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



    Nice write-up, Chris.

     

    I think many of us look forward to your commentary when using MQA files with your reference listening environment (i.e. not an MQA-enabled DAC).

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Hey Sal,

    Funny yet insightful :-).

     

    As others have said elsewhere, I think there are so many layers in terms of potential points of contention around MQA... Here are a few from my perspective:

     

    Thanks Archimago, very insightful post!

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Yes Chris, It's a Government conspiracy! MQA has spyware in it that will report any anti- social music you download to the CIA! Your all gonna be in deep KA KA. LOL

     

    36.3 File size of the MQA makes me question how in backward compatibility playback, it can possible sound as good as the non MQA 126.3 flac file? That part just doesn't add up?

    OPPS, IIRC the claim is that in backward compatibility playback the claimed sound quality will be "equal to" 16/44. Is that correct?

    Hopefully Bob Stuart will address questions like this when he answers the CA reader questions.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    We now have a convenient test for bitperfect output to test software.

     

    -Chris

    Yes, this is really a great feature that so many people can use.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Hey Sal,

    Funny yet insightful :-).

     

    As others have said elsewhere, I think there are so many layers in terms of potential points of contention around MQA... Here are a few from my perspective:

     

    1. Does it actually provide better sounding files when played on a non-decoding DAC? My listening says no. The DSP algorithm changes the sound and is different. But "better" starts getting into subjective assessment and I suspect this will not be universal approval. This speaks to the effect of the temporal "de-blurring" process - basically, how good is it compared to all the other DSP's over the years supposedly capable of improving sound quality?

     

    2. Is there the potential for loss of freedom? Sure, and it begins with the idea that we have to buy yet another DAC/decoder considering we have decades of really good hardware already. Personally I would not want MQA to be the only form of digital download since I do want to maintain the ability to perform DSP myself such as digital room correction with "flat" non-proprietary encoded audio data. IMO, the likelihood of MQA taking the world by storm to the point where it's the only downloadable file format is slim to none so I don't really think there's anything to worry about.

     

    Getting a bit more technical:

     

    3. Does it "compress" well? As Miska has analyzed, you can do a better job with say an 18-bit FLAC file running at 96kHz for some of the 2L samples. As I have noted in my blog post 2 weeks ago, I have some concerns about the low compression potential of the lower 8-bits of a 16/44 sourced recording when converted to the 24/44 MQA "format" (16/44 is still the most common bit-depth/samplerate of course when you consider what will be streamed off TIDAL).

     

    4. Given the need for compatibility, only the lower bits in MQA are used for encoding the high frequency spectrum. There aren't that many bits so it's "lossy" out of necessity. Does this even add to the sound quality in any way? When other variables are controlled (eg. the DAC playing at the same samplerate, volume unchanged, same DSP in #1 accounted for) I doubt there would be audible differences when tested.

     

    Chris,

    If possible, could you record maybe a minute of the start of one of the MQA samples like the Magnificat on the 2L download page using a good 24/192 ADC through the Explorer2 of the decoded MQA file and using the equivalent 24/192 file (since the Explorer2 is only capable up to 192kHz)? I think this would be telling:

    1. We can see how much high frequency detail >22kHz is retained in the reconstruction.

    2. We can look for amplitude changes - MQA's DSP I suspect will account for potential clipping while doing the upsampling so I would not be surprised that there are some differences which add to audibility.

    3. We can assess the noise floor and see if MQA changes this. Useful because I've been curious of the amount that MQA affects the dynamic range in a 24-bit file.

     

    Ultimately, I don't think there's anything to fear in terms of MQA, nor really that much to be "wow'ed" by. It's a DSP which supposedly helps with "deblurring" + a compression algorithm with the novel term "origami" attached + Meridian probably applying their form of minimum phase "apodizing" upsampling filter to the 192+kHz output data. The DSP part is IMO what makes the sound different - what's interesting is whether subjectively it does more good than harm and whether most people ultimately like the sound. The "origami" piece is interesting and smart, but is it really needed? Would say a standard 24/48 stream (or dithered 18-bit/48 compressed with FLAC) with the "de-blur" DSP applied assuming the output DAC uses a standard linear phase antialiasing filter sound just as good? I think so, but I doubt Meridian/MQA would do us the service of giving us an example of what that would sound like!

