when is Naim going to update streamers for MQA?

Same results, obviously MQA streams do not compete with any of the native HiRes formats or quality LP's.

Speaking today with a couple guys involved in the blind listening session, both suspected part of the reason the MQA files prevailed  is because they had better/different masters. Agreed.  These boys were lured over with the promise of a 45 speed LP's session and fine scotch. The test was hardly scientific, level matched, nor verified to be apple to apples masters. Impromptu blind listening tests are not fun for anyone involved, especially yours truly. At best the results reveal MQA streams can compete directly with CD rips ... that's all. 

However for those about to rock, MQA offers a low cost entry into a large library of decent sounding music.

Very interesting Bill.. and thanks for sharing.  Its always fascinating to see some of the responses here... dozens of folks sounding off, with a vast majority having never heard a single note of MQA audio, some apparently not even knowing what it is, but still dismissing it.. very odd indeed. Do us all a favour and at least go to their website.. its not just about easier streaming fgs.

Time will tell if MQA is successful. Typically in the tech business you need to be either half the price or twice as good to make people change! Ultimately the Warners & Sonys of this world will make the market, but sooner or later, Spotify/Tidal et al need to make a profit, they're not Amazon...

Possibly, but I would have thought a lot here have heard MQA through their Tidal accounts.. I certainly have. My summary it tends to sound nice and 'sweetened' on cheaper audio equipment, but sound processed and artificial on higher end equipment... clearly other views will vary. I personally have no issue with processing sound to sound good on replay equipment, but I certainly wouldn't call it hidef, but instead perhaps 'MQA processed'.. perhaps a bit like Dolby B or Dolby C of the cassette tape era.

Simon

The journo's at The Absolute Sound magazine from the USA have gone to great lengths to promote MQA, and dedicated plenty of time in countering arguments against it. These same journo's ALL have long term loaner's of nearly all of the most expensive gear on the planet, including cables and all conceivable add on's. When questioned about how they can be truly impartial and honest in their glowing reviews of said stuff, they argue it's all above board and legit yet NEVER agree to formal testing against product  So when I read that the brass at MQA held a special demo just for them which included information which had to be redacted when pushed by the punters, the cynic in me sensed something smelled fishy. If audio heavyweights pushed manufacturers to aim for superior sound quality over fast cash, it wouldn't have taken a lifetime before the ability to play real high definition occurred. To think, cd format has been around for 40 years yet we still don't get to truly hear the masters, what a wank.

At RMAF 2016 I was involved in a MQA listening session like you describe, all the music was hard drive based and they went on to show the superiority of MQA. When pressed with questions after the session no hard answers, a lot of mumbo jumbo about how MQA starts at the recording studio and is then properly EQ'd inside your DAC so it replicates the sound at the mixing board. This is supposedly the ultimate expression of MQA. The MQA that is now being streamed talks about unfolding layers, that was not the lingo used at RMAF. Having heard many amazing actual master tapes, I find it unlikely the current crop of audio misers who control the vaults will ever give us a true rendition of the masters. Perhaps when they abolish money 400 years from now and selfish humans are a thing of the past. For now he who dies with the most master tapes wins!  

I think for the players on this forum, the most we would hope for is the Big 3 to release more native HiRes music files "for sale" after the conversion to MQA streaming. 

HighResAudio still appear to be selling MQA.

manicm posted:

HighResAudio still appear to be selling MQA.

The last thing I recall someone saying on one of these threads after apparently having contacted Highresaudio direct was that they would be stopping from end of March.

Innocent Bystander posted:

manicm posted:

HighResAudio still appear to be selling MQA.

The last thing I recall someone saying on one of these threads after apparently having contacted Highresaudio direct was that they would be stopping from end of March.

They replied to me saying at the beginning of March, maybe they're having a change of heart?

manicm posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

manicm posted:

HighResAudio still appear to be selling MQA.

The last thing I recall someone saying on one of these threads after apparently having contacted Highresaudio direct was that they would be stopping from end of March.

They replied to me saying at the beginning of March, maybe they're having a change of heart?

I checked back, it was you, but you had said, simply, "March" - Having found nothing on highresaudio website a few days ago, I had mentally put two and two togetherr and assumed (wrongly - unless that is whatbthey end up doing!)

I have no qualms about embracing MQA and giving it a chance. I wouldn't even begin to understand all the technicalities (thankfully in many ways, I guess). Some people (not accusing anyone here) seem to act like it's the work of the Devil and heralds the beginning of Armageddon. I'm just in the 'it's a potentially interesting development' camp. Perhaps it's because I inhabit the Meridian world in addition to Naim. I think I might end up tagging a Meridian 218 on to an Atom, so I  will have Sooloos, Roon and UPnP to play with. That would keep me nice and busy.

Just FYI - Audirvana plus 3 is out with MQA support, awesome!

banzai posted:

Just FYI - Audirvana plus 3 is out with MQA support, awesome!

And there's now a thread specifically on it.

Interestingly HIGHRESAUDIO has stopped offering MQA stating amongst a number of issues that MQA is not lossless and that it is not possible to verify the encoded content . See their press release

That may well be true buut I've just played my local file of Fleetwood Mac's Dreams, which is a 24 bit Flac and I would be damned hard pressed to tell it apart from the MQA Tidal version played back to back.  Will be interesting to listen to others back to back over the next week or so and see how they compare.  

