MQA at CES

[Maldur]

This is why with MQA, or something like it, is what the future of audio looks like:

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]23321[/ATTACH]

 

One more moment of future audio for those who not want to hear about running for money - A Letter From Our Founder - DI Radio

 

So, some streamer wants more money? Easy - kick off most your users and limit stream receiving rights to max two HW device models and all OK... ?

[Distinctive]

BREAKING: Auralic Is MQA Ready By Michael Lavorgna • Posted: Jan 12, 2016

Read more at Auralic Is MQA Ready | AudioStream

Isn't this based on 'known' info available before CES?

[Tintinabulum]

Sooloos still belongs to Meridian. I don't know what Meridian is doing with it. Roon has nothing to do with Sooloos. (The auto-correct really wants "Sooloos" to be "Solos".) The Roon idea is kind of like Sooloos, except Roon is software only (and way better ).

 

--David

 

This was from John Buchanan, CEO of Meridian

 

"Hi Everyone,

 

I wanted to let you know that Meridian has agreed a deal to transfer the company�s software applications business to a newly established entity, Roon Labs, headed up by Enno Vandermeer. I am sure that you will see this announcement appear across other media outlets but wanted to share this information with you all directly.

 

This news is very positive for both the newly formed Roon Labs and for Meridian Audio, allowing each company to grow by concentrating upon their core strengths. "

 

Maybe I misunderstood it, how would you interpret it?

[Distinctive]

No, I meant that there are currently no DAC chips or S/PDIF receivers out on the market that would have MQA decoder. The current solutions they seem to offer are firmware/software.

I think many DAC suppliers would benefit from a non-existent MQA because their strong side is to stand out from the rest on the processing side of it.

I wonder if MQA may result in DAC's sounding more identical to each other?

I don't think MQA is a gift from the originator to the human kind. It is all about business. I am not sure if all customers understand the rationale behind the strategic intent....

 

I hope it would also work over I2s (LVDS) and not only USB from source to DAC.

[Miska]

I think we are getting ahead of ourselves here.

 

I posted the following to Miska's blog on MQA:

 

And if we go about reposting on this thread, my response:

Yes, but the only advantage of noise shaping is to move noise to less audible frequencies from the critical frequencies. In noise shaping, the amount of noise doesn't increase or decrease, it is just distributed differently.

 

But if you check the MQA files, there's no drop in noise levels at mid range which stays at 16-bit equivalent level. So the total amount of noise is increased compared to properly dithered 16-bit conversion of the same content.

 

IOW, if you would do normal SNR or THD+N calculation, summing all the noise bins together, the MQA version would give significantly worse number than a normal TPDF dithered 16-bit file.

 

So at least I would rather choose a normal properly made RedBook file rather than the MQA one, which is 2.7 times larger but technically worse.

 

So they just add their extra data as extra noise vs 44.1/16 and try to hide it at high frequencies to make it less obvious.

 

 

P.S. I'm not going to waste more of my valuable time on MQA or discussing about it, now I know enough to clean it up as much as possible at playback time. Have fun if you like it, I don't.

[orgel]

This was from John Buchanan, CEO of Meridian

 

"Hi Everyone,

 

I wanted to let you know that Meridian has agreed a deal to transfer the company’s software applications business to a newly established entity, Roon Labs, headed up by Enno Vandermeer. I am sure that you will see this announcement appear across other media outlets but wanted to share this information with you all directly.

 

This news is very positive for both the newly formed Roon Labs and for Meridian Audio, allowing each company to grow by concentrating upon their core strengths. "

 

Maybe I misunderstood it, how would you interpret it?

 

I would interpret it as follows: They're two separate companies. The announcement doesn't say anything about Roon being any part of Meridian or vice versa. (Maybe Meridian has a stake in Roon — I don't know that that info is publicly available — but if you spend time hanging out on the Roon forums, there's sure no sign that anyone from Meridian is calling the shots.) I think you'll see that Meridian will be selling more "Roon-ready" devices and fewer Sooloos devices as time goes by. So they'll be licensing software from Roon, just like PS Audio, Auralic, Exasound, Sonore, etc.

 

I think a lot of audio hardware companies would happily outsource all their software-related activities. From what I see, it's extremely rare that a hardware outfit has the kind of expertise needed to perform well in this area (see, e.g., Auralic). I also think it's extremely rare for an elite group of software engineers to be happy in a place run by hardware engineers. (How this relates to MQA's prospects, I can't say.)

