MQA at CES

[Axiom05]

The following announcement has been posted on Stereophile's website. Not sure what to make of it. Another format being shoved down our throat or sonic nirvana? I guess we will have to wait and see. I really wasn't planning to buy more new stuff just for MQA capability.

 

MQA Takes Off Big-Time in 2016 | Stereophile.com

[ted_b]

Are you wondering what MQA is? There are 83 threads here that mention MQA, and 13 threads that have the term in their title. Read on and get educated.

 

I heard a demo of it at last years CES and was unimpressed as they (Meridian) did no a/b (or engaged/disengaged) comparison. But some who've heard it's merits are pleased with the results. It may show its strength mostly in streaming services.

[crenca]

The following announcement has been posted on Stereophile's website. Not sure what to make of it. Another format being shoved down our throat or sonic nirvana? I guess we will have to wait and see. I really wasn't planning to buy more new stuff just for MQA capability.

 

MQA Takes Off Big-Time in 2016 | Stereophile.com

 

I posted a response to that Sterophile "article" in the comments - or is "unmitigated propaganda and hype" the more correct description. Really, MQA has to be the first human invention in the history of mankind not to have a downside or unintended consequence...or perhaps it's only downside is what it appears to do to those who write for the "audiophile" press...

[ted_b]

I would love to be wrong about my impressions of MQA, and in fact they are very minimal impressions so far. I will walk the halls of CES starting tmrw (mostly Venetian, some South Hall stuff) and sure to sit in on all that is MQA. Anything that can wipe away another layer of haze is good for me...although I often enjoy music when there is a haze.

[orgel]

There's a very interesting thread on the Roon forums about MQA. Worth a read, IMO:

 

https://community.roonlabs.com/t/tidal-to-launch-mqa-hi-res-audio-streaming-in-2016/5408

 

--David

[esldude]

I would like to hear the old version of the 2L files, and the new version. Maybe 2L could be convinced to make that available. Would seem one of the best chances to gauge what MQA can do as 2L had all the old hardware available to reverse engineer what it does to the signal. Of course you will need an MQA capable DAC to do the comparison.

[crenca]

I would like to hear the old version of the 2L files, and the new version. Maybe 2L could be convinced to make that available. Would seem one of the best chances to gauge what MQA can do as 2L had all the old hardware available to reverse engineer what it does to the signal. Of course you will need an MQA capable DAC to do the comparison.

 

So would almost everyone who has followed the MQA story - hear a real A/B comparison, or even just an MQA encoded file through a regular old DAC and playback chain. For whatever reason (insert preferred conspiracy theory here) this has not happened. Now we have one label who may (the language is obscure - are they converting their entire catalog and no longer offering their "old", non MQA encoded files??) be going all in on MQA so the customer has no choice - all this before anyone outside of very inside insiders has even heard MQA through a non-MQA DAC and playback chain...quite remarkable if true...

[Tintinabulum]

I heard a demo last year and it was stunning. There was no AB but I came away so impressed I wasn't particularly bothered.

 

I can (just about) understand the widespread cynicism being expressed about MQA but aren't we all after the better reproduction of music? Meridian's track record isn't that shabby, the theory is plausible, what's not to like?

 

If it's buying your entire collection again, I don't think it will be available in any event. Your choice top twenty recordings plus an occasional re-release? I would, considering the amounts spend on the kit, why not listen to it at it's best?

 

Have a listen, then slag it off...

[crenca]

I heard a demo last year and it was stunning. There was no AB but I came away so impressed I wasn't particularly bothered.

 

I can (just about) understand the widespread cynicism being expressed about MQA but aren't we all after the better reproduction of music? Meridian's track record isn't that shabby, the theory is plausible, what's not to like?

 

If it's buying your entire collection again, I don't think it will be available in any event. Your choice top twenty recordings plus an occasional re-release? I would, considering the amounts spend on the kit, why not listen to it at it's best?

 

Have a listen, then slag it off...

 

Good advice - I suppose I am a bit bothered by the unrepentant hype however, would like to see the slightest effort to at least have a discussion about the downsides (like the fact that the demo you heard was with MQA hardware and not the DAC's we all have)..oh wait, there are no downsides

 

This is interesting:

 

Meridian

 

quote:

 

"... When you play it back, it’ll play back on a legacy system sounding better than a CD. And it sounds better than CD because the noise floor is properly managed and the signal has been pre-apodized...."

 

What he is really saying I believe is "our digital filter is better than the one your using", which may be true, or not. Now, why has not anyone actually been able to confirm this? Where are the MQA encoded file through "regular" DAC demos?