     

    Hi Archimago - You had a great opportunity to ask Bob Stuart all these questions earlier in the week. Bob will be addressing every single question sent to him.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Thanks for the info Sal. I tried mplayer again, and with the output at 100% the blue light shines, with 99% and lower it is white. It uses Alsa, Pulse is one of the other options. I installed Clementine (never have heard of it before), and with Clementine and Alsa Sink: white. It stays white, even at 100%.

    But now i need another way of reducing the noise!

     

    Marc

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Want to point out, some using of Tidal, including myself updated their Mac app and now have the Master quality option. Then doing a search for any of the albums listed on 2L website will trigger the HIFI text to switch to MQA. Most tracks show as 24/44.1 but some are 24/48 and can see switched back to the 44.1k version when switch back to HIFI setting.

     

    I don't have a MQA DAC, so can just listen to the tracks as is and even they sound better than the HIFI versions. More clarity and better decay. I can only guess that it's using a better master than the HIFI version.

     

    But the point is, Tidal with MQA is now live for some users. So with the 2L catalog, gives people with MQA DAC more options for listening and don't have spend money on albums you've never heard before or know nothing about.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Thanks for this info. I have considered Tidal but have waited until the MQA promise materialized. I will see if the 3 months free use of Tidal by Meridian still holds.

     

    Marc

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Thanks for the info Sal. I tried mplayer again, and with the output at 100% the blue light shines, with 99% and lower it is white. It uses Alsa, Pulse is one of the other options. I installed Clementine (never have heard of it before), and with Clementine and Alsa Sink: white. It stays white, even at 100%.

    But now i need another way of reducing the noise!

     

     

    Marc

    Yea Pulse is a bully and insists on setting the output sampling rate at one of only a couple rates, need alsa. Did you configure Clementine to point it at the USB dac device as show in the provided links? Is your dac showing the correct sampling rate as the playing file?

    BTW, There's a slightly quirky andriod remote app for Clementine.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Thanks again. I don't have much time till Monday to look into this. But I have no computer at my set so I don't need something to use Clementine remotely. I have a Brooklyn DAC there, and an Olive 4, and Clementine is on my PC with a headphone.

    But maybe, if Tidal is good enough, I could go the usual laptop-way and connect that to my set with the Explorer².

     

    Marc

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    John Darko talks about listening to MQA files of Dylan(Don't Think Twice, It's Alright), the Doors(Riders on the Storm) and an unspecified 2011 Wilco album track(from The Whole Love) and others have spoken of hearing Keith Jarrett's Koln Concert with the MQA treatment. Little to nothing has been said about hearing these recordings A/B'ed with the non-MQA versions. I would think that these would have been among the first tracks offered to Chris by Meridian. I wonder why that wasn't the case.

     

    Esau

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    John Darko talks about listening to MQA files of Dylan(Don't Think Twice, It's Alright), the Doors(Riders on the Storm) and an unspecified 2011 Wilco album track(from The Whole Love) and others have spoken of hearing Keith Jarrett's Koln Concert with the MQA treatment. Little to nothing has been said about hearing these recordings A/B'ed with the non-MQA versions. I would think that these would have been among the first tracks offered to Chris by Meridian. I wonder why that wasn't the case.

     

    Esau

     

    That "Stuart had been able to get his hands on a 96kHz transfer of ECM's analog master tape" I didn't take as MQA had a deal with ECM.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    John Darko talks about listening to MQA files of Dylan(Don't Think Twice, It's Alright), the Doors(Riders on the Storm) and an unspecified 2011 Wilco album track(from The Whole Love) and others have spoken of hearing Keith Jarrett's Koln Concert with the MQA treatment. Little to nothing has been said about hearing these recordings A/B'ed with the non-MQA versions. I would think that these would have been among the first tracks offered to Chris by Meridian. I wonder why that wasn't the case.

