MQA at CES

[crenca]

The following announcement has been posted on Stereophile's website. Not sure what to make of it. Another format being shoved down our throat or sonic nirvana? I guess we will have to wait and see. I really wasn't planning to buy more new stuff just for MQA capability.

 

MQA Takes Off Big-Time in 2016 | Stereophile.com

 

I posted a response to that Sterophile "article" in the comments - or is "unmitigated propaganda and hype" the more correct description. Really, MQA has to be the first human invention in the history of mankind not to have a downside or unintended consequence...or perhaps it's only downside is what it appears to do to those who write for the "audiophile" press...

[crenca]

I would like to hear the old version of the 2L files, and the new version. Maybe 2L could be convinced to make that available. Would seem one of the best chances to gauge what MQA can do as 2L had all the old hardware available to reverse engineer what it does to the signal. Of course you will need an MQA capable DAC to do the comparison.

 

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...

[crenca]

I heard a demo last year and it was stunning. There was no AB but I came away so impressed I wasn't particularly bothered.

 

I can (just about) understand the widespread cynicism being expressed about MQA but aren't we all after the better reproduction of music? Meridian's track record isn't that shabby, the theory is plausible, what's not to like?

 

If it's buying your entire collection again, I don't think it will be available in any event. Your choice top twenty recordings plus an occasional re-release? I would, considering the amounts spend on the kit, why not listen to it at it's best?

 

Have a listen, then slag it off...

 

Good advice - I suppose I am a bit bothered by the unrepentant hype however, would like to see the slightest effort to at least have a discussion about the downsides (like the fact that the demo you heard was with MQA hardware and not the DAC's we all have)..oh wait, there are no downsides

 

This is interesting:

 

Meridian

 

quote:

 

"... When you play it back, it’ll play back on a legacy system sounding better than a CD. And it sounds better than CD because the noise floor is properly managed and the signal has been pre-apodized...."

 

What he is really saying I believe is "our digital filter is better than the one your using", which may be true, or not. Now, why has not anyone actually been able to confirm this? Where are the MQA encoded file through "regular" DAC demos?

[crenca]

Makes me smile. "Correct inaccuracies" versus apodizing ("removes the foot," i.e., ringing). Apodizing filters themselves are not completely perfect, in the same sense that no filter is, and particularly not at 24/96. (That is, they are not completely transparent other than removing ringing/reverberant behavior.) So while some inaccuracies are being removed, others are being added.

 

Jud, are you saying that Meridian's magic algorithms surely have the same problem as all others - they themselves add unwanted sonic artifacts?

[crenca]

If audiophile history is any indication...files that did not sound "natural" and that something was "missing".

 

And the beat goes on...

 

No doubt there is no small amount of "conservatism" or "traditionalism" in the community. My point however is the way MQA is being written about and reported on by the usual suspects in the audiophile press (Stereophile, Absolute Sound, etc.). They are not simply regurgitating press releases, they are aiding and abetting them. Some of them even explicitly reveal they are true believers/idealists of the extreme kind. It really is an embarrassment to see grown men acting (writing) like this...

[crenca]

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.

 

I can wait...as a Tidal customer I am perfectly happy with the current 16/44 service and I don't want to be an MQA "early adopter". If there was another option for 16/44 streaming I would have already switched...I also do not own $1,000 power cables - indeed, the most expensive single piece of audio equipment I own cost less than $300 dollars...

[crenca]

 

I was in the music biz for 8 years (composer producer), trust me if it were possible these types would gladly sell you your music collection again in 'new MQA super vision' if they could (whether this be by expensive premium subscription or physical format)... as in how many versions of Pink Floyd DSOTM exist.

 

 

This is important, as it points to the real reason behind MQA - it is a business opportunity as it is a consumer audio product. Now that I think about it, I would not be a bit surprised that in the future a consumer will have many different "high-res-super-MQA-HD" formats to choose from, all with a nice little premium over the "regular" or "CD quality" versions of the same music. High-Res so far has been a very minor side show - it is not surprising that MQA is seen by the industry as a way to expand this market.

[crenca]

If MQA has some magic processing, it could be all performed before encoding the thing as FLAC. Heck they could encode the "fancy" result as DXD FLAC. Then the listener doesn't need to have any special decoding stuff at their side.

