Tidal High Res (MQA) news...

[Doak]

+1

 

I have a hard time seeing harm in a broader group of services streaming higher bit rate music than they currently offer. If apple chooses to get into the game then it seems to me all boats will rise.

 

I guess the proximity of the "rise of MQA" and North Korea's claim to have detonated a hydrogen bomb is suspicious though.

 

In all seriousness, I am a big streaming fan and own an Aries and a vega (so maybe I am admittedly a homer) and look forward to seeing seeing if the buzz is real at CES tomorrow and Friday.

 

+2

 

I think MQA will find a "home" in streaming Internet music. Whether it ends up being "bigger" than that isn't a big deal to me. If it can improve CD quality and bring HiRes "to the masses" I'd say it's done its job.

 

All the conjecture IMO is just a waste of time & energy.

[kennyb123]

+2

 

I think MQA will find a "home" in streaming Internet music. Whether it ends up being "bigger" than that isn't a big deal to me. If it can improve CD quality and bring HiRes "to the masses" I'd say it's done its job.

 

All the conjecture IMO is just a waste of time & energy.

 

+3

 

If all I get from MQA is TIDAL streaming better than CD quality to me, I will be delighted.

[miguelito]

+2

 

I think MQA will find a "home" in streaming Internet music. Whether it ends up being "bigger" than that isn't a big deal to me. If it can improve CD quality and bring HiRes "to the masses" I'd say it's done its job.

 

All the conjecture IMO is just a waste of time & energy.

+1

 

i don't think I would ever want to buy files in MQA format (aka mp3++). But I would love it for streaming. Additionally if there's anything revolutionary in the beautification of the signal, I would like that available as an on-the-fly filter such as HQPlayer's.

[sdolezalek]

+1

 

I don't think I would ever want to buy files in MQA format (aka mp3++). But I would love it for streaming.

 

Miguelito: Although I'm generally curious about the potential benefits of MQA and can see how it may make a difference in streaming, you raise an issue that I haven't seen discussed, which is: If I were to buy MQA encoded files and the format doesn't catch on, do I end up with either useless files or files that at best equal 16/44?

[mansr]

Miguelito: Although I'm generally curious about the potential benefits of MQA and can see how it may make a difference in streaming, you raise an issue that I haven't seen discussed, which is: If I were to buy MQA encoded files and the format doesn't catch on, do I end up with either useless files or files that at best equal 16/44?

 

With any luck, someone will reverse engineer the format so you'll be able to decode them whatever future DACs do.

[crenca]

Miguelito: Although I'm generally curious about the potential benefits of MQA and can see how it may make a difference in streaming, you raise an issue that I haven't seen discussed, which is: If I were to buy MQA encoded files and the format doesn't catch on, do I end up with either useless files or files that at best equal 16/44?

 

The answer is files that are slightly "better" (due to MQA magic in the source encoding around "time smearing") but pretty much commensurate to your standard 16/44 - although this answer is somewhat obscured by the various extraordinary marketing claims made by Meridian and their supporters in the press.

[jeffmudrick]

Miguelito: Although I'm generally curious about the potential benefits of MQA and can see how it may make a difference in streaming, you raise an issue that I haven't seen discussed, which is: If I were to buy MQA encoded files and the format doesn't catch on, do I end up with either useless files or files that at best equal 16/44?

 

Without an encoder you have a FLAC file.

[Teresa]

Without an encoder you have a FLAC file.

 

Yes, the MQA undecoded is a 24/44.1 flac file.

 

I downloaded Magne Amdahl: Astrognosia - Aquarius - Norwegian Radio Orchestra in both 24/44.1 MQA and 24/352.8kHz DXD from 2L's HiRes Download - test bench The original master is 24/352.8kHz DXD. The 24/44.1 MQA version sounded very good undecoded, I wonder what it will sound like decoded. I'm keeping both versions just in case I have something that plays MQA in the future.

[mansr]

Yes, the MQA undecoded is a 24/44.1 flac file.

 

16/44.1 actually since the low bits contain the MQA data disguised as "noise."

