MQA. New compression that promises ?

[tuff]

Just saw this. sorry if this has been discussed before.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erMFQt5_HoM

some wiki info.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_Quality_Authenticated

 

[Her Master's Voice]

Lot of big noise about this new format. Especially from the DAC manufacturers and record labels, because they have something new to sell to ignorant customers. All major labels and even the independent labels that are organized under the roof of Merlin have joined the club. Most of the important DAC manufacturers also. Tidal offers already streaming in MQA. HD Tracks will follow soon. But there are also voices - even from DAC manufacturers - that do not see any benefits from this new format. Read this:

https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/163302855-is-mqa-doa

MQA

https://music-room.com/magazine/insight/mqa-the-lossy-codec-no-end-user-asked-for-or-needs

 

[reignofchaos]

Any technology encumbered by patents, DRM and license fees will die a death sooner or later. I do not see MQA doing too well if DAC manufacturers have to pony up hundreds of dollars for an MQA license. If it is made free to use, it might see more adoption.

 

[Her Master's Voice]

But look who is already in the boat. Sony, Universal, Warner and Merlin offer at least 75% of all music that is available in the market. They are presently all busy to convert their back catalogues to the MQA codec to make it available for streaming via Tidal and soon HD Tracks.
Lot of hardware manufacturers have already joined the club, among them some of the real big guys such as Mytec, MSB, DCS, ML, AudioQuest, Brinkmann, Aurender, Krell. And others will follow when MQA takes off once the HiFi press has convinced the audiophiles that they have to follow the latest trend. A few years back the same happened with DSD. And hardware manufacturers that were not pro DSD later made their DACs DSD-compatible. Same will happen with MQA. Only this time the new codec has a chance to be successful because it's backed by the major record labels, which was not the case with DSD. So DSD died.

 

[reignofchaos]

But look who is already in the boat. Sony, Universal, Warner and Merlin offer at least 75% of all music that is available in the market. They are presently all busy to convert their back catalogues to the MQA codec to make it available for streaming via Tidal and soon HD Tracks.

Most of publishing houses would be more than happy to sell you the same albums again at full price in the flavor of the week format. It is easy money for them. Primary question is does it sound better? I have my real doubts on that as it is a lossy format.

 

[Her Master's Voice]

Most of publishing houses would be more than happy to sell you the same albums again at full price in the flavor of the week format. It is easy money for them. Primary question is does it sound better? I have my real doubts on that as it is a lossy format.

Probably it does not sound better. But the marketing noise about MQA will make many audiophiles believe, that it sounds better. So they will buy the latest MQA enabled DACs and stream MQA files from Tidal and the other music portals that will follow. It's all about marketing. The same marketing hype was made about DSD. But DSD failed because the major labels were not in the boat. There is not enough DSD content available.

 

[sidvee]

The same marketing hype was made about DSD. But DSD failed because the major labels were not in the boat. There is not enough DSD content available.

I disagree that DSD is a marketing hype, native DSD recordings sound significantly superior to 16/44 - at least to me. In fact even SACD on a good player sounded superior to the CD version to me. Secondly DSD download content is slowly increasing in the market, so I don't agree that DSD has failed either. And lastly it is almost impossible to find non dsd dac's at-least in the newly released recent dac's. However that being said I have no clue on MQA.
May be manufacturers will include it in newer versions of their DAC's just like they are doing with DSD now.
Cheers,
Sid

 

[Her Master's Voice]

native DSD recordings sound significantly superior to 16/44

Ok Sid, native DSD sounds better than CD (16/44). But where do you get the files from? These 1200 albums that are available from Native DSD is nothing compared to the lakhs of albums that have been produced in PCM. And the other DSD files or SACDs that are available have been processed either in the analog domain or digital PCM domain. And then they can not be called 'native DSD' anymore.

 

[sidvee]

Ok Sid, native DSD sounds better than CD (16/44). But where do you get the files from? These 1200 albums that are available from Native DSD is nothing compared to the lakhs of albums that have been produced in PCM. And the other DSD files or SACDs that are available have been processed either in the analog domain or digital PCM domain. And then they can not be called 'native DSD' anymore.

Ok I agree, DSD has failed.
Cheers,
Sid

 

[TCHeN]

Do note that MQA is a lossy format. It's not the same as WAV or even FLAC.

Also, it's success mainly depends on streaming and that's a war nobody is winning (yet).

The studios don't really count... they'll be happy to take our money all over again.

For MQA to really be successful they need Spotify, Google Play Music and Apple Music - the big 3- to adopt it.

