|
|
Post by monkumonku on Aug 8, 2016 14:01:43 GMT -5
Question - is the "quality" of MQA going to depend on its implementation and the hardware/chips used? For example, with current DAC's people argue endlessly over which DAC sounds "better." Some like the Sabre chip, some dislike it. DAC X is preferred for its sound over DAC Y, etc. So will we have this same situation with MQA decoding? That some models/brands sound "better" than others? Or is this supposed to be uniform so that everything sounds the same? Because if there is sound variation then it's just another thing that people will endlessly discuss and never be happy with what they have because there's always something "better" out there.  |
|
|
|
Post by goodfellas27 on Aug 8, 2016 14:22:31 GMT -5
Question - is the "quality" of MQA going to depend on its implementation and the hardware/chips used? For example, with current DAC's people argue endlessly over which DAC sounds "better." Some like the Sabre chip, some dislike it. DAC X is preferred for its sound over DAC Y, etc. So will we have this same situation with MQA decoding? That some models/brands sound "better" than others? Or is this supposed to be uniform so that everything sounds the same? Because if there is sound variation then it's just another thing that people will endlessly discuss and never be happy with what they have because there's always something "better" out there. According to MQA, the MQA enabled DAC will have custom code for that DAC. Which it will take into account the inefficiency of the DAC to make it sound virtually all identical. Schiit didn't like this one bit since they have DACs that cost from $200 to $20k. MQA will make them sound the same. Schiit also didn't like that MQA will be available on low-end DACs and not kept exclusive to their high-end stuff. MQA is a industry disruptive technology www.avsforum.com/schiit-audio-explicitly-rejects-mqa/www.digitalaudioreview.net/2016/05/schiitting-on-mqa/ |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Aug 8, 2016 14:40:16 GMT -5
Errrr..... you're reading more into it than even their claims. The claim is that there will be some sort of optimization/certification process for "MQA certified DACs". The specific claim is that the individual designs of MQA certified DACs will be "optimized for time domain accuracy" (or words to that effect). (They claim that) this "optimization" should be good for sound quality in general, and especially important for playing MQA content. Nowhere are they claiming that all MQA certified DACs will all end up sounding "exactly the same" or anything even close to that. (Or do you really imagine that Meridian is going to tell folks that their $300 DAC is "as good as it gets" and "there's no point in buying more expensive models".) I would also note that the sudden and dramatic flurry of announcements and magazine articles about MQA has been followed by... err... not much so far. I will be eagerly awaiting the announcements of MQA releases of desirable albums by groups I care about... and positive reviews about how wonderful they sound. Question - is the "quality" of MQA going to depend on its implementation and the hardware/chips used? For example, with current DAC's people argue endlessly over which DAC sounds "better." Some like the Sabre chip, some dislike it. DAC X is preferred for its sound over DAC Y, etc. So will we have this same situation with MQA decoding? That some models/brands sound "better" than others? Or is this supposed to be uniform so that everything sounds the same? Because if there is sound variation then it's just another thing that people will endlessly discuss and never be happy with what they have because there's always something "better" out there. According to MQA, the MQA enabled DAC will have custom code for that DAC. Which it will take into account the inefficiency of the DAC to make it sound virtually all identical. Schiit didn't like this one bit since they have DACs that cost from $200 to $20k. MQA will make them sound the same. Schiit also didn't like that MQA will be available on low-end DACs and not kept exclusive to their high-end stuff. MQA is a industry distortive technology www.avsforum.com/schiit-audio-explicitly-rejects-mqa/www.digitalaudioreview.net/2016/05/schiitting-on-mqa/ |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Aug 8, 2016 14:45:04 GMT -5
The tipping point, tentatively, for MQA is whether Apple decides to go with the technology. If so, they'll probably buy out Meridian to avoid fees & then put ALL their iTunes content on the MQA diet.
Will it happen? 50/50? If it does, then MQA may (or may not) become an industry standard, but with the iTunes store behind it, it won't be going away...
