AudioCircle
Audio/Video Gear and Systems => Owner's Circles => Digital Amplifier Company Owners => Topic started by: AmpDesigner333 on 16 Jan 2017, 07:38 pm
-
We've been receiving questions about MQA recently, so I'd like to address this "new" CODEC. I'll start out with simple "truths"....
MQA is just a CODEC (code-decode). It's an algorithm, a.k.a. "software". It's a "lossy" format, meaning compressed, like MP3. It's purpose is to conserve transmission bandwidth - which is less of an issue every day.
The device (PC, streamer, transport, etc.) that drives your DAC runs software that decodes various formats and passes them along or converts them to some other format. Ultimately, there's a hardware connection to transport the data to your DAC. The stream being transported is typically PCM or DSD. The "transport connection" is typically USB or SPDIF.
In the case of a PC streaming MQA, the data can be passed along to the DAC or decoded by the PC and converted to a "usable format" for your DAC. This means your DAC doesn't need to support MQA for you to listen to MQA.
Let's take JRiver for example. JRiver plays files (or streams), and can convert just about anything to PCM.
So, whatever you use to playback audio files or stream audio should provide a way to convert to PCM.
Here's the "controversial stuff".... MQA is yet another "new" standard in the search of license fees, and many manufacturers are rejecting it. There's just a lot of hype surrounding it currently, possibly due to lack of other industry news.
IMHO, Lossless high rate, high resolution PCM (not DSD, as I have discussed in other threads) remains the highest quality audio.
The DAC DAC excels at reproducing a super clean signal, uncompressed. It takes PCM data up to 192kHz/24-bit.
Just thought I'd get the ball rolling on this subject. More later, but please feel free to comment, but let's stick to facts, please....
- Tommy O
-
Thanks for clarifying, good post.
-
You should watch this video to find out more info on MQA. Real info, not pre-release stuff. The goal was to produce a digital process that added no more distortion than a meter of air would. Go to the 30 minute point to start - https://www.facebook.com/AESmontreal/videos/1174201429344035/
-
You should watch this video to find out more info on MQA. Real info, not pre-release stuff. The goal was to produce a digital process that added no more distortion than a meter of air would. Go to the 30 minute point to start - https://www.facebook.com/AESmontreal/videos/1174201429344035/
I was about an hour in when I had to take a break. I did skip forward after that. That is one looooong winded low detail video (audio was not so great). Definitely not geared toward a skilled electrical design engineer. I'll stick to technical.... It's a compression algorithm. It's being pushed very hard, and the bottom line is that the bandwidth issue is not in the future. Maybe for Dr Dre's headphones.... If I want to play 192/24 content, I play it, and MQA can't beat it. I'll treat it the same as DSD. Convert to high rate PCM and enjoy (: The 56k modem guys may disagree. Thanks for your post.
-
Still say you missed an opportunity !
The guys over at ComputerAudio forum disagree with you !
So yes i enjoy first step MQA unfolding on your Dac .. But would like to get all 3 steps ie : a MQA dac
I mean is going to be included in most DAC chips moving forward .. so hopefully you will be offering us an upgrade path ?
And i'm told the MQA chip wont cost an arm or a leg
Looking forward to the day you advise us the good news.
Take your engineering hat off and just listen .. Tidal Masters is great with no up $ charges .
The only debate on ComputerAudio form revolves around MQA and the DRM issue is or isnt it ..
This is a great opportunity for you to sell more DAc Dac's .. just do it for F sakes
-
Still say you missed an opportunity !
The guys over at ComputerAudio forum disagree with you !
So yes i enjoy first step MQA unfolding on your Dac .. But would like to get all 3 steps ie : a MQA dac
I mean is going to be included in most DAC chips moving forward .. so hopefully you will be offering us an upgrade path ?
And i'm told the MQA chip wont cost an arm or a leg
Looking forward to the day you advise us the good news.
Take your engineering hat off and just listen .. Tidal Masters is great with no up $ charges .
The only debate on ComputerAudio form revolves around MQA and the DRM issue is or isnt it ..
This is a great opportunity for you to sell more DAc Dac's .. just do it for F sakes
Thanks for your post. Wearing "business hat".... All this reminds me of Dolby Labs back in the 1990s. Now THERE'S a company that did licensing right, with their hands in the pockets of the studios, equipment companies, theaters, chip makers, and video game producers.... They did this by being the standard on DVD. Then years later, DTS comes around, tail between their legs, with an obviously better format, and cried (well, technically not crying, it sure seemed like that) until they would up on Blu-Ray.... Feels neat taking off the engineering hat.... Well, engineering drives all this, so I'll look into the cost involved, but adding hardware for something that obviously can be done in software is just inefficient and feels like I should be reading a ransom note rather than a licensing agreement. By the way, I worked in HD Radio for years, and I'm surprised they "survived" but very similar issues there. The lack of customer demand made it necessary to convince radio stations to buy transmitting equipment so they are "stuck holding the ball", forced to pick up the marketing on their end. There was even the promise of a future power increase (if you have HD Radio, you'll know why this is important) that never happened, so it was like, "someday your radio won't be annoying". I cound go on and on....
-
Hi Tommy
LOL .. well not a ransom note , just disappointment .
So I've got your dac upfor sale now as this whole MQA / Tidal masters streaming thing got me into a Back to basics mode ., bought a high end Turntable/ cartridge combo for the first time and BAM Holly vinyl Batman !! .. I'm like a kid in a candy store .. Hooked on Vinyl .. where the Hell have my ears been ?
-
Prediction: After some other (not Tidal) streaming service offers lossless high-res content, MQA will be obsolete. Modern data rates can easily handle it, and no special hardware or license fees jacking up the D/A price. We shall see....
