Jump to content
  • The Computer Audiophile
    The Computer Audiophile

    My First 24 Hours With MQA

    thumb2.jpg

    1-Pixel.png

    It all started with an email on December 4, 2014. “Hi Chris, It is my great pleasure to provide details on Meridian’s breakthrough technology, MQA (Master Quality Authenticated). The press release is pasted below. And attached is a white paper …” That seems like forever ago. In the ensuing months MQA has been growing like a snowball rolling downhill. More manufacturers getting on board, more content partners signing up, and more chatter within Computer Audiophile community (among others). Based on objective site analytics, I can easily say that since CES 2016 the interest in MQA has grown immensely here on CA. Much of the talk since MQA’s first introduction has been speculative because only a relatively small number of people have actually heard MQA music. Even those who’ve heard it, have likely not heard it in their own audio systems. That was until Meridian officially released the MQA enabling firmware for its Explorer2, Prime, and select components (818v3,*808v6 and Special Edition Loudspeakers) Thursday February 4, 2016. I downloaded the firmware and updated my Explorer2 to v1717. It’s now MQA enabled and I have a DAC that decode and render this content through my own audio system in my own listening room. I’ve been waiting for this forever. I’ve heard MQA at shows plenty of times, but never in my own familiar environment. Now that the hardware was enabled for MQA playback, I needed some MQA music to play. Late afternoon I received an email with a link to download ten MQA FLAC files. Click, save, unzip, play, listen … MQA rules, it’s the best thing since sliced bread. If only it was that cut and dry.[PRBREAK][/PRBREAK]

     

     

    Listening To MQA

     

     

    Like most people, I wanted to listen to a single MQA track and have my mind blown by fidelity I could only dream of prior to MQA. I also wanted to compare MQA versions of tracks to non-MQA versions of the same tracks and come to sweeping conclusions that the MQA version was so much better I would never go back to such unsophisticated non-MQA music again. My list of wants was a bit unrealistic, but my expectations were set at a normal level while I hoped for the best.

     

    In addition to the ten tracks sent to me this afternoon, I purchased some content directly from the 2L record label’s website. This enabled me to purchase both the MQA and non-MQA versions of the same music. What could be more telling than two versions of the same thing? Or, so I thought.

     

    First up on my list to listen to was Stille lys (Quiet Light) by Jan Gunnar Hoff (link). I received the MQA version of track one titled Mitt Hjerte Alltid Vanker and I purchased the 24 bit / 192 kHz download of the same track. According to 2L the album was produced in DXD (Digital eXtreme Definition 352.8kHz/24bit). I would have downloaded the original DXD version but the Explorer2 doesn’t support sample rates over 192 kHz. The MQA version of the track appears in Roon as a 24/44.1 track because Roon sees the file like a DAC without an MQA decoder. Fortunately Roon, or any other application, simply needs to send the audio out to the DAC bit perfectly (unchanged) so an MQA enabled DAC can unfold the file into a higher resolution if needed. While playing this track through the Explorer2, the MQA light illuminates blue and the 4x sample rate lights are also illuminated. The LED lights up blue to indicate an MQA Studio file is playing. MQA Studio files are artist/producer-approved studio releases.

     

    Prior to this afternoon I had never heard this album at a show or in my own system. I would have preferred listening to music I am very familiar with, but at this point we have to take what we can get. I started with the MQA version of Mitt Hjerte Alltid Vanker and played it through three times. It sounded wonderful. Right from the beginning I noticed a clarity to the sound of each note as the hammers struck the strings and a superb decay as the tone faded into a black background. It really is a stellar sounding piece of music in all its MQA glory. That said, the 24/192 version of this track is also terrific. The main differences between the two versions of this track are 1) The MQA version has an uncanny clarity and sense of space around each individual note that is just not present in the standard 24/192 version. This space is specifically around each note, not necessarily presented as a larger or more airy soundstage as a whole. 2) The 24/192 version sounded like the microphone was closer to the strings and the sound was more narrow as if each note was compartmentalized its own silo. 3) On the MQA version, the tone of the decay of each note has a purity to it or an appropriate color to it that isn’t present in the standard version. I really noticed this sense of hearing the entire note, from the initial hammer strike to the last decibel of the decay, in all its glory.

