Article: MQA (for civilians)

[mansr]

Agree. Distribution format is other case. I wondered, why (almost?) nobody comparing MQA nad FLAC?

 

Because FLAC wins. MQA doesn't even try to preserve more than about 18 bits at 96 kHz. If the original is reduced to that resolution, FLAC performs better than MQA. Miska tested this quite thoroughly.

[audiventory]

Because FLAC wins. MQA doesn't even try to preserve more than about 18 bits at 96 kHz. If the original is reduced to that resolution, FLAC performs better than MQA. Miska tested this quite thoroughly.

 

May be I missed something. Why 18 bit (not other)?

[mansr]

May be I missed something. Why 18 bit (not other)?

 

You'll have to ask Bob Stuart that.

[Jud]

There is an option within MQA to encrypt the entire audio stream making it completely unplayable on incompatible hardware. Is that not DRM?

 

Again, DRM of what? Something that isn't the original anyway, and that people have repeatedly explained cannot be considered as good as the original (for some audible or inaudible value of "good"). So this isn't traditional DRM in the sense of locking away the "family jewels," when what's being locked away are rhinestones. Would you care whatsoever that arguably inferior MQA encoded content was "locked down" if you were assured of a continuing market for original RedBook and hi res and DACs to play these formats?

 

Thus the question: If locking away content everyone would want to get at is *not* the purpose of this crypto (and in fact the crypto isn't very strong), then what *is* its purpose? I've speculated the answer may be to make a better copyright violation case. But as traditional DRM, this picture just doesn't hang together.

[mansr]

Again, DRM of what? Something that isn't the original anyway, and that people have repeatedly explained cannot be considered as good as the original (for some audible or inaudible value of "good"). So this isn't traditional DRM in the sense of locking away the "family jewels," when what's being locked away are rhinestones. Would you care whatsoever that arguably inferior MQA encoded content was "locked down" if you were assured of a continuing market for original RedBook and hi res and DACs to play these formats?

 

Thus the question: If locking away content everyone would want to get at is *not* the purpose of this crypto (and in fact the crypto isn't very strong), then what *is* its purpose? I've speculated the answer may be to make a better copyright violation case. But as traditional DRM, this picture just doesn't hang together.

Are you saying it's ok with DRM since it's only an inferior version of the original which they're not letting you have at all? Not only are they withholding the top quality, they're locking down (no open source players, no DSP etc.) the limited version they're willing to release, and you're somehow ok with that? I know you're not stupid, so that leaves wilfully ignorant.

[The Computer Audiophile]

@Jud and @mansr - Let's move the DRM discussion to a new thread created specifically for this purpose - http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/mqa-and-drm-31569/

[Account Closed]

I have no idea what you just said.

Sorry, I left out the key words "in true high resolution". I just think that MQA will become the preferred method for the studios to provide a high resolution experience to those who desire it without having to release the actual high resolution master file. This will likely be especially true with new music from A list artists with high sales potential.

 

Only time will tell and I could be entirely wrong but that is my guess.

[Jud]

@Jud and @mansr - Let's move the DRM discussion to a new thread created specifically for this purpose - http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/mqa-and-drm-31569/

 

Thanks Chris, and sorry for dragging things OT here. Meanwhile, in the new thread - leave the kids alone for a couple of hours, and wow!

[Solstice380]

IF (note the all caps) we are assured that there will be a continuing availability of RB CD and Hi-res and equipment, then MQA is just another proprietary format. I'm pretty well convinced, especially after the buy in by Sprint, that MQA is a play for the wireless (cellular) streaming market. Many reasons... MQA (Meridian) sure isn't going to get rich selling licenses to high end DAC manufacturers, they may be getting a royalty from Tidal but unless that goes yuuuuuuge there can't be enough $ in it, and MQA must have invested yuuuuuuuuuuuuge $ in developing this and marketing / selling it to the labels. Think of one of the few things that has yuuuuuuuuuuuge numbers of users - mobile phones. And the carriers aren't making much $ these days while continually having to invest yuuuuuge in infrastructure.

 

We can imagine that the Sprint deal has been in the works for a long time, maybe even predating the Tidal / MQA deal. Tidal hasn't had to invest yuuuuuuuuuuge. All carriers are scraping for any increase in subscribers and revenue streams. Was Sprint talking to Tidal as the rev stream prior to MQA coming out? Because MQA was coming to Tidal? Interesting questions that may point us to the real motivations. How Sprint actually sees getting the revenue steam out of this would also be interesting to know. Tidal app pre-bundled on all their phones? Easy to write the MQA process into an app for the DACs in the phones Sprint carries - full monty decoding - and make it proprietary maybe.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Computer Audiophile

[fritzg]

Looks like folks at Bluesound need a primer on MQA. Here is a response I got from support inquiring if Bluesound DACs are hardware decoders.

