Jump to content
  • The Computer Audiophile
    The Computer Audiophile

    My First 24 Hours With MQA

    thumb2.jpg

    1-Pixel.png

    It all started with an email on December 4, 2014. “Hi Chris, It is my great pleasure to provide details on Meridian’s breakthrough technology, MQA (Master Quality Authenticated). The press release is pasted below. And attached is a white paper …” That seems like forever ago. In the ensuing months MQA has been growing like a snowball rolling downhill. More manufacturers getting on board, more content partners signing up, and more chatter within Computer Audiophile community (among others). Based on objective site analytics, I can easily say that since CES 2016 the interest in MQA has grown immensely here on CA. Much of the talk since MQA’s first introduction has been speculative because only a relatively small number of people have actually heard MQA music. Even those who’ve heard it, have likely not heard it in their own audio systems. That was until Meridian officially released the MQA enabling firmware for its Explorer2, Prime, and select components (818v3,*808v6 and Special Edition Loudspeakers) Thursday February 4, 2016. I downloaded the firmware and updated my Explorer2 to v1717. It’s now MQA enabled and I have a DAC that decode and render this content through my own audio system in my own listening room. I’ve been waiting for this forever. I’ve heard MQA at shows plenty of times, but never in my own familiar environment. Now that the hardware was enabled for MQA playback, I needed some MQA music to play. Late afternoon I received an email with a link to download ten MQA FLAC files. Click, save, unzip, play, listen … MQA rules, it’s the best thing since sliced bread. If only it was that cut and dry.[PRBREAK][/PRBREAK]

     

     

    Listening To MQA

     

     

    Like most people, I wanted to listen to a single MQA track and have my mind blown by fidelity I could only dream of prior to MQA. I also wanted to compare MQA versions of tracks to non-MQA versions of the same tracks and come to sweeping conclusions that the MQA version was so much better I would never go back to such unsophisticated non-MQA music again. My list of wants was a bit unrealistic, but my expectations were set at a normal level while I hoped for the best.

     

    In addition to the ten tracks sent to me this afternoon, I purchased some content directly from the 2L record label’s website. This enabled me to purchase both the MQA and non-MQA versions of the same music. What could be more telling than two versions of the same thing? Or, so I thought.

     

    First up on my list to listen to was Stille lys (Quiet Light) by Jan Gunnar Hoff (link). I received the MQA version of track one titled Mitt Hjerte Alltid Vanker and I purchased the 24 bit / 192 kHz download of the same track. According to 2L the album was produced in DXD (Digital eXtreme Definition 352.8kHz/24bit). I would have downloaded the original DXD version but the Explorer2 doesn’t support sample rates over 192 kHz. The MQA version of the track appears in Roon as a 24/44.1 track because Roon sees the file like a DAC without an MQA decoder. Fortunately Roon, or any other application, simply needs to send the audio out to the DAC bit perfectly (unchanged) so an MQA enabled DAC can unfold the file into a higher resolution if needed. While playing this track through the Explorer2, the MQA light illuminates blue and the 4x sample rate lights are also illuminated. The LED lights up blue to indicate an MQA Studio file is playing. MQA Studio files are artist/producer-approved studio releases.

     

    Prior to this afternoon I had never heard this album at a show or in my own system. I would have preferred listening to music I am very familiar with, but at this point we have to take what we can get. I started with the MQA version of Mitt Hjerte Alltid Vanker and played it through three times. It sounded wonderful. Right from the beginning I noticed a clarity to the sound of each note as the hammers struck the strings and a superb decay as the tone faded into a black background. It really is a stellar sounding piece of music in all its MQA glory. That said, the 24/192 version of this track is also terrific. The main differences between the two versions of this track are 1) The MQA version has an uncanny clarity and sense of space around each individual note that is just not present in the standard 24/192 version. This space is specifically around each note, not necessarily presented as a larger or more airy soundstage as a whole. 2) The 24/192 version sounded like the microphone was closer to the strings and the sound was more narrow as if each note was compartmentalized its own silo. 3) On the MQA version, the tone of the decay of each note has a purity to it or an appropriate color to it that isn’t present in the standard version. I really noticed this sense of hearing the entire note, from the initial hammer strike to the last decibel of the decay, in all its glory.

