Thanks Hans, great video. I’ve been amazed how good MQA is compared with vinyl, and I never thought I’d hear anything better than vinyl. To me, vinyl sounds natural, but MQA sounds 3D. It’s quite startling sometimes: my daughter was playing an MQA track in her bedroom and I thought it was her playing her ukulele and singing. I still like listening to vinyl, but MQA is joyful. It is also turning me on to new music: contemporary jazz in particular, whereas until now I’ve listened mainly to 1950s and 60s jazz. I have a NAD368 amp with BluOS 2i module. My daughter has a Blusound Pulse Flex 2i speaker.
Thanks Hans for three intresting videos on MQA. As an avid audiophile and a Meridian owner i was really looking forward to hearing the benefits of MQA. After doing several listening test i have yet failed to hear any major improvement in sound when comparing MQA to other hi-res material. I have often found that MQA sounds different. But different is not the same as better. To me MQA sounds more like engineering feat and something that makes sense to the recording industry. For me as a consumer i cant see any benefits of investing further in any euqipment that supports MQA. And if i as a consumer dont experience any benefits in sound there is reason for me to buy MQA files or gear. I think this is the tradgedy of MQA. And that MQA files take up lesser space is not much of a issue today with more and more ppl getting access to high speed broadband. And a small file size is not important either if you store your music locally as i do. Hard drives offer larger capacity to reasonable prices. And on a final note i think that a solution that need two videos on explaining the benefits osnt a very good solution.
The explanation took two videos since it's aimed at audiophiles that want to know what's going on. The average consumer simplicia be told it offers higher audio quality in smaller files and with guaranteed integrity. And it's the only way currently to get Hi-res files from a streaming service. Two sentences, not bad ay?
Hans - great video! Well though out and eloquently explained. I think complaints of DRM arise from the fact that only MQA can supply the code to unpack the hi-res content of an audio stream. Think of it this way: ANYONE can make a record player. ANYONE can make a DSD decoder. ANYONE can make hi-res PCM DAC? Only MQA can 'make' the code available that is necessary to unpack hi-res content. You or I cannot start a company that offers an alternative MQA playback solution that is completely independent of the format's originator (as we can with DSD or PCM or vinyl). Is the implication not then that MQA has the say so on who and who cannot play back hi-res audio from an MQA-encoded file? Does that make sense?
Hi John, Well, you can make a DSD decoder if you are a licensee, the same goes DSD and for MQA. The only difference is that MQA is owned by one company as where the DSD license is owned by many big companies. That means that when MQA causes trouble for big companies, they will be sued into its grave. The other way around is very unlikely. ....I think...
Hi Hans, Love your videos, thank you so much for taking the time to create this content! Can you please go into some more detail on what Bob Stuart refers as the ‘encapsulation’ process during the 1st and 2nd fold of the ‘musical origami’, specifically: - Are both steps lossless, in the conventional understanding of the world. That is are they reversible? Can we get the exact same reproduction of the data out of the ‘encapsulated’ form when we unfold it, or is it an approximation? - In the 2nd fold the one that pivots on the 48kHz vertical, sometimes some musical information is found in that part of the spectrum, the yellow music triangle in the graph sometimes has a small edge in that area. Bob Stuart has mentioned that in this case MQA encoders will use algorithms to encode this music. What are these? Are they reversible? Here we are no longer dealing with just noise, but actual musical information. Base question is: are the 2 encapsulation steps reversible or lossy? In this context lossy is a stateless and _reversible_mathematical function: f(a) = b and f’(b) = a. Then f and f’ are a reversible, lossless process. Do the 1st and 2nd encapsulation steps have this property? Would be really keen to hear your insight into this. Thank you, Ioannis
FPGAs are field programmable gate arrays. This would be firmware or software programmed chips in Digital to Analog converters that could be reprogrammed after purchase. Is that close enough?