 

Ah, but that is the point is it not - the "quality assurance" that everyone knows has nothing to do with DRM or some type of management of end user use because...well I don't know why everyone seems so dismissive of this, perhaps because Meridian and the industry is not calling it "DRM" but "quality assurance" and thus it must be benign. Also, don't you have to control the IP (by doing things like licensing it to end user hardware) to make a dime?

[crenca]

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.

 

Yes "bandwidth costs money" but it is simply a drop in an ocean of real costs to streaming companies. IF Tidal, Quobuz, Spotify, and Pandora halved their bandwidth/ISP costs tomorrow, they would still lose money at almost the same rate (and their investors would rightly ignore it).

 

On the consumer side, it can be more important, but as others have noted it is rapidly becoming less important on the home side as high-speed-internet-as-utility is now the de facto standard. I don't buy the story that it is important to bandwidth capped mobile users as they simply don't have the playback chain to take advantage of it. Can they hear the extra detail of a 16/44 vs 320 through their $2 DAC, amp, and earbuds that are part of their phone? The vast majority of them can't even tell the difference between 128 and 320. Now, MQA is going to "improve" on their 320? What percentage of them are going to notice or care?

 

Whatever the real motivation behind MQA is, it is not a real concern on the part of industry or consumers about "bandwidth", thats just product marketing buzz.

 

I say all this but when I got into my car last night I had been streaming some Linda Oh to my phone via Tidal. In the house, I go ahead and stream it 16/44 as it is on wifi (and I can hear the difference during my workout with decent earbuds). In the car, it switches to "normal" (128 I am guessing) as my phone data is capped. My phone is bluetoothed to the car stereo. Soooo, I heard about 30 seconds of Linda Oh at Tidal 16/44 (processed down through bluetooth to car stereo), then a pause, then the track started over as lossy. I could hear a bit of a difference, which surprised me as I would have thought bluetooth's compression would have ruined any advantage of the Tidal source. Linda's bass lost a bit of transient snap and detail. Would anyone but an obsessive budding "audiophile" such as myself have noticed? I tend to think the answer is no, but....

[crenca]

If the folks at NPR can really hear a difference it might succeed....

 

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...

[crenca]

I said NPR not Fox. Hope springs eternal.

 

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

[crenca]

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

 

I tried to identify high-quality audio samples and failed miserably

 

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)?

 

Through my most resolving playback chain (which would only be "mid-fi" to many here), I "passed" the NPR test on all except that poorly recorded Neil Young track if memory serves...

[crenca]

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

 

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?

[crenca]

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.

 

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...

[crenca]

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.

 

Your of course right, time will tell. The reaction of John Atkinson ( I've Heard the Future of Streaming: Meridian's MQA | Stereophile.com ) and others has disabused me of any trust in the quality/perspective of the "audiphile press". On the one hand, John is right to focus on the streaming aspects (for audiophiles at least - not for the general public), yet he still overplays the hand MQA has dealt (by a country mile IMO). The truth is products like high res players (with commensurate resolving headphones/earbuds), ELAC's debut line of speakers, and cheap-yet-quality amplification like Emotiva (and others) are what will "revolutionize" audio because they provide the appropriate level SQ/resolution during playback at Best Buy prices. This of course has to be in place before the "average" listener can take advantage of the leap fro 320 to 16/44, let alone anything extra MQA will add.

 

When I first subscribed to Tidal this past summer, my brother in law was asking me about it. He talks of a high quality Polk/Onkyo 2 channel he had in 90's, and helping a friend choose between two sets of $1k speaker cables. Today (some 20 years later), he has a large collection of mp3's that he listens to almost exclusively through <$20 Sony earbuds and his smartphone. I had him plug those earbuds of his into my JDS Labs amp/DAC chain and he played several selections of his choosing. We switched back and forth from 16/44 and standard quality. He strained and thought "maybe" he could hear the difference. He said he would never pay the extra $10 a month for it however. I then had him listen through a pair of AT M50x. Between the big smiles, he said he could "easily" tell the difference. Then came a 101 questions about high quality headphones (I had him try the AT m50x because they are common gateway drug to hi-fi).

 

Over the Christmas break, I asked him if he had purchased any headphones yet. No, he simply had not bothered. This from a guy who is in the top tax bracket. He admitted that he is simply "satisfied" with his music as is.

 

I think I know what "time" is going to tell us, something we already know...

