MQA Discussion

[Randy Myers]

This is an issue I have. Every time a new and improved comes out it requires repurchasing equipment that is functioning perfectly. And many times the previous formats go out of favor so fast that the consumer is left holding the bag. I assume we all recall how many various formats that these companies have came out with for music and video (and many that you probably don't remember, RCA vinyl video anyone). It definitely leaves you with the feeling of not wanting to jump on the latest fad unless it is truly backwards compatible. Meaning new equipment is not required...

And saying it is backwards compatible but at a lower grade is non-sense. Honestly I think these companies shoot themselves in the foot all the time, usually motivated by greed.

BTW- making a huge point about file size is a non-starter to me. Storage space is dirt cheap.... Yea it could make streaming a little easier, but again, to many of us we could not care. The more we tie ourselves to streaming online the more we give ISPs leverage to cap data usage and / or charge for extra (which is definitely what they are wanting and moving towards).

 

[wklie]

Every time a new and improved comes out it requires repurchasing equipment that is functioning perfectly.

That's life. And it's even worse for AV amplifier: Dolby Digital, DTS, TrueHD, DTS-HDMA, Dolby Atmos, DTS:X, and different HDMI versions and HDCP versions. My huge collection of DVD is already obsolete many years ago. Quickly Blu-ray will become obsolete by the new 4K Ultra Blu-ray.

 

[radioactive]

I hate to say this, but I feel like this will die like DVA-AUDIO -- at least MLP (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meridian_Lossless_Packing) found another home in compressing multichannel HD movie audio. Maybe MQA will be its replacement in that format? It seems to be well structured to provide for better reproduction of audio in space (air).

In order for this to fully work, the content providers need to fully adopt MQA and educate everyone, which can be difficult. I mean, look how long the AS article took to explain the technology.

The only cases where I see MQA actually improving things are in the case of non-digital masters and new masters created in MQA. But here's where everyone is going to be confused. If a studio reencodes their PCM masters with MQA the little light will show up saying it's MQA. In reality it's just reencoded PCM. And it's actually bizarro world where audiophiles really are looking for analog masters (or new MQA masters), not the digital reencodes. Further, in this case MQA creators are making a lot of work for nothing when all they really need to do is handle all their encoding wizardry in the DAC and not make studios (and owners of CD's, etc.) re-encode all their files (which it supposedly does to some extent, but not as well if the original master were remastered in MQA for some strange reason -- enlighten me please as I don't get this part, maybe it's a processing power issue).

Don't get me wrong, I want a better option than PCM/DSD that is a digital format. MQA does promise a real analog-like sound from digital in some cases, just not all.

That's life. And it's even worse for AV amplifier: Dolby Digital, DTS, TrueHD, DTS-HDMA, Dolby Atmos, DTS:X, and different HDMI versions and HDCP versions. My huge collection of DVD is already obsolete many years ago. Quickly Blu-ray will become obsolete by the new 4K Ultra Blu-ray.

 

[still-one]

I read all the responses here and it appears that hardly anyone took the time to actually read all of the questions and answers in the ComputerAudiophile link. Many of the concerns brought up here are addressed in the Q&A. I was just trying to lead you to the water, you don't have to drink the Kool-Aid.

It isn't like Mike and I are sold on MQA yet. The demo's I heard was a mixed bag of the best sound I have ever heard to other tracks that were ho-hum. (I think that is Mike's position too) I will have my 808 updated to v6 when I go on vacation next month. I hope there will be new MQA content released soon but that problem already exists with the crappy Hi-Rez and DSD offerings we plow through. As someone has posted new content would be a nice start and not just regurgitating back catalogs again.

 

[Mike]

Agreed Jim. You nailed it. The Elvis, Frank Sinatra and an assortment of other albums were amazing. A few other were ho-hum. But what we have is a very promising new format. We should be cheering them on and getting behind the movement for better digital sound.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Randy Myers]

I have read the Q&A. It sounds a lot like a politician in that many of the answers are sort of given but an opening in there for a different interpretation. For example, the question about if decoding in both software and hardware were required, or if either one would do the trick on their own. He sort of kind of implied that a software player would do the trick without need of hardware upgrades. In other words, although not expressly stated but it was implied that a software player like Roon would be able to take full advantage of MQA, but then later in his response he sort of kind of back tracked. The Q&A was full of this kind of stuff just like TAS article was.