Hello Hans. I'm intrigued with MQA. I also love vinyl. At the end of the day, will MQA analogue playback quality be equal, better or not quite as good as an analogue vinyl pressing? If I had a choice, between an MQA or Vinyl version of an album what would be the end differences given I would invest in an MQA decoder to fully unfold the MQA and play it through the same preMQA amp and speakers as the vinyl? Thank you! Steve
This is a question that can't be answered objectively. Many find 'normal' PCM already better than vinyl while others find the reverse. That is something I can't explain without speculations. I myself like good digital as much as good vinyl. Within digital I think that MQA really is superior to non-MQA but I have heard only four DAC's and there is only limited software available in both HrRes PCM and MQA that is guaranteed to be mastered from the same master. And even then settings on the MQA encoder might not be the settings that I would prefer (if they do have that much influence - something I don't know either). MQA files, decoded by a good MQA decoder/DAC can of course be played through your existing system. Whether that will give an optimal result, I can't tell, of course. But I consider MQA to be an extremely promising technology. That's why I investigated so much time in it.
I agree - I find MQA very promising too. Thanks for trying to answer my question! One of the things that was said about music recorded for MQA is that it heightens temporal placement - it's like being there, sounds have a distance to them. Is that something that is already present in vinyl pressings but has previously been lost in digital translation?
Well, now you're opening a can of worms:-) All current vinyl is mastered from digital sources, often only the same source as used for cd. It is then fed to a limiter and a device that makes the low end mono(!) to be able to cut it. Those records still sound good but must have lost the same as the CD. Interesting, isn't it?
Wish I knew if Ayre will be able to and will update my Codex D/A converter to MQA. The same concern applies to my PONO, also made by Ayre. I don't mind purchasing a Meridian Explorer 2 if that is where i need to go to get MQA. I also wonder if the TIDAL MQA app on my Macintosh computer will be a standalone MQA decoder with the anticipated new Tidal version or will I need the Explorer 2 or other D/A. Thank you Hans for clearing up the mysteries of audio for so many people. You are a talented and kind gifted audio evangelist.
Is the following setup can produce full decoding of MQA . Latest iPhone, IFI DIABLO, Focal clear mg and a tidal new version so is this system will do pure moa from tidal ? Or I have to buy a computer . Thanks
Hi Hans This isn't a new post, but I just noticed it. www.audiostream.com/content/ps-audios-paul-mcgowan-weighs-mqa PS Audio's Paul McGowan Weighs In On MQA Here's Paul McGowan from the PS Audio Forum: "So far MQA decoding has only been worse and that has not changed. We suspect (as do they) that it’s because the tricks they’re using with filters to try and make the sound better (closer to the original source material in their parlance) screws with our own in the DAC. They then suggest they need to tune their decoder to our filters for best results. "If that’s all true then we’re out. As you’ve seen with Torreys, Ted and the engineers continue to improve the state of the art with digital filters on a regular basis - and one of the whole reasons we went to an FPGA based DAC in the first place was the freedom to improve the product’s performance over time. If we were restricted in what we could to future developments, held back because everything in the USB chain had to be 'fixed' by the MQA engineers first… that would be nuts. "They’ve never said that has to be so and I am merely speculating as we wait for an answer. "I too wish they’d just release this as software so the compressed file could be decoded and leave the DAC design to us." This raises an interesting point, which Paul states very clearly, "...one of the whole reasons we went to an FPGA based DAC in the first place was the freedom to improve the product’s performance over time." For those DAC designers who stick to off-the-shelf chip-based digital filters and D/A conversion, MQA may very well be an easy add-on and improvement. But for those companies who choose to roll their own digital processing like PS Audio, Schiit, Ayre Acoustics, Playback Designs, Chord, etc, MQA may introduce restrictions and dependencies on MQA into their design process that some may not be willing to take on. Time will tell. Any comments?
