Anyone heard about Meridian's new project called MQA

thedudeabides

Well-Known Member
Jan 16, 2011
2,182
692
1,200
Alto, NM
which stands for "Master Quality Authenticated".

Apparently new tech that has been developed by Bob Stuart over the last four to five years and involves an "encoding" process that occurs during the recording session and, with a "decoder", provides a significant improvement to the quality heard by the end user.

Purportedly is a major step above current Hi rez technology.

Sounds very exciting.
 

LL21

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2010
14,430
2,518
1,448
interesting...is there any more info available on this?
 

LL21

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2010
14,430
2,518
1,448

Thanks! I was wondering if he was creating like a 'google search engine' approach which manages somehow to extract from ANY file sources and then deliver something that is otherwise missing from the D/A process...or whether his MQA MUST be used in the recording/mastering process in the first place.

Seems like the latter...so it must be adopted by at minimum the mastering/re-mastering folks before any consumer can enjoy it. If not, then its basically a technology for which there is no source material.

And will a studio invest in MQA if there is no consumer D/A market...will be interesting to see if they can get BOTH Sides (mastering and consumer) to adopt/buy this technology at more or less the same time to help each side commit to it.
 

still-one

VIP/Donor
Aug 6, 2012
1,633
150
1,220
Milford, Michigan
I saw this post on a Meridian Owners site. Very interesting.

Back in October, Bob Stuart invited a few of us to HQ to talk about a new technology. Like the ferrets that we were, some Googling turned up the MQA and MQL trademark applications. Further digging revealed a patent (surprised no-one else has found this yet!) describing an encoding+decoding system. Adding other bits and pieces to the jigsaw such as the SE loudspeakers tweeter, “higher bandwidth” analogue electronics, and “DAC management” with other snippets gleaned from chats with Meridian staff at shows and events, we guessed what MQA might be. Yet we were absolutely not prepared for what we were about to hear.

Bob extended the definition of “lossless” audio to include the A2D and D2A processes. Meridian has developed “pipelines” which characterise the actual ADCs used (and additional analogue processing equipment as well). This information is encoded as metadata in the MQA file and, once decoded, can be used to *manage the DACs* (!!!), essentially providing an audibly lossless A2D2A chain.

He then went on to challenge what was meant by "HiRes" audio.

In the last decade, there have been tremendous strides taken in psychoacoustics and, importantly, neuroscience (which has informed the psychoacoustics). The short of it is that the industry has been grossly mistaken about the relative importance of the frequency domain vs. the time domain. Yes, there is the anecdotal evidence that higher sample rates are better, but no-one has ever really articulated why (other than the pre- and post-ringing "naturalness" arguments).

The latest findings, grounded in science, are that, when it comes to human hearing, the time domain is up to 5x more important than the frequency domain. If you hear a twig snap in the woods, you know immediately where it is (time domain); you actually “decode” what it was afterwards (frequency domain). This is evolution at work: hearing is the most important sense for survival: it works when your eyes are shut, when you’re not looking in the relevant direction, and in the dark.

The human hearing system is sensitive to about 10 microseconds in time resolution and here’s the kicker: much/most of this resolution is destroyed in anything encoded digitally below a 192kHz sampling rate.

That’s right: 96kHz is NOT enough.

However, is the public about to download or stream 192/24 audio? No, because it’s not *convenient*. How then to provide audio of the highest quality to the masses? The short of it is that Meridian has found a way of folding the time resolution information into a regular PCM file with a lower sample rate (it’s actually hidden below the noise floor). It’s a stroke of genius and means that MQA files appear to anything other than an MQA decoder as a playable PCM file. But an MQA decoder can "unfold" the file to the original sample rate, adding back the time resolution information.

