MQA and Naim

Thanks, I will. So far, I am safe in the protecting shadow of my CDX2.2, but am determined to have as much true info as possible before forming a technical opinion. That's why I'm asking.

M.

happy to see the hot MQA debate finally infesting this forum 

for my part I like the idea of decoupling the SQ debate from the monopoly/commercial debate. Having red (but not understood) articles by both sides I only surmise that the idea is at least non trivial. And as a famous scientist  I admired said "every non trivial idea is in some sense correct".

Let the debate reign!

Pev posted:

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.

Can’t agree more. Using Roon, I have compared the same albums over en over again at my NAS, the CD version in Tidal and the MQA version in Tidal. The conclusion is consistent: MQA sounds better to my ears

MQA seems not to be going anywhere here in the US, at least, to this point in time. Audiophiles, of course, can be a fickle bunch. Several designers come close to calling it fraud and one comes out and says its a hoax. Though its also true that some new designs have MQA (Mytek for example). Google Bob Carver MQA for the hoax viewpoint. Bob is no fool and he goes into detail on how special controlled acess  recordings were used to introduce MQA to magazine reviewers but those recordings were juiced and not typical MQA. He’s done null tests on the same music at CD quality vs MQA and finds the null point at -70 db which he suggests even bats won’t hear. But please read for yourself as I’m technically not in the ball game so to speak.

As fars as user reviews, some say they hear no difference, some say they do. Right now for me, there are too many good designers saying it’s B.S and too many listeners not hearing a difference. I think I’ll wait this one out.

Not just Mytek. 

The following manufacturers of DACs and streamers (I've selected just a few) appear to support MQA:

Audiolab, Audioquest, Brinkmann, DCS, Lumin, M2Tech, Mark Levinson, Matrix, Moon, Meridian (of course), Mytek, NAD, Pioneer, PS Audio, PureAudio, Quad, Aurender, Cary Audio, Esoteric, Oppo, Technics 

Missed out Bel Canto, Hegel and Rotel from the list above. Quite a list! 

Iver van de Zand posted:

Pev posted:

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.

Can’t agree more. Using Roon, I have compared the same albums over en over again at my NAS, the CD version in Tidal and the MQA version in Tidal. The conclusion is consistent: MQA sounds better to my ears

Iver,

I too have on some occasions compared over and over some format vs another one, and my conclusion is that almost any good rip sounds at least as good as the optic reading. In some cases, often, a little better.

DrPo posted:

happy to see the hot MQA debate finally infesting this forum 

for my part I like the idea of decoupling the SQ debate from the monopoly/commercial debate. Having red (but not understood) articles by both sides I only surmise that the idea is at least non trivial. And as a famous scientist  I admired said "every non trivial idea is in some sense correct".

Let the debate reign!

Well, here is some stuff for your entertainment:

https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd...903c44599a91b04b.pdf

M.

P.S. For once, I read it all and understood it all.

M.

Massimo Bertola posted:

Iver van de Zand posted:

Pev posted:

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.

Can’t agree more. Using Roon, I have compared the same albums over en over again at my NAS, the CD version in Tidal and the MQA version in Tidal. The conclusion is consistent: MQA sounds better to my ears

Iver,

I too have on some occasions compared over and over some format vs another one, and my conclusion is that almost any good rip sounds at least as good as the optic reading. In some cases, often, a little better.

Whay do you mean by an ‘optic reading’ as opposed to a rip? If you mean CD playback, you are comparing many different variables as you are comparing different hardware (digital transports and DACs) as well as digital data. 

Massimo Bertola posted:

P.S. For once, I read it all and understood it all.

M.

thanks and I did enjoy it too. I am sure there must be a response by am not that interested in MQA myself to try to find it :-)

Yes, I mean CD playback. And yes, I am comparing different hardware – although I do not understand why there should be a difference in the data if the rip was accurate. But then, isn't that the reason why many have moved from CD playback to streaming? Data ripped on a HD are not the same as in the pits and holes of a CD? Wasn't such a move done to have better reading of those data? Why shouldn't I a compare the two system? They exist to be compared and to choose between one or the other.

