Jump to content
IGNORED

MQA at CES


Recommended Posts

So would almost everyone who has followed the MQA story - hear a real A/B comparison, or even just an MQA encoded file through a regular old DAC and playback chain. For whatever reason (insert preferred conspiracy theory here) this has not happened. Now we have one label who may (the language is obscure - are they converting their entire catalog and no longer offering their "old", non MQA encoded files??) be going all in on MQA so the customer has no choice - all this before anyone outside of very inside insiders has even heard MQA through a non-MQA DAC and playback chain...quite remarkable if true...

 

FWIW most of the 2L catalog can be found on Tidal. Sounds great in Redbook form.

Link to comment
One issue that isn't clear to me is whether this technology requires a hardware solution at the DAC end or, if the DAC is largely software driven, it can be introduced by firmware/software updates. If requiring hardware upgrades I can only imagine it to be DOA.

If meeting the claims made by Meridian without requiring some demanding technical involvement by the end user as per, say, HQPlayer or similar, the "giveth and taketh" should yield a net positive to the musical event.

The number of end users that are willing or even capable of performing half of the toil demanded by the typical computer based Computer Audiophile installation is so small as to be insignificant. Users on this site are moving away from specialized computer based servers to "turn-key" servers in noticably large numbers.

My two cents,

Wdw

 

The way I read it full optimization requires certified hardware, whether or not that requires a firmware update or entirely new delivery from UPS will depend on the DAC. Clearly Meridian is saying some meaningful benefit will accrue using any DAC where the MQA implementation is done via software. I agree with you though, most users will prefer the simple solution. Endless pages here on the need for must have regenerators, galvanic isolation, $400 USB cables and masters degree level software tweakage is not helping draw as many in, or retain enthusiasts as might , for example, a Tidal subscription, a $35 Chromecast Audio, and MQA certified DAC IMHO.

Link to comment
... and to add, personally I'm not remotely interested in buying my music collection all over again.

 

Another format = another way to get people to pay for the same thing multiple times.

 

 

Red Book in a highly optimised, top-end system is already fabulous.

 

;-)

 

Perhaps you've missed this but people don't buy music anymore. Streaming is not the future it's the present. There will be audiophiles who will purchase MQA downloads but it's not what Meridian is relying on for the success of MQA distribution.

Link to comment
Actually, the biggest promise of MQA (as far as I'm concerned) is that fully non-compressed streaming Internet radio will be possible from around the world while taking-up no more bandwidth than MP3 does now. I'm imagining "tuning-in" to WCRB in Boston on a Saturday night and getting to listen to a live concert of the Boston Symphony or listening to the Proms live on the BBC in 24/96 using an MQA equipped DAC. MQA downloads and perhaps MQA encoded discs will be nice too, but allowing the Internet to finally realize it's promise of high-quality music from around the world without lossy compression is what has me excited about the possibilities of MQA!

 

I'm with you here. It amuses me that the $1,000 power cable set here are the loudest in poo pooing MQA before it's arrival. Tidal has already said it will come without charge and I for one can't wait.

Link to comment
Not sure if you missed this but MQA was spun off as a separate company.

 

Also Meridian has an appalling reputation of communicating developments, it has a loyal fan base and even they are left in the dark, it's painful!

 

Great sounding kit though.

 

Fair enough. So who makes up MQA other than Meridian ? Don't see it on their website.

Link to comment
Hasn't it been actually stated that MQA isn't lossless?

 

I can't help but wonder why they just can't use a truly lossless encoder like FLAC for 24/96 streaming, as all players are already compatible with this format...

 

Distribution is part of the goal and that means streaming without substantially increasing costs. Lossless streaming at high resolution sans Origami would not achieve that goal. Having the technology painlessly wrapped into your Tidal subscription does.

Link to comment
That would explain why everyone would need to buy new DACs...

 

Nobody "needs" to buy a new DAC for MQA any more than I "need" to buy a new DAC to play DSD 128. I'm a lot more likely however to do so for MQA however. People who limit themselves to file based audio might feel otherwise.

Link to comment
I don't stream from anywhere but my NAS, maybe one day when I can on demand get and keep any tune I want then this might be a viable option for me, but regardless 'I like to own the product'.

 

What if your favourite tune is removed from the provider's library... now you can't hear it anymore?

 

I am a person and I buy music for this reason.

 

 

;-)

 

It's called hyperbole friend. Obviously people buy music but in hugely smaller numbers than ever. Yes I'll buy half a dozen CDs year (versus 100 a decade ago) that I either I can't get streamed or to support a particular artist. But the numbers are the numbers and streaming is where it's at.