Another crucial learning from neuroscience is that the brain has three times as many nerves sending signals TO the cochlea than sending information FROM the cochlea to the brain. This is a incredible fact; the brain actively switches the ear’s sensitivity (to frequency) depending on the situation (natural sounds, animal sounds, and speech). The encoding algorithm takes into account these different hearing modes (don’t ask me how!) and the "compression" applied to the master file (which can be anything from a (non-ideal) 44.1/16 master up to 8x sample rate) is not lossy in the conventional sense. There is nothing removed from the file that would allow a human being to differentiate between the MQA encoding and the master as heard in the studio. Lossy? No, that would be an extremely unfair and naive description. "Encoded for human hearing" would be more accurate.

So what is MQA? It stands for “Master Quality Authenticated”. Master Quality because it is able to deliver essentially what the recording artist heard in the studio. Authenticated because the audio data are signed (no, not DRM) so that an MQA decoder can verify the authenticity of the MQA file; that it is intact and as intended when it left the studio, having been signed off by the artist and producer.

MQA has broad music industry backing from execs, artists, and producers. Meridian has been working on it for the past 4-5 years and for the last three years has taken the technology on a roadshow, demonstrating it and working with recording artists and producers. MQA is very much artist endorsed. It is an enabling technology: Meridian isn’t going to be MQA-encoding the whole back catalogue of recorded music; that’s the job of the studios. The first MQA files are expected to be released early in 2015. All of the major studios are on board, plus smaller labels. MQA decoding will not be restricted to Meridian hardware and software.

Given the number of parties involved, it is frankly staggering that this has all come together. That is has is testament to Bob's vision, determination, and no small amount of hard work by him and his team.

Oh, and it sounds more real than you have ever heard. Period. Hearing Louis Armstrong through a pair of 7200SEs – as if he was in the room – was a jaw-dropping moment that I will never forget. It *is* that good.


 

thedudeabides

Well-Known Member
Jan 16, 2011
2,182
692
1,200
Alto, NM
Proprietary encoding/decoding is all I need to hear... :(

Bruce,

In reading the material so far, my sense is that the "decoding" portion will not be proprietary but made available to any manufacturer assuming they are interested.
 

esldude

New Member
I saw this post on a Meridian Owners site. Very interesting.


He then went on to challenge what was meant by "HiRes" audio.

In the last decade, there have been tremendous strides taken in psychoacoustics and, importantly, neuroscience (which has informed the psychoacoustics). The short of it is that the industry has been grossly mistaken about the relative importance of the frequency domain vs. the time domain. Yes, there is the anecdotal evidence that higher sample rates are better, but no-one has ever really articulated why (other than the pre- and post-ringing "naturalness" arguments).

The human hearing system is sensitive to about 10 microseconds in time resolution and here’s the kicker: much/most of this resolution is destroyed in anything encoded digitally below a 192kHz sampling rate.

That’s right: 96kHz is NOT enough.

Another crucial learning from neuroscience is that the brain has three times as many nerves sending signals TO the cochlea than sending information FROM the cochlea to the brain. This is a incredible fact; the brain actively switches the ear’s sensitivity (to frequency) depending on the situation (natural sounds, animal sounds, and speech). The encoding algorithm takes into account these different hearing modes (don’t ask me how!) and the "compression" applied to the master file (which can be anything from a (non-ideal) 44.1/16 master up to 8x sample rate) is not lossy in the conventional sense. There is nothing removed from the file that would allow a human being to differentiate between the MQA encoding and the master as heard in the studio. Lossy? No, that would be an extremely unfair and naive description. "Encoded for human hearing" would be more accurate.


Funny about the need for hirez for 10 microsecond timing. Robert Stuart explains how that is a non-factor even in redbook in one of his older papers.

Some other info looks like it will drop encoding of useless noise above 20 khz and let you get the equivalent of 96khz or so with a bitstream of only 1 mbps (smaller than CD at 1.411 mbps). Exactly what the encoding info for better timing consists of isn't clear yet.