 

-------------

Q: Tell me about bluesound and MQA. Are BlueSound devices full hardware decoders or do they depend on software decoding on a core machine?

 

A: Thank you for contacting Bluesound.

 

Neither and both. Bluesound Players are the core software decoding machine. They will fully decode MQA content and render MQA using their internal DACs. If you wish to use an external DAC on the Bluesound NODE or VAULT (withe Gen1 or Gen2), they will pass decoded MQA to those DACs. MQA DACs will unfold to their fullest potential. Non MQA compliant DACs will output at 24/48.

 

Bluesound Internal DACs will output up to 24/192.

 

Thank you for your interest in #LivingHiFi

[Buckingham]

Thanks Chris

A concise, understandable breakdown of MQA was sorely needed. All of the info is in one place now.

 

Let me say it in even more understandable way. MQA is an elaborate coding/packaging technology where the goal is to make higher resolutions audio available in a progressive way. So that such audio can be protected from piracy. So that equipment and services can be sold. From MQA, CD quality does not require decoding, higher resolutions require proprietary decoders in a 3-step (meaning 3 price level) offerings.

 

MQA quality is less than the originals in all of its resolution settings (including CD), but unless the users are alert with fancy equipment they probably won't notice it. It's a gamble.

 

MQA is an audio packing technology to make money out of higher resolution recordings and associated equipment and services. Take the fear of copying out of producers, entice them with revenue opportunities. But of course owner of MQA takes a cut in everything. Just like Apple. But what do the buyers get?

[rickca]

Your comment that software core decoding gives you 90% of the benefit is, I assume, your subjective assessment. Have you compared software-decoded MQA played on a non-MQA DAC to that same distribution file played on an MQA-enabled DAC or MQA renderer after core decoding (maybe on your Berkeley Alpha DAC Reference Series 2)?

Chris, since Berkeley has released their MQA update, can you please try to answer this question?

[miguelito]

I went to CanJam NYC on Sunday. I swung by the Audioquest booth and asked when would the MQA firmware be available. Some nitwit tells me "Well it is currently with Microsoft, they want to make sure it works in the Android operating system." Idiots should be muzzled and kept in the back room! Good lord! Makes me question Audioquest as a whole!

[Jud]

Looks like folks at Bluesound need a primer on MQA. Here is a response I got from support inquiring if Bluesound DACs are hardware decoders.

 

-------------

Q: Tell me about bluesound and MQA. Are BlueSound devices full hardware decoders or do they depend on software decoding on a core machine?

 

A: Thank you for contacting Bluesound.

 

Neither and both. Bluesound Players are the core software decoding machine. They will fully decode MQA content and render MQA using their internal DACs. If you wish to use an external DAC on the Bluesound NODE or VAULT (withe Gen1 or Gen2), they will pass decoded MQA to those DACs. MQA DACs will unfold to their fullest potential. Non MQA compliant DACs will output at 24/48.

 

Bluesound Internal DACs will output up to 24/192.

 

Thank you for your interest in #LivingHiFi

 

 

"Neither and both," eh?

 

 

No doubt it is also the sound of one hand clapping (Grasshopper).

[mansr]

Looks like folks at Bluesound need a primer on MQA. Here is a response I got from support inquiring if Bluesound DACs are hardware decoders.

 

-------------

Q: Tell me about bluesound and MQA. Are BlueSound devices full hardware decoders or do they depend on software decoding on a core machine?

 

A: Thank you for contacting Bluesound.

 

Neither and both. Bluesound Players are the core software decoding machine. They will fully decode MQA content and render MQA using their internal DACs. If you wish to use an external DAC on the Bluesound NODE or VAULT (withe Gen1 or Gen2), they will pass decoded MQA to those DACs. MQA DACs will unfold to their fullest potential. Non MQA compliant DACs will output at 24/48.

 

Bluesound Internal DACs will output up to 24/192.

 

Thank you for your interest in #LivingHiFi

 

The Bluesound players include a software decoder (as if there were any other kind) and renderer. They can either do a full decode/render and play on the internal DAC or pass the decoded "core" to an external DAC (with or without MQA "rendering" ability) at 24/96 (or 24/88). In principle they could output a fully "rendered" stream digitally, but presumably the MQA terms don't allow this. They never rely on an upstream decoder such as in the Tidal app.

[DanSmedra]

I don't stream and probably won't. I also don't think audiophiles are gonna drive the market. Pono has failed. DSD isn't popular. All the publications and web sites rave about the latest technology and then it seems to go nowhere. We'll see with Tidal but the company seems to need cash infusions all the time.

 

I'll mention that last comment first. The need for "cash infusions" may have come to an end. JayZ and his group of artist/investors plus bought TIDAL for $56 million. Former owner Aspiro did retain some percentage of ownership. The company recently sold 33% to Spirit for $200 million, a one-year ROI of nearly 1,100%. Sprint is said to have added its 45 million users to TIDAL's HiFi/Masters subscription rolls, initially at no extra cost to Sprint cellular users. To turn loose of $200M, Sprint suits must have liked what they heard. TIDAL has made a huge leap forward in viability as a streaming company. Also being reported is that Pandora and Spotify are working on improving the SQ of their product. Bottomline: this is a win-win for streaming music consumers.

______________________

 

Clearly, the 'divide' among music listeners is between those who have built expensive-yet-limited digital libraries and those who have not (Streamers).

 

I find some younger "Audiophile" types tend to link their identity and emotional well-being to feelings of superiority (pride), when they encounter or engage so-called "run-of-the-mill" music consumers (Streamers). In their mind, Streamers supposedly lack musical taste, listening skills, and technical knowledge of audio engineering. MQA threatens to blur this traditional divide/distinction.

 

MQA also potentially threatens a huge swath of the esoteric audio hardware industry. Most of these have spent decades perfecting their 'secret sauce', upon which company and individual financial fortunes rest. Some companies who heavily marketed DSD products a year ago (e.g. PS Audio), are now 'unhighlighting' that distinction.

 

If MQA lives up to its claims, which include a fair amount of subjective appreciation (I like the SQ I heard in a simple A/B test), then the new musical streaming reality will be around for more than a little while.

[stevebythebay]

Chris, since Berkeley has released their MQA update, can you please try to answer this question?

 

Where did you hear this? I don't believe it's generally available. Don't see it on their site, nor have any dealers I've spoken with received information on such a release. I'm assuming it will come in some sort of file to be used on a flash drive that is identifiable by the DAC they would make it available with documentation on their site.

[labjr]

I'll mention that last comment first. The need for "cash infusions" may have come to an end. JayZ and his group of artist/investors plus bought TIDAL for $56 million. Former owner Aspiro did retain some percentage of ownership. The company recently sold 33% to Spirit for $200 million, a one-year ROI of nearly 1,100%. Sprint is said to have added its 45 million users to TIDAL's HiFi/Masters subscription rolls, initially at no extra cost to Sprint cellular users. To turn loose of $200M, Sprint suits must have liked what they heard. TIDAL has made a huge leap forward in viability as a streaming company. Also being reported is that Pandora and Spotify are working on improving the SQ of their product. Bottomline: this is a win-win for streaming music consumers.

______________________

 

Clearly, the 'divide' among music listeners is between those who have built expensive-yet-limited digital libraries and those who have not (Streamers).

 

I find some younger "Audiophile" types tend to link their identity and emotional well-being to feelings of superiority (pride), when they encounter or engage so-called "run-of-the-mill" music consumers (Streamers). In their mind, Streamers supposedly lack musical taste, listening skills, and technical knowledge of audio engineering. MQA threatens to blur this traditional divide/distinction.

 

MQA also potentially threatens a huge swath of the esoteric audio hardware industry. Most of these have spent decades perfecting their 'secret sauce', upon which company and individual financial fortunes rest. Some companies who heavily marketed DSD products a year ago (e.g. PS Audio), are now 'unhighlighting' that distinction.

 

If MQA lives up to its claims, which include a fair amount of subjective appreciation (I like the SQ I heard in a simple A/B test), then the new musical streaming reality will be around for more than a little while.

 

I don't believe the move by Sprint proves anything other than the fact that they took a risk by buying into an existing company. I don't see how providing a free service add 45 million subscribers when they don't pay. But I can see how both Sprint and Tidal will continue to hemorrhage!

[rickca]

Where did you hear this? I don't believe it's generally available. Don't see it on their site, nor have any dealers I've spoken with received information on such a release. I'm assuming it will come in some sort of file to be used on a flash drive that is identifiable by the DAC they would make it available with documentation on their site.

My mistake. On Feb 3, Berkeley announced MQA rendering as a field installable upgrade planned for 2Q2017. There are a few details in Chris Connaker's post here

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac-digital-analog-conversion/berkeley-audio-design-adds-mqa-rendering-alpha-digital-analogue-converter-reference-series-2-a-31535/

[DanSmedra]

I don't see how providing a free service add 45 million subscribers when they don't pay.

So much cynicism and naysaying. Don't be so negative.

 

12-13 years ago, I began using the 'free' Pandora app, then quickly switched to their nominally priced ad-free streaming and remain their loyal customer. A few years later, when MOG came along with the ability to play artists/albums, I signed up for that service as well. When MOG got mugged, I switched to TIDAL. Being retired, I stream continuously.

 

Of the 45 million, many will become streaming music addicts like me. When 'free' runs out, they'll shop the market for a replacement, and hopefully become paid subscribers of TIDAL and its MQA quality sound. At that time, I suspect both Sprint and TIDAL will share that revenue stream.

[labjr]

So much cynicism and naysaying. Don't be so negative.

 

12-13 years ago, I began using the 'free' Pandora app, then quickly switched to their nominally priced ad-free streaming and remain their loyal customer. A few years later, when MOG came along with the ability to play artists/albums, I signed up for that service as well. When MOG got mugged, I switched to TIDAL. Being retired, I stream continuously.

 

Of the 45 million, many will become streaming music addicts like me. When 'free' runs out, they'll shop the market for a replacement, and hopefully become paid subscribers of TIDAL and its MQA quality sound. At that time, I suspect both Sprint and TIDAL will share that revenue stream.

 

You're negative on the audiophile industry because you think everyone will love streaming because you're gaga over it.

 

I hope MQA fails because I feel it will leave us with no choice but MQA only. And that's what MQA wants. I don't believe they think it's better than hi-res can be because they're touting it as saving the crown jewels.

 

I don't do streaming because I like owning my copy of music I like, but don't think it would be bad for demoing albums I'm thinking of buying. So I'll see where it goes. But I want choice.

[DanSmedra]

You're negative on the audiophile industry because you think everyone will love streaming because you're gaga over it.

 

I hope MQA fails because I feel it will leave us with no choice but MQA only. And that's what MQA wants. I don't believe they think it's better than hi-res can be because they're touting it as saving the crown jewels.

 

I don't do streaming because I like owning my copy of music I like, but don't think it would be bad for demoing albums I'm thinking of buying. So I'll see where it goes. But I want choice.

 

Silly statements, labjr. I'm not "negative" on the audiophile industry nor do I believe streaming is for everyone. Like yourself, I'm for "choice" as well as seeing all things audio flourish. I don't see this as an either/or proposition. If folks like yourself continue to fork out $$$ for hi-res libraries, producers will continue to produce what consumers want. Under capitalism, it's supply and demand thing. I believe your fears (paranoia?) are unfounded.

[audiventory]

Silly statements, labjr. I'm not "negative" on the audiophile industry nor do I believe streaming is for everyone. Like yourself, I'm for "choice" as well as seeing all things audio flourish. I don't see this as an either/or proposition. If folks like yourself continue to fork out $$$ for hi-res libraries, producers will continue to produce what consumers want. Under capitalism, it's supply and demand thing. I believe your fears (paranoia?) are unfounded.

 

Traditionally in the music production industry several formats exists simultaneously.

[JustListen]

Silly statements, labjr. I'm not "negative" on the audiophile industry nor do I believe streaming is for everyone. Like yourself, I'm for "choice" as well as seeing all things audio flourish. I don't see this as an either/or proposition. If folks like yourself continue to fork out $$$ for hi-res libraries, producers will continue to produce what consumers want. Under capitalism, it's supply and demand thing. I believe your fears (paranoia?) are unfounded.

 

I agree very much to your position, DanSmedra. Maybe MQA promises too much, and probably there are ways to get even closer to the original, I can't tell. But from a practical point of view, and after having done some real comparisons I think that MQA core to date offers the best experience for my budget and equipment. That's it.

[revand]

The Bluesound players include a software decoder (as if there were any other kind) and renderer. They can either do a full decode/render and play on the internal DAC or pass the decoded "core" to an external DAC (with or without MQA "rendering" ability) at 24/96 (or 24/88). In principle they could output a fully "rendered" stream digitally, but presumably the MQA terms don't allow this. They never rely on an upstream decoder such as in the Tidal app.

 

 

You are quite right.

Being an engineer I always visualize procedures. Therefore I elaborated some charts as visual explanation of unfolding MQA as I understood from Chris's excellent article.

 

You can reach my visual explanation here.

 

If anything wrong in it please do note hesitate to tell me and I will make the corrections...