U1 or U1 MINI, or other Lumin set to digital output.

Hardware with feature 2 alone is known as MQA Renderer, such as Dragonfly, Berekeley MQA DAC, or some older models of iFi MQA DAC.

Originally Posted by kzhtoo

I think the point here is whether a granted patent or an application (the purpose of a patent is to protect the intellectual property), the actual implementation has no obligation to follow what is stated in the patent. Owner of a few technical patents myself, I can tell you the implementation could be quite different than the patent itself.

Understood. Thanks. I'll walk away.

Originally Posted by rbbert

Whether or not a patent was granted, the application describes in clear terms (without the specific firmware coding involved) how MQA works.

It absolutely does not. You clearly do not grasp the concept of a patent application.

A patent application does typically not cover the entirety of a product in the market. It usually refers just to one certain feature or functionality of the whole. Also, a patent application is not equal to product specifications. There is no mandate to use any of it in a product.

What MikeCh says is also correct, an application does not equal to a granted patent. Even less does a patent equal to a product. This has has all been laid out for you, but it does not seem to sink in.

Let me describe this through a medical analogy (your field of expertise), so it‘s maybe easier for you to recapitulate: You say you have read the words in a patent application, and now understand how MQA works. That is a bit similar to applying a bandaid on someone, and claiming to therefore understand how brain surgery works.

There is this concept called logical reasoning, let me show how it works:
- you keep on insisting on things which are incorrect
- you do that, because you don’t know better (fair enough)
- you don’t know better, because it’s not your field of expertise
- perhaps you should not insist

Just a suggestion.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by rbbert

I have not done a comprehensive analysis, but my experience has been that the vast majority of the MQA files are 24/44.1 or 24/48 before unfolding (except for the MQA CD's, which are obviously 16/44.1). Trying to get 24/96 (much less 24/192) into a 16/44.1 container results in a lot of lossiness (lost data). And according to the much maligned patent application, much of the extra bit depth above (or perhaps more properly "below") 16 is used for the encoded "hi-res" content.

This is so funny, you have really not understood anything.

You are arguing, as if you were handling boxes of medical supplies:
- 16/44 container - small box of supplies
- 24/92 container - medium box of supplies
- 24/192 container - big box of supplies

Complete bollocks, these are not physical boxes of a certain size. The container is a logical concept. Which pretty much renders your argumentation utter nonsense. You are really making up stuff in your head as we go.

This is actually hilarious, please keep the good stuff coming. I’m so happy you have not done the comprehensive analysis yet, really looking forward to it. This might lead to a new science altogether, exciting .


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Hmmm, interesting, although totally inaccurate and irrelevant, and like virtually all your posts contributing absolutely nothing to the topic at hand or to audio in general.

I think it’s safe to say this thread has become completely uncivil. I think it’s time to close it.