MQA and the "Pre Ring - Post Ring" Hoax


There's been a lot of misinformed babble on various audio forums about impulse response, digital filters, "time errors", "time correction", "time blurring", and similar pseudo science clap trap to convince audiophiles that suddenly in the year 2018, there's something drastically wrong with digital PCM audio - some 45 years after this landmark technology was developed by Philips Electronics engineers. Newsflash folks - it's a scam.

First, let's take a close look at what an impulse or discontinuity signal really is. The wikipedia definition actually is pretty accurate thanks to a variety of informed contributors from around the globe. It is a infinite aperiodic summation of sinusoidal waves combined to produce what looks like a spike (typically voltage for our purposes) in a signal. Does such a thing ever occur in nature or more importantly in our case - music? Absolutely not. In fact, the only things close to it are the voltage spikes that occur when a switch contact is thrown or an amplifier output stage clips because supply voltage to reproduce the incoming signal waveform has been exceeded. So if this freak of nature signal representation doesn't exist in nature or music, of what good is it in measuring the accuracy of audio equipment? The answer might surprise you.

In fact, impulse response, or an audio system's response to an impulse signal, is one of the most useful and accurate representations in existence of such a system's linearity and precision - or its fidelity to an original signal that is fed to it.  A lot of  focus has been placed on the pre and post ringing of these "discontinuity signals"  but what you have to understand is that the ripple artifacts are nothing more than an analog system's (all electronics is analog -digital is just a special subset of analog) limitation in attempting to construct the impulse or discontinuity signal waveform. They are a result of the impact produced by the energy storage devices themselves in creating the signal. To create a large energy peak, you need large storage devices. The larget the capacitor for example, the longer in time it takes for it to absorb and discharge electric field energy. This is the same with inductors. One type stores electric field energy - the other magnetic. Smaller value capacitors can react to voltage changes very quickly but are limited in the peak value of energy that can be stored and dissipated. But if you combine a large number of high value and low value devices in a circuit and apply a voltage spike, you wind up with the kind of oscillations you see in an impulse response graph. Small capacitors for example, rapidly reach their charge capacity and can discharge into larger capacitors that are much more slowly building up charge in the transition from no input voltage to full spike value. This "sloshing around", if you will, or oscillation is what happens in circuits built to provide extreme voltage attenuations. In a linear, time invariant system, any rapid change in frequency response or time response - has these characteristics.
So effectively the entire debate about ringing in digital audio is a misnomer - a hoax. The impulse response ripple is not something that happens in real world sounds or in a properly designed audio reproduction chain. Ever since digital oversampling was developed in consumer products in the early 1980s, there has been no need for steep analog filter circuits with their attendant ringing. The problem very simply DOES NOT EXIST. The ringing generated  artificially in an impulse signal is useful in that it provides a very high frequency stimulus to linear audio systems as  a means of measuring high frequency and transient response. IT IN NO WAY BY ITSELF, REPRESENTS THE TIME DOMAIN BEHAVIOR OF THE AUDIO REPRODUCTION CHAIN. An accurate audio reproduction system should fully render the impulse signal in all its pre and post ring glory without alteration. Any audio system that eliminates or significantly alters this pre/post ringing present in the signal that is fed to it is not truly "high fidelity" and is thus bandwidth limited.
cj1965
The government (specifically ours) is too busy building up the largest military in human history to care about such trivial matters.
So are you saying that manufacturers are creating a solution to non-existent problem so they can sell us new products? I don’t believe it.  We should be protected from this by the government.  
IMO, it's not the filter ringing or time smearing that MQA uses to justify its existence -- it's the fact that my internet speed is over 60 Mbps and a 24/192 file needs 4.6 Mbps to stream so I see no reason for MQA to be even economically viable at this point in time.
and I thought "pre-ring" was when you were thinking of using the telephone and "post-ring", after hanging up. Does this apply to mobile phones too...   :)
You mean they now make one for CDs?Mine is the combo tuner and cassette player. Into McIntosh electronics...🤔🤔
Obviously, car CD players are the exception that proves the rule. Most people would probably not consider car CD players high end. But they do have certain advantages as you intimate. I actually use a car ready Sony Walkman CD player as my primary home system. Is that wrong? 😬
@geoffkait

