What are peoples' options of MQA??

It's a solution to the problems of 10 years ago. Bandwidth and storage will continue to get cheaper and cheaper.

 

For some, maybe. But storage capacity is not going up in most new models of consumer electronics and bandwidth is not improving very fast in most parts of the world

And neither of those improves the problem of bad/unverified sources being sent over streaming and download sites under the 'FLAC'/lossless banner

 

...
"MQA had previously asserted that MQA decoding would take place only in MQA-equipped DACs. Although technically possible to perform MQA decoding in music-player software such as Tidal, Roon, Audirvana, etc., MQA prohibited that scenario in part because software decoding doesn’t deliver the full sound quality that MQA is capable of. MQA is an end-to-end system that ties together the analog-to-digital converter in the studio with the digital-to-analog converter in the listener’s playback system. Software decoding, in which the “unwrapped” MQA file is output as a 96kHz/24-bit stream, doesn’t allow this end-to-end connection because the software player doesn’t know what DAC it is driving. The full implementation of MQA (decoding in a DAC rather than in software) offers better performance because it can correct for known limitations and flaws in the particular DAC chip, among other benefits.
...
For whatever political or business reasons, you can now listen to MQA without an MQA DAC, but with the knowledge that the sound will be better when decoded by an MQA-equipped DAC."
...
MQA’s Unexpected Twist

 

The proper comparison is not undecoded MQA to decoded MQA -- especially as MQA encoding inherently applies several "enhancements" with or without decoding.

No, the proper comparison is non MQA original to decoded MQA. On Tidal, this is not always easy, not always an apples to apples comparison -- because Tidal HiFi and Tidal MQA streams may be different masterings or level adjustments of the same album.

I did some stream captures and spot checks of masterings on Tidal. You can read here:

MQA General Discussion

And before anyone rationalizes that MQA curates and selects the best mastering available for a given album, no, not true. A great many brickwalled remasters have gotten the MQA treatment. Furthermore, numerous albums have received multiple MQA releases at multiple sample rates (e.g. 96 kHz and 192 kHz) based upon the same or different masters. Most MQA is just a batch conversion process of whatever mastering(s) is/are extant in the back catalog.

AJ

 

Never heard of it until I clicked on this thread wondering what in tarnation it was about.

 

I have made this comparison too, and MQA wasn't always as good, but "good enough". But do I always have access to the original hi res? No, I don't, I'm paying for streaming — not every Hi-res album I want to play

I account for this in my personal tests

 

For those who do not have MQA capable equipment or who use alternative operating systems, MQA is lossy compression. It is not open source, it is lossy to anything which does not have a decoder. It is not an improvement, it is not necessarily a master in quality. In short, it is there to line the pockets of MQA, Ltd at every point in the encoding, the downloading, and the decoding of said file. FLAC is a much better way to do lossless compression. It is open source, it is a commonly used standard. It plays on most anything which plays Hi-Rez. Why do we need this format? Apple Lossless is even now an open standard a la FLAC too.

 

So, for those who have MQA-capable equipment, it is not a lossy compression. Right?
That's the question was from the very beginning (post 1): What the best way to start with MQA?
Do you have any suggestions?

We need some practical advise... without lossy-shmossy... Anyone.

 

That's just it though; MQA is lossy no matter if it's decoded or not. Why would any self-respecting audiophile actively seek out a lossy, proprietary format when free*, lossless alternatives exist? The other selling points (SACD level of content on a Redbook and some "de-blur" technology that smells like snake oil) do nothing for me, and I'd be surprised if the former gets utilized much.

*I mean free as in the format license itself; naturally you have to purchase the file in applicable cases.

 

- from the post #22 -

Please read Post #937; Page 38 'How "Lossy" MQA Is'? and 'MQA Explained'.

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/ultimate-hqcd-uhqcd-new-cd-format-king-crimson-on-uhqcd-and-more.576237/page-38

 

Read the post, still think it's snake oil. "It's lossy because it makes it sound better" is no better excuse than "it's brickwalled because it makes it sound better".

Look, there are people here who believe that SHMCD's sound better than regular material CD's, even though my understanding is that an A/B comparison with the same album and mastering between each has proven that SHM and regular are bit-for-bit identical. People hear what they want to hear.

Being told "this sounds better" gets people's attention. Now, it might not always work, there have been many formats purporting this that didn't catch on in the mainstream, if at all, but people like hype. Perception of sound is heavily influenced by many factors outside of the actual recording itself. If I told you that a new mastering was made by an engineer you don't like, even if it's actually a mastering that was made by your favorite engineer, chances are you'd dismiss it, at least until you are corrected. The opposite is also true.

