MQA at CES

[Jimmypowder]

Obviously MQA was working with the Aries and an external DAC, otherwise Auralic would have not committed to only play TIDAL+MQA at CES (which I think was the commitment).

 

When I auditioned MQA at Meridian in NYC the MQA versions of the files did sound better. But these were Meridian's picks. I wonder if pre-CES some audio buffs got a preview and were not impressed with content they chose.

 

This is all very suspicious... I presume MQA is really not the hot shtuff it purports to be.

Yeah Miggy ,I think you are right.

[james45974]

I believe it's a bit more sinister than that... How could they, or Auralic, have not tested this... Impossible.

 

Is Roon rolling out MQA? Or is the rollout botched by this turn on Meridian's part?

 

No, I did not mean to infer Roon is doing MQA, I have not idea if they are, I simply was comparing the way they are rolling out their product versus the way MQA is handling theirs.

[ted_b]

Roon for example would be able to decode MQA in soft and if the resulting pcm is 24/358 it ought to be able to downsample to 24/192 when the DAC has a max of that. I think Aries does the same but don't recall exactly.

 

No, Aries does not downample MQA'd material; that is one of the pieces still needed (as I documented in my Auralic CES mini-interview post). I would not get so negative on MQA; there are hosts of product rollout re-schedule examples in our computer audio world, let alone the software world in general. Marketing is always ahead of development. From what I saw (didn't hear in a/b, so the concept was mostly visual) seeing a Tidal-chosen track end up on a Mytek Brooklyn at 24/352.8k was pretty promising (assuming it wasn't just an upsampling trick, which it wasn't). The proof is in both the listening and then the availability to us "I already own a dac; not buying a new one" owners.

[R1200CL]

Is Roon rolling out MQA? Or is the rollout botched by this turn on Meridian's part?

 

YES. Roon is planning to support MQA. Says Danny Dulai. At no extra cost as well.

https://community.roonlabs.com/t/mqa-support-by-roon/88/25

[R1200CL]

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/mqa-ces-27127/index12.html#post500444

 

The confusion is that MQA has now realized that providing manufacturers like Auralic with general software decoding (unlike Mytelk's dac-based one) doesn't yet include settings for targeted normal dacs. Example: your dac is a 24/192 PCM dac. You pick a 2L MQA'd track from Tidal and have Aries decode it. What happens? The decoded material is 24/352.8k! Clearly the Tidal settings on Aries would require a "24/192 max" setting, which is currently unavailable in the demo product (and then a decision on who/where this downsampling work occurs). There are likely other scenarios too.

 

Your explaination is very credible. And it would gain MQA to admit this, and not let Auralic look like the foolish one.

 

Also even Meridian Explorer downsamples. Or 2L will not play.

 

An other interesting issue may be Apple AirPlay most likely can't stream the MQA format. 24/44.1 and 24/48. And latest comming firmware Auralic is about better AirPlay support. According to Auralic FB.

"One big improvement on firmware 3.0 is to improve the synchronization of AirPlay. Be sure to check it out if you have not yet used this function."

 

I have not verified if those new reased products from Pioner/Onkyo/HTC support AirPlay. Probably does not matter, since they all have a DAC.

[miguelito]

No, Aries does not downample MQA'd material; that is one of the pieces still needed (as I documented in my Auralic CES mini-interview post). I would not get so negative on MQA; there are hosts of product rollout re-schedule examples in our computer audio world, let alone the software world in general. Marketing is always ahead of development. From what I saw (didn't hear in a/b, so the concept was mostly visual) seeing a Tidal-chosen track end up on a Mytek Brooklyn at 24/352.8k was pretty promising (assuming it wasn't just an upsampling trick, which it wasn't). The proof is in both the listening and then the availability to us "I already own a dac; not buying a new one" owners.

Understand they don't downsample, but they could easy do that if the decoder is giving them pcm, no? Please point me to your interview.

[crenca]

Linn pretty much discounted it...

 

Thanks for posting this. He obviously understands the "damage" (his words) that propriety/closed formats such as MQA cause in an ecosystem (no matter the benefits). It is good to hear some in the industry say this explicitly, and leaves us with hope that we are not naively walking into an "authenticated" audio future.

[Miska]

+ Just to make clear. In the piano and the magnificat comparisons, I also had the DXD tracks gone through the same resample logarithm. So at least the difference had nothing to do with the resample log.

+ I have removed the DXD tracks and put the MQA in their place.

 

Do you have MQA decoder in your system? If not, the resolution you get from MQA file is quite a bit less than RedBook. While DXD has way more resolution.

 

I will quit my Tidal subscription if they start using MQA for all their "HIFI" streams, because it is much worse than RedBook. Then I can as well keep on using Spotify (which I'm also subscribing) at about same quality, but half the price and more content.

[MikeJazz]

What I don't understand is who would buy MQA files instead of normal hires FLAC or DSD download? Is download time or the space needed really an issue to someone?