[miguelito]

Miguelito: Although I'm generally curious about the potential benefits of MQA and can see how it may make a difference in streaming, you raise an issue that I haven't seen discussed, which is: If I were to buy MQA encoded files and the format doesn't catch on, do I end up with either useless files or files that at best equal 16/44?

You will end up with files that were initially high res, were then filtered by an irreversible MQA filter, and packed into a lossy MQA compression. If MQA doesn't catch on this will also mean that decoding will likely not be supported by future players, which means at most you will get a 16/48 file equivalent.

 

I will avoid buying files encoded in MQA like the plague. I will be very happy when TIDAL streams in MQA - actually I think I will, we shall see.

[R1200CL]

16/44.1 actually since the low bits contain the MQA data disguised as "noise."

 

Not necessarily correct.

See my post here:

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/mqa-ces-27127/index8.html#post500160

 

Bit is kept. So what Teresa write is 100% correct.

 

if DXD had been 24/384, the reading would be 24/48.

[Rexp]

+3

 

If all I get from MQA is TIDAL streaming better than CD quality to me, I will be delighted.

TIDAL already sounds better than CD quality to me and the guys at Aurender agree, something to do with the quality of files TIDAL receive being superior, see post 247:

 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/787020/review-comparison-of-5-high-end-digital-music-servers-aurender-n10-cad-cat-server-totaldac-d1-server-auralic-aries-audiophile-vortex-box/240#post_12240206

[markwb]

TIDAL already sounds better than CD quality to me and the guys at Aurender agree, something to do with the quality of files TIDAL receive being superior, see post 247:

 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/787020/review-comparison-of-5-high-end-digital-music-servers-aurender-n10-cad-cat-server-totaldac-d1-server-auralic-aries-audiophile-vortex-box/240#post_12240206

 

I actually think I hear this to. I took it a step further and downloaded through TIDAL a 44/16 file of an album I had ripped and are VERY familiar with. Same thing. Both the ripped and the purchased file sounded the same with the streamed version better. So the question is does TIDAL actually have 2 files, one for streaming and one for download? I kinda doubt it, so maybe the differences we hear are more related to volume than anything else.

[Rexp]

I actually think I hear this to. I took it a step further and downloaded through TIDAL a 44/16 file of an album I had ripped and are VERY familiar with. Same thing. Both the ripped and the purchased file sounded the same with the streamed version better. So the question is does TIDAL actually have 2 files, one for streaming and one for download? I kinda doubt it, so maybe the differences we hear are more related to volume than anything else.

TIDAL downloads v streamed sounds very similar to me, I'm sure they only provide one version. I can't get my CD rips to sound nearly as good, what are you using to rip and play your CD rips?

[firedog]

I find the quality of Tidal streaming variable; I wouldn't draw conclusions from one or two comparisons.

[mansr]

I actually think I hear this to. I took it a step further and downloaded through TIDAL a 44/16 file of an album I had ripped and are VERY familiar with. Same thing. Both the ripped and the purchased file sounded the same with the streamed version better. So the question is does TIDAL actually have 2 files, one for streaming and one for download? I kinda doubt it, so maybe the differences we hear are more related to volume than anything else.

 

It's easy to check by simply capturing the output when streaming and comparing to the purchased file.

[crenca]

It's easy to check by simply capturing the output when streaming and comparing to the purchased file.

 

If someone bothers with this I would be interested in their results. I find a slight improvement when I play the same track from JRiver that I own to the same track streamed from Tidal. I chalk it up to the fact that the Java sound libraries that browser/Tidal apps use are coloring things a bit. I am wondering out loud if those who like the Tidal stream better do not in fact like Java sound processing better. I am a bit dubious that the source files are different...

[mansr]

If someone bothers with this I would be interested in their results. I find a slight improvement when I play the same track from JRiver that I own to the same track streamed from Tidal. I chalk it up to the fact that the Java sound libraries that browser/Tidal apps use are coloring things a bit. I am wondering out loud if those who like the Tidal stream better do not in fact like Java sound processing better. I am a bit dubious that the source files are different...

 

Do they have a free trial without giving them a credit card number? I could capture a few tracks and get this matter settled.

