New Meridian audio format creating quite a buzz

I am at a loss to explain what I heard (or did not hear). Too many audio journalists are claiming to be knocked out by it, so there must be something to it, but whatever it is I did not hear it in last week's demo.

I can put this in some context for you. Remember the California Audio Show a few years ago? Having read all the great stories about Legacy loudspeakers, I was eager to hear them. They had a nice, large demo room. They had very high-priced amplification, but the sound was a complete disappointment. I had the same reaction to the MQA demos.

In contrast, remember the small $2500 Evolution Micro One speakers? Granted they were on the end of some pricey gear (Playback Designs DAC and DarTZeel amplifier), but they were a joy to listen to, regardless of the source material. It was easy to imagine (a) living with those speakers in a small system, and (b) what the larger models might deliver. Of course, if you listened for some time you became aware of some small limitations in low frequency extension and high-power handling, but within their design window they performed tremendously. I didn't get that sort of buzz from the MQA demo.

It is also not a case of being attuned to a different sound/presentation. If I was a tube SET/horns user, for example, one could say that a solid-state/dynamic system just wasn't my thing, but that is not the case here. I'm a solid-state/dynamic speaker user. I love active speakers like ATC. I have nothing against DSP or the use of DSP in speaker crossovers, etc. Done properly, digital systems can far outperform analog ones.

I'm just left scratching my head on this one!

 

bmoregnr,

I tried to get to the bottom of the points you raised with Meridian last week. As I wrote earlier in the thread, one of my friends (who has been involved in recording since the 70s) laughed at the suggestion that there would be records of which converters were used for which digital masters.

Let's use Steve as an example, and maybe he'll chime in to correct any mistakes. I don't imagine that when he delivers a digital master to a label that he notes that he used ADC A with filter settings B, and DAC C with filter settings D. So, asking the label may be a waste of time. Now, if you wanted to re-release an MQA version of a project Steve mastered in 2002, say, does SH have a record of exactly which converters and settings he used then? I know mastering engineers who use different converters for different projects because they like the sound of one with one style of music, and another with something else. Did they keep records of everything?

Now, sticking with Steve, I assume that any sound changes he makes are in the context of his end-to-end system, with thought to how the sound will translate to other (possibly lesser) systems. So, let's assume there is some 'error' (by Meridian's definition) in the digital chain, maybe SH compensates for it with the rest of his equipment. Now, if you re-code his digital master to 'correct' for the digital shortcomings, maybe you change the sound in a negative way (since it contains EQ moves, for example, to mask those 'errors').

I think the issue about the playback mirroring what was heard in the studio is a red herring. Steve could tell you which DAC he is using, you could buy it, and he could send you a clone of the digital master he makes, but I doubt that the playback in your system/room will sound exactly the same as he hears in his studio.

 

From what Black Elk is saying, remastering isn't on the table for MQA, so that's a moot point.

To the question of DRM, probably not, but maybe? We know how much record companies like money and want to make more of it, so them not making a move that would require very little effort on their part is a question in search of an answer to me.

 

Excellent point Black Elk thanks.

 

Side bar.

I remember them well. The first day (and maybe the second day) they were using some very expensive valve amplifiers (over $100,000 - but I cannot recall the brand) and they were disappointing, lacking bass control. Then they changed they amps to much less expensive solid state amps and the sound was significanly better. I can't recall the amps they switched to. But it was clear from the demo that the original amps did not interface well with the Legacy speakers. I also remember Jonathan Tinn's room and the little Micro Evolution Acoustics were dreamy - they were the least expensive component in the system, by far.

 

They were using the $120k Win Analog amps. when I was there:

http://dagogo.com/win-analog-z845-preamplifier-s-series-monoblock-amplifiers-review

I didn't go back. Glad to hear things improved, but they really should not have been finding this incompatibility out in show conditions. I wonder how many customers they lost as a result.

Well, the cheapo rack they were using probably won that honor, but I bet the speakers (and stands) were a lot cheaper than the speaker cables!!!

 

You are absolutely correct on all fronts. It was the Win.

Jonathan prided himself on the rack selection - it was cheap but caused no harm. That was before he started selling the Kinergetics footers.

 

I finally got to read it myself over the weekend. A typical Harley fluff piece, with no questioning of the information provided by Meridian. The report on the listening again makes no mention of any comparisons being done. Where did the graph of temporal blur come from? And how was it measured? It is clearly set up to show worst to best along the x-axis, but DSD actually performs better than 96/24 (in fact it should perform better than 192/24 too). The last point is called 'studio' and this is beyond 768/24!!! Which studio is that?