 

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.

 

but they are not interested in an open "coding", they need to create the appearence of a new need on a closed system, a magic box that only they have the key...I don't like the idea...

[crenca]

I will quit my Tidal subscription if they start using MQA for all their "HIFI" streams, because it is much worse than RedBook. Then I can as well keep on using Spotify (which I'm also subscribing) at about same quality, but half the price and more content.

 

I wondered about this. I will do the same. It all comes back to what some folks around here are calling "the facts" Thing is, we only have the marketing/product speak so far to go on from Meridian. Just exactly how does a standard PCM DAC "see" an MQA encoded file and what is the "real" resolution/bit rate in this scenerio? If what you are saying is true, it is not in fact "24/44" but something much less.

 

Tidal is not looking to satisfy "audiophiles" (or anyone else) with SQ, they are looking to start turning a profit so if they think jumping on the MQA bandwagon is a strategy towards that end then they will, even if Meridian requires proprietary hardware on the part of the end user. Of course, it is a new day so who knows what will be coming from Meridian in the next few hours. They should just sell this IP to Apple and be done with it...

[orgel]

Otherwise this thread seems to have spun off its axis, left the rails, gone astray.

 

+1. Seems like there's some rampant over-speculation going on.

 

To me, the whole episode with Auralic posting something on FaceBook, disappearing it, and then issuing a correction suggests it was Auralic that got a little bit ahead of reality, not necessarily Meridian. (I don't own any products from either company; the closest I get is having a user license for Roon.) My reading suggests that the term "MQA certified (or certificated )" will be reserved for DACs (and devices with DACs therein) that MQA deems satisfactory for doing the end-to-end thing. I think MQA software decoding will likely go by another official name. (And that's my contribution to the over-speculation.)

 

Auralic has a well-documented history of over-promising (admittedly something that's easy to do when software's involved), so I don't think people should read too much into this episode.

 

I think folks should probably cool their collective jets and wait until there are some actual products that are actually MQA capable.

 

FWIW.

 

--David

[jeffmudrick]

Do you have MQA decoder in your system? If not, the resolution you get from MQA file is quite a bit less than RedBook. While DXD has way more resolution.

 

I will quit my Tidal subscription if they start using MQA for all their "HIFI" streams, because it is much worse than RedBook. Then I can as well keep on using Spotify (which I'm also subscribing) at about same quality, but half the price and more content.

 

"Much worse than Redbook"? You're really losing credibility here, at least with me. Obviously a well mastered Redbook file is not "worse" than a DSD256 file from a poor master and that's essentially the argument you're making here. Makes no sense. You want your HQ users to be the ones to apply your filters rather than MQA that's fine but MQA's approach ought not be diminished as necessarily inferior to Redbook before you've even heard it. When you have some recording engineers who say it sounds worse than what they recorded let us know.

[Jimmypowder]

I wondered about this. I will do the same. It all comes back to what some folks around here are calling "the facts" Thing is, we only have the marketing/product speak so far to go on from Meridian. Just exactly how does a standard PCM DAC "see" an MQA encoded file and what is the "real" resolution/bit rate in this scenerio? If what you are saying is true, it is not in fact "24/44" but something much less.

 

Tidal is not looking to satisfy "audiophiles" (or anyone else) with SQ, they are looking to start turning a profit so if they think jumping on the MQA bandwagon is a strategy towards that end then they will, even if Meridian requires proprietary hardware on the part of the end user. Of course, it is a new day so who knows what will be coming from Meridian in the next few hours. They should just sell this IP to Apple and be done with it...

 

I understand where you are coming from . I can hear a

difference between Tidal and Spotify quite clearly with my equipment .

If the Tidal audio quality diminishes with MQA , what would be the point of keeping the sub ?

[Miska]

"Much worse than Redbook"? You're really losing credibility here, at least with me. Obviously a well mastered Redbook file is not "worse" than a DSD256 file from a poor master and that's essentially the argument you're making here. Makes no sense.

 

Did you check the blog post I made? I compared the MQA FLAC to plain normal 44.1/16 FLAC and it is much worse. Less than 16 bits left.

 

Se it yourself...

 

16 megabyte MQA FLAC (from 2L):

 

vs

 

6.2 megabyte RedBook FLAC (made with my own tools from the original 2L DXD):

 

vs

 

13 megabyte 120/18 FLAC, optimized to not loose anything from the source (made with my own tools too, from the original 2L DXD):

 

 

Where's the space saving vs quality!?

[crenca]

...I think folks should probably cool their collective jets and wait until there are some actual products that are actually MQA capable.

 

FWIW.

 

--David

 

Yea, but where is the fun in that! It is a MQA CES thread after all so are we not supposed to speculate on every juicy tidbit hour by hour

 

I would also add that I believe Tidal is a pretty big deal to many of us, and the fact that they are (as of this hour - anyone at CES right now who can report on the latest developments??) going to switch over from a de facto open standard (of the last 30+ years: CD 16/44) to a propriety/closed "magic box" solution is worth a bit of discussion to say the least...

