Jump to content

MQA Users & Discussion Thread


Guest AndrewC

Recommended Posts



  • 3 weeks later...
Guest AndrewC

 

[embed=225,149]

[/embed]

 

It's interesting to hear how Bob Ludwig describes what he hears with MQA.

 

 

Hate to say this, but many of his statements are complete marketing-talk off the MQA playbook no doubt… (notice comments are disabled for that YouTube video)…

 

@ 2.00min he says;

The thing about the Authentication aspect of MQA, is that I can know that the listener at home is listening to the identical analog sound that I’ve approved and that the artist has approved.

 

Hello! Not so! ;D

 

MQA Authentication ensures that the digital bitstream fed into the final D-to-A stage on a DAC is what’s been approved by the Mastering engineer and the Artist, NOT the analog output.  The Analog output is entirely depending on the rest of the system chain including the actually D-to-A stage, the output filters, the Pre-Amp, the Amp, the Speakers, the cabling, etc… All of which MQA has absolutely no control over.  In other words, what the listener at home hears of an MQA’ed track is not identical to what’s been approved, unless one has the exact same playback-chain as from the Mastering studio!

 

And when Ludwig goes on about MQA’s “de-blur algorithm”… all he’s talking about is Meridian’s Apodizing filters; minimum-phase with no pre-ringing, applied at both the mastering stage and playback; thats literally been around for a decade without MQA! Hardly a revolution. They’re really doing a major marketing spin. If you haven’t seen the new MQA spin-off website; http://bobtalks.co.uk

 

IMHO MQA supporters can’t see the forest for the trees; MQA is simply a modern day Proprietary DRM/Copy-Protection scheme with compression to aid streaming. Which makes Meridian/Bob Stuart & Reinet Investments (majority shareholder of Meridian) a lot of money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if Ludwig is a techie but I don't doubt his earnestness about what he's heard with MQA.

 

I do think the tech works but I'd love to hear how Meridian's flagship speakers implement it.

 

Last I heard, Berkeley is working a field upgrade solution to implement MQA and there's even rumors PS Audio is implementing some form of MQA support using the Bridge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest AndrewC

I don't know if Ludwig is a techie but I don't doubt his earnestness about what he's heard with MQA.

...

 

You’re right, he’s not really a techie as such, he’s educated in Music from Eastman, but he is a Lifer at the AES.  You’d expect though, at a minimum he’d remember that the output-chain including the speakers have such a huge impact on the final analog sound. Or at best, counter check into MQA’s marketing-speak and not just regurgitating Stuart’s pitch.

 

Here’s another Mastering Engineer/MQA vid that has the same B.S. point being shovelled ;D

 

[embed=425,349]

[/embed]

 

 

...

I do think the tech works but I'd love to hear how Meridian's flagship speakers implement it.

...

 

I don't believe the Meridian speakers will decode MQA (not enough horse power in them). Their Ultra DAC decodes MQA and spits out encrypted high-rez PCM as MHR stream to the digital speakers.

 

 

...

Last I heard, Berkeley is working a field upgrade solution to implement MQA and there's even rumors PS Audio is implementing some form of MQA support using the Bridge.

 

As is dCS. MSB already supports it (requiring an internal module upgrade). Depending on how pervasive MQA streaming becomes, we’ll see other top-end manufacturers also looking to support it. It wouldn’t be radically different than how FLAC or ALAC is natively support by DACs today, though probably requires a little more grunt, compute cycles wise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • 2 weeks later...

Hi Guys

 

I know this is an old thread, but now Tidal is streaming it and I have had a chance to hear it along with some very experienced audiophiles.  The answer is, without doubt, and I mean that, without doubt, YES.

 

I have just attended a listening session with some of those 'golden ears' and it blew away normal 44.1.  And that was by Tidal streaming compared to 44.1 on disk.

 

Once Tidal gets most of its material in MQA its game over IMHO.   Tidal, and similar services, will sweep the rest away.

 

I will see if I can organise a GTG so others can hear exactly whats going on - there is no substitute for that.  I know the technicalities.  The following is it at a reasonable non-technical level:

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/MQA/origami/ThereAndBack.html

 

Personally I believe 2x MQA (ie 96k with 192k encoded in the least significant bits) using a modern compressor like Optimfrog is the way to go (it produces even smaller sized filed because its such an efficient compressor of HF info - much better than Flac - do some tests if you are interested - its quite striking) - but that's just me.   Ordinary 48/24 MQA is fantastic.