 

http://www.billboard.com/articles/business/6627139/nielsen-2015-half-year-report-detail-taylor-swift-streaming

Link to comment
I'm a person and I still buy SACDs, Blu-ray discs, etc. and I see plenty of other people at places such as Recycled Records buying music in all the many formats past and present.

 

 

 

Streaming music is not in my present or my future as I refuse to pay a monthly fee to listen to music. I'm not rich and spend what spare money I have purchasing music l like instead.

 

 

 

I can't speak for anyone else but I'm not replacing my Teac DAC until it dies, so I won't be buying anything it cannot play. My Teac DAC does up to 5.6MHz DSD, I wasn't tempted to upgrade to a DAC that plays 11.2MHz DSD so why would I be tempted to purchase to new DAC for MQA?

 

You wouldn't have to purchase a DAC as a Tidal or Roon subscriber (for example).

Link to comment
If I understand correctly, if one does not have a MQA DAC, MQA files will play at only CD resolution.

 

Besides, I think you missed my comment "Streaming music is not in my present or my future as I refuse to pay a monthly fee to listen to music. I'm not rich and spend what spare money I have purchasing music l like instead."

 

I also refuse to pay a monthly fee for a database/player such as the Roon you mentioned.

 

I didn't miss anything. I'm not rich and I'm not much on paying more for a single hirez download or CD than I pay per month for Tidal, which I can play on or offline where and when I choose. I and apparently a growing majority of consumers don't need to "own" a piece of music given the sheer amount of music one can access through streaming. The difference between the 2800 albums in my Tidal favorites versus the like amount in shoe boxes under the bed and in the closet or the 500GB of FLAC on drives is in the convenience of playback and in the joy of discovery which Tidal provides. I don't need pieces of plastic to evidence my ownership when I can play a piece of music anywhere at home, on my phone, in my car....To quote Sitting Bull.. "the love of possessions is a disease with them." Now everyone is entitled to their opinion but those who limit their listening to music they own or radio are really missing out IMHO.

 

Now Roon is indeed a luxury, but it certainly provides more enjoyment than say a like amount spent on power cords.

Link to comment
Why does it matter so much there? 5.1 channels at 192/24 FLAC would be still about half of what 4K Netflix or YouTube consumes...

 

Now the perfect next move from Apple would be to announce their music service at 96/24 ALAC... (I wouldn't be very surprised to see that in near future)

 

From what I gather streaming is not yet a highly profitable business model. I'm guessing bandwidth matters quite a bit to Jay-Z's accountants. And it certainly matters to consumers on restricted mobile accounts as well.

Link to comment
They can offer offline tracks like Spotify for those with restricted mobile accounts, that can be downloaded on unrestricted connection.

 

For the price of MQA-enabled hardware, I pay years of unrestricted LTE subscription (20 €/month for 50 Mbps here).

 

They already do. But being able to market better sound with no additional subscription cost or bandwidth is win/win in terms of marketing. And I have no problem with Tidal doing that to help ensure economic viability. It's a tough business.

Link to comment
Even then that needs way more b/w than music rips (1080p vs. FLAC). No way should music streaming be compressed for the sake of b/w. Maybe for price segmentation, but bandwidth is not a valid argument for or against lossless music. People consume a lot more bandwidth on video, not just Netflix, but even more on YouTube. I watch a lot of tech channels on YouTube and know a lot of folks who stream a lot of content on YouTube, particularly on mobile devices.

 

Coming to the bandwidth itself, I am on a 50 Mbps line, and have been for more than 3 years. Dial-up days are long behind us.

 

Netflix has 65 million subscribers and a profitable business model. The most "successful" music streaming service Spotify lost $200 million in 2014. Likewise Pandora loses $40-50 million per quarter. How's Quobuz doing?? It's ridiculous to compare business models. Bandwidth costs money which Tidal and MQA if they are smart will take into account.

Link to comment
I'll d/l and have a listen. But the pricing leaves a lot to be desired.

 

I am on Tidal Hi-Fi, and while I will agree the quality is awesome, it's not better than my WAV or FLAC rips (at least not to my ears).

 

PS: Nearly all of my collection is 16-bit/44.1kHz, very little 24-bit.

 

I would certainly listen to more of Tidal, if it natively worked in Chromecast Audio. Right now though, most of my listening is limited to my music collection.