Audirvana+ 3.0. Oh dear, what a whole lotta detail! Just listened to Led Zep II and III, Hotel California, Phil Collins, Ed Sheerhan's new one and 90125 by Yes. The detail in 90125 was amazing which is slightly disappointing in that their lyrics were always tripe, but now I can hear every word of their nonsense - musically brilliant though. Well, MQA may not be all you want or expect but it's all I need for the moment. 

dayjay posted:

That may well be true buut I've just played my local file of Fleetwood Mac's Dreams, which is a 24 bit Flac and I would be damned hard pressed to tell it apart from the MQA Tidal version played back to back.  Will be interesting to listen to others back to back over the next week or so and see how they compare.  

For clarity, is that local file 24/96, 24/192 or ? What are the Tiad Master's native and recovered resolutions? And have you compared redbook from the same master?

The Tidal Master is a mixture of 24/192, 24/96 and 16/44.1, I always up sample to 32/384.

Out of interest, why do you upsample to 32/384? Do you perhaps have issues with your DAC or jitter issues with your DSP/transport clock which means you need to do this to sound better?

banzai posted:

The Tidal Master is a mixture of 24/192, 24/96 and 16/44.1, I always up sample to 32/384.

I meant, on the album you mentioned as being very difficult to differentiate between MQA and your local 24 bit file, what was the original resolution of that Tidal Master and what was it reconstructed to by Audirvana, and what was the resolution of the local file as saved? (And have you compared the same album in 16/44?)

And, as Simon asks, why do you upsample?

Also, to put in context, it would be helpful to know details of your system.

As I said before, I mainly listen to Tidal nowadays, I cannot be bothered to compare my local albums to the ones from Tidal.
Based on what I see on the Audirvana GUI, Tidal master comes in at various sample rates (24/192, 24/96, 24/88.2, 24/44.1). The reason I always up sample to 32/364 because it sounds better to my ears, and the Mac Mini is much more powerful than the DAC, so why not let the Mac Mini / Audirvana do the "real" work?

FYI - This is my system at my (2nd) home - Mac Mini/Audirvan -> Chord Hugo -> Linn Akurate DSM -> Naim NAP 135s -> Dynaudio  S5.3.

I use Linn Sound Optimisation so I feed the Linn Akurate DSM from the Chord Hugo's analog out.

banzai posted:

As I said before, I mainly listen to Tidal nowadays, I cannot be bothered to compare my local albums to the ones from Tidal.
Based on what I see on the Audirvana GUI, Tidal master comes in at various sample rates (24/192, 24/96, 24/88.2, 24/44.1). The reason I always up sample to 32/364 because it sounds better to my ears, and the Mac Mini is much more powerful than the DAC, so why not let the Mac Mini / Audirvana do the "real" work?

FYI - This is my system at my (2nd) home - Mac Mini/Audirvan -> Chord Hugo -> Linn Akurate DSM -> Naim NAP 135s -> Dynaudio  S5.3.

I use Linn Sound Optimisation so I feed the Linn Akurate DSM from the Chord Hugo's analog out.

Oops, a slight crossover, my original question was following Dayjay's comment about comparing Tidal MQA through Audirvana with local files, and it was with that in mind that I asked what I did after your response, so my reference to comparing a specific album and knowing its resolution was irrelevant to you, sorry!

The original question still stands to Dayjay.

Btw, I feed the Chord Hugo directly from the Mac Mini without using any USB isolator. I think the sounds will be more sparkling, dynamic than via a USB isolator.

banzai posted:

Btw, I feed the Chord Hugo directly from the Mac Mini without using any USB isolator. I think the sounds will be more sparkling, dynamic than via a USB isolator.

I think this is deviating a bit far in this thread -I'll answer in the new Audirvana plus 3 with MQA support thread

Phil Harris posted:

Bananahead posted:

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Bananahead posted:

Why are people selling highres downloads for more than the un-lossed equivalent? Is it a scam?

It might be just me, but what are you trying to ask here?

There tends to be a strange hierarchy in prices. Lossy MP3 being cheaper than WAV/FLAC(24/96) being cheaper than lossy MQA. I know which way my credit card votes.  

I think that one thing a lot of people miss - and this cropped up a lot of times at Bristol - is that MQA is a lossy format ... I know that they're not hiding this fact but it does seem that it's just not being realized. I was trying to explain file formats to someone on the Friday on the stand and referred to MQA as "think of it a bit like a hi-res capable MP3" and they swore blind that MQA was lossless.

Phil

I think the cat is now well & truly out of the bag on this...

G

GraemeH posted:

Phil Harris posted:

I think that one thing a lot of people miss - and this cropped up a lot of times at Bristol - is that MQA is a lossy format ... I know that they're not hiding this fact but it does seem that it's just not being realized. I was trying to explain file formats to someone on the Friday on the stand and referred to MQA as "think of it a bit like a hi-res capable MP3" and they swore blind that MQA was lossless.

Phil

I think the cat is now well & truly out of the bag on this...

G

Judging by the conversations that I had over the weekend at the Acoustica event it still isn't widely understood that it isn't lossless...

 Phil