Article: My First 24 Hours With MQA

[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 ?

[R1200CL]

Deleted. Duplicated.

[R1200CL]

Deleted. Duplicated.

[The Computer Audiophile]

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 ?

 

Wow, digital scarcity! I have both green and blue versions of the Judy Collins album :~)

[jazzy1]

I can see the value for streaming, but how can MQA take a 192/24 file as input and really improve the sound quality? It may well sound different, or even subjectively better, but is it possible that it is less accurate, or colourizing the sound in the guise of improvement?

[weldp]

I'm struggling to see a blue or green light when playing MQA files on my Explorer2. I updated to 1717 firmware and I am using the files from 2L High Resolution Music .:. free TEST BENCH. Am I missing something? I am playing with VLC.

[Sal1950]

The MQA process originated as a "compression" technique to radically reduce HDA file size and make streaming and downloads use much less bandwidth. Then the rumors started about improve sound quality over the original file?

A different, even more pleasing sound than the original I can buy. But truely BETTER and of Higher Fidelity than the original file I having trouble with, I want to know the how, why and see the measurements of where the "improvement" is coming from. Or does it just sound a little "different"?

[francisleung]

Hi Chris,

Having read posts here about MQA and done a bit of listening with non-authenticated DAC, I surmise that MQA is more beneficial to tracks being streamed such as those from Tidal. Whereas for recordings already in hand or to be purchased, I guess having them re-sampled may bring about some of those differences because new generation filters will remove some of the artefacts introduced by old filters, in manner similar to removals by MQA. I don't have a MQA DAC and hope you would do that to find out one way or the other. if you are able to show new filters work just as well, then audiophiles have no need to be tied to the end to end MQA requirement.

XLD and Audio Inventory re-sampling software may be downloaded for free and based on my experience from using them, I surmise these two, especially the latter, may be able to remove some of the artefacts present in the old digital tracks, perhaps as effectively as MQA does.

[monteverdi]

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 ?

 

I like the idea of a collector's item which can not be traded.

[Sal1950]

"The options are, MQA or live with what we already have. Anyway, the MQA train is finally leaving the building. I’m cautiously optimistic that everything will work out and we’ll have better sounding music without too much trouble. "

 

Nope, no trouble at all. All you need is a new MQA enabled DAC, and re-purchase all your music files over again. Now how many times have you bought DSOTM since 1973?

 

"It is perhaps a holy grail of digital audio.”

You know if this was true every time I've read it since 1984, by now a holographic image of the artists would appear, the walls would disappear and I would be in the Starship Enterprise's Holodeck at a live performance.

 

One thing looks to be certain, the hardware and software vendors are poised to make a lot of cash.

[R1200CL]

 

Nope, no trouble at all. All you need is a new MQA enabled DAC, and re-purchase all your music files over again.

 

You most likely will do with a SW MQA player, and also yet to be answer, you may be allowed to MQA your own rips. (Or buy HQ Player )

 

Well I do not think you will be allowed to MQA your collection, but I think it is technical possible.

Maybe someone can invent a player that scan your library and offer you a reasonable MQA upgrade for those tracks that have been converted to MQA

 

And also select which of your tracks not on Tidal. Something for Roon?

[R1200CL]

I'm struggling to see a blue or green light when playing MQA files on my Explorer2. I updated to 1717 firmware and I am using the files from 2L High Resolution Music .:. free TEST BENCH. Am I missing something? I am playing with VLC.

I think you will have to make sure VLC is playing bit perfect.

https://wiki.videolan.org/Documentation:Documentation

[mumsoft]

I'm struggling to see a blue or green light when playing MQA files on my Explorer2. I updated to 1717 firmware and I am using the files from 2L High Resolution Music .:. free TEST BENCH. Am I missing something? I am playing with VLC.

 

Try to control the volume with Meridian Control and set the volume in VLC as high as possible. I guess that digitally controlling the output volume eats bits from the 24 bits file and thats where the main MQA part resides.

 

Marc

[Bryan]

Somewhat related piece over at innerfidelity.com titled 'Of coarse accurate!'

[Theobetley]

Chris: your description of a 'lack of hall ambiance or air coupled with lots of air around individual instruments and voices' is precisely what I heard at last year's Axpona. I could not precisely figure out what I heard until you just described it as such.

