Archimago's MQA listening test results

[Thomas savage]

I think we're rapidly approaching peak DAC, if we haven't already hit it.

You don't need a standalone DAC if you're using active wireless speakers or, if passive, one of the new "super integrateds" that have network connections for streaming already built-in.

Separate DACs may become a retro thing, though, like tubes and vinyl. In fact, that's already happening with the resurrection of legacy DAC architectures like R2R/multibit.

But you need a MQA enabled DAC now, ya know with the reassuring special light that comes on .. ( was the point)

 

[watchnerd]

But you need a MQA enabled DAC now, ya know with the reassuring special light that comes in .. ( was the point)

Oh I'm sure MQA will find a way to stick their grubby paws in the playback chain even if a separate DAC isn't the route.

In fact, they already have --- the NAD M32 supports MQA over BluOS.

 

[Thomas savage]

Oh I'm sure MQA will find a way to stick their grubby paws in the playback chain even if a separate DAC isn't the route.

In fact, they already have --- the NAD M32 supports MQA over BluOS.

It's what makes the world go round, that and hair straighteners.

 

[Don Hills]

[cough]GHD[cough]

 

[krabapple]

Thanks. I didn't expect that final report to come out so quick.

Looking at it, someone needs to teach him how to post graphs online. I can't read most of them. But the conclusion is clear:

"At least we can say the MQA version achieves the same sound as a 24-bit Hi-Res PCMversion in a data-compressed package. Depending on which of the 3 tracks, I'm seeing that the MQA file is 60-70% the size of the original 24/88 or 24/96 downsample (remember that MQA Core only unfolds to these 2X samplerates, the rest is upsampling to the "original" samplerate)."

To people who say MQA is lossy, they lost their case here. MQA is providing similar fidelity to PCM at lower data rates/file sizes.

Hah, well, that's one way to chalk it as a 'win' for MQA. Others might say, why bother?

And MQA is still lossy, just not *audibly* so. Which is very often the case for plain old mp3/AAC lossy perceptual compression too. So again, what's the point of MQA?

 

[mitchco]

Hah, well, that's one way to chalk it as a 'win' for MQA. Others might say, why bother?

And MQA is still lossy, just not *audibly* so. Which is the very often case for plain old mp3/AAC lossy perceptual compression too. So again, what's the point of MQA?

 

[Wayne]

Streaming platforms accounting for 62 percent of the total market for the first half of 2017,

http://www.prosoundnetwork.com/business/riaa-reports-signs-of-recovery/47927

"Total revenues from streaming platforms, accounting for 62 percent of the total market for the first half of 2017, were up 48 percent to $2.5 billion. Revenues from sales of digital tracks and albums, however, continued to decline. Overall digital download revenues were $757 million, down 24 percent to compared to the first half of 2016. Digital downloads, the best-selling format until as recently as 2015, accounted for only 19 percent of total industry revenues."

 

[ceedee]

I would assume that there must be a great number of people doing high-resolution streaming for this to be a "problem" that has to be "solved."

 

[Ken Newton]

...So again, what's the point of MQA?

As far as I can ascertain, the primary performance objective of MQA is the prioritization of the audio channel for the time-domain. Meaning, reducing music transient smearing due to brickwall anti-alias and anti-image filtering.

 

[tr1ple6]

I would assume that there must be a great number of people doing high-resolution streaming for this to be a "problem" that has to be "solved."

If that is MQA's unique selling point then it is doomed to failure. Bandwidth is so cheap now that people easily stream 1080p or even 4k video files that are much larger than the average hires music file without any hiccups.

 

[Palladium]

If that is MQA's unique selling point then it is doomed to failure. Bandwidth is so cheap now that people easily stream 1080p or even 4k video files that are much larger than the average hires music file without any hiccups.

The bandwidth is only insignificant for land-based connections. 200kbps per hour every day on mobile is likely to make users hit the data cap each month as most carriers around the world are stingy assholes.

 

[tr1ple6]

The bandwidth is only insignificant for land-based connections. 200kbps per hour every day on mobile is likely to make users hit the data cap each month as most carriers around the world are stingy assholes.

Limited data only serves as another negative against the usage case for MQA. I doubt many people with low data caps are streaming regular mp3's to their devices let alone hires audio. Add that to the extra cost of an MQA enabled device and the argument for it gets weaker. For MQA to gain mass acceptance it must either be better, cheaper or more convenient. Is it?

 

[svart-hvitt]

Limited data only serves as another negative against the usage case for MQA. I doubt many people with low data caps are streaming regular mp3's to their devices let alone hires audio. Add that to the extra cost of an MQA enabled device and the argument for it gets weaker. For MQA to gain mass acceptance it must either be better, cheaper or more convenient. Is it?

