Big MQA News (Really - Tidal and Software Decoding, etc...)

[crenca]

I bring this up because I suspect all the raves about the awesomeness of MQA sound quality probably came from listening to similar prototype gear. It's likely that a $2000-ish MQA-enabled DAC will smoke the little Explorer2 (or the Bluesound NODE 2) in terms of sound quality. To be fair, I think we have to wait to hear what MQA sounds like on a better DAC.

 

Yea but...

 

Then we are back to the-way-it-always-was, where $2k DAC's smoke $200 DAC's, and $20K DAC's are an incremental improvement over $2K DAC's, etc. & MQA's status as " a new world" becomes rather one of many small SQ tweaks that may or may not work in your system based on your preferences. Oh well, I guess this Sci Fi movie is over

 

I don't think (well, speculate) the raves and awesomeness cam from "prototype gear", I think it came from optimized gear - essentially a warmish linestage/amp/speaker set up that reigned in MQA's weaknesses and emphasized its strengths from optimized recordings (ones that again played to MQA's strenghts)....at least that is plausible....

[miguelito]

Yea but...

 

Then we are back to the-way-it-always-was, where $2k DAC's smoke $200 DAC's, and $20K DAC's are an incremental improvement over $2K DAC's, etc. & MQA's status as " a new world" becomes rather one of many small SQ tweaks that may or may not work in your system based on your preferences. Oh well, I guess this Sci Fi movie is over

 

I don't think (well, speculate) the raves and awesomeness cam from "prototype gear", I think it came from optimized gear - essentially a warmish linestage/amp/speaker set up that reigned in MQA's weaknesses and emphasized its strengths from optimized recordings (ones that again played to MQA's strenghts)....at least that is plausible....

I listed to MQA at Meridian in March 2015. The improvement in the MQA version was massive. Really. But I think in all cases shown, the files had been remastered from the originals for the MQA version. If you had created a plain high res version out of that remastering console I am fairly certain the differences would be much smaller.

 

 

Having said this, if all MQA becomes is a reliable label indicating very careful production, then I am fine with that.

[Samuel T Cogley]

...if all MQA becomes is a reliable label indicating very careful production, then I am fine with that.

 

So far, it's certainly not. Most of the Warner Music MQA dump is peak limited garbage. Jazz and classical are the exception (as expected).

[bobbmd]

SamuelTCogley: I thought the same and mentioned in another thread especially background vocals and comments I Never heard before

Sounded best of any version of this that I have sampled

Have noticed this on other albums also overall I think this maybe a good thing

I am referring to running on empty sorry

[crenca]

I listed to MQA at Meridian in March 2015. The improvement in the MQA version was massive. Really. But I think in all cases shown, the files had been remastered from the originals for the MQA version. If you had created a plain high res version out of that remastering console I am fairly certain the differences would be much smaller.

 

one datum I have:

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/mqa-friend-devil-sonic-evaluation-31182/index2.html#post621172

 

Is that with MQA does not (can not?) improve upon a high res recording at all IF the recording is good in the first place, and indeed does nothing significant over the resultant 16/44 down-sample of said recording. All caveat's apply (I am using Tidal decoding and "legacy" DACs, etc. non $100k+ systems, etc.).

 

Miguelito, were you set up? Sincerely (no disrespect intended at all - just the opposite) but was the system and recording a "best case" scenario, in which any and all targeted SQ tweaks (in this specific case, MQA) become "massive"? OR, are we back to MQA being really and truly applicable to certain (older, poorly recorded) recordings and not well done modern ones? OR, is the limitations of Tidal MQA decoding coming through and I have yet to truly hear MQA? Probably something else entirely...

[miguelito]

Is that with MQA does not (can not?) improve upon a high res recording at all IF the recording is good in the first place, and indeed does nothing significant over the resultant 16/44 down-sample of said recording. All caveat's apply (I am using Tidal decoding and "legacy" DACs, etc. non $100k+ systems, etc.).

When I auditioned MQA in March 2015 at Meridian NYC, one of the files played was a 24/192 file, followed by the MQA version also decoded to 24/192. The MQA version sounded massively better. One could possibly argue that it was the ADC deblurring, but really the difference was too big for that (if that blurring created that kind of difference, people would have realized that they had something to fix a long long time ago). My conclusion is that the difference is mostly from remastering from the original source.

