MQA Users & Discussion Thread

[legend]

6 hours ago, rmpfyf said:

 

Sorry @legend and other, Bob Stuart and co haven't convinced me and won't get a dime from me. Not least as it's extremely possible to decouple the technical and business objectives of what they're trying to do in a way that meets a broadly better, fairer intent.

 

Truly rent-seeking of the worst kind. Great music material needs better access and lower barriers, not a pimp taking a dime at all ends of every transaction.

I would prefer a world in which " from them according to their abilities: to them according to their needs" but unfortunately it is about as likely as the biblical "the lions shall lie down with the lambs".

 

I therefore have tried to make the current economic/political system we have, both at IP Australia and Legend (and before as a teacher and political activist from the 1960s), work as fairly as possible, given the constraints.  And unfortunately or otherwise in our current economic system people need to make money for things to happen, with trickle down effects from those at the top of the competitive food chain.

 

Sorry LHC, but one can't discuss the issues raised by Archimago's original blog without their economic/political context.  And unfortunately Archimago's discussion of the technical issues was biased by his views on the marketing/DRM aspects.   I appreciate the dangers you mentioned but much discussion in SNA forums is subjective - even (especially?) audio quality. I guess people just need to be respectful of other's views.

 

[MLXXX]

On 18/12/2018 at 11:35 PM, eltech said:

So, for purists, or the anxious, 192 or 384 kHz recordings should be the natural choice. They're open source and address the theoretical issues of the anxious audiophile, whereas mqa still leaves room for anxieties - the loosing of bit depth, the lossy encoding of ultra high frequencies, and the leaky digital filter. But for most people who can't hear a difference none of this matters, well except for if mqa is adopted as an industry standard.

Reading through some of the MQA material I cannot escape the feeling there is some good engineering being applied, despite the fact it could leave doubts for purists, or the anxious.

 

If it really were necessary to use a 768kHz sample rate to capture certain timing nuances that actually arise in music and are demonstrably audible to human ears then the prospect of being able to fit those timing nuances into say a 48kHz sample rate could have some appeal, for streaming, or for bulk storage, but there is the factor that a special DAC appears to be required, rather than merely a codec.  To my mind that's an unfortunate hurdle.

[sir sanders zingmore]

42 minutes ago, MLXXX said:

If it really were necessary to use a 768kHz sample rate to capture certain timing nuances that actually arise in music and are demonstrably audible to human ears

Surely they wouldn’t have embarked on all that “good engineering” if it wasn’t demonstrable that these timing nuances are audible. 

That would be wasteful. 

 

Unless of course it’s about marketing. 

[Guest rmpfyf]

14 hours ago, legend said:

I would prefer a world in which " from them according to their abilities: to them according to their needs" but unfortunately it is about as likely as the biblical "the lions shall lie down with the lambs".

 

I therefore have tried to make the current economic/political system we have, both at IP Australia and Legend (and before as a teacher and political activist from the 1960s), work as fairly as possible, given the constraints.  And unfortunately or otherwise in our current economic system people need to make money for things to happen, with trickle down effects from those at the top of the competitive food chain.

 

Sorry LHC, but one can't discuss the issues raised by Archimago's original blog without their economic/political context.  And unfortunately Archimago's discussion of the technical issues was biased by his views on the marketing/DRM aspects.   I appreciate the dangers you mentioned but much discussion in SNA forums is subjective - even (especially?) audio quality. I guess people just need to be respectful of other's views.

 

I understand your bit on respecting other's views - everyone is certainly entitled to their own.

 

I would suggest that the implications of 'people need to make money for things to happen' does not need to be 'rent seeking of the worst kind'. Capitalism isn't black or white, it's aggressiveness in any application can be defined by degree.

 

MQA's license model sets a precedent as an extreme degree. The magnitude and number of license fees sought to be extracted from punters is disproportionate to any codec or DRM scheme prior in this market, and the resource impost needed to develop MQA relative to other proprietary schemes is not relatively, demonstrably larger.

 

I would suggest in your arguments around this you consider decoupling audio quality from the licensing scheme implemented. They are not as interlinked as alluded. I've not heard any MQA that convinced me I needed to drop anything and invest against a purist PCM master (or a good Redbook mastering, honestly) but plenty of us invest in things we like because we believe in their intent, however demonstrable it may or may not be. 