I think it will be hard(er) to implement MQA in FPGA DAC's. With off the shelf DAC chips it's rather easy since the important work is done by MQA. Manufacturers like PS Audio and Chord already offer low time smearing as a result of their long filters. I can imagine that these companies don't like to invest heavy into something they already approached quite closely from another side. Whether the same can be achieved as with MQA is hard to say. You can't just insert the MQA magic into the FPGA DAC's. So what's there to say?
Hi Hans, I have two questions I would like to ask you. If you could, how much influence would the analog stage (amplifier and speakers) and acoustics of a listening room have on the sound in comparison with the influence of the DAC you think? How those MQA keep "authentication" when multi tracking is done in different time on different ADC's? Thanks for your time.
To what extend each component has its influence is hard to answer, that is down to the individual qualities of the components relative to each other. Only acoustics might be slightly different since our brain can interpret acoustics and so eliminate the smaller errors. RE MQA: dit you watch my videos on MQA? See th-cam.com/video/r_wxRGiBoJg/w-d-xo.html
Thanks for answering that quick Hans. Let me rephrase my first question. Would you think changes (for good or worse) in the analog domain would have a 50% effect in relation to changes in a DAC? Or could you agree that moving a speaker (or your head) 10cm has more effect on sound then any DAC change? I understand high-res audio but the explanation (if I'm right) in this video (and on other sites of MQA) is that the faults in the ADC process are taking in account with MQA authentication. I'm just wondering how they do that if the recording is done with multi take sessions with different ADC (which is quite common these day's)?
Again such situational explicit answers are impossible to answer. I know you seek security but there is non to give. Did you really see the MQA videos? It's a mix of knowing what equipment was used and analysing the audio signal in an unrevealed way.
Thanks again for reacting Hans. In my opinion (I know, it's mine) knowing what equipment was used and analyzing the audio signal, sounds interesting but if this signal is later edited (maybe more then we like) in mixing and mastering it's no more than a lot of technical bla bla. Even more as in this editing process there are seldom ADC's used. In my opinion (again) if they just make great sounding (sonically) masters they would sound great in any digital format. Don't blame the format if the source is bad. Still, thanks for your information.
Techniques beyond your (of my) comprehension are not necessarily BS. The proof of the pudding is in the eating and judged on listening I would say that MQA has a strong point. Did you carefully evaluated MQA through listening?
off topic but i have arcam a39 amp vpi scout jr and clear audio cartridge. 1200 $ cartridge. would i get better sound quality with separate phono pre amp i was looking at the Clearaudio - Basic Phono Stage Plus
Hi Hans Thanks for your usual quality review. I know you work hard on these, and it shows. Premature ejaculation? Good (& humorous) analogy :) Keep this up and you'll lose your phlegmatic reputation. As far as Bob Stuart's DRM "promise". Maybe. It does give us reason to be hopeful. But I think music purveyors never learn, and I could see them wanting to re-institute DRM. How much money would it take to break Stuart's promise? Also, who owns or controls MQA Limited? That person/entity would have the final say about MQA DRM. What I have noticed in my decades on this earth, is that good things happen in leaps, fits and starts. Then they slowly deteriorate, until another leap. Happy Memorial Day to the Yanks. Europeans should also be grateful to all who made the ultimate sacrifice, not just Americans. We can still be free to obsess over trivial matters, such as high-res files, MQA and DRM.
Hi Brian, there have been more humorous remarks but they mostly remain unnoticed or uncommented. And you surely don't want to see my choleric side;-). All jokes aside, I have a radio head but luckily my viewers can live with it. As far as MQA is concerned: I remain optimistic until it is proven that I was wrong.
absolutely! As long as you see the blue light it's MQA. If you don't see a dark blue light or a green light, you need to set the music player on your computer to lossless by switching off upsampling and volume control by software.
