Jump to content

Have You MQA'd?


artto

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, Kevin S said:

I am curious. When comparing the original master recording to the MQA recording, wouldn’t the goal be for the MQA recording to sound identical, as opposed to better, different or worse?

 

That's what I initially thought. But that's not what I heard. And my comments (to Pete McGrath) - when I said it seems as if the recording is done right in the first place, or the better it is done in the first place, the less if any difference is heard with MQA. McGrath's response "Exactly".

 

Believe me, I'm not in the DSP camp. I don't like much of what I hear with all that processing by an algorithm that some guy in the back room came up with. But I heard what I heard.

 

The guy from Paragon Sound forwarded my email to Ken Forsythe at MQA regarding my inquiry about having one of more of my recordings processed so I can do some more comparisons. Haven't heard back yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Kevin S said:

I am curious. When comparing the original master recording to the MQA recording, wouldn’t the goal be for the MQA recording to sound identical, as opposed to better, different or worse?

MQA's name implies, and their marketing says, they control the sound end to end (analog to analog) by certifying and profiling every step in the sound recording and reproduction process.  If MQA sounds superior/different to a lossless Redbook equivalent, is it because the technology can compensate for deficiencies in the chain, or is it truly able to unfold a Redbook stream into higher resolution sound, or did they simply re-master and/or re-EQ the source?

 

I've got an MQA capable DAC but I haven't played around with it too much.  Another downside is you have to disable processing, room correction and volume control in your software streamer so that it passes the MQA stream untouched to the DAC, otherwise you don't get the MQA light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, pbphoto said:

MQA's name implies, and their marketing says, they control the sound end to end (analog to analog) by certifying and profiling every step in the sound recording and reproduction process.  If MQA sounds superior/different to a lossless Redbook equivalent, is it because the technology can compensate for deficiencies in the chain, or is it truly able to unfold a Redbook stream into higher resolution sound, or did they simply re-master and/or re-EQ the source?

 

I've got an MQA capable DAC but I haven't played around with it too much.  Another downside is you have to disable processing, room correction and volume control in your software streamer so that it passes the MQA stream untouched to the DAC, otherwise you don't get the MQA light.

As far as I am concerned, how MQA sounds compared to Redbook isn’t the true test, or the point. The real test is, IMO, is it identical to the original master recording, regardless of how well done, or poorly done, the original is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Kevin S said:

As far as I am concerned, how MQA sounds compared to Redbook isn’t the true test, or the point. The real test is, IMO, is it identical to the original master recording, regardless of how well done, or poorly done, the original is. 

That is the point actually.  MQA claims to deliver superior sound quality to Redbook using similar bandwidth as Redbook.  I don't know enough to know if this is true or not.  Not sure if anybody does at this point.

 

Also, the term 'original master recording' is vague and changes over time.  Just look at all the constant remasters of old catalogs.  How many Sgt Pepper's do you have?

 

What I do want is the best sounding master possible given the current technology in at least Redbook non-lossy format.  If MQA can improve on this and I can hear it, I'm all in.

 

What I don't want is to be locked-in to a proprietary format that says it's better because it puts a blue light placebo up on my DAC, tricking me into buying another Sgt. Pepper's :-)

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, artto said:

The Benchmark article is also about 2 years old. It demonstrates an even grosser misunderstanding of MQA. Right from the beginning it declares MQA DOA while comparing MQA to other (failed) "formats".

 

Repeat: MQA is NOT a "format". MQA can be "packed" with any of the mentioned "formats".

 

EDIT: perhaps "encapsulated" is a better description than "packed".

And I have some speaker wire lifts to sell you 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Kevin S said:

As far as I am concerned, how MQA sounds compared to Redbook isn’t the true test, or the point. The real test is, IMO, is it identical to the original master recording, regardless of how well done, or poorly done, the original is. 

Reminds me when I used to work on printer drivers.  You could make a color photo pop out of the page so you would say "AH"  BUT is it true to the original.  The picture had great colors that stood out but were not real.  Maybe when folks are saying they think it sounds better really makes it wrong.  If you are not getting back to bit perfect after unfolding or decompression, w/minimum phase, you are not there.

 

I will contend though that a high percentage of people use AVRs with some manipulation enabled such as Audyssey or Dirac, or others enabled.  People enjoy what they want but don't make me go buy a new dac and new music just to experience something that is just different and not really closer to the original.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking about this last night & suddenly it occurred to me that the main point what MQA is, and is doing, is being misunderstood.

 

1. This is about streaming.

 

2. And it's about streaming hi-res lossless audio files.

 

3. This has nothing to do with disc playback (for instance).

 

4. In the demo I attended, the original audio master file was streamed to the dCS Vivaldi DAC.

 

5. Then, the same original audio master file was streamed to the dCS Vivaldi DAC WITH MQA encoding.

 

6. The point being that when these hi-res audio files are streamed (in this case 88.Khz 24 bit - that's what Pete McGrath usually uses) (it could have been 192/24 or 96/24, etc.) some truncation apparently always occurs in the transmission (streaming) process. (we're not talking about "streaming" from a CD player)

 

7. MQA is a process that encodes the original data in a way that allows the full original data to be reconstructed at the receiving end (decoder). Therefore we hear the streamed hi-res file as if we were playing the original file from, say, the computer that it was originally recorded on (or analogue tape it was originally digitally transferred from, etc).

 

It's not making anything "sound better" than it originally was. It's a technique to ensure that the streamed output is exactly the same (lossless) as the original data file regardless of file type or resolution.

 

The demo I was in was basically showing how much can be lost when streaming hi-res audio with current technology, and how MQA doesn't let that happen. So, yes. The MQA file sounds "better" because it is actually the same as the original. The streamed original is NOT the same as the original at the receiving end and hence doesn't sound as good - something is missing.

 

Consider hi-res video (4K) as an example. Sure we can stream 4K hi-res video, with surround sound, with Dolbly, DTS, whatever. But is this streamed content, from Netflix for example, equivalent to the same program on a 4K BluRay disc played from a decent disc player? Hell no! It certainly isn't to me. I can see & hear the difference. Movies that I really like I'll buy on 4K BluRay even though I have 120Mbps internet & Netflix 4K. MQA doesn't "restore" anything per se'. MQA doesn't enhance anything. MQA process is simply a method to "guarantee" that the streamed file is the same for the receiver as it originally was. Currently that is not the situation without MQA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, joshnich said:

AGAIN, more gibberish from someone who doesn't have a clue. He (who ever he/it is) still can't get past the concept that MQA is NOT a "FORMAT".

Furthermore, I personally don't trust anything from anyone who won't identify themselves. They are just posers who are afraid to eat crow and be identified when eventually proven wrong.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, joshnich said:

And I have some speaker wire lifts to sell you 

And I was never dumb enough to buy any in the first place.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no doubt you heard a difference between the two streams during the demo.   I believe you.  That's why they do demos.  However, I respectfully disagree with just about every other point, analogy and conclusion you are making above.  We'll have to leave it at that and see how this all plays out.  I'm going to continue to follow the topic and educate myself (and my ears).  Maybe I'll hear and see the (blue) light someday :-)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MerkinMuffley said:

"Format" seems to be the wrong word. Maybe it's just simply another SKU?  Suppose we have....("My Song"  - a  bundle of bits from the original session), and then,  ("My Song" a  Bundle of Bits With MQA Applied). Aren't those two different SKUs for SONY or MCA? 

 

 

I guess technically, 'format' is off a bit.  The way I understand it is MQA is a new method of encoding audio into a standard 44.1/16 PCM audio format, which can then be packaged up into either a FLAC file for streaming or a CD for physical distribution.  (Yes MQA CD's exist.)  If you play back the MQA encoded PCM audio using software or a device that understands MQA, the stream will be unfolded into higher resolutions that (maybe) sound better than CD quality.  If you play back the MQA encoded PCM audio using software or a device that is not MQA certified, you get standard CD quality - or slightly less than standard CD quality according to some arguments.

 

Your damn right it is also a new SKU.  That's where the money is - a huge opportunity to sell you another Sgt Pepper's.  If you have a Tidal account, find some of their "original masters" playlists and then go find multiple versions of the same songs on that playlist.  Usually there is an MQA album and then a normal CD album.