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on Aug 8, 2016 14:45:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on Aug 8, 2016 14:58:52 GMT -5
The tipping point, tentatively, for MQA is whether Apple decides to go with the technology. If so, they'll probably buy out Meridian to avoid fees & then put ALL their iTunes content on the MQA diet. Will it happen? 50/50? If it does, then MQA may (or may not) become an industry standard, but with the iTunes store behind it, it won't be going away... If Apple were to buy out Meridian, then Apple would still have to pay MQA fees. MQA is not a part of Meridian Audio; they're two separate companies. |
|
|
|
Post by goodfellas27 on Aug 8, 2016 15:05:35 GMT -5
www.digitalaudioreview.net/2016/06/an-inconvenient-truth-mqa-sounds-better/Errrr..... you're reading more into it than even their claims. The claim is that there will be some sort of optimization/certification process for "MQA certified DACs". The specific claim is that the individual designs of MQA certified DACs will be "optimized for time domain accuracy" (or words to that effect). (They claim that) this "optimization" should be good for sound quality in general, and especially important for playing MQA content. Nowhere are they claiming that all MQA certified DACs will all end up sounding "exactly the same" or anything even close to that. (Or do you really imagine that Meridian is going to tell folks that their $300 DAC is "as good as it gets" and "there's no point in buying more expensive models".) I would also note that the sudden and dramatic flurry of announcements and magazine articles about MQA has been followed by... err... not much so far. I will be eagerly awaiting the announcements of MQA releases of desirable albums by groups I care about... and positive reviews about how wonderful they sound.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Aug 8, 2016 15:08:46 GMT -5
If Apple were to buy out Meridian, then Apple would still have to pay MQA fees. MQA is not a part of Meridian Audio; they're two separate companies. Apple could buy MQA and Boothroyd-Stewart-Meridian both from pocket change. Whether they do or not is a good litmus test as to the efficacy and value of the technology. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Aug 8, 2016 15:11:55 GMT -5
I'm afraid you really are under a few misapprehensions here.... 1) Yes, MQA is (among other things) a CODEC. In fact, it is very specifically a LOSSY compression CODEC that can be applied to files, the results of which can then be encapsulated in standard container formats like FLAC and WAV. In this regard, it is very similar in concept to previous CODECS like HDCD - in that it can be played "as is" by standard players of those formats, or it can be "decapsulated" and decoded by an appropriate decoder. 2) Completely separate from that part of the "ecosystem", they say they will be offering to "reverse engineer" original recordings in such a way as to "remove or repair damage caused by the original A/D process". This is entirely separate from the CODEC portion of their set of available options. 3) As a third part of the ecosystem, they are offering to "optimize and certify DACs". "MQA certified DACs" will presumably include the ability to decode the MQA CODEC, and ALSO have been "optimized for time domain accuracy". The CODEC will allow them to decode MQA content in hardware; the optimization is intended to make them sound better with both MQA and non-MQA content. 4) Note that NOWHERE in all this are they promising to "give you access to the original master". In fact, they are very explicit in stating that they will simply accept as a given that whatever version of the content they receive is "the best available version". And it is also clear that their CODEC produces a "very high quality LOSSY file". Their series of claims is that: a) assuming that you purchase their remastering service, they will fix any flaws they can with the original, and produce an "improved master" b) they will then encode the result using their CODEC c) this encoded content, because of their remastering, will sound good (better than before) on an ordinary DAC d) because of their certification/optimization process, their certified DACs will sound good with ordinary content e) their encoded content will sound ESPECIALLY good on their certified DACs 5) While SOME current DACs may be able to be upgraded to add the MQA protocol by a firmware update, most will not. Most DACs that support PCM alone simply don't incorporate the type of processing necessary to decode OTHER CODECs. (The processing required is common in preamp/processors, but not very common in DACs - many of which don't include a DSP.) 6) Tidal is interested