advertisement


MQA arrives on Tidal

Status
Not open for further replies.
Julf said:
But what would you say if you found out what you are hearing is actually added noise (because that is what the un-decoded MQA data stream contains), and not the decoded/unfolded end result that you are *intended* to hear? What if it is a similar thing to turning the tone controls on a preamp to something that is definitely not true to the original, but sounds "better"?
Click to expand...

Provided the 'pass through MQA' box unticked in the Tidal player it will decode the MQA signal in software to 24/96-88.2. If the box is checked and a MQA DAC is being used the MQA signal is decoded in hardware.

Virtually everyone who's actually listened to MQA streaming has been enthusiastic about it
 
adamdea said:
Show me evidence that humans can successfully choose 24/192 vs. a 24/48 high quality downsample in a blind test using the same mastering. Would dithering and downsampling 24/192 to 18/96 with lossless compression not also sound good with decreased file size?"
Shame as he says that it would be difficult to do a distributed file test.
Click to expand...

I would take 16/96 over 24/48 any day of the week. In fact I would probably choose 14/96 over ∞/48 based on experience and the opinion of those I trust.
 
S-Man said:
I would take 16/96 over 24/48 any day of the week. In fact I would probably choose 14/96 over ∞/48 based on experience and the opinion of those I trust.
Click to expand...

Could you link to an album that's available both in 16/96 and 24/48?
 
Stunsworth said:
Provided the 'pass through MQA' box unticked in the Tidal player it will decode the MQA signal in software to 24/96-88.2. If the box is checked and a MQA DAC is being used the MQA signal is decoded in hardware.
Click to expand...

And if the box is checked and you don't have a MQA-capable DAC (or your chain is not bit-perfect) then you hear something you were not intended to hear.

Virtually everyone who's actually listened to MQA streaming has been enthusiastic about it
Click to expand...

A cynical person could view it as a victory for marketing... :)
 
Julf said:
And if the box is checked and you don't have a MQA-capable DAC (or your chain is not bit-perfect) then you hear something you were not intended to hear.



A cynical person could view it as a victory for marketing... :)
Click to expand...

I'd be surprised if people here streaming MQA didn't know about the effect of the MQA pass through box, it's been mentioned quite a few times.
 
radamel said:
Could you link to an album that's available both in 16/96 and 24/48?
Click to expand...

Sorry, no I can't. The only way to do it to take an analogue recording and rip at those resolutions.
Now I realise there ought to be no content >20KHz but IMO something mildly disrupts the sound quality when digital filters (or whatever) are near to the upper limit of audibility e.g. if you compare the 2nd get master tapes (e.g. tape project) to cd, the cd just doesn't sound quite right - in fact some might say it sounds quite wrong.

Therefore, if MQA sorts this blurring (to use the SQA term) then I can fully believe it is very good indeed.
 
S-Man said:
Sorry, no I can't. The only way to do it to take an analogue recording and rip at those resolutions.
Now I realise there ought to be no content >20KHz but IMO something mildly disrupts the sound quality when digital filters (or whatever) are near to the upper limit of audibility e.g. if you compare the 2nd get master tapes (e.g. tape project) to cd, the cd just doesn't sound quite right - in fact some might say it sounds quite wrong.

Therefore, if MQA sorts this blurring (to use the SQA term) then I can fully believe it is very good indeed.
Click to expand...

OK. I see.

I think MQA does go a long way in sorting out the blurring.

Cheers!
 
Markpd said:
When I say MQA is "effectively" lossless that is my interpretation of MQA's process. The key observation to consider is that real music has only low amplitude ultrasonic content which can therefor be encoded with fewer bits than full range baseband signals without loss of fidelity. So yes, there is perceptual compression going on, but no ultrasonic musical content is lost or encoded at lower resolution than full bit rate PCM. I would describe that as "effectively lossless".
Click to expand...

Yes, but 'lossless' doesn't just mean that nothing has been lost: it also means that nothing spurious has been added.
 
Julf

I dont know what MQA is doing and back at the beginning I questioned if this was mostly down to remastering or what ever. It could just be remastering in which case the MQA thing is a bit of a red herring, but does not detract from the fact it sounds awesome.

There appears to be two choices for playback in Tidal, Hifi or Master. When I play a master the dac turns from 44 to 96, I am therefore satisfied that *something* has happened. I assume its MQA software decoding.

It sounds amazing. I have been pretty ambivalent to audio in recent years with a tilt towards the cynical, this honestly takes me back 20 years to when I had 52/250/linn/aro, it just sounds so different to CD replay as I have understood it.