The ancient Benz wagon I've had for many years has a six cd changer in it. I has traveled over some of the roughest roads in New England and has never missed a beat. Perhaps I should drive it out to California and wait for an earthquake. Maybe then I'll witness this "stubborn vulnerability , especially to seismic vibration" that you speak of..As for the litany of other ills you mentioned, I guess I'm lucky to have never experienced any of those problems. I must be one very lucky guy never to have seen evidence of pre or post ringing originating from digital audio circuitry or any of the maladies you speak of....But for you, my friend, there's always vinyl ...
There are lots of things wrong with Redbook CD including but not limited to scattered background laser light getting into the photodetector, the stubborn vulnerablity of CDs to vibration of all types, especially seismic vibration, CD wobble during play as a result of out of round discs, the susceptibility of CDs to static electric charge and the susceptibility of electronics in CD players to Magnetic fields and RF interference. Other than that, no problem! Perfect Sound Forever! 😛
In the real world, any pre or post ringing associated with digital pulses  in pulse code and delta sigma  converters is at such a low level and frequency outside the working bandwidth of the circuit as to be of no consequence whatsoever. The comparators, op amps and output filters used are not sensitive in any meaningful way to any ringing unless you are feeding the circuit a Dirac Delta type or Impulse response signal. In that case, yes - low level pre and post ringing could be high enough in amplitude and low enough in frequency to register in a typical converter output. In the real world, however, no such signal containing extreme bandwidth and amplitude will ever be encountered with normal signals. Again, the issue of pre and post ringing is a red herring - a hoax propagated to make a bogus sales pitch for a solution in search of a problem. The manner in which normal signals are digitally deconstructed and reconstructed prevents low level switching noise in digital circuits from becoming audible.
cj1965 "There's been a lot of misinformed babble... and similar pseudo science clap trap...Newsflash folks - it's a scam...So effectively the entire debate about ringing in digital audio is a misnomer - a hoax... Any audio system that eliminates or significantly alters this pre/post ringing present in the signal that is fed to it is not truly "high fidelity" and is thus bandwidth limited."  

Well it is certainly easily proven that every audio system is "bandwidth limited" so I am not sure what your post has done to compensate for the babble and clap trap you complain about with such such vociferousness also just because you find fault with a specific audio process, protocol or topology does not make it a "hoax" or voodoo or snakeoil.
Not sure I agree with all the statements by the OP but the best type filters have long been known as linear phase - these filters preserve the phase relationship between the various frequencies in the audio signal - this is important for correct timbre. Anything else is wrong. So yes MQA is a significant step backwards for audiophiles - the cure to fix pre-ringing is far worse than any perceived or invented problem from pre-ringing in playback.

Of course some extreme Q filters used in mix and mastering can create pre-ringing effects that are audible. In that case, the audio is highly filtered and over produced to begin with. Generally a filter designed to correct this pre ringing is only going to make the audio worse - especially if applied to the entire signal rather than just the instrument that is of concern. Most often this preringing occurs on snare drums where a lot of compression and gating is applied - in this case a minimum phase filter in the studio protools world may be preferable to linear phase - however this will change the timbre of the snare.
Erik,

See my recent response to you in the MQA "Philosophy" thread regarding Mr. Craven's "apodizing" filters.

Best Regards

cj
I'm afraid that while I see where you are going, there's a lot of yelling that obfuscates and in some ways goes counter to your argument. 

If I read it as written, it seems you are saying that caps and coils introduce errors and we need to be OK with that. 

Impulse responses are digital fabrications, they have no pre or post ringing. but you are insisting there is. I think to make your argument you need to simplify it a bit. 

Also, regardless of up or oversampling, all measurements I've seen still display "ringing." A better argument might e that this digital impulse response is not possible in nature. 

I think your overall message is that a perfect, 1 sample wide impulse is outside the boundaries of actual sounds and that within the boundaries of what a natural impulse response would look like, there's no error. Is that true, or am I still misreading? 

Best,


E
Thanks indeed. This and the work by Benchmark and Archimago should settle this until the AES research is published.
Thanks for the explanation. You have clarified a lengthy and deliberately complicated treatise in Stereophile by Bob (R John) Stuart with a brief clear critique that I find informative. Cheers.