MQA at CES

[jeffmudrick]

I think it is only a very small number of posters who want and can actually afford to buy $500 USB cables and $1000 power cords. I like many others tend to purchase affordable cables, in my case at or close to entry level. But just because I don't want or can't afford something does not mean I feel it is right to belittle the wealthy audiophile who does by calling their stuff cuckoo.

 

In my case I use an inexpensive Dynex USB cable, stock power cords, Monster Cable Powerline 2 Plus speaker cable with banana plugs which cost about $80 for the pair and mostly $25 interconnects.

 

Since Sony’s “Perfect Sound Forever” ads for the then new CD format in 1983, I have learned to be very skeptical of everything.

 

The critical listening to decoded MQA will happen when the DACs are available in the near future, until then almost everything else is just guessing.

 

However, Miska's findings that MQA music files played undecoded sound and measure worse than 16/44.1kHz, shows a real problem with backwards compatibility IMHO.

 

I've previously agreed to that last bit while at the same time doubting its significance since most of us will be listening to decoded MQA. I have no problem belittling those tearing down a technology they haven't heard and are only guessing at how it works. As for the irony of complaining about having to pay for a real improvement in playback while investing in other dubious expensive improvements, well we'll have to agree to disagree on that. The buzz on other threads, or one look at this month's Stereophile tells me it's more than a few people.

 

On the subject of disparaging that which we do not know, Joel on the Meridian forum posted this intriguing tidbit :

 

"I'm slowly reading through the "MQA at CES" thread on CA now. It's a tough one, because there are mistakes. Also Jussi (developer of HQPlayer who posts as Miska and knows a LOT about DSP) knows a lot more about DSP filters than me. However, I think he has made a mistake in assuming that MQA uses the same apodizing tech as Meridian's previous filter. More later..."

[Jud]

To the extent that's true (and I'm skeptical that enough is known) that's swell for those who enjoy dealing with complexities of HQ Player/XXhighend et al and file based audio generally. MQA and its partners' goal of simplifying the delivery of CD+/Hirez and achieving wide distribution thereof through streaming for me stands as something of value nonetheless.

 

Yes, I think that is of value. For those who get their Tidal through Roon, HQPlayer is available through the same UI. So people have choices, which is generally a good thing.

[matthias]

On the subject of disparaging that which we do not know, Joel on the Meridian forum posted this intriguing tidbit :

"I'm slowly reading through the "MQA at CES" thread on CA now. It's a tough one, because there are mistakes. Also Jussi (developer of HQPlayer who posts as Miska and knows a LOT about DSP) knows a lot more about DSP filters than me. However, I think he has made a mistake in assuming that MQA uses the same apodizing tech as Meridian's previous filter. More later..."

 

Can you provide a link to this post?

Thanks

 

Matt

[jeffmudrick]

Yes, I think that is of value. For those who get their Tidal through Roon, HQPlayer is available through the same UI. So people have choices, which is generally a good thing.

 

Indeed. I've bought into Roon and when it's time for a new DAC that can take full advantage of it will probably give HQP a spin.

[ted_b]

My overall take on this pre-release: since Tidal is a month-to-month service, I'll wait til one of my devices becomes MQA-capable, then simply pony up for 30 days (assuming Tidal has an MQA premium service) and check out both MQA-enhanced hirez and MQA-deilvered existing hirez. If it ain't worth it I'm out less than the cost of a hirez download.

 

And even if MQA doesn't soon follow through on their upstream device program, Michal will send me a Brooklyn to hear and I will report back on it (and the above 30 day idea).

[jeffmudrick]

Can you provide a link to this post?

Thanks

 

Matt

 

http://www.meridianunplugged.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=245462&page=all

[DanSmedra]

Can someone explain the source of all the rabid negativity, cynicism, and what even sounds like anger? Are certain individuals royally pissed that streaming music with MQA might sound TOO good, thus casting a shadow upon the decision to spend tenXtens of thousands of dollars on esoteric equipment and hires files seeking audio nirvana?

[esldude]

Can you provide a link to this post?

Thanks

 

Matt

 

Read the paper I attached earlier. It isn't a filter like other Meridian products.

[matthias]

Read the paper I attached earlier. It isn't a filter like other Meridian products.

 

Can you explain without to much scientific language what they do in the first step with the original recording?

Thx

Matt

[jeffmudrick]

I missed this earlier but apparently Vandersteen, no doubt wanting to somehow cash in on the sales of obscure Norwegian choral music like Wilson and PSB, is also all aboard the MQA. Wasn't that the Kingston Trio?

 

http://vandersteen.com/news/vandersteen-audio-relaunches-the-model-5a-carbon-w-analog-and-mqa-at-ces-2016

[esldude]

Can you explain without to much scientific language what they do in the first step with the original recording?