 

 

 

Miguelito, were you set up? Sincerely (no disrespect intended at all - just the opposite) but was the system and recording a "best case" scenario, in which any and all targeted SQ tweaks (in this specific case, MQA) become "massive"? OR, are we back to MQA being really and truly applicable to certain (older, poorly recorded) recordings and not well done modern ones? OR, is the limitations of Tidal MQA decoding coming through and I have yet to truly hear MQA? Probably something else entirely...

Was I set up? Couple of things:

 

 

1- I have the very strong impression that the cases where MQA is "massively" better (it was) are cases where remastering from the original made the real difference - ie nothing to do with MQA per-se.

 

2- I specifically asked for details and I got the same mumbling yiberish you read in Bob Stuarts interviews. I am fairly certain Bob Stuart knows the subject deeply, and even more certain that he doesn't want to give ANY information away.

[Samuel T Cogley]

SamuelTCogley: I thought the same and mentioned in another thread especially background vocals and comments I Never heard before

Sounded best of any version of this that I have sampled

Have noticed this on other albums also overall I think this maybe a good thing

I am referring to running on empty sorry

 

I listened to Running On Empty as well and agree with you. My issue with that title is that the version we're discussing seems to be an MQA-only remix. I first heard that when it came out in '77 and I'm very familiar with it. That "intro" to the title track does not appear even on the HDTracks version of Running On Empty (based on the duration on HDTracks).

 

So while we agree it sounds awesome (I think we agree), there's no other source to compare it to.

 

EDIT: After a bit of research, I found this:

 

The remaster is missing the first 25 seconds of audience ambience that, on all other previous editions of the album, led into the beginning of the album's title track. For reasons unknown, this snippet, which included the sounds of the musicians' count into the song's opening, was edited out on this version, though curiously the Disc 2 DVD Audio version includes the 25 seconds missing on Disc 1

 

Well, I feel pretty stupid. I heard that 25 seconds for the first time yesterday. No doubt it's a remix from the original master. The guitars are moved on the soundstage and the levels are clearly different.

[bobbmd]

STC: I do agree and I think this great fun comparing and relistening to cd's sacd's and dvd-a's i haven't listened in years but i still have my yamaha combo changer still hooked with my outlaw audio icbm to a 7.1(or is it 5.1?) inputs on my avr, problem is I have dig those discs out of storage-but all dvd-a's and cd's are ripped to my hard drive in apple lossless/FLAC or whatever. Truth is the sacd's and dvd-a's still sound better but the convenience of streaming in FLAC(Qobuz or TIDAL) and now MQA outweighs the time effort and mess the disc's create. I hope the DEAD release more music in MQA plus all of Jerry's solo stuff stuff with Grisman and others that were hdcd. I had an hdcd decoding player/changer but it is long gone but my avr didn't/doesn't decode hdcd so I never appreciated what the quality of that format was like.What I am going to do is get a MQA decoding DAC on the cheap ie DF RED(Chris says it is really great) as my Schiit Gungnir and FULLA don't decode MQA but those 'MASTERS' sound really good so far despite the lack of of a DAC MQA especially with either my Sennheiser HD 598's/RS-195's either through my MAGNI or through my avr. Best part is I can listen on third floor of my house have a Lagavulin and a NUB without freezing my ass off on the porch!! Yes my CFO forbids cigars in main house and forbids me to buy any more high priced 'toys' or let alone 'download'/buy hires discs I already have.

Keep these MQA threads and reviews coming-what a breath of fresh air for this very opinionated and sometimes too techy/aloof site.

Does anyone still have an HDCD decoding avr/player to compare this format to MQA?

bobbmd

[Samuel T Cogley]

Does anyone still have an HDCD decoding avr/player to compare this format to MQA?

 

HDCD was ultimately tied to Pacific Microsonics ADCs. Have a look here at some detail on the Model 2. This was a much beloved unit in its day. But ADC technology has improved and I don't think you'll find many pros still enamored of it. In other words, high end ADCs available today will generally make better captures than the Model 2.

 

HDCD and MQA is really apples/oranges.

[Geoffrey Armstrong]

Yesterday I tried an experiment. Using the Tidal desktop app and AudioHijack pro on my Mac Air, I recorded Cary from Joni Mitchell's Blue album. This gave me a 96/24 software decoded file from the MQA "master" which I could then move to the SGM and play through HQPlayer. HQP upsampling and conversion to DSD512 was played through the Lampizator Der Seibener DAC.

 

I liked the result! The source for this was probably the 96/24 I already brought from Qobuz; but I don't know. Anyway I preferred the MQA version when I compared the two through HQP.

 

Whether it's the re-master or MQA or both, who knows? For me it's academic because Tidal has made these "masters" available in this format.

 

This is the way I hope it works in roon, in that Roon would software decode then the result of that can be sent through HQP. This allowed me to hear how this will sound manually (leaving aside any other influence from roon on the sound).

 

It has been requested that roon has a configuration panel for MQA and I think this makes perfect sense.

 

When MQA is the source, some may prefer sending straight to their MQA dac for full decoding there, or to do software decoding in roon and then send out via their chosen audio output, such as HQPlayer.

 

I hope this is how it will work.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[MikeJazz]

I listed to MQA at Meridian in March 2015. The improvement in the MQA version was massive. Really. But I think in all cases shown, the files had been remastered from the originals for the MQA version. If you had created a plain high res version out of that remastering console I am fairly certain the differences would be much smaller.

 

I suppose there is reason to thing that a true high-rez version still sounds better that the "sort-of" high-rez of MQA of the same master. I have commented how a track from 2L's "Bellezza Crudel" sounds much smoother/open/clear at high frequencies compared to the MQA version that sounds harsh and fatiguing...like the cd version...

 

So any comparisons should be done by using the same masters at a starting point. If you can't guarantee that, we are comparing apples and oranges..

 

And to further illustrate my point: if you compare a bad recording/mastering available in high-rez 24/192 to a good recording/mastering available in 320 mp3, which one will you choose to listen? If you do an A/B test you will choose the mp3...

[MikeJazz]

The only real innovation of MQA in terms of sound quality is the correction of the ADC process and the eventually done time smearing.

 

But I fail to see evidences of that, when comparing MQA and non MQA on my system.

 

How many peoples and systems can listen to a recording and point/identify an issue on timing?

 

Most if not all systems have much more time smearing and time "artifacts" due to the acoustics side (loudspeaker/room interaction), or due to loudspeaker drive limitations or due to the dac filters implemented... that what is possible to correct at that source level.

 

Until proven wrong what I could get until now is, with mqa:

- I proved that I am loosing high-rez capability and high frequency quality...

- and I failed to see the supposed time-smearing correction.

[wgb113]

My take on MQA (after sorting out the exclusive mode) is that it will fit very nicely with my existing sources: CD, vinyl, "rips" of each to AIFF. The CD-quality Tidal HiFi was already a nice complement IMO so the fact that I can now get even higher resolution versions t stream for the same price leaves me nothing at all to complain about.

 

I'll still purchase physical media for albums that I want to own. MQA gives me quality sound for those I don't "need" to own along with allowing me to preview albums that I might end up picking up.

[miguelito]

So any comparisons should be done by using the same masters at a starting point. If you can't guarantee that, we are comparing apples and oranges..

If what you want to assess is the technology itself, then sure. My assessment so far is any recording of high quality will be virtually indistinguishable between the two. The improvements we hear in some cases (some very large) are due to remastering rather than MQA technology, I think.

 

 

However, if what we are comparing is what you could call the "holistic impact" of MQA, meaning the end result of, possibly, much careful mastering, then comparing apples and oranges is not necessarily bad, but certainly different than what people are thinking about here, I think.

[mav52]

If what you want to assess is the technology itself, then sure. My assessment so far is any recording of high quality will be virtually indistinguishable between the two. The improvements we hear in some cases (some very large) are due to remastering rather than MQA technology, I think.

 

 

However, if what we are comparing is what you could call the "holistic impact" of MQA, meaning the end result of, possibly, much careful mastering, then comparing apples and oranges is not necessarily bad, but certainly different than what people are thinking about here, I think.

 

miguelito i think the key words in your comment is

The improvements we hear

.

 

I've heard a lot of music and equipment that didn't measure perfect or music that didn't graph all that great but sometimes the listening tells the true story in the end.

[jeeb]

I'm running into some major weirdness using playing MQA content from TIDAL on a Mac Mini through my non-MQA DAC (the built-in DAC on a Simaudio Moon Neo 340i integrated amp). If I choose the Exclusive Mode option, TIDAL sends 88.2 or 96kHz data to the Moon DAC. But it plays music too fast or too slow, depending on the setting for the DAC in the Audio MIDI utility. Of course, I can leave the Exclusive Mode box unchecked, but then Core Audio is resampling the stream to whatever format I've specified in Audio MIDI.

 

Another problem: if I try to use Audirvana Plus after giving TIDAL exclusive access to the DAC, it crashes even if the TIDAL app is not running (i.e. if I’ve quit TIDAL before launching Audirvana). To avoid this, I have to remember to uncheck the exclusive access box before exiting TIDAL.