[crenca]

Such a gloom merchant Crenca. Did you see the letter to the editor from Judy Collins' producer re MQA?? He's another who sees it as a game changer. Maybe he's part of the grand conspiracy or maybe there is something to MQA.

 

Link? I have read other insiders (producers, engineers, etc.) and their glowing evaluations. That said, it is from an "insider" perspective. When you are an engineer (or producer or label owner or Sterophile reviewer) with a trained ear, surrounded by 7 figures of top level equipment, and you hear a "veil" of "time smearing" lifted, I am sure it is quite revelatory and wonderful.

 

What about the other 99.999% of listeners however, listening to the same music through playback chains that literally (not figuratively) were made in China with parts that cost less than $2? MQA will not make a lick of difference to them, and they will "prove" it to you by taking a test at NPR which shows the world that anything over 320 is a "myth".

 

As far as the 99%, MQA is an answer to a question that has not been asked. The real question, the thing that will make a "revolutionary" change is not MQA (plane jane 16/44 vs 320 has "proved" that). What will make a difference to these folks is somehow getting them to upgrade their playback chain from $2 in parts, to something closer to $10. This is why people such as Andrew Jones and the folks over at Emotiva (and the like) are alot closer to Copernicus than the creators of MQA

[crenca]

.... If we are this in the dark, and confused about it Meridian has done a tremendously horrible job rolling this out and explaining what it does. At best your average Joe might in time say, "hey it has MQA whatever that is. Supposed to be good". I don't think it bodes well for the MQA process.

 

Which is why I think John Atkinson (and others) was right to emphasize its potential in streaming as MQA's real shot at commercial success. Of course, he let his "audiophile" introspection get the better of him also. For this very reason I am "pessimistic" because as I have argued the source is not the problem - your typical streaming end user can not take advantage of the 320 (let alone 16/44, to say nothing of a MQA) streams because their playback chain is not up to the task.

 

Of course, the "how it works" is obscured for a reason - they are protecting their IP and simply want us to hear it, be wowed, and take the plunge in $spending$ on new DAC's and recordings so they can make money. I am leaning more and more in Miska's direction - why not do the same thing in with high res and good filters that are not patented? Software patents, nothing but trouble...but that is another discussion.

[crenca]

Sorry I was wrong then. Now I know why I should not purchase a expensive Bluetooth headset. Thanks for correct me.

 

What is Bluetooth aptX® Technology and How Does it Work?

Almost CD quality then

 

Just to be clear, "regular" bluetooth uses an mp3 like logarithm that varies depending on the signal stregnth, and if memory serves is at best equal to 128 (though that is rare as I understand it). Aptx is an improved version that gets you a slightly better bit rate. Sooo, when you stream to a phone using a service at 320 or below, and then use bluetooth, you are compressing/processing the music twice, which is no doubt why it sounds so bad (even through a low-fi car stereo).

 

Aptx described as "near CD quality" is marketing speak for "I am selling you a load of s#*t"

 

I suppose I should not have been surprised that I could hear the difference between music processed lossy once as opposed to twice through my car stereo...

[crenca]

 

2L stats: (I translate from Norwegian, my native language)

"Then it unpacks to the optimal sampling frequency for your specific DAC."

 

Which may open for some interpretations. And rise new questions.

 

Well, any MQA encoded file (no matter the original resolution) can only play at 16/44 as that is all a non-MQA DAC (i.e. standard PCM DAC) can "see". That is why the user upstream who downloaded the 2L MQA files is only hearing 16/44, because that is all his DAC can see in the data without MQA hardware or software "awareness".

 

If you have MQA playback software (the kind that Tidal will allegedly supply you through an app) that can "unpack" the high res data from an MQA encoded file, then your regular old PCM DAC will be able to process the high res content, because the software will make it look like a standard PCM file. No one has such software yet as far as I am aware because none has been released.

 

The above sentence probably just means that whether you have an MQA DAC, software MQA decoding to regular DAC, or simply are playing a MQA file to a regular DAC without any hardware/software "awareness" of MQA, the MQA file will "play" because it is backwards compatible and "works" (in the sense that you hear sound) in these 3 scenarios...

[crenca]

"It is unfortunately that MQA has decided to pull back the integration on ARIES/ARIES LE during CES as they have decided to make it an 'end to end' technology which means it will always requests a MQA certificated DAC to work.