It is in the interview with Bob Stuart where things get interesting. Now he is saying that 768 kHz is better than 384 kHz, which is better than 192 kHz, etc. He says that producers and recording engineers can clearly hear a difference. So why wasn't he (or others at Meridian) able to hear it (or accept the view of those who claimed to) when he was proposing that 20-bit/58 kHz is audibly transparent and basing Meridian products on a 24/96 'pipe'? (https://www.meridian-audio.com/meridian-uploads/ara/coding2.pdf)

His most interesting comment is: "What we're trying to do, conceptually, is directly connect together the modulators at both ends -- the high speed delta-sigma modulators in the A-to-D and the DAC. That's the essence of a large step forward in transparency and accuracy, because when you do that, it all sounds more like the original analog sound." If only someone had developed a format that used the high-speed delta-sigma signal and chopped out the problematic decimation/interpolation filters? Wait a minute....

He also softens the position on what you hear at home is exactly what they heard in the studio, stating now that the best decoding is done, rather than ideal decoding. I still think that this aspect is a red herring.

 

Some truth in that. I wish he would provide a deeper perspective - but I was still very interested. Have to see if I can audition

 

I'm not thrilled by the lossy aspects of the technology and the fact that the spin machine has been set to stun, but I have to reserve judgment until I hear it.

I think what record labels are most excited about are the DRM features.

Something that I find very curious is the "authenticated" aspect to the data file--i.e., that the file has been digitally signed by the artist (or label) to confirm that the file sounds just like it did "in the studio," whatever that means. Just what is the purpose of this feature? Reminds me of the light on the PonoPlayer that turns on when music that was bought from the PonoMusic Store is played, signifying that the music is "genuine" or "authentic." Who is demanding this? Surely not consumers. I guess it's to assuage record labels that there will be some way to differentiate pirated hi-res music from hi-res music that has been legitimately bought online.

 

Well, ya know how some people upload FLAC bootlegs and then get upset when people modify the file and make a lossy version? I think it is something like that. Yes, you're right, anti-piracy (and really what's wrong with that), but you can also be sure that your are getting the correct file, not something someone messed with.

Now if there was an authentication to say that the music was SOURCED high-rez, mmm, that would be better. Maybe they could have a code like "DDD"

Then again, we could debate if scraping the last magnetics off decades old tapes is "high resolution" at all...

 

Makes you feel special and youll be more inclined to pay more.

 

From the video that Hans posted I understood that while MQA allows for DRM, it will only be used to positively ID the source of music. As for who is asking for this, I read complaints on this and other fora all the time about HDTracks and others not providing enough details about the provenance of music sold as Hi Res.

 

Any word on when MQA will be available on Tidal? Todd the vinyl junkie heard that Mereidian is trying to get it up and running sometime in May.

 

I now have a heavily revised explanation on MQA in a new video. It took 150 pages of AES papers, patent papers and other reads plus a one on one with Meridian people.

 

Thank you, Hans. I watched the whole thing and you did a great job.

 

Very well done Hans and thanks; I am just a novice but you made it all very clear and your presentation of everything was great.

 

Yes, would also like to thank you Hans for doing such a wonderful job with material that can be difficult for the novice (like me) to understand.
I am so very grateful for your efforts.

 

Will watch this video at home this evening.

 

The more I think about this, the more I want to know who's funding Meridian.

It seems too convenient that once the labels FINALLY are doing catalog deep 24/96 remasters, these tools come along and say "96khz isn't close to enough"....without even debating their point (which I DO have issues with)--I question the motivation in ringing this bell publicly when there's ZERO material being produced to take advantage of it....no way I know of to even produce it if budgets were endless (and they certainly aren't any more).

 

I'd be doing this if I were in their shoes. All of the other times they convinced people they found a way to make albums recorded in the early 70's sound magically better people gladly opened their wallets, it seems about the right time to do it again. Just look at this thread - most people seem fairly skeptical, but there's a few who can't wait to bask in the sonic glory of MQA.

 

I wonder if the track will still remain MQA if a FLAC file's metadata is updated (say, with track/album ReplayGain or TT DR values, f.e.)...

 

My understanding is that the record companies believe that their back catalogs have been exhaustively mined for audiophile reissues. Just look at the current "less than a trickle" of audiophile releases announced for 2015. Mofi completely removed the "Coming Soon" section of their website.

And the current vinyl renaissance has very little (if anything) to do with audiophilia.

To me, the smart money is on MQA having nearly zero affect on audiophile reissue demand. I hope I'm wrong.

 

I continue to buy 'golden era' jazz and rock reissues on redbook or SACD when they are mastered properly using today's tech. I've not been disappointed. Further, every time I've upgraded a component or cables/interconnects, improved acoustic treatment, or enhanced power supply/distribution I've experienced an appreciably better listening experience. I've not come close to exhausting options to dramatically improve the sound of 'golden era' analog recordings either. If there is a flaw with A/D which has been discovered and remedied, then let's give it a try.

Finally, I don't get the negativity from non-audiophiles such as member JamieLang. Some of us are hearing music recorded in the 50s, 60s, and 70s in our homes which is so good that words would be wasted trying to describe the contrast versus the result from mass produced gear. There is no benefit to pretending that we all have the same level of interest in sound quality.

 

What I don't get are the self appointed arbiters of who is an "audiophile" and who is not. It sure looks and sounds like unapologetic snobbery to me.