 

Why they are keeping both around, I'm not sure...  However, it does allow you to easily compare if you have an MQA certified DAC.  I've done this a little bit this weekend and I can't hear a difference, although I do admit I haven't done any super critical listening.  If anybody has an example of a Tidal song where the MQA version is noticeably different from its CD cousin (and both appear to come from the same source), please share.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MQA is a CODEC.

 

"CODEC" has two meanings that I know of.

 

1. Hardware based. Performs A/D and D/A conversion. Example: a modem (coder/decoder=co/dec=codec)

2. Software based. Process for encoding sound and/or video in digital form for broadcast or streaming. In this case it represents what is required for COmpression/DECompression.

Typically it is something that can be "encapsulated", then "decapsulated" at the receiving end. This can be used by/sent with any file format type

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Currently, if you have a "premium" Tidal account, MQA costs you nothing more.

 

I do think there needs to be more streaming competition with MQA. If Tidal remains the only source, that is a major problem!

 

However, the real debate appears to be the question of whether or not we need it at all with the streaming bandwidth that's currently available. However, remember that not everyone has 120Mbps internet (via ethernet), and even if you do, the WiFi component is only a fraction of that speed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/22/2018 at 10:59 PM, codewritinfool said:

 


Mark Waldrep (Dr. AIX) has written a lot about it. He is not a fan. http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6046

I have not heard an A/B/X test but would love to.

 

I've talked with Mark on several occasions and attended his seminars at AXPONA many times. He's a great guy. And I agree with his snake oil point of view regarding the majority of high-end tweak products. I have several of his recordings and his book. He has an entire chapter devoted to MQA.

 

EDIT: On page 694 Waldrep writes about auditioning some MQA processed recordings at the 2015 CES show. These were presented by Robert Stuart of MQA. Bob Dylan:Don't Think Twice - "I can attest to the fact that I've never heard Bob Dylan sound that transparent and clear". Roberta Flack:Killing Me Softly - ""very present sounding, intimate and possessed the full frequency spectrum. The triangle and kick drum were especially precise and clear. The sound was really great."

 

BUT - he admits that he hasn't had the opportunity to compare the same audio recording with/without MQA. And I might add, he is also guilty of repeatedly referring to MQA as a "format".

 

However, much of his argument(s) against MQA has to do with re-releasing (again) existing (older) recordings that are not "hi-res" in the first place, similar to the HD downloads. And I agree with that (sorry analog guys, tape or disc, it ain't high resolution). Is MQA going to make that 1969 Led Zep album sound "better"? No. It's just going to give you what the stoned out of their mind producer/artist thought was best after 12+ hours a day of editing, mixing & mastering at ear blistering sound levels.

 

The point being, if it isn't a high resolution recording in the first place, it doesn't require anything more than 44.1Khz/16 bit (or less), steaming or otherwise. The dynamic range isn't there. The noise floor is much higher.

 

You can't restore what is not there. You can't alter what doesn't exist.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, artto said:

I've talked with Mark on several occasions and attended his seminars at AXPONA many times. He's a great guy. And I agree with his snake oil point of view regarding the majority of high-end tweak products. I have several of his recordings and his book. He has an entire chapter devoted to MQA.

 

BUT - he admits that he hasn't had the opportunity to compare the same audio recording with/without MQA. And I might add, he is also guilty of repeatedly referring to MQA as a "format".

 

However, much of his argument(s) against MQA has to do with re-releasing (again) existing (older) recordings that are not "hi-res" in the first place, similar to the HD downloads. And I agree with that (sorry analog guys, tape or disc, it ain't high resolution). Is MQA going to make that 1969 Led Zep album sound better? No. It's just going to give you what the stoned out of their mind producer/artist thought was best after 12+ hours a day of editing, mixing & mastering at ear blistering sound levels.

 

You can't restore what is not there. You can't alter what doesn't exist.

Amen to this.  I too have communicated with him about quality of "masters".  The book you speak of is fantastic; I highly recommend it to those wanting to know more about quality audio.  The thing is massive and comes with a DVD with various files on it in different formats, rate, and depth.

 

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...