advertisement


MQA

sls4321 said:
Totally disinterested in MQA and wouldn't be one iota more interested if it came with a lifetime supply of marmite.

For classical music listeners, which is me most of the time, 16/44 really is the end-game, as classical CDs have generally been produced to very high standards for the last 30 years and they can be streamed from Qobuz Sublime. I have some higher definition downloads, but there is no real improvement that I can hear.

Whether I stream in 16/44, play a ripped CD or purchase a 16/44 download, I'll be happily listening to music and not going on wikipedia to find out what time domain is. Sounds like something from Star Trek to me.
Click to expand...

My ears give me the opposite messages. I've never been able to switch into "hi-fi" listening mode with 16/44. It's like background music to me. If I try to concentrate on it I find it fatiguing.

That said, IMHO 16/44 is OK for simple music where few things overlap in the sound stage and where timing failure is less audible and obvious. A solo cellist for example. With complex rock and dance I find it dreadful.

I had an MQA DAC for about a month until it failed. During that time I was able to hear the uptick in SQ with 24/192 and to be able to try MQA.

The total number of sample files for each was about three. There just isn't a wealth of material even vaguely familiar to me. A lot of hi-res stuff is original analogue recordings, which makes sense, but just because a fifty year old recording has been put into hi-res doesn't mean it sounds great if it didn't in the first place.

I could hear the difference with MQA but it was the 24/192 which sounded best to me, also significantly better than 24/96 which was still "below the bar".

I'll admit the difference is quite subtle, it just seems to be that I can pick it out easily and consistently.

Then the DAC died and went back for a refund. I now have no way to play digital files other than the DAC in my PC and laptop, but TBH I wouldn't have continued with Tidal and paid the subscription for only 16/44.

I'm still very interested in MQA but it's the chicken-and-egg problem: until there's more material, there's not much benefit in having an MQA DAC.

On the other hand if nobody buys it then there's no reason to make more material available without more widespread support.

And on that point, given that everyone has been listening at 16/44 for a long time, I suspect that masters of more modern material - that being digital masters - simply aren't hi-res anyway, so the information just isn't there in the files. I can't see artists going back into the studio to record it again.

Except for classical, where hi-res downloads have been the norm for some time, with "Also available in CD and MP3 formats" as a throwaway line.

One of the most impressive in hi-res was "Magnificat" (opera) and there are test files here:

http://www.2l.no/hires/

In particular the bit near the end where the choir overlaps with everything else: my ears pick out the hi-res difference very clearly and MQA brought improvements over 16/44.
 
The real problem is there is a miniscule market for anything higher than redbook... most folk out there couldn't care.. mp3 is good enough

it has to be free and open for mass adoption.. this small handful of ocd audiophiles is not representative of the general public .. the general public will not buy anything extra to play MQa .. and I'm not too keen either


At any rate..I would be keen to adopt..but at the moment it's a total damp squib...
 
I'm not particularly fussed about getting MQA, although I am tempted by the Mytek Brooklyn as a general use DAC, if they'd just give it USB HID functionality, but that's another matter.
Where I think MQA may have a chance at taking off isn't so much in the downloads arena, but if streaming services like Tidal adopt it for their whole catalogue.
 
radamel said:
Why are you reading this thread, let alone posting in it?:confused:
Click to expand...


Hahaha yes, he must have searched back 12 months for a subject he wasn't at all interested in and vented his spleen over it :D




Must say that while I'm all for anything to do with better resolution, I do think the main issue is being ignored. Poor production. We all know there are glorious recordings on Vinyl & on CD. I've got MP3s that sound fabulous. There are also plenty of dreadful ones. Such poor quality should warrant a product recall.

Better quality mixing is what's needed.
 
I have every confidence that Meridian's commercial nous will make MQA a success to rival the triumph they achieved with DVDA.
 
I posted a genuinely held belief that well recorded and produced 16/44, which I and the vast majority of domestic audio users have been happily listening to for the last 30 years, it is now suggested that 24/96 resolution is "below the bar" and that there is a big difference between 24/96 and 24/192.

Well, if that is the case, I must be deaf or have a terrible audio system (Aries into a PSAudio PWD2 DAC, Hattor passive pre-amp, Quad 909 monoblocks and Harbeth SHL5+).

I have heard astonishing quality audio using a normal CD source, two systems in particular both using DCS electronics, the full Vivaldi stack into Wilson speakers and the new DCS Rossini(?) into Harbeth M40.2.

I agree with strummer, it's more down to production quality. The need for popular music to have a narrow dynamic range given how most people listen to it is the biggest problem I have, listen to early CDs like Graceland (not the reissue) and the quality is magnificent.

I've got dozens of classical HD downloads, I've compared some to 16/44 streams, and cannot genuinely say I hear a difference. As Rodney suggests, maybe I'm not OCD enough, or just deaf.

It will be interesting to see if MQA proves to be a success based on marketing alone (possibly), based on it being a technical development that shifts the market like for example Dolby B (I personally doubt it) or goes the way of many other "new technologies" that turned out to be emperor's new clothes.
 
I returned to this thread as MQA was announced over a year ago and we were told it was going to change the world as we know it, since when not a lot has happened, and it is not even clear how it is going to change things.