in MQA because of its claimed ability to deliver low-bit-rate streams at much higher quality than other similar CODECs. This means that they will be incorporating the MQA CODEC into the Tidal client (so it works for all Tidal customers). It will be interesting to see whether they incorporate "full support" for features like the ability to use external decoders with that implementation. Please don't misunderstand me..... I suspect that MQA will indeed be useful as a new, and better, way to stream good quality content using less bandwidth. However, this is quite separate from its success as "a new audiophile file format" - and I'm rather more doubtful about its success there. We have a few DACs in the wild now. We just need MQA encoded files. Tidal is suppose to me streaming it by now. BTW, MQA is not a new codec, but an encoding method for existing codecs. Exiting PCM codec encapsulation like FLAC, ALAC, WAV, etc could have MQA information embedded. The master file or quality of the file is only access via a compatible DAC. A standard non-MQA DAC will see it as a regular PCM file. The DAC could have native support of MQA or existing DACs could be upgraded via firmware. The DSP will run the custom MQA code to unwrap the information embedded within the PCM codec. |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Aug 8, 2016 15:18:42 GMT -5
If Apple were to buy out Meridian, then Apple would still have to pay MQA fees. MQA is not a part of Meridian Audio; they're two separate companies. Apple could buy MQA and Boothroyd-Stewart-Meridian both from pocket change. Whether they do or not is a good litmus test as to the efficacy and value of the technology. If I were Bob Stuart, I wouldn't sell it to a company that's named after a fruit.  |
|
|
|
Post by goodfellas27 on Aug 8, 2016 15:23:26 GMT -5
"MQA- encoded content can be carried via any lossless file format such as FLAC or ALAC: thus MQA is not a file format itself but an end-to-end encode/decode scheme that is employed in conjunction with available lossless file formats." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_Quality_Authenticated"So if an MQA file uses PCM data deep down, what’s PCM then? It stands for 'pulse-code modulation' and is pretty much the standard way to store digital audio when you’re not trying to desperately conserve data. For example, the stereo audio tracks of DVDs and Blu-rays will generally be pure PCM. " Read more at www.trustedreviews.com/opinions/what-is-mqa-meridian-s-digital-audio-format-explained#2MSXqw866PgVlPUK.99From my understating, a codecs would be DSD, LPCM, PCM and FLAC, DTS, WAV, ALAC are all containers (formats) of these codecs. MQA is PCM encoded/compress using MQA "origami" folding techniques |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Aug 8, 2016 16:09:04 GMT -5
Interesting... their claims seem to have changed... at least subtly... (but not in any major degree). While I'm not going to "meta-analyze" someone else's analysis of what someone else said.....  I do feel an obligation to mention a few things. 1) From what I'm reading, the reviewer felt that the MQA files actually sounded better than the 24/192k originals. (This makes me nervous because I would hope that they would reproduce the originals exactly - at best; it reminds me of how some people think "tubes sound better".) However, he preferred how the 24/192k PCM files sounded when played on one DAC over how the MQA files sounded on another. (This seems to suggest that the differences between two high-end DACs are more audible than the differences between PCM and MQA.) (Alternately, it suggests that switching between MQA and PCM is equivalent to switching between various filters of a single DAC - one tends to prefer this or that filter with this or that song.) 2) Giving it all the benefit of the doubt, I tend to suspect what the reviewer hints at.... Which is that the biggest difference is the MASTERING (remember that every "MQA processed" file has been "remastered and repaired"). For better or worse, this makes it impossible to separate the effects of the various parts of "the process"... Please note that I am all in favor of a good quality re-mastering of an album that offers us a better quality version to listen to. 3) I find it interesting that they've now added a blue light "to signify that the file has been certified by someone at the studio" when, in a previous interview, one of the principals, when challenged to explain exactly what he meant by "master authenticated" said outright that "we aren't the quality police" and "we'll accept that whatever content they give us is 'the best master available' ". (So, while I suppose it's reassuring that whoever signed the check told them to light the little blue light, I can't get excited about it.) 4) I'm not at all convinced that it's possible to produce something that I will be able to audibly distinguish (for the better) from something like 24/192k PCM. And, as the reviewer said, while I'm sure Tidal will be very excited if they can get something that is indistinguishable from a 192k stream in a 44k pipe, I personally don't care very much. (Every album I own will fit on one $200 USB hard drive - at 16/44k, or at 24/192k PCM, or at 44k MQA..... ) 5) I'll add that the specific filters used in a DAC are audibly very important, so it doesn't surprise me that their "MQA filter" in a given DAC sounds different than others (and possibly better). However, that's really a separate issue (but, if they've managed to help a given manufacturer to improve the design of their DAC, I'm all for that too). I think I'm actually agreeing with most of Darko's conclusions: a) having someone producing better-sounding masters and remasters will be nice (always is) (but, if that's all that comes of it, I'll wait for a software converter to decode those wonderful new MQA files to 24/192k PCM) b) the biggest fans of MQA will be streaming services - because they're the ones who will benefit from the bandwidth reduction c) whether a new audiophile format can otherwise succeed will be interesting to see However, I'm not placing any bets either way on that last one..... and I can't work up a lot of excitement about it. And, on that note, I'm forced to agree with Schiit Audio....... (If a significant part of the market is willing to pay real money for it, then I'll be interested.... otherwise, not so much.) I've still got to say, however, that bundling several of what seem to be individually useful things into one "big fat ecosystem" makes me somewhat queasy. (But then, I thought that the iPod was a pretty nifty little music player; but that welding it to iTunes at the hip was a fatal flaw.) Maybe, with any luck, we will see "MQA remastered albums".... in standard "unfolded" 24/192k PCM format. (But I'm not interested in being forced to choose between "ordinary 44k PCM" and "go buy an MQA DAC".... ) www.digitalaudioreview.net/2016/06/an-inconvenient-truth-mqa-sounds-better/Errrr..... you're reading more into it than even their claims. The claim is that there will be some sort of optimization/certification process for "MQA certified DACs". The specific claim is that the individual designs of MQA certified DACs will be "optimized for time domain accuracy" (or words to that effect). (They claim that) this "optimization" should be good for sound quality in general, and especially important for playing MQA content. Nowhere are they claiming that all MQA certified DACs will all end up sounding "exactly the same" or anything even close to that. (Or do you really imagine that Meridian is going to tell folks that their $300 DAC is "as good as it gets" and "there's no point in buying more expensive models".) I would also note that the sudden and dramatic flurry of announcements and magazine articles about MQA has been followed by... err... not much so far. I will be eagerly awaiting the announcements of MQA releases of desirable albums by groups I care about... and positive reviews about how wonderful they sound. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Aug 8, 2016 16:17:02 GMT -5
Now THAT's an interesting thought. While Apple STILL won't sell you lossless music on the iTunes store, they have been soliciting music in 24/96k format, and apparently stockpiling it. Perhaps they've finally decided that some of their customers actually can hear the difference between lossless and lossy music..... But, then, MQA is still lossy, and is supposedly not designed to accommodate DRM, so who can tell...  (However, even with Apple behind it, AAC has NOT become an industry standard.... at least not if you don't work for Apple  ) I guess we'll see. The tipping point, tentatively, for MQA is whether Apple decides to go with the technology. If so, they'll probably buy out Meridian to avoid fees & then put ALL their iTunes content on the MQA diet. Will it happen? 50/50? If it does, then MQA may (or may not) become an industry standard, but with the iTunes store behind it, it won't be going away... |
|
|
|
Post by vcautokid on Aug 8, 2016 16:29:36 GMT -5
It is not going to excite me, or hurt my feelings either. Another Pono deal to me. Really up there with Unicorn blood and pixey fairy dust. It will be that rare if it matters to me that much.
If others want it, why not? I always thought you were already getting what the studio and artist intended. I know MQA is more of a philosphy than anything else. How will it be a benefit that is real or tangible too me?