 

--David

[esldude]

People, you should at least view the first couple of slides referenced earlier: http://icms.org.uk/downloads/BtG/Dragotti.pdf

It seems to bridge somewhat the consumer D/A world with some of the new developments in compressed sensing.

If it does what is implied by this, then, at least for new recordings and if not compared to DSD or 768/24, it can really be beneficial. So if you get to that 96/24 from a much-better digital or analog original, you may really feel the difference, as the newly-found E/B-spline basis used may be able to retain timing data much better than standard. It loses in raw dynamic range but wins in timing precision.

 

Moreover, this novel sampling is not the patented part, as it was developed in the open by researchers, so this technique can be used by any software, as long as there's a DAC to play it back. This means that, unless MQA walls off access to the decoding of this sampling technique, you will be able to resample any source using the novel technique and play back on the new DAC.

 

Pitchforks are correct when talking about the restrictions of DRM and the shenanigans with legacy playback, data hiding in dither and hierarchical fidelity level shenanigans.

But the novel sampling part is not patented, is based on solid foundations of compressed sensing (though CS started with random bases), has been developed openly and can be easily tested today.

 

This is interesting, and similar to astro-photagraphy software that does image stacking it seems. You can get some very high resolution photo results from stacking 640x480 web cam images. So is this really part of what MQA is doing? Compressed sensing.

[R1200CL]

This whole MQA thing is an abortion. Why put AURALIC through the ringer. This was no surprise that Auralic was leading this charge and was quite embarrassed at the CES 2016 show caught with their pants down. AURALIC can just update their Aries streamer with a new product with the MQA chip if need be. No?

 

This has nothing to do with HW. Believe me.

 

I know for sure now from a reliable source that MQA (the company) did not not see the Auralic prosess as a complete MQA prosess. At the moment a MQA profiled DAC is a requirement. And that is also why the Mini is a MQA product.

 

It may happen that Auralic was a bit smarter than MQA knew, and this default profile was not aproved by MQA. But that is speculation.

 

So the best we can hope for at the moment is that Roon (and others) is allowed to create muliprofile DAC SW. As a default SW profile DAC is not acceped. This may be limited to USB DAC's.

Reason to be found in Roon forum. (Two way communication, DAC identifier).

[Miska]

So if you get to that 96/24 from a much-better digital or analog original, you may really feel the difference, as the newly-found E/B-spline basis used may be able to retain timing data much better than standard. It loses in raw dynamic range but wins in timing precision.

 

Moreover, this novel sampling is not the patented part, as it was developed in the open by researchers, so this technique can be used by any software, as long as there's a DAC to play it back. This means that, unless MQA walls off access to the decoding of this sampling technique, you will be able to resample any source using the novel technique and play back on the new DAC.

 

Well, HQPlayer has two spline upsamplers, on purpose I don't tell specific details of the splines used, but I have used ones I found best suited on my research. One can try to use those for upsampling/reconstruction but needs to figure out first how to use the encoded extra data if they want to.

 

But technically those are not great for audio. But I also have another class of filters I named "minringFIR" which is even more optimal. (I personally rather use the ones I've optimized to have as perfect frequency/time/dynamic performance as possible, good timing response and >192 dB stop-band attenuation)

 

In any case, there are no timing problems if the anti-alias decimation filter has nothing to remove. And from the DXD sources I could select a sampling rate that preserves all harmonics, all dynamic range and encodes to standard FLAC that is significantly smaller than the MQA FLAC. Best optimization would be to choose sampling rate and word length per track based on the contents and then oversample that to delta-sigma modulator rate (several MHz) directly at playback time. That's what I can do with HQPlayer today without making any changes to it...

 

So one track could be 120/18, another could be 125/19 and third one 113/17. FLAC can deal with that too. With some more advanced container and ASRC you could even fluctuate the sampling rate also during the track as necessary.

 

 

And if I can choose, I take DSD any day, no need to decimate the content to PCM and then convert it back. Uncompressed stereo DSD128 is just 11.3 Mbps, no problem for my internet connection for streaming, works even over my mobile data.

[R1200CL]

No, I meant that there are currently no DAC chips or S/PDIF receivers out on the market that would have MQA decoder. The current solutions they seem to offer are firmware/software.

Agreed. But the whole intention is to add firmware / software to present DAC's filter and timing issues. So the currently solutions will not differ from the future ones.

 

Also I have not seen any technical argument not to put that SW outside the DAC itself.

Is there ?

