advertisement


"MQA One Year Later -- Suddenly, More Questions"

Indeed interesting for many reasons: no way to check whether MQA files are Hi Res, no way to know which master was used, the possibility tha MQA means decreased bandwidth, the inherent claim that MQA is the superior format, the MQA fingerprinting of MQA files to signal that these files are legitimate while other file formats may not be truly legitimate.
 
And SACD.

And 24/96.

DVD-Audio at least gave us multi-channel (which I personally love). It was the best new format since the CD and those f*ckers at Sony killed it with another Goddamn format war.
 
Over the last year, a lot of valid points came up from a lot of knowledgeable people (although Andreas Koch's points should perhaps be taken with a grain of salt, as he (still) seems to be pushing DSD), so it's a bit of a disappointment that MQA (the company) does not address any of these.

It is also interesting how MQA is not much of a topic on forums like gearslutz, i.e. on their mastering sub forum:

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering-forum/

..there is one thread there:

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering-forum/1101429-mqa.html

..where people are generally critical about MQA.

As for me, sometimes I hear a difference, sometimes I don't. Having a blue light on your DAC is certainly a powerful psychological cue leading you to be more attentive and perceiving music differently than when it's off (I feel).

Anyway, I'm still holding back my final judgement on MQA - I don't regret having bought the Mytek Brooklyn though, as it endeared itself to me for other reasons: I enjoy that huge informative display and the sound quality gave my Pre + DAC combination which I used before (and which cost almost an order of magnitude more) a run for its money. Just goes to show (to me at least) that in 2017 solid state audio, particularly DACs, do not need to cost several thousands of EUR. And the fact that I bought it off thomann.de meant that I did not have to interact with a traditional HiFi dealer, which to me is another big plus these days.

Ultimately I just like the idea of having a component that can decode all the formats I throw at it, so I can make up my own mind. I can also play back my collection of DSD albums on the Mytek (yes, all three of them) if I feel like it, i.e. it is up to me and not up to the designer of the component what I can listen to. Oh, did I mention the built in phono stage?
 
At best, it all reminds me of HDCD -- could anyone hear the difference?

Yes. At least I can certainly hear (and easily measure) the difference between playing some of the Joni Mitchell 'CDs' as plain LPCM and as HDCD. The reason being that the excessive application of HDCD's peak compression makes the result sound far worse when played as plain LPCM by a player that doesn't decode HDCD. This problem has cursed many of her CDs.

MQA on Audio CD threatens similar problems for the future. But there due to a rise in the noise floor which is actually 'scrambled into noise' encoding of the lower bits. The result is a CD which is degraded when played on ordinary players compared to what it could have been like on them if MQA had not been added.

TANSTAAFL
 
Yes. At least I can certainly hear (and easily measure) the difference between playing some of the Joni Mitchell 'CDs' as plain LPCM and as HDCD. The reason being that the excessive application of HDCD's peak compression makes the result sound far worse when played as plain LPCM by a player that doesn't decode HDCD. This problem has cursed many of her CDs.

Doesn't this imply a different mastering?

For me, MQA is the last convulsion of an industry that's run out of ideas of how to re-package the same old stuff yet again.
 
sacd played on good player was stunning, failed over here , but sells well in the east

MQA as taken too long because no one is interested in all its claims
 
Doesn't this imply a different mastering?

For me, MQA is the last convulsion of an industry that's run out of ideas of how to re-package the same old stuff yet again.

Not sure which example you may mean. I was talking about playing exactly the same *HDCD* disc with or without HDCD decoding. My point being that unless used *very* sparingly, HDCD can mess up the disc being played in a non HDCD player. But a similar sort of problem can arise for an "MQA Audio CD". However in that case the most likely degrading which someone using a non MQA player will encounter is a higher noise level than if the disc were a plain Audio CD.
 
The shaped noise should be very system and user dependent. Most of us on PFM cannot directly hear a block of noise from, say, 15kHz to 21 kHz. It might irritate your dog.
There might be lower frequency artifacts from a tweeter with break up modes and resonances in that area, common with 25 and 28mm domes
 
I have found that plain 44.1 CD sounds good enough not to worry about MQA or any other fad.

I wonder how many have heard 44.1 at it`s best, not many I suspect.
 
I'm far less worried by MQA than many - the percentage of music listened through decent equipment or decent phones is tiny. I honestly can never see it becoming the norm.
MQA is like curved screens & 3d TV, video phones etc - all stuff that very few use.
As for HDCD, my Rotel player decoded them. I had a total of 2 discs that both sounded very good but without being able to compare with std CDs, I've no idea if the quality was from the tech or just decent mastering. The other aspect of MQA is all the licensing, secrecy etc than ain't helping neither.
 
A solution looking for a problem. Isn't the answer to master the bloody stuff properly in the first instance?
 
The shaped noise should be very system and user dependent. Most of us on PFM cannot directly hear a block of noise from, say, 15kHz to 21 kHz. It might irritate your dog.
There might be lower frequency artifacts from a tweeter with break up modes and resonances in that area, common with 25 and 28mm domes

However would you be happy with Audio CD if it had been 13 or 14 bit from the start?

The key point here is that modern well made audio CDs are *already* routinely noise shaped. People have been using this for many years. But adding MQA onto Audio CD will tend to lift the noise level and reduce the resolution for LPCM replay.
 
I have found that plain 44.1 CD sounds good enough not to worry about MQA or any other fad.

I wonder how many have heard 44.1 at it`s best, not many I suspect.

The point to think about though is what if the music you want is *only* available as an 'MQA' Audio CD, which means it may have a lower resolution that if it were a plain Audio CD when played on a non-MQA system, but they won't sell you a plain Audio CD version, *only* the 'MQA' one?

Bear in mind that for suits in the music biz, "single invoicing" is very useful. Saves them the fuss of having to stock/offer/track/invoice Audio CD *and* highrez flac lossless downloads, etc, as distinct options. They just carry one 'version' and tell everyone its what they want.
 
Bear in mind that for suits in the music biz, "single invoicing" is very useful. Saves them the fuss of having to stock/offer/track/invoice Audio CD *and* highrez flac lossless downloads, etc, as distinct options. They just carry one 'version' and tell everyone its what they want.

But most albums now come in at least 3 versions - CD, AAC, MP3, with FLAC and ALAC also available at download sites such as Qobuz.
 
But most albums now come in at least 3 versions - CD, AAC, MP3, with FLAC and ALAC also available at download sites such as Qobuz.

That's actually part of my point. At present media companies tend to have to provide many 'versions' of the same base material. One of the *commercial* arguments for MQA is that it would allow companies to reduce the range of 'versions' they need. One size fits all. Even if they can just reduce a number of formats down to fewer, it means they can simplify their inventory and accounting.

It may not displace 128k mp3. But many other higher rate formats could be in scope. e.g. They could replace all the high rez, flac, alac, and audio CD with a single form of MQA. It may be that most people won't notice any difference. Most people are *not* audiophiles.
 


advertisement


Back
Top