Now, I'm all for format technology to improve, but I don't see MQA as an improvement, sorry. I will say that MQA Inc. are pretty darn good at marketing though, and that's why they've gotten as far as they have. Marketing is just as important, in not vastly more so, than having a quality product to begin with.

 

As I have said elsewhere, MQA is really aimed at the streaming market and younger Millennials looking for a more audiophile experience. I believe the token physical releases are little more than marketing gimmicks meant to raise the format's profile.

It's not really intended for the many collectors here that have built up substantial Hi-Rez collections. I believe it has a place in the market, if only because it expands the potential audience of hi-rez music listening. Many younger Millennials have grown up listening to highly lossy MP3s and other poor digital formats. This is at least one step in their journey beyond those limitations.

 

SHM-CD vs. Regular CD

The same digital file placed on the different carrier sounds different in High-End system.

Here is what Barry Diament a former Atlantic Records engineer and producer said about this matter in general and about his SHM and HQCD experience:

"A friend sent me a bunch of 2-disc sets that contained one SHM CD and a plain "vanilla" version, one Blue-spec and a plain version, one HQCD and a plain version. My expectations were not high as I figured these were marketing inventions. Then I listened.

Listening to Mile's Davis "Round Midnight" on one set, I started to think it went beyond marketing. I thought that like all too many other "comparisons" I've heard, there were actually two different masterings. The sonic differences were so obvious, I was pretty sure they were done by different engineers, with different EQ.

So, I set about to "prove" this to myself by extracting samples from both discs to the computer and running a "null" test. In a null test, the two files are synchronized - to the sample - and the polarity of one file is inverted. By mixing the two together, everything the files have in common, i.e., what is identical in both files, gets cancelled (or nulled). Only what is different between them remains.

Much to my surprise, what remained was dead silence - all the way down. To me, this proved the two files were identical. When listening from the computer, as I've found in all cases where I've heard differences from different pressings played in a CD transport or CD player, the sonic differences were gone.

This is what I've found when comparing CDs to the masters from which they were made. In all the years I've been creating CD masters (since January, 1983), I've never heard two from different plants that sound like each other and neither sounds indistinguishable from the master used to make it. To be clear, this has been my experience when the discs are played via a transport or player (*any* transport or player).

Extracting the data to hard drive removes the differences and all the results sound (to me) indistinguishable from the master used to make them.

So, my view is it depends on how you're going to listen. If you're going to extract the discs and listen via the computer, if the mastering is the same, a good extraction will sound identical to the master and there is no need for a "super" pressing.
On the other hand, if you use a CD transport or CD player, the differences between different manufactured discs can range from subtle to (as in the case of the Miles Davis example I cited above) not at all subtle - actually quite obvious.

That's my experience anyway. As with anything in audio, I think it depends on a combination of the resolving capability of the system and the individual listener's sensitivities. Different folks have different sensitivities to different aspects of sound.

Best regards,

Barry"

 

People hear what their systems allow them to hear.

Here is what my system allows me to hear:

UHQCD vs. Regular CD

King Crimson Live in Toronto Nov. 20, 2015 Mini LP 2 UHQCD vs. Regular 2CD version.


"WOWOW!" -- Japanese label, released KC Live album in UHQCD format.



(from the UHQCD thread)



From the beginning I listened to UHQ full version. Musically, it is 5-star performance with a lot of energy and inspiration. First of all, this 7-piece band with Robert Fripp, Tony Levin on bass, Mel Collins on saxophone and flute, and vocalist and guitarist Jakko Jakszyk gives you an idea what to expect. On a top of this, they have not one, but three drummers - and that makes a big difference.

Old songs sound familiar, but different from the previous versions with new arrangements and extended instrumental passages, adding more twists and turns.
Vocal was surprisingly penetrating. I like Greg Lake vocal and always thought - nobody can replace him, but Jakko was very good in his own way. His vocal settled higher level for the rest of the band. Reinforced by triple drumming, they delivered their best, showing the audience what Crimson still can do. The impression was: each song was polished to perfection. If you like it raw and rough, look somewhere else.

And the sound quality was at the same level of performance. I liked it a lot, but I could not say, without comparison, whether new format affects sound quality. Speaking ahead, it does.

If you will check how HK UHQCD Limited Numbered Edition series was named, you can see: 'Superior Crystal Sound'. I cannot describe it better than that. It was way "Superior", and it was "Crystal [clear] Sound" - that's only I can say.

