MQA and Naim

Mike-B posted:

MQA seem to have done a good job of getting the music industry talking about it,  some have taken it as a new standard for whatever reason,  maybe they see the marketplace hype as a selling opportunity,  who knows;    but I am not willing to pay a penny cent more for something that does not sound better than the current PCM & DSD formats.   

IMO, MQA does sound better than the same album w/o MQA encoded.

its just another format, useful for dac producers as a selling tool, not sure it improves may be alittle different presentation.   SITES LIKE TIDAL AND QOBUZ seem to be the direction audio is heading,.   Wireless speakers is the next selling fronteer

Frank Yang posted:

IMO, MQA does sound better than the same album w/o MQA encoded.

OK,   it’s your ears connected to your brain & I cannot disagree over that; but the same connections made in my head with my ears says whilst it sounds perfectly nice & works OK for some music & instrument types it does not with all. 

I agree with Mike MQA processed audio can sound nice in some circumstances, but also to my ears sounds often sounds processed and can sound unnatural.. lossy Hidef encodings can have their advantages though , the MQA processing will filter out ultrasonic noise in a track and eq the source thereby helping the reconstruction electronics.. in doing so however it introduces other artefacts...but if these are not noticeable or distracting to you then sure use MQA processed audio..I suspect it sounds rather good in the car.

Ultimately as with most lossy encoding formats it boils down to whether you notice or find distracting the compromises or not.. and in MQA a lot of effort has gone to make these unnoticeable as they can, I think  it’s  a rather clever approach, but unfortunately in my opinion, some objectionable digital encoding distortion/artefacts are introduced... and I guess the assumption is many who are used to listening to AAC and MP3 processed audio might not notice this?

agree it just doesn't sound quite right but them my nova is not MQA compatible..

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

I agree with Mike MQA processed audio can sound nice in some circumstances, but also to my ears sounds often sounds processed and can sound unnatural.. lossy Hidef encodings can have their advantages though , the MQA processing will filter out ultrasonic noise in a track and eq the source thereby helping the reconstruction electronics.. in doing so however it introduces other artefacts...but if these are not noticeable or distracting to you then sure use MQA processed audio..I suspect it sounds rather good in the car.

Ultimately as with most lossy encoding formats it boils down to whether you notice or find distracting the compromises or not.. and in MQA a lot of effort has gone to make these unnoticeable as they can, I think  it’s  a rather clever approach, but unfortunately in my opinion, some objectionable digital encoding distortion/artefacts are introduced... and I guess the assumption is many who are used to listening to AAC and MP3 processed audio might not notice this?

I suppose the question is, does any negative effect of MQA persist on a fully MQA enabled DAC, and would it go away if Naim added this to their DACs/streamers? I don’t ‘want’ to like MQA, but best to keep an open mind, I guess. 

Dear All, I do apologize that I raised my questions but i feel a sort of "frustrated" that i have an equipment for several thousands "currencies" (the exchange ratio is not important here as we talk about quite expensive parts) and I do not have a choice to try MQA from Tidal. I am  far away to say that it is better ot not. My wish is to try it on genuine Naim and judge which format for streaming/listening i will chose . Regardless my concerns i have purchased an Oppo 205 and will try streaming from a desktop application of Tidal (hopefuly in January 2019 )

I have not noticed anything negative whatsoever when playing MQA encoded Tidal Masters on my fully MQA enabled Brooklyn+ DAC. All MQA masters sound at least as good as the Tidal equivale MQA Masters equivalents to my ears, and with much of the material that I like (and with most if not all classical material) the MQA masters sound 'better' - that is to say, more subtle and relaxed with less long term listening fatigue.

On the other hand, some Tidal masters do sound a little (but only a little) flat when played on my Linn Klimax DS/1 streamer. 

I am glad that Tidal has released their MQA masters, and I will make use of them on my MQA enabled DAC. There are no downsides whatsoever because all MQA masters as far as I am aware are also available on Tidal in 'normal' form. I would also be delighted if my Linn streamer was able to make full use of them, but in the meantime, for the most part standard 16 bit recordings sound better on my Linn Klimax than the  high resolution equivalent files (MQA or otherwise) sound on my Mytek Brooklyn+ or Chord Hugo DACS.

One thing that greatly annoys me is that I have seen quite a few posts on other forums (from some whom I would describe as anti-MQA zealots) that call for people to cancel their Tidal subscription simply because Tidal has decided to offer MQA mastered material on its service. 