[jeffmudrick]

So would almost everyone who has followed the MQA story - hear a real A/B comparison, or even just an MQA encoded file through a regular old DAC and playback chain. For whatever reason (insert preferred conspiracy theory here) this has not happened. Now we have one label who may (the language is obscure - are they converting their entire catalog and no longer offering their "old", non MQA encoded files??) be going all in on MQA so the customer has no choice - all this before anyone outside of very inside insiders has even heard MQA through a non-MQA DAC and playback chain...quite remarkable if true...

 

FWIW most of the 2L catalog can be found on Tidal. Sounds great in Redbook form.

[esldude]

I suspect the reason they don't do the A/B comparisons everyone wishes to hear is because MQA makes very little to possibly no audible difference with most music.

 

Meridian published tests show that digital filtering at the edge of our upper hearing range can be audible. However they compared 192 khz recordings to 44 and 48 khz filtering with unusually steep filters with a transition band only 1/4th the norm. After they had trained the listening panel with even steeper narrower filters. When this was done they used a system of unusually good quality with response even at the speakers of a full 40 khz. Did the test in an unusually quiet listening environment few people can match. At which point their specially trained panel heard the filters vs 192 khz music 56-61% of the time. With the large number of number of trials that does meet the requirements for 95% confidence this isn't a random result. However, something you hear around 56% instead of 50 % random guessing has to be a close to negligible difference. My suspicions would be if the filtering had used the full 2050 hz wide transition band (rather than 468 hz or 500 hz used) the audibility would have been reduced or vanished entirely. There is very good reason to believe a 96 khz rate would have not been audible.

 

So Meridian says they can do even better with the filtering, and maybe they can, but you have a logical leap to assume that is even audible at that point. MQA might reverse engineer filtering for very simple recordings like those of 2L, but I have real doubts that for most music which has been multi-miked, heavily mixed, and gone through several non-linear processes before released to the public that MQA can reverse much of anything. Combine that with few having the equipment quality or ability to actually hear a difference and it looks mostly like your typical high end PR hyped marketing.

 

Maybe MQA brings a little something to the table signal quality wise, it brings a very clever scheme of reducing file size without compromising sound quality which I see as its real benefit. As to it being an obvious or substantial increase in general sound quality I find that very unlikely to be the case. If it did, I believe Meridian would have never bothered with the type of demos they have done. Why would they?

[Miska]

I would like to hear the old version of the 2L files, and the new version. Maybe 2L could be convinced to make that available. Would seem one of the best chances to gauge what MQA can do as 2L had all the old hardware available to reverse engineer what it does to the signal. Of course you will need an MQA capable DAC to do the comparison.

 

Of course you need only decoder, just like HDCD decoder and then you can use any DAC for playing it back. I'm not going to trust it at all if I cannot run file encode - decode cycle and analyze the results against original.

 

MQA gives me personally a strong flashback of MLP from the DVD-A times...

 

Making a similar free and open source codec wouldn't be too hard. I was today thinking if Xiph would be interested on such.

[Miska]

Maybe MQA brings a little something to the table signal quality wise, it brings a very clever scheme of reducing file size without compromising sound quality which I see as its real benefit. As to it being an obvious or substantial increase in general sound quality I find that very unlikely to be the case.

 

I smell DRM and someone seeing lot of $$$ for IP licensing income (just like MLP)...

 

I don't understand why file size would matter at all, especially compared to 20-bit 96 kHz FLAC (same dynamic range as MQA).

 

It cannot really work losslessly for content that has busy top octave. It just relies that there's almost nothing there and then crams it in the 4 LSBs of 24-bit data while reducing dynamic range of the lower octave to 20 bits to make space for it.

 

My personal level of interest for MQA is at most 0. I see no benefits, only disadvantages.

[esldude]

I smell DRM and someone seeing lot of $$$ for IP licensing income (just like MLP)...

 

I don't understand why file size would matter at all, especially compared to 20-bit 96 kHz FLAC (same dynamic range as MQA).

 

It cannot really work losslessly for content that has busy top octave. It just relies that there's almost nothing there and then crams it in the 4 LSBs of 24-bit data while reducing dynamic range of the lower octave to 20 bits to make space for it.

 

My personal level of interest for MQA is at most 0. I see no benefits, only disadvantages.

 

I would be interested in how MQA's process compares to the excellent job your software does. Though I am not sure how you could get the access to what MQA does to actually make that comparison.

[esldude]

Of course you need only decoder, just like HDCD decoder and then you can use any DAC for playing it back. I'm not going to trust it at all if I cannot run file encode - decode cycle and analyze the results against original.

 

MQA gives me personally a strong flashback of MLP from the DVD-A times...

 

Making a similar free and open source codec wouldn't be too hard. I was today thinking if Xiph would be interested on such.

 

Well making it do the file reduction in an open codec wouldn't be hard, and I can see some people having real interest in that if Xiph did such a thing.

