MQA Again

Huge posted:

Statistically it's part data part noise (but truly understanding how that work requires a considerable mathematical understanding).

Any random distribution function not correlated to the data is, by definition, noise.

I'm still not convinced that the human ear/brain combination functions like a FFT (or MEM) frequency analyser to reduce the perceived noise below 16 bits.

 

Absolutely it's parts data part noise which was my point ... so I think we are on the same page there as of course a random distribution function can't be correlated to a signal. Didn't understand your point about ear/brain functioning as a FFT analyser... all the information I have seen especially from the AES is that it doesn't, which is why why our timing sensitivity in our hearing is not directly related to the frequency response of our hearing. However our hearing frequency/dynamic range perception is non linear... so we perceive more dynamic range in some frequencies that others.. and this phenomenon is used with some dither noise shaping as well as with noise shaping with DSD for example.

Innocent Bystander posted:

Keler Pierre posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Keler Pierre posted:

Dozey posted:

Well, I suggest you try it for yourself if you are sceptical.

agree 100%.  a lot of people like to show their technical knowledge but have even not tested with their ears.....what a waste of time....

If it simply can't sound as good, why would one want to bother trying it?

Actually, having asked the question there is an answer, though one perhaps many people are likely not to want to explore, namely to discover whether they really prefer unadulterated perfect reproduction or something knowingly compromised...

the answer in in your ears. A lot of reviews by audio specialists were made, pointing that mqa offers sound improvement. They tested it and compared the sound of mqa/ non mqa files on the sound quality side. I am more confident in reviews of absolute sound, hifi critic and stereophile than speculations of some members who are trying to play specialists.

But I assume the reviews to which you refer relate to the sound when decoded ("unfolded") (and maybe fully in an MQA DAC not partially as can be done in rendering software?), as opposed to playing the MQA file through player like NDS that doesn't decode it, which is the subject of my comment. 

As for fully decoded MQA, as it is a lossy compression process the restored version will not be identical to the original hi res - but whether any individual person can discern a difference when playing it depends on their ears/brain and the resolution of their system, and indeed, as I noted, some people if they can hear a difference might prefer the sound of the altered version.

If course if anyone were to compare the sound of a high res file such as 24/196 compressed with MQA and then restored, against a CD quality 16/44, that is quite a different matter (and completely irrelevant if the 16/44 and 24/96 are from different masterings as is can happen).

My question is simply why bother with MQA, why not simply download the hi res file and enjoy it in all its maximum potential glory?

Meanwhile, of course, there is always the theoretical argument that it is not possible to hear better than can be encoded to red book, but that is quite another matter....

IB, the problem I have with MQA is the creation by its process of the non harmonic aliases caused by the encoding/ decoding decimation process... if you like the when the high frequency elements are 'unfolded' the 'creases' are left in the signal... from my limited understanding of MQA it appears careful filter response curves are required to minimise this and also statistically it appears that MQA relies on the fact that this added digital distortion most will not find objectionable.... and perhaps the marketeers are working on the idea that some prefer the sound of this added distortion to position it as a selling point.. and fair play to them if some do prefer this..

However to your question why use MQA, well my understanding is that it can provide an aporoximation to higher resolution audio formats using more efficient data transmission... and that is on balance probably a good thing.. useful for current mobile coms and shared wifi spaces... it's also fair to say in current hidef  lossless audio transmission, even with FLAC, the data transmission is extremely inefficient.... there is usually much data that is encoded that is not relevant to the information contained.. ultrasonic noise for example...

Bert Schurink posted:

Hi all - the pricing on high res audio made me again thinking about MQA. Interestingly enough MQA is more expensive than the same files in 24 bit, which would assume that there is a physical or a perceived (marketing) differentiation in sound. So that poses a couple of questions for me:

1. Is there some kind of "independent" research or strong opinion on the forum about the differentiation between MQA and 24 bit traditional high resolution audio - so the what is better question or how does it sound different question ?

2. Tidal is offering it nowadays - assuming it would be better, how would I be able to play it on my NDS or is that right now impossible ?

3. People who are using it on an ongoing base what are there experiences, a significant different or just a marketing thing.

I think their can can be too much oversampling with 24 Bit reading.. Files can sound thin and horrible. I Think Naim amps are that sensitive that sometimes when I listen to HD files they sound worse than the original recordings. To my ears HD sounds forward and flatish in sound.. But then again I prefer vinyl and am happy listening to Spotify on my computer through a DAC..Also I am getting older so hearing may not be able to decode the benefits of HD etc.

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Huge posted:

Statistically it's part data part noise (but truly understanding how that work requires a considerable mathematical understanding).

Any random distribution function not correlated to the data is, by definition, noise.

I'm still not convinced that the human ear/brain combination functions like a FFT (or MEM) frequency analyser to reduce the perceived noise below 16 bits.

 

Absolutely it's parts data part noise which was my point ... so I think we are on the same page there as of course a random distribution function can't be correlated to a signal. Didn't understand your point about ear/brain functioning as a FFT analyser... all the information I have seen especially from the AES is that it doesn't, which is why why our timing sensitivity in our hearing is not directly related to the frequency response of our hearing. However our hearing frequency/dynamic range perception is non linear... so we perceive more dynamic range in some frequencies that others.. and this phenomenon is used with some dither noise shaping as well as with noise shaping with DSD for example.

Simon my point about the ear brain combination was to do with the perception of noise - that is the brain distinguishes noise as an identifiable signal and separates it from other signals (in just the same way as you can distinguish the different timbres of different instruments).  However the brain is also programmed to tune out the significance of the (uncorrelated) noise signal after extracting it from the perceptive field.  This is for instance used to detect small sounds in the presence of louder wind noise.  Unlike an FFT, the brain does this by treating the whole of the noise together as separate, identifiable  signal and then ignoring it, rather than mathematically reducing it by deconvolving the sine/cosine components of each frequency step.

The problem with undithered quantisation noise is that it's correlated to the signal and thus two things are likely occur
Firstly part of the correlated signal distorts the perception of all the wanted signals, confusing their purity and intermixing them (i.e. reducing your ability to distinguish the different timbres of different instruments, and listening to some dithered and undithered samples I seem to have experienced this).
Secondly will interferes with the way the brain does the post processing to reduce it's significance as the noise is partly related to the signal it wants to keep, thus increasing the processing demand required in the brain needs to successfully identify it clearly enough to ignore it, and hence reducing the efficiency.

My understanding of the perceptual use of dither is to break up the correlated quantization noise pattern to a sufficient degree that the brain processes it as a separate, entirely uncorrelated noise signal.  The amount of dither needed to do this will be very strongly correlated to the amount and statistical distribution of dither noise that will shift the noise to the ultrasonic region as shown in an FFT; as this will minimise the additional noise that can be perceived in the audio band.  However, given that the brain processes uncorrelated noise as a separate signal, I don't see how the perceived noise can be reduced below -16 bits.

In fact I'd expect the minimum to be the energy equivalent of -15.5 bits but I think the difference between that and -16bits is too small to be distinguished experimentally.  It may be possible to design an experiment that would detect if the brain can reduce the perceived level to -17 bits or lower based on σ=3dB and p=2σ, but that would be pushing it to the limit of experimental confidence.

I didn't realise that there was a second superimposed noise shaping used to shift the noise based on the ISO revision of the Fletcher-Munson contours - presumably with compensation for cochlear compression as the energy is pushed into higher density bands, that gets quite mind boggling!

Innocent Bystander posted:

Keler Pierre posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Keler Pierre posted:

Dozey posted:

Well, I suggest you try it for yourself if you are sceptical.

agree 100%.  a lot of people like to show their technical knowledge but have even not tested with their ears.....what a waste of time....

If it simply can't sound as good, why would one want to bother trying it?

Actually, having asked the question there is an answer, though one perhaps many people are likely not to want to explore, namely to discover whether they really prefer unadulterated perfect reproduction or something knowingly compromised...

the answer in in your ears. A lot of reviews by audio specialists were made, pointing that mqa offers sound improvement. They tested it and compared the sound of mqa/ non mqa files on the sound quality side. I am more confident in reviews of absolute sound, hifi critic and stereophile than speculations of some members who are trying to play specialists.

But I assume the reviews to which you refer relate to the sound when decoded ("unfolded") (and maybe fully in an MQA DAC not partially as can be done in rendering software?), as opposed to playing the MQA file through player like NDS that doesn't decode it, which is the subject of my comment. 

yes, with fully mqa dac. I was not commenting specifically your comment , more some other responses...

Innocent Bystander posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Keler Pierre posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Keler Pierre posted:

Dozey posted:

Well, I suggest you try it for yourself if you are sceptical.

agree 100%.  a lot of people like to show their technical knowledge but have even not tested with their ears.....what a waste of time....

If it simply can't sound as good, why would one want to bother trying it?

Actually, having asked the question there is an answer, though one perhaps many people are likely not to want to explore, namely to discover whether they really prefer unadulterated perfect reproduction or something knowingly compromised...

the answer in in your ears. A lot of reviews by audio specialists were made, pointing that mqa offers sound improvement. They tested it and compared the sound of mqa/ non mqa files on the sound quality side. I am more confident in reviews of absolute sound, hifi critic and stereophile than speculations of some members who are trying to play specialists.

But I assume the reviews to which you refer relate to the sound when decoded ("unfolded") (and maybe fully in an MQA DAC not partially as can be done in rendering software?), as opposed to playing the MQA file through player like NDS that doesn't decode it, which is the subject of my comment. 

As for fully decoded MQA, as it is a lossy compression process the restored version will not be identical to the original hi res - but whether any individual person can discern a difference when playing it depends on their ears/brain and the resolution of their system, and indeed, as I noted, some people if they can hear a difference might prefer the sound of the altered version.

If course if anyone were to compare the sound of a high res file such as 24/196 compressed with MQA and then restored, against a CD quality 16/44, that is quite a different matter (and completely irrelevant if the 16/44 and 24/96 are from different masterings as is can happen).

My question is simply why bother with MQA, why not simply download the hi res file and enjoy it in all its maximum potential glory?

Meanwhile, of course, there is always the theoretical argument that it is not possible to hear better than can be encoded to red book, but that is quite another matter....

the advantage of mqa is for streaming from tidal. As for streaming real high rez which we have downloaded, it is better than mqa as you said.

It would be a good thing that in the future we will be able to stream full high rez....no need to buy, download, edit.....For now, if nds could have mqa, it would be too a good thing i think.

ndx202- posted:

Bert Schurink posted:

Hi all - the pricing on high res audio made me again thinking about MQA. Interestingly enough MQA is more expensive than the same files in 24 bit, which would assume that there is a physical or a perceived (marketing) differentiation in sound. So that poses a couple of questions for me:

1. Is there some kind of "independent" research or strong opinion on the forum about the differentiation between MQA and 24 bit traditional high resolution audio - so the what is better question or how does it sound different question ?

2. Tidal is offering it nowadays - assuming it would be better, how would I be able to play it on my NDS or is that right now impossible ?

3. People who are using it on an ongoing base what are there experiences, a significant different or just a marketing thing.

I think their can can be too much oversampling with 24 Bit reading.. Files can sound thin and horrible. I Think Naim amps are that sensitive that sometimes when I listen to HD files they sound worse than the original recordings. To my ears HD sounds forward and flatish in sound.. But then again I prefer vinyl and am happy listening to Spotify on my computer through a DAC..Also I am getting older so hearing may not be able to decode the benefits of HD etc.

well done high rez sound more natural, extended and dynamic, like vinyl. But there are also a lot of high rez which sound edgy and little harsch.   Personally i buy only modern recordings on high rez format.  For music originally on vinyl, i prefer like you vinyls on my turntable.

Hi Huge, yes a digitised signal where there is less than ±.5 LSB of variation for several consecutive samples can get stuck at a sampled quantisation value  and become audible especially at lower bit depths, so noise distributed with a standard deviation of 2/3  LSB  is often added to remove this quantisation  'stickiness', and remove these audible artefacts in the digitised signal.... but interestingly peak to peak noise value of a random signal is approx 6 times  the value of its standard deviation. .. which equals approx 3 to 4 LSB peak to peak noise added to the digitised signal.... but even more interestingly adding this distributed noise allows us to extract more information from this digitised signal stream.

Simon

All the discussion about the technical merits (or not) and the musical merits (or not) are really rather trivial compared to the main points:

- it is proprietary and therefore will only play to the full extent on licenced equipment. You will be buying music that won't play to its fullest extent on any device. Why buy into such a restriction?

- it is lossy. You can buy the lossless version, so why bother?

- it was invented to address the issue of streaming large data files. Given that most homes now stream movies with multiple 24 bit channels, the restriction it was intended to address is no longer there

- artists, recording studios, playback device manufacturers,labels and distributors all have to pay a licence to use the system. This is adding additional costs into the industry yet there seems to be no benefit in doing so. Music costs will increase for no listener benefit. More expensive music encourages more piracy, it does not address piracy.

- a little light comes on to prove you are listening to MQA which is supposed to be an indicator of quality. However, there has been debate in the industry about the authenticity of some of the souce material and the accuracy of the information about the equipment used to create the master. This is important in a system that claims to correct for errors in the original recording equipment.

- an authenticity system also allows for the authenticity to be re-interpreted in the future to restrict access to content paid for but not continuously licenced. Think about the impications of a change to licencing terms in the future.

All of this is far more important that 'does it sound any good?'

sunbeamgls posted:

All the discussion about the technical merits (or not) and the musical merits (or not) are really rather trivial compared to the main points:

- it is proprietary and therefore will only play to the full extent on licenced equipment. You will be buying music that won't play to its fullest extent on any device. Why buy into such a restriction?

- it is lossy. You can buy the lossless version, so why bother?

- it was invented to address the issue of streaming large data files. Given that most homes now stream movies with multiple 24 bit channels, the restriction it was intended to address is no longer there

- artists, recording studios, playback device manufacturers,labels and distributors all have to pay a licence to use the system. This is adding additional costs into the industry yet there seems to be no benefit in doing so. Music costs will increase for no listener benefit. More expensive music encourages more piracy, it does not address piracy.

- a little light comes on to prove you are listening to MQA which is supposed to be an indicator of quality. However, there has been debate in the industry about the authenticity of some of the souce material and the accuracy of the information about the equipment used to create the master. This is important in a system that claims to correct for errors in the original recording equipment.

- an authenticity system also allows for the authenticity to be re-interpreted in the future to restrict access to content paid for but not continuously licenced. Think about the impications of a change to licencing terms in the future.

All of this is far more important that 'does it sound any good?'

the real and unique interest of mqa is streaming music from tidal with a dac mqa capable. It is a real benefit from streaming 16/44 flac , with tidal for the moment. It is a major evolution, just a beginning, but a big step. Perhaps, in the future, we will not be obliged to buy hirez audio downloads but just stream directly from tidal, qobuz or another service, perhaps even dsd files.

I find this a real technical step, much more than all the buzz on roon, which is more a facebook disguised interface...Tell me what are you listening at, i will send you some offers.

Keler Pierre posted:

yes, with fully mqa dac. I was not commenting specifically your comment , more some other responses...

I assume that wasn't targeted at my comments either as I've only compared:
MQA to 16/44.1 LPCM both with 16/44.1 LPCM decoders
MQA with MQA decoder to 24/192 LPCM with 24/192 LPCM decoder

N.B. I've not compared MQA with MQA decoder to 16/44.1 LPCM with 16/44.1 LPCM decoder.

