MQA discussion

[awsmone]

It's seems to me for streaming MQA makes perfect sense

As it's currently unhackable, catalogue owners are comfortable

For hires audio in house, the argument seems less convincing

For older recordings in digital, removing preringing is an audible benefit

For current high resolution recordings, the benefits diminish

No need for packaging
No preringing
Good time domain data

So what does it add? Is it some form of interpolation ? Adding sinusoids to make it more " musical" ?

I am starting wonder ?

 

[Al M.]

I rest my case...

Yup, bias is everywhere. I have fooled myself as well so many times, it's not funny. And while I may not be the best listener, I don't think I am the worst either.

Going back and forth often reveals that differences are much smaller than initially thought. I experience that over and over -- and over again. How often did the demo go back and forth between standard file and MQA?

 

[awsmone]

Yup, bias is everywhere. I have fooled myself as well so many times, it's not funny. And while I may not be the best listener, I don't think I am the worst either.

Going back and forth often reveals that differences are much smaller than initially thought. I experience that over and over -- and over again. How often did the demo go back and forth between standard file and MQA?

Well said

As so much has been made of this demo

I am still unclear what they were comparing

Were these old digital recordings reprocessed

Were these Peters tapes converted on two different adc

There are so many unknowns

What were they really comparing?

Although I am willing to take at face value they heard a difference

What was the difference due to

What was the provenance of the two compared files?

I maintain this is mainly a portable and streaming medium

The new announcement reinforces this

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/major-mqa-announcements-at-the-berlin-ifa-show/

 

[Al M.]

Well said

As so much has been made of this demo

I am still unclear what they were comparing

Were these old digital recordings reprocessed

Were these Peters tapes converted on two different adc

There are so many unknowns

What were they really comparing?

Although I am willing to take at face value they heard a difference

What was the difference due to

What was the provenance of the two compared files?

I maintain this is mainly a portable and streaming medium

The new announcement reinforces this

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/major-mqa-announcements-at-the-berlin-ifa-show/

Another thing: what if the MQA files were just a little louder? After all, it's a different mastering.

In any comparison, exact volume matching is paramount. Just a 1 dB difference can make the louder item (be it component, file or any other thing) sound significantly better. I have fooled myself so many times when I didn't perform exact volume matching, and I don't think many others' experience will be any different.

 

[opus112]

So, in other words, a room full of experienced listeners heard absolutely no difference with this demo, except for their mind playing games and fooling them into believing that they heard a not inconsiderable difference....is that what you would have us believe ???

Since you're asking, a resounding 'no' to your question. Believe whatever you like to believe.

Once again, a post from a member who I very very seriously doubt has even heard any MQA demos!

Indeed not, does not having heard a demo disqualify a member from posting on the topic? A simple yes/no answer please.

 

[DaveyF]

Since you're asking, a resounding 'no' to your question. Believe whatever you like to believe.



Indeed not, does not having heard a demo disqualify a member from posting on the topic? A simple yes/no answer please.

Having not heard the format in question would seem to invalidate your opinion of the sound and the quality of same. Therefore, imho posting on said subject, would seem to qualify as simple trolling.....

 

[opus112]

Having not heard the format in question would seem to invalidate your opinion of the sound and the quality of same.

Where have I expressed an opinion of the sound quality? Do please quote me.

Therefore, imho posting on said subject, would seem to qualify as simple trolling.....

Calling disagreement 'trolling' is trolling without a doubt.

 

[DaveyF]

Where have I expressed an opinion of the sound quality? Do please quote me.







Calling disagreement 'trolling' is trolling without a doubt.

Really!

So, you are arguing that without actually hearing the sound result of MQA, you can elucidate a valid opinion on the subject, is that correct??