Massimo Bertola posted:

Yes, I mean CD playback. And yes, I am comparing different hardware – although I do not understand why there should be a difference in the data if the rip was accurate. But then, isn't that the reason why many have moved from CD playback to streaming? Data ripped on a HD are not the same as in the pits and holes of a CD? Wasn't such a move done to have better reading of those data? Why shouldn't I a compare the two system? They exist to be compared and to choose between one or the other.

A properly functioning CD player or streamer should both deliver exactly the same bitstream, but to different DSPs and DACs, with different analogue output stages, and possibly with different levels of electrical interference affecting the sound. So I would say that this should be a comparison of different digital sources using the same digital data. That in itself does not, of course, make it wrong to compare the two sources. 

There is a new thread referencing an interesting study of MQA:

https://forums.naimaudio.com/topic/mqa-3

I had a look at Bob Carver's paper some time ago, and as far as I can remember his findings were not that MQA in itself could not potentially produce good results, but rather that the promoters of MQA were genuinely playing a con trick on  the buying public. His claim appeared to be that reviewers were taken in because they had been provided with MQA sample files that were painstakingly engineered to sound very good, whereas the general public would never have access to such high quality files. He claimed that the MQA files available for general release that he tested were more or less identical to the non MQA equivalents.

Now, I have no doubt that the promoters of MQA would have supplied reviewers with MQA samples that they believed to be amongst the best they had, and I have no idea what sort of sample size Bob Carver used to test his claim, but I find claims of deliberate fraud of this sort and scale and conspiracy theory in general to be highly unlikely. A number of generally respected reviewers have been willing to state that they have been impressed by MQA (including some Tidal Masters) when implemented well.

I don't yet have any personal evidence of whether or not MQA, and in particular Tidal's MQA Masters offer any advantages over standard redbook CD on Tidal, but I certainly aim to find out for myself over the coming weeks.        

Hmack posted:

I don't yet have any personal evidence of whether or not MQA, and in particular Tidal's MQA Masters offer any advantages over standard redbook CD on Tidal, but I certainly aim to find out for myself over the coming weeks.        

So will you be buying an MQA enabled DAC to test it with?

"...but I find claims of deliberate fraud of this sort and scale and conspiracy theory in general to be highly unlikely"

yes, I totally share the disdain for this type of assertions... they usually come from politicians or scientists (and in the case of MQA the arguments on both sides do remind me of scientific debates... I have done it for a living myself for a few years and know how heated the debate can be)

ChrisSU posted:

Hmack posted:

I don't yet have any personal evidence of whether or not MQA, and in particular Tidal's MQA Masters offer any advantages over standard redbook CD on Tidal, but I certainly aim to find out for myself over the coming weeks.        

So will you be buying an MQA enabled DAC to test it with?

Probably, although my choice of DAC will be made primarily on the basis of its general performance rather than its ability with MQA. An ability to carry out the full MQA unfold will be a bonus, and especially so in the event that MQA proves to  be worthwhile.

I will be purchasing a new DAC for my second system to replace a Chord Hugo (1st gen) which is playing up a little, and at the moment the favourite DAC to replace the Hugo is the Mytek Brooklyn+ which is an MQA enabled DAC. Other contenders are the Chord Qutest (which doesn't support MQA of course) and the latest version of the M2Tech Young which also supports MQA. I'll be using my Sonore microRendu as the 'front-end' with whichever DAC I choose.

I hope to get a home demo of the Mytek over the next couple of weeks, and if it sounds better to me than the Hugo it will replace (playing non MQA encoded files) then I'll probably just go with it.

