Meridian's mysterious MQA site.

[Boris75]

Give it 12-18 months and no-one will be talking about MQA. That is my prediction.

 

I agree. I doubt the idea of paying royalties will be very attractive to ADC and DAC makers. Introducing a proprietary standard requires huge financial firepower. Doing so in a declining music market (I am aware that streaming is expanding, but overall the music market is shrinking) looks even more difficult.

[Musicophile]

I'm still a bit puzzled by what problem they actually trying to solve with this new format.

 

These days it cannot be storage capacity any more, because any serious audiophile will happily buy some terabytes more of hard disk capacity before going to any lossy format, and the rest of the world is still happy with MP3 320 or AAC256. On top of that price for storage space will continue to go down even further in the future.

 

So the only real opportunity for this could be in better than redbook streaming to customers with Internet bandwidth issues or download limits in mobile plans.

[audiventory]

So the only real opportunity for this could be in better than redbook streaming to customers with Internet bandwidth issues or download limits in mobile plans.

 

Musicophile,

I think, mobile HD sound has great perspectives. It issue of quality/cost ratio.

[Boris75]

I'm still a bit puzzled by what problem they actually trying to solve with this new format.

 

These days it cannot be storage capacity any more, because any serious audiophile will happily buy some terabytes more of hard disk capacity before going to any lossy format, and the rest of the world is still happy with MP3 320 or AAC256. On top of that price for storage space will continue to go down even further in the future.

 

So the only real opportunity for this could be in better than redbook streaming to customers with Internet bandwidth issues or download limits in mobile plans.

 

I fully agree with you; MQA seems to be a solution in search of a problem.

[EuroDriver]

After reading the write up in Stereophile, my 2 cents is the biggest commercial attraction of MQA is its backward compatibility. You can play the MQA on a non MQA DAC and it will supposedly sound not significantly different from straight Redbook. The same file played on a MQA decoding or "unfolding" DAC will sound like very good hi res.

 

The concept reminds me of HDCD, and we remember where that went . . . . .

 

Still the way the high frequency data is packed under the low frequency data is quite clever and elegant, but it's hard to conceive a serious record company like Acoustic sounds, taking a DSD or DXD file and repackaging in to MQA

[flatmap]

[...]

So the only real opportunity for this could be in better than redbook streaming to customers with Internet bandwidth issues or download limits in mobile plans.

 

It seems Tidal plans to use MQA for a planned high res streaming service: CES 2015: Tidal to launch high-res streaming service using Meridian MQA | What Hi-Fi?

 

Tidal also suggests also that their redbook streaming service may drop slightly in cost. According to the article...

[monteverdi]

I'm still a bit puzzled by what problem they actually trying to solve with this new format.

 

These days it cannot be storage capacity any more, because any serious audiophile will happily buy some terabytes more of hard disk capacity before going to any lossy format, and the rest of the world is still happy with MP3 320 or AAC256. On top of that price for storage space will continue to go down even further in the future.

 

So the only real opportunity for this could be in better than redbook streaming to customers with Internet bandwidth issues or download limits in mobile plans.

I think MQA has its main advantage not in downloads/storage (except of mobile devices) but in streaming. For anyone who has slow and/or unreliable internet connections can really appreciate access to hi res or at least 44.1/16 streaming suitable for mediocre bandwidth. I had to give up on Tidal but their collaboration with MQA gives me hope for a future solution!

[DanSmedra]

I'm still a bit puzzled by what problem they actually trying to solve with this new format.

 

These days it cannot be storage capacity...the price for storage space will continue to go down even further in the future.

 

No, it's not storage. As a "music collector", I'm sure you're left scratching your head. More than a few of us aren't "collectors" and have little-to-no interest in spending $$$$ or owning a large digital collection.

 

What pushes OUR button(s) is having access to a huge 'cloud' library selection of music genre, artists and works so as to explore both the known and unknown audiosphere at a reasonable cost.

 

We are also obsessively focused on streaming said cloud music into our homes and replaying it at the finest quality possible, be that dependent upon the streaming digital format, the DAC, the amplification, the cabling, or the speaker technology.

 

Those speaking our language are our kindred.

[EuroDriver]

I think MQA has its main advantage not in downloads/storage (except of mobile devices) but in streaming. For anyone who has slow and/or unreliable internet connections can really appreciate access to hi res or at least 44.1/16 streaming suitable for mediocre bandwidth. I had to give up on Tidal but their collaboration with MQA gives me hope for a future solution!