 

If you have an Android phone streaming Tidal using Chromecast is a piece of cake via BubbleUPnP. I have a Google Play Music account and 2TB of music on computer but 90% of my listening is on Tidal /CCA. .

Link to comment
I cannot comment on the business model.

 

But with regards to bandwidth, it only proves my point. Bandwidth is not (and has never been) the issue. Maybe the music business model itself is wrong or maybe music lovers and audiophiles in particular are extremely limited in numbers.

 

Either way, if anything Netflix's success only goes to show that people are willing to spend on streaming and bandwidth consumption.

 

Maybe people prefer video and don't want to spend on audio?

 

Serious audiophiles are very limited in number : "Train" magazine has more subscribers than Stereophile (circ 70,000). However, the number of people who will pay a $10/ month premium for "good sound" but not for a $300 USB cable is considerably larger as evidenced by Tidal's track record thus far. MQA folk understand that marketing "high resolution" in and of itself is a losing proposition, thus is MQA focused on positioning their product as something altogether different from hirez. If the folks at NPR can really hear a difference it might succeed. If it's no better than the difference between Redbook and hirez, or 320 and FLAC it won't get wide embrace .

Link to comment
Ah, but they won't will they because the conditions will be the same - they will still be trying to "hear the difference" through laptop/computer speakers built in China for less than one dollar. So of course MQA will be yet another "audiophile" myth...

 

I said NPR not Fox. Hope springs eternal.

Link to comment
I am not following - I thought you were referring to the infamous NPR test that "proved" people could not tell the difference between mp3 and higher res...because you know, all you have to do is "turn the volume up" on those computer speakers:

 

How Well Can You Hear Audio Quality? : The Record : NPR

 

So NPR is a no go in your quest. Perhaps you SHOULD consider Fox ;)

 

I may have confused NPR reporters with respondents to their test like this one (but point stands)

 

http://www.engadget.com/2015/06/03/npr-hifi-audio-quiz/

Link to comment
Still confused - that link is to someone who admits "he failed" to distinguish the difference (and this through a playback chain that appears it should be resolving enough though I have no personal experience with it). So why would he care about anything more than 128 (or at most 320)?

 

 

Exactly my point. For MQA to break through they have to get beyond resolution and compression

Link to comment
Hum, what would be the selling point then? If it is not about "resolution", then it is not about SQ because if they are simply going to say "it sounds better" the first question is "why?" (the answer then being resolution, detail, etc. all the stuff you get with higher bit rate). Surely they are not trying to sell the general public something that is even more confusing than bit rate, namely digital filters, pre and post ringing, etc.!?!?

 

If not compression (to the bandwidth limited phone crowd), then what?

 

IMHO it hangs on 1) it really does sound better and 2) acceptance that dealing with timing errors in A-D and D-A chain is more important than sheer resolution. I don't think it's that hard a sell if it really does sound better. I think people understand that a shitty master at high resolution still sounds shitty.

Link to comment
Well, I suppose I would say that "timing errors in A-D and D-A chain" is only noticeable to us "audiophiles" (who have the playback chains capable of resolving such things), who as you rightly point out are somewhere in the "Train" magazine subscription numbers. If the vast majority (really, something in the 99%) can't hear the difference in the NPR test through their phones and computer speakers (or best buy purchased A/V receivers and speakers chosen because they were $2 cheaper than the others on the shelf) between mp3's and plain jane 16/44...what was the purpose of MQA again??

 

It would really be something if when I play an MQA Tidal stream through my smartphone and rather decent earbuds, I can tell the difference between it and 16/44. It would be revolutionary if my wife (or "average" listener) can tell the difference which is why the creators of MQA are comparing themselves to Copernicus I suppose... ;)

 

Look this is all speculation, optimists like me are hopeful that when people at Warner Brothers (I won't mention John Atkinson) say it's a game changer in terms of quality that it won't take Wilson Audio (or pricey Meridian) speakers to hear the difference. I understand the pessimistic view of others. Time will tell.

Link to comment

The letter is in the January edition (I'm one of those 70,000).

 

I don't really care about the 99%, nor does Bob Stuart. I think he's trying to reach that "good sound" minority that Tidal is trying to capture. What I would like to see is those engineers and producers embrace technologies which the labels and their distribution chains can take advantage of to deliver better sound that spans a wide catalog of music. I couldn't care less how great DSD 256 is because I'm not about to replace a couple thousand CDs even if they were available in that format. Hell I'm not even going to buy yet another copy of Kind of Blue. I will continue to give Jay-Z my money if Tidal can deliver superior sound across a broad catalog for the pittance they charge.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...