Jump to content

Have You MQA'd?


artto

Recommended Posts

Has anyone here gotten into MQA?

 

I'm considering going Hi-Res streaming via Tidal using an MQA equipped direct digital powered DAC. I've heard MQA encoded recordings and compared to the same recording w/o MQA. I like what I hear. Another MAJOR concern is what's available. A lot of music I listen to nowadays is more, very, non-mainstream. It's sometimes difficult enough finding it on CD so not sure these streaming services have many titles I'm interested in.

 

On top of that, I'm still kind of confused as to what MQA is, and what it's actually doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, artto said:

Has anyone here gotten into MQA?

 

I'm considering going Hi-Res streaming via Tidal using an MQA equipped direct digital powered DAC. I've heard MQA encoded recordings and compared to the same recording w/o MQA. I like what I hear. Another MAJOR concern is what's available. A lot of music I listen to nowadays is more, very, non-mainstream. It's sometimes difficult enough finding it on CD so not sure these streaming services have many titles I'm interested in.

 

On top of that, I'm still kind of confused as to what MQA is, and what it's actually doing.

 

 

This article promises much, but I doubt if it covers the subjecthttps://www.whathifi.com/advice/mqa-audio-what-it-how-can-you-get-it

 

What kind(s) of non-mainstream music?  If it's orchestral, an acid test would be to ask for Kabeláč: Mystery of Time on Supraphon

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kabeláč - good acid test pick. Tidal actually has some Kabeláč, but not Mystery of Time (yet?).

They have Harry Partch though.

 

But I can't seem to verify if & what has MQA or not.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, artto said:

But I can't seem to verify if & what has MQA or not.

It will have a box with an M inside it under the album. Just like E means Explicit. This is why some albums have 4 or more copies on Tidal. There is hardly any MQA stuff on Tidal that I listen to. And even if there was, that extra $10/month definitely isn't worth it to me.

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Jirachi said:

 And MQA is supposed to be from the final master before it gets compressed to CD quality.

 

Compression can mean different things. If you mean compression to make the file size smaller, then that isn't done with wav/cda files anyway. Compression to make a given instrument/track not have a high dynamic range is a part of the process in all studios anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Marvel said:

 

Compression can mean different things. If you mean compression to make the file size smaller, then that isn't done with wav/cda files anyway. Compression to make a given instrument/track not have a high dynamic range is a part of the process in all studios anyway.

 

Including classical and jazz and soundtrack?  I hope not!  I'm guessing that some are and some are not, across those three categories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/25/2018 at 2:02 AM, garyrc said:

Including classical and jazz and soundtrack?  I hope not!  I'm guessing that some are and some are not, across those three categories.

 

I think you understand my point, but I can almost guarantee sound gets manipulated quite a lot. Movie studios are often working with 200 plus tracks these days. If you are meaning only the music parts, they probably are as well (being manipulated/processed). With jazz, I think it would depend on the style and type of recording... , classical is also up for grabs with all the splicing parts together.

 

Bruce

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pzannucci said:

The only thing I question is that the folding technique is a compression that actually doesn't get you back to the original high-res recording.

...Or, for that matter, get you back to standard Redbook resolution if you don't buy an MQA enabled DAC, which 90+% of the people probably will not.  There are a lot of dubious claims and marketing hype right now with MQA that apply even if you have a DAC that supports it.  The reviews that say it sounds better - is it because of MQA itself or simply a differently EQ'd source?

 

Beyond a streaming codec, MQA is also a distribution control mechanism.  If you follow the money, it's all in favor of the folks that invented MQA or are pushing MQA.  Smells like a SACD/DIVX-like scheme at this point.  We'll see how it pans out, but I don't see it panning out unless companies with real money (Amazon, Apple) get behind it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MerkinMuffley said:

If so, then MQA is a new medium, and will result in very limited releases, I would imagine.  So, let's see.....I've bought the LP,  then the cassette, then the CD, then bought the remastered LP....arghhh. 

 

Not true. MQA is NOT a "new medium". Nor is it a "format". A MQA recording can be played on non-MQA legacy equipment without any change or detrimental effects, just the same as if MQA were not present.

 

At AXPONA I had a chance to hear A/B recordings of superior quality with/without MQA. More on this in a little while................................................:rolleyes:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MerkinMuffley said:

How do the MQA owners get paid then? By having a site like Spotify with 30M songs processed for MQA - charging some premium? Just trying to see how the money flows.

 

MQA is licensed to commercial manufacturers which pay a royalty per unit sold.

