|
|
Post by Jim on Jan 17, 2017 18:11:33 GMT -5
MQA. It's like DarbeeVision for your audio!
/ducks
|
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Jan 17, 2017 18:59:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jamco on Jan 17, 2017 19:58:54 GMT -5
Rocky Mountain Audio Fest (Fall 2015) hosted a seminar on "Streaming Audio: Preserving the Past, Protecting the Future." It was moderated by Chris Connaker of Computer Audiophile. The panelists included Pal Bratelund of TIDAL and Bob Stuart (founder) of Meridian Audio. The main topic at hand was MQA. It may be worth viewing if you’re chasing MQA. (Link) |
|
|
|
Post by Loop 7 on Jan 17, 2017 20:04:41 GMT -5
|
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,255
|
Post by KeithL on Jan 18, 2017 12:05:50 GMT -5
The whole point is that music itself (before it is recorded) and what you're hearing (after you play it back) is ALWAYS analog (sound in air is analog). Therefore, the goal of ANY recording and reproduction process is to reproduce that original sound in the air as accurately as possible. So far there is no such thing as a perfect reproduction and storage method - but the better digital ones are more accurate overall than the analog alternatives. ALL analog storage and playback methods have issues with noise and distortion, and all have a generational quality loss issue (copies are never identical to the original). Whereas digital methods aren't quite perfect at the points where the audio is converted between analog and digital, there is NO loss of quality when making digital copies of digital content (if done right). The MQA folks claim that, IF you use MQA certified gear at every step along the way, they will give you a better digital copy than other existing methods. They're claiming that a recording made with MQA will sound better (and more like analog) than recordings made with other methods. (Forget all the technical details about how they're claiming to get there...) And, no, it isn't DSD, but why would it want to be? DSD is simply another digital format with its own collection of flaws.... (I assume they're hoping for MQA to be rather more successful than DSD  ) I've always been quite pleased with the few Blu-Ray Audio discs I've got (but there aren't very many). (They're simply high-rate PCM, which works just fine for me.) OK it is a PCM file folded. And each layer of decoding unfolds more of the file. But it is not only 24/192. It can be any sample rate. It could theoretically be I guess 32/? But DSD it isn't. And I would welcome Blu-ray audio. As it sounds great. Or an equivalent digital means. But truly analog has always sounded best to me. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,255
|
Post by KeithL on Jan 18, 2017 12:19:41 GMT -5
FLAC gives you about 2:1 compression - and gives you back a bit-perfect exact copy of the original. MP3 can deliver 10:1 or better compression - but your copy will NOT be an exact reproduction of the original (not even close). There are several DIFFERENT things going on with MQA - which is why it's so confusing: 1) They claim that content that is RECORDED AND PLAYED BACK on MQA equipment will be more accurate to the original than anything available today using any other method. This presumably includes content that is re-encoded from the analog master tapes. Sadly, analog master tapes are already flawed  As far as I know there is so far no existing content that was "recorded from scratch in MQA". 2) They claim that their encoder can essentially reverse engineer existing digital content and correct or remove flaws that occurred during the original encoding process. This is the claim that "MQA can make existing content sound better than the original". 3) There are additional claims about being able to tell if your content was actually "approved" by the studio or artist. (Good luck figuring out the difference between claims, promises, hopes, and reality there.) In any of these cases, they claim that... * You'll hear an improvement when playing that improved content on ANY equipment. * That you'll hear more of an improvement if you use software MQA decoding (presumably the Tidal client does this). * You'll hear the biggest improvement if you play it back on a DAC that does hardware MQA decoding and is MQA certified * At a given level of compression/size, MQA will deliver better quality than other systems So, in other words, for something like Tidal, they're claiming that, by using MQA encoding, they'll be able to make the original sound somewhat better, then get that improved quality to you using less bandwidth; and that you'll hear some improvement on regular equipment, and more improvement on MQA