-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Questions about MQA
- Thread starter righthookmike
- Start date
Personally Im stopping to use Tidal and sticking to Qobuz only for hi-res.
MQA is pure marketing scam!
That’s what I like about MQA, it provides a lot of fascinating content like this video
It's just a regurgitation of the same old lies.
There is only one way to understand MQA - read how it works:
AES E-Library » A Hierarchical Approach to Archiving and Distribution
When recording, the ideal is to capture a performance so that the highest possible sound quality can be recovered from the archive. While an archive has no hard limit on the quantity of data assignable to that information, in distribution the data deliverable depends on application-specific...
It is just a simplified overview, e.g. MQA does not use triangle sampling and linear interpolation but spline functions. However, it gives the basic principles. Once you understand those, you can see why some recent tests on MQA failed - they deliberately put sounds outside the triangle MQA expects to find them in. And immediately you see claims it is lossless is not valid. However, 0-20khz is 16 bit lossless and has quite advanced dithering making the 16 bits effectively closer to 19 or 20 - but dithering has been used for many years now - it is not peculiar to MQA. That said, the marketing spiel around it is rather 'nauseating'. You either like it, or you don't. I like it but know plenty who do not. It has a highly transparent sort of metallic sheen to my ears, while the original recordings are warmer but slightly hazy in comparison. Just my view. I think you can get a bit too caught up in this stuff - I stream all my music over Tidal these days, even though I have a disk full of music, some of which to my ears sounds better than Tidal - but not by much.
Thanks
Bill
It's got to say something when even audiophilestyle (which is hardly the most objective site)and a company like Linn (who basically exist to part audiophools from lots of cash) are questioning it.
At best MQA is an answer looking for a question, more likely it is an attempt to make $$$$$$$$s from what is effectively a scam
At best MQA is an answer looking for a question, more likely it is an attempt to make $$$$$$$$s from what is effectively a scam
The question is, why do high res masters sound better even though you can't hear above 20khz? Most hear less - but that is the max. MQA claims the reason is time smear. It gets smaller as the sampling rate gets higher. In fact, with a law of diminishing returns, 96k sounds better than 48k, 192k better than 96k etc., all the way up to many Mhz. I am not arguing if it is true or not - I am merely saying what they believe. They designed MQA to reduce time smear to a minimum - see figure 12 of the following:
MQA Time-domain Accuracy & Digital Audio Quality
Even at high sample rates, standard PCM audio ‘smears’ important timing information. A new digital format, MQA, promises vastly improved time-domain accuracy — without the huge file sizes.
It is much smaller than the time smear for even 192k material.
That is their explanation. Rob Watts, however, has a different view. Despite the credentials of its originators, he thinks they misunderstand sampling theory. Shannons sampling theorem says if you use a sinc filter, you can reconstruct a bandlimited signal precisely. So all you do to reduce time smear is upsample, with a properly designed sinc filter to some high frequency. Problem solved. That is what he does in his DAC's.
I have a Chord M-Scaler and TT2 and have to say it sounds good. Better than MQA? Only you can decide that by listening. If MQA is correct, there is no use sampling above 96k because they think it is nothing but noise above 50khz. If I remember correctly, Rob said he puts a 50k filter in his DAC's for that reason.
Thanks
Bill
No, the real question is: do they?
Wonder if what hi-fi are hiring.
Only if someone does more than make the claim. No evidence so far that's true.
And the answer to that is simple: no.
JRS
Major Contributor
It's nothing but a smokescreen--there is no legitimate evidence to support the claim. But it provides a clever rationale for needing/wanting it--because after all, thats the only claim that can be made--timing, and in the microsecond range at that. Heck we can't even demonstrate that time alignment down to centimeters makes a difference which at 345m/s, one cm has a TOF about 30 microseconds corresponding to a sampling rate of 33kHz. I tell you there are bats in the belfry--and shrewd bats at that. One of the bigger grifts in history.
Last edited:
audio2design
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2020
- Messages
- 1,769
- Likes
- 1,831
One of the companies that does high quality recordings (name escapes me) did a big test with pure 24 bit and truncated 24 bit (underlying 16). Their audience could tell no difference. Perhaps someone could remember who that was and link to it. It was in the last 2 or 3 years.
Last edited:
You're probably thinking of Mark Waldrep.
audio2design
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2020
- Messages
- 1,769
- Likes
- 1,831
That should have been audience not audio
JRS
Major Contributor
He talks about it at length here: https://www.ecoustics.com/podcasts/mark-waldrep-interview-episode-8/
about 23 minutes into the interview. Long story short, no you can't, provided the music was originally captured at 96/24. And he goes on to state that the excess bandwidth/bit depth is just security from clipping and to avoid filtering artifacts.
about 23 minutes into the interview. Long story short, no you can't, provided the music was originally captured at 96/24. And he goes on to state that the excess bandwidth/bit depth is just security from clipping and to avoid filtering artifacts.
audio2design
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2020
- Messages
- 1,769
- Likes
- 1,831
Thank you that was exactly what I could not remember:
"Mark Waldrep's listening tests | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum" https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/mark-waldreps-listening-tests.14586/
"Mark Waldrep's listening tests | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum" https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/mark-waldreps-listening-tests.14586/
steve59
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2019
- Messages
- 1,023
- Likes
- 736
Having invested steeply it's most certain that the improvement I hear in 24/192 and up are purely imagined. I read so much flat out hostility towards MQA that even tho' I may be its only supporter the fact is the background is quieter allowing for a more transparent presentation. It's very simple to test for yourself. Listen in 16/44 flac and then the same track in 24/192 MQA and if you can't hear a difference then you're right. I can and I pay the extra for it monthly.
JRS
Major Contributor
Must listening if you care--he goes on to take task with highend cables, AC cords and all the usual audiophoolery. A breath of fresh air. Also points to several god labels/producers believe in the same ethic: no compression, SOTA mics, a keen ear and a love of music. Also a huge fan of multichannel--convinced me of the need.
audio2design
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2020
- Messages
- 1,769
- Likes
- 1,831