-
So DSD is also a lossy format? No need for a lengthy answer if a link will point me to some straight poop.
Also if PCM is the one true lossless format then how high is the current sampling rate that the technology supports?
Thanks.
JakeJ
-
So DSD is also a lossy format? No need for a lengthy answer if a link will point me to some straight poop.
Also if PCM is the one true lossless format then how high is the current sampling rate that the technology supports?
Thanks.
JakeJ
DSD is a different modulation method (PDM) where the data represents either full scale positive or full scale negative. High state (1) is positive and low state (0) is negative. Averaging is used to "reconstruct" the audio. 1xDSD has an effective resolution of 6 bits (!) at 20kHz.
Here's some PDM info:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse-density_modulation
When "working" on DSD data (volume, filtering, etc.), it is converted to PCM.
Thanks.
-
Thank you, Tommy.
-
Tommy-- I wasn't familiar with your company, but I saw your sensible comments on MQA, and now I'm interested. I agree with all your points.
MQA reminds me very much of HDCD. The audio press was agog over it. It was the future of digital audio. It was amazing. Today, with Pacific Microsonics out of business, HDCD is almost impossible to decode properly, and people are beginning to notice the flaws when playing back un-decoded HDCD. And, of course, we now have higher-rate (and better mastered) digital content.
The last thing high-end audio needs is another proprietary codec.
-
Interesting Andreas Koch "self interview" regarding MQA on PFO:
http://positive-feedback.com/audio-discourse/questions-answers-mqa-interview-andreas-koch/
"Most importantly, our scheme does not solve any problem that the world currently has right now...."
-
If you've not seen this, its worth taking a quick look at;
http://schiit.com/news/news/why-we-wont-be-supporting-mqa
-
Tommy-- I wasn't familiar with your company, but I saw your sensible comments on MQA, and now I'm interested. I agree with all your points.
MQA reminds me very much of HDCD. The audio press was agog over it. It was the future of digital audio. It was amazing. Today, with Pacific Microsonics out of business, HDCD is almost impossible to decode properly, and people are beginning to notice the flaws when playing back un-decoded HDCD. And, of course, we now have higher-rate (and better mastered) digital content.
The last thing high-end audio needs is another proprietary codec.
MQA is not like HDCD. When HDCD was introduced, there were no commercial hi-res digital formats, and it offered potential to improve on CD audio (which was all there was iin 1995). Here in 2017 we have DSD (up to DSD 256 in recording and 512 iin playback), PCM up to 24/352.8, and fairly common (in Europe, less so in USA) internet streaming speed of 8+ MB/sec. There is absolutely no need for MQA, except for record companies to try another DRM scheme and also to try to get us to buy the same old albums for the umpteenth time in a "new, better" format
-
... There is absolutely no need for MQA, except for record companies to try another DRM scheme and also to try to get us to buy the same old albums for the umpteenth time in a "new, better" format
With all due respect I couldn't disagree with this statement more. The benefit that MQA clearly provides is for streaming, and current users of Tidal's HiFi service are able to benefit from it at no additional cost to their current subscriptions. Some may not be interested in streaming and that's fine, but it doesn't mean that there's no benefit to others that should be overlooked. In my opinion some of the MQA opponents need to take off their blinders, but I understand that it's not for everyone.
-
With all due respect I couldn't disagree with this statement more. The benefit that MQA clearly provides is for streaming, and current users of Tidal's HiFi service are able to benefit from it at no additional cost to their current subscriptions. Some may not be interested in streaming and that's fine, but it doesn't mean that there's no benefit to others that should be overlooked. In my opinion some of the MQA opponents need to take off their blinders, but I understand that it's not for everyone.
Why not just stream hi-res? Oh, that's right, then there would be no license fee. Blinders off. Mic dropped.
-
With all due respect I couldn't disagree with this statement more. The benefit that MQA clearly provides is for streaming, and current users of Tidal's HiFi service are able to benefit from it at no additional cost to their current subscriptions. Some may not be interested in streaming and that's fine, but it doesn't mean that there's no benefit to others that should be overlooked. In my opinion some of the MQA opponents need to take off their blinders, but I understand that it's not for everyone.
The only need for compression in streaming is to save bandwidth.
And that is becoming less and less of an issues as high-speed internet is ubiquitous.
So why MQA over MP3?
What benefit does MQA have compared to MP3?
-
MQA certainly sounds better than MP3, even (almost?) always better than CD, but that's not the point. For hundreds of millions of potential listeners (and more every year if not every month), there is more than enough bandwidth available to stream 24/192 FLAC, which is my point about there being no need for MQA (for the consumer).
-
Wouldn't accessing high resolution files cost the streaming companies more than what they pay for 16/44.1 content and then result in higher prices to end users? I would certainly think so, but you guys appear to have all the answers so I'll kindly step aside and let you continue to impress your target audience with your mic dropping performances. Good listening to all and enjoy the tunes in whatever formats you prefer!
-
Wouldn't accessing high resolution files cost the streaming companies more than what they pay for 16/44.1 content and then result in higher prices to end users? I would certainly think so, but you guys appear to have all the answers so I'll kindly step aside and let you continue to impress your target audience with your mic dropping performances. Good listening to all and enjoy the tunes in whatever formats you prefer!
I'm quite sure MQA isn't free to the distributors, and in fact where you can find MQA downloads for sale they cost a little bit more than the more traditional hi-res for the same album
-
Our new Kickstarter:
http://kck.st/2p77yos
What's available as rewards:
- DAC DAC
- MEGAschino (our new amp)
- Linear Maraschino power supplies (for ILM, DTM, STM)
- USB to SPDIF converter
-
We've been receiving questions about MQA recently, so I'd like to address this "new" CODEC. I'll start out with simple "truths"....