     

    Esau

    Hi Esau - MQA LTD. is waiting on record companies to sign off on providing the press with copies of more popular music. I will officially receive such content once the record companies agree to it. That said, I have it on good authority that the Doors and Wilco albums do not light up the authentication lights on MQA enabled public products (prior version of MQA (0.9) used for those tracks).

     

    Also, be careful with A/B comparisons. The albums are like two different masters, so you aren't comparing MQA v. non-MQA.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    iamoneagain: what do you mean by 'some users' of TIDAL? I am one those original/charter members, how do I get it? i have version 1.2.0.697 W:1.33.3--3 NP:2.3.7.0 and still no 'MASTER' choice

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    That said, I have it on good authority that the Doors and Wilco albums do not light up the authentication lights on MQA enabled public products (prior version of MQA (0.9) used for those tracks).

     

    Maybe they need to connect the DAC with some Audio Quest Chocolate digital cables. ROTFLMAO

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    iamoneagain: what do you mean by 'some users' of TIDAL? I am one those original/charter members, how do I get it? i have version 1.2.0.697 W:1.33.3--3 NP:2.3.7.0 and still no 'MASTER' choice

     

    I mean it seems random who gets early access to the Master setting. I never use Tidal app anymore since using Roon, but saw that it was upgraded to included Exclusive sound setting, so decided to get it a try. I noticed the Master setting and got an error needed to upgrade my subscription. I switched back to HIFI and played the track and then switch back to Master and it started to work but still showed HIFI. Decided to see if the 2L catalog would work and to my surprise, Tidal now showed MQA on the bottom next to the speaker. I've then spent some time trying different albums and switching back and forth between HIFI and MQA. Even without a MQA Dac I could hear the difference in the tracks.

     

    I posted in Roon forum about the Master setting assuming everyone had access to it. Only 2 or 3 other people said they did. Not sure anyone tried the albums with a MQA Dac yet but I have to assume it would work. All the albums for 2L were showing as MQA even though on their site, they only have a select few tracks for testing.

     

    I heard 7digital was going to be offering MQA as well but didn't see anything on their site yet. Also, the few albums on their site that I searched in Tidal were still in HIFI. It would be nice if their catalog goes MQA since they have more genres and latest releases.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    If you did notice that Tidal had MAQ on Mac: (From Roon forum).

     

    palbratelundPål BråtelundTidal Strategic Partner Manager

    1h

     

    Folks. To end speculation. This has nothing to do with territory or selection or any other magic. We have implemented the function to stream Master quality for the future with Exclusive Mode and WASAPI. It shouldn't show unless you have a user that allows for it to show. Somehow, a campaign type that can be set on HiFi users opens this up - and that's an old fashioned bug. We wish it was clever marketing smile.png?v=1.

    Given how many times we have demoed this in public (two CESes, two Rocky Mountain Audio Fests and a High End show in Munich) it's no surprise that we're working on things. But this is not the roll out.

    It does sound good though!

     

    Reply

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    If you use the link above and read Pål's answer to me, it is interesting to notice that it seems to be a challenge to get enough MQA encoded music.

    That's my understanding.

     

    We we know he mentioned 5000 tracks more than a year ago. That number was never repeated.

     

    Well if they can encode at least 100.000 in 24 hours, (as MQA FAQ says), I guess they are still struggling how the record companies is going to get paid (more).

     

    I would expect HRA to be encoded first, which I think also has been indicated by Pål before. Old redbook may require more work, as we know there are at least 3 ways to encode that material.

     

    To me 5000 is a good start, but without some major record companies soon onboard, well....

     

    We buy 4K TV from maybe 4 large companies, and almost no content available. Should or will MQA be a requirement when you purchase Hifi ? Even with lack of content. I think yes. Soon Yamaha, Harman, Onkyo and all the others, will implement this cheap? DAC chip into their receivers, as cell phone manufacturers will do too.

    This happened to Atmos and 3D sound. They all have it, but not much content in the beginning.

     

    So no DOA even though I think this Tidal MQA launching take more time than I like.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Hi Esau - MQA LTD. is waiting on record companies to sign off on providing the press with copies of more popular music. I will officially receive such content once the record companies agree to it. That said, I have it on good authority that the Doors and Wilco albums do not light up the authentication lights on MQA enabled public products (prior version of MQA (0.9) used for those tracks).