 

In the streaming context, especially streaming over mobile networks then MQA makes a lot of sense.

 

There may well be a successful large market for MQA for mobile streaming with the phone companies driving the development

[YashN]

To me streaming is secondary to the sound as I do not consume by streaming third party paid services (I only stream my own music with my own server), so I am eager to test it against say DSD 2x.

 

On the other hand, the compression and streaming can definitely be good in a multi-channel setup.

[monteverdi]

I thought streaming is only a recent fad but then I found that it is a great way to discover new music. But with listening to mp3 one looses any musical nuances so it becomes boring quite fast! I am not interested in finding an elusive better version of music I already have. But for music I decided to like I still want to have a physical medium or downloaded file.

[monteverdi]

There is a new interview about MQA on line: Meridian talks MQA: "Nobody asks for low quality audio" | What Hi-Fi?

Reading several reports online Meridian only compared MQA to mp3 but they claim that MQA sounds better than 192/24 without any verification of that statement! I find the present trend of marketing speak vs verifiable facts quite discouraging so MQA could be only a hyped an emporar's new file format or are real improvement in the distribution of music.

There are a couple of statements from Meridian which could make MQA interesting.

Recording chain: A stands for authentication. If that is true that recording would be verified Master sound quality and not some up sampled bad CD. They also claim they developed a better digital transfer method from analog tapes which can compensate for (some?) distortions in the original recording chain! New digital recording need to fulfill specific requirements to qualify as MQA. Meridian is woking with several recording companies.

The other thing is the time domain aspect. They claim their process is based on new research in psychoacoustics but I have not seen any references for this statement. Maybe that aspect should be for another tread!

[esldude]

Not sure about the method of reducing distortion in analog tape. There are now a couple of pro audio systems that use the monitoring of the bias signal on the tape to do digital control of playback speed to greatly reduce wow&flutter. There might be clever methods to improve other aspects as well.

 

The idea MQA improves upon 192/24 is one that seems highly dubious. Also not a claim they have made elsewhere. They merely claimed it could be audibly lossless or indistinguishable for 192 or even 384 khz sample rate material. I also didn't hear them say this in the video interview with Bob Stuart or the Atlantic CEO.

[Don Hills]

.... MQA sounds better than 192/24 ... A stands for authentication. ... time domain ...

 

MQA better than 24/192:

Meridian claim that ADCs and DACs are less than perfect due mainly to the (required) anti-aliasing / anti-imaging filters. They have measured some of the commonly used ADCs and DACS used in recording studios, and developed a DSP process that claims to reverse the adverse effects of their filters. So if one of the known ADCs was used, they claim that applying MQA will result in a more accurate representation of the signal that went into the ADC. This has merit when recording (for example, a flat transfer of an analogue master) but I see a problem with this when applied to an existing work that is already digitised. The digitised signal, with any peculiarities added by the filters, is the one that was agreed to and signed off as the sound the artist / engineer / producer / record label created. Changing this sound is wrong.

 

Authentication:

How are they going to assure that an MQA encoded work really comes from the "one true master"?

 

Time domain:

This again implies DSP. I haven't seen any details. On the face of it, the resolution can't be any better then that carried in the digital bitstream input to the MQA process.

[audiventory]

MQA better than 24/192:

Meridian claim that ADCs and DACs are less than perfect due mainly to the (required) anti-aliasing / anti-imaging filters. They have measured some of the commonly used ADCs and DACS used in recording studios, and developed a DSP process that claims to reverse the adverse effects of their filters. So if one of the known ADCs was used, they claim that applying MQA will result in a more accurate representation of the signal that went into the ADC. This has merit when recording (for example, a flat transfer of an analogue master) but I see a problem with this when applied to an existing work that is already digitised. The digitised signal, with any peculiarities added by the filters, is the one that was agreed to and signed off as the sound the artist / engineer / producer / record label created. Changing this sound is wrong.

 

Authentication:

How are they going to assure that an MQA encoded work really comes from the "one true master"?

 

Time domain:

This again implies DSP. I haven't seen any details. On the face of it, the resolution can't be any better then that carried in the digital bitstream input to the MQA process.