Lots of spin to make this look like a new and better format (which it may be), but the spin is trying to make this look lossless, when it fact it appears it is lossy, just lossy in a way we can never hear (therefor lossless to humans?).

I am wondering what advantage it has over something like OGG Vorbis which can be used to at least 192 khz rates? It will even maintain high bandwidth at higher quality settings while reducing files size to about 25% or so. If you use a filter above 20khz (say one starting at 30 khz) you can cut that number in half or more for the file size reduction. Would these be somewhat equivalent in quality?

It actually doesn't appear to me that MQA is improving original recording quality, just promising to bring the quality of higher rate files to you in a smaller file. The hokey misdirection and mystery it is being marketed with doesn't set well with me personally. Just tell us what it does, don't hide it and simply ask us to trust you it is great. Also strikes me as yet another way to take old masters and find yet one more way to sell them to us again. Ditto for needing new gear to process the stuff correctly.

Does this proprietary stuff really do anything that high rate Ogg Vorbis can't do?
 

Bruce B

WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
Apr 25, 2010
7,007
515
1,740
Snohomish, WA
www.pugetsoundstudios.com
Bruce,

In reading the material so far, my sense is that the "decoding" portion will not be proprietary but made available to any manufacturer assuming they are interested.

Yes, assuming they want to pony up the $$$ for licensing to Meridian so they can use the decoder in their system!

Looks like another spin on MLP
 

jkeny

Industry Expert, Member Sponsor
Feb 9, 2012
3,374
42
383
Ireland
It appears to me that it is something along the same approach that HDCD took - encoding of extra information in the signal that doesn't affect normal playback but will result in extra information when being played back via a HDCD encoder.

So MQA encoding has to be included in the file at A/D stage for potential use at D/A stage
 
Last edited:

esldude

New Member
Well here is a bit more info on how it works from a patent application.

http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/...tring=nano OR filter OR ceramic&maxRec=599628

http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/...onid=556F95ADF4C56D988B3FED8836465D01.wapp1nC

The description of the process is here.

http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/...=nano+OR+filter+OR+ceramic&tab=PCTDescription

Assuming of course this is MQA or what it was derived from which seems likely to be so.

 
Last edited:

thedudeabides

Well-Known Member
Jan 16, 2011
2,182
692
1,200
Alto, NM
I love this forum.

The talent, interest, and knowledge of all things audio is quite astounding. :cool:
 

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
38
0
Seattle, WA
The AES paper, A Hierarchical Approach to Archiving and Distribution, by Stuart and crew at this years AES conference lays the foundation for this.

In a nutshell, they have a lossless *perceptual* encoding where they can bring down the data rate of 24/192 Khz (9 mbit/sec) to 0.9 mbit/sec (10:1) compression. Again this is supposed to be perceptually lossless. As an example, they profiled a bunch of music and didn't find anything other than pure noise after 60 Khz (from memory) or so. They argue though that if you just resampled down to 96 Khz, you would lose time domain information.

PCM encoding is very wasteful so this is an attempt to define much smaller area than the 24-bit in one dimension and 192 Khz in the other.

The paper talks about collaboration with both Sony and Warner music so I expect them to be on board at CES.

Alas, I think this will be a failed attempt. It is a solution to a problem that does not exist. Audiophiles want the original 24/192 and won't accept any compressed version no matter what. The cost of storing those bits is a fraction of the retail cost of the music itself. Likewise, in the studio the production costs are massive compared to storage.

If this were 5 to 10 years ago, maybe it would had a chance. But right now, storage and bit rate are not a barrier for anyone consuming high-resolution audio, or hosting them. And bandwidth is plenty for the audience that wants to consume the same.

I have the paper if anyone wants more information.
 

Kal Rubinson

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2010
2,362
706
1,700
NYC
www.stereophile.com
Alas, I think this will be a failed attempt. It is a solution to a problem that does not exist. Audiophiles want the original 24/192 and won't accept any compressed version no matter what. The cost of storing those bits is a fraction of the retail cost of the music itself. Likewise, in the studio the production costs are massive compared to storage.
Yes but Meridian's focus seems to be on the advantages for streaming and downloading.
 