this doesnt really make to much sense? and created more questions then it answers so whats the bit rate !? sampling freq!?! and file type of MQA? is it a PCM or DSD? is it a WAV or FLAC or is it its own new file type!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Well, if you would start with the first video on this subject and also watch the other ones, perhaps you might understand it th-cam.com/play/PLMbsmejHnP8EPHNgxSxrVvQi7-dW7gm9o.html
MQA has one big disadvantage: it is not compatible with Replay Gain and DSP processing. From my perspective the bigest advantage is the compact size, and the MQA should be unpacked to standard PCM in the player not in the DAC, because You loose all the flexibility of Your player/streamer. The best option would be to even dcode the signal in the dlna server, this gives the best flexibility. That is why people are asking when Roon will decode MQA. MQA compatible DAC maybe gives some extra quality and asurance but You loose all the flexibility of the rest of Your equipment, and it forces You to treat MQA files in different way as the stanard FLAC. So it looks Meridaian combined to much, I agree with Linn, the idea is great, but the Meridian implementation is bad, sonner or later someone will invite better codec, and it would be better if it does not came from hardware manufacturer. If Roon will implement decoding MQA internaly before ReplayGain and DSP and then stream in high-res to my renderer then i can accept MQA, but investing in new DAC? never. Infact there is no DAC in my main system. My Lyngdorf converts PCM to PWM doing first oversampling (interpolation) and noise shaping with lover bit resolution to keep the information (it is similar to converting to DSD, DSD is in fact PDM), then it is converted to PWM, You can think about it as DAC but it is located between amplifier and loudspeaker, the conversion is done after amplification, crazy, nevermind, I dont think they can implement any changes to this process according to MQA file decoding information, because they never build analog signal inside the amplifier. MQA is like HDCD because it is not open but owned by a company like Meridian. There will be never a general consent, but lets see what happen next few years. Regards
The biggest problem of MQA is that it is very hard to understand what it does. Everyone picks out what he likes - or dislikes - and judges the system on that. The principle advantage of MQA is the reduction of time smearing. The level achieved by MQA can only be achieved by taking the temporal behaviour of the DAC into account. Therefore what you suggest - decoding in the software - is not easily achievable if not impossible to do reliably at the consumer's home. The consequence is that any DSP function in the player itself - including replay gain - can't be done. For the replay gain Roon has a very good solution: the RAAT protocol Roon uses includes a volume control signal and over time many devices will be able to work with this signal to adjust the 'volume knob' on the DAC or amp with integrated DAC. See my reviews of the Cocktail Audio X35 (th-cam.com/video/N84d4RahheY/w-d-xo.html) and the Auralic Altair (th-cam.com/video/zZWU938s2vM/w-d-xo.html). Digital correction of the transfer function of the room is a way of correcting things that should nog wrong in the first place. It is my experience that both reducing jitter to the extreme and reducing time smearing by MQA together does reduce the influence of the room on the sound. BTW, the last thing you want is to use a three decade old server system, developed for video, to be used for advanced audio. DLNA and its APnP AV sibling are just that. Sonos and Bluesound offer far more superior software, Sonos for the low end of the market en Bluesound for the market just above and through NAD for the even more demanding audio enthousiast. The real new development, of course, is Roon that can play with anything ranging from a Raspberry Pi to a Brinkmann DAC.Companies like Lyngdorf, Chord and PS-Audio use their own interpretations of PDM but they are proprietary technologies that can be adopted to MQA but that will cost money and giving their code to MQA - which is not going to happen. MQA has provided PS-Audio with a way around that. I can imagine other might use an equal scheme. More important is that a wide range of people get in contact with 'cleaner' music for since the arrival of digital music the quality has gone down. MQA might reverse the trend, getting a wide public interested in music reproduction again. If that doesn't happen, the market formed by people like us might become too small for the larger companies and that will certainly have consequences for us.
