MQA discussion

[mauidan]

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

To avoid frustration, manufactures/service providers should ignore comments made by people who haven't listened to their products/services.

 

[DaveyF]

To avoid frustration, manufactures/service providers should ignore comments made by people who haven't listened to their products/services.

+1

Lol....

 

[thedudeabides]

a typical MP3 delivers just 10% of the original recording, while MQA captures 100% of the performance

If this is an example of MQA's marketing then they most certainly don't want to reach people interested in the truth.

Have you heard it?

 

[opus112]

See post #125.

 

[thedudeabides]

Thank you. That clarifies your perspective.

 

[opus112]

No worries.

 

[ack]

My first experience with MQA

So I promised I would make an effort to listen to MQA and I did, with the Berkeley Ref2+MQA. First of all, all material streamed from Tidal was either 88.2 or 96k - so no possible direct comparison with RBCD. The 30SV/400RS Spectrals were driving a pair of Cygnus 2, and overall, the audition was inconclusive, simply because it was impossible for me to figure out whether the sound was attributed to the higher rate, MQA itself, the presumed "original-recording" source, or all of the above. Second, the list of titles is still poor and that alone doesn't make it worth my time, and more importantly, I could find only a couple of classical music titles, one them being on the 2L label.

So I listened to a few 2L tracks and the sound was nice, no digital harshness, involving, good rhythm, alive, great violin sound, but... I get more natural sound especially with HDCD RBCD material through my modified Alpha DAC, and I would expect true hi-rez PCM with or without HDCD through my DAC to be even better. Or... my speakers plus lesser MIT cables still outperform the Cygnus 2... don't know. Nonetheless, the nice thing about the whole MQA thing is the claim to access to the original masters , whatever that means, and combined with the small file size, it's an honest effort to bring great sound to the streaming masses; and if it also fixes a digital artifact or two in the original ADC, then great! I still don't believe it's a lossy algorithm, in the sense that the final data is a subset of the equivalent RBCD encoding, so that's a positive attribute, but for an audiophile and passionate musicophile, I don't need this technology, not to mention that all the music I care about is either in CD or LP. At home, I continue to marvel at how better my sound is, CD, HDCD or LP. Let's put it this way: I was not wowed as I was by the Vivaldi RBCD stack or even the Spectral 4000SV/same Spectral electronics/Cygnus 1 a year or so ago.

Here's what I really care about: the upcoming Spectral DMA-500 40th Anniversary amps, and I decided to get on the list.

 

[awsmone]

So I promised I would make an effort to listen to MQA and I did, with the Berkeley Ref2+MQA. First of all, all material streamed from Tidal was either 88.2 or 96k - so no possible direct comparison with RBCD. The 30SV/400RS Spectrals were driving a pair of Cygnus 2, and overall, the audition was inconclusive, simply because it was impossible for me to figure out whether the sound was attributed to the higher rate, MQA itself, the presumed "original-recording" source, or all of the above. Second, the list of titles is still poor and that alone doesn't make it worth my time, and more importantly, I could find only a couple of classical music titles, one them being on the 2L label.

So I listened to a few 2L tracks and the sound was nice, no digital harshness, involving, good rhythm, alive, great violin sound, but... I get more natural sound especially with HDCD RBCD material through my modified Alpha DAC, and I would expect true hi-rez PCM with or without HDCD through my DAC to be even better. Or... my speakers plus lesser MIT cables still outperform the Cygnus 2... don't know. Nonetheless, the nice thing about the whole MQA thing is the claim to access to the original masters , whatever that means, and combined with the small file size, it's an honest effort to bring great sound to the streaming masses; and if it also fixes a digital artifact or two in the original ADC, then great! I still don't believe it's a lossy algorithm, in the sense that the final data is a subset of the equivalent RBCD encoding, so that's a positive attribute, but for an audiophile and passionate musicophile, I don't need this technology, not to mention that all the music I care about is either in CD or LP. At home, I continue to marvel at how better my sound is, CD, HDCD or LP. Let's put it this way: I was not wowed as I was by the Vivaldi RBCD stack or even the Spectral 4000SV/same Spectral electronics/Cygnus 1 a year or so ago.

Here's what I really care about: the upcoming Spectral DMA-500 40th Anniversary amps, and I decided to get on the list.

Thanks for feedback

Interesting .....

I think you have made a good point

Clearly MQA is great for streaming hires and portable audio with the file size compression

But , for us chair bound Audiophile's the big thing might be to get master quality recordings, as the enfolding makes the owner of the catalogue comfortable anyone's going to crack it as is combination of hardware and software...

 

[DaveyF]

So I promised I would make an effort to listen to MQA and I did, with the Berkeley Ref2+MQA. First of all, all material streamed from Tidal was either 88.2 or 96k - so no possible direct comparison with RBCD. The 30SV/400RS Spectrals were driving a pair of Cygnus 2, and overall, the audition was inconclusive, simply because it was impossible for me to figure out whether the sound was attributed to the higher rate, MQA itself, the presumed "original-recording" source, or all of the above. Second, the list of titles is still poor and that alone doesn't make it worth my time, and more importantly, I could find only a couple of classical music titles, one them being on the 2L label.

So I listened to a few 2L tracks and the sound was nice, no digital harshness, involving, good rhythm, alive, great violin sound, but... I get more natural sound especially with HDCD RBCD material through my modified Alpha DAC, and I would expect true hi-rez PCM with or without HDCD through my DAC to be even better. Or... my speakers plus lesser MIT cables still outperform the Cygnus 2... don't know. Nonetheless, the nice thing about the whole MQA thing is the claim to access to the original masters , whatever that means, and combined with the small file size, it's an honest effort to bring great sound to the streaming masses; and if it also fixes a digital artifact or two in the original ADC, then great! I still don't believe it's a lossy algorithm, in the sense that the final data is a subset of the equivalent RBCD encoding, so that's a positive attribute, but for an audiophile and passionate musicophile, I don't need this technology, not to mention that all the music I care about is either in CD or LP. At home, I continue to marvel at how better my sound is, CD, HDCD or LP. Let's put it this way: I was not wowed as I was by the Vivaldi RBCD stack or even the Spectral 4000SV/same Spectral electronics/Cygnus 1 a year or so ago.

Here's what I really care about: the upcoming Spectral DMA-500 40th Anniversary amps, and I decided to get on the list.

Tasos, yes, it is surprising that HDCD is so very good, even in this day and age. I really enjoy all of the HDCD's that I own through my old ( but not tired) EAD 7000 Mk3 DAC with HDCD decoding. This piece is now going on 25+ years of age, and yet in some ways I still think it can re-create good sound from redbook. Not in the same league as vinyl, but still very listenable on HDCD's.
MQA would be a must for me if I were seeking out a new DAC, and I suspect that the new Mytek Manhattan would be very high on my list. Shame that the Bryston BDA 3 and the Schiit Yggy cannot decode MQA.

 

[awsmone]

I thought this article about Peter McGrath recordings historically in digital may be of interest

http://www.soundstage.com/surrounded/surrounded200201.htm

 

[DaveC]

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

That would explain why reports on MQA are mixed. If it does make early digital sound much better that's great, but I do wonder if the "benefits" apply for all tracks or only ones that used certain flawed ADCs...

 

[ack]

That would explain why reports on MQA are mixed. If it does make early digital sound much better that's great, but I do wonder if the "benefits" apply for all tracks or only ones that used certain flawed ADCs...

I agree

 

[awsmone]

I agree

It's interesting in the article I just posted about a PETER McGrath digital recordings he used a Nagra D

He was recording a lot of four channel, as well as 2 channel

As the Nagra can only record 4 channel at 48 Hz, it's possible this gave the MQA engineers the perfect platform to compare the recordings at 48 and 96 kHz from the 4 and 2 channel masters, this would give them an excellent idea of what spectrum was lacking from the 48khz, and also see what they could dig up from the background such as alias images

Very fascinating test bed group of recordings of Peter's for the MQA team ??

 

[mauidan]

So I promised I would make an effort to listen to MQA and I did, with the Berkeley Ref2+MQA. First of all, all material streamed from Tidal was either 88.2 or 96k - so no possible direct comparison with RBCD.

It's very easy to find albums on Tidal that are available in both RDCD and MQA formats.

What was feeding the Berkeley?

 

[metaphacts]

It's interesting in the article I just posted about a PETER McGrath digital recordings he used a Nagra D

He was recording a lot of four channel, as well as 2 channel

As the Nagra can only record 4 channel at 48 Hz, it's possible this gave the MQA engineers the perfect platform to compare the recordings at 48 and 96 kHz from the 4 and 2 channel masters, this would give them an excellent idea of what spectrum was lacking from the 48khz, and also see what they could dig up from the background such as alias images

Very fascinating test bed group of recordings of Peter's for the MQA team ??

FYI, Peter supplied a breadth of recordings that both pre date and post date his use of the Nagra D.

 

[ack]

It very easy to find albums on Tidal that are available in both RDCD and MQA formats.

What was feeding the Berkeley?

A Baetis Reference 2 server I believe, and the server must have been streaming over ethernet from the internet

 

[mauidan]

A Baetis Reference 2 server I believe, and the server must have been streaming over ethernet from the internet

Once again, It's very easy to find albums on Tidal that are available in both RDCD and MQA formats, or you could have ripped a RDCD on to the Baetis and compared it to a Tidal MQA track of the same album.

Seems like operator error or lack of knowledge on the part of the Baetis owner.

I can easily compare Tidal RDCD and MQA tracks using my MacBook Pro and Audioquest DragonFly Red.

 

[awsmone]

Once again, It's very easy to find albums on Tidal that are available in both RDCD and MQA formats, or you could have ripped a RDCD on to the Baetis and compared it to a Tidal MQA track of the same album.

Seems like operator error or lack of knowledge on the part of the Baetis owner.

I can easily compare Tidal RDCD and MQA tracks using my MacBook Pro and Audioquest DragonFly Red.

2l has a test page with lots of rdcd versus MQA

 

[rbbert]

2l has a test page with lots of rdcd versus MQA

This is good. On Tidal, or for that matter with one's own collection, it is often not possible to know if the RBCD and the MQA versions of an album are the same mastering; in fact in many cases they are definitely different.

 

[ack]

It's interesting in the article I just posted about a PETER McGrath digital recordings he used a Nagra D

He was recording a lot of four channel, as well as 2 channel

As the Nagra can only record 4 channel at 48 Hz, it's possible this gave the MQA engineers the perfect platform to compare the recordings at 48 and 96 kHz from the 4 and 2 channel masters, this would give them an excellent idea of what spectrum was lacking from the 48khz, and also see what they could dig up from the background such as alias images

Very fascinating test bed group of recordings of Peter's for the MQA team ??

From my perspective, I couldn't help but notice that most albums were really old, like Diana Ross, Bob Marley, Louis Armstrong, etc. They are going to transfer the entire Warner catalog it seems, and then probably forge new partnerships.

I just re-read the original TAS article on MQA http://www.theabsolutesound.com/art...nticated-mqa-the-view-from-30000-feet/?page=2 and the following goes well with my "great sound for the streaming masses" comment I made yesterday:

[Talking about hi rez digital] The industry then tries to minimize that degradation by very fast sampling and the gentler filters possible with faster sampling, which creates massive files and limits their accessibility to the vast majority of listeners. The record industry is reluctant to release their fast-sampling files for fear that they will eventually have nothing to sell. Consumers who want better-than-CD quality must master computer technology, limiting the widespread accessibility of better sound. Even then, the library of available music is limited, and still doesn’t represent the sound in the recording studio. To top it off, the consumer never really knows if the file he’s playing back is the same as that created by the artist and engineer. And those enormous files can’t be streamed, and won’t play in portable applications.

In short, the technology is broken. The business model is broken. The artist is unable to deliver to fans the best possible representation of his or her work. The consumer is denied the best possible listening experience.

So I still see MQA as a technology that wants to fix the business model of delivering good-resolution, streamed music to the masses. It does so by reducing the overall file size to fit in billions of future MQA-ready portable devices [the 'vast majority of listeners'], and attempts to deliver high quality sound by allegedly starting with high-rez original masters, and/or has algorithms to fix technical flaws in some common early-day ADCs. All in all, it's a great and honest attempt to bring better sound to the masses, something that MP3 and true hi-rez simply failed.

It seems to me Meridian's fundamental motivational business question must have been: how do I bring all this great hi-rez music, even if recorded on flawed early-day ADCs, to the masses? So they developed clever algorithms to reduce the file size and address temporal issues during the original sampling, and are attempting to convince the labels that this is going to be a booming business model and will rekindle their sales. I like their business intent and approach. Regarding the smaller-file-size-yet-still-high-fidelity encoding, TAS again puts it well:

A much more efficient coding technique captures all the musical information while not trying to encode signals that don’t exist in the real world. This approach results in much smaller file sizes with no loss in sound quality. In addition, a clever technique encapsulates the high-resolution portion of the signal and hides it under the noise floor. This information “unfolds” on playback, with awareness of the playback platform, into the signal’s original resolution, all the way up to 352kHz/24-bit.

What I don't like, again, are technical claims that it fixes reproducing-DAC flaws, and language like the following (also from the same TAS article) - and here's where my show-me nature comes in: someone prove the underlined:

MQA is, however, backward compatible with all existing distribution channels and playback hardware. If you don’t have an MQA decoder, you get slightly-better-than-CD sound.

Finally, I also strongly disagree with the following TAS/Meridian assertion:

The other problem with “high-resolution” digital audio is that it didn’t really solve the fundamental problem of why digital sounds the way it does—flat, congested, hard, and glassy.

The Vivaldi 2.0 stack has proven to me beyond any reasonable doubt that there is nothing glassy, congested or flat in the RBCD sound it puts out, never mind hi-rez PCM through it. As I sated before, I continue to think that RBCD's fundamental problem is the limited passband and nothing else, which tends to remove the air around instruments and inevitably affects timbre - things that true hi-rez restores, albeit in a wasteful data fashion.

An interesting open question for me is: will MQA catch on with audiophiles? It certainly sounds good, and I'd like to compare with RBCD directly from a silver disc one day (NOT a download and via a server or anything like that), as well as with true hi-rez.

So who can compare the Vivaldi CD stack against MQA, with the same program?