 

[mauidan]

IFA 2017: MQA EXPANDS GLOBAL REACH ON SMARTPHONE, PORTABLE DEVICES & MUSIC SERVICES​

London/ Berlin, 31 August 2017 – Music technology company, MQA, announces a breadth of partnership news at the IFA consumer electronics show in Berlin. Developed for convenient delivery and unmatched audio quality, MQA technology will now be embedded in LG’s new V30 smartphone, the first globally available MQA-enabled handset. MQA music playback will also be available on the two latest portable devices from Sony’s iconic Walkman brand, the WM-ZX300 and WM-A40 models. Both portable players are capable of playing back downloaded MQA music.

Said MQA CEO, Mike Jbara, of the latest news, “Our announcements at IFA illustrate the global presence and diverse footprint of MQA. We’re inspired by the energy and enthusiasm of our partners to keep pushing the opportunities to access master quality audio.”

New MQA Streaming Partners
Korean-based hi-res streaming service, Groovers, has confirmed it is working on MQA mobile and desktop implementation for its platform, due to launch by the end of 2017. This follows recent news from b2b digital music solutions provider, 7digital, that it will be powering a forthcoming hi-res streaming service, HDmusicStream, using MQA technology to deliver studio quality audio.
Current live music download partner, nugs.net, offers thousands of on-demand concerts from artists including Metallica, Bruce Springsteen and Dead & Company. This autumn, the nugs.net HiFi tier will offer MQA streaming on iOS and desktop players.

MQA Music Availability Grows
Universal Music Group, the world-leader in music-based entertainment, is working closely with MQA to encode its vast library of recordings in MQA's technology.
Further reinforcing MQA’s mobile footprint expansion, Pioneer and Onkyo will be showcasingTIDAL Masters mobile streaming on their latest Digital Audio Players, the XDP-30R and DP-S1 models, at the IFA trade fair.
Sonic Studio’s Amarra Luxe 4.1 media player, enabling all the benefits of the MQA experience for local playback and streaming of high resolution music, is scheduled for release in September 2017.
On the download front, Japan-based music store, e-onkyo music, has announced the expansion of their MQA music offering, with the addition of Warner Music Group’s hi-res catalogue in MQA, which will be available for the first time in the region in the coming weeks.
Meanwhile, Onkyo Music store, which serves Germany, UK and the US, will also be offering MQA music, as it rolls out a redesigned store front throughout September. Existing download stores, including HIGHRESAUDIO, continue to add more MQA music as it becomes available.

Hi-Res Keynote Features MQA
MQA’s CEO, Mike Jbara, will take part in a keynote discussion at IFA, organised by the Digital Entertainment Group (DEG) and hosted by Sony Electronics, on Friday 1 September at 14:00 [Hall 20 101]. “The Future of Hi-Res Audio” panel will also feature Morvan Boury (VP, Global Business Development, Sony Music Entertainment), Michael Drexler (VP, Digital Strategy at Warner Music), and Bill Gagnon (UMG’s SVP Business Development) as fellow panelists.

MQA will be supporting partner demonstrations at this year’s IFA, including new MQA hardware partner, iFi Audio, who will be showing theirprototype micro iDSD Black Label DAC featuring MQA integration.

https://audio-head.com/mqa-goes-portable-with-sony-and-lg/

 

[awsmone]

Really!

So, you are arguing that without actually hearing the sound result of MQA, you can elucidate a valid opinion on the subject, is that correct??

It's very obvious:-

That if you have heard MQA
Have an opinion on MQA but haven't heard it
Have technical knowledge on digital audio
Or designed MQA

That you have a vested interest and are self- deluding

And cannot possibly contribute to this blog... or risk being labelled a "troll"

 

[metaphacts]

Well said

As so much has been made of this demo

I am still unclear what they were comparing

Were these old digital recordings reprocessed

Were these Peters tapes converted on two different adc

There are so many unknowns

What were they really comparing?

Although I am willing to take at face value they heard a difference

What was the difference due to

What was the provenance of the two compared files?

I maintain this is mainly a portable and streaming medium

The new announcement reinforces this

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/major-mqa-announcements-at-the-berlin-ifa-show/

There are not so many unknowns, at least with Peter's recordings. Peter's masters were given to Bob with all of the pertinent recording information.