     

    Also, be careful with A/B comparisons. The albums are like two different masters, so you aren't comparing MQA v. non-MQA.

     

    Thanks Chris. It makes wonder if MQA will be specifying which masters they've used for their files(i.e., we're back to the provenance issue again). If yes, then A/B comparisons would indeed be legitimate.

     

    I also wonder if you could end up with different MQA versions of the same music based on further updating down the road of MQA software.

     

    Esau

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Thanks Chris. It makes wonder if MQA will be specifying which masters they've used for their files(i.e., we're back to the provenance issue again). If yes, then A/B comparisons would indeed be legitimate.

     

    I also wonder if you could end up with different MQA versions of the same music based on further updating down the road of MQA software.

     

    Esau

    Of course there will, you don't think this will be the end of the line for "upgrades" and a chance for the labels to sell the same releases over and over. If it's not MQA it will be something else.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I can't stop thinking about all those getting a green light from now on, will know this MQA version is not approved by the producer or artist, but do not worry, cause it is in any case made from the same master.

     

    Then suddenly the artist calls the record company, and request a blue light, but the green light version has already been downloaded several times.

     

    Keep that green light version, it will be very rare and valuable :D

    Or now we will know that the artist do not like to approve his work ?

     

    What a mess. Again !

     

    Can't wait to get this explaind further. Who cares about that light if the file will always be exactly the same ?

     

    It seems we finally have got the correct explanation:

     

    - blue LED means - the MQA Studio file - the studio has signed it off

    - green LED means - the MQA file - the artist personally has signed it off.

    The audio is identical.

     

    Still I think if it really is this simple, why is it so hard to tell us. Why make confusions?

     

    And we have yet not been told if a blue light require a green light signature first :D

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    It seems we finally have got the correct explanation:

     

    - blue LED means - the MQA Studio file - the studio has signed it off

    - green LED means - the MQA file - the artist personally has signed it off.

    The audio is identical.

     

    Still I think if it really is this simple, why is it so hard to tell us. Why make confusions?

     

    And we have yet not been told if a blue light require a green light signature first :D

     

    What will be the up-charge for a artist signed file?

    Here we go again. LOL

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    If you use the link above and read Pål's answer to me, it is interesting to notice that it seems to be a challenge to get enough MQA encoded music.

    That's my understanding.

     

    We we know he mentioned 5000 tracks more than a year ago. That number was never repeated.

     

    Well if they can encode at least 100.000 in 24 hours, (as MQA FAQ says), I guess they are still struggling how the record companies is going to get paid (more).

     

    I would expect HRA to be encoded first, which I think also has been indicated by Pål before. Old redbook may require more work, as we know there are at least 3 ways to encode that material.

     

    To me 5000 is a good start, but without some major record companies soon onboard, well....

     

    We have been focusing on making Exclusive Mode and WASAPI work and now it does. Speculations above on content are...well... speculations and not analysis. We would not just take redbook and batch convert without any qc just like that. Even though that would speed things up and give a high volume of files. But that would be missing the point about MQA completely. It's important to take the time it takes to do properly. Or else it would just be another codec. ;)

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    It has been an interesting read but I would have to say the jury is still out (way out) on MQA.

     

    Will there be an official launch when this thing is more mature? It seems to me that the MQA concept is trying to be sold with virtually no content, only promises. Also, I am not a conspiracy theorist but I wonder if A-B testing is being made difficult/impossible for a reason other than salesmanship?

     

    Once again, I feel that this whole launch is really being botched by Meridian & MQA

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    New Masters?

     

    And if every recording has to be re-mastered individually, to get the MQA approved sound, why not just remaster into "regular" PCM files, just with less dynamic compression and less inter sample overloads and have still fully compatible pure High Res PCM files, that can be used with digital room corrections or with slide volume control (speaking volume matching) and still have regular 96k or 192k rate, that work in High Res on every regular High End DAC?

     

    Juergen

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites




    Guest
    This is now closed for further comments




×
×
  • Create New...