 

I will  be doing a write up in an Explorer 2 DAC thread.

 

Thanks

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, bhobba said:

Personally I believe 2x MQA (ie 96k with 192k encoded in the least significant bits) using a modern compressor like Optimfrog is the way to go (it produces even smaller sized filed because its such an efficient compressor of HF info - much better than Flac - do some tests if you are interested - its quite striking) - but that's just me.   Ordinary 48/24 MQA is fantastic.

 

Doubt this; OptimFROG isn't mega efficient when there's high spectral content (if anything it's comparable to FLAC in such instances) and at any rate it's not open-source and not intended for broad uptake. Wavpak works similarly and is open-source, and would suffer the same challenges with MQA content.

 

48 minutes ago, bhobba said:

I have just attended a listening session with some of those 'golden ears' and it blew away normal 44.1.  And that was by Tidal streaming compared to 44.1 on disk.

 

Though Bill, isn't this the challenge to uptake and the very point of MQA? It's a nice achievement for streaming and selling specific DACs at a certain price point, though if you've got the bandwidth (both in transport and in your DAC) to play back master quality - or a carefully-downsampled version of as much that preserves all spectral content - you're essentially getting the same thing. There's some decently compromised Redbook material out there and aforementioned filtering issues in mastering Redbook can be an audible compromise. Not all the time though. 

 

MQA isn't a gamechanger per se. Just an enabler. Looking forwards to full software decoding. Because if Meridian's going to continue towing the 'it's an analogue-to-analogue process and the DAC must be characterised' BS, I'd rather keep my kit, buy carefully from HDTracks and live with a little extra hard disk space and research on mastering quality of a given recording I like.

 

Wouldn't you be reluctant to commit your audio hardware, software/firmware and music into a closed network?

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Guest Eggcup The Daft
11 hours ago, rmpfyf said:

 

 

Wouldn't you be reluctant to commit your audio hardware, software/firmware and music into a closed network?

So what's the difference between MQA patenting, and the patenting of CD and DSD (the latter still under patent, isn't it?) in the past?

I don't remember this argument being put against previous formats. In the majority of previous cases, you still needed a special player. Should we really have stuck with 78s because LPs needed a special player?

 

And then there is the other side of the argument to consider. Maybe we need an end-to end system that guarantees high fidelity audio.Maybe we need a guardian to make sure that what actually reaches our ears bears a resemblance to what was originally recorded - one of the problems with evaluating MQA is that the MQA encoded audio may be qualatitively different to that released to the mass market via CD. Maybe a well engineered end to end format can also ensure as a by product that things like USB transfer to a DAC work without special cables and other "magic".

 

Just possibly, the true genius of MQA is that someone is there saying "you're not putting that piece of **#$% in our format".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Eggcup The Daft said:

So what's the difference between MQA patenting, and the patenting of CD and DSD (the latter still under patent, isn't it?) in the past?

I don't remember this argument being put against previous formats. In the majority of previous cases, you still needed a special player. Should we really have stuck with 78s because LPs needed a special player?

 

Meridian doesn't just want to own the next CD player, it also doesn't want to be particularly open about what goes in it. A very different scenario, and FWIW, F that. 

 

It'd be akin to CD being released without their being a Redbook standard for the world to follow. Or that there'd be a Redbook standard, but it offered lesser quality than what the format was capable of, with full performance being artificially restricted in the marketplace.

 

1 minute ago, Eggcup The Daft said:

And then there is the other side of the argument to consider. Maybe we need an end-to end system that guarantees high fidelity audio.Maybe we need a guardian to make sure that what actually reaches our ears bears a resemblance to what was originally recorded - one of the problems with evaluating MQA is that the MQA encoded audio may be qualatitively different to that released to the mass market via CD. Maybe a well engineered end to end format can also ensure as a by product that things like USB transfer to a DAC work without special cables and other "magic".

 

We have that system - it's called a studio master. In many instances you can download it, either PCM or DSD (the latter many would argue is more friendly to the recording process). 

