MQA at CES

[esldude]

It's the MQA version. You're not using an MQA certified browser? Only kidding.

 

Oh no they will use MQA to DRM the entire internet. You didn't just close the questions thread did you?

[The Computer Audiophile]

Gee Chris, can't keep yourself above the snark?

There was a smily face after the comment. It was meant in jest.

[jabbr]

I think far too much is still unknown with this new MQA technology. Personally, I am much more skeptical of the skeptics and nay sayers at this point. Based on the limited information currently available, I do not see how anyone can make a final judgement. Those who do are seriously overreaching, IMHO, to their ultimate detriment and credibility if they think they have it all figured out.

 

Also, if he chooses not to post his own probing questions to Bob Stuart in the thread provided here for that, what can I say? It will surely make even him look like a closed-minded, arrogant know-it all to many, and likely even to me.

 

I myself am totally on the fence about this technology. Possibly, it will be a total bust, as the nay sayers predicted. Time will tell.

 

I certainly have not formed an opinion about MQA, not having read any technical documents or had the opportunity to listen.

 

I don't form judgements from simplified marketing diagrams. The lack of a suitable technical explanation is telling however and raises my suspicion. Particularly when there are claims of 'breakthrough'. Not saying that this couldn't be the breakthrough that we are all looking for, but Apple hasn't yet purchased Meridian That and the Patent Office has ceased accepting applications for perpetual motion machines... dang it.

 

So a healthy dose of skepticism is just that.

[crenca]

For some reason I still don't think you would be satisfied :~)

 

In a way, this sums up the feelings of those who are a bit taken back the questioning of MQA. Others include "you guys think you have it all figured out" and the like. I am a bit perplexed by it honestly - it's as if it is not natural for people to question what in the end is just pre-release product marketing. I don't see the "you have it all figured out" arrogance, rather I see folks working with limited information trying to make sense of something, and yes asking hard questions and finding some evidence that MQA is not what the pre-release marketing hype is making it out to be in some instances (e.g. the MQA played through a non-MQA playback chain being either "the same" or "better, depending on what Bob said that day to which ever reporter).

 

Then there is the fact that some want to focus on only part of the onion and say "there, that's the important thing and thus MQA is great (or conversely a failure). I am certain not above this bias, as I focus on the patent/IP/licence/format_in_marketplace facts about MQA and what that means for us as end users (we are after all computer audiophiles). Others do not care about this, and want to focus on SQ, but even here you have to ask under which conditions because for some MQA is a success/failure if it does streaming well with software decoding, for others it's to be judged within Meridians "end to end" ecosystem, and still for other's it's a success/failure based on it's SQ through "legacy systems" because they don't care to purchase MQA DACs.

 

The push back was inevitable, because even those "on the fence" or who want MQA to be something really really special, have to admit that the pre release marketing sales job was just a bit over the top, with little distance and/or critical questioning from those reporting on it.

 

In any case, MQA has proved to be a bit of an onion (peel of DRM/IP, and your into compatibility. Peel off compatibility, and your into "it's just PCM", peel off that and your into "what will Tidal do", etc. etc. etc.). Add to that the obfuscation of the technical details, demo's that our designed to show off strengths and not show any weakness (what demos aren't) and a press that seemed to eat it up with almost no discernment, and you get to where we are today.

 

Oh well, it will all be clear soon enough - about 10 years after MQA is firmly in the wild, for it will take at least that long to see what effect USB cables and Audio Pebbles has on it

 

I for one will be very surprised if MQA does not deliver significantly on it's promise within an Meridian end to end ecosystem. I will not be surprised if it does not deliver on its promise in other areas, such as SQ within our "legacy systems"... but that's just the SQ layer, there are other equally important layers to consider. I hope Bob address the "format" and "DRM" layer forthrightly and intelligently when he answers our questions.