MQA is just a CODEC (code-decode). It's an algorithm, a.k.a. "software". It's a "lossy" format, meaning compressed, like MP3. It's purpose is to conserve transmission bandwidth - which is less of an issue every day.
The device (PC, streamer, transport, etc.) that drives your DAC runs software that decodes various formats and passes them along or converts them to some other format. Ultimately, there's a hardware connection to transport the data to your DAC. The stream being transported is typically PCM or DSD. The "transport connection" is typically USB or SPDIF.
In the case of a PC streaming MQA, the data can be passed along to the DAC or decoded by the PC and converted to a "usable format" for your DAC. This means your DAC doesn't need to support MQA for you to listen to MQA.
Let's take JRiver for example. JRiver plays files (or streams), and can convert just about anything to PCM.
So, whatever you use to playback audio files or stream audio should provide a way to convert to PCM.
Here's the "controversial stuff".... MQA is yet another "new" standard in the search of license fees, and many manufacturers are rejecting it. There's just a lot of hype surrounding it currently, possibly due to lack of other industry news.
IMHO, Lossless high rate, high resolution PCM (not DSD, as I have discussed in other threads) remains the highest quality audio.
The DAC DAC excels at reproducing a super clean signal, uncompressed. It takes PCM data up to 192kHz/24-bit.
Just thought I'd get the ball rolling on this subject. More later, but please feel free to comment, but let's stick to facts, please....
- Tommy O
Please post a link to a lossless high rate high resolution PCM track you like. My issue is those tracks cost $$$ while I had 10000+ MQA tracks dropped on Tidal and I REALLY like them... a lot. If i listen to MQA for a while and then play a non MQA track it is like fingers on a chalk board. If i never heard MQA I would not miss it but now that I have I want more. If the type of recordings you prefer are worth it and the selection is available I'll bite.
-
Thanks for your post. Wearing "business hat".... All this reminds me of Dolby Labs back in the 1990s. Now THERE'S a company that did licensing right, with their hands in the pockets of the studios, equipment companies, theaters, chip makers, and video game producers.... They did this by being the standard on DVD. Then years later, DTS comes around, tail between their legs, with an obviously better format, and cried (well, technically not crying, it sure seemed like that) until they would up on Blu-Ray.... Feels neat taking off the engineering hat.... Well, engineering drives all this, so I'll look into the cost involved, but adding hardware for something that obviously can be done in software is just inefficient and feels like I should be reading a ransom note rather than a licensing agreement. By the way, I worked in HD Radio for years, and I'm surprised they "survived" but very similar issues there. The lack of customer demand made it necessary to convince radio stations to buy transmitting equipment so they are "stuck holding the ball", forced to pick up the marketing on their end. There was even the promise of a future power increase (if you have HD Radio, you'll know why this is important) that never happened, so it was like, "someday your radio won't be annoying". I cound go on and on....
THX was another company that did licensing right and my hats off to Dolby too. How in the world did DTS take Blue Ray away from them for the most part?
-
Please post a link to a lossless high rate high resolution PCM track you like. My issue is those tracks cost $$$ while I had 10000+ MQA tracks dropped on Tidal and I REALLY like them... a lot. If i listen to MQA for a while and then play a non MQA track it is like fingers on a chalk board. If i never heard MQA I would not miss it but now that I have I want more. If the type of recordings you prefer are worth it and the selection is available I'll bite.
I suggest ripping a track that you like from Redbook CD and playing it through a different (well respected) DAC. Compare that to the "same" recording via MQA. DAC DAC HS recommended for the non-MQA, of course, to assure the cleanest signal. This eliminates the possibility that non-MQA is purposely handicapped to give MQA an advantage. However, this also gives the non-MQA version a disadvantage since it's not high-res. To avoid this issue, just get something from HD Tracks in high-res (96/24 recommended, since MQA starts with that format, 192/24 would be cheating). I don't have any rights-free content worth publishing for this test, plus it's best to compare the same track, even though the MQA one is possibly re-mastered, giving it an advantage.
The other thing is, theoretically, a high res track in lossless format will not be compressed in any way post-master, but the MQA version will be compressed, so the comparison may not be all that valuable. It also might vary greatly based on the track or tracks you pick to compare. There are tricks one can play pre-encoding that will make a track sound better in one version, and there's no way to know if that kind of bias was inserted. This was a "thing" back in the days of DCC. Does anyone remember DCC?
The only really fair test is to use an MQA encoder and start with the same base file, but they won't let you do that (:
Thanks for your kind post.
-Tommy
-
I suggest ripping a track that you like from Redbook CD and playing it through a different (well respected) DAC. Compare that to the "same" recording via MQA. DAC DAC HS recommended for the non-MQA, of course, to assure the cleanest signal. This eliminates the possibility that non-MQA is purposely handicapped to give MQA an advantage. However, this also gives the non-MQA version a disadvantage since it's not high-res. To avoid this issue, just get something from HD Tracks in high-res (96/24 recommended, since MQA starts with that format, 192/24 would be cheating). I don't have any rights-free content worth publishing for this test, plus it's best to compare the same track, even though the MQA one is possibly re-mastered, giving it an advantage.
The other thing is, theoretically, a high res track in lossless format will not be compressed in any way post-master, but the MQA version will be compressed, so the comparison may not be all that valuable. It also might vary greatly based on the track or tracks you pick to compare. There are tricks one can play pre-encoding that will make a track sound better in one version, and there's no way to know if that kind of bias was inserted. This was a "thing" back in the days of DCC. Does anyone remember DCC?