Thx

Matt

 

testererr mentioned it earlier in the thread. They are using a B spline filter and applying to a signal with limited innovation. Read limited innovation as a signal that doesn't change too rapidly or changes are of a limited speed range.

 

If I haven't misunderstood, and I have limited knowledge about the filtering myself, they are taking maybe 3 samples and applying a moving average. Add up samples 1, 2, and 3...take the total and divide by three. Next add samples 2, 3, and 4....take the total and divide by three. This is how you get sample value 1, and then 2 and so on that gets encoded. Now they aren't really just averaging three the math done to the group of samples is more involved than just that though the idea is similar.

 

You can then undo the process at the playback end. I believe this is also how they can provide multiple sample rates. You can encode such an average from say 384 khz on the record end, place it in a smaller file and, then decoded the file on playback into larger sample rates. You also could apply different math to decode into some even fraction for playback. 384 could unpack into 192, 96 or 48 depending upon the DAC's limits. Plus if the file is not decoded for playback then your file has simply been averaged in a way that doesn't greatly alter what a plain jane 44.1 file would be anyway.

 

Now I am no expert on this, and someone who really knows how this works might straighten it out. What they at MQA are doing does not appear to be simply an apodizing process. One of the things such filter/encoding allows is for two impulses to be separated upon playback when they are too close not to get blurred together if you only do normal PCM with brickwall filtering or with an apodizing filter. In that sense you can give a PCM file better time resolution than it normally has.

[testererr]

It does have everything to do with "apodizing" filters and window functions.

You can see various types here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_function#B-spline_windows

[matthias]

Thank you both,

but if I am right this has nothing to do with the Decoding/Undecoding which follows later.

Is it possible to have this "B spline filtering" in a software player like HQplayer to get the same benefits?

 

Matt

[crenca]

How do you understand this HSM module ?

Hyper Secure Module.

I can't see other purpose than some sort of DRM. But only for the MQA decoding part. So maybe not a big deal.

 

MQA | For content providers

Under FAQ

 

Yes, what is HSM? Also, notice the emphasis on that page around authentication, etc...

[Jud]

Thank you both,

but if I am right this has nothing to do with the Decoding/Undecoding which follows later.

Is it possible to have this "B spline filtering" in a software player like HQplayer to get the same benefits?

 

Matt

 

You can have that filtering or a better version in software.

 

The encoding/decoding is an attempt, to put it succinctly, to stream higher resolution quality in a 44.1KHz package.

[esldude]

If you look at figure 12, 13, and 14 in the paper, you will see the impulse response. No pre-ringing and one cycle of post ringing. This is not the same filter Meridian is known for using.

 

The filter is a 3rd order B spline over 4 samples according to the paper.

[master]

MQA listening impressions (decoded) | Meridian - Streaming | The Hitchhikers Guide To Meridian

 

I'd expected some concrete evidence or at least first hand experiences of folks who had heard or at least worked on MQA.

 

Instead it's just bashing folks and companies who don't toe the MQA line.

 

Silly fanboyism at best, and from folks who have not heard MQA either, but have drunk the Meridian Kool-Aid.

[master]

Can someone explain the source of all the rabid negativity, cynicism, and what even sounds like anger? Are certain individuals royally pissed that streaming music with MQA might sound TOO good, thus casting a shadow upon the decision to spend tenXtens of thousands of dollars on esoteric equipment and hires files seeking audio nirvana?

 

As long as money grubbing is involved, that is exactly how people will respond.

 

Not just the listeners, music lovers, and audiophiles like us, but the studios, the artists, and pretty much everyone who is involved in the music business and/or makes their living off the music industry.

 

All said and done, nobody has heard anything from Meridian other than why we need to pony up for a new DAC and/or Meridian certified equipment. Even the recording industry (probably) is only hearing why they need to pony up royalties and Meridian certified equipment to MQA-enable their music/catalogue.

 

And what has Meridian done amidst all of this? Has anyone who is not toeing the MQA line and/or does not have vested interests in selling MQA certified music even heard this technology? All we hear is from people who are sold on it, only because they are doing (or will be doing) the actual selling.

 

That's money grubbing, and that's why all the heated emotions and arguments.

[jeffmudrick]

As long as money grubbing is involved, that is exactly how people will respond.

 

Not just the listeners, music lovers, and audiophiles like us, but the studios, the artists, and pretty much everyone who is involved in the music business and/or makes their living off the music industry.

 

All said and done, nobody has heard anything from Meridian other than why we need to pony up for a new DAC and/or Meridian certified equipment. Even the recording industry (probably) is only hearing why they need to pony up royalties and Meridian certified equipment to MQA-enable their music/catalogue.