 

Edit: even in jest, it seems to encapsulate the feeling of some who think the kids around here are being arrogant when they play with big boy toys like "digital audio"

[The Computer Audiophile]

In a way, this sums up the feelings of those who are a bit taken back the questioning of MQA. Others include "you guys think you have it all figured out" and the like. I am a bit perplexed by it honestly - it's as if it is not natural for people to question what in the end is just pre-release product marketing. I don't see the "you have it all figured out" arrogance, rather I see folks working with limited information trying to make sense of something, and yes asking hard questions and finding some evidence that MQA is not what the pre-release marketing hype is making it out to be in some instances (e.g. the MQA played through a non-MQA playback chain being either "the same" or "better, depending on what Bob said that day to which ever reporter).

 

Then there is the fact that some want to focus on only part of the onion and say "there, that's the important thing and thus MQA is great (or conversely a failure). I am certain not above this bias, as I focus on the patent/IP/licence/format_in_marketplace facts about MQA and what that means for us as end users (we are after all computer audiophiles). Others do not care about this, and want to focus on SQ, but even here you have to ask under which conditions because for some MQA is a success/failure if it does streaming well with software decoding, for others it's to be judged within Meridians "end to end" ecosystem, and still for other's it's a success/failure based on it's SQ through "legacy systems" because they don't care to purchase MQA DACs.

 

The push back was inevitable, because even those "on the fence" or who want MQA to be something really really special, have to admit that the pre release marketing sales job was just a bit over the top, with little distance and/or critical questioning from those reporting on it.

 

In any case, MQA has proved to be a bit of an onion (peel of DRM/IP, and your into compatibility. Peel off compatibility, and your into "it's just PCM", peel off that and your into "what will Tidal do", etc. etc. etc.). Add to that the obfuscation of the technical details, demo's that our designed to show off strengths and not show any weakness (what demos aren't) and a press that seemed to eat it up with almost no discernment, and you get to where we are today.

 

Oh well, it will all be clear soon enough - about 10 years after MQA is firmly in the wild, for it will take at least that long to see what effect USB cables and Audio Pebbles has on it

 

I for one will be very surprised if MQA does not deliver significantly on it's promise within an Meridian end to end ecosystem. I will not be surprised if it does not deliver on its promise in other areas, such as SQ within our "legacy systems"... but that's just the SQ layer, there are other equally important layers to consider. I hope Bob address the "format" and "DRM" layer forthrightly and intelligently when he answers our questions.

 

Edit: even in jest, it seems to encapsulate the feeling of some who think the kids around here are being arrogant when they play with big boy toys like "digital audio"

I've always questioned MQA, as evidenced by my show reports and the questions I asked Bob in at RMAF and my insistence on a Q&A thread where CA readers could ask anything they want.

 

I I think much of the press is over the top with their support of MQA. I am hopeful it will be great but I'm not on the bandwagon yet.

[master]

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

 

Again, do you have any idea what you are talking about?

 

Again, do you have any idea what you are talking about?

 

but that would assume you knew what you are talking about, which we have already established is not the case.

 

Do you have any idea what this MQA thread is all about? Or even what I am talking about? Please read through all the 40 pages before you valiantly jump in to defend Apple's honor.

 

I can watch Netflix on any device of my choosing, think you can do anything like that with Apple TV (not just the device, but the service too... if and when it gets started?)

 

My wife watches Netflix on Apple TV every day.

 

Slow on the uptake I see…

 

Sounds like that dumb Eagle's song. I come and go as I please.

 

Toyota, on the other hand, keeps urging me to buy a Honda.

 

We use a product called Bitter Apple to dissuade the dog from chewing on stuff.

 

More proof (as if more was needed).

 

Like I said, please read through this thread in its entirety, understand what the discussion on hand is all about, understand which side of the wall I stand on, and then (hopefully only then) respond.

 

If you want to continue shitting "apples" and meaningless gibberish then you are just another number to add to the ignore list.

 

Comprende?