The only really fair test is to use an MQA encoder and start with the same base file, but they won't let you do that (:
Thanks for your kind post.
-Tommy
Well I'll take you at your word. I did my blind test by creating a playlist in Tidal of two versions of the same album, regular and Masters. Then I just hit shuffle and see how many times in a row I could guess which version was playing. I preferred MQA.
-
Well I'll take you at your word. I did my blind test by creating a playlist in Tidal of two versions of the same album, regular and Masters. Then I just hit shuffle and see how many times in a row I could guess which version was playing. I preferred MQA.
I remember a study that showed listeners preferring 256kbps MP3 to uncompressed 44.1/16. This was back in the 90s. The study seemed sound (no pun intended), but I didn't believe the results. Then again, I've tried this, and some really poor quality recordings benefit from the "cleaning up" that MP3 can do, by rejecting less dominant frequency bins of the FFT. This has the tendency to remove low level harmonic distortion(s). For a while, I studied psycho-acoustics for the purpose of developing compression algorithms. My primary interest was in voice recording applications, but I was fascinated by the modeling process (using dummy heads with ear mics, data analysis, etc.) as much as the coding process. Also fascinating was intelligibility measurement. I wound up applying some of this knowledge to voice enabled fire alarm testing. Back to high-end audio.... The purist in me kind of rejects any compression aside from lossless, which is simply like a ZIP file. The day high res audio is streamed losslessly by the big name services, MQA will have no purpose. That, I believe, is something we'll see pretty soon. Almost forgot.... I was discussing MQA with a customer who was borrowing a new DAC that handles MQA, and he said he likes the sound. Turns out, he has NEVER heard uncompressed or lossless audio above 44.1/16 on his system, and his only point of comparison was through the same DAC. He even suggested that the non-MQA "side" may be handicapped with respect to the MQA side. He now wants a USB version of the DAC DAC. Well, we just added a USB-to-SPDIF converter to the Maraschino product line, only available through our current Kickstarter, which ends May 12th:
http://kck.st/2p77yos
-
I've been meaning to post this for a while:
https://www.audioasylum.com/forums/critics/messages/8/85718.html
The title is "Andres Koch Slams MQA as A Money Grab and a Fraud".
-
This post pretty much sums it up:
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=151245.msg1631225#msg1631225
-
Interesting article from Linn:
https://www.linn.co.uk/blog/mqa-is-bad-for-music
"MQA is bad for music...."
-
Interesting article from Linn:
https://www.linn.co.uk/blog/mqa-is-bad-for-music
"MQA is bad for music...."
Linn and Meridian are fierce competitors, did you think Linn would praise Bob Stuart? Give me a break. Linn is just pissed that it wasn't their invention along with every other vendor who is going to the bottom of the ocean. Time to wake up,all the major labels are supporting this format which can't be said for DVD-A, SACD, DSD, and so on. This is another betamax vs vhs and to the vendors throwing in with betamax good luck selling that equipment when MQA becomes the VHS of streaming. Bunch of petulant dopes.
-
Linn and Meridian are fierce competitors, did you think Linn would praise Bob Stuart? Give me a break. Linn is just pissed that it wasn't their invention along with every other vendor who is going to the bottom of the ocean. Time to wake up,all the major labels are supporting this format which can't be said for DVD-A, SACD, DSD, and so on. This is another betamax vs vhs and to the vendors throwing in with betamax good luck selling that equipment when MQA becomes the VHS of streaming. Bunch of petulant dopes.
Linn has been a respectable company for many years. Did you read the article? It shows the money flow.
-
Linn has been a respectable company for many years. Did you read the article? It shows the money flow.
Where is Linn HQ? Where is Meridian HQ? They are eating each other alive in the UK market, same target market, each defending their own brand. Nothing against Linn, but would you expect them to embrace their chief competitors IP or bash it? It is competition :icon_twisted:
Can you imagine the irony of Linn having to pay licensing fees to their chief competitor? You can't blame them for fighting back.
-
Where is Linn HQ? Where is Meridian HQ? They are eating each other alive in the UK market, same target market, each defending their own brand. Nothing against Linn, but would you expect them to embrace their chief competitors IP or bash it? It is competition :icon_twisted:
Can you imagine the irony of Linn having to pay licensing fees to their chief competitor? You can't blame them for fighting back.
You can put all that together to refute Linn, yet can't understand (on purpose?) the flow of money with MQA that's been put together numerous times? :scratch:
-
You can put all that together to refute Linn, yet can't understand (on purpose?) the flow of money with MQA that's been put together numerous times? :scratch:
Look at the money flow in this chart and I think we both agree it SUCKS right now to be in the music industry and they need to do something:
https://blog.thecurrent.org/2014/02/40-years-of-album-sales-data-in-one-handy-chart/
-
Anyone listen to the new Doors "The Singles" remastered 2 CD set? It was just released on Tidal MQA. Sounds very very good to my ears streaming from Tidal MQA. But what do I know?
-
Anyone listen to the new Doors "The Singles" remastered 2 CD set? It was just released on Tidal MQA. Sounds very very good to my ears streaming from Tidal MQA. But what do I know?
Then it should sound as good or better in a LOSSLESS format, like 96/24 or 192/24.
-
The proof is in listening. This is high Rez Audio you can stream today. It sounds very very good.
All the writing and opinions don't really hold water unless you listen to MQA.
I challenge each of you to go visit a retailer and just listen
Steve
-
The proof is in listening. This is high Rez Audio you can stream today. It sounds very very good.
