Today MQA Audio

MarkMcK79 posted:

 That said, from reading the patent I get the impression that a lot of the final "true" MQA sound is based upon Mr. Stuart's assumptions/voicing/application of various reconstruction filters, ......

I think you and I are on the same page.... but I think where bandwidth limited scenarios exist like mobile streaming, streaming over low bandwidth internet connections etc - then MQA does offer something that you otherwise would not be able to get without using too much bandwidth - and that is a plus... 

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

MarkMcK79 posted:

 That said, from reading the patent I get the impression that a lot of the final "true" MQA sound is based upon Mr. Stuart's assumptions/voicing/application of various reconstruction filters, ......

I think you and I are on the same page.... but I think where bandwidth limited scenarios exist like mobile streaming, streaming over low bandwidth internet connections etc - then MQA does offer something that you otherwise would not be able to get without using too much bandwidth - and that is a plus... 

The few times I've streamed the Tidal HiFi tier over cell here in the US I've had no dropouts (in fact far fewer dropouts than on my SU, but I'll save that for the beta forum...).

But, I can understand the value of the decreased file size, but I would bet the population that wants portability AND high-res is quite small.  (I'm picturing the Venn diagram in my head now.)

MarkMcK79 posted:

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

I wish we could use the proper term - which is up-sampling instead of 'unfolding'- why MQA had invent a new term for something that is otherwise universally understood.

Agree.  That is why I used quotes for the MQA marketing speak, like "de-smearing".

I've borrowed a Meridian Explorer 2 that I've used with my Focal Elears and HD650s and so far I'm not very impressed with the second stage of the MQA implementation (beyond the initial "unfolding").  However, since this is the only way that I can hear "true" MQA I'm so far chalking it up to the fact that I'm just not a fan of the Explorer 2 voicing as I don't really care for it playing back my other non-MQA WAV rips.  That said, from reading the patent I get the impression that a lot of the final "true" MQA sound is based upon Mr. Stuart's assumptions/voicing/application of various reconstruction filters, which leads me to believe that MQA licensed DACs will sound more similar than dissimilar.

In the end I would much rather just have the hi-res FLAC streaming without the whole MQA mess.  

I'm just finding it to be terminally boring. But then I think that of much of meridians hardware. It just doesn't click for me

And i say that as them being mates and are just around the corner from me. Richard & bob know my view very well. 

While the current audio populous may have no idea what MQA or HiRes music is, I would bet good money they would never want to back to MP3's once they got accustomed to it. 

The trick is to upgrade their stream without denting their pocketbook.

Comparing both digital outlputs from the MQA stream via Tidal desktop app and 44.1/16 from Audirvana. The one from Audirvana still sounds better to my ears. It would be interesting to see how Audirvana 6.0 sounds? Audirvana 6.0 supports decoding MQA natively.

winkyincanada posted:

Mr2Harvey posted:

 £20 a month for this is feeling like a real bargain. ��

Hey, I'm only paying $20 CAD. "Rip-off Britain"!

I had noticed ....I had a look to see if I could find a way of subscribing via Canada!

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

I wish we could use the proper term - which is up-sampling instead of 'unfolding'- why MQA had invent a new term for something that is otherwise universally understood.

Seen this time and again in the world of IT, the use of language to obscure rather than elucidate. I believe its technical name is ....sales.

M

jon honeyball posted:

I'm just finding it to be terminally boring. But then I think that of much of meridians hardware. It just doesn't click for me

And i say that as them being mates and are just around the corner from me. Richard & bob know my view very well. 

It just sounds exceedingly "hi-fi" to me, which is why I can understand that all the US audio press and internet bloggers are falling all over themselves hyping it and giving free press at every turn.

Like I said previously, I'm all for the high-res streaming aspect of it.  I've enjoyed the streams sent from the Tidal software via SPDIF to my Naim DAC.  I just want to keep the ability to choose the DAC voicing I prefer...

While I have little hope that Naim will ultimately implement "true" MQA (and honestly hope they don't) unless it does become the industry standard, I do hope they make whatever modifications are necessary to accept the 24/44.1 or 24/48 "MASTER" streams from Tidal (or even better, the first "unfolding" with 24/88.2 & 24/96).

Peter Dinh posted:

Comparing both digital outlputs from the MQA stream via Tidal desktop app and 44.1/16 from Audirvana. The one from Audirvana still sounds better to my ears. It would be interesting to see how Audirvana 6.0 sounds? Audirvana 6.0 supports decoding MQA natively.

Audirvana 3  I think...

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

I wish we could use the proper term - which is up-sampling instead of 'unfolding'- why MQA had invent a new term for something that is otherwise universally understood.

Mr2Harvey - what do you mean by 'true' MQA please? I see no mention of this in the docs I have - other than you can increase the up sampling ratios with hardware - and perhaps this requires licensing  - that I don't know.

However I understand the higher the temporal resolution you allow into your master - the more artefacts you have to accept (aliased signals) into the reconstructed MQA signal.

Also I have seen no proper definition of 'desmearing' of the time domain - I am not aware how you can do this  - once smeared you have lost data as far as I am concerned - unless it means something other than what I understand  - however MQA does allow increased a temporal resolution (timing) for a reduced frequency bandwidth of the transported or stored signal- but the timing has to be there in the first place - and the end DAC has to have a high timing bandwidth like the Chord range of DACs for example and I assume MQS registered DACs (???)  so as to reconstruct the timing. Timing needs to be captured and restored at the ADC and DAC reconstruction. 

Hi Simon, I specifically didn't mention anything technical like 'true MQA'  in my posts as I'm just a intersted novice and all I can offer is a subjective opinion on what I hear and not a technical analysis. I do very much like what I hear btw. ����

Just discovered a little trick to get MQA albums to play on the Naim/Tidal app. 