Peter's recordings are mostly digital in origin - he began recording digitally in the early 80s. The recordings vary in age and equipment used but since this information was supplied to Bob for each individual recording, that one original master might have used different equipment than another is completely irrelevant. Peter used recordings made across the range of his recording career precisely to find out if there were significant differences based on vintage/ specific recording gear. What is critical is that Bob knows precisely what is used, not that each individual recording used the same gear.

Bob returned to Peter MQA files with no other changes than MQA made from the individual recording data/masters supplied.

Whether you support MQA or not, this comparison is exactly what so many say does not exist: a simple, straightforward comparison of an MQA recording against its known original master. It does exist and Peter does the comparison for people all the time. I suspect that if someone happens to be in one of the rooms at RMAF when Peter is doing a Wilson Alexia 2 demo, it wouldn't take much to get him to play an MQA comparison.

 

[DaveyF]

There are not so many unknowns, at least with Peter's recordings. Peter's masters were given to Bob with all of the pertinent recording information.

Peter's recordings are mostly digital in origin - he began recording digitally in the early 80s. The recordings vary in age and equipment used but since this information was supplied to Bob for each individual recording, that one original master might have used different equipment than another is completely irrelevant. Peter used recordings made across the range of his recording career precisely to find out if there were significant differences based on vintage/ specific recording gear. What is critical is that Bob knows precisely what is used, not that each individual recording used the same gear.

Bob returned to Peter MQA files with no other changes than MQA made from the individual recording data/masters supplied.

Whether you support MQA or not, this comparison is exactly what so many say does not exist: a simple, straightforward comparison of an MQA recording against its known original master. It does exist and Peter does the comparison for people all the time. I suspect that if someone happens to be in one of the rooms at RMAF when Peter is doing a Wilson Alexia 2 demo, it wouldn't take much to get him to play an MQA comparison.

Thank you for the clarification.
Peter gave an excellent demo of the difference between his standard files and the MQA files. With the system in play that night, which did include the superb Alexia 2's, the difference was not subtle.
Unfortunately, those who were not there and have not heard any MQA files will still chime in and tell us exactly how lacking the differences were- and why MQA is a rip-off. IMHO, it is too bad that we have so many 'blinkered' posters on the many forums. Must be a source of constant frustration to any manufacturer who is trying to introduce any new product!

 

[Al M.]

Must be a source of constant frustration to any manufacturer who is trying to introduce any new product!

Especially to a manufacturer as secretive about details of the technology as the MQA folks, inviting widespread skepticism.They only have themselves to blame, frankly.

 

[DaveyF]

Especially to a manufacturer as secretive about details of the technology as the MQA folks, inviting widespread skepticism.They only have themselves to blame, frankly.

I won't dispute that. However, don't fall into the trap that just because the company is secretive about the technology, that it is not worth seeking out and hearing for yourself. How it works, doesn't really interest me, all I needed was what my ears told me that day.
I suspect you will feel exactly the same way.

 

[microstrip]

(...) Unfortunately, those who were not there and have not heard any MQA files will still chime in and tell us exactly how lacking the differences were- and why MQA is a rip-off. IMHO, it is too bad that we have so many
'blinkered' posters on the many forums. Must be a source of constant frustration to any manufacturer who is trying to introduce any new product!

Fortunately they chime. Thanks for both sides I have been reading and learning about MQA. And manufacturers have more important matters to think about than forum debates!

 

[rbbert]

I won't dispute that. However, don't fall in to the trap that just because the company is secretive about the technology, that it is not worth seeking out and hearing for yourself. How it works, doesn't really interest me, all I needed was what my ears told me that day.
I suspect you will feel exactly the same way.

MQA can still be a rip-off no matter how good it sounds. I understand your enthusiasm, but just because you like the sound a lot doesn't mean it's a good thing for the music consumer or the music industry, and as with any proprietary product that can be just as important as how good the product is.