All the writing and opinions don't really hold water unless you listen to MQA.
I challenge each of you to go visit a retailer and just listen
Steve
Steve,
I understand what you're getting at, but PCM is the SOURCE (input) for MQA, which is compressed. So MQA is the lossy bandwidth reduced version of the PCM. It's like me telling you to listen to an MP3 of a CD track, and that's it sounds really great to my ears. Would you say "I'm not going to pass judgement until I hear the MP3 version!"?
-
Anyone listen to the new Doors "The Singles" remastered 2 CD set? It was just released on Tidal MQA. Sounds very very good to my ears streaming from Tidal MQA. But what do I know?
+1. Also check out the Callas Remastered MQA editions.
-
Steve,
I understand what you're getting at, but PCM is the SOURCE (input) for MQA, which is compressed. So MQA is the lossy bandwidth reduced version of the PCM. It's like me telling you to listen to an MP3 of a CD track, and that's it sounds really great to my ears. Would you say "I'm not going to pass judgement until I hear the MP3 version!"?
So you admit you really never even listened to MQA and are this pissed off? :evil:
-
"Anyone listen to the new Doors "The Singles" remastered 2 CD set? It was just released on Tidal MQA. Sounds very very good to my ears streaming from Tidal MQA. But what do I know? "
"Then it should sound as good or better in a LOSSLESS format, like 96/24 or 192/24."
Maybe. Maybe not. HD tracks has the same album for download in both of the resolutions you recommend. The 96/24 is about $45 and the 192/24 is $65. The MQA version from Tidal is included in my $20 monthly fee. The pride of ownership of a digital download is not so great that I am willing to pay $65. Regarding sound quality; the comparisons I have done between HiRes and MQA versions of the same music have (to my ears) not produced a difference that I could consistently detect. I am not saying there are no differences between the files. Clearly from a technical point of view they are constructed differently and in theory the version with the most information should sound better. I am not an advocate of MQA and I can certainly understand snake oil implications. On the other hand I am not an opponent of MQA. It may well have a place, particularly in the area of online streaming, that allows it to co-exist with other audio formats. As consumers, we will ultimately choose our method for listening to music from a wealth of options available to us. If MQA is a viable option so be it. If not, so be that too.
-
MQA sounds fantastic. Stop it with the MP3 analogy. Just listen to it. Do some comparisons. Free your mind and your ears will follow.
You only have to worry if you don't have it.
-
Very difficult to compare MQA and non MQA versions, as you don't know if you are listening to the same master in both versions. Differences between masters are going to be greater than any difference made by MQA. So far, what I've heard is mixed: some cases where MQA version seems better, some where I don't hear a difference, and some where it sounds worse to me.
The other thing that scares me is that MQA has the ability for DRM built into it. If it becomes a very successful format, the record companies could decide that only MQA versions of music will be made available, and then you will have to buy MQA hardware if you want to fully decode it, and you won't be able to get a non-MQA version, even if you think it is superior. That will end the idea of users being able to get access to what is essentially the master version of a digital release, as we can in many instances today.
-
Very difficult to compare MQA and non MQA versions, as you don't know if you are listening to the same master in both versions. Differences between masters are going to be greater than any difference made by MQA. So far, what I've heard is mixed: some cases where MQA version seems better, some where I don't hear a difference, and some where it sounds worse to me.
The other thing that scares me is that MQA has the ability for DRM built into it. If it becomes a very successful format, the record companies could decide that only MQA versions of music will be made available, and then you will have to buy MQA hardware if you want to fully decode it, and you won't be able to get a non-MQA version, even if you think it is superior. That will end the idea of users being able to get access to what is essentially the master version of a digital release, as we can in many instances today.
Use the 2L test bench, they use the same master for both versions:
http://www.2l.no/hires/documentation/2L-MQA_Comparisons.pdf
-
Use the 2L test bench, they use the same master for both versions:
http://www.2l.no/hires/documentation/2L-MQA_Comparisons.pdf
Yes, I know that. But that tells you pretty much nothing about the non 2L titles around with MQA.
The 2L titles were especially and carefully done as a demonstration.
Today, the large catalogues are being mass converted to MQA with "generic", filtering/correction - not individual to the DACs and ADCs used in the recording chain - unlike the 2L demos. And as I said, in 99% of the cases, you have no idea if your comparison is between 2 versions from the same master file.
And BTW, note this about the DRM capability built into MQA (from the patents):
"provides a controlled audio quality when played on standard players and conditional access to a lossless presentation of the original PCM signal. Using such techniques allows control over the level of degradation of the signal and also flexibility in the type information of information embedded"
In other words, if you don't have MQA HW, you get a "degraded" version of the file (read "even more lossy than a fully unfolded MQA file"); and they can control the level of how much degradation you get. In other words, even with an MQA DAC, they could charge tiered pricing levels for files which will determine how close to the original source you get in playback.
In any case, by design, even with full MQA unfolding and filtering, you will never get a lossless version of the master - that's by definition, and accounts for much of the appeal of MQA to record labels.
-
Yes, I know that. But that tells you pretty much nothing about the non 2L titles around with MQA.
The 2L titles were especially and carefully done as a demonstration.
Today, the large catalogues are being mass converted to MQA with "generic", filtering/correction - not individual to the DACs and ADCs used in the recording chain - unlike the 2L demos. And as I said, in 99% of the cases, you have no idea if your comparison is between 2 versions from the same master file.
And BTW, note this about the DRM capability built into MQA (from the patents):
In other words, if you don't have MQA HW, you get a "degraded" version of the file (read "even more lossy than a fully unfolded MQA file"); and they can control the level of how much degradation you get. In other words, even with an MQA DAC, they could charge tiered pricing levels for files which will determine how close to the original source you get in playback.