Many thanks Hans. I like your video and Your response. I agree, MQA is some kind of trade off. I am an audiophile but I value the convinience and flexibility above sound quality. I build my setup the way I like but i select the best components for the best audio quality. MQA brings higher quality but makes the system less convenient. Its existence depend on Meridian marketing not on the sound quality. For ordinary people it is good that something better than MP3 is advertised. MP3 ruins the music. I was a fan of MP3 in mid 90s but I couldnt belive it survived almost 30 years. Even if MQA will not suit my system I will watch it the same way as DSD, HDCD, DVD-Audio. I think MQA is 10 Years to late. 5mb/s for original 96/24 is not a problem or it will be not a problem virtually just tomorrow. storage gets cheaper and internet gets faster. and the time smearing can be minimized if the DAC uses proper reconstruction filter, correct me if I am wrong. probably that is what MQA enforces on DAC. The most important information You gave me here is the protocol to stream music from disk to renderer. we have sonos, roon, bluesound, dlna, openhome, AirPlay. Could You make a video comparing this protocols, how it can influence udio quality. I thought it should not influence, but I ma not sure, some of the protocols can have some issues. Curently - for almost 8 years I use OpenHome - Linn. But my plan is to replace it with something modern. I found Roon very promising, looking for best renderer for Roon. Linn was first known company to deliver digital music streaming. their solution is still one of the best. they did it almost 10 years earlier than other big audio manufacturers. but it looks they became isolated. my current favorite is Auralic - in fact Auralic is compatible with OpenHome but brings much more, I also consider Sotm SMS-200. but auralic aaeries mini is more flexible, can be moved to other system, it hast DAC built in. For Main system I only need renderer with digital output: USB/HDMI/coaxial. Regards
Thanks Hans, great video. I’ve been amazed how good MQA is compared with vinyl, and I never thought I’d hear anything better than vinyl. To me, vinyl sounds natural, but MQA sounds 3D. It’s quite startling sometimes: my daughter was playing an MQA track in her bedroom and I thought it was her playing her ukulele and singing. I still like listening to vinyl, but MQA is joyful. It is also turning me on to new music: contemporary jazz in particular, whereas until now I’ve listened mainly to 1950s and 60s jazz. I have a NAD368 amp with BluOS 2i module. My daughter has a Blusound Pulse Flex 2i speaker.
I am following your entire MQA playlist and it is highly recommended! Great job Hans!
Awesome, thank you!
Thanks Hans for three intresting videos on MQA. As an avid audiophile and a Meridian owner i was really looking forward to hearing the benefits of MQA. After doing several listening test i have yet failed to hear any major improvement in sound when comparing MQA to other hi-res material. I have often found that MQA sounds different. But different is not the same as better. To me MQA sounds more like engineering feat and something that makes sense to the recording industry. For me as a consumer i cant see any benefits of investing further in any euqipment that supports MQA. And if i as a consumer dont experience any benefits in sound there is reason for me to buy MQA files or gear. I think this is the tradgedy of MQA. And that MQA files take up lesser space is not much of a issue today with more and more ppl getting access to high speed broadband. And a small file size is not important either if you store your music locally as i do. Hard drives offer larger capacity to reasonable prices. And on a final note i think that a solution that need two videos on explaining the benefits osnt a very good solution.
The explanation took two videos since it's aimed at audiophiles that want to know what's going on. The average consumer simplicia be told it offers higher audio quality in smaller files and with guaranteed integrity. And it's the only way currently to get Hi-res files from a streaming service. Two sentences, not bad ay?
Hans - great video! Well though out and eloquently explained.
I think complaints of DRM arise from the fact that only MQA can supply the code to unpack the hi-res content of an audio stream.
Think of it this way: ANYONE can make a record player. ANYONE can make a DSD decoder. ANYONE can make hi-res PCM DAC? Only MQA can 'make' the code available that is necessary to unpack hi-res content. You or I cannot start a company that offers an alternative MQA playback solution that is completely independent of the format's originator (as we can with DSD or PCM or vinyl).
