No need to even turn it on; open any browser or pick up a smartphone/tablet and over 5000 albums available via Squeezebox in any room of my house.
The link goes, by my personal count, to the third different 'explanation' made by Bob Stuart. Perhaps more important, the text to which the link leads doesn't actually explain how MQA decoding works. It simply reiterates the alleged versatility of the MQA processing method as the method affects various word-length/bitrate files and their consequent usability. The linked page is primarily an advertorial for MQA. It's a salve that says basically that it doesn't matter if the file is MQA processed/encoded because you can still play it via an existing external or built-in or embedded DAC. Stuart's bullet points also mention his so-called pre-ringing quasi-problem allegedly eliminated/reduced/solved by his MQA processing method when applied to source recordings, but only as the phrase with no explanation. It's a subtle advertorial - one of hundreds of bits of guerrilla MQA marketing meant to promulgate the MQA brand. This sort of surreptitious marketing, especially where MQA is the subject, is only one notch above fake news. There were actually some early explanations of the MQA source recording processing method. Those explanations were made by Bob Stuart among a very few others. But a variety of tech mavens challenged Stuart's technical puffery so intensely that all further technical explanation reiterations seem to have been stopped. I guess Bob didn't like being made to feel uncomfortable when heads as smart (or smarter) than him effectively called B.S. without actually saying the word. As more alleged head-to-head comparisons between MQA'd vs. non-MQA'd digital music files from the same album are posted on various sites, the easier it seems to be to suspect that MQA is actually simply re-EQing many of the source recordings being processed.
MQA does the follow: 1. Gives the magazines something to write about and hype. 2. Give the manufacturers an opportunity to sell new product 3. Allows the magazines to sell more advertising 4. Allows a lossy product to be sold as lossless. That MQA file starts off as 24 bit and ends up as 17 bits. 5. Adds DMA back into the mix. 6. Further enriches Bob Stuart.
If it can add something to existing files without my repurchasing music of adding format specific equipment I'm all for it and wish them the best. As is there aren't enough hours in the day to listen to what I own or have on my streaming backlog.
Yes, but what high-def connoisseur would purchase MQA files? Fine for streaming, but personally speaking I would not purchase lossy files which require proprietary decoding.
I agree. I've been shopping for a portable device and the ability to listen to Tidal's MQA streaming titles is definitely a bonus for me.
The more I've learned about MQA, the less I like it. I don't think it's anywhere near dead, but I wish it were, and I hope it goes down the tubes. It's lossy high-res compression with an undependable hardware-software combo decoding chain, plus DRM. Nothing but trouble.
Here's an interesting thought... The global average bandwidth in 2015 was 5.6Mbit/sec. That's the global average. In the US, it was well above 10Mbit/sec. Commonly, nowadays we even have 10 -100 times that thanks to cable internet, Google fiber, et. al. Audio streaming requirements: 16-bits/44.1kHz - 1.4Mb/second 24-bits/96kHz - 4.6Mb/second 24-bits/192 kHz - 9.2Mb/second DSD64 - 15.6Mb/second It begs the question, why compress at all? Presumably, if you're an "audiophile" who prefers streaming across the wider internet and who cares about quality, you would already have a high-bandwidth connection, no? Add DRM on top of a nonexistent bandwidth problem and you have a recipe for a new format failure. MQA = DOA, IMO.
It was never really alive in the wild to begin with. And rightfully so. Hopefully the reason for that is that consumers have gotten more educated and less susceptible to marketing BS, pseudo science and snake oil but I doubt it - it is more likely due to a simple lack of convenience and the necessity for additional investment.
One would think by now the MQA emblem would be on a few A/V receivers that already look like a NASCAR vehicle.
If Apple started streaming Hi Rez using the Apple Lossless codec, how much bigger would it's file size be compared to MQA?
MQA is 24/48. Lossless (Apple Lossless, FLAC) is about 50% the numbers quoted above. MQA is about the same as 24/96 streamed losslessly if anyone was offering such a thing. Informative article: Is MQA DOA?
Mobile data is still capped and quite expensive by comparison. Add that internet can still be challenging in some areas. It's not quite that simple if you are not a city dweller.
And also does not play on all platforms, and has DRM. No proprietary formats, please. We need lossless downloads without watermarking, DRM, and that play on any platform the buyer wishes.