hardware. One of the tricky bits is that it's relatively easy to confirm that something is bit-perfect (decode that FLAC file, compare it to the original, they match), but statements like "sound better" are almost always somewhat subjective. (You and I will never be able to compare their "improved copy" to the actual analog original, which we'd have to do to know for sure if it was closer to that original than what we have now, so we'll be limited to deciding whether we believe it sounds "better". ) I thought that was one of the "gripes" about FLAC - poor compression. Is that not true? If FLAC is good at compression...and high res - what is MQA actually trying to solve? From what I've heard, a decompressed FLAC file is identical to the original file. I thought MQA was supposed to make the decoded file sound "better" than the original. Maybe they should have MQA for books or TV shows. You just insert the original book or show into the encoder/decoder and out comes a better version. |
|
|
|
Post by jamco on Jan 18, 2017 13:03:22 GMT -5
Schiit Audio clarifies their position on MQA. They make some interesting points. (Link) |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Jan 18, 2017 14:55:03 GMT -5
Schiit Audio clarifies their position on MQA. They make some interesting points. (Link)Personally, everything I've read about MQA sounds like a bunch of mumbo jumbo. It's all couched in stuff like, "it will make music sound better." I think Schiit has it right when they say MQA is not a differentiator; it's just another thing to add to the confusing pile of stuff already out there. To me, it's only a step up from that guy who was doing those EMF filter modifications to Emotiva gear - another case of technical mumbo jumbo that doesn't pass the smell test. That said, I know MQA has been given credence by partnering with Tidal, Warner Brothers, etc., but I have to ask if this is because it really does sound better or because people are looking for the next cash cow? So far, the Schiit analysis by Jason Stoddard and Mike Moffat makes the most sense to me. Keith's analysis earlier in this thread sums up what I've been able to gather about MQA, too. |
|
|
|
Post by Loop 7 on Jan 18, 2017 15:04:20 GMT -5
3) There are additional claims about being able to tell if your content was actually "approved" by the studio or artist. (Good luck figuring out the difference between claims, promises, hopes, and reality there.) This portion of MQA's marketing strategy was a poor decision in my mind as you just debunked. Glaringly poor. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,255
|
Post by KeithL on Jan 18, 2017 15:14:45 GMT -5
I pretty much agree with your conclusions - with one exception..... Many customers listen to streaming content on portable players and smart phones, and smart phones not only have limited bandwidth, but their customers may actually pay for their data usage. Therefore, if MQA (as a CODEC) will allow Tidal to stream high-quality content using less bandwidth, then I can see a definite value there. For this reason, MQA may well have a lot of value for streaming content providers like Tidal. However, I see this as being virtually independent that any other value it may have in other contexts. Separate from that, if any studios actually start producing content mastered in MQA end-to-end, or offering re-mastered versions of current albums that have been "processed and improved" using MQA, then that may beneficial. However, it will remain to be seen whether anyone is willing to commit to full MQA mastering, and it will remain to be seen whether MQA "re-mastering" produces a significant improvement for a significant number of albums. It will also remain to be seen if there is any actual proof that those remasters are actually "closer to the analog originals" or whether "some people just think they sound better". So far I haven't seen (or heard) any of those Warner titles, so I don't know how many of them sound better, and by how much. The fact that a few selected samples sound better to a few selected people hardly seems conclusive. (I can think of a few CDs that also sound really, really good already.) Of course, as you note, a lot of people are looking for "the next big feature" - in the sense of "adding another logo to their equipment to hopefully attract a few more customers". The reality is that it doesn't matter if MQA is technically superior unless it is widely adopted (and that's still a big if). The short, simple answer is that, if and when a lot of MQA content appears, and it really does sound significantly better, then MQA will deserve serious consideration. Until then, it seems to make a lot more