 

ARIES ARIES LE, will be able to playback or stream music contains MQA format but will not listed MQA certificated device, to benefit from MQA, you will need a MQA certificated DAC and this is the only way.

 

We are sorry about the decision made by MQA."

 

Wow, big news!!! This means it is a hardware only product. This means that integration in Tidal and other streamers is a bust because without a hardware DAC it is all but meaningless. This means that perhaps it really is about DRM and end user management, was all along, even if it is not a traditional DRM (the kind we have seen up to this point).

 

Let me be the first to say it - this also means MQA IS ALLREADY A BUST because who in their right mind are going to $invest$ into what is essentially mp3 ++ for a sound improvement over PCM/DSD high res when even the vast majority of audiophiles systems (to say nothing of the other 99%) have not even maxed out the potential of these "open" formats, and the additional headache of the industry "managing" your hardware and playback?

 

Let me put it this way: SACD has more of a chance of making a comeback than MQA!

 

Edit: It also means Meridian as a company is very very poorly managed - they are making Microsoft and their Windows 8 product and implementation look good.

[crenca]

Not interested in a closed system .

 

 

MQA is worse than dead, for as the good doctor said, "his brain is gone"

[crenca]

Brilliant analysis.

 

(Of course I was being sarcastic)

 

There will still be a benefit from the compression and thus it will still be possible that TIDAL will stream high res. A big benefit to subscribers who care about sound quality.

 

The announcement pertains only to achieving MQA certification. A streamer can still be able to decompress MQA.

 

The announcement is rather unambiguous "...for MQA to work...to benefit from MQA, you will need a MQA certificated DAC and this is the only way."

 

Seems to me you are simply assuming that Meridian will license what is a part of MQA (remember MQA is at least 3 different things), the compression scheme, to those who want only this aspect in their software (even if it is embedded in the firmware). Do you have anything to back this assumption up?

 

Not being sarcastic, it is a "brilliant" insight on your part if you are correct (or not, if you have something hard to back it up).

[crenca]

Remember folks, the industries "holy grail" is NOT getting sound quality to you the consumer, it is getting your $money$ in any way they can.

 

Perhaps they have come to the realization that streaming IS the future - how 99% will get their music for the foreseeable future. How do you "control" that so you can realize more revenue? Well, you can assume that people will want "high res", so you roll out something like MQA in the very infancy of the high res streaming market (which is today). In version 1.0, it seems benign enough. In versioin 1.1, a trivial software tweak requires the end user to have an MQA DAC for it to work (320 and below will be offered as an option of course). Roll out MQA in the playback device of choice, smartphones. "Everyone" will want one, because they will be told "you want this for sound quality" when they are in the Verizon store. After a few years, 1.1 comes out and about the same time the major labels will no longer allow 16/44 to be streamed without "MQA Authentication". Once a critical mass is hooked on MQA devices/DACs, you start selling your hard media (CD's, downloads, whatever the future is) in "MQA Authenticated" format only. Thus, you won't need an act of congress (like happened with video) to ensure DRM on your product - you got everyone to walk into it with (a very real) improvement in SQ, streaming, and simple naivety.

 

Of course, a lot can go wrong in this, and I don't think it will work. However, you KNOW it is (or something like it) is the real motivation behind anything like MQA...it is the music industry after all.

[crenca]

You don't have any evidence to the contrary and yet you pronounce MQA dead. If you are going to demand evidence from others then you should provide some yourself.

 

I am simply going with the explicit wording of the announcement - you are the one reading between the lines and seeing what is not there.

 

Your right, I am pronouncing it dead because I have some faith that a critical mass of CA and even the general music consuming public will see through MQA and what it is...it is probably a little naive on my part

[crenca]

Agreed. To "enjoy" expensive downloads of DSDwhatever I'd have to invest in a new DAC and replace my CDs. Versus CD+ quality streaming on Tidal of thousands - >millions of albums at no additional cost to me. Gee guess which one I'm excited about.

 

but but but...(start our outboards now ) you WILL have an additional cost - the hardware cost of a "MQA Authenticated" DAC to enjoy MQA on Tidal IF (and only IF) Meridian is consistent. They might not be (and if they have half a brain left they will not be consistent) and thus they will treat Tidal and it's software different (at first).

 

Of course, this is only to get you hooked (see my post above)...