Bass and Dynamics:
I have bass oriented system and I can say:
Tony Levin's bass guitar and kicking drums from three sets produced tremendous bass.
Track #7 'Hell Hounds...' is a less than 4 minutes triple drum solo track divided into 5 short parts.
I'm always very cautious with drum solo tracks - in most cases they're overdone. Not here: everything was done so tastefully, so masterfully good and in a right measure. Channels separation and mix was stunning. Regular CD showed speedy clean bass and low mid, but UHQ was even better - clearer.
Dynamics was equally excellent in both versions. I cranked the volume on this track very high - no distortion at all.

Right after triple drum solo track instrumental Track #8 'The CostruKtion of Light' started with bass guitar and intense solo guitar interplay with heavy drumming and flute, and (later) sax. It was a killer bass there. My first thought was - it is the best dynamically recorded track - so clear it was sound, when I went up to 65dB. It was solid joy to listen to. Track has an excellent stereo mix, I'd say "triple drumming" mix with a bit of delay - you can hear the first speaker while standing at the another one, but being in the middle, you are getting into the liquid smooth surround sound that is putting you in a front seat.
Regular disc sounded on the level with my best Reference and Demo discs. While UHQ was on the level of my reference SACDs with better separation and especially clarity.

Trebles: UHQ clarity of the trebles over the regular disc was obvious. However, UHQ is not a "silver bullet". In some places, where I caught a tiny bit of brightness in vocal, UHQ didn't fix it.

Separation and Soundstage:
The improvement in this field was an exemplary in the Track #4 'VROOM'. It's an instrumental track with a big variety of the instruments and sound, which jumps from heavy to gentle back and forth.
This composition started with heavy guitar and tenor sax in its lowest register. Then was sharp change to gentle solo guitar plus flute and quiet bass guitar joined in and sudden jump to heavy sound again. The airiness of the sound and separation between the instruments, I was looking for, were there.
So was such a thing in the Track #5 'Radical Action'. It's a heavy sounding track, but thanks to great separation, it did not sound as messy noise, rather easy on ear sound with a flute on a top.
Track #6 'Meltdown' started right on, without any break with striking clarity of vocal, fast and undistorted kicking drums in the middle and clean solo sax in the end. Did I mention deeper soundstage?
All these three tracks were enjoyable experience with superior sound quality over the regular CD. They passed so quickly that I started them over again with a great pleasure.

Disc 2: Again, whatever track I tried UHQ disc sound substantially better in terms of Transparency of the sound first of all, then Separation and Soundstage presentation.
Entire Live album was on a heavy side. But it was not irritating noisy heaviness, it was accessible and enjoyable heaviness due to amazing transparency of the sound - very rare thing.

Speaking of Platinum CDs, just recently, when I compared Pt HQCD King Crimson In the Court of... to non-Pt HQCD version, result was very similar with this one: obvious improvement in the Transparency, Separation and Soundstage. How big this improvement was? I said: 15-20%. The same I can say about UHQCD vs. Reg. CD.

I like this triple-drummer incarnation of the band. It is something... Special.
I like this new 2UHQCD Live album a lot and sound quality of it helps me to get into the King Crimson music deeper.
In one word: WOWOW!
I want to thank everyone who was involved in this new release... Those who dare to push the industry forward.

System used:

Player: Cary Audio 360 Pro SACD
Power amp: Coda Technologies KiloWatt Monoblocks
Preamp: Coda Technologies
Speakers: B&W Nautilus 802
Interconnects: Acoustic Zen Absolute Silver
Speaker Cables: Acoustic Zen Absolute Silver Shotgun










It is very sad that most people will die without hearing the difference between the SHM and the regular CD, between the silver and copper cable, between the handmade High-End and the regular mass market system.

 

Really?

 

Hi Kal, thanks for visiting this thread.

I always had mixed feelings about this matter.
On the one hand, people have rights to know, and I want to help them learn and feel the difference.
On the other hand, they lived their healthy and peaceful life, and suddenly they learned that there is something they never knew, and they might missed something in their life. They can worry too much, and their lives can turn into hell.

What can you tell about your opinion/experience with MQA?

 

I don't know what it is! I'll be content being a dinosaur luddite and stick with vinyl and CDs. I only listen to music at home anyway.

 

MQA, Ltd.=Meridian

 

Pointless.

 

Not exactly but how is it relevant?

 

You sure you want to do business with people who act like this?

 

Kent said it this fills the pockets of MQA, Ltd. and MQA was created by Meridian.

 

Of course it is - everyone knows, even horses.
But why should I care? I'm interesting how does it sound.
Can you tell?

 

I want to deal with people like this:




Hans Beekhuyzen is really the expert in the computer audio.

He is a member of our forum and can answer on any questions about a new gear and system set up.

MQA listening evaluation 2

 

These really are peoples' options of MQA
(right on a thread topic)

Latest from Hans on MQA gear: