MQA is Vaporware

[mevdinc]

Here's a review of the Meridian Ultra DAC.
It seems the article talks more about the MQA format than the DAC itself.
 

http://www.hifiplus.com/articles/meridian-audio-ultra-dac-digital-converter/?page=3
 

[mevdinc]

15 hours ago, mansr said:

That could be just talk. Everybody seems to like boasting about how much effort they've made and how hard it was, no matter what the subject. From what I've seen, adding MQA to a software solution should be pretty straight-forward. Simply take the provided library and plug it into the processing chain like you would any other codec. If it takes more than a man-week, there is something seriously wrong with your overall system architecture. At least I was able to do it with no documentation or assistance whatsoever.

I agree, @damien78 of Audirvana Plus implemented the MQA software unfolding ages ago, and he's a one man dev-team.
Maybe he can shed some light as too how hard the integration was, if at  all.

[mevdinc]

In my personal experience I detect the following difference when I compare MQA with non-MQA versions.
MQA almost always sounds louder with more detailed highs.
The extra bit of loudness makes the music sound bigger, and possibly to some people more impressive too.

[mevdinc]

I said this elsewhere on the Forum. Yes, MQA does sound different, mostly quite a bit loader which gives the impression that the MQA version sounds more impressive/bigger with highs sounding more detailed.

Just now listened to Kenny Dorham album of Quite Kenny, there are 4 versions on Tidal as can be seen from the attached pic. Lets number them 1-4 from the left.

I'm using Audirvana Plus for playback which does the software unfold. So, my findings are based on the first unfold, maybe it will sound more different still through a MQA DAC.
Number 4 is the MQA version which is clearly louder than Numbers 1 and 3. Number 2 is very similar to MQA version in terms of loudness.

To me Number 3 is the best version, when I up the volume by 3db it sounds about the same level as the MQA, and also sounds more pleasant, definitely prefer it over MQA. For some reason Number 3 has missing tracks, so I'm using Number 1 instead for regular listening.

Anyone with Tidal, Audirvana+  or Roon can try this out too.
It would be interesting to know what others have to say.

[mevdinc]

13 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

..he called other-speaker companies..”furniture makers”...lol

 

I have a fine pair from one of those "furniture makers" LoL

[mevdinc]

4 hours ago, NickC4555 said:

I have absolutely no scientific knowledge whatsoever, so my ears are my only basis for forming an opinion about anything in my audio setup, be that hardware, software or media formats. I am an accidental MQA user (just the first unfold), being a Roon/Tidal subscriber, so have recently got the MQA enabled Roon 1.5 upgrade. I don't have an MQA DAC. I can't say they all sound better but have tried comparing quite a few, and to me the majority of Tidal Masters (i.e. MQA files) sound better than their standard counterparts, some quite noticeably so. I realise this is subjective, but I have made the MQA versions the default in my library wherever that choice is available.

That was my exact initial impression when I first heard and compared the MQA albums with the standard ones.
Then I realised that the MQA version was always louder (around 2-3db), and highs appeared to be more detailed too (again creating that impression because of the higher volume).

I enjoy listening to music at high volumes and my system can play very loud with lots of dynamic headroom without any fatigue.
To compensate I increased the volume of the standard albums by 3db, and then compared to the MQA versions.
When level matched, I almost always preferred the standard versions over MQA apart from just a few, probably because those were better masters.
 

I have replaced all my initial MQA selections with the standard versions.

Maybe you can try the same (i.e level match when comparing), it would be interesting to hear your findings.

Best.
Mev

[mevdinc]

Exogal MQA decision and press announcement  is shared by Positive Feedback Online, 
Would be interesting to see how many other Audio magazines/sites will do the same.

https://positive-feedback.com/industry-news/exogal-abandons-mqa-development/
 

[mevdinc]

6 hours ago, mansr said:

Darko mentions it (https://darko.audio/2018/06/all-exhale-exasound-adds-mqa-exogal-drops-it/) though he doesn't include the full text, and the first half of the post is about exaSound adding MQA.

You're right, he doesn't include the whole text in the main article but he does post it in full on his FB page.