 

I'm not positive, but I think the intention (goal) is to extend MQA to "all" devices, including mobile. The royalties from such broad & massive distribution could be quite substantial. So even though MQA's initial target market is hi-res streaming, you're not paying a per listen per song premium. It's all on the "manufacturer" side as far as I know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While at AXPONA I kinda sorta got “stuck” after hours in the Paragon/Quintessence Audio demo room with the Wilson WAMM Master Chronosonic, D’Agostino Momentum amplification, dCS Vivaldi and other assorted goodies that mere mortals cannot afford.

 

I was in luck as one of people present was recording engineer Pete McGrath. Since I’ve done recording for one of the local Chorale groups (for 25 yrs now? Yikes) this after hours discussion and listening session was fascinating. And, as Pete pointed out to everyone “He (meaning me) has the best seat in the house.” Indeed. And I wasn’t about to give it up, except to Pete, if he asked, and he didn’t, so there I stayed.

 

McGrath had brought along some of his recordings. Some of the tracks are commercially available, a few have never been released so this was a first time listen for almost everyone. They covered a range of classical music. String ensemble, piano, orchestra, opera. Pete had sent these recording to MQA for processing. He A/B’d  each and then had a discussion. Everyone universally agreed the MQA versions sounded better. More interesting is everyone agreed on what they heard (as an improvement). On the piano for instance, there was clearly much richer, fuller harmonic content.

 

I have several SPL meter apps on my cell phone & one of them is calibrated as close as I get it to my real calibrated SPL meter.

 

While the recordings were being A/B’d I was taking SPL measurements. Surprisingly, there were differences. What’s more surprising, is on the piano recording the SPL was 4dB higher (peak & average) on the original version verses the MQA version. Usually, the higher SPL version wins as subjectively “better”. Some recordings had as little as 0.1dB difference. And on those it was more difficult to tell any subjective difference. All this led me to the thought that the better the original recording was – as in being done “right” in the first place – then MQA had less and less or no effect. Pete McGrath agreed. We all thought the MQA version sounded best when there was any effect.

 

So, that’s it, from the horse’s mouth. That being said, nobody seems to know what MQA is actually doing or how it does it. I like what heard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, artto said:

McGrath had brought along some of his recordings. Some of the tracks are commercially available, a few have never been released so this was a first time listen for almost everyone. They covered a range of classical music. String ensemble, piano, orchestra, opera. Pete had sent these recording to MQA for processing. He A/B’d  each and then had a discussion. Everyone universally agreed the MQA versions sounded better. More interesting is everyone agreed on what they heard (as an improvement). On the piano for instance, there was clearly much richer, fuller harmonic content.

 

11 hours ago, artto said:

While the recordings were being A/B’d I was taking SPL measurements. Surprisingly, there were differences. What’s more surprising, is on the piano recording the SPL was 4dB higher (peak & average) on the original version verses the MQA version. Usually, the higher SPL version wins as subjectively “better”. Some recordings had as little as 0.1dB difference. And on those it was more difficult to tell any subjective difference. All this led me to the thought that the better the original recording was – as in being done “right” in the first place – then MQA had less and less or no effect. Pete McGrath agreed. We all thought the MQA version sounded best when there was any effect.

 

So, that’s it, from the horse’s mouth. That being said, nobody seems to know what MQA is actually doing or how it does it. I like what heard.

 

Very informative - thank you.  I suspect as part of the "MQA processing" there has to be some re-mastering and EQ enhancements going on - like "Mastered for iTunes" downloads on the iTunes Store.  In addition, MQA embeds a profile of the source ADC into the file so that the end-user "MQA certified" DAC can use this info when it unfolds the MQA file.  This is part of their "you hear what the artist heard in the studio" and "time domain de-smearing" pitches.  If the original hi-res file was already well mastered and recorded, then as you point out, MQA probably has less of an impact.

 

To get the full benefit of MQA, you need an MQA-certified DAC, as you had during your listening session.  If you don't have this, you can still get some of the benefits of MQA via software like Roon or Audirvana.  And users that have neither a software streamer that understands MQA or an MQA-enabled DAC should still notice a sound improvement playing an MQA file at 24/48 because somebody has re-mastered and EQ'd the source, even if it is slightly inferior to standard Redbook bit-wise.  At least that's my understanding.

 

I think everybody on the planet is all for well mastered, hi-res audio streamed inside a package that consumes roughly the same amount of bandwidth as Redbook.  MQA promises all of this and more (but there is some debate as to whether it is really hi-res and lossless.)  The concern, among others, is with its distribution, control, and royalty scheme.  

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...