[tallica1]

Hardware companies need the software companies and software needs hardware. MQA-Meridian-Roon are all connected. This was all very well thought out several years ago. NOTHING in this computer audio world happens on the fly. MQA seemed to blindside AURALIC at the CES 2016. There is no nice way to say that MQA pulled a fast one. NOBODY still knows if a particular chip is needed for a DAC to be MQA ready. According to Auralic firmware was the known solution prior to CES. Here is a another piece of information. DAR just reviewed BEL CANTO's (w/ Joseph Audio Profile Speakers) new less expensive black integrated equipment $25k vs $50k Full on Black System which was Stereophile's 2015 product of the year. But my point is that DAR commented "MQA support is slated for inclusion down the line, presumably via a firmware update." FIRMWARE UPDATE FOR MQA.

http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2016/01/bel-canto-ready-ultimate-aci600-integrated-at-ces-2016/

 

Call me stupid but what is a MQA ready DAC vs a non-MQA ready DAC?

[Miska]

Also I have not seen any technical argument not to put that SW outside the DAC itself.

Is there ?

 

Since they don't allow producers to encode MQA files on their systems, I can imagine similar reasons for being very tight on decoder side too.

 

The MQA plugin seems to just add some encoding metadata parameters to the source file and then:

"the MQA plug-in will provide an export function for sending to manufacturing/encoding"

"The actual MQA encoding takes place at the encoding house"

 

For content providers:

"How much will MQA cost to implement?

Every MQA encoder will need access to an HSM (Hyper-Security Module) that issues the encrypted signatures contained within each file. Costs of owning and implementing HSM within your environment will generally range between £5,000 - £20,000"

"Which encoding houses support MQA?

Currently 7digital have committed to running encoders within their environment"

[R1200CL]

With the talk of Apple ditching the RCA plug and talk of DAC capable headphones due to the new connection this has bound to have an effect on MQA. MQA headphones anyone?

 

Well Bluetooth can't be used, nor AirPlay, or ?

Do we lack technology for hi res wireless streaming (to headphones), or is WiFi OK ?

[Maldur]

Call me stupid but what is a MQA ready DAC vs a non-MQA ready DAC?

Very good question, not stupid at all.

[mansr]

Since they don't allow producers to encode MQA files on their systems, I can imagine similar reasons for being very tight on decoder side too.

 

A fairly common business model is to charge plenty for the content creation tools but provide reproduction for little or nothing. See for instance Adobe PDF. This creates a large demand with which to motivate producers to pony up for the creation tools. MQA could do something along those lines. They could also not do that.

[james45974]

Well Bluetooth can't be used, nor AirPlay, or ?

Do we lack technology for hi res wireless streaming (to headphones), or is WiFi OK ?

 

The gist of my thought is this: will Apple consider MQA in a similar light as they do FLAC? Apple as a company seems anathema to using other peoples technology.

[tallica1]

MQA ready according to 5-27-2015 DAR report would be a FIRMWARE solution to hardware manufacturers and nothing more which is exactly what AURALIC was actually prepared for.

http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2015/05/munich-high-end-2015-is-meridian-mqa-the-new-dsd/

 

And if this tiny Meridian Device is MQA ready then how can the Auralic Aries which is a much more advanced streamer be the same with the already planed firmware upgrade blind sided by Meridian.

 

https://www.meridian-audio.com/products/streaming/media-source-200/

 

Unless someone much smarter then myself (definitely most others on this forum) can explain to me what is the difference between a MQA ready DAC vs non MQA ready?

My additional thoughts.. that this about the money and licensing fee DISPUTE between Auralic and Meridian... ONLY... Thoughts?

[francisleung]

Posts pile up fast in this thread and I am much behind in a day already.

Re post 380 by R1200CL and 383 by crenca:

I compared the MQA tracks without a MQA decoder and that might not have revealed the true benefits of MQA. Conducted the listening comparisons solely because it was said MQA's improvements could still be heard via non MQA DACs. On the other hand I don't have a DXD capable DAC either. Is that even hand? I don't know. I have been waiting for the completion of an extremely good value R2R 24/384 DAC and given the lower res version I tested at home two years ago I am quite sure the DXD tracks would sound better than they are now in my system.

For streaming, and that's where money is, I think MQA is likely to bring about discernible sound improvement. It is a matter of at what price MQA tracks will be charged and how much more consumers are willing to pay for the improvement.

I have listened to more MQA tracks from 2L and they lose out to DXD.

Whether MQA with dedicated decoder will excel or not, I don't know and it is very likely that I will NOT be able to find out given the way importers handle their business in my area.

By the way I went into the 2L test bench several times this morning via different routes. No more MQA files there.

[Jabs1542]

MQA provides better sound for streaming - we'll see.

