Article: MQA: A Review of controversies, concerns, and cautions

[Archimago]

4 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

 

Thanks Archi

 

All this stuff I've quoted is all the 'stuff' that applies after the 1st unfold right? If so, I agree with you, we don't need it.

 

I was only talking about the 1st unfold, which isn't better than 16bit/96kHz as we know but it isn't that bad either in the technical sense. The potential for DRM in the future is of course a worry.

 

 

Correct.

 

IMO, if we just focused on a 1st unfold as done by the software Tidal decoder to 88.2/96kHz is all that's needed with these files. The rest of it is just for show. For example, the silly "original sampling rate" claim is just further upsampling so the DAC can show big numbers on the display like "352.8kHz" to wow those who are impressionable ?.

 

[asdf1000]

50 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

Correct.

 

IMO, if we just focused on a 1st unfold as done by the software Tidal decoder to 88.2/96kHz is all that's needed with these files. The rest of it is just for show. 

 

 

Definitely agree.

 

The funny thing (and the only point I was making earlier) is that people without MQA DACs are commenting  about how the Tidal 1st unfold doesn't sound good. 

 

In reality it's the actual master they're not liking... not the 1st unfold itself.

 

That's from my own looking at Hi-Res 2L material that also streams on Tidal (like the Magnificat album), using Spek analyzer.

 

Anyway I don't want to get too repetitive. I'm glad you see that point and we agree on everything after the 1st unfold.

[firedog]

1 hour ago, Em2016 said:

 

Definitely agree.

 

The funny thing (and the only point I was making earlier) is that people without MQA DACs are commenting  about how the Tidal 1st unfold doesn't sound good. 

 

In reality it's the actual master they're not liking... not the 1st unfold itself.

 

That's from my own looking at Hi-Res 2L material that also streams on Tidal (like the Magnificat album), using Spek analyzer.

 

Anyway I don't want to get too repetitive. I'm glad you see that point and we agree on everything after the 1st unfold.

Don't think that is really true. Once the MQA "process" for compression is applied, you are getting an altered master with some bits stripped away. So if you don't like the sound of the first unfold, it may be because of the changes introduced by MQA. 

[asdf1000]

1 minute ago, firedog said:

So if you don't like the sound of the first unfold, it may be because of the changes introduced by MQA. 

 

Sigh. The below is very easy to verify yourself too.

 

"Objectively with the songs I examined, the software decoder works well to reconstruct what looks like the equivalent 24/96 download."

 

and

 

"Bottom line: TIDAL/MQA streaming does sound like the equivalent 24/96 downloads based on what I have heard and the test results"

 

https://archimago.blogspot.hk/2017/01/comparison-tidal-mqa-music-high.html

[mansr]

4 hours ago, Archimago said:

IMO, if we just focused on a 1st unfold as done by the software Tidal decoder to 88.2/96kHz is all that's needed with these files. The rest of it is just for show. For example, the silly "original sampling rate" claim is just further upsampling so the DAC can show big numbers on the display like "352.8kHz" to wow those who are impressionable ?.

Worse, the actual upsampling is identical regardless of what is being indicated. The MQA implementations I've looked at run the DAC at a fixed multiple of the base rate, whatever is the highest supported by the chip. This might be lower or higher than the indicated sample rate.

[firedog]

2 hours ago, Em2016 said:

 

Sigh. The below is very easy to verify yourself too.

 

"Objectively with the songs I examined, the software decoder works well to reconstruct what looks like the equivalent 24/96 download."

 

and

 

"Bottom line: TIDAL/MQA streaming does sound like the equivalent 24/96 downloads based on what I have heard and the test results"

 

https://archimago.blogspot.hk/2017/01/comparison-tidal-mqa-music-high.html

Sigh to you. What an arrogant reply. I've verified for myself how I think the first MQA unfold sounds. With dozens of examples.

 

Archi's results, with all due respect, are a very small sample and prove nothing.

 

And, as he himself just wrote in this thread they may also be a result of the test tracks he used, which weren't exactly sourced from modern quality hi-res recordings.

[mansr]

The compression part of MQA, by the looks of it, is just that. Any differences heard are more likely the result of prior processing specifically intended to alter the sound.

[miguelito]

7 minutes ago, mansr said:

The compression part of MQA, by the looks of it, is just that. Any differences heard are more likely the result of prior processing specifically intended to alter the sound.

Exactly. MeQA.

[miguelito]

5 hours ago, Archimago said:

MO, if we just focused on a 1st unfold as done by the software Tidal decoder to 88.2/96kHz is all that's needed with these files. The rest of it is just for show.

It's just for hardware licensing, lighting the blue light, etc.

 

5 hours ago, Archimago said:

For example, the silly "original sampling rate" claim is just further upsampling so the DAC can show big numbers on the display like "352.8kHz" to wow those who are impressionable ?.

It's actually deceiptful to the extreme: It is just a choice of upsampling filter - most DACs (all except NOS) will upsample to their max rate (in the 44/48 famlies) regardless. So when MQA says "original sample rate 192" it really JUST means I am gonna choose some filter in the set available for "original sample rate 192" but it will still be the DAC upsampling to it's max. All PR to force DAC makers to pay a licensing fee. 