     

    I’m not into hyperbole or writing something with which I am unsure. Thus, I gave myself a blind ABX test by putting the two versions of this track into a playlist, listening to them back to back, then setting the queue on repeat and random and pressing the next button several times without looking. I did this several times and immediately selected the correct MQA or non-MQA version of the track every time. Readers should keep in mind that just because I immediately picked the correct version of the track, doesn’t mean the differences are night and day. These things are subtle. But, once heard it’s hard not to hear the differences.

     

     

    Up next was the album Ein Song Frå Dei Utsungne Stunder by Berit Opheim, Nils Økland & Bjørn Kjellemyr, also known as The BNB (link). This album was originally produced at 16 bit / 44.1 kHz by 2L. Playback through the Meridian Explorer2 illuminated the MQA light in blue and didn’t light up the 2x or 4x LEDs. This MQA album remains at the same resolution seen by Roon, 16/44.1. The Explorer2 internally upsamples the audio to 4x (176.4) but that’s a topic for another time. This entire album sounds fantastic. Great vocals and great double bass accented by a sweet fiddle and viola. I noticed two subtle differences between the original and MQA versions of this album. 1) The original non-MQA version contained what I’ll call a plastic edge to the sound of some instruments. There was something synthetic about the sound that likely can’t be heard unless one has the MQA version for comparison. 2) The non-MQA version has a darkness or dullness to it that isn’t present in the MQA version. This isn’t darkness associated with the blackest of backgrounds or a low noise floor, rather its a deadness that’s heard with the sounds of the instruments. As with the previous album, the differences are not equivalent to bumping the volume by a few dB. They are subtle and may not be apparent all listeners, especially when listening to unfamiliar music.

     

     

    Switching to music that I am a bit more familiar with, I listened to a track titled When I Go from Judy Collins’ album Strangers Again. On this track Judy duets with Willie Nelson. Roon sees the track as 24/44.1 while the Explorer2 DAC sees it as 2x (most likely 88.2 as that’s the resolution of the HD version available from HDtracks and others (link)). The Explorer2 also illuminated the first LED as green rather than blue. Blue is the MQA Studio color, but green indicates that the unit is decoding and playing an MQA stream or file, and that the sound is identical to that encoded. I am not 100% sure what this means in terms of the MQA process to turn the music into an MQA album from a standard high resolution album. For all I know it may mean that the album was converted to MQA for its smaller file size, without much of the wizardry that goes into the MQA white glove process of creating MQA Studio files. Don’t quote me on that, it’s just a wild guess. (see edit 2 below) Perhaps that wild guess has something to do with the very small sonic differences I heard on this Judy Collins / Willie Nelson track. I thought if there was one track, out of the ten I received, in which I would really notice a difference, it would be this track. Most of us have heard Willie Nelson a million times and are familiar with folk music (more so than classical for many people). After listening over and over to the MQA and the original high resolution versions of this track I think the only noticeable difference I hear is a touch more natural or appropriately soft sound in Willie’s voice. On second thought, I believe there is also a difference in the sound of the opening drums. (I literally went back and listened a few more times). The MQA version of the track seems to reproduce more of the drum’s frequencies or make more of the drum audible. It’s not that the drum has a super wide frequency response, rather the non-MQA version seems to lose some of the drum sound into the background. The MQA version seems to reproduce a fuller drum sound with better decay than the non-MQA version. Either way, this track was a tough one for me as I struggled to hear the differences I wanted to and I thought I would hear.