 

Probably not…

[miguelito]

I've always questioned MQA, as evidenced by my show reports and the questions I asked Bob in at RMAF and my insistence on a Q&A thread where CA readers could ask anything they want.

Understand you have to be polite and measured in a public forum like the one you interviewed Bob Stuart at. But I was (yet once more) surprised by the fluff and lack of content (I will avoid the term disingenuous). Really...

[miguelito]

Comprende?

Que?

[orgel]

Benchmark Media Systems AHB2 power amplifier Measurements | Stereophile.com

 

I think you are in good shape on the amp. Spec'd to -3db at 200khz. Tested to that by Stereophile.

 

The speakers on the other hand don't make it to 45 khz. So you simply need to upgrade your speakers or switch to headphones. You could probably trade those Sophia speakers for some really nice headphones.

 

There's a thought. I'll probably just wait to trade in the Sophias until some MQA-approved headphones are available. (By that time I'll probably have figured out why all my gear needs to be good up to 45kHz when I can't hear anything over 16kHz on a good day.)

 

--David

[Don Hills]

... (By that time I'll probably have figured out why all my gear needs to be good up to 45kHz when I can't hear anything over 16kHz on a good day. ...

 

 

Being a professional, he may be thinking in terms of the standard definition of frequency response, where the limit is taken to be the point where the response has dropped by 3 dB. 45 KHz is not unreasonable, it makes it likely that the response up to 20 KHz is reasonably flat.

 

Another point is that there are many stages between the sound source and you. Even if each stage has apparently adequate performance, the errors add up. For example, Benchmark are best known here for their DACs. But for many years, their bread and butter was professional audio equipment. Their DA-101 audio distribution amplifier has a bandwidth of 160 KHz. It is intended for use in a distribution chain where there can be many chained stages. Because each stage's frequency response actually starts rolling off before 160 KHz (where its response is down by -3dB), the effects add up.

 

In the attached graph, the effect of cascading identical stages is shown. The nominal bandwidth of each stage is "1", the point at which the frequency resoponse drops by -3dB. You can see that as the number of stages increases, significant rolloff occurs at lower and lower frequencies.

 

 

By the time you've daisy chained a dozen or so stages, your "adequate" bandwidth may start to encroach on the audible range.

[orgel]

Being a professional, he may be thinking in terms of the standard definition of frequency response, where the limit is taken to be the point where the response has dropped by 3 dB. 45 KHz is not unreasonable, it makes it likely that the response up to 20 KHz is reasonably flat.

 

Another point is that there are many stages between the sound source and you. Even if each stage has apparently adequate performance, the errors add up. For example, Benchmark are best known here for their DACs. But for many years, their bread and butter was professional audio equipment. Their DA-101 audio distribution amplifier has a bandwidth of 160 KHz. It is intended for use in a distribution chain where there can be many chained stages. Because each stage's frequency response actually starts rolling off before 160 KHz (where its response is down by -3dB), the effects add up.

 

In the attached graph, the effect of cascading identical stages is shown. The nominal bandwidth of each stage is "1", the point at which the frequency resoponse drops by -3dB. You can see that as the number of stages increases, significant rolloff occurs at lower and lower frequencies.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]24013[/ATTACH]

 

By the time you've daisy chained a dozen or so stages, your "adequate" bandwidth may start to encroach on the audible range.

 

Thanks for this. It gives me something to mull over, and I get the basics behind what you've outlined. But Stuart specifically mentions speakers and headphones, and I really have trouble grasping that particular aspect of all this. My speakers sound pretty good now, but they'd somehow sound better if they could reproduce frequencies of up to 45kHz, well beyond what I can hear?

 

—David

[Tony Lauck]

I sure hope you enjoy life without objective data to tell you you're enjoying it :~)

 

In this case, the objective data is easily available and obtaining this is the very first step in evaluating a CODEC. One can use this objective data two ways: detailed analysis, or subjective listening. All we have gotten so far is marketing hype: nothing objective or subjective that independent users can evaluate.