 

Don,

 

MQA, as I understand, is not alternative modulation (coding analog to digital and back) like PCM of sigma delta (well known as DSD).

 

MQA just lossless compressing method of PCM like FLAC with bitrate like CD, but contains more info under PCM 44/16 and uses ordinary (standard) PCM ADCs and DACs.

 

Or I'm wrong?

 

Best regards,

Yuri

[shadow ewe]

Don,

 

MQA, as I understand, is not alternative modulation (coding analog to digital and back) like PCM of sigma delta (well known as DSD).

 

MQA just lossless compressing method of PCM like FLAC with bitrate like CD, but contains more info under PCM 44/16 and uses ordinary (standard) PCM ADCs and DACs.

 

Or I'm wrong?

 

Best regards,

Yuri

 

Like EuroDriver said, "think of it as HDCD". Then you shouldnt go too wrong.

[audiventory]

Like EuroDriver said, "think of it as HDCD". Then you shouldnt go too wrong.

 

shadow ewe,

 

Like to MQA fold upper and lower halfs of spectrum. Further fold again and again.

 

I've Heard the Future of Streaming: Meridian's MQA | Stereophile.com

[Don Hills]

... Or I'm wrong? ...

 

You're half right. MQA is (at least) two components.

 

One component is compression. It can take 24-bit digital at one bit rate and (usually losslessly) compress it to 24-bit digital at half the bit rate, then decompress it on playback. Also, the compressed bitstream can be played back without decoding and will give up to 16 bit resolution at the lower bit rate. For example, 24/96 can be compressed into a 24/48 bitstream that can be either decoded back to 24/96, or played undecoded providing 16/48 resolution.

 

The other component compensates for the shortcomings in the filters in some brands of ADC and DAC. If the brand / model of ADC used to generate the digital bitstream (and optionally the DAC used to play it back) is known, MQA uses DSP to compensate for the effects of the filters in the ADC (and DAC). That's the basis for their claims that an MQA processed signal is better then an unprocessed signal.

[audiventory]

You're half right. MQA is (at least) two components.

 

One component is compression. It can take 24-bit digital at one bit rate and (usually losslessly) compress it to 24-bit digital at half the bit rate, then decompress it on playback. Also, the compressed bitstream can be played back without decoding and will give up to 16 bit resolution at the lower bit rate. For example, 24/96 can be compressed into a 24/48 bitstream that can be either decoded back to 24/96, or played undecoded providing 16/48 resolution.

 

The other component compensates for the shortcomings in the filters in some brands of ADC and DAC. If the brand / model of ADC used to generate the digital bitstream (and optionally the DAC used to play it back) is known, MQA uses DSP to compensate for the effects of the filters in the ADC (and DAC). That's the basis for their claims that an MQA processed signal is better then an unprocessed signal.

 

Don,

 

Thank you for explanation.

 

While I don't understand: what shortcomings of filters can be compensated and how via MQA.

 

Only as in usual DAC via oversampling?

MQA don't oversample but unpack to 192 kHz and use "light" filter?

 

But for this case MQA only packing algorithm. Not coding like PCM and DSD.

 

 

Best regards,

Yuri.

[ted_b]

Don thanks. So "backward compatibility" only refers to 16 bit sources? If we buy a MQA disc that purports 24/192 then it's unencoded sound will only have 16/96 potential? Doesn't seem backward compatible (except that it plays, period). I was under the assumption that a 24/192 MQA disc (or download) would have same SQ as a current 24/192 disc but when decoded by MQA hardware would release the extra resolution or special auditory enhancements brought on by MQA.

 

So...if we have no real download/streaming bandwidth issues today MQA brings nothing to the table and doesn't allow me to play full 24/192 anywhere (inlcuding non-MQA devices), like a normal hirez purchase today would?

[Don Hills]

... While I don't understand: what shortcomings of filters can be compensated and how via MQA. ...

 

Meridian believe that their "apodising" filters sound better than the filters commonly used in ADCs and DACs. They use DSP to counter the effect of the commonly used filters and apply their own filter characteristics.

It is debatable whether the difference is audible, especially at high sample rates such as 96 KHz.

 

Apodization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Don Hills]

Don thanks. So "backward compatibility" only refers to 16 bit sources? If we buy a MQA disc that purports 24/192 then it's unencoded sound will only have 16/96 potential? Doesn't seem backward compatible (except that it plays, period). I was under the assumption that a 24/192 MQA disc (or download) would have same SQ as a current 24/192 disc but when decoded by MQA hardware would release the extra resolution or special auditory enhancements brought on by MQA.