 

The DRM and according licensing model is an extreme implementation. It is not a result of needing to make ends meet after a significant development effort, it is aggressively opportunistic in a number of levels. It is accordingly unfair to criticise (directly or indirectly) anyone for harbouring an opinion on MQA that in part addresses these matters.

 

If Meridian doesn't like or want that sort of criticism, they can play fairer - I'd suggest however they're doing fine.

 

The rest of us vote with our investments. 

[legend]

I did a 2 year full-time MBA at one of Australia's leading business schools, the Australian Graduate School of Management, so I think I understand reasonably well how the current economic system works.

 

Followed by 10 years at IP Australia (the merger of the Patent, Trade Mark, Designs and Plant Breeder's Rights) including 5 years in their policy section spending much of my time researching how companies use & abuse their intellectual property rights - and trying to create measures to limit the abuse while still fostering innovation.

 

I think we will have to agree to disagree at present on MQA (and respect each other's opinions!) but I will continue to investigate its technical, marketing and sound quality with an open mind.

Edited December 20, 2018 by legend

[Guest rmpfyf]

@legend... you might consider talking to your experience in context rather than talking about it. There's little respectful (or open-minded) in your response.

[Guest Eggcup The Daft]

On 20/12/2018 at 9:07 AM, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

Surely they wouldn’t have embarked on all that “good engineering” if it wasn’t demonstrable that these timing nuances are audible. 

That would be wasteful. 

 

Unless of course it’s about marketing. 

My own suspicion is that the group of people who came up with the original concept did a fair bit of sighted subjective testing to convince themselves of the value of this.

[MLXXX]

9 hours ago, Eggcup The Daft said:

My own suspicion is that the group of people who came up with the original concept did a fair bit of sighted subjective testing to convince themselves of the value of this.

Yes. For a lot of people it would stand to reason that to capture a complex analogue waveform faithfully you'd need to sample it at more than 44,100 times a second. Their minds imagine the improvement that a high sample rate must surely bring. And that is what is heard/perceived.

 

The natural assumption that high sample rates must be superior for the human ear needs to be tempered by the fact that the highest audible octave has no timbre for human ears as even the lowest harmonic (the second) of a fundamental in that range is inaudible. (For example, a tone at 15kHz would have a second harmonic at 30kHz and a third harmonic at 45kHz).

 

And something that is not as intuitively obvious: playback at the CD sample rate of 44.1kHz, i.e. a sample every 22.6 microseconds, doesn't limit you to a time resolution of 22.6μs. This can be demonstrated by generating very brief signals with the free software Audacity, using a higher sample rate (e.g. 384kHz), and downsampling to 44.1kHz. The timing is preserved, albeit with some pre-echo. Music generally involves soft onsets over several cycles, preventing pre-echo being noticeable. If a testing lab generated highly artificial extremely short duration pulses,  it might just be possible under clinical listening conditions to hear pre-echo in the 44.1kHz sample rate distribution format. 

 

As for the stereo sound stage, this will generally sound rather different with headphones than with speakers. If the recording is a panned mix of a multiplicity of microphones, the stereo sound stage that results will be a contrived one. Recordings with a simple stereo pair in a concert hall could yield an "authentic" sound stage. Queries about the effect of sample rate on the audibility of the stereo image for music strike me as likely to be quibbles. (I would be happy to listen to a stereo sound clip at say 192kHz that allegedly loses the integrity of its sound stage when downsampled to 44.1kHz.)

Edited December 22, 2018 by MLXXX

[Tobes]

Presently I don't own an MQA capable DAC, but when I did (PS Audio DSJ) I had the same reaction. I just don't get it.

While one can argue over the technical aspects of MQA the bottom line is Sound Quality.

For me MQA has failed miserably in providing any sort of consistent improvement - in fact I've found the opposite and actively avoid MQA versions on Tidal.

MQA proponents will probably say, of course you need an MQA DAC - but isn't part of the MQA mantra providing supposedly better SQ with non-MQA hardware?

In any case this is so far short of a valid advancement - no consensus better SQ, file size savings virtually irrelevant, cramping of DAC innovation, looming potential of further DRM enforcement  - that it borders on being farcical.  

 

[Ittaku]

So sticking strictly to the sound quality aspects of MQA, given the difference in rendering between delta sigma DACs and ladder DACs, I wonder how differently MQA alters the quality of the sound? Anyone have any experience there?