In any case, by design, even with full MQA unfolding and filtering, you will never get a lossless version of the master - that's by definition, and accounts for much of the appeal of MQA to record labels.
As far as the warts of MQA I don't know that anything will bring back an actual live performance of the Door's but when you sit down and listen to the MQA versions it just sounds so good to my ears. The FLAC sounds good, you don't even notice that digital brittleness in a good setup until you compare it to the MQA version. The MQA version through my system just sounds more relaxed and closer to an LP. I now understand why people are attracted to tubes as a way of softening that digital hardness and why album sales are going up. I think the standard to compare MQA to isn't the master file but the album. If I can get a streaming source to get me even 80%+ of the sound of a great turntable setup I think that is pretty good.
If you don't want to use the 2L test bench why not compare tracks using a turntable and let us know? I don't own one.
-
I see the Digital Amplifier Company has a new DAC. I strongly recommend getting an MQA license for it if you want more customers. MQA will be offered offered by 3 streaming services in 2018 and more are coming. If you feel bashing MQA is your best marketing tactic good luck with that.
I use Tidal in my desktop rig and stream Spotify through my Sony UHPH1 in my HT. If Spotify goes MQA I will need a DAC for my HT and would gladly purchase one of yours if it is MQA friendly and I am sure their will be more customers like me.
-
As far as the warts of MQA I don't know that anything will bring back an actual live performance of the Door's but when you sit down and listen to the MQA versions it just sounds so good to my ears. The FLAC sounds good, you don't even notice that digital brittleness in a good setup until you compare it to the MQA version. The MQA version through my system just sounds more relaxed and closer to an LP. I now understand why people are attracted to tubes as a way of softening that digital hardness and why album sales are going up. I think the standard to compare MQA to isn't the master file but the album. If I can get a streaming source to get me even 80%+ of the sound of a great turntable setup I think that is pretty good.
If you don't want to use the 2L test bench why not compare tracks using a turntable and let us know? I don't own one.
Maybe one difference between us is that I don't have digital brittleness in my playback - even without MQA. And why would I compare MQA using a non-digital comparison? Makes no sense. Especially as vinyl sounds inferior to my digital playback. I own a TT and vinyl, but don't use it - it simply is inferior to properly done digital playback, at least to my ears.
In my view the standard for comparison will always be the master file. An LP or any other altered version is just that, by definition - a less accurate, colored version that is less faithful to the original.
There are already people analyzing and reverse engineering MQA. One of the things they've found is that there are a set of totally conventional filters (various minimum phase filters) used to get the "MQA sound". You can upsample any CD, apply one of the filters (or a very similar one in playback software that offers various filters) and get the same sound.
You don't need MQA for that. There's no really special technology or special audio "discovery" involved. It's just a use of a certain type of slightly lossy compression, and then decompression (unfolding) and filtering to get a certain type of sound. Don't kid yourself. The long term goal is to get the consumer to pay more for the privilege of using MQA. They'll use marketing speak and a certain type of DRM to make sure you think you can only get "that sound" by buying into MQA. At first it will be "free", but not forever.
Do you think MQA and the record labels are doing this because they are altruistic? The whole process isn't free for them - they are going to want to make money on it. Don't fall for the MQA marketing hype. Read about what it actually is and how it works.
High end audio companies work hard to develop products that they think deliver the best sound. So of course many are opposed to MQA: if you had worked hard to create a DAC that sounded just the way you thought it should (and every DAC designer chooses some kind of filtering built into the conversion to analog stage), why would you want to pay MQA a royalty on every DAC you make for the "privilege" of using what you consider to be filtering that is at best not better, and at worst, inferior, to what you already use?
-
Maybe one difference between us is that I don't have digital brittleness in my playback - even without MQA. And why would I compare MQA using a non-digital comparison? Makes no sense. Especially as vinyl sounds inferior to my digital playback.
In my view the standard for comparison will always be the master file. An LP or any other altered version is just that, by definition - a less accurate, colored version that is less faithful to the original.
There are already people analyzing and reverse engineering MQA. One of the things they've found is that there are a set of totally conventional filters (various minimum phase filters) used to get the "MQA sound". You can upsample any CD, apply one of the filters (or a very similar one in playback software that offers various filters) and get the same sound.
You don't need MQA for that. There's no really special technology or special audio "discovery" involved. It's just a use of filtering to get a certain type of sound. Don't kid yourself. The long term goal is to get the consumer to pay more for the privilege of using MQA. They'll use marketing speak and a certain type of DRM to make sure you think you can only get "that sound" by buying into MQA. At first it will be "free", but not forever.
Do you think MQA and the record labels are doing this because they are altruistic? The whole process isn't free for them - they are going to want to make money on it. Don't fall for the MQA marketing hype. Read about what it actually is and how it works.
High end audio companies work hard to develop products that they think deliver the best sound. So of course many are opposed to MQA: if you had worked hard to create a DAC that sounded just the way you thought it should (and every DAC designer chooses some kind of filtering built into the conversion to analog stage), why would you want to pay MQA a royalty on every DAC you make for the "privilege" of using what you consider to be filtering that is at best not better, and at worst, inferior, to what you already use?