[The Computer Audiophile]

"The options are, MQA or live with what we already have. Anyway, the MQA train is finally leaving the building. I’m cautiously optimistic that everything will work out and we’ll have better sounding music without too much trouble. "

 

Nope, no trouble at all. All you need is a new MQA enabled DAC, and re-purchase all your music files over again. Now how many times have you bought DSOTM since 1973?

 

"It is perhaps a holy grail of digital audio.”

You know if this was true every time I've read it since 1984, by now a holographic image of the artists would appear, the walls would disappear and I would be in the Starship Enterprise's Holodeck at a live performance.

 

One thing looks to be certain, the hardware and software vendors are poised to make a lot of cash.

Hi sal - You sound like the Government is enforcing a mandatory MQA tax on all citizens. I think it's important to keep in mind that this is all optional. Nobody is forcing anyone to purchase MQA music or hardware :~)

[ted_b]

Chris,

 

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?

 

? Chris used his $300 DAC throughout, doing nicely reported comparisons. He NEVER said that the sound of MQA through his Explorer2 matched the sound of non-MQA through his Berkeley Reference, etc. What makes you say he did? I reached the opposite conclusion: that if improvements like MQA (assuming they pan out for more than 10 recordings) can be heard on $300 equipment that it says good things for those who invest in higher-end.

[jeffmudrick]

"The options are, MQA or live with what we already have. Anyway, the MQA train is finally leaving the building. I’m cautiously optimistic that everything will work out and we’ll have better sounding music without too much trouble. "

 

Nope, no trouble at all. All you need is a new MQA enabled DAC, and re-purchase all your music files over again. Now how many times have you bought DSOTM since 1973?

 

"It is perhaps a holy grail of digital audio.”

You know if this was true every time I've read it since 1984, by now a holographic image of the artists would appear, the walls would disappear and I would be in the Starship Enterprise's Holodeck at a live performance.

 

One thing looks to be certain, the hardware and software vendors are poised to make a lot of cash.

 

That's a choice. "I prefer to own my music" vs $20/mo for anytime access to millions of albums, soon with MQA . Easy choice for me. As for a new DAC, as a ladderite I would need to upgrade if I wanted to enjoy DSD which I haven't found compelling. I may do so for MQA if reviews seem to justify it.

[firedog]

Hi sal - You sound like the Government is enforcing a mandatory MQA tax on all citizens. I think it's important to keep in mind that this is all optional. Nobody is forcing anyone to purchase MQA music or hardware :~)

 

That makes sense unless music comes to us from the source "MQA'd" and it sounds inferior over non-MQA equipment. At least over audiophile level non-MQA equipment. So far we don't know that this isn't the case.

[mumsoft]

With Linux that I use for more than 15 years I had not much luck with Amarok, but the blue light began to shine with mplayer.

 

Marc

[Sal1950]

Hi sal - You sound like the Government is enforcing a mandatory MQA tax on all citizens. I think it's important to keep in mind that this is all optional. Nobody is forcing anyone to purchase MQA music or hardware :~)

 

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%).

 

Yes Chris, It's a Government conspiracy! MQA has spyware in it that will report any anti- social music you download to the CIA! Your all gonna be in deep KA KA. LOL

 

36.3 File size of the MQA makes me question how in backward compatibility playback, it can possible sound as good as the non MQA 126.3 flac file? That part just doesn't add up?

OPPS, IIRC the claim is that in backward compatibility playback the claimed sound quality will be "equal to" 16/44. Is that correct?

[Sal1950]

With Linux that I use for more than 15 years I had not much luck with Amarok, but the blue light began to shine with mplayer.

 

Marc

 

No luck with what, getting a bit perfect stream?

 

You have a blue light in mplayer, where?

TIA

[mumsoft]

No luck with what, getting a bit perfect stream?

 

You have a blue light in mplayer, where?

TIA

Oh well, I mean on the Explorer². I run Open Suses latest version, and I still have a lot to discover. The only music player in it is Amarok. At first no sound at all. But I found out how to get it, and maximised it. Yellow led. I tried some more settings without success. Next I tried Mplayer after installing that, and got the blue light out of a sudden.