Anyone else running into these issues? Hopefully, they'll go away with the release of Audirvana 3.0. But right now, it's kind of a mess.

[wgb113]

What are your Audio MIDI settings set to for the output to the DAC? Changing the tempo of the music playing does sound really weird.

[jeeb]

What are your Audio MIDI settings set to for the output to the DAC? Changing the tempo of the music playing does sound really weird.

 

I've experimented with Audio MIDI settings between 88.2 and 192kHz. And yes, it really is weird. My expectation was that by choosing Exclusive Mode, I'd bypass Core Audio, and that Audio MIDI settings would be irrelevant. Clearly, that's not the case.

[Samuel T Cogley]

I'm running into some major weirdness using playing MQA content from TIDAL on a Mac Mini through my non-MQA DAC (the built-in DAC on a Simaudio Moon Neo 340i integrated amp). If I choose the Exclusive Mode option, TIDAL sends 88.2 or 96kHz data to the Moon DAC. But it plays music too fast or too slow, depending on the setting for the DAC in the Audio MIDI utility. Of course, I can leave the Exclusive Mode box unchecked, but then Core Audio is resampling the stream to whatever format I've specified in Audio MIDI.

 

Another problem: if I try to use Audirvana Plus after giving TIDAL exclusive access to the DAC, it crashes even if the TIDAL app is not running (i.e. if I’ve quit TIDAL before launching Audirvana). To avoid this, I have to remember to uncheck the exclusive access box before exiting TIDAL.

Anyone else running into these issues? Hopefully, they'll go away with the release of Audirvana 3.0. But right now, it's kind of a mess.

 

Are you running Sierra by any chance? There's been no shortage of forum traffic at the Apple forums about problems with USB audio after an upgrade to Sierra.

[new_media]

Another problem: if I try to use Audirvana Plus after giving TIDAL exclusive access to the DAC, it crashes even if the TIDAL app is not running (i.e. if I’ve quit TIDAL before launching Audirvana). To avoid this, I have to remember to uncheck the exclusive access box before exiting TIDAL.

 

I have similar problems with Audirvana Plus. I have to unplug the DAC (from USB) and plug it back in to get A+ to recognize it after running TIDAL exclusive mode.

[miguelito]

I've heard a lot of music and equipment that didn't measure perfect or music that didn't graph all that great but sometimes the listening tells the true story in the end.

Yes indeed. My tube amp measures horribly but sounds awesome.

[jeeb]

Are you running Sierra by any chance? There's been no shortage of forum traffic at the Apple forums about problems with USB audio after an upgrade to Sierra.

Nope, Mavericks. Apple has broken too many thing that worked just fine for me to change an OS that until now has been working just fine for me.

[miguelito]

Yesterday I tried an experiment. Using the Tidal desktop app and AudioHijack pro on my Mac Air, I recorded Cary from Joni Mitchell's Blue album. This gave me a 96/24 software decoded file from the MQA "master" which I could then move to the SGM and play through HQPlayer. HQP upsampling and conversion to DSD512 was played through the Lampizator Der Seibener DAC.

Very cool.

 

This is the way I hope it works in roon, in that Roon would software decode then the result of that can be sent through HQP. This allowed me to hear how this will sound manually (leaving aside any other influence from roon on the sound). When MQA is the source, some may prefer sending straight to their MQA dac for full decoding there, or to do software decoding in roon and then send out via their chosen audio output, such as HQPlayer.

Firstly, for sure there will be some toggle that allows you to decode or pass-through MQA, just as in Tidal - if not it would leave people with MQA DAC's in the lurch.

 

I asked on the Roon forums where does the decoding and other processing (eg transcoding from DSD to PCM if the DAC does not support PCM). I was told it's always done in the core and sent over RAAT to the endpoint. HQP effectively acts as an output for an endpoint so I think it is safe to assume it will work as you say/want.

[jhwalker]

Are you running Sierra by any chance? There's been no shortage of forum traffic at the Apple forums about problems with USB audio after an upgrade to Sierra.

 

No problems at all for me on Sierra. And that's running Roon, Tidal, Audirvana, JRiver, HQPlayer, iTunes . . .

 

As long as I exit one "exclusive mode" player before launching another, all is well.

[jiminlogansquare]

No problems at all for me on Sierra. And that's running Roon, Tidal, Audirvana, JRiver, HQPlayer, iTunes . . .

 

As long as I exit one "exclusive mode" player before launching another, all is well.

 

My experience, as well

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile