MQA Again

bdnyc posted:

Hi Simon-

.

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. 

Correct me if I am wrong, but I read this as saying that MQA processing and decoding improved the sound of the music compared to listening to the original hi res files direct.

if so, then that is the effect of the introduced artefacts or missing information being pleasing to you - as I said in an earlier post, that is not unknown as can be the case with other distortions of the original sound. It is not wrong to like it, any more than emphasising aspects of sound that convey PRaT, or rolling off bass through choice of speakers, or tone or loudness controls, all if the listener likes the effect, but it is a digression from true fidelity of reproduction.

sunbeamgls posted:

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?

I am promoting nothing. I doubt all magazines and audio sites have financial interests in giving positive review of a product or technology. It may and even is the case for some, like What hifi or stereo magazine....But when you have unanimity from all serious magazines, as absolute sound, stereophile, hificritic, audiostream, computer audiophile, hifi news, it is rather difficult to not believe in this unanimity.  But if you reject magazines and audio sites reviews, and prefer to believe 2 or 3 forum members,

it is your right and choice.  I think you would be a good candidate for a sect community...

Innocent Bystander posted:

bdnyc posted:

Hi Simon-

.

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. 

Correct me if I am wrong, but I read this as saying that MQA processing and decoding improved the sound of the music compared to listening to the original hi res files direct.

if so, then that is the effect of the introduced artefacts or missing information being pleasing to you - as I said in an earlier post, that is not unknown as can be the case with other distortions of the original sound. It is not wrong to like it, any more than emphasising aspects of sound that convey PRaT, or rolling off bass through choice of speakers, or tone or loudness controls, all if the listener likes the effect, but it is a digression from true fidelity of reproduction.

sorry, but i have not understood the same: mqa is not better than original  high rez played from nas. Mqa are just better than 16/44 files in tidal streaming.  Original high rez files streamed from a nas or server are still better in sound quality.

But the mqa streaming gives better results in sound quality in streaming from tidal, and perhaps qobuz tomorrow...it is a technical step in site direct streaming.  Sorry for my english...

ChrisSU posted:

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

all audio magazines are not only financially interested. Reviews from persons like Michael Fremer, Jason Kennedy, Everardt ....(?), John Atkinson, Jonathan Valin, Martin Colloms, Art Dudley...are always interesting and these audio reviewers are recognized in the audio world community.  They are not always saying " this component is the best i have listened to and can be compared to much more expensive components and bla-bla-bla...".  

I appreciate the naim forum, and other forums too, but in absolute terms, i am more confident in these audio specialists than in forum members. Sorry. But i am honest.

The following taken directly from the official MQA website...

Before someone picks me up on it, I should have said that the compromise in digital filters is between temporal resolution, passband artefacts and stop-band spuriae.

some mqa capable dacs: meridian, dcs, ps audio, mytech brooklyn, chord dave, msb, berkeley audio dac:: it is only the beginning....

but perhaps all these audio companies are just trying to surf on the mqa wave , only to take more money from consumers....i very strongly doubt of it.

Keler Pierre posted:

some mqa capable dacs: meridian, dcs, ps audio, mytech brooklyn, chord dave, msb, berkeley audio dac:: it is only the beginning....

Chord Dave is NOT an MQA DAC. (But yes, in common with all DAC I believe, including Naim, it is capable of playing MQA files either fully encoded and thus most different from the original, or just partially uncompressed if presented by an MQA capable renderer.) Chord DACs' designer, Rob Watts, has said that he refuses to incorporate MQA into his designs because, and I quote, "it is technically flawed, with huge and completely unacceptable levels of aliasing". 

Interestingly,  Stereophile did a review of Dave in which they played an MQA file unfolded in a renderer (i.e not fully decoded, so even in Meridian's language not perfect), and played it through Dave, comparing it with the same file from the same renderer passed through Meridian's even more expensive Ultra DAC which does the second stage unfolding, and found DAve made it sound better - but that was NOT a comparison with the original hi res file, or even standard 16/44.

Innocent Bystander posted:

Keler Pierre posted:

some mqa capable dacs: meridian, dcs, ps audio, mytech brooklyn, chord dave, msb, berkeley audio dac:: it is only the beginning....

Chord Dave is NOT an MQA DAC. (But yes, in common with all DAC I believe, including Naim, it is capable of playing MQA files either fully encoded and thus most different from the original, or just partially uncompressed if presented by an MQA capable renderer.) Chord DACs' designer, Rob Watts, has said that he refuses to incorporate MQA into his designs because, and I quote, "it is technically flawed, with huge and completely unacceptable levels of aliasing". 