     

    I’m not into hyperbole or writing something with which I am unsure. Thus, I gave myself a blind ABX test by putting the two versions of this track into a playlist, listening to them back to back, then setting the queue on repeat and random and pressing the next button several times without looking. I did this several times and immediately selected the correct MQA or non-MQA version of the track every time. Readers should keep in mind that just because I immediately picked the correct version of the track, doesn’t mean the differences are night and day. These things are subtle. But, once heard it’s hard not to hear the differences.

     

     

    Up next was the album Ein Song Frå Dei Utsungne Stunder by Berit Opheim, Nils Økland & Bjørn Kjellemyr, also known as The BNB (link). This album was originally produced at 16 bit / 44.1 kHz by 2L. Playback through the Meridian Explorer2 illuminated the MQA light in blue and didn’t light up the 2x or 4x LEDs. This MQA album remains at the same resolution seen by Roon, 16/44.1. The Explorer2 internally upsamples the audio to 4x (176.4) but that’s a topic for another time. This entire album sounds fantastic. Great vocals and great double bass accented by a sweet fiddle and viola. I noticed two subtle differences between the original and MQA versions of this album. 1) The original non-MQA version contained what I’ll call a plastic edge to the sound of some instruments. There was something synthetic about the sound that likely can’t be heard unless one has the MQA version for comparison. 2) The non-MQA version has a darkness or dullness to it that isn’t present in the MQA version. This isn’t darkness associated with the blackest of backgrounds or a low noise floor, rather its a deadness that’s heard with the sounds of the instruments. As with the previous album, the differences are not equivalent to bumping the volume by a few dB. They are subtle and may not be apparent all listeners, especially when listening to unfamiliar music.

     

     

    Switching to music that I am a bit more familiar with, I listened to a track titled When I Go from Judy Collins’ album Strangers Again. On this track Judy duets with Willie Nelson. Roon sees the track as 24/44.1 while the Explorer2 DAC sees it as 2x (most likely 88.2 as that’s the resolution of the HD version available from HDtracks and others (link)). The Explorer2 also illuminated the first LED as green rather than blue. Blue is the MQA Studio color, but green indicates that the unit is decoding and playing an MQA stream or file, and that the sound is identical to that encoded. I am not 100% sure what this means in terms of the MQA process to turn the music into an MQA album from a standard high resolution album. For all I know it may mean that the album was converted to MQA for its smaller file size, without much of the wizardry that goes into the MQA white glove process of creating MQA Studio files. Don’t quote me on that, it’s just a wild guess. (see edit 2 below) Perhaps that wild guess has something to do with the very small sonic differences I heard on this Judy Collins / Willie Nelson track. I thought if there was one track, out of the ten I received, in which I would really notice a difference, it would be this track. Most of us have heard Willie Nelson a million times and are familiar with folk music (more so than classical for many people). After listening over and over to the MQA and the original high resolution versions of this track I think the only noticeable difference I hear is a touch more natural or appropriately soft sound in Willie’s voice. On second thought, I believe there is also a difference in the sound of the opening drums. (I literally went back and listened a few more times). The MQA version of the track seems to reproduce more of the drum’s frequencies or make more of the drum audible. It’s not that the drum has a super wide frequency response, rather the non-MQA version seems to lose some of the drum sound into the background. The MQA version seems to reproduce a fuller drum sound with better decay than the non-MQA version. Either way, this track was a tough one for me as I struggled to hear the differences I wanted to and I thought I would hear.

     

    Edit 1: I just received a quote from Alan Silverman, Mastering Engineer on the Judy Collins track When I Go:

     

    “We have done many blind comparisons of my original high-resolution masters with and without the MQA process. MQA is the consistent winner. What mystifies me about the technology is the purity of tone and natural realism that MQA unlocks from my high-resolution recordings. The MQA playback is more satisfying and not by just a subtle shade. MQA has educated my ear to digital artifacts that still exist, in spite of the best practices with the best equipment, by eliminating them. It is perhaps a holy grail of digital audio.”

     

    More specifically about the track When I go Alan said, "I’ve just compared the MQA playback with my original 88.2k 24-bit master and find the MQA to be mystifyingly more satisfying, and not by just a subtle shade. Listening to Willie and Judy, their voices sound much more real, at the same time, they have a textural filigree and detail of tone that I am not hearing in the original master! The same holds for the banjo and the subtle electric guitar in the right channel. I am delighted and extremely enthusiastic about the MQA process.”

     

     

    Edit 2: This just in from MQA ltd., "There is no sonic difference between files marked as green or blue, it is only about Provenance or Approval." In addition, "Today Alan Silverman asked us to move the Judy Collins [album] up to Studio."

     

     

    Wrapping Up The First 24 Hours

     

     

    Overall I am happy with the MQA music I’ve heard. I wish I could render an opinion, that would carry across all MQA products and music, that MQA is always better by a wide margin, but this isn’t the case. The differences I’ve heard so far are subtle and my opinions are limited to the music and hardware I used in the last 24 hours. I also have a suspicion that the MQA process will be more beneficial to recordings that were done under less than stellar circumstances (i.e. lesser quality A to D converters, etc…). The 2L recordings are done with the utmost care using very good equipment and very good engineers. While there is still improvements MQA has made to the original 2L masters, I’m willing to bet there are greater improvements to be made to more traditional popular recordings or very old recordings. On the other hand, it may not be easy to compare an MQA version and non-MQA version of some old recordings because the MQA version has been done with the white glove process. It would be the same as comparing two difference masters of the same album, of course they’ll sound different. There will be clear differences with or without MQA. The real question many people will want answered is, how much of the difference is MQA and how much is the white glove process? But, does this question really need to be answered? I’m not so sure because we don’t have the option of getting new white glove masters of some of our favorite music. If MQA is the impetus to get us better sounding music, that’s all that really matters. In a dream world we may have the option of a white glove MQA and white glove non-MQA, but this is the real world. The options are, MQA or live with what we already have. Anyway, the MQA train is finally leaving the building. I’m cautiously optimistic that everything will work out and we’ll have better sounding music without too much trouble.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    System I used for playback:

     

    Roon software running on SOtM sMS-1000SQ Windows Edition server and SOtM sPS-1000 power supply > Wireworld Platinum Starlight 7 USB 2.0 Cable > Meridian Explorer2 DAC > AudioQuest Yosemite 3.5mm to RCA Cable > Constellation Audio PreAmp 1.0 > Wireworld Platinum Eclipse 7 Interconnects > Constellation Audio Mono 1.0 Amplifiers > Wireworld Platinum Eclipse 7 Speaker Cables > TAD CR1 Loudspeakers.

     

     

     

    1-Pixel.png




    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    ElviaCaprice's ridiculous comment about too many bits (which does make no sense) did remind me of something I wanted to put in the Ask Bob thread, but didn't.

     

    If you sent a file through the MQA process, and then send it through again, do you get the same result or something a little bit (pun intended) different?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    If that's Norwegian, you need to be a little more specific. If not, it makes no sense.

     

    chuckle,

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Thanks for the comparison. I've been wondering myself about the effect MQA has on music that regular people listen to. As in "not" demo material from niche audiophile labels. But Classic Rock which I mostly listen to.

     

    I have my doubts about corrected 88.2 digital masters and not starting with a fresh transfer from the master tape? Seems there's rarely been any provenance from major label albums available on download sites unless it's a major release like Beatles, Led Zep etc. And a lot of upsampled, or mixed sample rate junk or who knows what source they're using? The boutique labels do a much better job. How about giving Analog Productions or Audio Fidelity guys like Steve Hoffman, Kevin Gray, Bernie Grundman a crack at MQA analog remasters from scratch and see if we can hear a difference?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Thanks for the comparison. I've been wondering myself about the effect MQA has on music that regular people listen to. As in "not" demo material from niche audiophile labels. But Classic Rock which I mostly listen to.

     

    I have my doubts about corrected 88.2 digital masters and not starting with a fresh transfer from the master tape? Seems there's rarely been any provenance from major label albums available on download sites unless it's a major release like Beatles, Led Zep etc. And a lot of upsampled, or mixed sample rate junk or who knows what source they're using? The boutique labels do a much better job. How about giving Analog Productions or Audio Fidelity guys like Steve Hoffman, Kevin Gray, Bernie Grundman a crack at MQA analog remasters from scratch and see if we can hear a difference?

     

    They're just looking to ca-ching the credit cards of our demographic one more time before we all croak. Of course they

    won't usually tell you anything about the files provenance. Would you have purchased HDTracks lovely 24/96 HDA download of Jackson Brown - Running On Empty if you knew up front the file had been squished down from the CD/LPs DR of 13 to an amazing 7.6!

    There are a lot of great true re-masters out there like the ones you mentioned or the Steven Wilson stuff. But more times than not the labels are either just running a tape of unknown generation and ADC it to a large bit bucket. Or worse yet creating a new dynamically squashed digital master that can be used across the board for anything from itunes downloads to the digital streamers, etc, etc. with just a transcode to the file format of choice. They all want the "louder is better" files.

    A sad situation and I'm not buying any HD files any more till they been out for a while and we know the real truth about them. Too bad many "early supporters" will have to pay the price of culling the good from the junk.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    They're just looking to ca-ching the credit cards of our demographic one more time before we all croak. Of course they

    won't usually tell you anything about the files provenance. Would you have purchased HDTracks lovely 24/96 HDA download of Jackson Brown - Running On Empty if you knew up front the file had been squished down from the CD/LPs DR of 13 to an amazing 7.6!

    There are a lot of great true re-masters out there like the ones you mentioned or the Steven Wilson stuff. But more times than not the labels are either just running a tape of unknown generation and ADC it to a large bit bucket. Or worse yet creating a new dynamically squashed digital master that can be used across the board for anything from itunes downloads to the digital streamers, etc, etc. with just a transcode to the file format of choice. They all want the "louder is better" files.

    A sad situation and I'm not buying any HD files any more till they been out for a while and we know the real truth about them. Too bad many "early supporters" will have to pay the price of culling the good from the junk.

    Inside every cloud is a black lining :~)

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Inside every cloud is a black lining :~)

     

    Well, when I hear 88.2, the first thing I think of is transcoded CD master.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Well, when I hear 88.2, the first thing I think of is transcoded CD master.

    88.2 is a very popular recording rate because it halves easily into 44.1 and one can use more channels than 96 or higher.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    88.2 is a very popular recording rate because it halves easily into 44.1 and one can use more channels than 96 or higher.

     

    Doesn't seem very popular to me. However, a few years ago I noticed a pattern of 88.2 recordings on HDTracks which were previously available on SACD many years prior to PCM releases? Leads me to believe a lot of it was transcoded from DSD or who knows what?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Doesn't seem very popular to me. However, a few years ago I noticed a pattern of 88.2 recordings on HDTracks which were previously available on SACD many years prior to PCM releases? Leads me to believe a lot of it was transcoded from DSD or who knows what?

     

    All PCM files derived from DSD masters must be transcoded, nothing sinister about that. This is pretty common but most are converted to 96 or 192 for downloads and 44.1 for CD release. Using 88.2 makes some sense since it is a direct multiple of 44.1 as is DSD. Or did I miss your point?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    All PCM files derived from DSD masters must be transcoded, nothing sinister about that. This is pretty common but most are converted to 96 or 192 for downloads and 44.1 for CD release. Using 88.2 makes some sense since it is a direct multiple of 44.1 as is DSD. Or did I miss your point?

     

    Far as I'm concerned, the only time there's a DSD master is when it's a DSD recording. Transcoding DSD files which came from analog tape should be a no-no. That's not a master! That's only common because it's the easier, cheap way out. But doesn't mean it's the right way to do it. Anytime something's transcoded, there's a loss. I don't care what anyone says.