[mevdinc]

Here's a good description of MQA which is very much in line with mine.
By Audio Bacon:
"The MQA version off Tidal sounded a bit too thin and elevated. Like something I would hear from some oversampling done with software. Once I swapped for the 44.1kHz/16-bit, all was good in the hood. The warmth and density come back. Much improved timbre as well. "

The rest of the article's here for those interested. (Not a bad album either  )
https://audiobacon.net/2018/12/17/music-mondays-chlara-evo-sessions/

[mevdinc]

Here's a small comparison piece on MQA vs DSD from the Lumin X1 review that might be of interest.

https://6moons.com/audioreview_articles/lumin7/5/
 

[mevdinc]

9 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

Well, to be fair, MQA removes content from the original material. Regardless of whether the content is important or even audible, that is technically "degrading" the data.  

 

But then again, we often decimate an audio data file, for very valid reasons and with the result of providing the best sound. Decimation is still, technically, a form of degrading the file. 

 

Does MQA degrade sound quality? A much more difficult question. It necessarily must take into account the audience. For high-end audiophiles, it probably does, though there are certain MQA files I like better than the originals.  Subjectively, MQA improved sound quality on those files for me. There are other files I think the MQA version inferior on. 

 

What I do not have a clear understanding of is why I liked those MQA files slightly better. Did they boost the volume in the MQA process? Is the DAC just "louder" when processing these files, similar to how almost all DACs are "softer" when processing DSD? Some other factor? I do not know and it is difficult to find out. 

 

 

-Paul 

 

I have said this many times before and it's worth repeating after reading the last paragraph above.

 

I definitely find the MQA version of the same music to be almost always louder and the highs more pronounced. My initial impression of MQA was positive thinking that it was more dynamic and alive.

But I eventually found the MQA sound tiring/fatiguing, and stop listening to it altogether, I now always prefer the non-MQA versions of the same albums.
 

[mevdinc]

20 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

MQA was going to be huge in Alaska until this ...

 

 

OMG, 100-terabit fiber optic network!
I worked at the Standard Telephones and Cables (STC) in Southampton (England), way back in 1980-1985. We were making thousands of miles of analog cables that connected the continents.

Just before leaving STC to start my game development career, I had done the first fiber optic cable tests with the engineers in 1985! No idea what the capacity of the early fiber optic cables were but the technology has moved on for sure.

With all this speed and extra capacity, surely, the last thing we need is any sort of compression that may degrade the sound quality.

[mevdinc]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

It can also be pretty good at all of those..

 

 

Thanks for that Chris.
I'm listening to it right now on TIDAL, what a great album!

[mevdinc]

On 6/13/2019 at 6:10 PM, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Strereophile...All MQA, All the time..no matter the time, place or venue!

 

Mr. MQA at the Long Beach show:

 

"A 96K MQA file of Muddy Waters’ “Never Go Back Again” revealed just how much depth this lovely-sounding system could produce (even if MQA-haters are praying we go back, back, back to the pre-MQA era)."

https://www.stereophile.com/content/vandersteen-quatro-loudspeakers-and-m5-hpa-monoblocks-jeff-rowland-corus-stereo-preamplifier#tHMXfVrqVGvISCj0.99

I really wanted to listen to this amazing track by Muddy Waters to experience the same depth on my system but couldn't find it on Tidal or even on Google.
Anyone with any info, please?
Otherwise, I'm going to assume the sound emanated from a black hole!

[mevdinc]

4 hours ago, mansr said:

...

As an actual example of such changes being applied, look at the 2L-125 demo track. The MQA version is 1.3 dB louder across the spectrum:

 

Still mere opinion?

My experience with the MQA vs nonMQA of the same album/track is that I always find the MQA version being louder and the highs a bit more pronounced (exaggerated? -  probably the result of MQA being generally louder across the spectrum as Mansr noted above.)
Some people seem to equate this extra loudness of the MQA version to a more dynamic/impressive/better sound, but I personally find it to be fatiguing.

[mevdinc]

1 hour ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

I think Ken wasn’t going make a presentation with me in the audience. 