Tidal was (is) sold on the premise it's lossless and even now has extremely limited numbers.

And finally MQA is DRM... even the mighty Apple failed when it came to DRM.

The one thing MQA has going for it is better quality for streaming - though that's debatable.

Most folks listening to streaming aren't going to go out and buy a new MQA enabled DAC... they haven't done it for regular DACs and are perfectly happy with the DACs on their mobiles or their bluetooth speakers.

The audiophiles, well I don't see them buying a lossy format.. EVER!

 

[Naturelover]

Here's a short earlier thread.
http://www.hifivision.com/computer-audio/62427-mqa-yet-another-file-format-compress-audio.html

 

[square_wave]

Do note that MQA is a lossy format. It's not the same as WAV or even FLAC.

Also, it's success mainly depends on streaming and that's a war nobody is winning (yet).

The studios don't really count... they'll be happy to take our money all over again.

For MQA to really be successful they need Spotify, Google Play Music and Apple Music - the big 3- to adopt it.

Tidal was (is) sold on the premise it's lossless and even now has extremely limited numbers.

And finally MQA is DRM... even the mighty Apple failed when it came to DRM.

The one thing MQA has going for it is better quality for streaming - though that's debatable.

Most folks listening to streaming aren't going to go out and buy a new MQA enabled DAC... they haven't done it for regular DACs and are perfectly happy with the DACs on their mobiles or their bluetooth speakers.

The audiophiles, well I don't see them buying a lossy format.. EVER!

Good points

 

[Her Master's Voice]

The audiophiles, well I don't see them buying a lossy format.. EVER!

They do! They are buying already the new MQA-enabled DACs to stream this lossy format. Not many of them would have ever had a chance to listened to a A/B comparison of the same track that derives from the same master. The MQA files that are available for streaming or purchase are all remastered. So no real comparison possible.

Perhaps some of you would have heard about professor Dr. Mark Waldrep aka Dr. Aix. He is a recording and mastering engineer and is now a professor at a University in Los Angeles, teaching recording technology. He also is the first who had ever done high definition recordings at 96/24 and published these on DVDA. He had requested Meridian to encode some of his recordings to MQA so that he can compare them with the original native 96/24 PCM recordings. Meridian refused. You can guess why. Probably because there is no audible difference, or even worse, MQA sounds not as good as HD PCM. Still Meridian managed to introduce this new codec successfully due to a huge marketing blurb that is supported once again by the hifi press and this time also by the major labels.

 

[TCHeN]

They do! They are buying already the new MQA-enabled DACs to stream this lossy format. Not many of them would have ever had a chance to listened to a A/B comparison of the same track that derives from the same master. The MQA files that are available for streaming or purchase are all remastered. So no real comparison possible.

Perhaps some of you would have heard about professor Dr. Mark Waldrep aka Dr. Aix. He is a recording and mastering engineer and is now a professor at a University in Los Angeles, teaching recording technology. He also is the first who had ever done high definition recordings at 96/24 and published these on DVDA. He had requested Meridian to encode some of his recordings to MQA so that he can compare them with the original native 96/24 PCM recordings. Meridian refused. You can guess why. Probably because there is no audible difference, or even worse, MQA sounds not as good as HD PCM. Still Meridian managed to introduce this new codec successfully due to a huge marketing blurb that is supported once again by the hifi press and this time also by the major labels.

You cannot really blame businesses for trying to make more money.

Even we'd be guilty of the same charge if there was money to be made.

That said, I would credit even the most diehard audiophile with some brains especially when it comes to parting with their money... if not well then.. fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

PS: My statement that you quoted was in context to buying the actual media, and not the DAC. Miles Davis' Kind of Blue is probably the only album everybody will go out and buy every time there is a new mastering... other than that everybody will be happy with their existing album collection of The Eagles and Bob Dylan... I know I am.

 

[Nikhil]

** Duplicate post

 

[Nikhil]

I have heard MQA and it isn't easy to tell the difference but over a period of time it sounds more relaxed.

Having said that the mechanism has been taken apart at Computer Audiophile.
They basically use minimum phase resampling filters which among other things end up rolling off the HF creating the sound signature.

All this is easily done in software nowadays with the SOX engine or HQPlayer etc so the whole circus of creating a new format, hard wiring the codecs into the ADC and then the DACs is laughable. Their whole "folding" terminology and claims of fixing time coherence etc is a joke. What is a down right scam is the elaborate process they have cooked up for manufacturers to qualify and then the penalties for not complying etc. The big media companies are more than willing accomplices as they look for new ways to squeeze revenue out of their customers.