It will prove to be a little irritating in the event that I am impressed by MQA, because the streamer/DAC in my main system (Linn Klimax DS/1) doesn't support, and never will support MQA. In the future, if I decide to purchase albums that are available in standard hi-res or MQA hi-res I'll be a little conflicted as to what to do.  

Hmack posted:

.... His claim appeared to be that reviewers were taken in because they had been provided with MQA sample files that were painstakingly engineered to sound very good, whereas the general public would never have access to such high quality files. He claimed that the MQA files available for general release that he tested were more or less identical to the non MQA equivalents.     

His claim was that the sample files given to press were all processed through a 3D audio algorithm to give a greater sense of depth/!stereofield.

He also referred to the MQA-patents and claims that when when you play MQA-files on a ”non-paying” (no MQA-licenes paid I presume) system the resolution is reduced from 24bit/96kHz  to 13bit/48kHz. If you pay and do the first unfold trough a non-MQA DAC you get 17bits/48kHz.  There are also 7-bits to be used for customer tracking.

jlarsson posted:

Hmack posted:

.... His claim appeared to be that reviewers were taken in because they had been provided with MQA sample files that were painstakingly engineered to sound very good, whereas the general public would never have access to such high quality files. He claimed that the MQA files available for general release that he tested were more or less identical to the non MQA equivalents.     

His claim was that the sample files given to press were all processed through a 3D audio algorithm to give a greater sense of depth/!stereofield.

He also referred to the MQA-patents and claims that when when you play MQA-files on a ”non-paying” (no MQA-licenes paid I presume) system the resolution is reduced from 24bit/96kHz  to 13bit/48kHz. If you pay and do the first unfold trough a non-MQA DAC you get 17bits/48kHz.  There are also 7-bits to be used for customer tracking.

 

I believe that he went a little further than this. He suggested that the sound quality for those using a 'non-paying' system would "probably be worse than MP3 and substantially worse than CD quality". I don't think this is something that many (if any) have noticed when listening to Tidal masters on non MQA enabled equipment. It certainly isn't something I have been aware of when listening to Tidal's MQA masters on my current non MQA enabled equipment.

He also claimed that because of his own development work in respect of "an audio psychoacoustic circuit known as acoustic crosstalk cancellation", he was able to 'hear' that the original MQA files presented to him for evaluation had been created using a similar technique. His conclusion was that "the MQA-1 files (which he accepted sounded very good) enhanced depth, space and clarity were far more likely  to have come from the proven signal processing phenomenon of crosstalk cancellation than due to magic filters and bit depth tricks". Okay - not something I am qualified to contradict, but hardly in itself a very scientifically backed conclusion.  He further suggested that processing of this sort should be an optional on/off function in amplifiers (such as his own amplifier designs) rather than anonymously concealed in file encoding. Fine!

Now, I have no idea whatsoever of whether or not his claim is accurate, but does it matter greatly if the resultant files sound better? Yes, maybe it does, but it strikes me that the basis of this particular claim is not particularly scientific since it is based on his claimed ability to hear the effects of 'acoustic crosstalk cancellation'.

His claim that 7 bits have been set aside for customer tracking also seems a little strange to me. Again, I am not an expert and so I am not qualified to contradict the claim. However, how will a DAC that plays MQA files from a local NAS communicate with a third party in order to distribute customer information that might be held on the MQA files?    

The acrimony involved in the debate, and particularly that emanating from the anti-MQA side borders on the evangelic and puts our own Brexit debates to the shade in this respect, and my inclination is to be immediately sceptical. I suspect that reality (as is normally the case) will occupy a middle ground of some sort. If either the Mytek Brooklyn+ or M2tech Young III end up in my second system, I will look forward to making up (in a pretty unscientific way by simply listening to the music) my own mind about the potential benefits of MQA.       

This seems to be a topic that each individual will have to form a view of their own. As a non-technical person, those who are extremely knowledgable and have analysed to the n-th degree give differing conclusions. From those that I have read, the basis of their conclusions seem convincing unless I consider that any of the authors are deliberately setting out to deceive. I get no sense and have no evidence that is the case and so would take at face value their belief in their conclusions. Where does that leave me? Having to form my own view on the merits of MQA based on sound quality in my system alone.