Some of us, like me. have no interest in online streaming, paying a subscription to hear music and with all the risks of breakup due to internet problems or, worse, loss of service for any reason, instead wanting the music we like in a store at home, accessible at will and indefinitely. For that, with the low cost of disk storage space, MQA offers no benefit at all. I can quite happily sample new music to see if I like it at any resolution, so SPotify, uTube, artists' samples etc are quite adequate (and free!).

And for those who do use online streaming, unless MQA gives perfect reinstatement of all the detail with no artefacts, wouldn't it be better to stream the full hi res version.

As for needing aN MQA DAC for full decoding, that restricts the choice to those DAC manufacturers that licence the process from Meridien, which is limiting unless they includes the best DACs 

Innocent Bystander posted:

Some of us, like me. have no interest in online streaming, paying a subscription to hear music and with all the risks of breakup due to internet problems or, worse, loss of service for any reason, instead wanting the music we like in a store at home, accessible at will and indefinitely. For that, with the low cost of disk storage space, MQA offers no benefit at all. I can quite happily sample new music to see if I like it at any resolution, so SPotify, uTube, artists' samples etc are quite adequate (and free!).

And for those who do use online streaming, unless MQA gives perfect reinstatement of all the detail with no artefacts, wouldn't it be better to stream the full hi res version.

As for needing aN MQA DAC for full decoding, that restricts the choice to those DAC manufacturers that licence the process from Meridien, which is limiting unless they includes the best DACs 

more and more dacs offer mqa decoding today.  For now, like you, i prefer streaming my own music home ( on my serve), because with my nds it is a better sound quality for now. But in the future, if we will be able to stream full hirez on tidal or other stream service, perhaps i will not continue to use nas, serve ...and buy and download music:     streaming directly, looseless, without any compression, limitless, seems tempting.  I am sure it will be in next future.

Having heard many demonstrations of MQA, both for the trade and for the public, I can say that it certainly has merit on both musical and sonic grounds.   The MQA team has embarked upon an even more challenging, and perhaps thankless, task of trying to weave together a community including partners from the music owning community, with the playback companies and the music lovers that both serve.    Many appear reluctant to acknowledge that the needs of the artists and rights holders to not give away their work for free is inevitably one of the attributes of their approach given the scope of their ambition.    Others are troubled by technical and semi technical points, many of which Simon eloquently outlined above.    If you have not read Bob Stuart's comments and interviews on this topic, I would encourage you to do so as there is clearly nobody who can offer more insight on the MQA process than he can and does.

The question I would pose to high end audio fans is this: Do we want another SACD type market failure?    Where a potentially great format is left for dead on the side of the road while many users take a wait and see approach?     It was only in retrospect that many people came to really understand that SACD was the last meaningful chance for a disc format intended for high performance to emerge into the market place.    Although Naim never embraced SACD, if you have ever heard well recorded DSD material, it is quite compelling, particularly on well recorded acoustic music. 

With the current state of the record companies, it appears at least somewhat likely that streaming is inevitable and the question is can it be rescued from being worse than CD?   If you would like to see a better streaming approach succeed, give MQA a listen.    If you prefer to not to, that is fine, but I don't know that if MQA fails that anyone else would be likely to attempt to bring together such a wide community around this shared interest in quality of sound.     To me, it feels like the window of opportunity for MQA to succeed might only be a few years long and if most of us in the high end community don't embrace it, it may not be able to last long enough to allow us to have a second chance to consider it in the future.     Sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good, and I fear this may be the case here as we see a more fragmented market place than ever before.    So, if you care about good sound, at least try to hear what MQA might offer and decide if you like what you hear, and then filter that through your next decisions about the direction you might take in your playback hardware.    If you like it, but the brand or brands you favor have not committed to it, let them know how you feel, as these firms are not charitable foundations by and large.