You don't have digital brittleness in YOUR system, that's great. But what about in your car? Or through your phone? Or through your boombox? Your sysetm I would guess is not typical of the average consumer. If we can get 80% of the benefits of your non brittle system through an LG phone streaming Tidal, or a bluetooth MQA enabled speaker or a HTIB system I am good with that too. Good SQ, convenient, and inexpensive to stream is what I like about MQA. The Bluesound products cost the same now as they did before the MQA license, no big deal.These products are reasonably priced and have licensed MQA, no big deal. :
https://audio-head.com/mqa-goes-portable-with-sony-and-lg/
-
So you admit you really never even listened to MQA and are this pissed off? :evil:
You have never listened to reason or reasonable arguments about what is wrong with Most Questionable Audioformat and keep trolling the entire Audiocircle forum with your completely unfounded Most Questionable Audioformat blabbering.
In all honesty I am waiting for the day someone decides to ban you.
-
You have never listened to reason or reasonable arguments about what is wrong with Most Questionable Audioformat and keep trolling the entire Audiocircle forum with your completely unfounded Most Questionable Audioformat blabbering.
In all honesty I am waiting for the day someone decides to ban you.
+1
-
You have never listened to reason or reasonable arguments about what is wrong with Most Questionable Audioformat and keep trolling the entire Audiocircle forum with your completely unfounded Most Questionable Audioformat blabbering.
In all honesty I am waiting for the day someone decides to ban you.
I don't think making a judgement on SQ of MQA without actually having listened to it is a reasonable argument., get over it :D
-
I don't think making a judgement on SQ of MQA without actually having listened to it is a reasonable argument., get over it :D
What a great irony that a compressed format with proprietary processing has, after almost two decades of the Mp3 revolution, become a darling of the audiophile market. Now we're reading the same arguments we so vehemently railed *against* for so long, used in favor of advocacy.
-
MQA sounds fantastic. Stop it with the MP3 analogy. Just listen to it. Do some comparisons. Free your mind and your ears will follow.
You only have to worry if you don't have it.
Okay, some of you guys are just starting to sound downright creepy.
'You only have to worry if you don't have it.'?
And the Mp3 analogy is absolutely accurate. Let's not play revisionist here. There are still hordes of posts being written this very moment daring anyone to tell the difference between 320 and lossless. Fully defending streaming with less compression as pointless. There was even a time when some folks were arguing that Mp3 sounded *better*. I know - for a brief period I was one of them way back in the day.
At least mp3 has the excuse of being *necessary* for so long because the bandwidth just wasn't there. MQA doesn't even have that. MQA has no reason to exist beyond the sheer will of its advocates.
-
You have never listened to reason or reasonable arguments about what is wrong with Most Questionable Audioformat and keep trolling the entire Audiocircle forum with your completely unfounded Most Questionable Audioformat blabbering.
In all honesty I am waiting for the day someone decides to ban you.
That guy is Troll,he basically tell US to listen MQA you have to buy a new MQA dac ,subscribe to Tidal and buy a streamer to listen to MQA :o,HELLO
Get Real
-
(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=168811)
-
Okay, some of you guys are just starting to sound downright creepy.
'You only have to worry if you don't have it.'?
And the Mp3 analogy is absolutely accurate. Let's not play revisionist here. There are still hordes of posts being written this very moment daring anyone to tell the difference between 320 and lossless. Fully defending streaming with less compression as pointless. There was even a time when some folks were arguing that Mp3 sounded *better*. I know - for a brief period I was one of them way back in the day.
At least mp3 has the excuse of being *necessary* for so long because the bandwidth just wasn't there. MQA doesn't even have that. MQA has no reason to exist beyond the sheer will of its advocates.
+1. I started to post/ counter about the mp3/ flac & flac/ .wav debates of the past; but at this stage, pretty much everyone on these MQA threads are in their camp & talking over each other. :deadhorse:
-
You don't have digital brittleness in YOUR system, that's great. But what about in your car? Or through your phone? Or through your boombox? Your sysetm I would guess is not typical of the average consumer. If we can get 80% of the benefits of your non brittle system through an LG phone streaming Tidal, or a bluetooth MQA enabled speaker or a HTIB system I am good with that too. Good SQ, convenient, and inexpensive to stream is what I like about MQA. The Bluesound products cost the same now as they did before the MQA license, no big deal.These products are reasonably priced and have licensed MQA, no big deal. :
https://audio-head.com/mqa-goes-portable-with-sony-and-lg/
Wow, you managed to answer none of the points I made and went off a tangent about listening in a car, boombox, or phone - media that cater to people who mostly don't care about SQ (or are totally unwilling to pay extra for improved SQ). The vast majority of people using those media are listening to mp3 formats because they are "free" and couldn't give a whit about hi-res, much less CD quality. And they won't pay for the "higher quality" that they can't even hear is better in the mode they listen to.
Let me know how many people using only their phone or a boombox or bluetooth speaker are paying for the "hi-fi" CD/MQA quality stream from Tidal. I'd bet the number is totally insignificant.
To be truthful, I've got a good pair of custom IEMs for my phone and am totally happy to listen to mobile audio in mp3 - as mobile audio isn't a serious listening experience - it's about having background music or a soundtrack to what your main activity is.
MQA has the potential for being a more expensive and lower quality stream for those interested quality listening, and one that the music industry can force you into - at a price - if you want quality above mp3.
You seem to have an inability to understand 2 things: 1) what MQA is actually designed to do; and 2) look beyond the present introductory phase. The situation you see today won't continue if MQA catches on - you will pay more for the privilege in the future. To think otherwise is to ignore the entire way the MQA ecosystem is setup and to be so naive as to think big corporations are going to provide for free a "premium" service that costs them more than the non-premium service.
-
This has been explained to him by various people in several different sections here on AC. His reply will be that it is free, that Tidal delivers it to his home without any additional costs, that it sounds far superior to anything he ever heard, and some more drivel...