 

I am perfectly fine paying for IP. I am not fine paying for BS.

[mansr]

3 minutes ago, miguelito said:

So when MQA says "original sample rate 192" it really JUST means I am gonna choose some filter in the set available for "original sample rate 192" but it will still be the DAC upsampling to it's max.

It's not even that. The same set of filters are used regardless of the indicated original rate.

[miguelito]

14 hours ago, mansr said:

It's not even that. The same set of filters are used regardless of the indicated original rate.

I thought that for 88/96 "original rate" there was only one filter vs 32 for higher, no?

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, miguelito said:

I thought that for 88/96 "original rate" there was only one filter vs 32 for higher, no?

Yes, that's the one special case.

[firedog]

21 hours ago, mansr said:

The compression part of MQA, by the looks of it, is just that. Any differences heard are more likely the result of prior processing specifically intended to alter the sound.

Prior processing? Are you referring to MQA deblurring on the ADC side, as it were? Before applying the MQA compression algorithm?

[mansr]

2 hours ago, firedog said:

Prior processing? Are you referring to MQA deblurring on the ADC side, as it were? Before applying the MQA compression algorithm?

I'm referring to whatever they do before the compression stage. Call it deblurring if you want to.

[Streamophile]

Hey guys,

 

Please be patient with me ;) I'm completely new to the audiophile world. 

MQA really intrigues me and I'm trying to get educated before purchasing a new DAC. 

The comparisons for MQA all go around comparing it to Hi-res audio that's been downloaded. 

DSD-files against MQA, but for me this isn't relevant. 

I'm a 100% streamer, I'm on a very small budget and can't afford to buy a library of DSD files.

I do have Tidal now, but can't seem to find a good answer to the following question:

 

Will MQA give me better audio than the standard 16/44,1 audio that I get from Hi-Fi streaming on Tidal? 

 

I'm using a schiit magni 3 and HD650 and was thinking of buying me a chord mojo, 

but since that doesn't support MQA, would I, in my very specific situation, be better of buying a DAC that can decode the full MQA file? 

 

I'm curious about your thoughts on this! 

[firedog]

1 hour ago, Streamophile said:

Hey guys,

 

Please be patient with me I'm completely new to the audiophile world. 

MQA really intrigues me and I'm trying to get educated before purchasing a new DAC. 

The comparisons for MQA all go around comparing it to Hi-res audio that's been downloaded. 

DSD-files against MQA, but for me this isn't relevant. 

I'm a 100% streamer, I'm on a very small budget and can't afford to buy a library of DSD files.

I do have Tidal now, but can't seem to find a good answer to the following question:

 

Will MQA give me better audio than the standard 16/44,1 audio that I get from Hi-Fi streaming on Tidal? 

 

I'm using a schiit magni 3 and HD650 and was thinking of buying me a chord mojo, 

but since that doesn't support MQA, would I, in my very specific situation, be better of buying a DAC that can decode the full MQA file? 

 

I'm curious about your thoughts on this! 

Objective answer: you need to find a way of comparing to decide for yourself.

In addition,  a few things you should take into account:

1) MQA source masters may not be the same as another master you have access to, even on Tidal. Thus whatever difference you hear may be  mostly to do to the different masters and not MQA. 

2) Many think that to get most of the “benefit” or “difference” wrought by MQA you really only need the “first unfold” and not the full process in the DAC. You can get the first unfold from some playback software, but AFAIK, none of the playback softwares with the first unfold are free, other than the Tidal  PC app.

3) Most MQA DACs implement an easy and inexpensive implementation of MQA that means that even non-MQA files are processed with MQA filters. Only a few expensive ones don’t do this. So that also means when using most of  them you aren’t fairly comparing the MQA and non MQA files. 

 

Personal, subjective answer: I don’t hear any real benefit to MQA. A few files sound a bit better, a few a little worse, some the same, and others just different. In terms of sound, certainly no big improvement as claimed by some. And this is without getting into non-sound aspects of MQA and whether we want it or not. 

 

So my advice would be to get the best most suitable DAC you can, and don’t worry about MQA. That will make more of a positive difference to your results than whether the DAC does MQA or not. 

[crenca]

2 hours ago, Streamophile said:

Will MQA give me better audio than the standard 16/44,1 audio that I get from Hi-Fi streaming on Tidal? 

 

 

No.

 

As Firedog explained, there are albums that have been different--re-remastered for the MQA version that are indeed "better", but they sound better because of the re-remastering and not MQA itself.

 

The rest of everything about MQA is a shell game, an Audiophile myth - mostly perpetrated by the anti-consumer trade publications such as Stereophile, Absolute Sound, the usual web publishers, etc.

[Norton]

3 hours ago, Streamophile said:

Will MQA give me better audio than the standard 16/44,1 audio that I get from Hi-Fi streaming on Tidal?