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
38
0
Seattle, WA
Yes but Meridian's focus seems to be on the advantages for streaming and downloading.
I covered the downloading scenario in my post. I know I don't need any post processing of the stereo masters to make them smaller and then need specialized decoding to get the bits back. THere is no improved performance and the smaller file size is not material to me, nor would it make it worthwhile to have the incompatibility.

On streaming, my use of it is for on the go and lossy quality is just fine for in-car and music discovery use. Audiophiles are music collectors and I don't seem them becoming subscription customers.

Would be good to hear though from the membership. How much do you value the above?
 

esldude

New Member
Well earlier papers by Stuart, explanations by JJ, and some others have been that a 60 khz sample rate or thereabouts would be sufficient if done well for full transparency. Looks like this is a method to reach the equivalent result of 60 khz 20 bit performance via a compressed 48/24 streaming format.

Have gone through the description and looking at the block diagrams it is a nifty and clever bit of work by these fellows.

If I get it rightly, with a decoder your 48/24 stream also compressed to 1 mbps, can take a 96/16 original, and losslessly recreate through noise shaping a 96/24 result that effectively is maybe 96/20 with a gentle upper frequency filter with good time domain response over the frequency range that humans can hear. Or for legacy users without decoders provide a 16 bit result that isn't mucked up perceptually. Effectively it is lossy for 16 users and lossless in a sense for 24 bit users with the decoder.

Since you have the AES paper Amir perhaps you could fill in the details.

As for whether I value this or not, I am one of those not convinced of any significant benefit of more than 48/24 myself. If this were available fitting the same data space at no extra cost then sure why not. If it costs like 50% more vs just 48/24 direct, then no I wouldn't pay for it. And you need the decoder. No reason that decoder couldn't be in software of course. So I too feel like this has a limited market. Plus FLAC at 48/24 has nearly the same data rate.

Finally for marketing this, they are going to confuse the heck out of everyone about whether this is lossy or lossless. Perceptually lossless isn't going to cut it for marketing. It already has confused people with how they announced it. I see that confusion being argued and growing over time. Plus getting across whether you get any benefit without a decoder vs with etc. etc. etc. A marketing nightmare to answer a question that in some sense no one is asking. As already pointed out, with the 192/24 files available those caring about this probably won't jump on it. Those who don't care won't see any value in it or understand what the point is. I expect it will be commercially successful on perhaps the level of HDCD. Maybe not as successful as Pono which I also think isn't really going anywhere to any large extent.
 
Last edited:

FrantzM

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
6,455
29
405
Hi

I am with Amir on this. I don't see much of a market for it. Audiophiles will not touch anything that has "compression" in its description... The mass market couldn't care less with most (too many?) people finding 128 Kb/s mp3 all they need. Will likely suffer the same fate as HDCD.
 

garylkoh

WBF Technical Expert (Speakers & Audio Equipment)
Sep 6, 2010
5,599
225
1,190
Seattle, WA
www.genesisloudspeakers.com
It might not be that the mass market couldn't care - the manufacturers will cut pennies to increase profits. I don't see Samsung, Sony, Motorola, etc. paying for the licensing to use this even if it is just a few cents per device.

MQA technology is similar in principle to the aptX technology for bluetooth music streaming. While shopping for a new smartphone, I found that none of the ones available in the US implemented aptX even though it makes bluetooth music streaming sound so much better. So, when I went to visit family, I bought a Sony Z3 in Singapore (it's now available in the US).

May be if Sony or Samsung designed aptX or MQA, it might have a chance if they push compliance. The problem is that when there are billions of devices out there, millions more manufactured every day and the technology requires end-to-end implementation, IMHO there is little chance of success - no matter how good it is.
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing