MQA at CES

[R1200CL]

.....still I guess this raise new questions about understanding MQA in the encoding processes. Datasheet

 

(Had to make new post, cause not allow to edit privious post).

[james45974]

I find this whole pre-release discussion very interesting. Of course we are all looking forward to the day when MQA is released in the wild, and not have to rely only on the magazine types for their rave reviews of very controlled, cherry-picked demonstrations.

[mansr]

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.

 

My thoughts exactly.

 

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.

 

My worry is that some portion of music will be distributed exclusively as MQA, leaving those without MQA-enabled hardware listening to the undecoded version, which contrary to the claims by Meridian does not match up to 44.1/16, let alone 96/24 or higher resolutions.

 

A better way to package the MQA data in a format playable by existing equipment would be as a new FLAC subframe type that older decoders would simply skip over. There are other ways additional data could be hidden in a FLAC container as well. Of course that wouldn't give them same iron grip on the deployment they so clearly desire.

[DanSmedra]

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.

 

+1

[Jud]

 

My worry is that some portion of music will be distributed exclusively as MQA, leaving those without MQA-enabled hardware listening to the undecoded version, which contrary to the claims by Meridian does not match up to 44.1/16, let alone 96/24 or higher resolutions.

 

I think this might be a greater worry if Meridian had greater market power.

 

A better way to package the MQA data in a format playable by existing equipment would be as a new FLAC subframe type that older decoders would simply skip over. There are other ways additional data could be hidden in a FLAC container as well. Of course that wouldn't give them same iron grip on the deployment they so clearly desire.

 

The "iron grip on deployment" is a normal part of patent law and commercial development of a patent. It's up to any company that doesn't like it to not purchase a license and/or to develop a commercial alternative, and up to any individual who doesn't like it to not purchase hardware, software, or content.

[jeffmudrick]

If MQA is "dead in the water" then the Alex Jones conspiracy folks here obviously need not worry about them coming for your music collections. The only thing I'm in agreement on with the paranoid contingent is that if it requires a new DAC to discern any benefit it will have very limited success. People will still buy new DACs just as they have to enjoy DSD capabilities.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

My thoughts exactly.

 

 

 

My worry is that some portion of music will be distributed exclusively as MQA, leaving those without MQA-enabled hardware listening to the undecoded version, which contrary to the claims by Meridian does not match up to 44.1/16, let alone 96/24 or higher resolutions.

 

A better way to package the MQA data in a format playable by existing equipment would be as a new FLAC subframe type that older decoders would simply skip over. There are other ways additional data could be hidden in a FLAC container as well. Of course that wouldn't give them same iron grip on the deployment they so clearly desire.

 

Maybe I have a different understanding of the technology, and, of course, I have not heard it. To oversimplify, I guess as humans, we have one of two main tendencies about future technologies we do not yet fully understand and have not experimented with ourselves. One is to be fearful, almost paranoid, maybe to the point of demonizing them, often with incorrect assumptions about how they work and what they will do or not do. The other approach is to be cautiously optimistic, being mildly skeptical but giving them the benefit of the doubt until our understanding of them becomes clear and they prove themselves beneficial or not in actual use. Count me in the latter camp.

 

I do not see any evidence in my readings, for example, that MQA "does not match up to 44/16" in sonics. We have a prototype for MQA in the old HDCD, which Stuart did not develop but which he acknowledges had some considerable influence on the MQA approach. I think it is very hard to prove that HDCD, while it was not a huge success in the marketplace, actually degraded the sound of a non-HDCD-processed but HDCD mastered CD in any noticeable way. I never heard any engineer or listener claims that it actually did, though it would have been difficult for a typical listener to make a meaningful comparison between a recording in its HDCD and non-HDCD mastered versions. Both versions were typically not available to consumers.

 

But, there were no insistent complaints that HDCD mastered recordings sounded bad when not played back with HDCD encoding disabled. I certainly never experienced that myself. Some, usually smaller recording companies, did adopt HDCD for all their recordings. I doubt seriously they would have done that knowing they were sabotaging their sonics for the majority of listeners who had no HDCD playback capabilities. I think the same logic will apply to MQA.

 

I tend to believe, for now, that apodizing may be a good thing. MQA mastering does a partial job of that, even when played on non-MQA gear at 44/16. So, there may be an upside, or at least no net downside, for most listeners.

 

Time, as always, will tell. Rampant speculation, fear, uncertainty and doubt, will not.

[tallica1]

Just another quick thought off the cuff.. Meridian is obviously doing this for financial gain and it and that they are pushing fast to become the de facto at least "streaming" standard throughout the world. They want all of us to be part of the Meridian closed end Eco-System just like Apple Inc has successfully done. The problem i see with the Meridian approach is that this is contrary to what computer audiophile is all about and even the experts I would think shy against.

[mansr]

I do not see any evidence in my readings, for example, that MQA "does not match up to 44/16" in sonics.

 

Undecoded MQA is clearly inferior to 44/16 as demonstrated by Miska and myself.

 

We have a prototype for MQA in the old HDCD, which Stuart did not develop but which he acknowledges had some considerable influence on the MQA approach. I think it is very hard to prove that HDCD, while it was not a huge success in the marketplace, actually degraded the sound of a non-HDCD-processed but HDCD mastered CD in any noticeable way. I never heard any engineer or listener claims that it actually did, though it would have been difficult for a typical listener to make a meaningful comparison between a recording in its HDCD and non-HDCD mastered versions. Both versions were typically not available to consumers.

 

Unprocessed HDCD, i.e. played back on a regular player, sounds louder and overly compressed compared to decoded playback. How big the difference is depends on the specific track.

 

But, there were no insistent complaints that HDCD mastered recordings sounded bad when not played back with HDCD encoding disabled.

 

HDCD didn't really amount to more than a curiosity and most people probably never encountered it. Here's an easy to follow explanation of what HDCD does and how it damages playback on a regular player: The HDCD Enigma

[miguelito]

Today I read

Perception is not reality | DAR__KO

which led me furter to

Garbage In, Garbage Out | DAR__KO

 

"Since the dawn of digital music, the audiophile community has been largely focused onplayback, constantly arguing over sample rates, formats, and so forth, when in reality, the real focus should be onproduction, since a record’s fidelity has more to do with the choices made in the studio than what format it is ultimately delivered in. The fact is all recordings have a certain intrinsicproduction valueto them, and if that value is very low to begin with, it makes no difference whether you play it back as MP3s, high-res FLAC, or even vinyl.

 

It’s also why I’m not big into Pono or high-res audio in general. Not because I don’t think there aren’t any real audible benefits to be had with higher sampling rates, but because it fails to address the real problem facing fidelity in popular music today vis-à-vis its production. No format can fix the fact that Adele’s recently released 25 is a DR5 compressed nightmare. In other words, garbage in, garbage out."

 

A interesting perspective to the discussion here and Miska and other measurements made. If MQA realy get access to the original masters and possible before "destroyd" by DRC, hopfully things are looking good.

 

Maybe we should be more interested in where and how MQA is applied and encoded.

 

Tidal Hi-Fi sounds much better than most of my CD's. Could some of the answer be that they actually have access to the masters. Now if Tidal also will change from 16 to 24 bit in full master quality at the same price I'm playing today, I can't see the drawback. Whatever Miska proves

I don't think anyone would disagree with this - it is key.

 

If MQA puts more focus on careful production, that alone is a huge plus.

 

As for TIDAL sounding better than ripped CDs, it is quite possible that the process of mastering and producing a CD and then ripping it is introducing issues - I wouldn't be surprised. Ripping could be a faithful copy of what's on the CD but the CD itself might not be a faithful copy of the original CD master or that of the original master.

[ElviaCaprice]

Or someone else comes out with a better ADC for PCM recording. Like Rob Watts, who just so happens to be working on one, as I heard thru the grapevine.

We would soon forget about MQA. In fact I can see others in the industry using anti MQA promotion to better their sales.

[R1200CL]

If MQA is "dead in the water" then the Alex Jones conspiracy folks here obviously need not worry about them coming for your music collections. The only thing I'm in agreement on with the paranoid contingent is that if it requires a new DAC to discern any benefit it will have very limited success. People will still buy new DACs just as they have to enjoy DSD capabilities.

 

If we shall believe the FQA on MQA, you do not need a new DAC. Any reason not to believe them ?

(Yes, I know, the Auralic story).

[jeffmudrick]

If we shall believe the FQA on MQA, you do not need a new DAC. Any reason not to believe them ?

(Yes, I know, the Auralic story).

 

Yes the Auralic story. Will be nice to have that fully explained.

[esldude]

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. "

 

 

MQA studio is what you have in the 2L files. One where they can know exactly what equipment was used and most completely correct for it. Non studio is where they have done a somewhat generic conversion. It still can insure end to end fidelity , but the recording end isn't most optimally corrected.

[R1200CL]

MQA studio is what you have in the 2L files. One where they can know exactly what equipment was used and most completely correct for it. Non studio is where they have done a somewhat generic conversion. It still can insure end to end fidelity , but the recording end isn't most optimally corrected.

 

I have made a speculation that the Meridian Explorer 2 is not MQA enabled. Only MQA ready. This is based on the report in discussion in TAS, where no MQA light appeared on the 2L files. I wrote something there today.

 

If my speculation is wrong, then your explaination is probably not correct as well. This will be interesting to get verified. Hopefully someone reading here has an Explorer 2.

 

I agree that your explaination make sence. (Or do you know?) It may eve be so, that it has to be an ceritified MQA ADC, as we may can interpred from MQA FAQ.

[esldude]

I have made a speculation that the Meridian Explorer 2 is not MQA enabled. Only MQA ready. This is based on the report in discussion in TAS, where no MQA light appeared on the 2L files. I wrote something there today.

 

If my speculation is wrong, then your explaination is probably not correct as well. This will be interesting to get verified. Hopefully someone reading here has an Explorer 2.

 

I agree that your explaination make sence. (Or do you know?) It may eve be so, that it has to be an ceritified MQA ADC, as we may can interpred from MQA FAQ.

 

I have read several pieces about MQA, and don't remember which one, but it was clearly stated how the MQA studio differed from just MQA. One of the few clear things put out so far. Also the Explorer 2 can do either. It however currently runs on .9 revision firmware, and is waiting on the 1.0 revision to do MQA and MQA studio. Whether one calls that ready or not it is currently not able to do any MQA. Just another example of MQA rollout botching in my opinion. Put out and sell a MQA DAC to promote MQA and it still can't do MQA. Great!

 

Oh, and one more curiosity. Yes, the Explorer 2 was used in some public demos playing MQA files with both lights working. Those demo units had unique firmware to work. It isn't the firmware that will eventually be released however. Not sure why they couldn't release it, but it probably is because it only worked under special conditions. Rather deceptive PR to sell a product if it wasn't made crystal clear during the demo. Certainly many have purchased Explorer 2 units based upon the idea it did MQA when it actually is promised for the near future.

[R1200CL]

Or someone else comes out with a better ADC for PCM recording. Like Rob Watts, who just so happens to be working on one, as I heard thru the grapevine.

 

Which is exactly what MQA indicates: (But not your intention with your post:D)

 

"MQA will work in two ways in the studio. Currently, MQA will reside in the mastering facility, where the artist, producer and engineer can hear the benefits of MQA on their master and then sign off and deliver a file ready for encoding. In the near future, the MQA philosophy will be implemented in the A/D converters used in recording studios so that the recording process itself will benefit from the clarity of MQA without having to be “reversed out” after the fact."

[R1200CL]

I have read several pieces about MQA, and don't remember which one, but it was clearly stated how the MQA studio differed from just MQA. One of the few clear things put out so far. Also the Explorer 2 can do either. It however currently runs on .9 revision firmware, and is waiting on the 1.0 revision to do MQA and MQA studio. Whether one calls that ready or not it is currently not able to do any MQA. Just another example of MQA rollout botching in my opinion. Put out and sell a MQA DAC to promote MQA and it still can't do MQA. Great!.

 

Thanks. This explains a lot. As the test in What hi-fi. The Pioneer not MQA either. Not sure about the status of Auralic Mini, but as I understand that one is the only one available.

 

I guess they are very busy at MQA these days

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Undecoded MQA is clearly inferior to 44/16 as demonstrated by Miska and myself.

 

 

 

Unprocessed HDCD, i.e. played back on a regular player, sounds louder and overly compressed compared to decoded playback. How big the difference is depends on the specific track.

 

 

 

HDCD didn't really amount to more than a curiosity and most people probably never encountered it. Here's an easy to follow explanation of what HDCD does and how it damages playback on a regular player: The HDCD Enigma

 

Sorry, if I did not read every detail of this thread, but can you point me to where you and Miska demonstrated that MQA 44/16 was clearly inferior? You may be right, and I am interested in gathering all the data points I can.

 

My points about HDCD tried to avoid the "sounds better, sounds worse" path to argument. I did have a Theta Digital Gen Va DAC back in the day, where I could turn HDCD off or on, and I never myself heard what this article describes. Personally, I never got that excited about HDCD sonically, but I never heard any evidence of degradation caused by it either. But, HDCD is passé, for better or for worse, except it might have parallels to and lessons for MQA, in addition to the conceptual similarity of the encoding scheme.

 

The point is really the one I raised. If MQA worsens the sound as you say, why would a recording or streaming company shoot itself in the foot by offering inferior sound via using it, when most users will not have the necessary decoding capability to make it sound "good"? This is a business, marketing and economic question, not an audio technical one.

[crenca]

I think this might be a greater worry if Meridian had greater market power.

 

 

.......................

 

The "iron grip on deployment" is a normal part of patent law and commercial development of a patent. It's up to any company that doesn't like it to not purchase a license and/or to develop a commercial alternative, and up to any individual who doesn't like it to not purchase hardware, software, or content.

 

Jud, it is not this simple (simplistic?). First, Meridian can easily sell MQA to someone with real market "power", or rather the know how to fundamentally change a market, such as Apple.

 

Second, as I have been saying MQA is not another audio product like any other audio product. In that sense it's creators and supporters are somewhat correct in using the over the top "it's revolutionary" language. It has the ability (because it is a format) to change the way every other audio "product" relates to it. A new speaker or amp simply does not have the ability to do this, and thus one can move on to another product very easily. A format is not like that. Tell me, what other formats (besides the congressionaly approved ones) do you purchase your hard copies of movies in? I know, the analogy is not perfect (MQA is not yet a DRM mechanism in the same way, etc.) but the attempt to "control the road" is there. Other products and services are more like the makes of cars on the road, where you can choose to buy a Ford or not. However, there is only one road network. It is one thing to tell folks "who doesn't like it" to not purchase a Ford or a Honda. It's another thing entirely to say to a person "well, if you don't want to purchase the road well then you can..." what, not go to school or your job or the grocery store??

[crenca]

The point is really the one I raised. If MQA worsens the sound as you say, why would a recording or streaming company shoot itself in the foot by offering inferior sound via using it, when most users will not have the necessary decoding capability to make it sound "good"? This is a business, marketing and economic question, not an audio technical one.

 

Only if it was about SQ. Thing is, SQ is NOT what MQA is about ultimately (though that is lead on the advertising). Streaming companies will provide a sofware solution that gets you something but MQA success or failure as a hard media/download format will be interesting to watch...

[jeffmudrick]

Only if it was about SQ. Thing is, SQ is NOT what MQA is about ultimately (though that is lead on the advertising). Streaming companies will provide a sofware solution that gets you something but MQA success or failure as a hard media/download format will be interesting to watch...

 

Huh? I thought the question was quite clear. So is the answer : they wouldn't. Producers, engineers, speaker manufacturers who have weighed in with strong support for MQA do not share the same kind of self interest you'd have to consider with other market players. There's precious little other than SQ compelling them to "toe the Meridian line" at the risk of their integrity as has been suggested here.

[crenca]

Huh? I thought the question was quite clear. So is the answer : they wouldn't. Producers, engineers, speaker manufacturers who have weighed in with strong support for MQA do not share the same kind of self interest you'd have to consider with other market players. There's precious little other than SQ compelling them to "toe the Meridian line" at the risk of their integrity as has been suggested here.

 

Not sure I am following. What interest does a manufacturer like Wilson Audio have in whether a market is open or closed by proprietary/DRM format? It is complex, but in the long run they might benefit just a little, and being the type of guys who would sell their firstborn for a SQ tweak they are not going to have the "perspective" regular old music consumers like you and I should be looking to when we think about MQA.

 

Producers and engineers (and labels, artists, etc.) would just LOVE to "authenticate" us all, as they are piping mad at the changes digital has brought to their world. They BLAME the very consumers of their art for their fortunes (who all admit have not been good lately) because these very consumers have access to digital technology. They would like nothing more than to shackle us in the way that DVD/Blueray does for video (even though this is not a full solution - it helps however in their perspective).

 

These repeated assurances that MQA is primarily about SQ strike me as naive at best, and do not take into account what is really happening in the industry - something you point out (around CD sales) just a few posts back...

[jeffmudrick]

Not sure I am following. What interest does a manufacturer like Wilson Audio have in whether a market is open or closed by proprietary/DRM format? It is complex, but in the long run they might benefit just a little, and being the type of guys who would sell their firstborn for a SQ tweak they are not going to have the "perspective" regular old music consumers like you and I should be looking to when we think about MQA.

 

Producers and engineers (and labels, artists, etc.) would just LOVE to "authenticate" us all, as they are piping mad at the changes digital has brought to their world. They BLAME the very consumers of their art for their fortunes (who all admit have not been good lately) because these very consumers have access to digital technology. They would like nothing more than to shackle us in the way that DVD/Blueray does for video (even though this is not a full solution - it helps however in their perspective).

 

These repeated assurances that MQA is primarily about SQ strike me as naive at best, and do not take into account what is really happening in the industry - something you point out (around CD sales) just a few posts back...

 

All I can say is we live in very different worlds Crenca and like minded comrades in the anti MQA Militia. . You seem amazingly able to get into the heads and motivations of folks who I'm going to guess aren't dying to shackle either of us to anything (I had no idea Vandersteen and McGrath were into that. They seem nice. Fremer maybe) . Maybe I'm wrong. And maybe Obama really is coming for our guns. Whatever. I look forward to MQA rollout without fear that my musical well being is on the verge of destruction.

[crenca]

All I can say is we live in very different worlds Crenca and like minded comrades in the anti MQA Militia. . You seem amazingly able to get into the heads and motivations of folks who I'm going to guess aren't dying to shackle either of us to anything (I had no idea Vandersteen and McGrath were into that. They seem nice. Fremer maybe) . Maybe I'm wrong. And maybe Obama really is coming for our guns. Whatever. I look forward to MQA rollout without fear that my musical well being is on the verge of destruction.

 

Simply disparaging and mocking something you either don't agree with or don't understand is no way to further yourself or a conversation

 

I am not saying anything about "the industry" that they have not said about themselves (for example, the jazz artist and composer Maria Schneider - read her interview in Sept 2015 JazzTimes). Perhaps you are not aware of their attitude towards the digital "revolution" in music? Perhaps you are unaware that you are not able to (well, legally) "rip", backup, and otherwise manage your DVD/Bluerays and associated playback equipment - rather the opposite, they manage you?

 

By the way, Obama really is coming for your guns...or not...