[davewantsmoore]

On 25/12/2018 at 12:44 PM, Tobes said:

Presently I don't own an MQA capable DAC, but when I did (PS Audio DSJ) I had the same reaction. I just don't get it.

While one can argue over the technical aspects of MQA the bottom line is Sound Quality.

For me MQA has failed miserably in providing any sort of consistent improvement - in fact I've found the opposite and actively avoid MQA versions on Tidal.

MQA proponents will probably say, of course you need an MQA DAC - but isn't part of the MQA mantra providing supposedly better SQ with non-MQA hardware?

 

All very valid questions/concerns.    The reality is that, using what is outlined in the MQA patent:

 

• It is possible that MQA could deliver improved sound quality for non-MQA enabled equipment (by pre-filtering the content before distribution)
• It is possible that MQA could deliver improved sound quality for MQA enabled equipment (by filtering the content using the MQA-compliant DAC)

 

Whether or not they have done either of these things (yet) is up for debate.     Note: they could change what they do in the future, so what is happening today - isn't necessarily permanent.

 

BUT.... they could also use either of the above two things to purposefully reduce sound quality under certain circumstances.

 

 

The ability to increase and decrease the sound quality at will, in a closed/controlled system .... sounds like a fantastic basis for a business model   

[Guest Eggcup The Daft]

1 hour ago, Ittaku said:

So sticking strictly to the sound quality aspects of MQA, given the difference in rendering between delta sigma DACs and ladder DACs, I wonder how differently MQA alters the quality of the sound? Anyone have any experience there?

Delta sigma - MQA reconstruction and filtering probably replaces or selects from available filters in a delta sigma DAC, there's scope for the process to improve sound over simply choosing one of a set of filters for playback of an entire song or work.

 

Ladder - modern ladder DACs - well, they often use extensive filtering ahead of the ladder, so I'd dispute some of the manufacturers' claims about preserving the signal compared to delta sigma... the best they do is preserve a filtered (hence, altered!) signal, and MQA would just be different filters in that preprocessing.

 

Of course, assuming that MQA works as it says on the tin, the output is adjusted for the effects of the DAC whether ladder or delta sigma and should give an identical output. That's something that might be interesting to test... but aren't the vast majority of MQA enabled DACs delta sigma anyway? Can anyone name an MQA enabled ladder DAC?

[Ittaku]

12 minutes ago, Eggcup The Daft said:

but aren't the vast majority of MQA enabled DACs delta sigma anyway? Can anyone name an MQA enabled ladder DAC?

MSB have an MQA module. Of course I didn't buy one with mine.

[legend]

On ‎8‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 12:25 PM, Sime V2 said:

@legend it’s probably too late, but if you read the reviews on the site about those compilation discs, they aren’t to well liked from memory. 

I received the Japanese MQA CDs just before Christmas but only now have had a chance to properly listen to them,  And you were right – the Rock and Pop compilation was pretty ordinary!  However I thought the Jazz compilation was fine (though I find Trad jazz a bit repetitive) and the Classical compilation had some very good choices, generally well recorded as one would expect from Decca and Deutsche Gramophone though the latter have always tended to be a bit bright.

 

So I was looking forward to hearing whether this brightness was ameliorated by MQA as it had been for downloaded files from 2L (that also have a tendency to be bright).  But the little blue light did not come on my Pro-ject S2 DAC with the MQA-encoded CDs – either through a Sony or Marantz CD player! I probably should have checked first and now realize that the Pro-ject S2 DAC only decodes MQA on its USB input – and not on its SPDIF or optical inputs.

 

So I tried playing the MQA-encoded CDs on my laptop (that has an optical drive) with its USB output connected to the Pro-ject DAC – but again no blue light.  I used the laptop’s inbuilt Windows player – and presume it must changes the digital data so it is no longer 'Master Quality Authenticated'?  And I presume any program on the laptop doing the conversion to USB will be the same?

 

So a failed experiment – but as Karl Popper says a key element in science, as opposed to religious or other belief systems, is the possibility of failure (being falsifiable).  A killer result for MBA?  Probably not for me as I mainly use computer-stored music files (ripped or downloaded) so mainly the USB input on the Pro-ject DAC,  A main reason for the experiment was to see if SPDIF sounds better than USB with MQA – that reviewer Keith Howard says he usually finds (though he has not tried it with MQA), including in his recent review of the Chord Qutest DAC in Hi-Fi News (one of the better hi-fi mags that BTW last year took over Stereophile magazine into its stable),  And the experiment did not cost me an arm or a leg – around $50 including postage.