From the Desktop Tidal App

• What's New
• Albums ... Select Masters ... Show All
• Select Album ... Click Favorite 
• Close Desktop App & Open Naim/Tidal App
• Favorite ... Play ... 

Is that going through the Tidal app first and decoding? IF not then  as Naim haven't implemented MQA decoding that will be the encoded version, more compressed than red book. If it seems to sound better that won't be because it was originally high res, but because for some reason you like the sound of the compressed/encoded version.

Using this technique I can clearly hear the superiority of the Master albums even on our MuSo. 

Give it a try.

I won't be trying as I have no interest in Tidal. (As I only listen through a high resolution system not Muso, I suspect I would prefer the unadulterated hi res files, though of course that is saiid without hearing)

Is it being decoded to 24/96 that way?

Innocent Bystander posted:

I won't be trying as I have no interest in Tidal. (As I only listen through a high resolution system not Muso, I suspect I would prefer the unadulterated hi res files, though of course that is saiid without hearing)

Is it being decoded to 24/96 that way?

I'm guessing not as there will be no decoding going on, however it has been said that benefits can be had... Something to do with removing timing smearing, all in other posts. I do however encourage people to give it a go, easiest way is probably a laptop, either Windows or Mac and feed Into your streamer / dac. I'm rather impressed myself. 

Bill Allen posted:

Using this technique I can clearly hear the superiority of the Master albums even on our MuSo. 

Give it a try.

What you hear is undecoded 48/24 MQA audio, some folks say it sounds worse, distorted, but apparently you like it.

IB, you were right, I really meant Audirvana+ 3.0

http://www.digitalaudioreview....al-where-are-we-now/

Peter Dinh posted:

Bill Allen posted:

Using this technique I can clearly hear the superiority of the Master albums even on our MuSo. 

Give it a try.

What you hear is undecoded 48/24 MQA audio, some folks say it sounds worse, distorted, but apparently you like it.

It seems reminiscent of the effect of RF interference modulating the noise floor in a DAC, which Rob Watts observed is superficially or initially can be trick the listener into the impression of something brighter, hence better (my approx recollection).

That in itself is far from being a bad thing, because it means with simpler systems without decoding but without being the most revealing, the music can still please people.

Or how encoding WITH Dolby B, but playing back WITHOUT Dolby decoding, sounded "better."  I remember those days.  1975 or so.

Bart posted:

Or how encoding WITH Dolby B, but playing back WITHOUT Dolby decoding, sounded "better."  I remember those days.  1975 or so.

Hey I do too, do you think we are being tricked? It does sound more "analogue" relaxed and tuneful. 

A good analogy Bart, exactly this what I am hearing but the otherway round - I tried both with and without MQA stream being decoded, the undecoded version sounds very dull, unemotional, flat, lack of any slams, it likes hearing with Dolby B/C on, whereas the decoded 88.2/24, 92/24 streams sounds like Dolby off.

Peter Dinh posted:

A good analogy Bart, exactly this what I am hearing but the otherway round - I tried both with and without MQA stream being decoded, the undecoded version sounds very dull, unemotional, flat, lack of any slams, it likes hearing with Dolby B/C on, whereas the decoded 88.2/24, 92/24 streams sounds like Dolby off.

It's very agreeable to me, and quite obvious, I like it. I'll do some research but superficially ����

Given the intention was to provide high quality over limited bandwidth, do you dislike mqa crud more or less than MP3 style nastiness ?

Innocent Bystander posted:

Peter Dinh posted:

Bill Allen posted:

Using this technique I can clearly hear the superiority of the Master albums even on our MuSo. 

Give it a try.

What you hear is undecoded 48/24 MQA audio, some folks say it sounds worse, distorted, but apparently you like it.

It seems reminiscent of the effect of RF interference modulating the noise floor in a DAC, which Rob Watts observed is superficially or initially can be trick the listener into the impression of something brighter, hence better (my approx recollection).

That in itself is far from being a bad thing, because it means with simpler systems without decoding but without being the most revealing, the music can still please people.

IB, I think this is a good analogy, as thinking about it the MQA encodings could be reminiscent, when decoded by a DAC not expecting it, of radio frequency interference on the digital signal... i.e. super imposed digital quantisation noise, and as you say some people may like this sort of distortion as it can make the sound more artificial.. and as you say the MQA codec was designed to be played back in a recognisable form on unsupporting hardware... I am not sure we can call this true fidelity however....as essentially it's the original digital audio with a whole load of crud added to it.

Now of course the MQA filter reads this 'lowlevel quantisation noise' and when tthe whole signal is upsampled, the aliased frequencies in the MQA base signal  appear in the upsampled signal as true representations (but the aliases remain as well). Now because these higher frequencies will have been low pass filtered prior to decimation at the encoding side as part of the MQA process, they need to be boosted on decoding by the MQA filter .. and MQA suggest how to do this ... But crucially, as I say, I understand that the reconstructed signal will contain recovered  frequencies as well as the low level aliased ones that were created at decimation to 48kHz.. To me I can see that there is a real chance that this sort of signal is going to sound possibly  bright and slightly artificial (because of these aliases) , and possibly superficially impressive... and that's what I hear. I like the sound of it initially, but after a while I find it tiring and/or un engaging ... perhaps my brain is having to work harder to  listen to it..

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

lets face it - hands up for those who have head of 'high definition'? ok .. now hands up for those who heard of  'matched encoding and decoding reconstruction filters'? ... any one?

S

I think most of us oldies have; just not in the digital context - Dolby 'B' & Dolby 'C'.

Remember what happened if the replay level wasn't right?  Well that's analogous to non matched ADC and DAC filters.