MQA: Yet another file format to compress audio

[captrajesh]

Yet another new file format has been presented at 'Mobile World Congress'

MQA is an impressive new file format that squeezes superior sound into less space

Quoting from the article:

MQA (Master Quality Authenticated) makes files that are much smaller than todays standard Hi-Res FLAC files. We werent given an exact number, but it looks like MQA will be about three times smaller than a comparable high-res FLAC file, meaning theyll be pretty easy to take along. MQA was also born from a company with serious sonic pedigree, Meridian Audio, responsible for several important audio innovations, including MLP (Meridian Lossless Packing), which is how lossless audio is delivered in DVDs and Blu-rays.

Check it out guys.

 

[Audio_Freek]

Good to Know, But the Technology is getting complicated atleast on the Audio World

LP,Cassette,CD transformation looked quite fine, But in Digital WAV,MP3,FLAC and now MQA and still going

So it opens room for New Player to play MQA,DAC etc etc..

Days gone, when the Music was played at scheduled hours in Radio and we just loved everything played in spite of our fav too.

With all technology in place and we have space to afford, Still looking for the better

 

[matbhuvi]

Honestly, with storage being so cheap, my entire collection is in wav..which is 500GB+.
My portable rig has 128GB which is more than adequate for me as i update that monthly once.

 

[captrajesh]

@Audio Freek well said, I agree with you.

@Matbhuvi, if you see the article, it has been developed with mobile in mind which is dominated by MP3. Imagine, your entire collection would be compressed to 1/3 the size and you would be able to carry on your portable rig!

BTW there are people on this very forum who have scores of TB of music. There are several people having hundreds and even thousands of CDs. If it takes lesser space, lesser number of Hard Disks would require to store them in a lossless format.

Won't that be attractive?

 

[regeHA]

FWIW, MQA is not a lossless format. It is a lossy format. It claims to compress high res music to FLAC file size.

Sure the SQ maybe great, even to the extent folks cannot tell the difference in AB testing.

I can even rip MP3s in 320 kpbs VBR that folks will not be able to tell the difference in AB testing and will require high end and "revealing" equipment to show a difference from FLAC. Even then most folks will fail AB testing. Yet MP3 will not find any takers because the tag "lossy" is a deterrent for any serious audiophile.

Pretty much the same fate for MQA, especially the home collection. It might thrive in streaming, especially in the likes of Tidal where it will save over 50% b/w, but then again may not, as folks pay the premium in Tidal for lossless quality, so why will they want to pay for lossy. Spotify is a better and cheaper alternative at 50% the cost of Tidal.

Too much song and dance about another lossy format that any self-righteous or serious audiophile will refuse to touch because it is lossy. I know guys who refuse FLAC and only prefer WAV, the likes of MQA don't even stand a chance.

 

[captrajesh]

FWIW, MQA is not a lossless format. It is a lossy format. It claims to compress high res music to FLAC file size.

Where did you get that information!! Quoting from the article:

The specially compressed files are actually delivered as standard lossless files, such as FLAC, AIFF, and WAV files, only they take up less space.

It claims to compress high res music to FLAC file size.

That's again incorrect. Quoting again from the article:

MQA (Master Quality Authenticated) makes files that are much smaller than todays standard Hi-Res FLAC files. We werent given an exact number, but it looks like MQA will be about three times smaller than a comparable high-res FLAC file

Sure the SQ maybe great, even to the extent folks cannot tell the difference in AB testing.

How can one comment about something which you've not even experienced!! What's the basis of such assumption? Please read the following paragraph from the article:

And even in the quick demo (from a mid-level smartphone,) the sound quality was pretty astonishing.

My contact for the demo, an HTC rep named Liviu Barbat, brought several tracks to audition, all of which were hosted in MP3 and MQA versions so I could make A/B comparisons.

I started with Daft Punks Doin It Right, and the MP3 version was as youd expect: flat and boring, with all the right pieces in place, and none of the excitement of live audio. Then I tried the MQA version, and everything suddenly blossomed. The whole track was suddenly much easier to hear not louder, exactly, but closer. Bass was bigger and fuller, reverberating through the back of the stereo channels, but without becoming overbearing. Cymbal sustains trailed on for days, and details sparkled much more readily.

Next I called up Dave Bruebecks Take Five sure, Ive heard it a million times, but thats kind of the point here. Again, the difference between the two versions was startling not only was the track again closer, more defined, and more full, but the sound also pulled out more of that dusty goodness from the original recording. It simply felt and sounded more real, more dimensional. And, wouldnt ya know, thats exactly what MQAs press material advertises.

I can even rip MP3s in 320 kpbs VBR that folks will not be able to tell the difference in AB testing and will require high end and "revealing" equipment to show a difference from FLAC. Even then most folks will fail AB testing. Yet MP3 will not find any takers because the tag "lossy" is a deterrent for any serious audiophile.

Pretty much the same fate for MQA, especially the home collection. It might thrive in streaming, especially in the likes of Tidal where it will save over 50% b/w, but then again may not, as folks pay the premium in Tidal for lossless quality, so why will they want to pay for lossy. Spotify is a better and cheaper alternative at 50% the cost of Tidal.

Too much song and dance about another lossy format that any self-righteous or serious audiophile will refuse to touch because it is lossy. I know guys who refuse FLAC and only prefer WAV, the likes of MQA don't even stand a chance.

Now you are digressing. No comments there from me.

 

[raghupb]

The literature states that this format does its magic at A/D stage. This probably the reason why the company wants record labels to come on board.

Cheers,
Raghu

 

[keith_correa]

brought several tracks to audition, all of which were hosted in MP3 and MQA versions so I could make A/B comparisons.

Well done, comparing apples and oranges. Lossy vs purported lossless.

So it opens room for New Player to play MQA,DAC etc etc..

Foobar would just need another plugin. Others would need just another minor upgrade. New DAC? Why?

That article also says:

The company says that, even on regular devices, MQA encoded files play at CD-quality, but on MQA-enabled devices the full recording is unfolded to deliver the full performance.

LOL! BS! Probably will need phones to be "certified" by Meridian. Good for them.

Edit: Careful reading determined that it's not another file format. It's encoded into an existing file format but something is done at the ADC stage where... (oh, just go read the article). Rajesh, you might need to change the post title. Which also means my BS comment above is invalid and MQA enabled devices make sense.

 

[regeHA]

Where did you get that information!! Quoting from the article:
That's again incorrect. Quoting again from the article:
How can one comment about something which you've not even experienced!! What's the basis of such assumption? Please read the following paragraph from the article:

Honestly its been done to death at CA.

Start with actual analysis of the MQA files - Some analysis and comparison of MQA encoded FLAC vs normal optimized hires FLAC - Blogs - Computer Audiophile

A thread with nearly 40 pages - MQA at CES

A couple more threads...
MQA anyone?
MQA Listening Impressions

For folks who don't want to read through multiple threads I'll sum it up in a few points.
1. MQA is compressing audio (the same as FLAC).
2. MQA then loses bits from the compressed audio (same as MP3, and they need to do it to score one over FLAC, otherwise they don't do anything new over FLAC).
3. MQA also introduces DRM (the same as Apple of old) by having MQA h/w at both ends. In other words you need an MQA DAC to actually listen to MQA files. If you don't have MQA h/w i.e. MQA DAC then you don't get MQA audio. They call it Master Quality Authenticated, I call it DRM.
4. Oh yes, even the studios need MQA to actually record in MQA. We need Bob Stuart to tell us we've been doing it wrong all these years.
5. Meridian has already tried this DRM formula with DVD Audio, and failed miserably. Read on Meridian Lossless Packing. MQA is old wine in new bottle again in an effort to DRM the music industry.