 

[wklie]

So, I have heard that Roon is compatible. Ok, cool, but is this all that is needed or is this only one part of the equation? Will special DACs also be needed?

I check the latest status on Roon forum, it appears that the hope for Roon to be able to make a non-MQA DAC to playback at MQA quality is not happening yet:

Andrew Cox Community: Moderator
Feb 18


I appreciate that an absence of news is leading to speculation. There is a blank canvas regarding software decoding and we all want to see it filled.

The Roon devs are both likely to be bound by non-disclosure agreements and engaged in continuing sensitive commercial negotiations. They have said that they will announce something as soon as they are able to do so. So far they have not announced that arrangements or discussions are at an end.

Until an announcement can be made, we have no option but to wait.

 

[Randy Myers]

Well at least they are looking at it. The point is with the lifetime subscription you would hope and believe that they will work on adding in all new technology ....

 

[radioactive]

"Lifetime Subscription"...ha! Like that means anything. Take a look at what Nest did to Revolv and you can see where greed comes in and replaces marketing speak that can at anytime be changed to suit the creators.

Another issue pointed out by the potential support of Roon is that MQA is a closed format, so it's not going to be widely adopted or available/supported in those apps/systems that don't license the tech (unless they basically give it away).

Well at least they are looking at it. The point is with the lifetime subscription you would hope and believe that they will work on adding in all new technology ....

 

[rbbert]

Nothing I read anywhere suggests this is anything other than proprietary encoded PCM? Why not make available non-proprietary encoded PCM? How do the labels benefit from having another rights holder in-between them and the consumer?

 

[CPP]

Nothing I read anywhere suggests this is anything other than proprietary encoded PCM? Why not make available non-proprietary encoded PCM? How do the labels benefit from having another rights holder in-between them and the consumer?

Anyone remember HDCD how did that do. Wow lost my internet connection there. Anyway I wonder how much music will be re configured for MQA, will it be Rock, Jazz, Blues which I happen to enjoy. From what I read from Stuart notes, that's up to the labels. MQA has been on the table for a while now, and only 2 DACs ( Mytek Brooklyn and Meridian Explorer[SUP]2[/SUP] ) are certified . And from what I read sure with the Software MQA gives you better than Redbook, but the certified DAC gives you a lot more. For me its a wait a see game. What music is available that I actually enjoy and will the record labels get on board and can there be a software player that can do what a certified dac can do and the listener can get the full benefit of MQA.. I know one thing I'm not going to buy another dac just to listen to a format with few songs available that I enjoy.

 

[rbbert]

HDCD is still around, and at the time it was introduced there was no other hires digital format available to consumers. That is no longer true, and it does seem to me (still, as has been the case from MQA's original announcement) that this is primarily a streaming technology rather than a new, useful format to have for one's own collection. I'm not sure why Bob Stuart mentions selling it on DVD's or Blurays, instead of or in addition to what we have now (except to make Meridian more money at our expense).

 

[CPP]

HDCD is still around, and at the time it was introduced there was no other hires digital format available to consumers. That is no longer true, and it does seem to me (still, as has been the case from MQA's original announcement) that this is primarily a streaming technology rather than a new, useful format to have for one's own collection. I'm not sure why Bob Stuart mentions selling it on DVD's or Blurays, instead of or in addition to what we have now (except to make Meridian more money at our expense).

Yep I bought into that HDCD deal when it came out. I have about 8 titles

 

[rbbert]

Yep I bought into that HDCD deal when it came out. I have about 8 titles

You may have more than that. There are hundreds of HDCD's that are not labelled as HDCD and don't utilize Peak Extend. The best sounding Neil Young and Joni Mitchell CD's are HDCD, all Grateful Dead CD's are HDCD, etc.

Still doesn't answer the MQA question, though...

 

[LenWhite]

According to the AS article (pgs. 76-77) regarding new material, MQA can "take the listener one step further back in the chain to the signal before the master recording". RH compared a Peter McGrath original recording in 88.2kHz/24-bit vs. an MQA version, RH states the latter was much better in terms of timbre, dimensionality, differentiating individual instruments, and emotion.