Interestingly,  Stereophile did a review of Dave in which they played an MQA file unfolded in a renderer (i.e not fully decoded, so even in Meridian's language not perfect), and played it through Dave, comparing it with the same file from the same renderer passed through Meridian's even more expensive Ultra DAC which does the second stage unfolding, and found DAve made it sound better - but that was NOT a comparison with the original hi res file, or even standard 16/44.

i just read the review you refer: john Atkinson said, after adding the mqa decoding with the meridian dac to the chord dave:  " i was a little bit more aware of the developing of the harmonic note...".   

So John Atkinson could not have said that chord dave sounded better. He just added that the little improvement with the meridian/ mqa dac over the chord dave is not proportional to the increased cost of the meridian.

As for chord mqa capable, i was wrong. But not the other dacs are mentioned.    Dcs, berkeley reference and msb  are also ones of the best dacs today.  

i have read that qobuz will have the possibility,  very soon, to stream 24 bit files directly on his streaming service. If it is true, it is better than mqa streaming on tidal.  Anybody knows something sure about this?    Because if it is true and real, mqa will be behind then...( i am talking about streaming from tidal or qobuz, not streaming hirez that were downloaded and stocked on nas).

Sublime +

• Maximale Streaming-Qualität

  Audio Hi-Res 24-Bit

  FLAC Hi-Res 24-Bit / bis zu 192kHz

  Hi-Res-Streaming des Großteils des Hi-Res-Katalogs*. CD-Streaming des restlichen Katalogs

• Dauerhafte Rabatte des Download-Katalogs

  Downloads in Hi-Res 24-Bit zum Preis von MP3

  30% bis 60% Reduzierung auf einen Großteil des Katalogs zum Download à la carte

Keler Pierre posted:

i have read that qobuz will have the possibility,  very soon, to stream 24 bit files directly on his streaming service. If it is true, it is better than mqa streaming on tidal.  Anybody knows something sure about this?    Because if it is true and real, mqa will be behind then...( i am talking about streaming from tidal or qobuz, not streaming hirez that were downloaded and stocked on nas).

For the web streaming companies, MQA makes sense... there is no hidef AAC or MP3, lossless Hidef, even FLAC, is in efficient to stream due to dither and ultrasonic noise, and lossy hidef MQA is a good half way house. I am not knocking it for that.. I think MQA to my car streamer or my portable streamer would be really great..

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Keler Pierre posted:

i have read that qobuz will have the possibility,  very soon, to stream 24 bit files directly on his streaming service. If it is true, it is better than mqa streaming on tidal.  Anybody knows something sure about this?    Because if it is true and real, mqa will be behind then...( i am talking about streaming from tidal or qobuz, not streaming hirez that were downloaded and stocked on nas).

For the web streaming companies, MQA makes sense... there is no hidef AAC or MP3, lossless Hidef, even FLAC, is in efficient to stream due to dither and ultrasonic noise, and lossy hidef MQA is a good half way house. I am not knocking it for that.. I think MQA to my car streamer or my portable streamer would be really great..

Simon, I agree but if there is some signal processing going on as Pierre indicates above (I have not kept up with the more recent roadshow news by the small pool of MQA champions), even its ability as a streaming carrier might be compromised.

EJ

Hi Huge, I like your summary, and yes you pick up on the fact that there is scant actual detail on MQA but a lot of marketing hyperbole, some of which you point out is contradictory.

The best honest technical source I can find for MQA in the public domain is Jim Lesurf's deconstruction of it based on analysing the patents, and being a retired reader in physics and electronics at St Andrew's university I find his approach informative and accessible ... a far cry from the marketing approach for MQA.

To that end the only bit of MQA technology that takes us forward sonically, in my opinion,  is the matched encoding and decoding filters... currently one of the 'flaws' with current digitally recorded and played back audio. But even here if the master file has already been digitally encoded before passing to the MQA encoder any benefit will be severely compromised to non existent... and of course this would only work for MQA hardware DACs and not software MQA decoders.... but this benefit albeit partial in most cases seems to be ignored by the marketeers.. perhaps it's too complicated to understand... and if a benefit it is not linked to a higher number such as a sample rate or sample size (which are mostly meaningless anyway) they are seen as too incongruous for the humble consumer..... 

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Keler Pierre posted:

i have read that qobuz will have the possibility,  very soon, to stream 24 bit files directly on his streaming service. If it is true, it is better than mqa streaming on tidal.  Anybody knows something sure about this?    Because if it is true and real, mqa will be behind then...( i am talking about streaming from tidal or qobuz, not streaming hirez that were downloaded and stocked on nas).