 

And what has Meridian done amidst all of this? Has anyone who is not toeing the MQA line and/or does not have vested interests in selling MQA certified music even heard this technology? All we hear is from people who are sold on it, only because they are doing (or will be doing) the actual selling.

 

That's money grubbing, and that's why all the heated emotions and arguments.

 

No that's paranoia. You may think the enthusiasm for MQA expressed by engineers/producers and speaker manufacturers is premature but accusing them of "toeing the Meridian line" and "money grubbing" is plain nuts. Next you'll tie Bob Stuart to the Kennedy assassination.

[esldude]

No that's paranoia. You may think the enthusiasm for MQA expressed by engineers/producers and speaker manufacturers is premature but accusing them of "toeing the Meridian line" and "money grubbing" is plain nuts. Next you'll tie Bob Stuart to the Kennedy assassination.

 

Actually I expect with the new filtering and MQA authentication, Bob Stuart can probably take the early sound recordings and determine via de-blurring of time whether the shots all came from the School Book Depository or the grassy knoll.

[master]

No that's paranoia. You may think the enthusiasm for MQA expressed by engineers/producers and speaker manufacturers is premature but accusing them of "toeing the Meridian line" and "money grubbing" is plain nuts. Next you'll tie Bob Stuart to the Kennedy assassination.

 

And you'll be proclaiming him the music Messiah who is out to save us all?

 

How are you any less nuttier?

 

You haven't heard it, but are sold on it because the folks "telling us so" stand to make a fortune from it?

 

I am a "nutty" conspiracy theorist, and you are a "nutty" Meridian cultist.

 

Guess that settles it.

[jeffmudrick]

I'm not sold on it because I've not heard it. I'm arguing it shouldn't be rejected out of hand by others in my same position and ulterior motives ascribed to people without any basis whatsoever.

[master]

I'm not sold on it because I've not heard it. I'm arguing it shouldn't be rejected out of hand by others in my same position and ulterior motives ascribed to people without any basis whatsoever.

 

I'm not sold on it because, even though it may be the greatest thing since sliced bread, it is an endpoint to endpoint solution that doesn't leave anything open for other standards.

 

If all music is encoded on MQA and one needs MQA certified hardware to decode it, then it's pretty much a locked system that will not let anybody else play in their ground.

 

In any other industry/service the FCC and the EU would be all over them.

 

The truth is audiophiles are an easy sell.

 

PS: Maybe I'm in the wrong profession, perhaps I should be making music servers/streamers with open source Linux and selling them as closed units for $5000-$20,000 a pop.

 

I'm not saying it's bad, I haven't heard it, so how can I?

 

However, I have been long enough in the Apple ecosystem to know how bad a walled garden really is. We don't need more of that, never mind how good MQA really sounds.

 

I have heard that if you don't want MQA you will simply receive a FLAC stream. However, that's not really the truth. I don't get to pick between 2 different streams (for instance I can pick the resolution in Netflix). With Meridian how do we even know that they are not messing with the FLAC stream to make it sound bad just so folks are forced to upgrade to a Meridian certified DAC and get locked into their system.

 

A system/service like this opens a can of worms that I would rather do without.

 

PS: It's all about freedom, we should get to choose. While we don't get to choose how music is recorded and/or mastered, we do however get to choose how we listen to it. In an all MQA encoded music world, that choice is going to go away.

 

Maybe some of us "dumb" folks want freedom, freedom of choice, and not necessarily the best thing since sliced bread.

 

There I go again, sounding like a conspiracy theorist, but that is exactly how Meridian has presented their case, an endpoint to endpoint solution that needs their software and their hardware to even play music.

[R1200CL]

The encoding/decoding is an attempt, to put it succinctly, to stream higher resolution quality in a 44.1KHz package.

.........or a 48KHz package.

[R1200CL]

https://www.meridian-audio.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Explorer2-User-Guide.pdf

Does anyone know the difference between

MQA and MQA Studio ?

 

Strange also no indicator for 16 or 24.

 

Edit:

Maybe datasheet explains better:

"Explorer2 includes a powerful decoder andaudio renderer for Meridian’s exclusive‘Master Quality Authenticated’ system. Thisensures that MQA-encoded lossless audio les and streams sound exactly like thesource. The 1x LED glows green to indicatethat the unit is decoding and playing an MQAstream or le, and that the sound is identicalto that of the source material. It glows blue toindicate that the Explorer2 is playing an MQAStudio le – one based on a new, exclusivelysourced, artist/producer-approved studiomaster. In all cases you hear exactly thesound the production team intended. "