Imagine HMV Saregama telling you, you have to buy a HMV certified DAC to listen to the music you buy from them. That''s exactly what MQA is telling us. Go ahead tell me that's not DRM.

I tend to disregard most folks reviews especially if they are selling something, but PS Audio and Paul McGowan (PS Audio founder and CEO) are right up there with the best of the best and here are his impressions.

MQA thoughts | PS Audio

Linn needs no introduction, Gilad Tiefenbrun of Linn and what he thinks of MQA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9jcbDitslI

Now you are digressing. No comments there from me.

How is it digressing? I've over 2000 CDs. Will I buy the same music all over again in a new format? I might if it offers something new.

But if the new format is lossy, then will anyone buy it?

If that's the case folks would be happy with Spotify and buying MP3 rips.

In other words you need to buy all your music in MQA, then you need to buy MQA DAC to listen to those files.

MQA does not have a leg to stand on. But I'll not speak anymore or I'll start digressing again.

 

[keith_correa]

Die, MQA, die!

 

[raghupb]

Need one of them pitch fork emoticons for Keith to express his anger
After reading thru the available literature on MQA, it sounds like old wine in a new bottle.
Who knows what the recording industry might do. Let's wait and watch.
Until then it is free foobar running CD rips or torrent D/Ls for me.

Cheers,
Raghu

 

[keith_correa]

Until then it is free foobar running CD rips or torrent D/Ls for me.

Cheers,
Raghu

Amen to that!

 

[captrajesh]

Reviving an old thread to check out how this MQA fared two years down the line.

 

[smedhavi]

You may want to read something written by the Schiit Audio folks around the same time as the above post:

• http://www.schiit.com/news/news/why-we-wont-be-supporting-mqa

Regards,
Sharad Medhavi

 

[Indranil Sen]

Hello,
Do we have any MQA streaming source in India? Also does any one know if there is any SACD version of Bollywood albums released so far? Likely not but I still ask...
Thanks

 

[manav24]

Hello,
Do we have any MQA streaming source in India? Also does any one know if there is any SACD version of Bollywood albums released so far? Likely not but I still ask...
Thanks

You can try TIDAL for MQA, it does have bollywood albums.

 

[Indranil Sen]

Manav- Thanks. I don't have TIDAL subscription as yet...

 

[rikhav]

You can try TIDAL for MQA, it does have bollywood albums.

On tidal very few albums from its whole library are available for MQA streaming
The list is ever growing though

Unfortunately none of the hindi /. bollywood albums can be found in MQA

 

[captrajesh]

You may want to read something written by the Schiit Audio folks around the same time as the above post:

• http://www.schiit.com/news/news/why-we-wont-be-supporting-mqa

Regards,
Sharad Medhavi

So it's clear. It's not about sound quality; It's all about money, honey!!

Quoting from the article:

We believe that supporting MQA means handing over the entire recording industry to an external standards organization. MQA wants:

Licensing fees from the recording studios
Licensing fees from the digital audio product manufacturers
Hardware or software access/insight into the DAC or player
Subscription fees from every listener via Tidal, and/or royalties from purchases of re-releases by the recording industry.

They're not categoric about it not being good or bad. Sample this ambiguous statement:

We don’t believe MQA is a differentiator for high-end DACs if it is available on phones. Consider SRS, the Sound Retrieval System, as an instructive example. Before being acquired by DTS, it claimed to be on “over a billion devices.” However, there is little evidence any consumers considered SRS a must-have, differentiating technology.

These greedy people are more interested in making money than provide us with better sound.

 

[hydrovac]

So it's clear. It's not about sound quality; It's all about money, honey!

These greedy people are more interested in making money than provide us with better sound.

MQA is Bad For Music. Here's Why.
Interesting insights on MQA.
https://www.linn.co.uk/blog/mqa-is-bad-for-music