MQA is Vaporware

[synn]

9 minutes ago, Charles Hansen said:

 

Hi Nikhil,

 

Thanks for enlightening me. While I've heard of Sanskrit, I didn't know what it actually was. Apparently an almost dead language from many thousands of years ago from the region now called India, and important to certain religions such as Buddhism. I mistakenly assumed it was a Japanese word, although now that I think about it this could not be right as it would be extremely difficult to pronounce in Japanese, where there are no stressed syllables. It's really only readily pronounced with an accent on the second syllable.

 

Since I don't know any Sanskrit (there are apparently around 50,000 in India who are fluent), could you kindly let me know the translation?

 

Thanks!

It means emptiness.

[synn]

I am quite new here, as you can see from my post count.

 

 

In the past few months, I had read so much about MQA and I really wanted to go out and try it. I almost ended up buying an NAD amp with the built in BluOS module for this purpose. But a few days before that, I downloaded the now famous 2L tracks and gave it a twirl. I have no MQA capable device of course, so I decided to compare the undecoded file to the rest. It is supposed to be better than CD quality, right?

 

To my ears, the MQA tracks sounded a bit better than CD quality and not as detailed as the 192KHz, DXD or DSD files. Now giving it the benefit of the doubt that a fully decoded file will sound as good as DXD, I am still left with a problem.

 

I could get an MQA equipped DAC for my listening room to enjoy full quality music (If the claims are true). But in my living room setup with the AV receiver or on the road with my DAP, I am still left with a slightly better than CD quality file. A normal 192KHz plays exactly the same in all three setups. Bandwidth and download limits are not a problem for me.

So for me, the MQA hype train has left the station. I think I will live with 192KHz for some time (Even that is quite hard to find, most of the "High res" files I can purchase for the kind of music I listen to are 48-96KHz anyway).

[synn]

1 minute ago, witchdoctor said:

I think you made a good decision. If you are after SQ 192KHz and MQA are nearly indistinguishable. I prefer MQA because of the huge library I have access to for $10 extra a month. I couldn't accumulate that many 192 tracks on my own. 

 TBH, When I am in the mood to discover and sample new music (Or listen to obscure scandinavian heavy metal bands), Spotify has me covered. When I really like something, something that I want to listen to at a higher quality, I go and buy it from one of the various high res stores around.

 

I "Acquire" maybe 10% of what I listen to.

[synn]

6 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Hi synn, In my experience the 2L files/tracks are not really a good representative for comparing, despite they should be the best "technical" masters (because often recorded in 24/352.8); they often do not contain all the information of the world (so to speak). For example, envision your heavy metal. That really would put different constraints to music than a violin (which has its own particularies, not present in any heavy metal). A rock drum kit is already different than the mostly brushes of a jazz trio. Both are as difficult but in a most different way.

 

 

The advice is to not give anything a benefit of the doubt (but I understand what you are heading for) - it can't. Whether MQA can surpass Redbook CD (SQ wise) is something else (maybe give that the benefit of the doubt) but judging undecoded MQA as better than CD looks dangerous to me.  So for that it really would be a good idea to take a trial subscription for Tidal (30 days free and you can cancel it with ease), so you can try.

Hmm ... having said that, I may actually wonder how to do that, because you'd need explicit "not-decoding" software in order to try undecoded MQA. Today or tomorrow my own software will be up to do that, but/and I don't think it will tell you that you will like undecoded MQA for the better. And maybe never mind, because Tidal won't work with the demo license of my software.

 

Regards - Peter

True, my testing methodology has its pitfalls. Come to think of it, I think I will revisit the tracks again to see if the non MQA tracks still do sound to me "Better than CD quality".

 

You are right though, the 2L tracks are not the best mastered tracks around. I have some albums purchased from the B&W Society of Sound website that are 96 KHz and blow the 2L tracks away.

[synn]

7 hours ago, Charles Hansen said:

 

I know of many music lovers who use this exact same strategy. I believe it combines the best of both worlds - less than the best sound quality for a very low (or free with ads) cost, when all that is desired is background music or discovering new music, and then buying the things you like in the format  (digital or analog) you like for music that you will want to listen to repeatedly.

 

Cheers!

Hi Charles,

 

thanks! I find this approach quite satisfactory for my needs. This is also why I personally find the “Hi Fi” Tier for most streaming services not worth the cost. I don’t need to listen to every track I stream at high quality. Additionally, many commercial recordings (also dependent on the Genre) are produced rather unexceptionally that any improvements that one might hear above the 320kbps that Spotify streams are marginal at best.

 

for example, I own Pearl Jam’s Ten on CD. I probably won’t be able to tell it apart from a Spotify stream in a blind test. I also own Some Dire Straits CDs. Brothers in Arms in particular is ASTOUNDING in Redbook compared to a stream. 

 

Which also ties in nicely with the other post you quoted (production quality of 2L). To my ears at least, production quality is more important towards excellent sound than sampling rates, bit rates and bit depths.

[synn]

Last weekend, I spent 20 hours on trains with a Fiio X1 loaded with 192Khz, 48Khz and 44Khz tracks, an iPod touch with Spotify playlists (Offline) and a B&O H8 noise canceling headphone. There were some overlapping tracks, such as some from Dire Straits, Lindsey Stirling and John Metcalfe.

 

The high res tracks sounded better. But not MONUMENTALLY better. Certainly not the same difference I feel at home. I tested with Noise Canceling enabled and disabled.

 

Initially, I had said that I am struggling to find a place for MQA at home. Now I extend the same thoughts for on the road as well. Even if MQA might sound as good as 192KHz (Giving the benefit of the doubt), what good is it to me when that sounds barely better than Spotify on the road?