 

Until then I will continue to enjoy Roon streaming 16:44 from Tidal into HQP up sampled to DSD 128 through my Lampizator DAC.

 

Let me know when you get all this MQA business sorted out... though it will probably be years later

[R1200CL]

Off topic:

What the gosh darn heck is Roon Ready? | DAR__KO

.....but with future MQA SW as the goal.....

[R1200CL]

MQA ready according to 5-27-2015 DAR report would be a FIRMWARE solution to hardware manufacturers and nothing more which is exactly what AURALIC was actually prepared for.

http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2015/05/munich-high-end-2015-is-meridian-mqa-the-new-dsd/

 

And if this tiny Meridian Device is MQA ready then how can the Auralic Aries which is a much more advanced streamer be the same with the already planed firmware upgrade blind sided by Meridian.

 

https://www.meridian-audio.com/products/streaming/media-source-200/

 

Unless someone much smarter then myself (definitely most others on this forum) can explain to me what is the difference between a MQA ready DAC vs non MQA ready?

My additional thoughts.. that this about the money and licensing fee DISPUTE between Auralic and Meridian... ONLY... Thoughts?

 

I think you have misunderstood. That Meridian streamer is not MAQ. Their look alike Explorer 2 DAC is.

 

As said in privious post. The Auralic Mini is MQA, but only RCA out. Not spdif.

[R1200CL]

....... No more MQA files there.

2L High Resolution Music .:. free TEST BENCH Files is present.

[mansr]

I compared the MQA tracks without a MQA decoder and that might not have revealed the true benefits of MQA. Conducted the listening comparisons solely because it was said MQA's improvements could still be heard via non MQA DACs. [...] I have listened to more MQA tracks from 2L and they lose out to DXD.

 

I did a quick FFT analysis of a couple of the MQA samples vs their non-MQA counterparts.

 

First 2L-064, piano and solo voice:

The obvious difference in the undecoded MQA is a small hump at 19-22kHz. Moreover, around 7kHz the MQA spectrum starts falling off ever so slightly compared to the DXD file. It's probably not audible, but it's a difference nonetheless.

 

Next 2L-120, an old 44/16 recording of Nielsen piano music that allegedly sounds better as MQA even without a decoder:

As evidenced by the graph, the original recording contains nothing of value about 16kHz, only sigma-delta modulator noise. The MQA encoding has filtered this out and replaced it with ... something. Here the MQA version has lower noise level well into the (somewhat) audible band, so it's no surprise if it sounds better. However, it would probably sound better still if it was simply filtered with a cutoff at 16kHz. Also of interest is that the difference at lower frequencies seen in the first sample is pretty much absent here.

 

From this I would say the claims that MQA preserves full CD quality even without a decoder are clearly bunk. What an MQA decoder might do is anyone's guess at this point.

[esldude]

I did a quick FFT analysis of a couple of the MQA samples vs their non-MQA counterparts.

 

First 2L-064, piano and solo voice:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]23324[/ATTACH]

The obvious difference in the undecoded MQA is a small hump at 19-22kHz. Moreover, around 7kHz the MQA spectrum starts falling off ever so slightly compared to the DXD file. It's probably not audible, but it's a difference nonetheless.

 

Next 2L-120, an old 44/16 recording of Nielsen piano music that allegedly sounds better as MQA even without a decoder:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]23325[/ATTACH]

As evidenced by the graph, the original recording contains nothing of value about 16kHz, only sigma-delta modulator noise. The MQA encoding has filtered this out and replaced it with ... something. Here the MQA version has lower noise level well into the (somewhat) audible band, so it's no surprise if it sounds better. However, it would probably sound better still if it was simply filtered with a cutoff at 16kHz. Also of interest is that the difference at lower frequencies seen in the first sample is pretty much absent here.

 

From this I would say the claims that MQA preserves full CD quality even without a decoder are clearly bunk. What an MQA decoder might do is anyone's guess at this point.

 

I did something similar. Picked a section of music 30 seconds long, and with high levels. Did an FFT of the same part of MQA vs non MQA. Subtracted the level in each bin for each to see the difference. Saw the falling around 7 khz at times reaching a half to 3/4 db. Saw a boost of .5 or .6 db around 1-2 khz. I would put it a audible in a direct comparison. FWIW.

[R1200CL]

So we can hopfully conclude that Tidal Redbok streaming quality will be the same with MQA encoded redbok fils. (Without MQA equipment)

 

And Miske can still keep his hi-fi subscription

 

As for hi res files we may conclude different, unless you have MQA equipment.

(But still equal or better than Redbok).