 

My listening experience over the last year, mostly with a non-MQA DAC,  is that much of the time it will, but just like every other “format” there are good and less good examples. Whether or not it’s down to MQA itself or simply better masters exclusive to MQA is irrelevant in practice  -  the fact is you have a tidal account and simply want to get the best out of it.  I would tend to do go with Firedog’s advice and let the Tidal desktop do the first unfold.  Presumably you already have a DAC? If so you can use this right now with Tidal to do  much of the comparison  between MQA and non MQA versions and make your own mind up as to whether MQA has merit, before going any further.

The Project S2 Digital is probably the best MQA DAC of the few available of  similar  price to the Mojo, but I imagine the Mojo  will better it, especially for HP use.

[Streamophile]

@firedog, @crenca, @Norton, thanks a lot for the helpfull responses! I do not own a DAC yet at the moment. 

I just connect my magni to my macbook pro set to 24/96. 

The project S2 Digitial might be a great suggestion @Norton! 

I'm also planning on buying new speakers and an amplifier within a year. 

If I already buy the project s2 I could use that as a preamp with volume control. 

That way I can put my whole budget in the power amp stage later on without having to buy an integrated amp. 

Does that make sense? 

The Mojo doesn't work as a preamp if I'm correct? 

[Norton]

2 hours ago, Streamophile said:

Does that make sense?

 

It’s certainly a workeable option.  I’ve owned the S2 but not the Mojo; however I have owned the original Hugo.  I believe the Mojo is also a preamp, but really intended primarily for mobile use, with analogue out only on a 3.5 jack so you’d need a special cable or an adapter  to use in a main system.

 

Overall, I suspect the Mojo will sound better and be a better HP amp, while the S2 will be more convenient in a main separates system.  Personally I ‘d chose more on overall SQ and likely majority use, rather than on the fact that the S2 is MQA and the Mojo isn’t, as the Tidal desktop will do the  MQA “first unfold” with either DAC.  Ideally best to audition each and make your mind up (including whether you like MQA or not).

 

Worth noting that there have been posts here reporting concerns over the S2’s build quality and firmware, but also on the cost of  replacing the Mojo’s batteries, so no easy contest on that score either.

 

You could also consider The Mytek  liberty (MQA) or RME ADI 2 DAC (not MQA) at the next price point (£800ish  here in UK).  No experience of either, but plenty on each in threads on this site and elsewhere.

[crenca]

2 hours ago, Norton said:

 

It’s certainly a workeable option.  I’ve owned the S2 but not the Mojo; however I have owned the original Hugo.  I believe the Mojo is also a preamp, but really intended primarily for mobile use, with analogue out only on a 3.5 jack so you’d need a special cable or an adapter  to use in a main system.

 

Overall, I suspect the Mojo will sound better and be a better HP amp, while the S2 will be more convenient in a main separates system.  Personally I ‘d chose more on overall SQ and likely majority use, rather than on the fact that the S2 is MQA and the Mojo isn’t, as the Tidal desktop will do the  MQA “first unfold” with either DAC.  Ideally best to audition each and make your mind up (including whether you like MQA or not).

 

Worth noting that there have been posts here reporting concerns over the S2’s build quality and firmware, but also on the cost of  replacing the Mojo’s batteries, so no easy contest on that score either.

 

You could also consider The Mytek  liberty (MQA) or RME ADI 2 DAC (not MQA) at the next price point (£800ish  here in UK).  No experience of either, but plenty on each in threads on this site and elsewhere.

 

 

What he said.

 

I would only add that in the sub $1k range (perhaps even more) I really like the way iFi's iDSD or iDAC2 does a little bit of everything and sounds good doing it.  It however is not a pre-amp (the volume control only affects the HP output)..

[Sfellows331]

Excellent article (read it first today) but one thing absent that I would like to have seen, if just briefly, regarding the sound quality of compressed MQA is what do the artists think of their work being played back in MQA? If a singer says that MQA presents a more accurate representation of her music and conveys the emotion better than an uncompressed file, is she "wrong" and her opinion too subjective? Without input from the artists themselves, discussions of MQA sound quality are perhaps missing the point. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, Sfellows331 said:

Without input from the artists themselves, discussions of MQA sound quality are perhaps missing the point. 

It most cases the artist has no idea what MQA is or has no input into the creation of the MQA content.

[Sfellows331]

In most cases this is probably true. But among artists who are aware of the purported sonic benefits of MQA and have listened to their recordings in the format, and I am sure there are some, do they tend to like or dislike the result?  I haven't looked into this and you may know more than I do here.  

 

If an artist says that he prefers the MQA version over an uncompressed version of his music that's available to the public, should his view be taken seriously in the discussion of sound quality?   

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Sfellows331 said:

In most cases this is probably true. But among artists who are aware of the purported sonic benefits of MQA and have listened to their recordings in the format, and I am sure there are some, do they tend to like or dislike the result?  I haven't looked into this and you may know more than I do here.  

 

If an artist says that he prefers the MQA version over an uncompressed version of his music that's available to the public, should his view be taken seriously in the discussion of sound quality?   

All views should be taken seriously. I think the real test is with an artist who values sound quality creating a new recording. Which version comes closest to the product s/he has in mind or wants to release. To date I don't know of any unpaid or un-vested interests supplying such an opinion.