 

The part I wonder about is their claim to work backwards and fix time based issues with the original recording equipment to get a resulting file that sounds better than the original. Like the 2L recording process discussed here: Carl Nielsen Piano Music (2L-120 remaster MQA) Christian Eggen

 

A quote from that page:

 

This recording was made direct to DAT in 1993. Early digital technology had many drawbacks and weaknesses. For this remastering we dug out the original SONY PCM-2700 from our storage and fed test signals into it to provide a sonic "fingerprint" of the converter. Using new technology from MQA we can now correct inaccuracies in the time domain, the so-called pre- and postringing in the impulse response, that were present in the old digital recordings. The result lifts a veil from the sound image and gives us a transparent and intimate listening experience.

 

While I don't have the knowledge to do such a thing it doesn't in principle seem beyond doing. I don't believe you could get a result equivalent to actually having used modern better equipment with good filtering, but an improvement seems conceivable. Yet again, it would be rather trivial if as good as advertised to do a before and after demo which everyone would hear and recognize the benefits. Why would you not do such an impressive demo rather than the apples and oranges demos they have done so far?

[firedog]

To me, interesting interview:

 

Meridian

 

Meridian Co-Founder and MQA Co-Architect J. Robert Stuart Talks with Robert Harley

 

more info-press releases:

 

MQA Explained in Short Videos | The Absolute Sound

MQA Launches Content at CES and Teams with HTC for World's First Smartphone MQA Demonstration | The Absolute Sound

[esldude]

To me, interesting interview:

 

Meridian

 

Meridian Co-Founder and MQA Co-Architect J. Robert Stuart Talks with Robert Harley

 

more info-press releases:

 

MQA Explained in Short Videos | The Absolute Sound

MQA Launches Content at CES and Teams with HTC for World's First Smartphone MQA Demonstration | The Absolute Sound

 

I agree. It is very interesting. Some considerable parts of it are BS of course. Par for the course when Stewart is promoting his company which is always doing when talking to Mr. Harley.

 

In fact, hearing’s arguably our most important sense. It’s probably the primary sense of survival, whereas vision you could argue is about purpose; seeking and hunting.

 

Just taking one of the many possible examples. Let me ask that you ask yourself a question. You are trying to survive in a natural setting, any setting you choose, anywhere in the world. Would you think hearing is more of a survival value than vision? Is there anywhere that such a thing would be true other than deep inside a cave? Places where fish eventually evolve without vision. Otherwise I posit the only sensible (pun intended) answer is no. Come on Bob quit being a Meridian shill.

[Miska]

While I don't have the knowledge to do such a thing it doesn't in principle seem beyond doing. I don't believe you could get a result equivalent to actually having used modern better equipment with good filtering, but an improvement seems conceivable. Yet again, it would be rather trivial if as good as advertised to do a before and after demo which everyone would hear and recognize the benefits. Why would you not do such an impressive demo rather than the apples and oranges demos they have done so far?

 

It's the usual apodizing filter stuff that Meridian has been doing for a while and also available in HQPlayer and some other places too. They just do it only up to 96 kHz while I go straight to the delta-sigma modulator output rate, minimum of 2.8 MHz and up to 24.576 MHz with current DACs on market.

 

Doing analysis of the ADC just confirms that it works as expected, but I've used the ADC and DAC chip datasheets as well as real world tests as basis for my filter design. I just don't care nor have huge marketing machinery to make such normal engineering stuff sound larger than life, my marketing budget is whopping 0€ (I don't go to shows like CES either, I rather use the money for R&D hardware instead).

[Miska]

Though I am not sure how you could get the access to what MQA does to actually make that comparison.

 

That's the primary problem. But at some point, there will be material with & without MQA and then one can compare and see.

 

I noticed that the 2L demo tracks seemingly don't have the corresponding non-MQA FLAC available so one cannot run diff. There's just 44.1/16 FLAC and 44.1/24 MQA FLAC. I'd much rather have 96/24 non-MQA FLAC or even 44.1/24 non-MQA thank you...

https://shop.klicktrack.com/2l/468051

[Jud]

 

The part I wonder about is their claim to work backwards and fix time based issues with the original recording equipment to get a resulting file that sounds better than the original. Like the 2L recording process discussed here: Carl Nielsen Piano Music (2L-120 remaster MQA) Christian Eggen

 

A quote from that page:

 

Using new technology from MQA we can now correct inaccuracies in the time domain, the so-called pre- and postringing in the impulse response, that were present in the old digital recordings. The result lifts a veil from the sound image and gives us a transparent and intimate listening experience.

 

 

It's the usual apodizing filter stuff that Meridian has been doing for a while and also available in HQPlayer and some other places too. They just do it only up to 96 kHz....

