Article: My First 24 Hours With MQA

[The Computer Audiophile]

You can view the page at http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content.php?r=681-My-First-24-Hours-With-MQA

[esldude]

Would be nice to know if the 192/24 track has the same exact playback level as the MQA track.

 

Also if the MQA process results in the equivalent of slightly different EQ in the resulting output from the different filtering going on. Should have put that in the ask Robert Stuart thread if I had thought of it then.

[Audio_ELF]

A couple of questions Chris.

 

First up ... on the BNB album you write "1) The original non-MQA version..." then "2) The non-MQA version has a..." I assume there is a typo there.

 

Second, could you for reference tell us the file sizes of the MQA and 24/192 versions of the tracks on the first album? As I recall one of the promoted features of MQA was that high res could be stored in files / streams the same size as CD quality.

[MikeJazz]

nice write up Chris. thanks for the precious feedback on this matter, I am sure CA is at the front row about testing audio innovations.

 

On the test itself I wonder how much improvement you would feel on the same music by upgrading to one of your favourite DAC's...just my curiosity.

 

I would like to confirm that mqa is beneficial to "repair" poor and old ADC recordings (I am remembering, for instance, Security album from 82). Even better if that "filter" technology could be applied in an open environment instead of a closed authentication scheme.

[MikeJazz]

Meridian MQA - a prova dos nove. New: notas de audição comparativa DSD/DXD/MQA | Notícias | Artigos | HifiClube

 

also an article. in Portuguese, not sure if the google translation is useful for you, but at least here it is to the ones who can read in portuguese.

[jzahr]

Hi Chris,

Do you intend to compare the MQA vs the non-MQA version of these music files but using a standard DAC (ie a DAC without an MQA decoder)?

 

This comparison would be useful to many people that are not prepared or willing to invest in a new MQA-approved DAC.

 

Thanks,

Jorge

[miguelito]

Thx Chris. Interesting comments. Agree about the effect of MQA on less than great recordings, agre. Hard to imagine you can do anything for a recording done with premium equipment and care. The comment on MQA being an indicator of care in the mastering is key in my opinion - I do think there's value here - IF it doesn't become a meaningless label. How many crap hi res recordings are there? More than good ones!

[pixelmixture]

i'm really skeptical with this HiRes audio trend ...

80% of the new albums available on specialised sites like Qobuz, HDTracks or Tidal have so tiny dynamic range that listening to them in HD or Not makes NO DIFFERENCE ....

 

it looks like everything recorded after 1990 sound like crap ....

[Bryan]

Check back in five years where the popularity of MQA is. Considering the era they were recorded in Mercury Living Presence and Living Stereo recordings are pretty darn good, they put many recent recordings to shame. I have the older Meridian Explorer. Good enough for me for desktop. Have oodles of 24/96 up to 24/192 as well many .dsf recordings on my server for the bigger system. Many of my 16/44.1 recordings are my favorites in content and recording quality. It really is mostly about the quality of the original recording and no digital tricks will make silk purse from sow's ear.

[Melvin]

Always appreciate your take Chris, nicely done. Most interesting to me is even with your highly resolving system, subtle (albeit noticeable) differences are heard. I can only wonder if my far less expensive and resolving gear would be a limiting factor. Will my lowly system be good enough or is MQA only for the elite? Rhetorical, of course.

 

I’m not in to hyperbole or writing something with which I am unsure. Thus, I gave myself a blind ABX test by putting the two version of this track into a playlist, listening to them back to back, then setting the queue on repeat and random and pressing the next button several times without looking. I did this several times and immediately selected the correct MQA or non-MQA version of the track every time. Readers should keep in mind that just because I immediately picked the correct version of the track, doesn’t mean the differences are night and day. These things are subtle. But, once heard it’s hard not to hear the differences.

[tronds]

An easy way to get hold of files to compare is to visit 2L's test bench. They provide files in various formats and resolutions, including PCM/MQA/DSD in both stereo and surround.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Would be nice to know if the 192/24 track has the same exact playback level as the MQA track.

 

Also if the MQA process results in the equivalent of slightly different EQ in the resulting output from the different filtering going on. Should have put that in the ask Robert Stuart thread if I had thought of it then.