     

    I could easily hear the difference in the Rolling Stones albums which were transferred from DSD to PCM.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    They're just looking to ca-ching the credit cards of our demographic one more time before we all croak. Of course they won't usually tell you anything about the files provenance. Would you have purchased HDTracks lovely 24/96 HDA download of Jackson Brown - Running On Empty if you knew up front the file had been squished down from the CD/LPs DR of 13 to an amazing 7.6!

     

    There are a lot of great true re-masters out there like the ones you mentioned or the Steven Wilson stuff. But more times than not the labels are either just running a tape of unknown generation and ADC it to a large bit bucket. Or worse yet creating a new dynamically squashed digital master that can be used across the board for anything from itunes downloads to the digital streamers, etc, etc. with just a transcode to the file format of choice. They all want the "louder is better" files.

     

    A sad situation and I'm not buying any HD files any more till they been out for a while and we know the real truth about them. Too bad many "early supporters" will have to pay the price of culling the good from the junk.

     

    Great post and I agree completely. (;-)

     

    That is why nowadays I mostly buy from audiophile recording companies. I prefer original recordings that are audiophile from the microphones to finished product. But for 1960s-70s rock and 1950s-60s jazz I have found many of the audiophile remasters such as those mentioned by labjr and you quite good. What I usually find unacceptable are most of the recordings by the major labels after 1980. Before that some were very good.

     

    With that said, I have many horror stories of my own, here is one. In 2014 I purchased the following 24/192 download from HDtracks:

     

    Antill: Corroboree / Ginastera: Panambi

    Eugene Goossens, London Symphony Orchestra

    An Everest recording.

     

    This 24/192 HDtracks download has terrible distortion on climaxes, and the sound quality is not even close to what remember the Classic Records 180 gram LP I used to own sounded like and I didn't remember that Classic Records 180 LP having any distortion. Of course, my memory is not what it used to be, so I took no action.

     

    Well, low and behold several weeks ago I found the Classic Records 24/96 DAD DVD of Antill: Corroboree / Ginastera: Panambi at Recycled Records for $7 and purchased it and when I played it, it sounded very close to what I remember the Classic Records LP version sounding like, also the 24/96 version has no audible distortion even on climaxes. Both the Classic Records 180 gram LP and 24/96 DAD DVD were mastered by Bernie Grundman. Who knows who mastered the 24/192 HDtracks version?

     

    I now believe that the 24/192 HDtracks version was either driven into digital distortion or the original analog master tape was not utilized.

     

    The mediocre sounding 24/192 HDtracks version cost me $22.48 with coupon code, and the superb sounding 24/96 DAD DVD cost me $7.00. This should explain why I prefer audiophile recordings (sound quality) and why I prefer to purchase physical formats (usually lower price).

     

    In short, I now believe the Everest downloads at HDtracks are not the remastered versions that Bernie Grundman did for Classic Records.

     

    I'm keeping an open mind about MQA though.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Lossy compression is never good for archiving.

     

    Agree.

    So, what to use?

    16 bit 44.1 KHz?

    24 bit 88.2 KHz?

    .

    .

    .

    64 bit 768 KHz?

    .

    .

    .

    Infinite bit infinite KHz!

    So... Analog tape or LP will do.

     

    Marc

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Should I understand that you believe this will affect the sound negative compared to a non MQA file ?

    Or maybe you know the sound will be degraded?

     

    Those are two different issues.

     

    1. It's lossy

    2. It's not clear that all lossy compression will be audible

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Agree.

    So, what to use?

    16 bit 44.1 KHz?

    24 bit 88.2 KHz?

    .

    .

    .

    64 bit 768 KHz?

    .

    .

    .

    Infinite bit infinite KHz!

    So... Analog tape or LP will do.