[Tony Lauck]

I certainly have not formed an opinion about MQA, not having read any technical documents or had the opportunity to listen.

 

I don't form judgements from simplified marketing diagrams. The lack of a suitable technical explanation is telling however and raises my suspicion. Particularly when there are claims of 'breakthrough'. Not saying that this couldn't be the breakthrough that we are all looking for, but Apple hasn't yet purchased Meridian That and the Patent Office has ceased accepting applications for perpetual motion machines... dang it.

 

So a healthy dose of skepticism is just that.

 

I do form judgments from simplified marketing diagrams. If these diagrams do not make sense, I conclude that the company is either not ethical or is not managed competently. As a result of this initial judment, I make a preliminary (personal) finding that the company's products belong on my "do not buy" list. I may revisit this situation, but only after being persuaded by reliable sources, i.e. people that I have reason to personally trust as competent and honest.

[miguelito]

I do form judgments from simplified marketing diagrams. If these diagrams do not make sense, I conclude that the company is either not ethical or is not managed competently. As a result of this initial judment, I make a preliminary (personal) finding that the company's products belong on my "do not buy" list. I may revisit this situation, but only after being persuaded by reliable sources, i.e. people that I have reason to personally trust as competent and honest.

+1

 

More precisely, I might not form judgements on simplified diagrams meant for the general public, but I certainly form judgements when a "guru" and "owner" of the technology makes obviously dubious claims and is fundamentally evasive (or simply doesn't know the answers to) basic questions.

[Maldur]

One can use this objective data two ways: detailed analysis, or subjective listening. All we have gotten so far is marketing hype: nothing objective or subjective that independent users can evaluate.

 

+1 on that too, so I agreed with Tony. I like to know both - how MQA is in listening session and how it performs in objective analysis.

 

If someone can record in parallel way to DSD and to MQA, that test reveals how newcomer really performs. ...Sorry I forget - this is not possible right now, just we don't have any MQA certified AD encoders today... and even if then Master Encoding to MQA is out of our hands anyway...

[james45974]

There's a thought. I'll probably just wait to trade in the Sophias until some MQA-approved headphones are available. (By that time I'll probably have figured out why all my gear needs to be good up to 45kHz when I can't hear anything over 16kHz on a good day.)

 

--David

 

Well, you should look at some of the reviews of super tweeters. I have never heard one but they apparently do make a difference.

[sdolezalek]

Thanks for this. It gives me something to mull over, and I get the basics behind what you've outlined. But Stuart specifically mentions speakers and headphones, and I really have trouble grasping that particular aspect of all this. My speakers sound pretty good now, but they'd somehow sound better if they could reproduce frequencies of up to 45kHz, well beyond what I can hear?

 

—David

 

The other part of this to think about (and it has come up before in another thread here somewhere) is that the same filtering that is being applied in your DAC (and that upsampling through HQPlayer and others plus application of more sophisticated filters can make sound better) may also be applied in and by other equipment (largely in order to avoid damage to speakers and electronics from out of bandwidth signal) but those filters may have similar effects (i.e. pre and post ringing and time shifts) within the hearing bandwidth, implying that having a string of equipment all capable of handling materials out towards 45kHz and using gentle slope filters as a result, could produce audible benefits well within the 20-20kHz range.

[The Computer Audiophile]

My first 24 hours with MQA - Computer Audiophile - My First 24 Hours With MQA

[new_media]

Looks like Technics Tracks has added a section for MQA downloads.

 

https://tracks.technics.com/GB/just-added

 

7digital has some of the same selections in MQA, just not advertising them in their own section yet, apparently.

 

https://us.7digital.com/artist/kate-rusby/release/the-mark-radcliffe-folk-sessions-kate-rusby-5038939?f=20%2C19%2C12%2C16%2C17%2C9%2C2&origin=www

[esldude]

Hey Chris, any idea when we might get those questions answered by Robert Stuart?