Good listening,

Bruce

Bruce, interesting points about the musical community... but I do wonder if MQA is the right vehicle for it.. after all MP3 has been one of the biggest, and will no doubt continue to be now it is outside licensing, enablers for the music community for both positive and negative (in terms of copyright avoidance) reasons. Certainly MP3 at its full bit rate using a quality encoder can sound very effective... the decoder for MP3 need be nothing special for it to sound good.. the hard work and hithero licensing is in the encoding.

I have heard and played around with MQA, and to my ears I would put it in its own class... it's certainly not proper hi-definition or 16/44.1, it  has a slightly artificialness to it.. but it can sound rather attractive and sweetened... I suspect it would sound great for the car.. but for my main audio replay system it's just a passing curiosity. Given a quality DAC then 16/44.1 takes a lot of beating... the trouble is on lesser mass market consumer DACs 16/44.1 can notably sound less impressive.. and even less bandwidth intensive MP3 can sound preferable .. perhaps MQA would benefit more these lesser performance DACs?

I did talk to one of the Naim designers about MQA support... certainly they potentially could see a possible appeal for some of the market.. but the view in Naim was that the licensing is too restrictive currently in terms of the code and the libraries, and their view was the libraries were immature, too inefficient and processor intensive.. and this mattered on the Naim architectures where Naim looks to optimise everything for max SQ and such processor loads would rob devices of performance through increased digital perturbations... so they are keeping watch but as of 6 months ago apparently no plans.

Keler Pierre posted:

the real and unique interest of mqa is streaming music from tidal with a dac mqa capable. It is a real benefit from streaming 16/44 flac , with tidal for the moment. It is a major evolution, just a beginning, but a big step. Perhaps, in the future, we will not be obliged to buy hirez audio downloads but just stream directly from tidal, qobuz or another service, perhaps even dsd files.

I find this a real technical step, much more than all the buzz on roon, which is more a facebook disguised interface...Tell me what are you listening at, i will send you some offers.

 Think you've perhaps missed the point. 'Buying' means buying a download or buying a streaming service. 

It is a technical step backwards. Amazon and Netflix stream multiple 24 bit sound tracks  alongside movies. Therefore any idea of Tidal streaming a mere 2 channels being a challenge that needs a lossy compression format is nonsense.

It is a srep backwards that uses a proprietary format and a licencing fee. Do not fall for the marketing hype. 

It would be nice to stream mqa trough my 272 using tidal for the same price, i am using at work with explorer2 dac at work, it is nice..

Other than that still i dont get it...

Isnt it just a double layer compression file that can be unfolded by dac ör player?

Same file mqa vs 24/196 How does it compare? In theory they should sound same right? With a mqa dac, without a mqa dac the mqa  version will be 16/44...

Am i missing something?

Emre posted:

Isnt it just a double layer compression file that can be unfolded by dac ör player?

Same file mqa vs 24/196 How does it compare? In theory they should sound same right? With a mqa dac, without a mqa dac the mqa  version will be 16/44...

Am i missing something?

 

Yes you're missing something!  But Yes, in effect it's a double layer compression, but a very clever use of compression techniques.

On the other hand, it's lossy not lossless (i.e. it's not bit perfect); so no a 24/192 PCM file (or stream) and the MQA encoded stream derived from that file won't sound the same.

Played back through a 16/44.1 PCM dac, there'll be less than 16bit resolution, as 3 bits of the MQA signal won't be interpretable as signal - they'll appear as partially correlated noise.  This will degrade the perceived signal quality to slightly below that of native 16/44.1.

sunbeamgls posted:

Keler Pierre posted:

the real and unique interest of mqa is streaming music from tidal with a dac mqa capable. It is a real benefit from streaming 16/44 flac , with tidal for the moment. It is a major evolution, just a beginning, but a big step. Perhaps, in the future, we will not be obliged to buy hirez audio downloads but just stream directly from tidal, qobuz or another service, perhaps even dsd files.

I find this a real technical step, much more than all the buzz on roon, which is more a facebook disguised interface...Tell me what are you listening at, i will send you some offers.

 Think you've perhaps missed the point. 'Buying' means buying a download or buying a streaming service. 