     

    Marc

     

    Music should be archived at the original recording / mastering resolution whatever that is.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Is the only difference between the Greed and Blue MQA light mean that someone signed off on the sound quality or not? That isn't telling the whole story. If that's the case couldn't the download sites just run all the same garbage they're selling now through the correction process so the green light turns on? Basically, still sounds like garbage but it's MQA? I want to know if the mastering was done from scratch or corrected. I mean don't they brick wall filter during the original A-D process? Hasn't valuable detail already been thrown away at 16/44?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Great post and I agree completely. (;-)

     

     

    In short, I now believe the Everest downloads at HDtracks are not the remastered versions that Bernie Grundman did for Classic Records.

     

    I'm keeping an open mind about MQA though.

     

    Yep, the stories such as your and mine are not rare, they are rampant all over the web.

    I don't remember the exact albums now but there was a scandal a couple years back where HDTracks was caught putting up files that when measured and the spectrum's analyzed were proven to be no more than CD rips upsampled to 24/96 or whatever. They claimed that's what the labels provided, pulled the files and now make a big deal over the QC they are currently using.

    HDtracks Quality Process | HDtracks - The World's Greatest-Sounding Music Downloads

    What ever.

    I'm sure that MQA will provide a high quality encode/decode process, etc.

    But once the hardware is in the hands of everyone, there will be no more morality in what comes down the line from the providers than there is now. Still a garbage in - garbage out situation.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Yep, the stories such as your and mine are not rare, they are rampant all over the web.

    I don't remember the exact albums now but there was a scandal a couple years back where HDTracks was caught putting up files that when measured and the spectrum's analyzed were proven to be no more than CD rips upsampled to 24/96 or whatever. They claimed that's what the labels provided, pulled the files and now make a big deal over the QC they are currently using.

    HDtracks Quality Process | HDtracks - The World's Greatest-Sounding Music Downloads

    What ever.

    I'm sure that MQA will provide a high quality encode/decode process, etc.

    But once the hardware is in the hands of everyone, there will be no more morality in what comes down the line from the providers than there is now. Still a garbage in - garbage out situation.

     

    Worse, with MQA there's no legitimate way of telling what you've been sold. You'd have to tap the signals going into the DAC chip, and that's beyond the means of most people.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Music should be archived at the original recording / mastering resolution whatever that is.

     

    So. Lossy. As MQA is considered to be. a070.gif

     

    Marc

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    So. Lossy. As MQA is considered to be. a070.gif

     

    You must be using a different definition of "lossy" than the rest of us.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    You must be using a different definition of "lossy" than the rest of us.

     

    Do I? I mean whatever high resolution you choose, you loose whatever is higher. So it is lossy by nature.

    MQA leaves out most unused bits, it looses these, and yes, one can call it lossy.

    But maybe I miss some real understanding of how it works. All information is in English which is not my native language. Maybe lossy is not related with loosing.

     

    Marc

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Do I? I mean whatever high resolution you choose, you loose whatever is higher. So it is lossy by nature.

    MQA leaves out most unused bits, it looses these, and yes, one can call it lossy.

    But maybe I miss some real understanding of how it works. All information is in English which is not my native language. Maybe lossy is not related with loosing.

     

    Marc

     

    I said "original" format. You can losslessly compress and then decompress back to itself. Original. Identity. Lossless. Capisci?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    A lossless transformation LT implies that for each file F, F = LT'(LT(F)) where LT' is the inverse transformation of LT, and for all LT there exists LT'

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    LT is a lossless compression iff sizeof(LT(F)) <= sizeof(F)

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Do I? I mean whatever high resolution you choose, you loose whatever is higher. So it is lossy by nature.

    MQA leaves out most unused bits, it looses these, and yes, one can call it lossy.

    But maybe I miss some real understanding of how it works. All information is in English which is not my native language. Maybe lossy is not related with loosing.

     

    The act of recording sound is inevitably lossy (to an extent). What we're talking about here is preserving all of what was captured without incurring any further losses in archiving or distribution. MQA can only preserve up to 16/48 losslessly (for generous definitions of lossless), making it a poor choice for anything but bandwidth-constrained streaming applications.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites




    Guest
    This is now closed for further comments




×
×
  • Create New...