[esldude]

Did you check the blog post I made? I compared the MQA FLAC to plain normal 44.1/16 FLAC and it is much worse. Less than 16 bits left.

 

Se it yourself...

 

16 megabyte MQA FLAC (from 2L):

[ATTACH=CONFIG]23285[/ATTACH]

 

vs

 

6.2 megabyte RedBook FLAC (made with my own tools from the original 2L DXD):

[ATTACH=CONFIG]23286[/ATTACH]

 

vs

 

13 megabyte 120/18 FLAC, optimized to not loose anything from the source (made with my own tools too, from the original 2L DXD):

[ATTACH=CONFIG]23287[/ATTACH]

 

 

Where's the space saving vs quality!?

 

I read that and didn't understand how you determined it was less than 16 bit. Could you please explain?

[jeffmudrick]

Does the above tell us anything about how a properly MQA decoded file will sound??

[Miska]

I read that and didn't understand how you determined it was less than 16 bit. Could you please explain?

 

From the amount of background noise. If you compare the RedBook and MQA version, the MQA version has background noise at best at 16-bit level at best on some frequency areas, but above 15 kHz it begins to drop significantly below that of 16-bit. So compare noise levels especially between 15 - 20 kHz.

[Miska]

Does the above tell us anything about how a properly MQA decoded file will sound??

 

No, I only care how it performs without MQA decoding, as alternative to RedBook FLAC. But at least so far, I can create a standard (no secret sauce) FLAC that has no quality degradation compared to the original DXD and it is still smaller than the MQA file!

 

I don't want to buy MQA equipment just in order not to get quality degradation on Tidal!

[Distinctive]

I believe it's a bit more sinister than that... How could they, or Auralic, have not tested this... Impossible.

 

Is Roon rolling out MQA? Or is the rollout botched by this turn on Meridian's part?

On the contrary, my impression is that the hifi segment is jumping directly to code base with no structured approach whatsoever. Minimal user stories, no proper code review, no system testing, no independent integration testing. I don't expect small high end companies to be ISO 9000-3 certified, but I think most companies still believe that software is some kind of nuisance add-on that they just have to include in their hardware devices. At least it appear this way.

It is expensive to do things in a cheap manner.

I like the approach Oppo took on their BD players, though.

[jeffmudrick]

No, I only care how it performs without MQA decoding, as alternative to RedBook FLAC. But at least so far, I can create a standard (no secret sauce) FLAC that has no quality degradation compared to the original DXD and it is still smaller than the MQA file!

 

I don't want to buy MQA equipment just in order not to get quality degradation on Tidal!

 

Right. Or to do away with the double negative, you don't want to buy MQA because your certain your filters and upsampling have to be better than theirs even if theirs are specific to the original A-D environment ? Or is it a moral/political argument about black box authentication?? Just trying to understand what seem to be some a priori assumptions which aren't making sense to me.

[crenca]

Right. Or to do away with the double negative, you don't want to buy MQA because your certain your filters and upsampling have to be better than theirs even if theirs are specific to the original A-D environment ? Or is it a moral/political argument about black box authentication?? Just trying to understand what seem to be some a priori assumptions which aren't making sense to me.

 

If I am reading him correctly, he is saying that MQA encoding is a degradation of standard 16/44 PCM encoding (when played back through a non-MQA DAC) in the 15-20khz range. This stands apart from any upsampling, filter choice, etc. if I am reading him correctly...

[jeffmudrick]

If I am reading him correctly, he is saying that MQA encoding is a degradation of standard 16/44 PCM encoding (when played back through a non-MQA DAC) in the 15-20khz range. This stands apart from any upsampling, filter choice, etc. if I am reading him correctly...

 

I get that part. But MQA will market decoders because MQA decoded material sounds better, not because FLAC will sound worse if you don't get decoding capabilities. The I don't care what the decoded file sounds like is the part I'm not getting.

[MikeJazz]

Right. Or to do away with the double negative, you don't want to buy MQA because your certain your filters and upsampling have to be better than theirs even if theirs are specific to the original A-D environment ? Or is it a moral/political argument about black box authentication?? Just trying to understand what seem to be some a priori assumptions which aren't making sense to me.

 

OK, Let's for a moment try to understand the bold part. What exactly is specific in the MQA process to be able to compensate for the losses obtained in the first ADC steps? How can they "remove the adc signature" or whatever...that's a pretty bold statement that needs some clear explanation, in terms that the average music lover and audiophile can understand...at the moment I did not find any explanation...

[new_media]

I don't want to speak for Miska, but I currently have no plans to spend money on a new DAC to buy into a closed system that may fail. Ergo...

 

I don't care what the decoded file sounds like.

 

Except that I am actually a little curious.