Perhaps it benefits less expensive systems such as mine, where more expensive system have worked through the issues to deliver something similar. I don't know
 
garyi said:
There appears to be two choices for playback in Tidal, Hifi or Master. When I play a master the dac turns from 44 to 96, I am therefore satisfied that *something* has happened. I assume its MQA software decoding.
Click to expand...

Yes, that should be it.

It sounds amazing. I have been pretty ambivalent to audio in recent years with a tilt towards the cynical, this honestly takes me back 20 years to when I had 52/250/linn/aro, it just sounds so different to CD replay as I have understood it.
Click to expand...

And that is great - unless the difference turns out to be different mastering, and only applies to the initial batch of MQA material released to wet the appetite...
 
Stunsworth said:
I'd be surprised if people here streaming MQA didn't know about the effect of the MQA pass through box, it's been mentioned quite a few times.
Click to expand...

I have Mqa dac here now and the set up is such that you don't have to agonise over whatbbox is ticked etc. It just sorts it. Sounds terrible
 
Julf said:
Yes, that should be it.



And that is great - unless the difference turns out to be different mastering, and only applies to the initial batch of MQA material released to wet the appetite...
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more, I questioned this. What I do know is thus far its cost me sweet FA, the very best of upgrade prices. I shall keep an eye on whats released and decide from there if its worth 20 squid a month.
 
radamel said:
OK. I see.

I think MQA does go a long way in sorting out the blurring.

Cheers!
Click to expand...

Another bit of my thinking...

A few years back a pal of mine (who's ears are rather better than mine!) went to an AES dem where an 8-bit - yes that's 256 discrete sampling thresholds! - piano recording was played. It sounded bad, as the notes decayed huge distortion could be heard. Then they played 8-bit with proper dithering, the result was some background noise, but a surprisingly reasonable piano sound decaying into the hiss/noise.

So for playback, 16 bits could well be more than enough.

So what's left to cause the trouble??? Sampling rate and digital fitering and their effect on time domain response?

If MQA loses some of the LSBs out of 24 bits, then I'm not remotely bothered. But if it adds the hf, and hence time domain, back (unfolds it) then it can only be a good thing. If they can go even further and add the inverse of the time domain problems added during ADC, then it could be a very good thing!
 
garyi said:
Couldn't agree more, I questioned this. What I do know is thus far its cost me sweet FA, the very best of upgrade prices. I shall keep an eye on whats released and decide from there if its worth 20 squid a month.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a sensible approach.
 
mattgbell said:
Yes, but 'lossless' doesn't just mean that nothing has been lost: it also means that nothing spurious has been added.
Click to expand...
Also- if we were to apply the same reasoning employed by MQA, many old recordings could happily be encoded in much less than 16 bits and much less then 44.1 khz
It's terribly selective in its application of rationality and economy. It's only perfectionist about this 10m of air conjecture.
 
S-Man said:
Another bit of my thinking...

A few years back a pal of mine (who's ears are rather better than mine!) went to an AES dem where an 8-bit - yes that's 256 discrete sampling thresholds! - piano recording was played. It sounded bad, as the notes decayed huge distortion could be heard. Then they played 8-bit with proper dithering, the result was some background noise, but a surprisingly reasonable piano sound decaying into the hiss/noise.

So for playback, 16 bits could well be more than enough.
Click to expand...
absolutely right
But if it adds the hf, and hence time domain, back (unfolds it) then it can only be a good thing. If they can go even further and add the inverse of the time domain problems added during ADC, then it could be a very good thing!
Click to expand...
perhaps- but the problem is that like other "time domain" marketing puffs like NOS, dsd 64, MQA does not give you the HF (and hence time domain) accurately: it adds lots of rubbish.
Fortunately it mainly doesn't matter because you can't hear it.
 
In particular the Green LED 2448 example, playing out decoded at 2448 (sort of).
As there is no upsampling/folding going on, just how is this supposed to be timing related.
MQA could just have made an effect unit, but then they could only sell it once to you and there would be no need to rent or buy your existing media again
 
davidsrsb said:
In particular the Green LED 2448 example, playing out decoded at 2448 (sort of).
As there is no upsampling/folding going on, just how is this supposed to be timing related.
MQA could just have made an effect unit, but then they could only sell it once to you and there would be no need to rent or buy your existing media again
Click to expand...

Not sure if I I understand what you're saying.

The green led example I've mentioned is 24/44.1.

IIRC some recordings are 24/48 fully authenticated and in that case you get a blue light.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top