Edited January 4, 2019 by legend
formatting

[Guest]

@legend I’ll take the Jazz compilation off your hands if you don’t want it anymore

 

pity about the Pro-Ject, and I nearly bought one too. 

[Guest Eggcup The Daft]

4 hours ago, legend said:

I received the Japanese MQA CDs just before Christmas but only now have had a chance to properly listen to them,  And you were right – the Rock and Pop compilation was pretty ordinary!  However I thought the Jazz compilation was fine (though I find Trad jazz a bit repetitive) and the Classical compilation had some very good choices, generally well recorded as one would expect from Decca and Deutsche Gramophone though the latter have always tended to be a bit bright.

 

So I was looking forward to hearing whether this brightness was ameliorated by MQA as it had been for downloaded files from 2L (that also have a tendency to be bright).  But the little blue light did not come on my Pro-ject S2 DAC with the MQA-encoded CDs – either through a Sony or Marantz CD player! I probably should have checked first and now realize that the Pro-ject S2 DAC only decodes MQA on its USB input – and not on its SPDIF or optical inputs.

 

So I tried playing the MQA-encoded CDs on my laptop (that has an optical drive) with its USB output connected to the Pro-ject DAC – but again no blue light.  I used the laptop’s inbuilt Windows player – and presume it must changes the digital data so it is no longer 'Master Quality Authenticated'?  And I presume any program on the laptop doing the conversion to USB will be the same?

 

So a failed experiment – but as Karl Popper says a key element in science, as opposed to religious or other belief systems, is the possibility of failure (being falsifiable).  A killer result for MBA?  Probably not for me as I mainly use computer-stored music files (ripped or downloaded) so mainly the USB input on the Pro-ject DAC,  A main reason for the experiment was to see if SPDIF sounds better than USB with MQA – that reviewer Keith Howard says he usually finds (though he has not tried it with MQA), including in his recent review of the Chord Qutest DAC in Hi-Fi News (one of the better hi-fi mags that BTW last year took over Stereophile magazine into its stable),  And the experiment did not cost me an arm or a leg – around $50 including postage.

You may be able to rip the files on the discs using Exact Audio Copy (you'll need it to work with no errors) and then play the files in the same way as you are playing other MQA files you've downloaded.

Alternatively you'll need a third party media player that supports exclusive mode and ASIO playback (so it can pass through bit perfect audio) and your Project driver will also need to support that  - if it plays from the Tidal app, that should be covered. I've not gone down that road (my Dragonfly doesn't play MQA downloads, only files provided through players that do the first unfold), so I don't actually know if one exists that will do this - Foobar is supposed to have this ability. Google may help.

 

Windows Media Player processes everything - even if you set 16/44.1 playback as default it is unlikely to work.

 

The other possible Windows default, Groove Music, is probably best avoided. It forces you to use a software equaliser when playing, and I can see nowhere to change defaults from Windows settings.

 

Foobar - I've not tried it, but at least it's free -

https://headphoneaddict.com/howto-run-bit-perfect-foobar-tutorial/

 

As far as the "better" interface - from everything I've read and heard, this is DAC dependent, there's no general case.

Edited January 5, 2019 by Eggcup The Daft

[legend]

5 hours ago, Eggcup The Daft said:

You may be able to rip the files on the discs using Exact Audio Copy (you'll need it to work with no errors) and then play the files in the same way as you are playing other MQA files you've downloaded.

 

This worked perfectly (and easily) - many thanks!  And the little blue light came on with a 352k sampling rate - so I could start Pavlovian salivating again - or rather enjoy the much improved soundstage & PRAT plus reduction in harshness/hardness/glare.  Even our pup could hear the difference and sat there transfixed!

 

Edited January 5, 2019 by legend

[legend]

7 hours ago, Sime V2 said:

@legend I’ll take the Jazz compilation off your hands if you don’t want it anymore

 

Please PM me.

[davewantsmoore]

9 hours ago, legend said:

And I presume any program on the laptop doing the conversion to USB will be the same?