The release of the first CD players really did change the audio world and I recall Herbert von Karajan, who was perhaps the most successful recording artist at the time, was heavily involved in promoting the Phillips system.
 
sls4321 said:
I posted a genuinely held belief that well recorded and produced 16/44, which I and the vast majority of domestic audio users have been happily listening to for the last 30 years, it is now suggested that 24/96 resolution is "below the bar" and that there is a big difference between 24/96 and 24/192.

Well, if that is the case, I must be deaf or have a terrible audio system (Aries into a PSAudio PWD2 DAC, Hattor passive pre-amp, Quad 909 monoblocks and Harbeth SHL5+).

I have heard astonishing quality audio using a normal CD source, two systems in particular both using DCS electronics, the full Vivaldi stack into Wilson speakers and the new DCS Rossini(?) into Harbeth M40.2.

I agree with strummer, it's more down to production quality. The need for popular music to have a narrow dynamic range given how most people listen to it is the biggest problem I have, listen to early CDs like Graceland (not the reissue) and the quality is magnificent.

I've got dozens of classical HD downloads, I've compared some to 16/44 streams, and cannot genuinely say I hear a difference. As Rodney suggests, maybe I'm not OCD enough, or just deaf.

It will be interesting to see if MQA proves to be a success based on marketing alone (possibly), based on it being a technical development that shifts the market like for example Dolby B (I personally doubt it) or goes the way of many other "new technologies" that turned out to be emperor's new clothes.
Click to expand...


Agree! And your previous post makes sense too. It was just funny how you opened with "totally disinterested in" :D


Well recorded/mixed music sounds great even on the lowest resolution. Badly recorded/mixed music can't be saved by higher resolution or a better HiFi, in fact that can just highlight the flaws.
 
I feel that 16 bit isn't quite enough and 44.1ksps is too low, requiring severe filtering.
I would be very satisfied with 20bit 48ksps, which when flac encoded, would be smaller than equivalent Red Book.
 
I have found that the quality of the recording far outweighs any improvement in bit rates.
In fact the few 24/192 recordings I have don't sound as good to me as the 24/96.
My preference is probably for a well recorded 24/48
 
I have heard superb 16/44 recordings.. even that bottomfeeding low rung on the ladder format is capable of marvellous things with good mastering..
 
davidsrsb said:
I feel that 16 bit isn't quite enough and 44.1ksps is too low, requiring severe filtering.
I would be very satisfied with 20bit 48ksps, which when flac encoded, would be smaller than equivalent Red Book.
Click to expand...
There was always a case for this as a maybe-we-should-build-in-a-bigger-margin argument. But nobody's really interested unless it's hallelujah I hear a massive difference. And Hallelujah I hear a difference soon moved on beyond 24/96.
So the poor old maybe we should push it to 20/48 (or even 20/60 iirc from Malcolm hawksford) soon got left behind.
 
The thing most seem not to realize is that MQA SQ is arguably on par with DXD (if not better).

If adopted for streaming it could make a big difference as IMO Tidal HiFi is still not even as good as local FLAC redbook files played via USB asynchronous.
 
I can see how transcoding old DSD files into PCM for editing would make sense, I remain unconvinced by DSD, and I haven't read anything ,yet that encourages my exploration of MQA.
Here ripped files and Tidal are identical.
Keith
 
@ciderglider (et al), assuming that was sarcasm...

Meridian made a great success from DVDA.

They invented the Meridian Lossless Packing (MLP) algorithm, used in DVD-A, which is mandatory on every BluRay disc where it is now called Dolby TrueHD. Meridian received royalties for that technology though I think it has now been sold to Dolby.

Meridian can hardly be held accountable for the commercial failure of DVDA. They built and sold three players (the 598, G98 and 800) which were highly regarded in their time. The format failed certainly but it was not due to any commercial failings at Meridian.

MQA will succeed if and only if the labels and studios take it up; they would have to be convinced there is significant commercial demand for high quality sound. The lesson of DVDA (and SACD) is that demand is handicapped if it requires expensive new players and double inventories. MQA arguably demands neither since it is backward compatible though, of course, a new DAC is required to experience it.
 
IceG said:
MQA arguably demands neither since it is backward compatible though, of course, a new DAC is required to experience it.
Click to expand...

Which is a tiny bit of a problem if the DAC function is deeply embedded in the system, without any option to replace it.

And since MQA seem bent on managing their rights to digital it seems that decoded data streams will not be accessible, under the lame excuses of 'oh but for your own good we need detailed information about the DAC' and 'once decoded there would be far too much data to send over any practical interface'.
 
Werner said:
Which is a tiny bit of a problem if the DAC function is deeply embedded in the system, without any option to replace it.

And since MQA seem bent on managing their rights to digital it seems that decoded data streams will not be accessible, under the lame excuses of 'oh but for your own good we need detailed information about the DAC' and 'once decoded there would be far too much data to send over any practical interface'.
Click to expand...

Perhaps but OTOH those who don't have an MQA DAC will not be worse off playing MQA files and those that do have an MQA DAC will be able to benefit greatly.

IMO the key for success will be if MQA will be available in a streaming service such as Tidal or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top