Is the implication not then that MQA has the say so on who and who cannot play back hi-res audio from an MQA-encoded file?
Does that make sense?
Hi John,
Well, you can make a DSD decoder if you are a licensee, the same goes DSD and for MQA. The only difference is that MQA is owned by one company as where the DSD license is owned by many big companies. That means that when MQA causes trouble for big companies, they will be sued into its grave. The other way around is very unlikely. ....I think...
Hi Hans,
Love your videos, thank you so much for taking the time to create this content!
Can you please go into some more detail on what Bob Stuart refers as the ‘encapsulation’ process during the 1st and 2nd fold of the ‘musical origami’, specifically:
- Are both steps lossless, in the conventional understanding of the world. That is are they reversible? Can we get the exact same reproduction of the data out of the ‘encapsulated’ form when we unfold it, or is it an approximation?
- In the 2nd fold the one that pivots on the 48kHz vertical, sometimes some musical information is found in that part of the spectrum, the yellow music triangle in the graph sometimes has a small edge in that area. Bob Stuart has mentioned that in this case MQA encoders will use algorithms to encode this music. What are these? Are they reversible? Here we are no longer dealing with just noise, but actual musical information.
Base question is: are the 2 encapsulation steps reversible or lossy?
In this context lossy is a stateless and _reversible_mathematical function: f(a) = b and f’(b) = a. Then f and f’ are a reversible, lossless process.
Do the 1st and 2nd encapsulation steps have this property?
Would be really keen to hear your insight into this.
Thank you,
Ioannis
Thank you sir
So glad i spent the extra money on a Meridian Explorer 2 DAC to use with my Pi3 Squeezebox as i can play MQA
FPGAs are field programmable gate arrays. This would be firmware or software programmed chips in Digital to Analog converters that could be reprogrammed after purchase. Is that close enough?
Hello Hans. I'm intrigued with MQA. I also love vinyl. At the end of the day, will MQA analogue playback quality be equal, better or not quite as good as an analogue vinyl pressing? If I had a choice, between an MQA or Vinyl version of an album what would be the end differences given I would invest in an MQA decoder to fully unfold the MQA and play it through the same preMQA amp and speakers as the vinyl? Thank you! Steve
This is a question that can't be answered objectively. Many find 'normal' PCM already better than vinyl while others find the reverse. That is something I can't explain without speculations. I myself like good digital as much as good vinyl. Within digital I think that MQA really is superior to non-MQA but I have heard only four DAC's and there is only limited software available in both HrRes PCM and MQA that is guaranteed to be mastered from the same master. And even then settings on the MQA encoder might not be the settings that I would prefer (if they do have that much influence - something I don't know either). MQA files, decoded by a good MQA decoder/DAC can of course be played through your existing system. Whether that will give an optimal result, I can't tell, of course. But I consider MQA to be an extremely promising technology. That's why I investigated so much time in it.
I agree - I find MQA very promising too. Thanks for trying to answer my question! One of the things that was said about music recorded for MQA is that it heightens temporal placement - it's like being there, sounds have a distance to them. Is that something that is already present in vinyl pressings but has previously been lost in digital translation?
Well, now you're opening a can of worms:-) All current vinyl is mastered from digital sources, often only the same source as used for cd. It is then fed to a limiter and a device that makes the low end mono(!) to be able to cut it. Those records still sound good but must have lost the same as the CD. Interesting, isn't it?
The Hans Beekhuyzen Channel Now we're getting down to it. So we may end up seeing vinyl produced from MQA masters? MQA for Vinyl perhaps?
Wish I knew if Ayre will be able to and will update my Codex D/A converter to MQA. The same concern applies to my PONO, also made by Ayre. I don't mind purchasing a Meridian Explorer 2 if that is where i need to go to get MQA. I also wonder if the TIDAL MQA app on my Macintosh computer will be a standalone MQA decoder with the anticipated new Tidal version or will I need the Explorer 2 or other D/A. Thank you Hans for clearing up the mysteries of audio for so many people. You are a talented and kind gifted audio evangelist.