 

[synn]

2 hours ago, Brian Lucey said:

No.  the labels are doing what they want to do, as they own the material and someone in one division is making decisions for the team.

 

 

As a Photographer who has at times, edited pictures against my own personal tastes because of client's requests and have seen them further butchered by art directors, I completely understand this sentiment.

[synn]

I hear that with the next version of MQA, “mixing errors” will be fixed in-dac as long as the name of the mixing engineer is provided to MQA inc. A purple LED will light up when this takes place.

[synn]

Back on topic, has anyone compared MQA unfolded on an MQA certified DAC vs on an up scaling DAC?

[synn]

Apple traditionally doesn’t bend to publishers. When Jobs first talked about 99c downloads, everyone laughed. And yet it happened. Same thing with ebooks. Amazon had to adjust its pricing downwards after Apple announced theirs.

 

Apple dragged their heels for more than a decade about FLAC and even now, in iOS 11, only support it in a limited way. They still don’t directly support Blu Ray. So yes, I don’t see them embracing MQA any time soon.

 

what would be hilarious is if they ask MQA to bugger off, create their own version called Apple Quality Authenticated or something and start offering that in iTunes (And publishers follow suit). Maybe even offer a glowing blue Apple logo in the iTunes and Apple Music apps.  

[synn]

The last thing I want is for Audio equipment to suffer the fate of AV receivers.

 

a plethora of proprietary tech logos in the front, which means a significant chunk of the purchase price goes into licensing costs, which in turn means that the internals of the devices will suffer from budget cuts. A decade or so ago, mid price receivers had excellent sound quality, all the inputs you wanted and a shorter spec list. Now most have ho hum sound quality, a bare minimum of inputs and spec sheets longer than a polar summer day. And it drops resale value like a bad habit two weeks after launch because Dolby whatever or DTS whatchamaycallit is out and your brand spanking new receiver doesn’t support it. Any receiver that has fancy features AND good sound quality is stratospherically priced.

 

this is why I am still a firm believer in separates for Audio. I like my amp to be simple and do one thing: sound fantastic for years. Everything else is secondary.

[synn]

Yes, I read about that as well. I really hope that the delay has to do with getting the licensing sorted out rather than because of a lack of interest from the test group.

[synn]

On Apple’s front, apart from the limited FLAC support they introduced, Airplay 2 specs suggest a serious push into high res wireless audio. One can only hope that this is in preparation for either the sale or streaming of high res audio.

 

re: Apple and MQA, Apple is traditionally very protective of the innards of their hardware. They don’t even publish the amount of RAM the iPhone has. Pretty much nothing inside their devices is user replaceable or upgradable. There’s no way in hell that they will let MQA (the company) take a looksie into their DAC implementation.

[synn]

It might just be me, but desiring the MQA LED on a dCS product after plonking down that much cold hard cash is like wanting a “SUPER WOOFER SURROUND SOUND” sticker on a pair of B&W floor standers. Or “TURBO DOHC LIQUID COOLED” decals on a Porsche 911.

[synn]

Thanks, Charles!

 

so in theory, if I use something like the DacMagic plus that upconverts everything to 384Khz with the minimum phase filter, the end result would be virtually indistinguishable from one of them blue LED equipped DACs...

[synn]

Actually Charles, Spotify has been losing money for quite some time.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/15/business/media/streaming-radio-spotify-pandora.html

 

Their revenues continue to rise and so does the subscriber base, but they are not making any money. But the former two are enough to continue securing investments, so they continue to exist. Not sure what the situation will be once they go public.

[synn]

Back to MQA... again.

I am very interested to hear @PeterSt's experiences comparing MQA and non MQA heavy metal albums.

[synn]

So, the 2L files are still the only source for comparing MQA, 192khz, DSD and DXD, correct?

[synn]

MQA is still making very little buzz over here in Europe. No one i know is talking about it and the Hi-Fi shops are still putting good old stuff in the forefront.

 

i was in the market for a network streamer a little while ago and I emailed Onkyo/ Pioneer Europe if they have any plans to offer MQA deciding in their current range of network players. The answer I got was that they currently have no plans. That’s interesting because they are both fully paid up members. So far, all that they have offered are rebranded versions of a portable player.

 

Either the PMPs are about “Testing the waters” to see if MQA sticks or they are planning to release “All new” versions of the network streamers with MQA.

[synn]

Haha apologies for the acronym!

 

what I meant by rebranded is that Pioneer’s hifi business is owned by Onkyo now, so they are selling the same device with their respective brand names and slightly different designs.

 

i am in Germany, no MQA waves here so far.

[synn]

One inconsistency I noted about MQA:

 

on one hand, they claim that each track has to be examined by their engineers and correction for the original ADC will be applied during the encoding process to MQA. And apparently the files have to be sent to them for this.

 

on the other hand, you hear announcements like how Warner etc. will be converting a huge portion of their catalog to MQA. If you consider the sheer amount of man hours required for this according to the claimed MQA workflow, not to mention the amount of logistics involved, there’s no way they are actually doing what they claim to be doing; unless they have an entire country at their disposal to churn the gears.

[synn]

I hope Qobuz expands to more markets. Their sublime level sounds like a much better alternative to those with enough bandwidth over MQA.

[synn]

The latter, of course!

[synn]

Again, I would like to point out that spotify has not made money in a long time. They do have investor confidence and that’s what matters.

 

in a way, it is good that Qobuz isn’t expanding too fast for their own good.i hope they do survive, they offer a fairly unique experience compared to everyone else.

[synn]

I might be one of the few who do not understand what is so great about Roon.