Let’s get the facts straight: MQA is targeted to the corporate sector, labels and possibly streamers (lower cost?).

Take a look at the MQA shareholders. Big labels are already onboard (streamers are not). Probably given shares for free, but correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[RayDunzl]

Big labels are already onboard (streamers are not).

These don't count?

 

[svart-hvitt]

View attachment 8873

These don't count?

Labels are MQA shareholders.

Streamers are not.

Owning shares align a certain set of interests.

 

[tr1ple6]

Let’s get the facts straight: MQA is targeted to the corporate sector, labels and possibly streamers (lower cost?).

Take a look at the MQA shareholders. Big labels are already onboard (streamers are not). Probably given shares for free, but correct me if I’m wrong.

I was talking about the end user adoption. If given a choice, why would anyone purchase the MQA version of a hires file? Why would a manufacturer pay extra to have their gear MQA certified? Surely the cost of certification has to be passed along to the end user. So it's not cheaper. I just don't see the benefits besides compressing the signal to for bandwidth reasons.

 

[svart-hvitt]

I was talking about the end user adoption. If given a choice, why would anyone purchase the MQA version of a hires file? Why would a manufacturer pay extra to have their gear MQA certified? Surely the cost of certification has to be passed along to the end user. So it's not cheaper. I just don't see the benefits besides compressing the signal to for bandwidth reasons.

Agree, there is no apparent value in MQA for the end user. End user ends (sic!) up paying something for nothing.

Let’s get the rationale of MQA straight too:

MQA is majority owned by Muse Holdings and Reinet Investments. They have the same owner, and Muse owns Meridian.

Reinet is listed in Luxembourg with twin-listing in South-Africa. Reinet is owned and controlled by the Rupert family, one of the richest in South-Africa.

The biggest investment of Reinet, which makes out well over 3/4 of Reinet’s market value, is British American Tobacco. Today, Johann Rupert runs Reinet. His father, Anton, started the tobacco business. Big tobacco has a long history of deception («nicotine is not addictive» etc.) and their money making has had big negative external costs for many individuals and the society at large.

Rupert aim to convert and transform their tobacco money by divesting into new ventures. MQA is one such attempt of making tobacco money shine in new clothing. A look at Reinet’s share price indicates that the attempt to get out of tobacco has been little successful till now.

It’s up to every thinking man to judge if the Rupert family has a strong record of ethics, socially responsible investing and if MQA is a clear break with big tobacco’s track record of deception and setting their own money interests only before all else.

By the way, the Rupert family is also well known for their philanthropy. Maybe MQA is philanthropy.

 

[Ken Newton]

I was talking about the end user adoption. If given a choice, why would anyone purchase the MQA version of a hires file? Why would a manufacturer pay extra to have their gear MQA certified? Surely the cost of certification has to be passed along to the end user. So it's not cheaper. I just don't see the benefits besides compressing the signal to for bandwidth reasons.

The unique performance benefit for users is that MQA is a format which prioritizes the time-domain. Meaning, is engineered to focus on reducing transient blurring. Time-domain prioritization is also eaily done via High-Res PCM, except that there isn't an industry requirement/standard for that. Instead, the digital music industry is focused on maximizing flat signal bandwidth.

While individual mastering engineers are free to optimize a given High-Res PCM release for the time-domain, that would only optimize the mastering end of the chain. MQA is architected as an end-to-end system, intended to optimize the channel time-domain from mastering through playback.

All the above said, it doesn't necessarily mean transient blurring in digital audio is audible. Of course, Meridian believes it is audible. Audiophiles owe it to ourselves to find out what we hear with our own ears.

 

[Jinjuku]

The unique performance benefit for users is that MQA is a format which prioritizes the time-domain. Meaning, is engineered to focus on reducing transient blurring. Time-domain prioritization is also eaily done via High-Res PCM, except that there isn't an industry requirement/standard for that. Instead, the digital music industry is focused on maximizing flat signal bandwidth.

While individual mastering engineers are free to optimize a given High-Res PCM release for the time-domain, that would only optimize the mastering end of the chain. MQA is architected as an end-to-end system, intended to optimize the channel time-domain from mastering through playback.

All the above said, it doesn't necessarily mean transient blurring in digital audio is audible. Of course, Meridian believes it is audible. Audiophiles owe it to ourselves to find out what we hear with our own ears.

Yep, and Archimago just performed such an endeavor and it shows people are guessing.

 

[Ken Newton]

Yep, and Archimago just performed such an endeavor and it shows people are guessing.

I've already offered some thoughts on Archimago's thread over at audio-asylum. Not about the subjective audibility of transient blurring, but on what constitues a fair test of MQA. For example, it actually is not a fair test to utilize identically mastered tracks for a comparison with High-Res PCM. Identically mastered tracks would serve more to obscure any advantages of MQA rather than to reveal them.