MQA Discussion

rbbert said:
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.
Click to expand...

If it truly sounds better, it's because of the MQA jigger pookey and their D/A converters. If you don't believe that MQA files can sound better than the uncompressed hi-rez files, buy the hi-rez files and be happy. If you want to know the truth for yourself, you will need to buy a Meridian MQA D/A converter and download some MQA files for which you have the uncompressed hi rez files.
 
Yes, I agree with the first part. What I want to know is why do we have to assume their lossy compression is inaudible (remember MP3 and OggVorbis?) Why not have the best of both worlds; their filtering algorithm along with lossless compression?
 
rbbert said:
Yes, I agree with the first part. What I want to know is why do we have to assume their lossy compression is inaudible (remember MP3 and OggVorbis?) Why not have the best of both worlds; their filtering algorithm along with lossless compression?
Click to expand...

Because you can't have your cake and eat it too with MQA. You either believe everyone who has listened to MQA and dubbed it the greatest thing since sliced digital white bread is telling you the truth or you don't. The MQA filtering algorithm is based on the fact they are cutting off high frequencies above a certain sampling rate. MQA is being sold as both a better sounding alternative to hi rez digital plus it is streamable without taking up huge amounts of bandwidth. If I gave you a great recipe for a dish that you loved and it contained 3 key ingredients, do you think you could elect to throw out 1 of the 3 key ingredients and expect your version to taste like mine?
 
Then there is a corollary to my question; is cutting off the high-frequencies a positive or a negative? I'd still like to have the option of those filters that are supposed to correct the deficiencies in the original ADC without the lossy compression scheme; wouldn't you, or are you completely non-digital now (as apparently are quite a few posters over at WBF)?
 
You're somewhat right, but let's be fair. According to what's been revealed about the technology behind MQA, it actually applies better math on the age-old problem of how to create filters in frequency bands and not have it impact phase and rate. Because a lot of smart people have done a lot of math to solve somewhat-germane issues, we have a better understanding of how sound travels not-in-a-vacuum (friction, etc.). Because MQA is an encoding scheme, it can digitize analog signals directly at the recording site. Each track can be digitally woven to the others and gain matched, and we can get a better representation of the analog signal without having to use the standard baseband signal used as a sampling rate, etc. in PCM. (Lots of mumbo-jumbo later)... we get better phase, smaller files because we now don't need to actually capture as much as we did in the past, and we also get a better sound output. So it's another rights holder, middle-man, what-have-you, when it is applied to existing PCM/DSD data and in this case is just a re-encoding of the master though it does give us a new flashy light :D

I'm not on one side or the other. I believe that open standards are better for everyone and allow for others to take the baton and run with existing open-rights IP and improve on them in ways that just don't happen in a closed-rights system holding technology. Case-in-point, if FLAC were not an "open-standard", then Bob and Peter wouldn't have been able to store MQA "on top of" regular FLAC files and put MQA encoded files into the FLAC format.

If Bob Stuart and Peter Craven and his odd company, "Algol Applications, Ltd" have managed to produce something on their own dime that's truly greatness, then this would be great for now. Long-term, it doesn't do much to help the industry build upon the technology they have built. Sure, they will license it and may make it available at super cheap rates in order to get wide adoption, but not just anyone will be permitted to improve on their design other than those they allow.

rbbert said:
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?
Click to expand...
 
rbbert said:
Then there is a corollary to my question; is cutting off the high-frequencies a positive or a negative? I'd still like to have the option of those filters that are supposed to correct the deficiencies in the original ADC without the lossy compression scheme; wouldn't you, or are you completely non-digital now (as apparently are quite a few posters over at WBF)?
Click to expand...

Rob-I don't think the MQA process will work without the lossy compression scheme. You are basically asking for a new variant of their process. And no, I'm not completely non-digital. I still love my DSD files. I would love to review an MQA converter with a hard drive full of MQA files so I could hear what they have wrought.
 
rbbert said:
I wonder how much software exists at this time?
Click to expand...

http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2016/04/the-mqa-revolution-brother-you-have-to-wait-and-see/
Predictably, 2L offers its entire catalogue as MQA-encoded files; 130ish titles. Over at Onkyo Music we count 12 MQA albums. Yours for 16GBP a pop. Over at 7Digital, a single MQA album by one Amy Duncan (who?). At Technics Tracks we’re offered 15 x MQA albums for credit card purchase.
Click to expand...

And hopefully Tidal in the future.
 
Another believer...someone should tell Kurt Lassen that light making him happy is also known as operant conditioning ;)

That said, SS's Absolute Sound article (http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/steven-stones-2016-axpona-show-report) resonated when he mentioned that there is a concern about the provenance of hi-rez audio these days. I often purchase something from HDTracks or on of the other sites and listen and ask myself if what I'm hearing isn't just upsampled Redbook. Quite often it doesn't sound better than the redbook on my Debussy at least. There are cases where I'm blown away (mostly by DSD though). The Brooklyn DAC looks interesting in that it supports MQA and is new-ish & relatively cheap (I can't believe I'm calling $2K relatively cheap), but all the same it's interesting.



Mike said:
http://www.monoandstereo.com/2016/04/meridian-explorer-2-and-mqa-review.html
Click to expand...
 
I discussed the AS MQA articles at length with an audiophile friend this weekend.

The marketing idea to promote MQA as the primary (only) delivery system for music is clearly smart. Perhaps if Sony had marketed hybrid SACD's as the single primary delivery music system and priced them as RBCD's, it may have become a mainstream rather than a niche product. But greed creeped into the equation.

But for sometime now Itunes, Tidal, Spotify and others have proven the masses mainly respond to cheap and portable low resolution music.

Recording producers may be drawn to the idea of a ubiquitous more mature single low bit rate recording system producing flac files with upgradeable SQ hardware options. But unless MQA can reduce current low resolution production and distribution costs, existing low resolution file formats are likely to remain preeminent.

The licensing fees for technology required to carry MQA encoded music would surely be passed on to all music consumers of this new single format. That's a major deterrent to MQA flac files becoming the defacto standard.

MQA will likely appeal only to those of us interested in pursuing the best SQ. So we're really discussing yet another niche product designed to sell new hardware and software. Are we really going to replace our existing DAC's, DSD and PCM digital files, and SACD's, with yet another album?
 
LenWhite said:
MQA will likely appeal only to those of us interested in pursuing the best SQ. So we're really discussing yet another niche product designed to sell new hardware and software. Are we really going to replace our existing DAC's, DSD and PCM digital files, and SACD's, with yet another album?
Click to expand...

Why would we replace all of our existing files with MQA files. We didn't do that when the first hi-rez files came out, we didn't do that when DSD files began showing up on some sites. MQA will just be another option for improved SQ for us to choose from.

I am hoping that Tidal does come thru and provide MQA titles for us to hear. My CD purchases have been cut by over half due to Tidal's quality. I no longer purchase those marginal discs. I just "add" them to my library and if I find they are keepers, I go out and purchase the CD.
 
still-one said:
Why would we replace all of our existing files with MQA files. We didn't do that when the first hi-rez files came out, we didn't do that when DSD files began showing up on some sites. MQA will just be another option for improved SQ for us to choose from.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with your statement above. I think many audiophiles will feel compelled to rebuy music they already have for the same reason they did with DSD and PCM discs and digital downloads; for the improved SQ. It's very likely many audiophiles have several copies of Miles Davis: Kind of Blue for instance.

I also think the intention of MQA is to replace the other hirez DSD and PCM formats we now have; not augment them.
 
I guess it is debatable about the improved sound quality. So far from what I am seeing, reading all the reports here and in The Absolute Sound it appears as if the possible improvement are dependent on having the right equipment, etc. I don't know about you, but I am going to guess that a vast majority of the potential people who might re-buy music will not be able to afford the Meridian level equipment. I mean $22k + for a CD player DAC.... really....

So therein lies the possible path ahead. If they are smart and generous with licensing, and try to get many/most other possible companies in then it might have a chance. If they pull the typical Sony type of move and hold it to themselves (without having the Sony type power) then it will go down in flames...
 
Randy Myers said:
I guess it is debatable about the improved sound quality. So far from what I am seeing, reading all the reports here and in The Absolute Sound it appears as if the possible improvement are dependent on having the right equipment, etc. I don't know about you, but I am going to guess that a vast majority of the potential people who might re-buy music will not be able to afford the Meridian level equipment. I mean $22k + for a CD player DAC.... really....

So therein lies the possible path ahead. If they are smart and generous with licensing, and try to get many/most other possible companies in then it might have a chance. If they pull the typical Sony type of move and hold it to themselves (without having the Sony type power) then it will go down in flames...
Click to expand...

Randy those potential people who might re-buy music instead of buying Meridian equipment for $22k, they just might purchase a Meridian Explorer2 USB DAC which supports MQA for $300.00 to get the MQA benefit of the music which they like.
 
From reading up on the Explorer2 it does not sound like it is nearly as good for other formats as the DACs that people probably already own. It also sounds like it is fairly minimal as MQA. Therefore the potential of experiencing MQA at the level as is described in The Absolute Sound article would require equipment of higher level. Otherwise you would be getting a cut back MQA which I doubt would be as good as a well done DSD. Therefore, getting many other companies on board, hopefully with hardware and software solutions will be critical to truly make MQA reach it's potential.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top