 

And MQA isn't a system that guarantees you that much FWIW. It is fundamentally limited by the spectral content in any chosen container format. If there is room for additional content, you get MQA magic. If there is not, so be it. You get changing filters at any rate. It is essentially a new kind of compression engine that allows a file container multiple levels of fidelity at output depending on how the output's treated. It is a mastering process with different compromises. I like that the compromises are not constant throughout, some might not.

 

On that, there is no technical reason Meridian needs to know what DAC chip you've got to write a full software decoder. That's BS to keep the format closed. It's just code irrespective of what it runs on. If the argument had significant merit we'd have Meridian also telling us that analogue stopped at our ears, not what leaves the DAC IC, so here's an MQA approved cable set/speakers/room/correction etc. But we don't see this. 

 

When Meridian gets real about what it is and does I'll happily pay a license fee for it. Or wait for an open-sourced version.

 

I would be reluctant to conflate issues like jitter etc with filtering, which is what MQA addresses best. High frequency content is arguably less susceptible to jitter whether MQA or not. 

 

13 minutes ago, Eggcup The Daft said:

Just possibly, the true genius of MQA is that someone is there saying "you're not putting that piece of **#$% in our format".

 

No, the genius is getting audiophiles to pay license fees for something the often already have with open-market equipment - the ability to play master-level music.

 

In some scenarios it's justified - streaming is such an example. For everything else - no. No offence to the post yesterday however comparing MQA to CD is laughable. We've had formats that do as much for years. MQA is just a different means of delivering the experience with it's own set of compromises. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, rmpfyf said:

Doubt this; OptimFROG isn't mega efficient when there's high spectral content (if anything it's comparable to FLAC

 

Really.   Do the experiments.   I have.  For 16 bit dithered 176k the difference was in one example 38.7 mb for optimfog compared to 58.2 mb for Flac.   That is just one example - Smoke Gets In Your Eyes created by Saracon.   I have done many such comparisons and the difference is usually that large.   It's often smaller than the FLAC MQA file - the bit stacking of MQA at 88.2 will likely make it smaller still.

 

Quote

MQA isn't a gamechanger per se. Just an enabler. Looking forwards to full software decoding.

 

Well first of all its not part of Meridian any more.  Secondly Warner Brothers and Universal have agreed to move their material to MQA, and Sony will likely follow soon.  The catalogue on Tidal is now over 1000 albums and increasing day by day.  You will get better quality by Tidal than your CD collection with at least as many titles (likely a lot more).  All for about $20.00 pm.  The question is entirely one of quality.   Normal CD quality on Tidal is average as I have verified many times with a number of Audiophiles - quite listenable but its quality is lower than ripped CD.   I personally don't bother with my CD collection any more - but that's just me - I am willing to put up with the loss of quality.   But MQA is the reverse - it easily accounts for ordinary CD's - once that reaches critical mass in terms of number of Tidal titles it's game over IMHO.  Better convenience and quality is really a no brainer - but we will see.

 

Thanks

Bill

 

 

Edited by bhobba
Link to comment
Share on other sites



12 hours ago, rmpfyf said:

Looking forwards to full software decoding.

 

I'm pessimistic this will ever happen, as it dilutes the drive towards licensed playback hardware .... and it also provides a method for anyone who adopts an MQA encoding recording platform  (eg. individual tracks in a studio immediately encoded with MQA) to "exit the walled garden" by simply hitting the "decode" button.

 

12 hours ago, rmpfyf said:

Because if Meridian's going to continue towing the 'it's an analogue-to-analogue process and the DAC must be characterised' BS, I'd rather keep my kit, buy carefully from HDTracks and live with a little extra hard disk space and research on mastering quality of a given recording I like.

 

The intention with MQA is that you will be missing out by going this route.

 

  • Higher quality (previously unreleased) versions of original recordings made available exclusively to MQA
  • Filtering to correct known issues with these recordings
  • In a way which is not undone by your playback hardware
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, rmpfyf said:

It'd be akin to CD being released without their being a Redbook standard for the world to follow. Or that there'd be a Redbook standard, but it offered lesser quality than what the format was capable of, with full performance being artificially restricted in the marketplace.