 

I still have to figure out more, but it was time to go cooking.

Maybe VLC can do the same but I didn't try that.

[weldp]

Try to control the volume with Meridian Control and set the volume in VLC as high as possible. I guess that digitally controlling the output volume eats bits from the 24 bits file and thats where the main MQA part resides.

 

Marc

 

I tried that to no avail. There must be something in VLC that is keeping it from being bitperfect. I did try Roon and that worked. I got my blue light with MQA flac..

 

We now have a convenient test for bitperfect output to test software.

 

-Chris

[Archimago]

Yes Chris, It's a Government conspiracy! MQA has spyware in it that will report any anti- social music you download to the CIA! Your all gonna be in deep KA KA. LOL

 

36.3 File size of the MQA makes me question how in backward compatibility playback, it can possible sound as good as the non MQA 126.3 flac file? That part just doesn't add up?

OPPS, IIRC the claim is that in backward compatibility playback the claimed sound quality will be "equal to" 16/44. Is that correct?

 

Hey Sal,

Funny yet insightful :-).

 

As others have said elsewhere, I think there are so many layers in terms of potential points of contention around MQA... Here are a few from my perspective:

 

1. Does it actually provide better sounding files when played on a non-decoding DAC? My listening says no. The DSP algorithm changes the sound and is different. But "better" starts getting into subjective assessment and I suspect this will not be universal approval. This speaks to the effect of the temporal "de-blurring" process - basically, how good is it compared to all the other DSP's over the years supposedly capable of improving sound quality?

 

2. Is there the potential for loss of freedom? Sure, and it begins with the idea that we have to buy yet another DAC/decoder considering we have decades of really good hardware already. Personally I would not want MQA to be the only form of digital download since I do want to maintain the ability to perform DSP myself such as digital room correction with "flat" non-proprietary encoded audio data. IMO, the likelihood of MQA taking the world by storm to the point where it's the only downloadable file format is slim to none so I don't really think there's anything to worry about.

 

Getting a bit more technical:

 

3. Does it "compress" well? As Miska has analyzed, you can do a better job with say an 18-bit FLAC file running at 96kHz for some of the 2L samples. As I have noted in my blog post 2 weeks ago, I have some concerns about the low compression potential of the lower 8-bits of a 16/44 sourced recording when converted to the 24/44 MQA "format" (16/44 is still the most common bit-depth/samplerate of course when you consider what will be streamed off TIDAL).

 

4. Given the need for compatibility, only the lower bits in MQA are used for encoding the high frequency spectrum. There aren't that many bits so it's "lossy" out of necessity. Does this even add to the sound quality in any way? When other variables are controlled (eg. the DAC playing at the same samplerate, volume unchanged, same DSP in #1 accounted for) I doubt there would be audible differences when tested.

 

Chris,

If possible, could you record maybe a minute of the start of one of the MQA samples like the Magnificat on the 2L download page using a good 24/192 ADC through the Explorer2 of the decoded MQA file and using the equivalent 24/192 file (since the Explorer2 is only capable up to 192kHz)? I think this would be telling:

1. We can see how much high frequency detail >22kHz is retained in the reconstruction.

2. We can look for amplitude changes - MQA's DSP I suspect will account for potential clipping while doing the upsampling so I would not be surprised that there are some differences which add to audibility.

3. We can assess the noise floor and see if MQA changes this. Useful because I've been curious of the amount that MQA affects the dynamic range in a 24-bit file.

 

Ultimately, I don't think there's anything to fear in terms of MQA, nor really that much to be "wow'ed" by. It's a DSP which supposedly helps with "deblurring" + a compression algorithm with the novel term "origami" attached + Meridian probably applying their form of minimum phase "apodizing" upsampling filter to the 192+kHz output data. The DSP part is IMO what makes the sound different - what's interesting is whether subjectively it does more good than harm and whether most people ultimately like the sound. The "origami" piece is interesting and smart, but is it really needed? Would say a standard 24/48 stream (or dithered 18-bit/48 compressed with FLAC) with the "de-blur" DSP applied assuming the output DAC uses a standard linear phase antialiasing filter sound just as good? I think so, but I doubt Meridian/MQA would do us the service of giving us an example of what that would sound like!