MQA: A Review of controversies, concerns, and cautions

[EchoChamber]

Not at your end, no. Did you match levels? The effects you describe could be caused by a simple level difference, not to mention different eq (in the MQA process) or even different master...

Nothing very scientific, I let Amir handle that aspect. He’s much better equipped and knowledgeable. Just listening to a track, and then again in MQA and back and forth a few times and finally settling with MQA. Volume could vary a little in both cases. I might crank up the CD ripped version and see if it improves on what I felt I was missing comparing with the MQA version.

Now, one other interesting thing I observed, but to be honest I didn’t spend too much time subjectively analyzing it, is that some Tidal Master tracks played through my Modius (non MQA) could sound worst than their Tidal non-master 16/44 version (when available - Roon makes it easy to find other versions of the same album). That could be related to different compression algorithms, not sure. Just something I subjectively observed.

 

[Julf]

Nothing very scientific, I let Amir handle that aspect. He’s much better equipped and knowledgeable. Just listening to a track, and then again in MQA and back and forth a few times and finally settling with MQA. Volume could vary a little in both cases.

So pretty much just subjective, unverified perception, right?

 

[majingotan]

So pretty much just subjective, unverified perception, right?

That's why MQA's branding, cool colored logo is a marketing genius idea . Seeing your DAC spits out that logo on its display while performaing sighted listening adds extra perception to our listening experience (perception bias of course).

 

[EchoChamber]

So pretty much just subjective, unverified perception, right?

Or you could say it is real world usage of the feature. Are we expecting users to A/B test everything? Maybe, I don’t know. I for one just want things to sound as transparent as possible but also give me some aural stimulation. If I perceive MQA as enhancing that last aspect, I’m likely to adopt it.

 

[EchoChamber]

That's why MQA's branding, cool colored logo is a marketing genius idea . Seeing your DAC spits out that logo on its display while performaing sighted listening adds extra perception to our listening experience (perception bias of course).

I’m afraid the D90 MQA doesn’t do much in promoting the MQA logo. Especially at 2 to 3 meters away from my listening position. I also tend to close my eyes when I want to give full attention to the music.

 

[tmtomh]

I'm increasingly convinced that high-res sounds more or less identical to CD/redbook quality as a format. (And my totally negative views on MQA in particular are well-documented earlier in this thread.)

The one benefit I do see to high-res is based on what @firedog notes above: If one can get digital music in the same bit depth and sample rate it was originally mastered in, that's a nice benefit because you avoid an additional dithering and/or resampling step - particularly because virtually all PCM material mastered in high-res is mastered at 96kHz or some multiple thereof, and so it has to be subjected to non-integer resampling to get down to a 44.1kHz sample rate.

It's certainly not a big deal, as modern sample-rate converters do an excellent job of it.

But if you run a null test on a 96k original and a downsampled 44.1k version of that original, the difference file does not sound like random noise, and it's not usually way down at -90dB or something - it typically sounds exactly like music, and its peaks can be as high as approx. -50dB.

Now, I've rarely if ever been able to discern which was which in a direct A/B comparison - and even when I've heard (or thought I heard) a slight difference, I've never had a strong feeling about which was better. But since the two versions are demonstrably different - since you can generate a difference file that is clearly audible in and of itself even if that difference is 99-100% masked in an A/B comparison - I would, if given the choice, prefer the original resolution in order to avoid that extra step that alters the data.

This is also a simple version of the main reason I think MQA is ridiculous: it adds destructive, unnecessary processing to the original files - you're being asked to pay a price premium for something that has intentionally and demonstrably reduced fidelity.

 

[EchoChamber]

I'm increasingly convinced that high-res sounds more or less identical to CD/redbook quality as a format. (And my totally negative views on MQA in particular are well-documented earlier in this thread.)

I think the format in itself will never be the assurance of a good recording. We’re talking about the output format and not the whole process that went into capturing sound waves and converting into a format that can be reproduced in a different space and time.

But I do think we should promote higher resolution format whether our present hardware can or not show us the advantages of it. Setting a high standard would let us focus on what’s really important which is the performance and the recording quality.

I understand MQA is not a lossless format. I just see it as a compression algorithm.

 

[SIY]

But I do think we should promote higher resolution format whether our present hardware can or not show us the advantages of it. Setting a high standard would let us focus on what’s really important which is the performance and the recording quality.

The issue isn’t hardware, it’s human hearing capability.

 

[Julf]

Or you could say it is real world usage of the feature.

Yes, marketing is everything.

Are we expecting users to A/B test everything?

Expecting? No. But if users want us to take their claims as anything more than subjective perceptions and beliefs, then they should provide some sort of evidence and confirmaation.

If I perceive MQA as enhancing that last aspect, I’m likely to adopt it.

Does the word "placebo" ring a bell?

 

[Thunder240]

The one benefit I do see to high-res is based on what @firedog notes above: If one can get digital music in the same bit depth and sample rate it was originally mastered in, that's a nice benefit because you avoid an additional dithering and/or resampling step - particularly because virtually all PCM material mastered in high-res is mastered at 96kHz or some multiple thereof, and so it has to be subjected to non-integer resampling to get down to a 44.1kHz sample rate.