     

    Edit 1: I just received a quote from Alan Silverman, Mastering Engineer on the Judy Collins track When I Go:

     

    “We have done many blind comparisons of my original high-resolution masters with and without the MQA process. MQA is the consistent winner. What mystifies me about the technology is the purity of tone and natural realism that MQA unlocks from my high-resolution recordings. The MQA playback is more satisfying and not by just a subtle shade. MQA has educated my ear to digital artifacts that still exist, in spite of the best practices with the best equipment, by eliminating them. It is perhaps a holy grail of digital audio.”

     

    More specifically about the track When I go Alan said, "I’ve just compared the MQA playback with my original 88.2k 24-bit master and find the MQA to be mystifyingly more satisfying, and not by just a subtle shade. Listening to Willie and Judy, their voices sound much more real, at the same time, they have a textural filigree and detail of tone that I am not hearing in the original master! The same holds for the banjo and the subtle electric guitar in the right channel. I am delighted and extremely enthusiastic about the MQA process.”

     

     

    Edit 2: This just in from MQA ltd., "There is no sonic difference between files marked as green or blue, it is only about Provenance or Approval." In addition, "Today Alan Silverman asked us to move the Judy Collins [album] up to Studio."

     

     

    Wrapping Up The First 24 Hours

     

     

    Overall I am happy with the MQA music I’ve heard. I wish I could render an opinion, that would carry across all MQA products and music, that MQA is always better by a wide margin, but this isn’t the case. The differences I’ve heard so far are subtle and my opinions are limited to the music and hardware I used in the last 24 hours. I also have a suspicion that the MQA process will be more beneficial to recordings that were done under less than stellar circumstances (i.e. lesser quality A to D converters, etc…). The 2L recordings are done with the utmost care using very good equipment and very good engineers. While there is still improvements MQA has made to the original 2L masters, I’m willing to bet there are greater improvements to be made to more traditional popular recordings or very old recordings. On the other hand, it may not be easy to compare an MQA version and non-MQA version of some old recordings because the MQA version has been done with the white glove process. It would be the same as comparing two difference masters of the same album, of course they’ll sound different. There will be clear differences with or without MQA. The real question many people will want answered is, how much of the difference is MQA and how much is the white glove process? But, does this question really need to be answered? I’m not so sure because we don’t have the option of getting new white glove masters of some of our favorite music. If MQA is the impetus to get us better sounding music, that’s all that really matters. In a dream world we may have the option of a white glove MQA and white glove non-MQA, but this is the real world. The options are, MQA or live with what we already have. Anyway, the MQA train is finally leaving the building. I’m cautiously optimistic that everything will work out and we’ll have better sounding music without too much trouble.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    System I used for playback:

     

    Roon software running on SOtM sMS-1000SQ Windows Edition server and SOtM sPS-1000 power supply > Wireworld Platinum Starlight 7 USB 2.0 Cable > Meridian Explorer2 DAC > AudioQuest Yosemite 3.5mm to RCA Cable > Constellation Audio PreAmp 1.0 > Wireworld Platinum Eclipse 7 Interconnects > Constellation Audio Mono 1.0 Amplifiers > Wireworld Platinum Eclipse 7 Speaker Cables > TAD CR1 Loudspeakers.

     

     

     

    1-Pixel.png




    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    I want to hear MQA demoed with an A/B comparison.

     

    IMHO there's not a great deal between 192 and MQA listening to analogue outputs on an 818 (A/B). I suspect there's more to be heard through Meridians SE speakers but nobody will buy them out of idle interest. I've heard MQA demo's on SE speakers, generally very impressive but content dependent.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    IMHO there's not a great deal between 192 and MQA listening to analogue outputs on an 818 (A/B). I suspect there's more to be heard through Meridians SE speakers but nobody will buy them out of idle interest. I've heard MQA demo's on SE speakers, generally very impressive but content dependent.

     

    Yeah seems like MQA is being marketed with carefully made demos to make it shine. But no real comparisons. IMO, If it doesn't correct temporal information at least as good as DSD then what's the point?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    As I remember it Mark Waldrep wrote in his AIX blog quite some time back that he had a email or phone conversation with Bob Stuart and had questioned him about MQA and sound quality. At that time Bob had responded that he wasn't making any claims of increased sound quality, only that the process was going to ease streaming/downloading of large HDA files due to the reduced size, how it was totally transparent, and would provide 16/44 compatible playback. He then promised Mark a full written Q/A interview like Chris is talking about at a later date. But then after the "I've Heard The Future" article and all the rest he has not availed himself for said interview though he promised it on a couple later occasions. Seems like his public story has changed over the last 18 months. ???

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I am using voyage mpd and have not been able to see the blue light yet. Still hoping to hear. Maybe I should try mplayer on my ubuntu box

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I am using voyage mpd and have not been able to see the blue light yet. Still hoping to hear. Maybe I should try mplayer on my ubuntu box

    As long as you aren't resampling the output Voyage MPD will output bit perfect MQA and illuminate the lights.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    He then promised Mark a full written Q/A interview like Chris is talking about at a later date. But then after the "I've Heard The Future" article and all the rest he has not availed himself for said interview though he promised it on a couple later occasions.

     

    Promised response to the Q/A has been received and some of the results have now been posted to Marks blog the last 2 days. Curious?

    Robert Stuart Responds: MQA and More! | Real HD-Audio

    Robert Stuart Responds…Again! | Real HD-Audio

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I wonder if Bob Stuart thinks Mark Waldrep is arrogant too.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I wonder if Bob Stuart thinks Mark Waldrep is arrogant too.

     

    I don't know if he finds Mark arrogant. I'm sure Bob is nervous cause Mark will tell the truth about

    what he hears from MQA when it becomes more available. He's not in the pocket of advertisers as some others in the audiophile media community.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I don't know if he finds Mark arrogant. I'm sure Bob is nervous cause Mark will tell the truth about

    what he hears from MQA when it becomes more available. He's not in the pocket of advertisers as some others in the audiophile media community.

    I wonder what Cookie Marenco thinks of MQA.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Why?

    Why not? She's not shy about her opinions on other audio formats.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Why not? She's not shy about her opinions on other audio formats.

    I was looking for a response with reasoning, likely technical based on your knowledge, rather than why not. I think Donald Trump qualifies based on your response:~)

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I was looking for a response with reasoning, likely technical based on your knowledge, rather than why not. I think Donald Trump qualifies based on your response:~)

    Cookie clearly knows good sound. Not everything has to be technical.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I don't know if he finds Mark arrogant. I'm sure Bob is nervous cause Mark will tell the truth about

    what he hears from MQA

     

    Except Mark doesn't hear very well, so nobody should care what he hears or not.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Except Mark doesn't hear very well, so nobody should care what he hears or not.

    Does he hear worse than typical for his age?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Does he hear worse than typical for his age?

     

    Probably as much or worse: the first isn't out of the ordinary, the second on the other hand...

     

    During the review of the Regen in his own studio where he invited two other listeners he trusts, the latter heard differences, but not Mark.

     

    Why would you listen to what he says about what he hears (or clearly cannot hear, in his own studio...)?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Probably as much or worse: the first isn't out of the ordinary, the second on the other hand...

     

    During the review of the Regen in his own studio where he invited two other listeners he trusts, the latter heard differences, but not Mark.

     

    Why would you listen to what he says about what he hears (or clearly cannot hear, in his own studio...)?

    Some would say he's not as easily bamboozled by marketing claims. He's not the only person not to hear a difference from the Regen. Also bear in mind that he was using a DAC that shouldn't be affected by such devices.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Some would say he's not as easily bamboozled by marketing claims. He's not the only person not to hear a difference from the Regen. Also bear in mind that he was using a DAC that shouldn't be affected by such devices.

     

    Some people not hearing a difference with the Regen because their equipment doesn't benefit is a completely different thing from 3 people hearing the same equipment and only 1 conspicuously not hearing anything.

     

    I think you're not too aware of his biases. He likes to market his own recordings.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Some people not hearing a difference with the Regen because their equipment doesn't benefit is a completely different thing from 3 people hearing the same equipment and only 1 conspicuously not hearing anything.

     

    That argument goes both ways.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Cookie clearly knows good sound. Not everything has to be technical.

    No worries no arguments here.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I don't know if he finds Mark arrogant. I'm sure Bob is nervous cause Mark will tell the truth about

    what he hears from MQA when it becomes more available. He's not in the pocket of advertisers as some others in the audiophile media community.

     

    You make it seem they're running for political office. However, I don't think Bob Stuart is too nervous.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Promised response to the Q/A has been received and some of the results have now been posted to Marks blog the last 2 days. Curious?

    Robert Stuart Responds: MQA and More! | Real HD-Audio

    Robert Stuart Responds…Again! | Real HD-Audio

     

    Just arrived now to these texts and could not agree more on the closing remarks:

    " The problem we have is the lack of truly great sounding recordings. The production chain is broken. How can ever expect to deliver better fidelity with software tweaks, expensive cables, and exotic hardware when the content were playing doesn’t measure up?"

     

    This is why I prefer a mp3 of a good recording that a HD audiophile file of a lesser recording.

     

    But it is refreshing to see new efforts in the right direction, like these folks:

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I listen to mostly Classic Rock. I don't expect to hear the mic feed. But I want to hear what's on the analog tape. And 16/44 doesn't cut it for me. I don't care what Mark Waldrep thinks. I'm not buying his recordings because of the way he produces them. I'm buying stuff that I want to hear.

     

    I can say the same about Bob Stuart. MQA might be great but if I can't find classic rock/ pop remastered using the MQA process, I won't buy it. I'm talking about going all the way back to the analog tape to do the transfer using the MQA process and not old digital masters that have been corrected. That to me sounds like sales BS. Come on, how can something be authenticated from an old digital master?

     

    DSD seems to be more accurate with transients and temporal information, but there's something in the treble that's not quite right. Doubtful if any music I listen to will ever get DSD128 or DSD256 treatment.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Except Mark doesn't hear very well, so nobody should care what he hears or not.

    So I take it you believe you have superior hearing? I then suggest you open a like studio and start recording HDA and show him-us how it'd done with your superior success in the audiophile recordings market.

    Talk is cheap.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I listen to mostly Classic Rock. I don't expect to hear the mic feed. But I want to hear what's on the analog tape. And 16/44 doesn't cut it for me. I don't care what Mark Waldrep thinks. I'm not buying his recordings because of the way he produces them. I'm buying stuff that I want to hear.

     

    I can say the same about Bob Stuart. MQA might be great but if I can't find classic rock/ pop remastered using the MQA process, I won't buy it. I'm talking about going all the way back to the analog tape to do the transfer using the MQA process and not old digital masters that have been corrected. That to me sounds like sales BS. Come on, how can something be authenticated from an old digital master?

     

    DSD seems to be more accurate with transients and temporal information, but there's something in the treble that's not quite right. Doubtful if any music I listen to will ever get DSD128 or DSD256 treatment.

    For the bad and good, what's already on the old classic master tapes is a done deal. Just using another size bit bucket or format isn't going to reveal any information that isn't there in the first place. Only recordings that really show improvement over the Redbooks are the ones that folks like Steven Wilson or Steve Hoffman have gone back and remastered to get the best sounding files they can from the old tapes.

    True HDA belongs to the recordings done in 24/96 or higher sampling rates to begin with.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites




    Guest
    This is now closed for further comments




×
×
  • Create New...