sense to follow a "look and see" or perhaps "wait and listen" attitude. Schiit Audio clarifies their position on MQA. They make some interesting points. (Link)Personally, everything I've read about MQA sounds like a bunch of mumbo jumbo. It's all couched in stuff like, "it will make music sound better." I think Schiit has it right when they say MQA is not a differentiator; it's just another thing to add to the confusing pile of stuff already out there. To me, it's only a step up from that guy who was doing those EMF filter modifications to Emotiva gear - another case of technical mumbo jumbo that doesn't pass the smell test. That said, I know MQA has been given credence by partnering with Tidal, Warner Brothers, etc., but I have to ask if this is because it really does sound better or because people are looking for the next cash cow? So far, the Schiit analysis by Jason Stoddard and Mike Moffat makes the most sense to me. Keith's analysis earlier in this thread sums up what I've been able to gather about MQA, too. |
|
|
|
Post by brutiarti on Jan 18, 2017 15:15:18 GMT -5
I feel the MQA people want to grab whatever they can from the music industry, at least in my system i don't care for it. I'm not planning of changing my dac just to get the last "unfold" of the encapsulation. I agree with the people from schiit about having a "DACs for the music you have, not the music you have to buy,”
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,255
|
Post by KeithL on Jan 18, 2017 15:21:08 GMT -5
Absolutely - and I like the way they phrased that. I'll be very interested in MQA - when and if a bunch of new albums come out that sound noticeably better in MQA, or when a bunch of my favorite albums are re-mastered in MQA versions that sound significantly better. I fear that their business model relies too heavily on bootstrapping..... Studios aren't going to make the investment until there are a lot of customers out there with MQA DACs demanding MQA content... And equipment manufacturers aren't going to make the investment until there's a lot more content out there to juice up consumer demand. (And I don't think they'll stir up enough interest in either direction without more than a lot of "buzz"...) I feel the MQA people want to grab whatever they can from the music industry, at least in my system i don't care for it. I'm not planning of changing my dac just to get the last "unfold" of the encapsulation. I agree with the people from schiit about having a "DACs for the music you have, not the music you have to buy,” |
|
hemster
Global Moderator
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,950
|
Post by hemster on Jan 18, 2017 15:33:19 GMT -5
Absolutely - and I like the way they phrased that. I'll be very interested in MQA - when and if a bunch of new albums come out that sound noticeably better in MQA, or when a bunch of my favorite albums are re-mastered in MQA versions that sound significantly better. I fear that their business model relies too heavily on bootstrapping..... Studios aren't going to make the investment until there are a lot of customers out there with MQA DACs demanding MQA content... And equipment manufacturers aren't going to make the investment until there's a lot more content out there to juice up consumer demand. (And I don't think they'll stir up enough interest in either direction without more than a lot of "buzz"...) I feel the MQA people want to grab whatever they can from the music industry, at least in my system i don't care for it. I'm not planning of changing my dac just to get the last "unfold" of the encapsulation. I agree with the people from schiit about having a "DACs for the music you have, not the music you have to buy,” I too am cautiously watching what happens with MQA. Warner signed up with MQA and below is a quote from the article linked below. Full article: www.digitaltrends.com/music/warner-mqa-sign-deal-to-offer-hi-res-music-downloads/It seems like more and more 'partners' are jumping on the bandwagon. >>linky<<. It should be interesting to see how this plays out over the coming months. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,255
|
Post by KeithL on Jan 18, 2017 16:57:29 GMT -5
As you say, it will be interesting to see how it plays out. First off, I don't find the number of people who jump on the bandwagon, in and of itself, to be terribly important. What matters is the percentage of music that becomes available in MQA. In fact, what really matters will be the percentage of music THAT I CARE ABOUT, that becomes available in MQA, and WHICH SOUNDS BETTER IN MQA. I don't care if a dozen labels decide to offer music in MQA unless they're the ones offering the music I want to listen to. I can think of a few labels who offer truly impressive quality recordings in high-res; but, unfortunately, none of the music they're selling is stuff I actually want to listen to. I'm also not going to be very interested unless a significant part of that MQA music really sounds better in MQA. I'd already have to say that, while half of the high-res remasters I've bought sound very good, the other half are no better than the original versions. And I went to the Onkyo music site a few months ago and, while they had a few dozen titles in MQA, there was literally not a single one that I wanted to hear. I often have the same experience with high-res downloads. There's some new site offering super quality high-res or Blu-Ray downloads.... only all they have is some obscure music that I wouldn't actually listen to. So what's going to matter is how many MAJOR labels adopt MQA, and how many of their MQA releases really end up sounding significantly better than the same release in other formats. I have little doubt that a lot of "audiophile" download sites will start offering MQA downloads - right next to their WAV, FLAC, ALAC, and DSD offerings. Likewise, some DAC vendors are going to adopt it simply so they'll have another feature to sell. However, because of the licensing requirements, you're going to have to pay more for that DAC that has MQA support. You also may have to pay extra for that MQA music file (that remains to be seen). As I see it, what will eventually happen is that the people who bought DACs that happen to support MQA will buy the MQA files... because, well, why not. However, most people aren't going to be willing to pay extra until they hear a demonstrable improvement between MQA and the other formats already in common use. (In principle, I could buy that MQA file, and it would sound very good on my non-MQA DAC anyway, so all they'll have to do is to convince me that it sounds even better on an MQA DAC.) The only catch will be if the MQA folks want to charge enough of a premium that they discourage most vendors from carrying them. (And, as some people have pointed out, that includes both premiums in the form of licenses to sell the music, and in the form of having to wait for them to approve the circuitry on a DAC waiting to go into production.) Another barrier they have to overcome is the "incumbency" barrier. There are a LOT of DACs in the world, and they all play PCM. Nobody is going to want to invest a lot in MQA files if they're not sure that MQA DACs will be around for a long time. At least, because MQA files can be played on non-MQA DACs, you won't get stuck with music you can't play if MQA doesn't succeed, but they're still going to have to convince people to pay extra - when the benefit might evaporate if MQA doesn't catch on. (Of course, if those MQA files really do sound better, even on non-MQA equipment, then that won't be a problem.) Honestly, I'm not taking any bets either way at this point (but I'm sure glad I didn't spend extra to get something that would play SACD discs, or DVD-A discs, and that I didn't buy too many of those SQ4 albums). I think MQA on Tidal will be a success - because you don't have to "invest" in it (the client handles it in software). The next step will be to see if those Tidal MQA files really do sound better when you play them on an MQA certified DAC. (I'll be eagerly waiting for you guys to tell me that  .) Absolutely - and I like the way they phrased that. I'll be very interested in MQA - when and if a bunch of new albums come out that sound noticeably better in MQA, or when a bunch of my favorite albums are re-mastered in MQA versions that sound significantly better. I fear that their business model relies too heavily on bootstrapping..... Studios aren't going to make the investment until there are a lot of customers out there with MQA DACs demanding MQA content... And equipment manufacturers aren't going to make the investment until there's a lot more content out there to juice up consumer demand. (And I don't think they'll stir up enough interest in either direction without more than a lot of "buzz"...) I too am cautiously watching what happens with MQA. Warner signed up with MQA and below is a quote from the article linked below. Full article: www.digitaltrends.com/music/warner-mqa-sign-deal-to-offer-hi-res-music-downloads/It seems like more and more 'partners' are jumping on the bandwagon. >>linky<<. It should be interesting to see how this plays out over the coming months. |
|
|
|
Post by Loop 7 on Jan 18, 2017 17:26:59 GMT -5
I think PS Audio, whose DACs are extremely well regarded, are still waiting before jumping into the MQA game.