Is the following setup can produce full decoding of MQA . Latest iPhone, IFI DIABLO, Focal clear mg and a tidal new version so is this system will do pure moa from tidal ? Or I have to buy a computer . Thanks
Can't say, I have not reviewed the HIfi Diablo.
Hi Hans
This isn't a new post, but I just noticed it. www.audiostream.com/content/ps-audios-paul-mcgowan-weighs-mqa
PS Audio's Paul McGowan Weighs In On MQA
Here's Paul McGowan from the PS Audio Forum:
"So far MQA decoding has only been worse and that has not changed. We
suspect (as do they) that it’s because the tricks they’re using with
filters to try and make the sound better (closer to the original source
material in their parlance) screws with our own in the DAC. They then
suggest they need to tune their decoder to our filters for best results.
"If that’s all true then we’re out. As you’ve seen with Torreys,
Ted and the engineers continue to improve the state of the art with
digital filters on a regular basis - and one of the whole reasons we
went to an FPGA based DAC in the first place was the freedom to improve
the product’s performance over time. If we were restricted in what we
could to future developments, held back because everything in the USB
chain had to be 'fixed' by the MQA engineers first… that would be nuts.
"They’ve never said that has to be so and I am merely speculating as we wait for an answer.
"I too wish they’d just release this as software so the compressed file could be decoded and leave the DAC design to us."
This raises an interesting point, which Paul states very clearly, "...one
of the whole reasons we went to an FPGA based DAC in the first place
was the freedom to improve the product’s performance over time." For
those DAC designers who stick to off-the-shelf chip-based digital
filters and D/A conversion, MQA may very well be an easy add-on and
improvement. But for those companies who choose to roll their own
digital processing like PS Audio, Schiit, Ayre Acoustics, Playback
Designs, Chord, etc, MQA may introduce restrictions and dependencies on
MQA into their design process that some may not be willing to take on.
Time will tell.
Any comments?
I think it will be hard(er) to implement MQA in FPGA DAC's. With off the shelf DAC chips it's rather easy since the important work is done by MQA. Manufacturers like PS Audio and Chord already offer low time smearing as a result of their long filters. I can imagine that these companies don't like to invest heavy into something they already approached quite closely from another side. Whether the same can be achieved as with MQA is hard to say. You can't just insert the MQA magic into the FPGA DAC's. So what's there to say?
Hi Hans,
I have two questions I would like to ask you.
If you could, how much influence would the analog stage (amplifier and speakers) and acoustics of a listening room have on the sound in comparison with the influence of the DAC you think?
How those MQA keep "authentication" when multi tracking is done in different time on different ADC's?
Thanks for your time.
To what extend each component has its influence is hard to answer, that is down to the individual qualities of the components relative to each other. Only acoustics might be slightly different since our brain can interpret acoustics and so eliminate the smaller errors.
RE MQA: dit you watch my videos on MQA? See th-cam.com/video/r_wxRGiBoJg/w-d-xo.html
Thanks for answering that quick Hans.
Let me rephrase my first question. Would you think changes (for good or worse) in the analog domain would have a 50% effect in relation to changes in a DAC? Or could you agree that moving a speaker (or your head) 10cm has more effect on sound then any DAC change?
I understand high-res audio but the explanation (if I'm right) in this video (and on other sites of MQA) is that the faults in the ADC process are taking in account with MQA authentication.
I'm just wondering how they do that if the recording is done with multi take sessions with different ADC (which is quite common these day's)?
Again such situational explicit answers are impossible to answer. I know you seek security but there is non to give.
Did you really see the MQA videos? It's a mix of knowing what equipment was used and analysing the audio signal in an unrevealed way.
Thanks again for reacting Hans.