 

[KeithR]

MQA can still be a rip-off no matter how good it sounds. I understand your enthusiasm, but just because you like the sound a lot doesn't mean it's a good thing for the music consumer or the music industry, and as with any proprietary product that can be just as important as how good the product is.

That's fine Rob. I get that everyone wants an open source, license-free, full size hi res solution but its just not possible. Not like the studios are just posting them online themselves for a number of reasons. And every try at a small version has been a complete failure - see Pono most recently. Were you cheerleading Neal's effort? Its what everybody wanted.

Fact is people aren't paying $25 for a hi res file from hdtracks.com (which only has like 11k titles, many of them dubious upconverts) that they can only play at home with downloads a shrinking part of the pie. So we need to rationalize a better solution to reach more people. Streaming accomplishes that and the $s make more sense. Every audio show I've been to in the past two years is either Tidal or vinyl-based (with some tape thrown in). So its clearly the audiophile direction as well. If MQA's timing corrections can increase quality on some hi res tracks, then its gravy to me.

On a personal note, I'm having trouble considering servers right now (for Roon Core) because 90% of my listening is Tidal digital vs. my ripped collection.

 

[rbbert]

That's fine Rob. I get that everyone wants an open source, license-free, full size hi res solution but its just not possible. Not like the studios are just posting them online themselves for a number of reasons. And every try at a small version has been a complete failure - see Pono most recently. Were you cheerleading Neal's effort? Its what everybody wanted.

Fact is people aren't paying $25 for a hi res file from hdtracks.com (which only has like 11k titles, many of them dubious upconverts) that they can only play at home with downloads a shrinking part of the pie. So we need to rationalize a better solution to reach more people. Streaming accomplishes that and the $s make more sense. Every audio show I've been to in the past two years is either Tidal or vinyl-based (with some tape thrown in). So its clearly the audiophile direction as well. If MQA's timing corrections can increase quality on some hi res tracks, then its gravy to me.

On a personal note, I'm having trouble considering servers right now (for Roon Core) because 90% of my listening is Tidal digital vs. my ripped collection.

I agree completely, and I've tried to make clear my only real objection to MQA is that the studios may like the content control so much that they stop offering any other hi-res formats. As far as audio quality goes, my limited experience with MQA so far makes it (essentially) just another mastering for any given album, sometimes preferred, sometimes not. I'd like for it to be available, just not exclusive.

 

[awsmone]

There are not so many unknowns, at least with Peter's recordings. Peter's masters were given to Bob with all of the pertinent recording information.

Peter's recordings are mostly digital in origin - he began recording digitally in the early 80s. The recordings vary in age and equipment used but since this information was supplied to Bob for each individual recording, that one original master might have used different equipment than another is completely irrelevant. Peter used recordings made across the range of his recording career precisely to find out if there were significant differences based on vintage/ specific recording gear. What is critical is that Bob knows precisely what is used, not that each individual recording used the same gear.

Bob returned to Peter MQA files with no other changes than MQA made from the individual recording data/masters supplied.

Whether you support MQA or not, this comparison is exactly what so many say does not exist: a simple, straightforward comparison of an MQA recording against its known original master. It does exist and Peter does the comparison for people all the time. I suspect that if someone happens to be in one of the rooms at RMAF when Peter is doing a Wilson Alexia 2 demo, it wouldn't take much to get him to play an MQA comparison.

Thanks for that excellent feedback

What we are interested in knowing

However as stated earlier, this is optimal situation knowing all the sources

Also I assume a lot of these recordings were originally at low resolution with early digital filters

This is what MQA is aiming to correct

It will be wonderful if these wonderful performance from the dark ages of digital can be cleaned up

I have my eye on the new WEISS Dac 502..... if the meridian is a stretch

 

[opus112]

Must be a source of constant frustration to any manufacturer who is trying to introduce any new product!

To avoid frustration, any manufacturer needs to have a truly convincing marketing story for their new product.