RH also asked MQA to encode a file containing one of his 1988 DAT recordings (44.1/16-bit), providing the A/D converter information used to make the original recording. RH states his comparison of his original file to the MQA file, the MQA version had improved instrumental timbre, dynamic attack, specific location, air and bloom, resolution, and soundstage dimensionality. Other recording professional testimonials are included in the article.

Of course the thought crosses my mind this is just another industry manipulation to sell more audio equipment and recordings. And I would certainly prefer my current DAC be upgradeable via firmware rather than buying both new hardware and software.

But for me to buy into MQA, the process will have to easily demonstrate dramatically improved playback on recordings, demonstrate that other formats (e.g.; PCM) won't piggyback on MQA labeled products such as they have with SACD "DSD", and MQA recordings must become ubiquitous unlike SACD's. And since MQA is proprietary, licensing fees may seriously curtail recording companies from using this process, similar to Sony's DSD fees.

I bought into the SACD phenomenon and have lots of discs. It reaffirmed the recording and mastering process are more important than the format. While native DSD and hirez PCM recordings arguably have brought sonic improvements, it's a mixed bag.

Perhaps if MQA is made available to all recording studios and artists, is easy to use, and affordable, I can see it may be successful. Somehow the industry is going to have to demonstrate they're really on-board with creating high quality, high resolution audio recordings. Maybe MQA is the answer, time will tell.

 

[rbbert]

My original question remains unanswered. As per Bob Stuart, MQA is basically a "lossless" (but not really) compression scheme for PCM audio. If it sounds better than a hires PCM audio file, there is something else going on. And since it is not really lossless compression, why can't we get the true lossless PCM files instead??

 

[Mike]

My original question remains unanswered. As per Bob Stuart, MQA is basically a "lossless" (but not really) compression scheme for PCM audio. If it sounds better than a hires PCM audio file, there is something else going on. And since it is not really lossless compression, why can't we get the true lossless PCM files instead??

It is a lossless PCM file, but the PCM file has had filters applied to it to correct for imperfections during the recording process. For example, they know if there are flaws with a certain mixing board used or a certain microphone used or an early (crappy) A to D converter and more. The MQA filters can "fix" these flaws for a more perfect recording which they argue more accurately reflects the performance of when it was recorded.

The best way to think of MQA, is this:

MQA has two parts: the first part is filters applied to the music to "correct" for recording imperfections or as Meridian calls it, "flaws" (as mentioned above). The second part of MQA is what I call the "zip". Like ZIPPING a bunch of files to send them over the internet, MQA "zips" the music so large lossless files can be transmitted over the internet (streaming via Tidal) and the DAC on the other end "unzips" those files.

 

[rbbert]

2 comments, Mike. First, the original MQA white paper (now gone from their web site, apparently) said the compression scheme did "throw away" audibly unimportant bits, so that the original PCM file can't be reconstructed from the MQA file. Second, my question remains unanswered; why can't we be sold the original PCM file from which the MQA file is made?

 

[mep]

2 comments, Mike. First, the original MQA white paper (now gone from their web site, apparently) said the compression scheme did "throw away" audibly unimportant bits,

That's true. The argument is that at the sampling frequency being used, there is nothing of musical interest to hear and it's OK if they throw it away.

Second, my question remains unanswered; why can't we be sold the original PCM file from which the MQA file is made?

Who says you aren't being sold the same file? If you are buying a hi-rez file from a reputable source, it probably is the same file that MQA starts out with before they start their manipulations based on the converters being used in the original recording and tossing out anything that was recorded above their high frequency cut off point.

 

[rbbert]

...Who says you aren't being sold the same file? If you are buying a hi-rez file from a reputable source, it probably is the same file that MQA starts out with before they start their manipulations based on the converters being used in the original recording and tossing out anything that was recorded above their high frequency cut off point.

i am making this assumption based on what are now numerous opinions from audio journalists and internet posters that MQA sounds "better". And since as Mike says (also stated by Bob Stuart) the MQA process starts with the filtered PCM file before the compression, that filtered PCM file could also be sold.