It's certainly not a big deal, as modern sample-rate converters do an excellent job of it.

But if you run a null test on a 96k original and a downsampled 44.1k version of that original, the difference file does not sound like random noise, and it's not usually way down at -90dB or something - it typically sounds exactly like music, and its peaks can be as high as approx. -50dB.
...
This is also a simple version of the main reason I think MQA is ridiculous: it adds destructive, unnecessary processing to the original files - you're being asked to pay a price premium for something that has intentionally and demonstrably reduced fidelity.

Yes!

When you subtract one from the other, if the difference is anything other than random noise, they are different, and that conclusion is true whether or not you or anyone else can tell them apart in a double blind, leveled A/B.

Given that, my goal is to listen to the studio master, or barring that, the version whose difference is as close to random noise as I can get. And it appears clear that this isn’t MQA!

 

[Thomas savage]

I ordered a MQA mixed shish kebab from Bob's kebab house, I got Donna meat and some chilli sauce I never asked for .

There was a lot of Donna meat and apparently there's all sorts of animals in it so technically it's mixed and indeed provides superior variation to the shish that's just lamb and chicken.

 

[Julf]

But I do think we should promote higher resolution format whether our present hardware can or not show us the advantages of it.

Why? And where do you draw the line? 64 bits at 5 MHz?

 

[BDWoody]

I ordered a MQA mixed shish kebab from Bob's kebab house, I got Donna meat and some chilli sauce I never asked for .

There was a lot of Donna meat and apparently there's all sorts of animals in it so technically it's mixed and indeed provides superior variation to the shish that's just lamb and chicken.

Was there a blue light that came on with each bite to let you know how awesome it was?

 

[Thunder240]

No AirPlay here, I deeply dislike all aspects of the way Apple sets up it's "ecosystem." Amazon HD works perfectly with both my regular PC setup, my phone, and BluOs.

There it is.

Part of the money you paid to Bluesound for whatever piece of their equipment you bought has gone to cover their licensing arrangement with Amazon. Now, if you like your Bluesound gear, and you would have bought it anyway, then this isn’t a problem. But if you would have bought some other streamer/transport/storage/DAC/preamp but were swayed to buy the Bluesound device because it offers access to Amazon, they got you with their closed API.

I’m glad you like Amazon HD, and that you don’t feel you compromised your system to get it. Me, I chose gear that I felt offered a different value proposition (after having considered the Bluesound Blue Node 2i and the Denon HEOS Link, both of which pay the Amazon tax), and I stream music from Qobuz in part because I support the fact that they support open source, namely BubbleUPnP.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Not sure I get that. The price for hi-res downloads with Sublime is often/usually less than the price of a CD. I just checked one new album: $14,99 hi res download from Sublime, 27.50 for triple CD from Amazon, not including shipping. Another was $9.99 for hi-res from Qobuz sublime, $14.99 for CD from Amazon.
Another, available only in Redbook, was $8.99 from Qobuz, $14.00 for CD from Amazon. Maybe you can get the CD's for less, I doubt you can get them for less than the Qobuz prices. I don't have them available to me anywhere locally, and having them shipped seems wasteful - and is more expensive.

Qobuz Studio that includes hi-res is $149 a year. Sublime+ is now $249 a year.

If you are buying albums regularly, Sublime+ is a good deal. You make up that $100 bucks easily.

I don't buy music files any more.
Even though I was an early adopter almost 20 years ago (I travelled a lot for business and an iPod was a lot lighter than a portable CD player and discs) I don't like playing from a computer at home.
I also don't much like the strict legal situation that I own my CDs but the license to play the music from files I have bought can not be legally transferred to my heirs, etc.
I buy the CD if I like the music, usually second hand, there are plenty of people (illegally) selling CDS they have ripped.

 

[Thomas savage]

Was there a blue light that came on with each bite to let you know how awesome it was?

Don't know , I was intoxicated.

 

[SIY]

There it is.

Part of the money you paid to Bluesound for whatever piece of their equipment you bought has gone to cover their licensing arrangement with Amazon. Now, if you like your Bluesound gear, and you would have bought it anyway, then this isn’t a problem. But if you would have bought some other streamer/transport/storage/DAC/preamp but were swayed to buy the Bluesound device because it offers access to Amazon, they got you with their closed API.

I’m glad you like Amazon HD, and that you don’t feel you compromised your system to get it. Me, I chose gear that I felt offered a different value proposition (after having considered the Bluesound Blue Node 2i and the Denon HEOS Link, both of which pay the Amazon tax), and I stream music from Qobuz in part because I support the fact that they support open source, namely BubbleUPnP.

I was using Amazon HD with my laptop and phone to feed my system before I got the BlueSound gear. So I’m afraid this is an invalid line of “reasoning.”

 

[EchoChamber]

Who knew, CD "Pure, Perfect Sound-Forever" came true after all...

 

[Frank Dernie]

Who knew, CD "Pure, Perfect Sound-Forever" came true after all...

It was actually true at the beginning despite being (successfully) attacked by wealthy companies who had inferior products to shift and no technology to make CD players.

 

[EchoChamber]