In my view, MQA is worthwhile technology, and I would be very glad to see a wider take-up.

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

I agree with Mike MQA processed audio can sound nice in some circumstances, but also to my ears sounds often sounds processed and can sound unnatural.. lossy Hidef encodings can have their advantages though , the MQA processing will filter out ultrasonic noise in a track and eq the source thereby helping the reconstruction electronics.. in doing so however it introduces other artefacts...but if these are not noticeable or distracting to you then sure use MQA processed audio..I suspect it sounds rather good in the car.

Ultimately as with most lossy encoding formats it boils down to whether you notice or find distracting the compromises or not.. and in MQA a lot of effort has gone to make these unnoticeable as they can, I think  it’s  a rather clever approach, but unfortunately in my opinion, some objectionable digital encoding distortion/artefacts are introduced... and I guess the assumption is many who are used to listening to AAC and MP3 processed audio might not notice this?

So I guess that your MQA experience is based on your listening sessions with some MQA enabled devices?

I agree with HMACK here, I am no MQA evangelist but I have yet to hear anything that ruins my musical listening and some have sounded better than the PCM counter parts when I have compared them. I have a full MQA system now as my 2nd listeninig zone so get the full MQA , yet I still like the software first unfold to my Naim Atom. There have been some where I have preferred the PCM equivalent. Overall I am happy with it for streaming.  I just dont get the MQA hate from the likes of CA and other forums. 

SimonPeterArnold posted:

I agree with HMACK here, I am no MQA evangelist but I have yet to hear anything that ruins my musical listening and some have sounded better than the PCM counter parts when I have compared them. I have a full MQA system now as my 2nd listeninig zone so get the full MQA , yet I still like the software first unfold to my Naim Atom. There have been some where I have preferred the PCM equivalent. Overall I am happy with it for streaming.  I just dont get the MQA hate from the likes of CA and other forums. 

I wonder what it is about the MQA first unfold that makes some people like it, even prefer it, as you do, when patently it isn’t a bit-perfect copy of the original. MQA must be modifying the sound in a way that appeals. That is not saying it is a bad thing, unless you want the highest fidelity to the recording , but it is curious.

Maybe there is scope for having  a play with DSP, tweaking things a bit to subtly change the character of the sound (adding or removing ‘warmth’ enhancing or compressing midrange, boosting or cutting slightly in various places, etc)... 

ChrisSU posted:

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

I agree with Mike MQA processed audio can sound nice in some circumstances, but also to my ears sounds often sounds processed and can sound unnatural.. lossy Hidef encodings can have their advantages though , the MQA processing will filter out ultrasonic noise in a track and eq the source thereby helping the reconstruction electronics.. in doing so however it introduces other artefacts...but if these are not noticeable or distracting to you then sure use MQA processed audio..I suspect it sounds rather good in the car.

Ultimately as with most lossy encoding formats it boils down to whether you notice or find distracting the compromises or not.. and in MQA a lot of effort has gone to make these unnoticeable as they can, I think  it’s  a rather clever approach, but unfortunately in my opinion, some objectionable digital encoding distortion/artefacts are introduced... and I guess the assumption is many who are used to listening to AAC and MP3 processed audio might not notice this?

I suppose the question is, does any negative effect of MQA persist on a fully MQA enabled DAC, and would it go away if Naim added this to their DACs/streamers? I don’t ‘want’ to like MQA, but best to keep an open mind, I guess. 

Yes the artefacts remai, they are  produced as a by product of the frequency compression, they are introduced at encoding processing time  and can’t be removed.. the open mindedness really comes from whether you notice these compression artefacts or find them objectionable... I guess at the root of this is the question, does it need to be bit perfect and accurate to sound good?

It seems to me that because there are some technical "artifacts" involved in MQA then people are assuming that it must sound less accurate in some way or display "lower fidelity", in spite of anything else it may do. This begs the question of how does anyone know what true "fidelity"sounds like if they were not in the studio when the recording was made and so how can this be determined and evaluated? 

I can only repeat that to my ears in my system MQA sounds closer to real music than standard CD rips of the same album and I don't see how that necessarily implies that I have some perverse enjoyment of  spurious warmth or compression etc. I go to a lot of gigs and know what music should sound like. Other people may, and indeed will,  have different perceptions but if there are systematic distortions of some kind then it seems strange that I and others can't detect them over a wide range of music. Some people prefer Linn to Naim or vice versa but that does not necessarily mean one is intrinsically of "higher fidelity" - there is little sign of convergence of sound as one goes up hifi ladder which is what one would expect if "fidelity" was such an unproblematic and objective ideal. To my ears, the most remarkable thing about "high end " systems is how different they sound!

I do not really care about the accuracy of the music reproduction if it sounds good to my ears, then it is good to me.

It is interesting to note some people already make up their mind about MQA, and decide to dislike it without listening to it?

Some even suggest  if you like MQA, then you must be used to compressed, MP3 music? have never owned mp3 music, I have never listened to Spotify, I dislike Apple Music, however I do listen to Classic FM from time to time and some low bit rate internet music, mainly as a background music.

I think that a lot of people get too hung up on the issue of lossy vs lossless in respect of MQA and Tidal. I am far from an expert in respect of the technical aspects of digital recording, but my (very) uneducated reasoning would be:

if an album is available in 16 bit, 44.1 kHz and 24 bit, 192 kHz formats, then one of two things has happened. Either the 16 bit original recording has been manipulated or upsampled in order to produce a so called hi res version, or else a ‘lossy’ version of the hi res recording has been released to account for the CD quality market. Am I wrong?

My intuitive response to an accusation that MQA hi-res is ‘lossy’ hi res is that even if this is the case, if obtained from a hi-res master recording it is still a higher resolution than a 16 bit equivalent. Of course you might claim that the ‘type’ of information lost is different, but are we getting too hung up on the concept of lossy vs non lossy in this context? Is it not the case that all digital recordings are lossy?

Hmack, kind of...   it’s about the mix master... if the mix master is at 24bits at either 44.1kHz, 48kHz or 96kHz which are relatively common, then a distribution master can be made for CD, lossy download, lossless download, MQA etc. If these distribution masters are equal or less resolution than the mix master, then one is maximising the information available for that distribution master... and yes resolution will be reduced for lesser formats.

However the key thing is interpretation of resolution, in a technical context I think it’s hard to compare lossless PCM with lossy MQA. The latter has been processed to give the impression of  added ‘resolution’ by focusing on those aspects many people notice. So in once sense MQA has no more resolution and possibly less resolution than 16/44.1 PCM master where precision matches resolution... but MQA can have the ability to add certain aspects of a higher resolution recording into the file to simulate the a higher resolution file... and that is where MQA is clever... as it simulates this using cues from the original pre processed media.

So yes MQA is a really good idea where bandwidth and size of media is important over absolute sonic precision, just like AAC and MP3 have been for lesser resolutions... and where would be with those last two formats... and ultimately if you enjoy MQA or AAC media then go ahead and buy and use it.. it’s a personal choice, it what it’s all about. I love MP3 in the car for example... it works well for me there... less so on my main Naim system, but still sounds ok,and MQA sounds good on my Mac  but for me not really for immersive listening.

analogmusic posted:

another experience with MQA. I was listening to the soundtrack of the movie "a star is born" (having really enjoyed it in the full dolby atmos cinema experience). On my car rig - apple Iphone - AudioQuest dragonfly red - vertere interconnect. 

 

This particular track "out of time" sounded not the way I remember from the cinema - something sounded a bit soft and lacking dynamics (particularly the opening sequence). So I think ok. it's the dragonfly.

some I came home and plugged in my Iphone into USB to my Chord Dave. Same problem.

So I was scratching my head, do I have a defective Iphone (it is brand new?)

Turns out no. 

What the problem was that on Tidal the album is MQA encoded and some how downloading this version to offline on my iPhone results in something that sounded different to me (even though I don't have MQA decoding)

there is another version of the album on Tidal (the one without the dialogues) which does not have MQA encoding.

And the dynamics and fun are back - on the iPhone itself, on the AudioQuest and on the Dave.

Not sure what to make of it, but all of a sudden - good old 44.1/1 bit version of the album  (without the MQA) sounds very good to me.

I will try the MQA version with my dragonfly later, but so far I am thinking it is a solution trying to solve a problem that isn't a problem?

 

The iOS version of the Tidal app doesn’t support MQA playback, I believe. 

The only IOS app which I have found consistently delivers Bit perfect versions of MQA files to my Mytek Brooklyn+ DAC is mConnectHD.