 

 

Indeed.    MQA say this is not DRM, however on inspection:

 

You must pay to receive full quality  (via license fees for hardware)

You cannot edit the audio (and continue to receive full quality)

MQA theoretically have the power to change the quality of the audio (or even render it unplayable)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rmpfyf said:

On that, there is no technical reason Meridian needs to know what DAC chip you've got to write a full software decoder. That's BS to keep the format closed. It's just code irrespective of what it runs on. If the argument had significant merit we'd have Meridian also telling us that analogue stopped at our ears, not what leaves the DAC IC, so here's an MQA approved cable set/speakers/room/correction etc. But we don't see this. 

 

Can you explain the technical reasons for that statement?  My analysis shows otherwise - its not likely to make a big difference but there is a reason to do with filters.   My background however is applied math, not signal processing although I do understand things like Shannon s'sampling theorem, the ringing of brick-wall filters etc etc.

 

Happy to post my view as well as my explanation of the technicalities behind MQA, but first why you say that has me puzzled.

 

Thanks

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many of the people who opine that MQA is only about DRM have actually listened to it. Until you have I don't think you can pass judgement.

 

I had a few grey-haired SNA members over yesterday to have a quick listen to MQA on Tidal. While it wasn't a very well organised comparison, we tested the same music from 4 different sources.

1. Tidal MQA undecoded through Roon (quality PSU Snakeoil server) playing back at 48/24.

2. Tidal MQA through a MacBook Air using the Tidal App that software decodes to 96/24. (Using a printer USB cable).

3. FLAC file through Roon (quality PSU Snakeoil server) playing back natively.

4. CD

 

The general consensus (we had a few beers so if I'm wrong please say so) was that 4 was clearly the best, then 2 followed by 3 followed by 1.

 

To get so close to CD quality from a MacBook Air and a printer cable was an eye-opener. I can't wait for Tidal MQA on Roon. That could easily give CD a fright.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, davewantsmoore said:

I'm pessimistic this will ever happen, as it dilutes the drive towards licensed playback hardware

 

So am I.   It may happen, but it will require knowledge of the DAC for full benefits.

 

Still I will say this - just 96k unfolding into a Direct Stream beat a Meridian Explorer 2 DAC doing full decoding.  But of course that's a $400.00 dac vs a $8k (if I remember correctly) one.  

 

The thing though was how close it got when using good quality cables - but that is for some other threads I will post.

 

Of to the Queeesland Audio Club meeting right now - if anyone else is going happy to discuss it further there.

 

Thanks

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites



4 minutes ago, a.dent said:

The general consensus (we had a few beers so if I'm wrong please say so) was that 4 was clearly the best, then 2 followed by 3 followed by 1.

 

That's similar to what we found at a similar one I was at yesterday.  MQA was clearly better - but we didn't test a normal CD - just a ripped CD.  However I have found ripped CD's to be better than actual ones on all except one really heavily tweaked transport in previous comparisons - but opinions vary without going into the details.

 

Thanks

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, bhobba said:

Really.   Do the experiments.   I have.  For 16 bit 176k the difference was in one example 38.7 mb for optimfog compared to 58.2 mb for Flac.   That is just one example - Smoke Gets In Your Eyes created by Saracon.   I have done many such comparisons and the difference is usually that large.   It's often smaller than the FLAC MQA file - the bit stacking of MQA at 88.2 will likely make it smaller still.

 

Done these many times Bill. It's as I suggested earlier - content-dependant. At any rate uptake isn't driven by this much, the main driver is availability. OptimFROG isn't that available, and it's predictor works well where spectral content is low/absent... which is precisely where MQA stuffs the additional content.

 

46 minutes ago, bhobba said:

Well first of all its not part of Meridian any more.  Secondly Warner Brothers and Universal have agreed to move their material to MQA, and Sony will likely follow soon.  The catalogue on Tidal is now over 1000 albums and increasing day by day.  You will get better quality by Tidal than your CD collection with at least as many titles (likely a lot more).  All for about $20.00 pm.  The question is entirely one of quality.   Normal CD quality on Tidal is average as I have verified many times with a number of Audiophiles - quite listenable but its quality is lower than ripped CD.   I personally don't bother with my CD collection any more - but that's just me - I am willing to put up with the loss of quality.   But MQA is the reverse - it easily accounts for ordinary CD's - once that reaches critical mass in terms of number of Tidal titles it's game over IMHO.  Better convenience and quality is really a no brainer - but we will see.