So now not only do you have to buy the new MQA version of Miles Davis "Kind of Blue" (in addition to the RBCD, Hires and DSD versions you already have) but you also have to purchase a new MQA DAC to get the "full benefit". The studios on their part had to send their master files to MQA for processing etc.

In my honest opinion MQA is a scam. Whatever they claim they are doing is pure hogwash.
They are definitely not "Master Quality Authentication"
MQA is a "marketing solution" for a non existent problem.

 

[Her Master's Voice]

So now not only do you have to buy the new MQA version of Miles Davis "Kind of Blue" (in addition to the RBCD, Hires and DSD versions you already have)

Don't forget the numerous vinyl reissues. Original pressing, repressing, then remastering and pressing it on 180 gr. vinyl, then on 200 gr. vinyl, then at least 3 remasters from the digital master published on vinyl :annoyed: That is a big scam too. And with every reissue the record label and the hifi press promise that is now the ultimate sound.

 

[square_wave]

I have heard MQA and it isn't easy to tell the difference but over a period of time it sounds more relaxed.

Having said that the mechanism has been taken apart at Computer Audiophile.
They basically use minimum phase resampling filters which among other things end up rolling off the HF creating the sound signature.

All this is easily done in software nowadays with the SOX engine or HQPlayer etc so the whole circus of creating a new format, hard wiring the codecs into the ADC and then the DACs is laughable. Their whole "folding" terminology and claims of fixing time coherence etc is a joke. What is a down right scam is the elaborate process they have cooked up for manufacturers to qualify and then the penalties for not complying etc. The big media companies are more than willing accomplices as they look for new ways to squeeze revenue out of their customers.

So now not only do you have to buy the new MQA version of Miles Davis "Kind of Blue" (in addition to the RBCD, Hires and DSD versions you already have) but you also have to purchase a new MQA DAC to get the "full benefit". The studios on their part had to send their master files to MQA for processing etc.

In my honest opinion MQA is a scam. Whatever they claim they are doing is pure hogwash.
They are definitely not "Master Quality Authentication"
MQA is a "marketing solution" for a non existent problem.

Will all this matter to people who are not into streaming hifi ? Meaning, will all albums available for downloads henceforth from the labels who have joined the bandwagon be MQA encoded forcing one to buy new dacs and new mqa encoded tracks / albums ?

 

[TCHeN]

Will all this matter to people who are not into streaming hifi ? Meaning, will all albums available for downloads henceforth from the labels who have joined the bandwagon be MQA encoded forcing one to buy new dacs and new mqa encoded tracks / albums ?

For 99% of folks it won't matter.

Methinks the success of MQA is tied to the success of streaming and that's a nut nobody has managed to crack yet (with the exception of Netflix).

Spotify, the leader, continues to lose millions. If anything they are getting worse with 2016 being the biggest loss year for them yet.

Also, I don't think the likes of Spotify or Apple Music will be tied down to a MQA format only... will only lose more customers if they force everyone to buy a new DAC.

Meridian, the company behind MQA is understandably in it for the money - maybe only the money - but how much of it they will actually get depends on how profitable music becomes as an industry on the whole.

Everybody from Spotify and Tidal to Apple Music continue to lose money, lots of it.

 

[Her Master's Voice]

I have heard MQA and it isn't easy to tell the difference but over a period of time it sounds more relaxed.

It is not possible to tell differences between formats unless you compare a recording that was made under 100% identical conditions. In the digital domain the recording has to be done simultaneously on e.g. a Sonora workstation for DSD and e.g. a ProTools workstation for PCM. Lets not add the analogue domain here, because then things become really complicated when one wants to compare 2 different digital formats plus the analogue format. The rest of the recording chain (recording studio, microphones, cables, ADCs and DACs, speakers etc.) must be also identical. Then the recordings must not be processed (editing, filtering, mixing etc) because DSD can not be processed. It has to be converted to PCM or to analogue tape for processing and then reconverted to DSD. The moment DSD has been converted to PCM or analogue it is not native DSD anymore. So a real comparison is really difficult and I can not imagine that anybody would have ever done that and then made his/her findings public. Now, has anybody done that with MQA also? Probably Dr. Aix is the only one who wanted to do that. Take his own PCM 96/24 recordings, send them to Meridian for encoding and then play the MQA as well as the native PCM files through one and the same MQA enabled DAC, in his own recording and mastering studio and compare and let the audiophile world know his findings. That would have been the only valid comparison. But Meridian did not want to collaborate. Guess why! Probably they would have done such a scientific comparison during the development of MQA at their own lab and know the outcome.