[barrows]

Actually, it's pretty prosaic stuff, as Miska pointed out. Many filtering algorithms used to record CDs concentrate on eliminating aliasing, so they ring. The MQA algorithm includes an apodizing (Latin, "remove the foot") filter, which stops a good part of the ringing. So yep, the ringing is indisputably a recording chain error, and yep, an apodizing filter indisputably does fix it.

 

Yep, that is one point of view. But, consider that 2L records at 352.8 and uses no filter at all, as at that high rate they deem a filter entirely unnecessary. This method does not ring, or have any alias products anywhere they could be audible.

[crenca]

Do they have a free trial without giving them a credit card number? I could capture a few tracks and get this matter settled.

 

Probably not - getting the credit card up front even for a trial seems to be standard practice these days...

[crenca]

Yep, that is one point of view. But, consider that 2L records at 352.8 and uses no filter at all, as at that high rate they deem a filter entirely unnecessary. This method does not ring, or have any alias products anywhere they could be audible.

 

Yet the owner of 2L is very publicly on board with MQA. It appears he seems to think the MQA is doing something to improve even 352.8, so I am a bit confused there...

[Jud]

Yep, that is one point of view. But, consider that 2L records at 352.8 and uses no filter at all, as at that high rate they deem a filter entirely unnecessary. This method does not ring, or have any alias products anywhere they could be audible.

 

Internally their A/D converter does convert from sigma-delta modulated format to PCM, so one could consider that a filter, though I readily grant no audible ringing or aliasing should result from that.

 

But if the world of recordings were made up of 2L stuff, apodizing filters would surely be unnecessary. I was responding to discussion about what "magic" was being performed by MQA and pointing out that for RedBook files its application of an apodizing filter is one time-honored corrective option.

[barrows]

Yet the owner of 2L is very publicly on board with MQA. It appears he seems to think the MQA is doing something to improve even 352.8, so I am a bit confused there...

 

Actually I doubt that, but he is likely thinking that MQA could be an improvement when the original 352.8 recording is downconverted (when a filter would have to be applied) for distribution at the lower rate. Most consider 352.8 through good converters to be indistinguishable from the mic feed, so it would be impossible for MQA to "improve" on that...

[barrows]

Internally their A/D converter does convert from sigma-delta modulated format to PCM, so one could consider that a filter, though I readily grant no audible ringing or aliasing should result from that.

 

But if the world of recordings were made up of 2L stuff, apodizing filters would surely be unnecessary. I was responding to discussion about what "magic" was being performed by MQA and pointing out that for RedBook files its application of an apodizing filter is one time-honored corrective option.

 

Agreed. My problem with MQA is that unless it is adopted as a standard for all recordings, and all playback hardware going forward, I do not see it being worth it. And, I am also a bit nervous that it is may be doing more than "correcting errors". I would rather see DXD become the recording standard, but as you point out, this is just as unlikely, although at least no one has to pay a licensing fee to use DXD...

It seems to me that in many ways, MQA is a solution to a problem which is already solved by higher sample rates, although indeed, it may be helpful for distribution at lower rates. Personally, I have a hard time (impossible) in hearing a difference between 16x and 8x rates with good gear... I would probably be happy if everything was laid down at 352.8, and then distributed at 176.4 along with well designed filters for the downconversion and playback devices...

[crenca]

Agreed. My problem with MQA is that unless it is adopted as a standard for all recordings, and all playback hardware going forward, I do not see it being worth it. And, I am also a bit nervous that it is may be doing more than "correcting errors"....It seems to me that in many ways, MQA is a solution to a problem which is already solved by higher sample rates....

 

I think that is the "hoped for" future of MQA by it's creators and supports, MQA as the "standard" for all recordings that can be purchased (either on hard media, download, or streaming). I believe the SQ improvements are secondary to the "authentication" which is a nice word for DRM. If the same SQ can be achieved through present means (let alone something like MQA done in an open format) the only thing left is IP and "authentication" and the control/$money$ to be made from such things.

 

It does not appear to me that Meridian has the organizational chops to pull it off, but watch out when Apple or someone credible buys the patents...