MQA

Tx, 

for now it's too much hype I guess...

last thing I want to do is  buying my music collection again��

As far as I am aware, MQA  is not in itself a new format requiring you to buy new recordings. It appears to be an algorithmic means of wrapping and compressing music from source to receiver, so should accommodate all sorts of file formats.

I'm reading things slightly opposite to Andarian: it's a new source encoding algorithm that aims to give higher quality sound with a reduced bandwidth cost. The Meridian site makes it clear that the "MQA sauce" is, essentially, a remastering step and, since the business model seems to be "free decoding", the costs will be for re-mastering and (I believe) re-selling. As Mike-B points out, it might not arrive as a retail format because it's lower bandwidth is a huge part of the marketing plan...but, and I've never heard one, recordings mastered in this way are also claimed to sound great, so it may very well become a channel for getting material that has been carefully and beautifully produced out there for downloads / ownership also.

In such a case, I think that MQA online streaming - eg via Tidal if that ever happens - will turn into a very interesting sort of "pre-purchase exploration" since high resolution sources will be the only things worth re-encoding. 

Regards alan

ps - in fairness to Andarkian, the "backward compatible" decoding means you won't be "locked in" to new hardware or new source material  

pps - your post reminds me of the great line in the movie Men in Black, where some new (alien) audio format inspires Rip Torn to sigh "looks like I'll have to buy The White Album again..."

alan33 posted:

I'm reading things slightly opposite to Andarian: it's a new source encoding algorithm that aims to give higher quality sound with a reduced bandwidth cost. The Meridian site makes it clear that the "MQA sauce" is, essentially, a remastering step and, since the business model seems to be "free decoding", the costs will be for re-mastering and (I believe) re-selling. As Mike-B points out, it might not arrive as a retail format because it's lower bandwidth is a huge part of the marketing plan...but, and I've never heard one, recordings mastered in this way are also claimed to sound great, so it may very well become a channel for getting material that has been carefully and beautifully produced out there for downloads / ownership also.

In such a case, I think that MQA online streaming - eg via Tidal if that ever happens - will turn into a very interesting sort of "pre-purchase exploration" since high resolution sources will be the only things worth re-encoding. 

Regards alan

ps - in fairness to Andarkian, the "backward compatible" decoding means you won't be "locked in" to new hardware or new source material  

pps - your post reminds me of the great line in the movie Men in Black, where some new (alien) audio format inspires Rip Torn to sigh "looks like I'll have to buy The White Album again..."

Nope, don't think so. I've read a couple of articles and here's a bit from What HiFi.

"Rather than being a new file type to sit alongside FLAC, WAV et al, MQA files will instead be packaged inside any lossless container such as FLAC, WAV or Apple Lossless. This means you could potentially stream hi-res audio through an iPhone, with the compatible hardware.

That hardware will need an MQA decoder, but that decoder could find its way into pretty much any type of audio product: whether a hi-fi streamer, portable music player or even in-car audio system.

Read more at http://www.whathifi.com/news/m...#yxbtVFjZLlAT1M4V.99 "

So, it should accommodate WAV, FLAC or any other hi density file. I believe it is supposed to reproduce the original content of the recorded file, packs at one end and unpacks at the other. 

Oh, and if you like White Albums I'm your man. The original 1968 mono, upgraded to stereo, upgraded to CD, upgraded to remastered. 

I think we're talking at slightly crossed purposes. Agree the file type can be packaged in a standard container - hence backward compatible for, say, MP3 decoding if an MQA decoder not available - but the question is whether one would need to re-purchase any given song or album yet again to enjoy the sonic improvement me associated with MQA...and for that, I believe the answer is "yes". (ie not simply possible to transcode from flac or wav and stream MQA...since it could be in a flac or wav container as you say). 

So, not a new file type but yes a new mastered source (at a new cost). 

Regards alan

ps - nice

But it gets confusing when the 2L label talks about the first MQA remaster, and of course it is fantastic. This I suppose must be bought as a new album. There is a link but I do not have it on hand right now.

I think the following link answers most of the questions and have to say that it is not just an encapsulator for transmission purposes but a means of capturing  the master recordings to be transferred and packagedwithin any of the standard formats eg WAV or FLAC. It obviously needs and encoder and decoder at each end. At least, that's today's understanding

http://www.mqa.co.uk/customer/how-it-works

That link looks like marketing, targetted at the mp3 crowd!

Claus

As a Scot, Clas, I'd just like to say, that thou art  a skellum, a bothering blustering drunken skellum! The article may have looked like a pink giraffe but the words encapsulated in it were quite interesting, detailed and not really aimed at the MP3 crowd, as it referred directly to master recordings and the companies producing them. Read before you speak!

Other than it assumes 'conventional' files type are lossy ... What happened to CD, WAV, ALAC and FLAC, these are somewhat conventional that even my YouTube loving 18 year old son even understands you need if you want to listen to good quality audio.. Or so he told me this evening.

Simon

Good link- tx! I'll wait now until it's available and test it out...my frontend is on the support link, DAC hopefully later this year...

ralf

Simon,

Whether MQA is a format in itself, like WAV or CD, that is not 100% clear. It appears to receive the 'master' recording and then wraps it up or to use the dirty word 'compresses' it. As our society uses compressed data for many, many things it does not have to be as evil as many presume. Anyway, like the new Mu-so QB, the proof of the pudding...

Interesting link but understandably short on specifics. It mentions studio master quality but what does this mean?  If MQA is a method of encoding digital audio then is it using 32bit or 24bit LPCM data and and at what sampling rate. The reference to "timing" would indicate a sample rate higher than standard CD 44.1kHz but will it be as high as 88.2 or 96kHz or even higher? The reference to larger file size than CD also suggests this as does the stated improvement over CD quality on non MQA equipment.

Andarkian yes agree proof is in the pudding.. But I am suspicious that the marketing for MQA all seems very dumbed down and lacking on specifics..

Within MQA itself I believe there is a benefit in matched construction and reconstruction filters.. A flaw in current digitally encoded music and real world encoding and replay systems, but thereafter I have doubts as to whether there will be much a demand for lossy hidef audio.

Okay last tuppence worth! It would appear to be frame based as in frames of film with the huge questions being,  what is in a frame and what happens between frames?  It would appear to fold up segments of music into a frame the send them using any old protocol, by which I mean WAV, FLAC and so on,  to the receiver. Everything screams to me that it is relatively old hat in that we have been sending packets of data down lines since, well, the telegraph, the tricks being in the wires used, the packaging and the compression algorithms. 

Ok I don't know specifics but I would not be deterred by that per se ..  FLAC uses frames and so does SPDIF, and obviously network audio using Ethernet or USB is framed

Simon, me too but I don't want to expect ror presume too much.

I think the essence of MQA is to sell better quality mastering rather than container size. I'm sure we have all been disappointed with 24/192 purchases because ultimately they were recorded at less than 24/192 or badly mastered in the first place.