 

So...if we have no real download/streaming bandwidth issues today MQA brings nothing to the table and doesn't allow me to play full 24/192 anywhere (inlcuding non-MQA devices), like a normal hirez purchase today would?

 

MQA is unlikely to be used for discs. It'll most likely be used for streaming. I doubt it would be used for CD, although there is an option to lossy encode a 16 or 24 bit 88.2 KHz stream into CD compatible 16/44.1 which will play back on a standard CD player at 13 bit resolution, or at 16/24 bits 88.2 KHz through a decoder.

 

"Backward compatibility" only refers to the ability to play a lower resolution version of the original without decoding. If you have a 24/192 original, it will play back undecoded as a 16 (or 13) bit 96 KHz stream.

 

In theory, MQA filter processing can be applied without MQA compression. In practice, I suspect they'll be licensed to be used together. So if you want the "better than 24/192" sound you'll almost certainly need an MQA decoder.

[audiventory]

Meridian believe that their "apodising" filters sound better than the filters commonly used in ADCs and DACs. They use DSP to counter the effect of the commonly used filters and apply their own filter characteristics.

It is debatable whether the difference is audible, especially at high sample rates such as 96 KHz.

 

Apodization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

If talk about apodizing filter (more known as minimal phase filter) there are some details.

 

Here article by John Atkinson Meridian 808.2/808i.2 Signature Reference CD player/preamplifier Measurements | Stereophile.com

 

As I understand, there showed what practically released in Meridian's hardware.

 

For minimal phase filter suppressed pre-ringing energy moved to post ringing (practically like in theory). And energy of post-ringing increased.

Summ of energy non-linear distortions by ringing don't changed or almost don't changed (comparing with linear phase filter).

 

I suppose it is main reason of discussions whether the difference (between linear and minimal phase filters) is audible.

 

For high sample rates (88, 96, ... kHz) we can use gently filters. And, like traditional linear filters, ringing energy can be decreased due using less steep filters.

 

Art of design of minimal phase filters in keeping of maximal linearity of phase response. And for accurate approach we can get almost linear response.

[YashN]

There are actually three important components.

 

I certainly think the second you mention is going to be very important: Stuart has extended hi-fi reproduction to the whole recording and playback chain, namely beginning with ADC up to the DAC if necessary by undoing the filter effects and using their own filter, with emphasis on the time domain.

 

And the third component that rarely gets a mention, and in fact, I don't really know how they apply it in their codec, is relying on the bodies of knowledge of neuro-science and acoustic perception to encode data differently based on three modes of perception: natural sounds, animal sounds and human speech.

 

What is also interesting with MQA is that you technically can build a software or an app to decode it and send the info to your existing DAC. I gather here that one would benefit from having a DAC with at least 192kHz. How this translates to a setup where you also additionally do real-time up-conversion to DSD128 and above I don't know either, but these are the things I would like to try with examples of the format.

 

That said, there is no readily available Developer information on how to build an MQA decoder, nor readily available tracks for testing, so some industry insiders are privileged in the roll-out.

 

You're half right. MQA is (at least) two components.

 

One component is compression.

 

The other component compensates for the shortcomings in the filters in some brands of ADC and DAC. If the brand / model of ADC used to generate the digital bitstream (and optionally the DAC used to play it back) is known, MQA uses DSP to compensate for the effects of the filters in the ADC (and DAC). That's the basis for their claims that an MQA processed signal is better then an unprocessed signal.

[YashN]

MQA is unlikely to be used for discs. It'll most likely be used for streaming. I doubt it would be used for CD, although there is an option to lossy encode a 16 or 24 bit 88.2 KHz stream into CD compatible 16/44.1 which will play back on a standard CD player at 13 bit resolution, or at 16/24 bits 88.2 KHz through a decoder.

 

I think it will easily make its way onto CDs and discs: the way the encoding works is transparent to a non-MQA decoder, so it's not a big deal for an end-user to buy MQA-enabled CDs, with or without MQA-enabled equipment.

 

Non MQA-enabled equipment will fall-back transparently without any additional modifications to normal CD playback. That's one of the beauties of it because otherwise, adoption could be stifled - many people are reluctant to change.