No, you should not expect that.    Ah, already answered I see  

 

[Guest AndrewC]

http://www.mqa.co.uk/press

 

TIDAL MASTERS NOW ON MOBILE

 

TIDAL’s Android App Adds MQA To Deliver Studio Quality Sound On The Move

 

Las Vegas/New York/London, 7 January 2019: TIDAL Masters is now available on all Android smartphones, so you can experience studio quality sound with TIDAL Masters wherever you choose to listen.

...

 

 

They also announced the Andriod App, USB Audio Player PRO as now supporting MQA Core decode as well. iOS versions MIA for now  :P

 

All things considered, pretty pathetic announcements for CES from MQA -  no new hardware vendor partner announced.  ;D

 

[Audio]

*Sorry, I cannot help giggling*

 

(Audio)

[MusicEar]

Virtually all android OS will re-sample to 48kHz and only a few with special tweaking to the OS will bypass the SRC (Sample Rate Converter) to the internal DAC. By the way how many android phones have a 96kHz capable DAC built-in?

 

In most case, it will down-sample to 48kHz when using the internal DAC. In some case, when using an external portable DAC with USB-OTG may work.

[Guest AndrewC]

*Sorry, I cannot help giggling*

 

(Audio)

 

Glad I'm keeping you entertained  :P

 

 

 

Virtually all android OS will re-sample to 48kHz and only a few with special tweaking to the OS will bypass the SRC (Sample Rate Converter) to the internal DAC. By the way how many android phones have a 96kHz capable DAC built-in?

 

In most case, it will down-sample to 48kHz when using the internal DAC. In some case, when using an external portable DAC with USB-OTG may work.

 

I'm pretty sure you're very mistaken!

 

If you Google search, the [AudioTrack] API on Android OS supports up to 24/192k, and most of the Android phones these days have audio codecs that can support 24/96 at least. For example, the Samsung S7 (2 years old) has the Qualcomm WCD9335 audio codec which supports PCM 24/192k. Phones like LG and Sony I believe are the same or even better!

 

As for Android Phones to external USB DACs, 3rd party App drivers easily bypass native Android ones and support full highres... that's how Apps like USB Audio Player Pro work for actual highres support on external DACs - for example, here's what USB Audio Player Pro says;

USB Audio Player Pro, which was built specifically for USB DAC output, utilizes a custom USB audio driver that can bypass any Android sampling limitations, which means your 32-bit/384kHz files will actually play at that bitrate/frequency.

 

Don't be confused by Bluetooth Limitations.

 

[MusicEar]

Yes, the newer phones with the latest codecs can support up to 24/192k but it is always based on the 48kHz clock multiples (there's only one frequency based clock). If the source is 48k, 96k and 192k, you don't have an issue. The problem occurred when the source is 44.1k, 88.2k and 176.4k. The android re-sampler will kick in and convert to 48k, 96k and 192k. Re-sampling always introduces truncation errors (no longer bit perfect) and in some case increased in jitter. Tidal Master not only stream in 48kHz but also 44.1kHz. The results get decoded to 88.2/96k.

 

To avoid this issue, manufacturers have to incorporate two based clocks; one to handle 44.1k and the other 48kHz multiples. In technical term, it requires two separate crystal oscillators. I've not seen this implementation in android and iOS phones yet. I do see it in some android based music players. I've a Fiio X5III android based music player loaded with latest Tidal app that support MQA. This player contains two separate base clocks and a tweaked android OS to bypass the re-sampler. More information on Fiio X5III:

 

http://www.fiio.net/en/products/65

 

Playing back Tidal Master on Fiio X5III music player:

 

Output Fiio X5III via coaxial to Topping DX3 Pro DAC (96kHz after decoded):

 

Output Fiio X5III via coaxial to Topping DX3 Pro DAC (88.2kHz after decoded):

 

The DACs built-in for phones applications does not yield good sound quality, besides, you need an external DAC via USB-OTG to get optimised SQ. The downside, it will add weight and not everyone would want to carry a DAC stripped to their phones with messy cables.

[Guest AndrewC]

Yes, the newer phones with the latest codecs can support up to 24/192k but it is always based on the 48kHz clock multiples (there's only one frequency based clock). ...

 

Duh ::)  Even many mid and lower-end standalone DACs work that way too; dividing down and using fractional multipliers from a single master clock frequency. Mobile phones are no different. Expecting external DAC build quality and SQ is pretty silly.  As for portable players, FiiO is not the only one. You might want to read up on iRiver’s Astell & Kern players, MQA support since around mid last year, and IMHO, better than FiiO players by a mile.