Opportunity missed, what a shame!
You should've waited outside the room and presented yourself once the MQA presentation had started.

[mevdinc]

7 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

The golden age of pure PCM is over. 

What a shame.
It is becoming clear that it wasn't at all what the artists intended, it was more like what the music companies intended/planned. Well done to all those who saw this from day one and argued against the intentions and possible negative results of the MQA format in this very topic.

[mevdinc]

18 hours ago, asdf1000 said:

A good example of blurring and a blurb. 

[mevdinc]

I am afraid it was obvious that MQA would win in the end. The most important decider is the content owner/provider (record/music labels such as Warner, Sony...) and I'm sure they have been supporting the format from day one. Almost all new DACs seem to come with MQA support too. This is the sad reality...

[mevdinc]

3 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

Back many years ago when video was changing from VCR to disc, from analog to digital, space was a critical matter.  Digital video was orders of magnitude more space hungry than audio.  It still is. Compression is still a critical issue with video.  It is in reality of little matter with audio and is becoming less so by the day.

Dolby made it's bones with compression and bought out Meridian's MLP.

It is apparent that Bob Stuart saw the success of Dolby and figured that a similar scheme involving audio processing would be a money maker.  The problem is that the scheme is at least twenty years behind the times.  The Genie has already been let out of the bottle.  People have been listening to Hi-Rez for years.  And file size has become a non issue.

How do you sell it? You claim it is lossless. You claim it corrects recording problems.  You claim it "deblurs".  You claim it sounds better than the original.  All BS that was not widely accepted.

So now what do you do?  You conspire with Warner to force it on the music consumer.

 

I have come to despise Bob Stuart for what he is doing to the music consumer.

I think it is a mistake to think that this is all just Bob Stuart's doing. He may have come up with the idea/format suggestion etc., but without the support and endorsement of the big music labels and content providers he couldn't have gotten very far.
It now seems even more obvious that he had the backing of probably all of the major music labels and the hardware manufacturers. This could also be seen by the massive and unquestionable support by the main music press.

[mevdinc]

5 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

 

You cannot praise BS as an engineering genius, give him the Prince Phillip award, and then say that he did not know what the outcome would be!  Bob Stuart knew exactly what he was doing.

I don't think BS would've embarked on a big venture like this without the backing and support of enough labels. 

[mevdinc]

It is interesting that whenever a long MQA discussion starts there's always someone defending the MQA with the same arguments.
Is there any point in engaging with them in such debates? It seems pointless to me. 

[mevdinc]

Currently I live in Turkey and suddenly I lost access to Tidal, it is blocked here!
Apparently Tidal is trying to acquire a license to provide its streaming service in Turkey.

So, I have started using Spotify Premium. I must say, it is so much better in terms of choice of music and UI. No hi-res streaming (best is 320Kbs and it does sound quite reasonable), but Spotify allows me to access my local files as well, where I have lots of hi-res music.
Since I don't much care for MQA I don't miss Tidal one bit.
I won't be worrying about MQA format until it becomes the only format available (I am sure this is what it was designed for ultimately).

[mevdinc]

I've just subscribed to Qobuz and what a difference, it sounds wonderful via Audirvana 3.5.
I am well happy. :) 

[mevdinc]

7 hours ago, GUTB said:

Okay so comparing the Phil Collins album, just switching between Master and HiFi I was unable to reliably detect any difference.

 

The Deep Purple live, Made in Japan - again, switching between Master and HiFi, the MQA version appears to have a touch more definition, but really just a touch more -- it's like the difference between a CD an a 96 kHz file.

 

I'll listen to the others. Maybe I'll break out the HD600 for this. Currently using the TH900 (Lawton modded for balanced cable) which is a very resolving unit but its V shaped sound signature might be hiding differences.

In my comparisons I always detected that MQA sounded louder (around 3db or so), which generally makes the MQA versions sound as if they are more dynamic with more detailed highs. I suggest you level match both versions when comparing.
This is the very reason why I never switched to listening to MQA versions of my favourite albums. To me, they sounded a little too harsh and forward. I guess some people call it more detailed sound.

I have recently started  using Qobuz and hi-res music is really excellent.