Have fun here: http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=147797.0
-
Another label and more artists getting on board the MQA train. Even the artists are "authenticating" that MQA reproduces the exact sound they intended:
At the event attendees listened to a comparison of the same Ky recording “Bint el Shalabiya” in WAV and MQA. Artist Maki Nakano (Ky saxophonist), who was in attendance, was asked for her opinion and instantly responded, “I definitely prefer MQA because it reproduces exactly the sound I felt in my head, through my ears and in my bones, at the time of recording the music.”
Reiji Asakura, respected audiovisual critic and writer, who was also among the attendees, exclaimed, “How wonderful, we have witnessed ‘authentication’ from the artist in real time!”
http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/synthax-japans-rme-premium-recordings-release-mqa-music/
-
While the difference between a WAV file and MQA are obvious hirez PCM and MQA tracks are indistinguishable to most listeners. Did you know that in blind listening tests people can't tell the difference between a hirez PCM track and an MQA track?
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2017/09/mqa-core-vs-hi-res-blind-test-part-ii.html
-
While the difference between a WAV file and MQA are obvious hirez PCM and MQA tracks are indistinguishable to most listeners. Did you know that in blind listening tests people can't tell the difference between a hirez PCM track and an MQA track?
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2017/09/mqa-core-vs-hi-res-blind-test-part-ii.html
They're can't tell the difference and why would I buy a MQA dac ? :nono:
Stupid does stupid thing :lol:
-
They're can't tell the difference and why would I buy a MQA dac ? :nono:
Stupid does stupid thing :lol:
You didn't read the article or you would have seen a variety of DAC's used by the testers and most of them weren't MQA DAC's :duh:
DAC: Cambridge Audio DACMagic Plus, GD-Audio DAC, Jadis JS2 Mk IV, TEAC UD-501, Oppo BDP-105(D), DIY AKM AK4497 DAC, Rega DAC-R, Accuphase DP720, Oppo HA-1, Fiio X3 II, Burson Conductor V1 & V2, Auralic Vega, Mytek Brooklyn, TEAC UD-301, Schiit Yggdrasil, ASUS Xonar Essence STX, Meridian Explorer, iFi iDSD Nano, Sony NWA-30, Audiolab Q, Chord Mojo, Schiit Modi 2, Emotiva DC-1, Cambridge Audio Azur 851D, Denafrips Aries, T+A DAC 8 DSD, Gryphon DAC One, Resonessence Audio Herus, HiFiBerry DAC+ Pro, Chord QuteHD, dCS Vivaldi "stack"
-
You didn't read the article or you would have seen a variety of DAC's used by the testers and most of them weren't MQA DAC's :duh:
DAC: Cambridge Audio DACMagic Plus, GD-Audio DAC, Jadis JS2 Mk IV, TEAC UD-501, Oppo BDP-105(D), DIY AKM AK4497 DAC, Rega DAC-R, Accuphase DP720, Oppo HA-1, Fiio X3 II, Burson Conductor V1 & V2, Auralic Vega, Mytek Brooklyn, TEAC UD-301, Schiit Yggdrasil, ASUS Xonar Essence STX, Meridian Explorer, iFi iDSD Nano, Sony NWA-30, Audiolab Q, Chord Mojo, Schiit Modi 2, Emotiva DC-1, Cambridge Audio Azur 851D, Denafrips Aries, T+A DAC 8 DSD, Gryphon DAC One, Resonessence Audio Herus, HiFiBerry DAC+ Pro, Chord QuteHD, dCS Vivaldi "stack"
Are this Dac play MQA?i don't think so,that mean they're have to buy one to compare. :o
Get real
-
Are this Dac play MQA?i don't think so,that mean they're have to buy one to compare. :o
Get real
You need to read the article, good luck with your audio adventures :D
-
Okay, some of you guys are just starting to sound downright creepy.
'You only have to worry if you don't have it.'?
And the Mp3 analogy is absolutely accurate. Let's not play revisionist here. There are still hordes of posts being written this very moment daring anyone to tell the difference between 320 and lossless. Fully defending streaming with less compression as pointless. There was even a time when some folks were arguing that Mp3 sounded *better*. I know - for a brief period I was one of them way back in the day.
At least mp3 has the excuse of being *necessary* for so long because the bandwidth just wasn't there. MQA doesn't even have that. MQA has no reason to exist beyond the sheer will of its advocates.
Interesting point about high rate MP3. I've shared experiences with other listeners when comparing lossless to MP3. The algorithm removes the lowest amplitude frequency bins sometimes resulting in a "cleaner sound" because nuances were removed. Depending on the recording, some listeners report a more pleasant sound with MP3. Only the most resolving systems provide a clear difference on SOME tracks.
If you flip back a few pages, you will see a kind post about a service that streams unlimited 96/24. It's not cheap, but if you spent $20k or more on your system, what's a few bucks for content to play on it? Plus, with that particular service, you can BUY the tracks. No DRM. Personally, I like to own the music. Then I can play it just about anywhere, and I only pay for it ONCE.
-
HIGHRESAUDIO TO STOP OFFERING MQA
Online music provider to drop MQA, claiming format 'not lossless'
http://www.hifiplus.com/articles/highresaudio-to-stop-offering-mqa/
-
HIGHRESAUDIO TO STOP OFFERING MQA
Online music provider to drop MQA, claiming format 'not lossless'
http://www.hifiplus.com/articles/highresaudio-to-stop-offering-mqa/
That's very old news from back in March, and they apparently changed their tune (no pun intended) since a quick search of their site shows that they currently offer 257 titles in MQA: https://www.highresaudio.com/en/search/?title=MQA (https://www.highresaudio.com/en/search/?title=MQA)