It is a technical step backwards. Amazon and Netflix stream multiple 24 bit sound tracks  alongside movies. Therefore any idea of Tidal streaming a mere 2 channels being a challenge that needs a lossy compression format is nonsense.

It is a srep backwards that uses a proprietary format and a licencing fee. Do not fall for the marketing hype. 

read some reviews in stereophile, computer audiophile, audiostream, and hifi news, by audio experts. All have tested, compared, listened to, and concluded that mqa is a real benefit in sound quality in tidal streaming. It is a unanimity!   You are sceptical or influenced by some members on the forum who are trying to play specialists!

Emre posted:

It would be nice to stream mqa trough my 272 using tidal for the same price, i am using at work with explorer2 dac at work, it is nice..

Other than that still i dont get it...

Isnt it just a double layer compression file that can be unfolded by dac ör player?

Same file mqa vs 24/196 How does it compare? In theory they should sound same right? With a mqa dac, without a mqa dac the mqa  version will be 16/44...

Am i missing something?

 

you can't stream 24/192 on tidal. So , with an mqa dac, you can only compare 16/44 vs mqa streaming on tidal.  But streaming high rez files from nas is still better than streaming mqa with tidal, from what i understood in the different reviews i read.

Keler Pierre posted:

sunbeamgls posted:

Keler Pierre posted:

the real and unique interest of mqa is streaming music from tidal with a dac mqa capable. It is a real benefit from streaming 16/44 flac , with tidal for the moment. It is a major evolution, just a beginning, but a big step. Perhaps, in the future, we will not be obliged to buy hirez audio downloads but just stream directly from tidal, qobuz or another service, perhaps even dsd files.

I find this a real technical step, much more than all the buzz on roon, which is more a facebook disguised interface...Tell me what are you listening at, i will send you some offers.

 Think you've perhaps missed the point. 'Buying' means buying a download or buying a streaming service. 

It is a technical step backwards. Amazon and Netflix stream multiple 24 bit sound tracks  alongside movies. Therefore any idea of Tidal streaming a mere 2 channels being a challenge that needs a lossy compression format is nonsense.

It is a srep backwards that uses a proprietary format and a licencing fee. Do not fall for the marketing hype. 

read some reviews in stereophile, computer audiophile, audiostream, and hifi news, by audio experts. All have tested, compared, listened to, and concluded that mqa is a real benefit in sound quality in tidal streaming. It is a unanimity!   You are sceptical or influenced by some members on the forum who are trying to play specialists!

One important thing to note in any review is what is being compared to what - e.g. 

Another key factor is the system in which the comparison is made - some people reporting reviews in places like computer audiophile, for example, use lesser kit than the systems frequently encountered on this forum.

And a third factor, but one about which the rader can only guess, is the ability of the reviewer to hear the things that someone else might hear if present at the same session,whether for physical, psychoacoustic or listening skill reasons.

(Keler, this is not knocking what you said as I haven't checked those out, but simply pointing out that there are often glowing reviews of things that turn out to be somewhat less good in the cold light of day.)

Keler Pierre posted:

sunbeamgls posted:

Keler Pierre posted:

the real and unique interest of mqa is streaming music from tidal with a dac mqa capable. It is a real benefit from streaming 16/44 flac , with tidal for the moment. It is a major evolution, just a beginning, but a big step. Perhaps, in the future, we will not be obliged to buy hirez audio downloads but just stream directly from tidal, qobuz or another service, perhaps even dsd files.

I find this a real technical step, much more than all the buzz on roon, which is more a facebook disguised interface...Tell me what are you listening at, i will send you some offers.

 Think you've perhaps missed the point. 'Buying' means buying a download or buying a streaming service. 

It is a technical step backwards. Amazon and Netflix stream multiple 24 bit sound tracks  alongside movies. Therefore any idea of Tidal streaming a mere 2 channels being a challenge that needs a lossy compression format is nonsense.

It is a srep backwards that uses a proprietary format and a licencing fee. Do not fall for the marketing hype. 

read some reviews in stereophile, computer audiophile, audiostream, and hifi news, by audio experts. All have tested, compared, listened to, and concluded that mqa is a real benefit in sound quality in tidal streaming. It is a unanimity!   You are sceptical or influenced by some members on the forum who are trying to play specialists!

The reviews are about functionality and sound. They are not about the business model which is out to make money from absolutely no benefit to the consumer. You're either missing that point or perhaps you're here to promote the product?

Keler Pierre posted:

sunbeamgls posted:

Keler Pierre posted:

the real and unique interest of mqa is streaming music from tidal with a dac mqa capable. It is a real benefit from streaming 16/44 flac , with tidal for the moment. It is a major evolution, just a beginning, but a big step. Perhaps, in the future, we will not be obliged to buy hirez audio downloads but just stream directly from tidal, qobuz or another service, perhaps even dsd files.

I find this a real technical step, much more than all the buzz on roon, which is more a facebook disguised interface...Tell me what are you listening at, i will send you some offers.

 Think you've perhaps missed the point. 'Buying' means buying a download or buying a streaming service. 

It is a technical step backwards. Amazon and Netflix stream multiple 24 bit sound tracks  alongside movies. Therefore any idea of Tidal streaming a mere 2 channels being a challenge that needs a lossy compression format is nonsense.

It is a srep backwards that uses a proprietary format and a licencing fee. Do not fall for the marketing hype. 

read some reviews in stereophile, computer audiophile, audiostream, and hifi news, by audio experts. All have tested, compared, listened to, and concluded that mqa is a real benefit in sound quality in tidal streaming. It is a unanimity!   You are sceptical or influenced by some members on the forum who are trying to play specialists!

Coincidentally, I think the principle HH mentions in another post could also apply here:-

https://forums.naimaudio.com/to...35#70835623911768135

Hi Simon-

As more varied DAC's and streaming players equipped with DAC's are offered with MQA capabilities, hopefully it will become easier to assess the role that MQA plays in the achieved sound quality of the end result.    I suspect that some of the comments thoughtful listeners like yourself may have been responding to are in essence listening reactions to the Meridian approach to sound as Meridian DAC's were used in many of the early prototype demonstrations at audio shows and in dealer's presentations.    For example, the Meridian Ultra DAC and the somewhat older 808 and 818 products have a general style of sound to them, which listeners may or may not like.     Now that firms well outside of the Meridian eco system such as DCS, MSB, Berkeley Audio Design and others industry leaders are working on incorporating MQA capabilities into some of their products, this may tend to allow for a more nuanced assessment of the MQA process itself.

For me, the most impressive results I have heard using MQA processing were with high resolution master files recorded at 24/192 by the classical recording engineer Peter McGrath.     Peter is very uncompromising in his recording approach, and uses no sweetening in his approach.    Microphone choice and placement in the room are paramount for his minimally miked recordings of acoustic music.    I have heard the direct playback of his master files before and after MQA processing, and the MQA processed files were very meaningfully improved in every case.   Piano's sounded more real, more dimensional and full bodied and there was a sense the brain was having to work less hard to allow for the "listening trance" state to emerge.    Now, these recordings are worlds better than most of the MQA content on Tidal that I have heard, and they may not reflect the deliverable experience through a streaming service, but they did seem to really validate at least some of the claims made for MQA by Mr. Stuart and company.     I suspect that some of this is the removal of the artifacts introduced in the A/D converter process, but this is only a semi educated guess.

I agree with your point that well executed 16/44.1 can be far better than many have presumed, or heard, and this is poorly understood in a marketplace with a great deal of confusion about the role of both up sampling and oversampling.     Unfortunately, as CD players become less common and harder for small niche high end firms to support as the transport mechanism supplies dry up, this may become a moot point.     Certainly the number of CD/SACD players on the market is already a small fraction of the number available even five years ago, and this trend does not appear to be likely to change, unfortunately.

Be well,

Bruce