For the web streaming companies, MQA makes sense... there is no hidef AAC or MP3, lossless Hidef, even FLAC, is in efficient to stream due to dither and ultrasonic noise, and lossy hidef MQA is a good half way house. I am not knocking it for that.. I think MQA to my car streamer or my portable streamer would be really great..

I'm not sure that the differnce between CD quality and anything better would be evident in the  compromised environment of a car (other than with headphones when not driving)?

You might have missed my point earlier, to do CD really well (in my opinion) requires a good DAC, using MQA you can get better sound using mediocre audio components.. I am sure that would suit my so called 'quality' BMW sound system better and I could stream it via mobile..

bdnyc posted:

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.

 

....  

Hi Bruce, the flaw with MQA in my opinion is they way they decimate the digital signal and deliberately don't pass it through an anti aliasing filter ( as otherwise the oversampling or 'unfolding' wouldn't work of course).. this just litters the pass band with spurious alias data that Meridian assumes our brains will ignore... it might for some and not for others.. and once that spurious data is there it's effectively there for ever.. you have compromised the master....

Now I do like the matched encoding / decoding filters... this makes sense as it addresses a limitation with current digital audio record and replay... however I do wonder if the primary benefit of using these matched filters has simply to reduce the prominence of the induced  alias errors ... however that aside some concerns that I see are:

• if the analogue audio has already been digitally encoded the benefits of matched filtering  will be reduced or be none existent  ... this will always be the case unless the  recording desk has a MQA filter built in.
• i know of no way one can consume MQA without going through destructive decimation / unfolding approach... perhaps there is/will be a MQA Pro that bypasses this?
• To take advantage of the matched filtering you need to use a hardware MQA DAC, a software decoder will simply dilute or nullify the benefit as you will be using an other DAC filter function.

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

You might have missed my point earlier, to do CD really well (in my opinion) requires a good DAC, using MQA you can get better sound using mediocre audio components.. I am sure that would suit my so called 'quality' BMW sound system better and I could stream it via mobile..

Ah, yes, get you.

Keler Pierre posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Keler Pierre posted:

some mqa capable dacs: meridian, dcs, ps audio, mytech brooklyn, chord dave, msb, berkeley audio dac:: it is only the beginning....

Chord Dave is NOT an MQA DAC. (But yes, in common with all DAC I believe, including Naim, it is capable of playing MQA files either fully encoded and thus most different from the original, or just partially uncompressed if presented by an MQA capable renderer.) Chord DACs' designer, Rob Watts, has said that he refuses to incorporate MQA into his designs because, and I quote, "it is technically flawed, with huge and completely unacceptable levels of aliasing". 

Interestingly,  Stereophile did a review of Dave in which they played an MQA file unfolded in a renderer (i.e not fully decoded, so even in Meridian's language not perfect), and played it through Dave, comparing it with the same file from the same renderer passed through Meridian's even more expensive Ultra DAC which does the second stage unfolding, and found DAve made it sound better - but that was NOT a comparison with the original hi res file, or even standard 16/44.

i just read the review you refer: john Atkinson said, after adding the mqa decoding with the meridian dac to the chord dave:  " i was a little bit more aware of the developing of the harmonic note...".   

So John Atkinson could not have said that chord dave sounded better. He just added that the little improvement with the meridian/ mqa dac over the chord dave is not proportional to the increased cost of the meridian.

As for chord mqa capable, i was wrong. But not the other dacs are mentioned.    Dcs, berkeley reference and msb  are also ones of the best dacs today.  

Apologies, in my swift read of the Stereophile article I misread part of the review, and going back to it I see that the preference with the MQA file was indeed for the Meridien's output not Dave, so indeed the lack of the final unfolding in Dave had a negative effect, as one might expect.

that of course does not alter anything in my first paragraph.

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Keler Pierre posted:

i have read that qobuz will have the possibility,  very soon, to stream 24 bit files directly on his streaming service. If it is true, it is better than mqa streaming on tidal.  Anybody knows something sure about this?    Because if it is true and real, mqa will be behind then...( i am talking about streaming from tidal or qobuz, not streaming hirez that were downloaded and stocked on nas).

For the web streaming companies, MQA makes sense... there is no hidef AAC or MP3, lossless Hidef, even FLAC, is in efficient to stream due to dither and ultrasonic noise, and lossy hidef MQA is a good half way house. I am not knocking it for that.. I think MQA to my car streamer or my portable streamer would be really great..

i don't understand why you refer of tidal streaming in a car. Do you think or not that tidal mqa streaming is better than tidal 16/44?   

Innocent Bystander posted:

Keler Pierre posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Keler Pierre posted:

some mqa capable dacs: meridian, dcs, ps audio, mytech brooklyn, chord dave, msb, berkeley audio dac:: it is only the beginning....

Chord Dave is NOT an MQA DAC. (But yes, in common with all DAC I believe, including Naim, it is capable of playing MQA files either fully encoded and thus most different from the original, or just partially uncompressed if presented by an MQA capable renderer.) Chord DACs' designer, Rob Watts, has said that he refuses to incorporate MQA into his designs because, and I quote, "it is technically flawed, with huge and completely unacceptable levels of aliasing". 

Interestingly,  Stereophile did a review of Dave in which they played an MQA file unfolded in a renderer (i.e not fully decoded, so even in Meridian's language not perfect), and played it through Dave, comparing it with the same file from the same renderer passed through Meridian's even more expensive Ultra DAC which does the second stage unfolding, and found DAve made it sound better - but that was NOT a comparison with the original hi res file, or even standard 16/44.

i just read the review you refer: john Atkinson said, after adding the mqa decoding with the meridian dac to the chord dave:  " i was a little bit more aware of the developing of the harmonic note...".   

So John Atkinson could not have said that chord dave sounded better. He just added that the little improvement with the meridian/ mqa dac over the chord dave is not proportional to the increased cost of the meridian.

As for chord mqa capable, i was wrong. But not the other dacs are mentioned.    Dcs, berkeley reference and msb  are also ones of the best dacs today.  

Apologies, in my swift read of the Stereophile article I misread part of the review, and going back to it I see that the preference with the MQA file was indeed for the Meridien's output not Dave, so indeed the lack of the final unfolding in Dave had a negative effect, as one might expect.

that of course does not alter anything in my first paragraph.

but even, if meridian is better on tidal mqa streaming, it is not necessary better than chord dave as a dac in his totality.  It just proves that mqa streaming on tidal is better than 16/44 streaming on tidal.  The best word would  be 24 real bit streaming from tidal. Qobuz announced that, but it is true?

Erich posted:

Sublime +

• Maximale Streaming-Qualität

  Audio Hi-Res 24-Bit

  FLAC Hi-Res 24-Bit / bis zu 192kHz

  Hi-Res-Streaming des Großteils des Hi-Res-Katalogs*. CD-Streaming des restlichen Katalogs

• Dauerhafte Rabatte des Download-Katalogs

  Downloads in Hi-Res 24-Bit zum Preis von MP3

  30% bis 60% Reduzierung auf einen Großteil des Katalogs zum Download à la carte

sorry, i can't speak deutsch.   Can we really stream from qobuz 24 bit?  ( not downloads we buy, but direct streaming from qobuz).

Keler Pierre posted:

Erich posted:

Sublime +

• Maximale Streaming-Qualität

  Audio Hi-Res 24-Bit

  FLAC Hi-Res 24-Bit / bis zu 192kHz

  Hi-Res-Streaming des Großteils des Hi-Res-Katalogs*. CD-Streaming des restlichen Katalogs

• Dauerhafte Rabatte des Download-Katalogs

  Downloads in Hi-Res 24-Bit zum Preis von MP3

  30% bis 60% Reduzierung auf einen Großteil des Katalogs zum Download à la carte

sorry, i can't speak deutsch.   Can we really stream from qobuz 24 bit?  ( not downloads we buy, but direct streaming from qobuz).

My understanding is yes, though through their top-level subscription service. I have in mind there is another online hi res streaming service from someone else, though as it holds no interest to me I don't recall who it may be.

Keler Pierre posted:

I am promoting nothing. I doubt all magazines and audio sites have financial interests in giving positive review of a product or technology. It may and even is the case for some, like What hifi or stereo magazine....But when you have unanimity from all serious magazines, as absolute sound, stereophile, hificritic, audiostream, computer audiophile, hifi news, it is rather difficult to not believe in this unanimity.  But if you reject magazines and audio sites reviews, and prefer to believe 2 or 3 forum members,

it is your right and choice.  I think you would be a good candidate for a sect community...

You're still missing the point.  I am not commenting on the functionality nor the sound quality like the magazines have done.  The business model is the real issue, the technology is a very distant second on the list, to the point where the technical issues are not worth discussing until the business model has been understood and accepted.  If you consider being driven to pay a fee to a third party intent on driving proprietary solutions, imposing a levy at every stage of production and with the possibility of applying DRM so that you can't play that content unless you play it on one of their proprietary licenced systems, THEN you can discuss the technology.  I just really don't understand why anyone would accept this business model which brings no benefit over what is possible today using existing and open systems.

I do belong to a sect, one that isn't published very much and doesn't really organise itsself - its members don't like to be brainwashed by marketing hype.