The move to software decoding is very interesting and, I wonder, if a response to market opinions?
|
|
hemster
Global Moderator
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,950
|
Post by hemster on Jan 18, 2017 17:48:23 GMT -5
... The move to software decoding is very interesting and, I wonder, if a response to market opinions? Unsure if it's market opinions as the masses still don't know/care about MQA. I think software decoding will accelerate market adoption as most current owners of hardware are unlikely to want to replace their purchases. I hope that software decoding will be adopted by more vendors, a la Tidal. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,255
|
Post by KeithL on Jan 18, 2017 18:13:42 GMT -5
There is no "move" to software decoding - it's always been there - at least in principle. Doing a software decoder is absolutely easier than a hardware decoder. According to the MQA theory), by doing the decoder INSIDE the DAC, they can optimize the performance of the decoder to the specific DAC hardware it lives in. However, it had always been my understanding that, if you did Tidal, WITHOUT an MQA DAC, they would still be doing an "MQA decode" in the Tidal client software. (Presumably this would still be better than NOT doing the MQA decode.) But, yes, there wouldn't be much market for paying extra for "Tidal MQA" is you had to buy an MQA DAC to get any benefit from it. They've got to convince people to invest in Tidal's MQA service BEFORE they sell very many MQA DACs - or there will never be enough market interest to sell any. THEN, once they've got a bunch of people convinced that they're hearing some improvement, they can sell the story that they'll get a BIGGER improvement by buying an MQA DAC. (Personally, I think that, if they were smart, they'd be offering some sort of a package deal - where you buy a year of Tidal / MQA and get a low cost MQA DAC at a huge discount.) I think PS Audio, whose DACs are extremely well regarded, are still waiting before jumping into the MQA game. The move to software decoding is very interesting and, I wonder, if a response to market opinions? |
|
|
|
Post by Loop 7 on Jan 18, 2017 19:56:45 GMT -5
KeithL For sure, if they want to make MQA sticky, a year of TIDAL with a DAC almost thrown in (vice versa) would be brilliant.
|
|
emovac
Emo VIPs 
Saeed al-Sahhaf
Posts: 2,456
|
Post by emovac on Jan 18, 2017 20:42:55 GMT -5
There is no "move" to software decoding - it's always been there - at least in principle. Doing a software decoder is absolutely easier than a hardware decoder. According to the MQA theory), by doing the decoder INSIDE the DAC, they can optimize the performance of the decoder to the specific DAC hardware it lives in. However, it had always been my understanding that, if you did Tidal, WITHOUT an MQA DAC, they would still be doing an "MQA decode" in the Tidal client software. (Presumably this would still be better than NOT doing the MQA decode.) But, yes, there wouldn't be much market for paying extra for "Tidal MQA" is you had to buy an MQA DAC to get any benefit from it. They've got to convince people to invest in Tidal's MQA service BEFORE they sell very many MQA DACs - or there will never be enough market interest to sell any. THEN, once they've got a bunch of people convinced that they're hearing some improvement, they can sell the story that they'll get a BIGGER improvement by buying an MQA DAC. (Personally, I think that, if they were smart, they'd be offering some sort of a package deal - where you buy a year of Tidal / MQA and get a low cost MQA DAC at a huge discount.) I think PS Audio, whose DACs are extremely well regarded, are still waiting before jumping into the MQA game. The move to software decoding is very interesting and, I wonder, if a response to market opinions? Appreciate your post clarifying Emotiva's position. Entry into the MQA market is cheap if you are already subscribing to Tidal Hi-FI. A Meridian Explorer 2 can be had for about $200. It's a nice sounding small portable USB DAC. If you don't have a MQA DAC, the benefits of a partial unfolding of the MQA master file can be had up a 96/24 resolution. Such use is currently limited to the Tidal PC/MAC desktop. I picked up the Explorer2 on sale for ROON use when that feature comes out. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jan 18, 2017 22:36:14 GMT -5
MQA is simple - Either it sounds better or it doesn't. If it does, then I don't care how it works. If it doesn't then I don't care why not. Where's the beef?  |
|
)
.)