 

From what I could tell the levels were too close to notice a difference (in level). An objective measurement would be nice however.

 

 

 

 

 

A couple of questions Chris.

 

First up ... on the BNB album you write "1) The original non-MQA version..." then "2) The non-MQA version has a..." I assume there is a typo there.

 

Second, could you for reference tell us the file sizes of the MQA and 24/192 versions of the tracks on the first album? As I recall one of the promoted features of MQA was that high res could be stored in files / streams the same size as CD quality.

 

Not a typo, but thanks for checking.

 

RE: File sizes - Good question, and something I should have included in the article.

 

Mitt Hjerte Alltid Vanker on album Stille lys (Quiet Light) by Jan Gunnar Hoff - MQA file is 36.3 MB, bitrate of 1157 (from a DXD master), the 24/192 FLAC file I purchased is 126.3 MB, with bitrate of 4569 (original size was 241.73 MB before FLAC compression of 51%).

 

Ein Song Frå Dei Utsungne Stunder by Berit Opheim, Nils Økland & Bjørn Kjellemyr, also known as The BNB - MQA files between 7 MB and 25 MB (from 16/44.1 master)

 

When I Go from Judy Collins’ album Strangers Again - MQA file is 47.8 MB (from an 88.2 master)

 

 

 

 

 

nice write up Chris. thanks for the precious feedback on this matter, I am sure CA is at the front row about testing audio innovations.

 

On the test itself I wonder how much improvement you would feel on the same music by upgrading to one of your favourite DAC's...just my curiosity.

 

I would like to confirm that mqa is beneficial to "repair" poor and old ADC recordings (I am remembering, for instance, Security album from 82). Even better if that "filter" technology could be applied in an open environment instead of a closed authentication scheme.

 

 

This is something I am going to do. I am very interested in listening to MQA on my reference DACs that don't currently support MQA full decoding and rendering.

 

 

 

 

Hi Chris,

Do you intend to compare the MQA vs the non-MQA version of these music files but using a standard DAC (ie a DAC without an MQA decoder)?

 

This comparison would be useful to many people that are not prepared or willing to invest in a new MQA-approved DAC.

 

Thanks,

Jorge

 

Most definitely.

 

 

 

 

Thx Chris. Interesting comments. Agree about the effect of MQA on less than great recordings, agre. Hard to imagine you can do anything for a recording done with premium equipment and care. The comment on MQA being an indicator of care in the mastering is key in my opinion - I do think there's value here - IF it doesn't become a meaningless label. How many crap hi res recordings are there? More than good ones!

 

I hear you on that one!

 

 

 

 

 

Always appreciate your take Chris, nicely done. Most interesting to me is even with your highly resolving system, subtle (albeit noticeable) differences are heard. I can only wonder if my far less expensive and resolving gear would be a limiting factor. Will my lowly system be good enough or is MQA only for the elite? Rhetorical, of course.

 

Very good question. I'd say the most important thing is the recording, even more so than the playback equipment.

[crenca]

Interesting, I would have expected more given the resolving power of your system. Is it a limitation of the a <$300 DAC even though it is MQA enabled? If so, what does that mean for MQA?

 

I have to wonder what those folks were hearing at the demos as reported in the usual press sources - what DAC was Meridian using during these demos?

[sdolezalek]

Chris: what you are hearing is very much in line with what I heard when I first heard MQA in a demonstration almost a year ago (using all very high-end Meridian components - new DAC, MQA enhanced speakers) -- the material that is newly recorded with MQA in place from end-to-end sounded amazingly good, but the older recordings to which MQA was applied after the fact didn't seem to be very noticeably improved.

 

What we may have is a convolution of three different benefits a) truly better fidelity for new recordings, b) small file sizes but far less audible benefit for "old" recordings, and, of course, c) DRM benefits for the studios. Although I don't like the DRM benefits, my guess is that I will choose to buy new MQA material in the same way I chose to buy DXD or DSD256 material PROVIDED the MQA licenses for hardware are sufficiently affordable that the DAC I want in my system come equipped with MQA. To the extent that means none of us really meaningfully benefit until we have bought a new MQA equipped DAC, it will have the same effect as offering DXD material to folks whose DAcs only play 24/96 material...