 

 

Makes me smile. "Correct inaccuracies" versus apodizing ("removes the foot," i.e., ringing). Apodizing filters themselves are not completely perfect, in the same sense that no filter is, and particularly not at 24/96. (That is, they are not completely transparent other than removing ringing/reverberant behavior.) So while some inaccuracies are being removed, others are being added.

[crenca]

Makes me smile. "Correct inaccuracies" versus apodizing ("removes the foot," i.e., ringing). Apodizing filters themselves are not completely perfect, in the same sense that no filter is, and particularly not at 24/96. (That is, they are not completely transparent other than removing ringing/reverberant behavior.) So while some inaccuracies are being removed, others are being added.

 

Jud, are you saying that Meridian's magic algorithms surely have the same problem as all others - they themselves add unwanted sonic artifacts?

[sdolezalek]

It's the usual apodizing filter stuff that Meridian has been doing for a while and also available in HQPlayer and some other places too. They just do it only up to 96 kHz while I go straight to the delta-sigma modulator output rate, minimum of 2.8 MHz and up to 24.576 MHz with current DACs on market.

 

Doing analysis of the ADC just confirms that it works as expected, but I've used the ADC and DAC chip datasheets as well as real world tests as basis for my filter design. I just don't care nor have huge marketing machinery to make such normal engineering stuff sound larger than life, my marketing budget is whopping 0€ (I don't go to shows like CES either, I rather use the money for R&D hardware instead).

 

Jussi: Based on what I was hearing in listening to MQA that makes complete sense and also explains why I actually prefer my HQPlayer upsampled content of existing recordings over some of the MQA versions of those same recordings. But I have also heard new recordings they did themselves (controlling the entire A/D and D/A process and incorporating MQA) that sounded stunningly good. Is that because in those cases they can do a more precise matching of their apodizing filter through the ADC and DAC process? Would it be something like setting up specific HQPlayer settings for each recording based not only on matching my DAC's chip but also what was in the original ADC?

[sdolezalek]

While I don't have the knowledge to do such a thing it doesn't in principle seem beyond doing. I don't believe you could get a result equivalent to actually having used modern better equipment with good filtering, but an improvement seems conceivable. Yet again, it would be rather trivial if as good as advertised to do a before and after demo which everyone would hear and recognize the benefits. Why would you not do such an impressive demo rather than the apples and oranges demos they have done so far?

 

Dennis: As I said in my question to Jussi above, they may be able to improve some of the old recordings by analyzing the signature of the ADC and then trying to put some compensating filters into the resampling process, but, the improvement should be marginal compared to what you get if you can exactly match the filtering on a brand new recording. In all likelihood (as Jud has also suggested) Meridian is fixing some issues, but also introducing some new ones, in retrospectively adding MQA to old material. Letting us hear that side by side would make it more likely to be able to identify those tradeoffs.

 

I think the real benefit of MQA will be in brand new recordings that implement the process cleanly on both ends (although then I wish they had gone all the way up to 352/384 in their upsampling). But you can't get recording studios to adopt MQA at the front end unless it is very broadly distributed on the user side, so they are trying to also convince us that it can improve already existing content streamed to us over Tidal and others (which it might, but perhaps not as much as us using the right filtering settings in HQPlayer on the same source material) as a way to increase the number of manufacturers that embed MQA in their end-user hardware/software.

 

My guess is that they also made some tradeoffs to satisfy a broader consumer base that those of us using fairly high powered computers to implement HQPlayer resampling/filtering would not make, but that might have been difficult to implement as broadly as Meridian wants to distribute this technology.

[Jud]

Jud, are you saying that Meridian's magic algorithms surely have the same problem as all others - they themselves add unwanted sonic artifacts?

 

Inasmuch as one can't have a mathematically perfect filter, Meridian's algorithm must "giveth" as well as "taketh away."

 

Does it "giveth" audibly? Two factors in favor of that are (1) it is designed to audibly "taketh;" and (2) it does its stuff at 24/96, giving it relatively little headroom in which to try to accomplish its purpose without adding anything audible.

[wdw]

One issue that isn't clear to me is whether this technology requires a hardware solution at the DAC end or, if the DAC is largely software driven, it can be introduced by firmware/software updates. If requiring hardware upgrades I can only imagine it to be DOA.

If meeting the claims made by Meridian without requiring some demanding technical involvement by the end user as per, say, HQPlayer or similar, the "giveth and taketh" should yield a net positive to the musical event.

The number of end users that are willing or even capable of performing half of the toil demanded by the typical computer based Computer Audiophile installation is so small as to be insignificant. Users on this site are moving away from specialized computer based servers to "turn-key" servers in noticably large numbers.

My two cents,

Wdw