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

So yes MQA is a really good idea where bandwidth and size of media is important over absolute sonic precision, just like AAC and MP3 have been for lesser resolutions... and where would be with those last two formats... and ultimately if you enjoy MQA or AAC media then go ahead and buy and use it.. it’s a personal choice, it what it’s all about. I love MP3 in the car for example... it works well for me there... less so on my main Naim system, but still sounds ok,and MQA sounds good on my Mac  but for me not really for immersive listening.

 

I too listen to music on an iPod through my car stereo and also DAB in my car, and I agree that these lossy formats are fine for this sort of listening (unless of course you drive a Bentley).

However, I would never listen to lossy formats such as these by choice on my main hi-fi systems. On a high quality system, limitations of these formats are clearly audible. MQA files, lossy or not are a completely different ball game. Associating MQA with MP3 or AAC media (However positively) is at best to damn the format with faint praise. I have now listened to enough MQA to be able to claim that hi-res MQA files are generally ‘better’ than their 16bit equivalents. I am pretty confident that most people would agree with this assessment if they were to compare them using decent MQA enabled devices of the level of the Mytek or similarly priced devices. I also am of the opinion that most people would struggle to hear a difference between standard hi-res files and their MQA equivalents when played through high quality systems.

The one claim in respect of MQA that I do struggle with is the claim by some that MQA encoded files actually sound ‘better’ than their standard hi-res equivalents. This is something that I have not personally experienced, although I plan to do some more testing post Xmas holidays.

By the way, I am not attempting to state that MQA capability is an essential to have in one’s audio system. It can’t perform miracles. For example, I am pretty sure that standard 16 bit music will sound better via a ND555 (or a Linn Klimax) than hi-res MQA files via a Mytek Brooklyn+, in the same way that 16 bit files via an ND555 will sound better than hi-res files via an NDX2. 

it would take something like the Meridian Ultra or one of the top of the range dcs MQA DACS to allow Tidal MQA masters to potentially surpass non MQA Tidal equivalents on an ND555.

Do the fully decoded hi res files sound identical to, or better than, or worse than, the original hi res album not put through MQA?

If not as good, then I don't see the point of MQA at all - just purchase the hi res, or stream it online (Qobuz? Or boycott Tidal MQA and pester them to offer 'naked' hi res): it is only people with borderline internet data rates for whom compressed MQA will get through uninterrupted but not the hi res.

If identical then fine: it can save a bit of download time, or save a bit of bandwidth when streaming online - but with the limitation in choice requiring an MQA DAC (and presumably the licensing costs passed on in some way), so the question is whether the saved download time or bandwidth is of greater benefit than the DAC limitation.

And if better - then it is time to start looking at digital enhancement processing, which could be used for all music one plays.

At this stage, my opinion is - at least as good as standard hi-res.

I will need to test further (but not over the next few weeks) before I dismiss the possibility that (to my ears) MQA files sound better. However, for me the limitation is that my Klimax DS/1 will always sound better than my MQA Mytek Brooklyn+. Now, if I owned a Meridian Ultra or dcs Vivaldi rather than my Klimax DS/1, I’m pretty sure that I would have no reservations whatsoever about MQA.

I use Qobuz to purchase hi-res files, but would find their catalogue a little limiting at this point in time as a streaming service. If my preferred genres were jazz or classical (but they are not) I would consider Qobuz.

I don’t want to appear to be evangelical about MQA, because I amn’t. I just happen to think that Tidal MQA masters sound good and are worth having if you have access to MQA unfolding and subscribe to Tidal.

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

 

 

Yes the artefacts remai, they are  produced as a by product of the frequency compression, they are introduced at encoding processing time  and can’t be removed.. the open mindedness really comes from whether you notice these compression artefacts or find them objectionable... I guess at the root of this is the question, does it need to be bit perfect and accurate to sound good?

I think my answer to this question would be that music files don’t need to be bit perfect and accurate to sound good. They just need to sound good.

Perhaps a parallel could be drawn with Naim amplifiers. I don’t think many Naim buffs would claim that their amplifiers have been designed to be the most ‘accurate’ around, rather that they like them specifically because they have been designed to provide a certain ‘house’ sound that they find appealing.

Hmack posted:

I don’t want to appear to be evangelical about MQA, because I amn’t. I just happen to think that Tidal MQA masters sound good and are worth having if you have access to MQA unfolding and subscribe to Tidal.

Funny, I have the opposite feeling.