 

Bill, it is Meridian - this is where your license fees go.

 

I've no doubt that MQA has very strong potential as a streaming format. Mentioned this many times above.

 

What I don't buy is that even when streamed to get the most out of it you need special, closed-format hardware that gives Meridian yet another license fee. It's not just the notion of hold on, I already paid for this once but the freedom I once had to roll DACs at will left the building for a licensing reason. Which isn't a technical reason and shouldn't ever be a consideration for an audiophile. Or any sort of customer. Even Apple doesn't give a damn what you play iTunes content on, and that's a walled garden in the extreme. Meridian is taking the piss here. 

 

44 minutes ago, davewantsmoore said:

I'm pessimistic this will ever happen, as it dilutes the drive towards licensed playback hardware .... and it also provides a method for anyone who adopts an MQA encoding recording platform  (eg. individual tracks in a studio immediately encoded with MQA) to "exit the walled garden" by simply hitting the "decode" button.

 

I agree, though you'd think Meridian would be happy licensing a better set of mastering tools and streaming licenses to content providers. There's little need (and in the long run, little advantage) in having a license noose around customers too. That's not exactly an enabling approach. 

 

IMHO it's also an approach that renders MQA open to competition. The above renders it pretty much unable to become an ISO/IEC format, which leaves it a specialty thing.

 

20 minutes ago, bhobba said:

Can you explain the technical reasons for that statement?  My analysis shows otherwise - its not likely to make a big difference but there is a reason to do with filters.   My background however is applied math, not signal processing although I do understand things like Shannon s'sampling theorem, the ringing of brick-wall filters etc etc.

 

Sure - it's simple - filters can be applied in hardware or software. MQA is citing a need for licensed hardware. There are ways around this in software, or cheaper more open firmware, or whatnot. They simply won't allow as much.

 

15 minutes ago, a.dent said:

How many of the people who opine that MQA is only about DRM have actually listened to it.

 

I've listened to it. It's great at any comparative container format (e.g. 44.1 beats CD, 96kHz beats whatever usual PCM at 96khz). It doesn't beat a studio master/DSD because.... that's what it was designed to ape, and returns are ultimately diminishing. 

 

Not opinion it's only about DRM and I don't think anyone in this (long) thread has done so either. It's a very novel compression and mastering process well suited to both high-definition music and to streaming. It is also a form of DRM, uniquely so on software and hardware. Let's call it what it is.

 

15 minutes ago, a.dent said:

I can't wait for Tidal MQA on Roon. That could easily give CD a fright.

 

Let's get some perspective here: CDs are nearing 40 years old. If the format didn't exceed CD we'd be somewhat shocked. It shouldn't be considered frightening that MQA streamed gives CD 'a fright' - Redbook is a format not designed for streaming in any way and in a period where digital mastering tools were in their infancy.

 

I think it's terrific that MQA assesses potential from a mastering perspective, which is a further reach than most approaches for hi-def music. I think the potential for streaming's great. This still doesn't mean Meridian needs to enforce a walled garden around what hardware end customers buy, but they choose to.

 

These arguments around 'surprised how much it improved a really low grade system'... we're all aware that one of the primary compromises of a low-grade system is effective filtering, right? This isn't a surprise, and other formats do this too to varying degrees. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, davewantsmoore said:

 

I'm pessimistic this will ever happen, as it dilutes the drive towards licensed playback hardware .... and it also provides a method for anyone who adopts an MQA encoding recording platform  (eg. individual tracks in a studio immediately encoded with MQA) to "exit the walled garden" by simply hitting the "decode" button.

 

I have to be careful that I am responding to the thing that I think I am responding to...because I may be off target in my response...and I have not bothered to follow any of the MQA stuff to date...but I can stream Tidal at MQA bitrates with my non-MQA hardware now, as I assume others can already do so.  This is through XXHighEnd software.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, acg said:

I have to be careful that I am responding to the thing that I think I am responding to...because I may be off target in my response...and I have not bothered to follow any of the MQA stuff to date...but I can stream Tidal at MQA bitrates with my non-MQA hardware now, as I assume others can already do so.  This is through XXHighEnd software.

 

No you're right.

 

Just you can go even further in bitrate given the same source material with MQA-compliant hardware.

(There's the rub.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...
To Top