MQA Sounds Really Good!

[Listen!]

It has become very affordable to compare MQA vs HDflac, DSD and even DXD. I hope amir will soon test the iFi ZEN DAC which costs just 145,- euro and is capable to play all stereo formats. Then go to this site, download real DXD, DSD, flac and MQA versions and listen

http://www.2l.no/hires/

One of the best articles about MQA is this one:

https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/mqa-time-domain-accuracy-digital-audio-quality

And this publication explains the differences between 1st (0 - 44 kHz) , 2nd (24 - 48 kHz) and 3rd fold (48 - 96 kHz) - unfolds of MQA
It is a complete misunderstanding that MQA is using only 1st unfolds and then apply upsampling. This is what software programs are doing which try to emulate the MQA algorithm. Unfortunately for them, the encoding and decoding of MQA is proprietary. MQA reported successful folding up to 16 times up to 24/768 kHz

https://www.jas-audio.or.jp/jas_cms/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/201509-008-019.pdf

Have fun!

 

[watchnerd]

MQA reported successful folding up to 16 times up to 24/768 kHz

And what is this good for?

Nyquist math makes that 384 kHz as the top end.

Human hearing doesn't really go above 20 kHz.

Heck, 16 kHz in my case.

 

[Eirikur]

It has become very affordable to compare MQA vs HDflac, DSD and even DXD. I hope amir will soon test the iFi ZEN DAC which costs just 145,- euro and is capable to play all stereo formats. Then go to this site, download real DXD, DSD, flac and MQA versions and listen

http://www.2l.no/hires/

One of the best articles about MQA is this one:

https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/mqa-time-domain-accuracy-digital-audio-quality

And this publication explains the differences between 1st (0 - 44 kHz) , 2nd (24 - 48 kHz) and 3rd fold (48 - 96 kHz) - unfolds of MQA
It is a complete misunderstanding that MQA is using only 1st unfolds and then apply upsampling. This is what software programs are doing which try to emulate the MQA algorithm. Unfortunately for them, the encoding and decoding of MQA is proprietary. MQA reported successful folding up to 16 times up to 24/768 kHz

https://www.jas-audio.or.jp/jas_cms/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/201509-008-019.pdf

Have fun!

You're exactly explaining what's wrong with MQA: I'd have to buy more hardware to get something that is already available without the hassle, while also robbing me of capabilities that I have right now like the ability to do DSP on the source material before I send it through a clean DAC & amplifier to get that signal into my speakers. And yes, I want the freedom to be a frugal when it comes to the audio chain.
Not possible with MQA - and, like any vendor lock-in, that is no fun at all

 

[KozmoNaut]

It has become very affordable to compare MQA vs HDflac, DSD and even DXD. I hope amir will soon test the iFi ZEN DAC which costs just 145,- euro and is capable to play all stereo formats. Then go to this site, download real DXD, DSD, flac and MQA versions and listen

http://www.2l.no/hires/

The main problem with MQA is that it is a black box. You send your audio to MQA Ltd. and they apply some kind of processing and MQA encoding, after which they send the files to you, and pinky promise that MQA made everything better.

But you have no way of finding out what they've done, whether they've applied some kind of EQ or even an expander or something.

To make an actual proper and fair comparison, you need to have access to the encoder, so you can be 100% sure of the provenance of the files you are listening to.

 

[solderdude]

One has files of a recording... sends them to Bob... pays him money and gets something back that can only be equal or less in quality but not better.

Who wins ?

Bob of course. That is the brilliance of MQA... and the consumer pays at the other end of the chain... also to Bob.
Its good to be Bob in the world of gullible hifi-enthusiasts.

 

[Jaysz]

Hows mqa different to hires downloads where they can be recorded on a tape or upsampled from 44.1khz
Then charge around £20 for an album

 

[BDWoody]

And what is this good for?

Nyquist math makes that 384 kHz as the top end.

Human hearing doesn't really go above 20 kHz.

Heck, 16 kHz in my case.

I was actually just reading that apparently moths have the ability to hear the highest frequencies so far measured, at up to 300khz for the wax moth. That lets them hear bat echolocation sounds...

How many mics could record that?

Some Dolphins are up in the 150khz range.

I thought cows going to 40khz was impressive.

 

[Wombat]

Hows mqa different to hires downloads where they can be recorded on a tape or upsampled from 44.1khz
Then charge around £20 for an album

You don't need to purchase proprietary decoding equipment.

 

[Listen!]

And what is this good for?

Nyquist math makes that 384 kHz as the top end.

Human hearing doesn't really go above 20 kHz.

Heck, 16 kHz in my case.

Indeed, our hearing is limited, but it is sensitive for higher bitrates since it decreases the influence of brick wall filters in the audible spectrum. Leaving out these higher frequencies is also detected by our hearing.

 

[Listen!]

The main problem with MQA is that it is a black box. You send your audio to MQA Ltd. and they apply some kind of processing and MQA encoding, after which they send the files to you, and pinky promise that MQA made everything better.

But you have no way of finding out what they've done, whether they've applied some kind of EQ or even an expander or something.

To make an actual proper and fair comparison, you need to have access to the encoder, so you can be 100% sure of the provenance of the files you are listening to.

answer: Yes, after encoding, the MQA master is signed off by the mastering engineer for authentication (blue light) if not, it the file will be recognized as MQA green light during playback.

 

[Listen!]

You're exactly explaining what's wrong with MQA: I'd have to buy more hardware to get something that is already available without the hassle, while also robbing me of capabilities that I have right now like the ability to do DSP on the source material before I send it through a clean DAC & amplifier to get that signal into my speakers. And yes, I want the freedom to be a frugal when it comes to the audio chain.
Not possible with MQA - and, like any vendor lock-in, that is no fun at all

answer: So either use normal flac only or use Dirac DSP which is compatible with MQA.

 

[Listen!]

One has files of a recording... sends them to Bob... pays him money and gets something back that can only be equal or less in quality but not better.

Who wins ?

Bob of course. That is the brilliance of MQA... and the consumer pays at the other end of the chain... also to Bob.
Its good to be Bob in the world of gullible hifi-enthusiasts.

answer: I am not interested in the business, just what it offers me to be honest. Like it, if not, use another format

 

[watchnerd]

Indeed, our hearing is limited, but it is sensitive for higher bitrates since it decreases the influence of brick wall filters in the audible spectrum. Leaving out these higher frequencies is also detected by our hearing.

1. You're mixing two different things. Bit rates (e.g. 24 bit) is not the same as sample rates.

2. Bit rates lower the noise floor / increase dynamic range. That doesn't have much to do with brick wall filters.

3. You don't need 768 kHz sample rates to use gentler filters. 96 kHz is plenty.

4. "Higher frequencies detected by our hearing" -- are you claiming humans have ultrasonic hearing like bats? By way, even bats only hear up to 250 kHz.

 

[Listen!]

1. You're mixing two different things. Bit rates (e.g. 24 bit) is not the same as sample rates.

2. Bit rates lower the noise floor / increase dynamic range. That doesn't have much to do with brick wall filters.

3. You don't need 768 kHz sample rates to use gentler filters. 96 kHz is plenty.

4. "Higher frequencies detected by our hearing" -- you're claiming humans have ultrasonic hearing like bats? By way, even bats only hear up to 250 kHz.

"The region marked ‘A’ is in the conventional audio band – we are responsive to tones up to 20 kHz. Region ‘B’ also contains music content, but none of that range is audible if heard in isolation; however elements in ‘B’ do contribute to the temporal resolution and sonic envelope; experience shows that removing these lowers fidelity. "

 

[solderdude]

I am not interested in the business, just what it offers me to be honest

What does it offer you ?

 

[Listen!]

What does it offer you ?

Lots of music sounding better than anything I heard before

 

[solderdude]

Uh huh

 

[BDWoody]

"The region marked ‘A’ is in the conventional audio band – we are responsive to tones up to 20 kHz. Region ‘B’ also contains music content, but none of that range is audible if heard in isolation; however elements in ‘B’ do contribute to the temporal resolution and sonic envelope; experience shows that removing these lowers fidelity. "

Can you tell me more about what experience shows this?

 

[LTig]

Indeed, our hearing is limited, but it is sensitive for higher bitrates since it decreases the influence of brick wall filters in the audible spectrum. Leaving out these higher frequencies is also detected by our hearing.

Uh huh.

 

[LTig]

answer: I am not interested in the business, just what it offers me to be honest. Like it, if not, use another format

As long as I have a choice - fine with me. But if they start to sell MQA-encoded music only I'll be no longer amused.