[Tintinabulum]

Interesting, I would have expected more given the resolving power of your system. Is it a limitation of the a <$300 DAC even though it is MQA enabled? If so, what does that mean for MQA?

 

I have to wonder what those folks were hearing at the demos as reported in the usual press sources - what DAC was Meridian using during these demos?

 

I've understood from the outset that to get full benefit (non Meridian world) you'd need "fast" equipment downstream to respond to the signal. Meridians SE speakers (and DACs therein) are specifically designed for this. This isn't an advert. As I understand it the response times downstream need to be up to muster for full effect. You can tell that this isn't a technical comment...time smear. I surprised Chris doesn't have an 818...

[esldude]

From what I could tell the levels were too close to notice a difference (in level). An objective measurement would be nice however.

 

Okay. Thanks for answering the question. Your descriptions sound good. Not night and day, but a difference you can hear. Thanks again for your reporting.

[hissinkl]

Chris,

 

Your assessment matches mine - superb sound etc etc but clearly the principle of diminishing returns also applies and while I also recall the sound of CD when it first came out in 1982, (I had to sell this new product), it seems the technical improvements are such that today it's becoming a choice between, say, a Ferrari versus a Maserati or Aston Martin situation for the audiophile. If the differences are subtle but MQA can reproduce the original in a fraction of the size and wallops any MP3 version, then it's a success.

 

And audiophiles are, when all said and done, fringe dwellers of the music world. Given that young people are discovering LP sound and preferring it to the compressed MP3 etc etc mass produced music, MQA thus delivers the LP sound in a useful digital package that a DSD file equivalent could never match, ever without all the physical hassles associated with replaying vinyl. MQA will also wallop vinyl I venture to guess, (says he with a high end vinyl front end).

 

MQA actually has sounded the death knell of the High End for who would have thought that a portable MQA enabled DAC costing say $500 could produce music essentially indistinguishable from a high end DAC costing $20,000? Add a pair of the latest headphones, and if I were a Hi Fi salesman, I would be feeling a little uncertain at the moment. No need to sell state of the art music servers or front ends anymore once the MQA tide gains momentum.

 

MQA has overnight changed the game; again.

[YashN]

I guess MQA's compensation for the ADC used in the production chain shines through here.

 

What would be interesting is to compare the same music recorded with the MQA process and in native DSD, preferably double or quad.

[jeffmudrick]

Chris,

 

Your assessment matches mine - superb sound etc etc but clearly the principle of diminishing returns also applies and while I also recall the sound of CD when it first came out in 1982, (I had to sell this new product), it seems the technical improvements are such that today it's becoming a choice between, say, a Ferrari versus a Maserati or Aston Martin situation for the audiophile. If the differences are subtle but MQA can reproduce the original in a fraction of the size and wallops any MP3 version, then it's a success.

 

And audiophiles are, when all said and done, fringe dwellers of the music world. Given that young people are discovering LP sound and preferring it to the compressed MP3 etc etc mass produced music, MQA thus delivers the LP sound in a useful digital package that a DSD file equivalent could never match, ever without all the physical hassles associated with replaying vinyl. MQA will also wallop vinyl I venture to guess, (says he with a high end vinyl front end).

 

MQA actually has sounded the death knell of the High End for who would have thought that a portable MQA enabled DAC costing say $500 could produce music essentially indistinguishable from a high end DAC costing $20,000? Add a pair of the latest headphones, and if I were a Hi Fi salesman, I would be feeling a little uncertain at the moment. No need to sell state of the art music servers or front ends anymore once the MQA tide gains momentum.

 

MQA has overnight changed the game; again.

 

How about a $20k MQA enabled DAC? Don't underestimate the desire among the well heeled audio community to find ways to spend money lifting veils imagined or otherwise.

[PeterG]

Chris,

 

Your assessment matches mine - superb sound etc etc but clearly the principle of diminishing returns also applies and while I also recall the sound of CD when it first came out in 1982, (I had to sell this new product), it seems the technical improvements are such that today it's becoming a choice between, say, a Ferrari versus a Maserati or Aston Martin situation for the audiophile. If the differences are subtle but MQA can reproduce the original in a fraction of the size and wallops any MP3 version, then it's a success.

 

And audiophiles are, when all said and done, fringe dwellers of the music world. Given that young people are discovering LP sound and preferring it to the compressed MP3 etc etc mass produced music, MQA thus delivers the LP sound in a useful digital package that a DSD file equivalent could never match, ever without all the physical hassles associated with replaying vinyl. MQA will also wallop vinyl I venture to guess, (says he with a high end vinyl front end).

 

MQA actually has sounded the death knell of the High End for who would have thought that a portable MQA enabled DAC costing say $500 could produce music essentially indistinguishable from a high end DAC costing $20,000? Add a pair of the latest headphones, and if I were a Hi Fi salesman, I would be feeling a little uncertain at the moment. No need to sell state of the art music servers or front ends anymore once the MQA tide gains momentum.

 

MQA has overnight changed the game; again.

 

Interesting thoughts, but perhaps a bit premature. So far, Chris has only heard MQA improve upon a very good lower end DAC. The real test will be MQA on Explorer compared to non-MQA hi res and CD quality files on a high end DAC.

 

If I were a hi fi salesman, I'd be thrilled to use MQA to explain why now is the time to increase speaker and amp budgets.

[hissinkl]

The real test will be MQA on Explorer compared to non-MQA hi res and CD quality files on a high end DAC.

 

Which is what I have done using the Explorer with MQA and and an Accuphase DC-37 using an Aurender X100 playing back hi-res files of the same music. As I said, it's a game changer.

[Tintinabulum]

MQA actually has sounded the death knell of the High End for who would have thought that a portable MQA enabled DAC costing say $500 could produce music essentially indistinguishable from a high end DAC costing $20,000?

 

MQA has overnight changed the game; again.

 

Is that really what Chris said? Didn't read like that to me. I think we have to wait and see.

 

If it was the case then good especially if you like Nordic classical music. Personally I'm not a fan so I guess we'll have to wait (again) to see what's going to come out, when and at what cost. If it doesn't come out, well...

 

We've been waiting for MQA for a year or more, what changed overnight?

[bobbmd]

Chris:nice article,I didn't quite understand MQA now I think I do. You are using a Meridian Explorer 2 for your DAC and do you think using say Mytek 'Brooklyn' would make MQA sound any better? I searched for articles about DACs with MQA and really only found the Meridian Explorer 2.So this would be just connected to my 2012/13 MacMini i7 16gb RAM via USB(does it make any difference which USB port i use on the MacMini?) and i would control the volume by my keyboard?and in Audio MIDI use what? The built-in output or input only goes to 96,000 how can you go above that to 176400 or 192000 and what bit integer do you use? I currently listen to TIDAL via ROON and Amarra for TIDAL and Qobuz HiFi USB to Schiit Gungnir newest version (not multibit)RCA to my AVR and to Schiit Magni headphone amp with Sennheiser 598's. Is MQA so good that i am going to say good bye the Schiit i now use? bobbmd

[Miska]

Mitt Hjerte Alltid Vanker on album Stille lys (Quiet Light) by Jan Gunnar Hoff - MQA file is 36.3 MB, bitrate of 1157 (from a DXD master), the 24/192 FLAC file I purchased is 126.3 MB, with bitrate of 4569 (original size was 241.73 MB before FLAC compression of 51%).

 

24-bit in FLAC is wasted, there's not that much information on the recordings. Cutting the data with TPDF dither to 18-bit and zero-padding it to look like 24-bit makes no difference in content, but reduces file size significantly. (FLAC is clever enough to notice that the LSBs are not really used)

 

Based on the available information, MQA cuts the source data to 17-bit before encoding...

[R1200CL]

I can't stop thinking about all those getting a green light from now on, will know this MQA version is not approved by the producer or artist, but do not worry, cause it is in any case made from the same master.

 

Then suddenly the artist calls the record company, and request a blue light, but the green light version has already been downloaded several times.

 

Keep that green light version, it will be very rare and valuable

Or now we will know that the artist do not like to approve his work ?

 

What a mess. Again !

 

Can't wait to get this explaind further. Who cares about that light if the file will always be exactly the same ?