MQA and Naim

I dont know the "real story" either Max.  My good friend, who is quite invested in his Meridian hi fi, swears by it.  But he is quite invested in his Meridian hi fi . . . 

Maybe it's just another "if you like the sound of it, you like the sound of it" thing.  I've never heard it. 

Phil Harris of Naim posted some time ago the MQA tech guys had been to Naim for a few days. He said it needed to be more widespread available for Naim to consider implementing. I presume that a Tidal and what other outlets has not been enough to trigger a reaction by Naim. Also there really has been little discussion on the forum demanding this feature, and a Naim have enough software items on their plate.

Naim did state last year that they might consider adding MQA support if it gained sufficient traction. I don’t remember who exactly said it, but it was in response to posters on the forum who asked for it. Quite how one defines the point at which it becomes worth their while is, of course, open to interpretation, and I can’t help thinking that they might prefer it to fade away quietly so that they don’t have to bother. 

There was a view expressed by Linn that MQA was a “land grab” that took a license fee at every stage of the process of recorded music that was unjustifiable. The counter argument would be that people genuinely prefer the way it sounds, compared to other digital music streams, at a similar data rate. Some have expressed a preference one way or the other, but not always after using a fully MQA enabled DAC. So perhaps the jury is still out. 

Thanks. I too have read the Linn page, although Linn of course is a competitor.. But there are also more 'independent' reads or video, like this:

in which (I couldn't catch everything that was said) it appears that MQA representatives weren't exactly informative and open-minded.

My idea is just the opposite of what might be thought: the record industry, now more and more involved in streaming, has asked a notable figure in audio (Bob Stuart) to conjure up something that could help monopolizing the market and making big money while 'objectively' giving something palatable to the audiophile – which is widely open to discussions including marketing strategies, psychoacoustics and NLP. But I am a known paranoid...

Anyway, I'd be happier if Naim kept some distance from all this until/unless they decide that gains in sound quality are a fact.

M.

MQA appears to be derided by many so called 'audiophiles' and a number of key audio equipment manufacturers, notably Linn and Chord (and possibly Naim?).  However, in the most part that derision appears to have very little to do with sound quality or perceived sound quality. 

Many people appear to be antagonistic towards the format on two ideological grounds. The first of these is that MQA can be described as a 'lossy' format (I was tempted to say 'so called lossy'), even though it claims to be able to deliver higher quality sound at a 'lower bandwidth', and some people will simply not consider the format on this basis alone. Of course, one could argue (as does Hans Beekhuyzen) that any form of digital format (including FLAC) can be described as 'lossy' by its very nature. The second ideological argument is of course that MQA is a 'proprietary' rather than an 'open' format, and so in order to adopt it, manufacturers would presumably have to obtain a license from Meridian for its use. This would obviously be anathema to key rival companies such as Linn, Naim and Chord etc 

My view of MQA will simply boil down to whether our not I believe MQA encoded material sounds as good as or better than non encoded equivalents. Not necessarily an easy thing to test for a number of reasons, but I intend to give it a go.

Unfortunately, my main streamer/DAC (the Linn Klimax DS/1) does not support (and Linn will almost certainly never support) MQA. Similarly it will not support DSD. However, I am currently having a few problems with the Chord Hugo(1) DAC I use in my second system, and my plan (after audition against the Chord Qutest or TT) is to almost certainly replace my Hugo with a DAC that supports MQA. My intention will be to purchase a number of commercial MQA files, and to make us of the growing library of MQA masters on Tidal. Favourite to replace the Hugo at the moment is the Mytek Brooklyn+, and I will use that in conjunction with my Sonore microRendu.

I can understand why some people and particularly some manufacturers are opposed to MQA on ideological and cost grounds, but my own personal position will be reached purely and simply on my perception of the effect that MQA has on sound quality. I find it galling that I cannot purchase DSD files (which I believe can provide superb sound quality) because although they are supported by my current Hugo DAC, they are not supported by the Linn streamer in my main system. However, I will be able to purchase MQA files in the knowledge that whilst the potential full benefits of MQA encoding will not be realised in my main system, the files will nevertheless play perfectly well on that system. Some say that MQA files can sound better even on equipment that does not support even a partial MQA unfold. That remains to be seen, but I look forward to trying it out.          

The main point of the Linn argument against MQA is not just that audio equipment manufacturers like them have to pay MQA. Every single stage of the production, distribution and consumption of recorded music has a license fee to pay to MQA, all the way from the purchase of recording studio hardware and software through to the listener buying music. It seems to me that it would require a very clear and significant advantage to justify such a scheme if it siphons off money from the music industry is so many different ways. 