My first introduction to MQA was via the Tidal desktop app through my home studio speaker monitors. The sound was, frankly, sensational from David Bowie's Young Americans. I didn't know what MQA was. I just saw the word "Masters" and wondered what it was. It sounded as if the band had started playing in the room. The realism and depth of sound was breath-taking. It is fair to say that I have never been able to replicate that experience. 

I have tried various Tidal MQA masters from a Mac mini via Roon to my 282/250DR using a Meridian Explorer 2, a Dragonfly Red and a Mytek Brooklyn +. I have also used a Sonore Upnp Bridge to my NDX. I think that rates as a fair try. I can hear no difference between Tidal CD quality stream or an MQA stream. I wouldn't agree with those who may have said that MQA is not as good as CD quality per se. It isn't bad, I just don't perceive it as better. The best sound for me comes from streaming CD Rips or downloads from my Unitiserve to the NDX. 

In context, it is possible I am not a sophisticated or analytical listener. Reviewers of equipment leave me bemused with the level of detail heard in recordings. I know what i think sounds good but I just can't seem to hear it as they hear but all I know is that I love hearing it. Likewise, I would not be overly concerned whether a system is tinkering with the original source file if the result of that tinkering were to be a substantially improved listening experience. 

I suspect this debate will rage on and on until MQA either succeeds or fails and no doubt beyond that. Irrespective of the technical rights and wrongs, the upshot would seem to be that, unless you try it for yourself, you will never know.

Graham in Sussex posted:

"I have tried various Tidal MQA masters from a Mac mini via Roon to my 282/250DR using a Meridian Explorer 2, a Dragonfly Red and a Mytek Brooklyn +. I have also used a Sonore Upnp Bridge to my NDX. I think that rates as a fair try." 

Indeed it does, and one that might influence me a little more than the 'out and out Fraud' claims that some others make, but could I ask a few questions? 

Does the David Bowie "Young Americans" stream now sound less good than it did on that one occasion you aren't able to replicate?

I take it you had the MQA enabled DACs you mention on loan. As a matter of interest, do you prefer your NDX (as a DAC) to the Mytek Brooklyn+ via the Sonore Bridge on standard CD quality and hi-res files? Most people who don't use the NDX as a complete streaming solution use it as a front end 'renderer/streamer' feeding an external DAC rather than the way in which you use it. Do you find that the Sonore Upnp Bridge adds something to the sound of the standalone NDX?

I am actually a little unsure at the moment as to how I will achieve the full MQA unfold using the Mytek Brooklyn+ DAC. I haven't researched this much yet. However, I have been advised that the Lumin IOS app I currently use in this system will not deliver MQA to the Brooklyn+ or any other MQA enabled DAC (despite Lumin streamers themselves being MQA enabled). It appears that I will have to use the MConnect app to get the full MQA unfold from the Brooklyn. I have downloaded the app, but it's a pretty basic affair and I don't like it much. I'll need to look into this in a little more detail if I decide to get an MQA enabled DAC.

Are you sure that you did achieve the full MQA unfold using your Mac mini? I guess the fact that you use Roon probably means that you did, but are you sure?  

Hmack posted:

Graham in Sussex posted:

"I have tried various Tidal MQA masters from a Mac mini via Roon to my 282/250DR using a Meridian Explorer 2, a Dragonfly Red and a Mytek Brooklyn +. I have also used a Sonore Upnp Bridge to my NDX. I think that rates as a fair try." 

Indeed it does, and one that might influence me a little more than the 'out and out Fraud' claims that some others make, but could I ask a few questions? 

Does the David Bowie "Young Americans" stream now sound less good than it did on that one occasion you aren't able to replicate?

I take it you had the MQA enabled DACs you mention on loan. As a matter of interest, do you prefer your NDX (as a DAC) to the Mytek Brooklyn+ via the Sonore Bridge on standard CD quality and hi-res files? Most people who don't use the NDX as a complete streaming solution use it as a front end 'renderer/streamer' feeding an external DAC rather than the way in which you use it. Do you find that the Sonore Upnp Bridge adds something to the sound of the standalone NDX?

I am actually a little unsure at the moment as to how I will achieve the full MQA unfold using the Mytek Brooklyn+ DAC. I haven't researched this much yet. However, I have been advised that the Lumin IOS app I currently use in this system will not deliver MQA to the Brooklyn+ or any other MQA enabled DAC (despite Lumin streamers themselves being MQA enabled). It appears that I will have to use the MConnect app to get the full MQA unfold from the Brooklyn. I have downloaded the app, but it's a pretty basic affair and I don't like it much. I'll need to look into this in a little more detail if I decide to get an MQA enabled DAC.

Are you sure that you did achieve the full MQA unfold using your Mac mini? I guess the fact that you use Roon probably means that you did, but are you sure?  

I have found that the David Bowie MQA files on Tidal do seem to be particularly good for their sound quality. They do indeed still sound that good to me but I have not repeated that same "wow" feeling with any other MQA file I have listened to and I have listened to a lot of them. A lot. 

I use the DACs either in my home studio or out and about. i have had them for many months and have other uses for them so they are ones I do actually like to use, love the sound quality and am very familiar with them. 

I have used the Mytek as a DAC for the NDX. It does work well but, for me personally, I find that after a few hours of listening, it starts to grate on me and I much prefer the stand alone NDX. The Meek is great, I just prefer the NDX. I have not been impressed with the Sonore Upnp Bridge. No matter what I stream through it, I instantly find I don't like it. The sounds is too harsh for my ears. I am not a fan. 

The Mytek Brooklyn is a full MQA renderer and decoder. You put an MQA file thought it and provided you have remembered to turn MQA on in the settings, you will see the green or blue light to verify the full MQA experience. The same for the Meridian Explorer 2. Roon, for those devices, I set so that Roon itself does no unfolding. The Dragonfly needs the first unfold done in either Roon or the Tidal desktop App. For the Sonore Bridge, the only unfold is in Roon and so, arguably that is not the full MQA experience. I don't know the MConnect App and so don't know how that works. I am pretty sure that all you need to be able to do is get an MQA to the Brooklyn and let it do the rest. 

I hope that helps. 

Yes, it should be very easy to get MQA files from my NAS to the Brooklyn+. As you say it is just a matter of getting the file to the Brooklyn+. However, getting the Tidal MQA Masters intact to the Brooklyn+ appears from what I have read to be somewhat more problematic.

Just to satisfy my curiosity, have you ever tried any of the Chord DACs in conjunction with your NDX? 

Hmack posted:

Yes, it should be very easy to get MQA files from my NAS to the Brooklyn+. As you say it is just a matter of getting the file to the Brooklyn+. However, getting the Tidal MQA Masters intact to the Brooklyn+ appears from what I have read to be somewhat more problematic.

Just to satisfy my curiosity, have you ever tried any of the Chord DACs in conjunction with your NDX? 

My solution was to link the Brooklyn + to my Mac Mini via a USB cable. Then the Tidal Desktop app will do the trick. I think you have to disable the Tidal first unfold and give the Brooklyn exclusive access to Tidal. That works well. I haven’t tried the Sonore Bridge to the Mytek as I haven’t really needed to. As I say, this is an approach I have since abandoned. On occasions, I try again but it always reinforces my view that I really can’t tell the difference. I work on the basis that, if I am debating with myself whether I can hear a difference or not, the answer is that I can’t. 

I haven’t tried any Chord DAC’s as I already had the Brooklyn and so, probably like you, have read the reports of how well they interact with Naim equipment.