Yes, and some people outside cities, have slow or heavily capped wireline internet or have to suffer capped 4G or satellite for any connectivity. Folks in big cities, don't assume people in smaller cities, outside cities, and rural people have the same internet options as you do. A mile or two away in the wrong direction can mean the difference between good cable connection or even decent DSL, or HughesNet or Exeed satellite or 4G cellular, the speed and cost difference is major.
Audio BS detector rules: If you are not hit by hammer when the technology is released and you don't go "How the hell I didn't think about it before?", then there is really nothing to write home about. Any technology that requires rounding up in a room a bunch of old guys sitting on folding chairs who will later serve as its apostles probably doesn't have anything really interesting to offer. Any technology that requires certification by a commercial entity isn't really interested in improving the end user experience. Any technology that years after its launch still generate debates regarding its benefits has basically no benefit or advantage.
To the industry, no. To me, it's more like Rosemary's Baby. I don't get it. Why not just stream FLAC? Oh, DRM, that's right. Am I going to replace my Auralic Vega anytime soon? Nope!
Meridian also did/do MLP, or Meridian Lossless Packaging. You see it from time to time on deluxe reissues (Yes' CD/DVD-A for TFTO springs to mind of late). Another Boothroyd/Stuart idea to stick a brand onto a function and you pay through the nose. No ta.
Not having heard an MQA file in a true comparison I just note some implementation issues from my indirect discussion with some of the MQA team. There are two different features of MQA: the first one being an edited file for easier streaming. The second is an analysis of the AD-DA conversion process and specific component models used in the encoding/transfer of the music file and a "correction" or reverse EQ to remove "known" deficiencies of those components. This analysis is performed both for the original recording and also for the playback DAC. The MQA analysis function therefore requires a system with an internet connection so that MQA can identify the playback DAC. It also means that there can be no processing of the digital file before it gets to the DAC such as upsampling or sample rate changes. If there is no internet connection then the MQA sets the playback DAC for a Generic processor. If this is not a technically accurate summary, someone who knows can correct it. I make no judgment on the utility or success of MQA.
Indeed, and without it, multi-channel DVD-A would not have fitted on the media. MLP was way easier to understand than MQA.
The reason for the MLP (or some compression method) with DVD-A is that the DVD-A data reading standard supports a maximum of 9.6 megabits/second...and the DVD-A concept was to compete with multi-channel SACD. Uncompressed 5.1 DVD-A maxes out with all six channels at 48k/24 or, as an alternate, all six channels at 96k/16. If the data pulled off the DVD-A is packed, then unpacked in some processing pipeline, the 9.6 megabits/second standard will not be violated, and the resulting 5.1 results can go to 96k/24--or other possibilities. It probably could have been FLAC (did FLAC exist at the time?) and not MLP, but I suspect Boothroyd/Stuart were part of the DVD-A standards committee. If my recollection is correct, at the time MLP received a bit of credit for "saving" DVD-A and making it even possible. Since the DVD-A people were significantly interested in "shutting down" SACD (my words), they weren't inclined to be too picky (or knowledgeable) about compression schemes as long as they could put DVD-A on the street.
Typo, thanks for the correction.... and, DSD256 is 11.2Mb/s which isn't much more than 24/192 FLAC/PCM, especially when you're talking about the common 50/100/300 plans on cable internet. All true, very good and valid points, but MQA doesn't fix that problem at all, and it is actually much worse for those with capped data plans than if streaming a redbook-sourced FLAC/PCM, and MQA is slightly worse than streaming a 24/96 FLAC/PCM file. The issue here isn't one format vs. the other; it's the fact that some consumers have to live with their capped data plans. From the Benchmark article posted upthread by @Apesbrain : "FLAC compressed MQA requires higher data rates than FLAC compressed PCM while delivering lower quality than 18-bit losslessly compressed PCM." I'm also not convinced the target market for MQA is the consumer walking around town listening with earbuds on a smartphone or in a car (via potentially-capped mobile, data connections). A good indicator of target market is currently-available, MQA-compatible hardware. The market appears to be mid-fi (and above) level consumers who have a fixed installation at home. If data-capping is a problem at home, why attempt to stream larger files from the internet at all? There are so many more practical solutions available for the home network. Roon is just one example.