I believe Linn are right,  its not that significantly different or has an advantage over other codec wrt SQ,  & is storage space that much of an issue.    The licence fee as its applied will restrict it to all but a few audio manufacturers & I suspect it will end up in the care home for white elephants.    

Mike-B posted:

I believe Linn are right,  its not that significantly different or has an advantage over other codec wrt SQ,  & is storage space that much of an issue.    The licence fee as its applied will restrict it to all but a few audio manufacturers & I suspect it will end up in the care home for white elephants.    

I don’t want to like MQA, but to be fair, most of us have only assessed its sound quality using a non-MQA dac, with the first unfold performed in Tidal software. Regarding storage, the real advantage would be in web streaming (the norm for an increasing number of listeners) rather than streaming from LAN storage, where it’s easier to see the advantage. 

Mike-B posted:

I believe Linn are right,  its not that significantly different or has an advantage over other codec wrt SQ,  & is storage space that much of an issue.    The licence fee as its applied will restrict it to all but a few audio manufacturers & I suspect it will end up in the care home for white elephants.    

Quite agree Mike. MQA is the answer to a question nobody asked, or was even thinking of asking.

I have an Oppo 205 that 'does' MQA. I also have some MQA-encoded albums on USB sticks and to be frank, after listening, I cannot see the point. There's no detectable improvement in sound quality even over 16/44 redbook files...

It feels like it was, in part, developed to deal with a problem that no longer exists. Bandwidth. As fiber broadband spreads increase and spread, the ability to use higher data rates be it for music, movies etc. becomes the norm. This will be trumped over time by an open codec and will end up in the DAT, HD DVD bin of history.

The Tablet was also an answer to a question nobody asked. I thought it was going to be the first major fail of Apple, but as usual on marketing topics - I was wrong.

You might be right Chris,  but if web streaming is in fact the main market,  does any SQ gain & the price of it float the boats with that markets majority users,  & as I understand it the majority by some margin are mobile & the younger age group & not home audiophiles

Kevin-W posted:

Mike-B posted:

I believe Linn are right,  its not that significantly different or has an advantage over other codec wrt SQ,  & is storage space that much of an issue.    The licence fee as its applied will restrict it to all but a few audio manufacturers & I suspect it will end up in the care home for white elephants.    

Quite agree Mike. MQA is the answer to a question nobody asked, or was even thinking of asking.

I have an Oppo 205 that 'does' MQA. I also have some MQA-encoded albums on USB sticks and to be frank, after listening, I cannot see the point. There's no detectable improvement in sound quality even over 16/44 redbook files...

Ah, but that is a bit like saying (as some do) that "all DACs sound the same". CDs sound perfectly good on my JVC CD player. What's the point in paying huge amounts of money on a CD555?

No disrespect to your Oppo (and although this is often a prefix to disrespect, I really don't mean it to be in this case - the Oppo is a wonderful Blu-ray player), but it is perhaps not relevant to dismiss MQA on the basis that you can't hear a difference on that specific deck with the specific MQA files that you own. As a matter of interest, which MQA albums do you own? I assume that you have achieved the full MQA unfolds in your testing?   

I personally don't know yet how good (or not) MQA sounds to my ears, but a number of reviewers whose opinions I by and large trust have commented favourably about MQA, and I intend to find out for myself. I do know that many people are also dismissive of DSD, but I have personally found that the average DSD file sounds better than its 'closest' non DSD equivalent.   

I agree with one of the comments in the replies above that 'storage space' is not an issue nowadays. That is true, and my interest in MQA has nothing to do with saving storage space on my NAS. Irrespective of the ultimate sound quality benefits (or otherwise) of MQA, if MQA offers me a growing library of 'hi-resolution' albums via Tidal or any other streaming source (as it has the potential to do), then I am most definitely interested. 

Ardbeg10y posted:

The Tablet was also an answer to a question nobody asked. I thought it was going to be the first major fail of Apple, but as usual on marketing topics - I was wrong.

In a way, yes, but people had been asking for tablet-type devices (and people were trying to develop them) since the early 1990s - Apple's Newton was an early, if unsuccessful attempt at creating a tablet.

Apple's genius was to recognise that the iPhone, and its touchscreen in particular, opened up the real possibilities for the tablet. And so it proved. Tablets in general have really taken off in all manner of situations - retail and warehouse management, healthcare, graphic design, gaming, AI, AR and VR, music production, etc - that even Jobs and co. could not ha ve envisioned.