Now I really need to get these $5000.00 1 meter power cables from Area 51. I hear they are other worldly.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Aug 8, 2016 17:04:44 GMT -5
Huh? CODEC is more of an abbreviation than an acronym... and it stands for COder DECoder - which is precisely what "an end to end encode/decode scheme is". The terms "file format" and "container" are more or less synonymous, although there's some overlap with "data formats"...... For example, PCM is a data format (bits on a wire) but you can store those bits directly into a WAV file. In the video world, some containers always contain a certain video format, while others can contain one of several different ones. I'll have to admit that I find the whole use of the term "origami" to be both brilliant, misleading, and somewhat annoying. In origami, you take a piece of paper and fold it into a figure - usually without cutting or gluing it. Their use of the term is clearly intended to suggest that you can "unfold" their encoded format and "get back the original piece of paper"..... Since they also avoid using the term LOSSY, and even use the term lossless in certain parts of their description, they are clearly trying very hard to AVOID stating the truth... which is that MQA is a LOSSY format. The reality is that some of the original content, where they're quite sure there's nothing that matters, is DISCARDED. Some of the content, which constitutes the difference between high-res and ordinary content is also removed, losslessly compressed, and then saved by overwriting some more "useless content". (So that overwritten content is also discarded.) When you play back without decoding, you are simply playing the normal content. When you decode, you are extracting the extra stuff they "stashed", decoding it, and putting it back where it belongs. "MQA- encoded content can be carried via any lossless file format such as FLAC or ALAC: thus MQA is not a file format itself but an end-to-end encode/decode scheme that is employed in conjunction with available lossless file formats." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_Quality_Authenticated"So if an MQA file uses PCM data deep down, what’s PCM then? It stands for 'pulse-code modulation' and is pretty much the standard way to store digital audio when you’re not trying to desperately conserve data. For example, the stereo audio tracks of DVDs and Blu-rays will generally be pure PCM. " Read more at www.trustedreviews.com/opinions/what-is-mqa-meridian-s-digital-audio-format-explained#2MSXqw866PgVlPUK.99From my understating, a codecs would be DSD, LPCM, PCM and FLAC, DTS, WAV, ALAC are all containers (formats) of these codecs. MQA is PCM encoded/compress using MQA "origami" folding techniques |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Aug 8, 2016 17:26:35 GMT -5
But if you want MQA quality, you must have an MQA DAC.. That's it in a nutshell. BUT since MQA can be implemented via hardware, software, OR plug-ins, it's highly likely that your existing DAC will decode MQA files (and for only a fraction of what a new DAC would cost). Companies currently producing MQA hardware DACs include: NAD Pioneer Onkyo Mytek Brinkman BlueSound Some of those are very affordable. There's a software MQA decoder? If so, I take back my objections! |
|
|
|
Post by Axis on Aug 8, 2016 17:30:20 GMT -5
Nothing has beat me popping a CD into my ERC-1 yet.  |
|
|
|
Post by goodfellas27 on Aug 8, 2016 21:44:38 GMT -5
Well, MQA is saying it's lossless format and it's PCM, hence able to be decoded by none MQA DACs. I am showing you links proving it and not being dogmatic about it. "MP3 brings you just 10% of what was recorded in the studio. Everything else is lost to fit the music into a conveniently small file. MQA brings you the missing 90% – the full, rich experience – without any loss of convenience. It’s truly a revolution in audio." www.mqa.co.uk/customer/how-it-worksFrom the man himself Huh? CODEC is more of an abbreviation than an acronym... and it stands for COder DECoder - which is precisely what "an end to end encode/decode scheme is". The terms "file format" and "container" are more or less synonymous, although there's some overlap with "data formats"...... For example, PCM is a data format (bits on a wire) but you can store those bits directly into a WAV file. In the video world, some containers always contain a certain video format, while others can contain one of several different ones. I'll have to admit that I find the whole use of the term "origami" to be both brilliant, misleading, and somewhat annoying. In origami, you take a piece of paper and fold it into a figure - usually without cutting or gluing it. Their use of the term is clearly intended to suggest that you can "unfold" their encoded format and "get back the original piece of paper"..... Since they also avoid using the term LOSSY, and even use the term lossless in certain parts of their description, they are clearly trying very hard to AVOID stating the truth... which is that MQA is a LOSSY format. The reality is that some of the original content, where they're quite sure there's nothing that matters, is DISCARDED. Some of the content, which constitutes the difference between high-res and ordinary content is also removed, losslessly compressed, and then saved by overwriting some more "useless content". (So that overwritten content is also discarded.) When you play back without decoding, you are simply playing the normal content. When you decode, you are extracting the extra stuff they "stashed", decoding it, and putting it back where it belongs. "MQA- encoded content can be carried via any lossless file format such as FLAC or ALAC: thus MQA is not a file format itself but an end-to-end encode/decode scheme that is employed in conjunction with available lossless file formats." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_Quality_Authenticated"So if an MQA file uses PCM data deep down, what’s PCM then? It stands for 'pulse-code modulation' and is pretty much the standard way to store digital audio when you’re not trying to desperately conserve data. For example, the stereo audio tracks of DVDs and Blu-rays will generally be pure PCM. " Read more at www.trustedreviews.com/opinions/what-is-mqa-meridian-s-digital-audio-format-explained#2MSXqw866PgVlPUK.99From my understating, a codecs would be DSD, LPCM, PCM and FLAC, DTS, WAV, ALAC are all containers (formats) of these codecs. MQA is PCM encoded/compress using MQA "origami" folding techniques |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Aug 9, 2016 1:35:19 GMT -5
Well, MQA is saying it's lossless format and it's PCM, hence able to be decoded by none MQA DACs. I am showing you links proving it and not being dogmatic about it. "MP3 brings you just 10% of what was recorded in the studio. Everything else is lost to fit the music into a conveniently small file. MQA brings you the missing 90% – the full, rich experience – without any loss of convenience. It’s truly a revolution in audio." www.mqa.co.uk/customer/how-it-worksFrom the man himself Huh? CODEC is more of an abbreviation than an acronym... and it stands for COder DECoder - which is precisely what "an end to end encode/decode scheme is". The terms "file format" and "container" are more or less synonymous, although there's some overlap with "data formats"...... For example, PCM is a data format (bits on a wire) but you can store those bits directly into a WAV file. In the video world, some containers always contain a certain video format, while others can contain one of several different ones. I'll have to admit that I find the whole use of the term "origami" to be both brilliant, misleading, and somewhat annoying. In origami, you take a piece of paper and fold it into a figure - usually without cutting or gluing it. Their use of the term is clearly intended to suggest that you can "unfold" their encoded format and "get back the original piece of paper"..... Since they also avoid using the term LOSSY, and even use the term lossless in certain parts of their description, they are clearly trying very hard to AVOID stating the truth... which is that MQA is a LOSSY format. The reality is that some of the original content, where they're quite sure there's nothing that matters, is DISCARDED. Some of the content, which constitutes the difference between high-res and ordinary content is also removed, losslessly compressed, and then saved by overwriting some more "useless content". (So that overwritten content is also discarded.) When you play back without decoding, you are simply playing the normal content. When you decode, you are extracting the extra stuff they "stashed", decoding it, and putting it back where it belongs. Well, if you take a 24-bit 352.8 kHz file, then if you fold it (by using audio origami) so that it will fit into a 24-bit 96 kHz file, some very small amount of quality will be lost so from this particular point of view it is lossy. But then, the amount of quality that's present in a 24-bit 352.8 kHz file is astronomic, whereas the amount of loss that will occur due to the folding is going to be microscopic so it is important that people understand that the folded version, after it has been unfolded, will be perceptually lossless because then they can't actually HEAR the fact that it's not lossless. |
|
|
|
Post by goodfellas27 on Aug 9, 2016 7:15:10 GMT -5
Well, MQA is saying it's lossless format and it's PCM, hence able to be decoded by none MQA DACs. I am showing you links proving it and not being dogmatic about it. "MP3 brings you just 10% of what was recorded in the studio. Everything else is lost to fit the music into a conveniently small file. MQA brings you the missing 90% – the full, rich experience – without any loss of convenience. It’s truly a revolution in audio." www.mqa.co.uk/customer/how-it-worksFrom the man himself Well, if you take a 24-bit 352.8 kHz file, then if you fold it (by using audio origami) so that it will fit into a 24-bit 96 kHz file, some very small amount of quality will be lost so from this particular point of view it is lossy. But then, the amount of quality that's present in a 24-bit 352.8 kHz file is astronomic, whereas the amount of loss that will occur due to the folding is going to be microscopic so it is important that people understand that the folded version, after it has been unfolded, will be perceptually lossless because then they can't actually HEAR the fact that it's not lossless. I haven't seen any information from MQA saying that's not lossless once MQA is unfolded. If you go to 2L and download MQA files, they would say original resolution. Whatever MQA is taking out or folding, we would need an MQA decoder to measure against a conventional lossless file.  ![]() |
|
)