MQA is however just another proprietary system designed to get money out of consumers, music makers and hardware manufacturers. It offers, as far as I can tell, no appreciable improvement in SQ, and comes at a time when the world is moving towards 'universal', 'open source' solutions. It deserves to fail, and probably will do so.

Crispy posted:

It feels like it was, in part, developed to deal with a problem that no longer exists. Bandwidth. As fiber broadband spreads increase and spread, the ability to use higher data rates be it for music, movies etc. becomes the norm. This will be trumped over time by an open codec and will end up in the DAT, HD DVD bin of history.

I don't think 'Bandwidth' is "a problem that no longer exists". In the UK, that is certainly not the case yet.

You may well be correct in suggesting that MQA will in time be trumped by an open codec and that MQA will end up in the DAT, Betamax and HD DVD bin of history. That is certainly the outcome that many would like, and I do understand to a degree why that's the case. However, it has not always been the case that the better or best format wins - witness the demise of Betamax that was very clearly better than VHS, and SACD that was  potentially significantly better than redbook CD. 

[@mention:23389351210890912] - I have the stuff by The Doors, Black Sabbath, Bjork etc. I'm not saying MQA is bad, it just offers no audible improvement as far as I can tell. So what's the point?

There's something else too. At a time when the music industry is shrinking, and the returns for musicians are getting thinner by the year, for another middleman to jump in demanding a cut for no apparent reason seems especially egregious.

Kevin-W posted:

"MQA is however just another proprietary system designed to get money out of consumers, music makers and hardware manufacturers. It offers, as far as I can tell, no appreciable improvement in SQ, and comes at a time when the world is moving towards 'universal', 'open source' solutions. It deserves to fail, and probably will do so".

But then you could argue that the iPhone or iPad forces you to use a proprietary operating system that was designed to get money out of consumers, iPhone app producers etc.

No one is forcing studios or hardware manufacturers to use MQA in recording sessions nor to incorporate MQA technology in their hardware. Did you have a similar antipathy to the use of Dolby noise reduction systems in cassette decks, or the use of Dolby Digital in cinemas or home cinema systems and DVD or Blu-Ray players such as the Oppo?. 

Hmack posted:

You may well be correct in suggesting that MQA will in time be trumped by an open codec and that MQA will end up in the DAT, Betamax and HD DVD bin of history. That is certainly the outcome that many would like, and I do understand to a degree why that's the case. However, it has not always been the case that the better or best format wins - witness the demise of Betamax that was very clearly better than VHS, and SACD that was  potentially significantly better than redbook CD. 

For the vast majority of consumers, it's not a matter of what's 'best' but what's 'good enough' and what offers the most convenience and widest choice (good marketing also plays a role too). That's why cassette and CD won over vinyl and R2R; MS-DOS and later Windows beat the Mac operating systems; VHS beat U-matic, Betamax, Laserdisc and V2000; and Berliner's discs flattened Edison's cyclinders, etc.

Interestingly, what were probably the two most successful format launches of the late 20th century - CD and DVD - were universally standardised so were not subject to any kind of format wars.

Consumers don't like competing, incompatible proprietary systems and don't like being forced to take sides in other people's format wars. MQA is just another format which in order to enjoy the supposed benefits, one has to shell out for a new bit of kit (ie a DAC or player that supports MQA).

What's the bloody point? Hi-res files are easily downloadable these days, and CDs are as cheap as chips. What is MQA bringing to the party, exactly?

Kevin-W posted:

[@mention:23389351210890912] - I have the stuff by The Doors, Black Sabbath, Bjork etc. I'm not saying MQA is bad, it just offers no audible improvement as far as I can tell. So what's the point?

There's something else too. At a time when the music industry is shrinking, and the returns for musicians are getting thinner by the year, for another middleman to jump in demanding a cut for no apparent reason seems especially egregious.

HI Kevin,

I would probably use some Doors material myself for comparison, so no issues with your choice of music. If I do end up with a Mytek Brooklyn+ DAC (which I expect to purchase for its general abilities - MQA would just be a bonus) then I will report back on my opinion of the merits or otherwise of MQA.

I do take your point about shrinking amounts of money in the Music industry for musicians, and so if there proves to be no sound quality benefits in respect of MQA then I may well end up agreeing with you. On the other hand, if I find that MQA (for me) does provide sound quality benefits then for me, MQA is not "there for no apparent reason".

I believe that many musicians are probably treated very unfairly by the music industry at large as things stand when it comes to money and earnings. Do you really think that the introduction of MQA and its licensing in the recording chain would have a significant impact on what musicians will potentially earn from their music?     

Kevin-W posted:

Hmack posted:

You may well be correct in suggesting that MQA will in time be trumped by an open codec and that MQA will end up in the DAT, Betamax and HD DVD bin of history. That is certainly the outcome that many would like, and I do understand to a degree why that's the case. However, it has not always been the case that the better or best format wins - witness the demise of Betamax that was very clearly better than VHS, and SACD that was  potentially significantly better than redbook CD. 

For the vast majority of consumers, it's not a matter of what's 'best' but what's 'good enough' and what offers the most convenience and widest choice (good marketing also plays a role too). That's why cassette and CD won over vinyl and R2R; MS-DOS and later Windows beat the Mac operating systems; VHS beat U-matic, Betamax, Laserdisc and V2000; and Berliner's discs flattened Edison's cyclinders, etc.

Interestingly, what were probably the two most successful format launches of the late 20th century - CD and DVD - were universally standardised so were not subject to any kind of format wars.

Consumers don't like competing, incompatible proprietary systems and don't like being forced to take sides in other people's format wars. MQA is just another format which in order to enjoy the supposed benefits, one has to shell out for a new bit of kit (ie a DAC or player that supports MQA).

What's the bloody point? Hi-res files are easily downloadable these days, and CDs are as cheap as chips. What is MQA bringing to the party, exactly?

I agree with a lot of what you say, and particularly your comments that

a) consumers by and large simply want what is "good enough" - that has always been the case, but even more so nowadays. For most people an iPhone, a pair of cheap earbud headphones and access to YouTube is "good enough", and

b) Consumers don't like competing, incompatible proprietary systems - we have this in many aspects of our lives . Betamax  is no longer still around to compete with the vestiges of VHS, but we do have competing proprietary music formats such as DSD, and we do live in an era in which if (for example) you want to view the EPL, then you need to subscribe to a number of competing subscription networks.

Interestingly, MQA is different to many of the examples of proprietary systems that you quoted, in that MQA was engineered as a format to be compatible with any standard music playing system. Unlike DSD, It is not incompatible with 'standard' redbook playing systems. You don't get the additional (alleged) benefits of enhanced sound quality of course, but you do have the ability to play MQA encoded files with at worst (again allegedly) little or no loss in sound quality.

Most consumers will simply not care if files are MQA encoded unless they are required to pay more for them, in which case they will vote with their wallets.            

Thanks, a lot of interesting exchange of opinions. Now, back to my original posts, does anyone have any technical fact to add to the discussion? Has anybody watched the video to the end?

Thanks again

M.

I flicked through most of the video, but as nearly all of the audience were inaudible it seemed pointless. 

Last year there was a long thread about it, which included some investigation of what MQA does as well as the inevitable speculation, if you’re interested:

https://forums.naimaudio.com/t...y-mqa-audio-1?page=1

There’s also

https://forums.naimaudio.com/t...09#69426746270909509

and if you’re still hungry for more,

https://forums.naimaudio.com/t...80#69426746130676480

I use Roon with Tidal on my Nova and many albums are available both in MQA and standard cd format. Without exception I prefer the MQA version. Roon only does the first unfold - I would love Naim to enable the full MQA resolution on their new platform. I have been told it is feasible. 

I don't pretend to understand the lossy vs hidef arguments or the licensing issues and I really don't care. MQA sounds better to my ears in my system. It's always going to be optional - as far as I know there are no MQA only albums on Tidal so I can't see a down side.

I hadn't watched the video before I wrote my posts, but I have now. 

I have to say that the presentation was one of the most absurd, incompetent and biased that I have heard (in the context of hi-fidelity and audio).

The conclusion reached by the presenter appears to be basically that MQA can sound absolutely wonderful, but it is the work of the devil (and the large corporations).

The part of the presentation relating to DRM was particularly ridiculous. The presenter's perspective  appeared to be that although no examples of DRM type restriction have been observed, and the fact that those involved in the development and roll out of MQA have stated that they have no intention of using, and will not use MQA as a means of copy protection (I assume that this is what he means when he refers to DRM), his view, or rather that of one of the 'experts' he quotes is that because copy protection could potentially be built into the MQA codec, it stands convicted.

I am afraid I found this so called 'unbiased' presentation to be anything but.     

If you want to see a truly independent and unbiased (or at least meaningful) discussion about MQA and its potential benefits/drawbacks, I would suggest that you have a look at some of the videos on the Hans Beekhuyzen channel on YouTube.