In my opinion (I know, it's mine) knowing what equipment was used and analyzing the audio signal, sounds interesting but if this signal is later edited (maybe more then we like) in mixing and mastering it's no more than a lot of technical bla bla. Even more as in this editing process there are seldom ADC's used.
In my opinion (again) if they just make great sounding (sonically) masters they would sound great in any digital format. Don't blame the format if the source is bad.
Still, thanks for your information.
Techniques beyond your (of my) comprehension are not necessarily BS. The proof of the pudding is in the eating and judged on listening I would say that MQA has a strong point. Did you carefully evaluated MQA through listening?
Do you know why Tidal is not yet offering MQA?
You got your wish 😓the dark piano notes on Adele21 somebody like you. Is flappy and does not sound good 😢
Going to Qobuz way better and snappy
off topic but i have arcam a39 amp vpi scout jr and clear audio cartridge. 1200 $ cartridge. would i get better sound quality with separate phono pre amp i was looking at the Clearaudio - Basic Phono Stage Plus
I really can't comment on equipment I haven't reviewed or played with.
Hi Hans
Thanks for your usual quality review. I know you work hard on these, and it shows.
Premature ejaculation? Good (& humorous) analogy :) Keep this up and you'll lose your phlegmatic reputation.
As far as Bob Stuart's DRM "promise". Maybe. It does give us reason to be hopeful. But I think music purveyors never learn, and I could see them wanting to re-institute DRM. How much money would it take to break Stuart's promise? Also, who owns or controls MQA Limited? That person/entity would have the final say about MQA DRM.
What I have noticed in my decades on this earth, is that good things happen in leaps, fits and starts. Then they slowly deteriorate, until another leap.
Happy Memorial Day to the Yanks. Europeans should also be grateful to all who made the ultimate sacrifice, not just Americans. We can still be free to obsess over trivial matters, such as high-res files, MQA and DRM.
Hi Brian, there have been more humorous remarks but they mostly remain unnoticed or uncommented. And you surely don't want to see my choleric side;-). All jokes aside, I have a radio head but luckily my viewers can live with it. As far as MQA is concerned: I remain optimistic until it is proven that I was wrong.
I have a question. Will it be true MQA if I feed output of Explorer 2 to my NAD D 3020? (which are connected to my Wharfedale speakers)
absolutely! As long as you see the blue light it's MQA. If you don't see a dark blue light or a green light, you need to set the music player on your computer to lossless by switching off upsampling and volume control by software.
this doesnt really make to much sense?
and created more questions then it answers
so whats the bit rate !?
sampling freq!?!
and file type of MQA?
is it a PCM or DSD?
is it a WAV or FLAC or is it its own new file type!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Well, if you would start with the first video on this subject and also watch the other ones, perhaps you might understand it th-cam.com/play/PLMbsmejHnP8EPHNgxSxrVvQi7-dW7gm9o.html
MQA has one big disadvantage: it is not compatible with Replay Gain and DSP processing. From my perspective the bigest advantage is the compact size, and the MQA should be unpacked to standard PCM in the player not in the DAC, because You loose all the flexibility of Your player/streamer. The best option would be to even dcode the signal in the dlna server, this gives the best flexibility. That is why people are asking when Roon will decode MQA. MQA compatible DAC maybe gives some extra quality and asurance but You loose all the flexibility of the rest of Your equipment, and it forces You to treat MQA files in different way as the stanard FLAC. So it looks Meridaian combined to much, I agree with Linn, the idea is great, but the Meridian implementation is bad, sonner or later someone will invite better codec, and it would be better if it does not came from hardware manufacturer.
If Roon will implement decoding MQA internaly before ReplayGain and DSP and then stream in high-res to my renderer then i can accept MQA, but investing in new DAC? never. Infact there is no DAC in my main system. My Lyngdorf converts PCM to PWM doing first oversampling (interpolation) and noise shaping with lover bit resolution to keep the information (it is similar to converting to DSD, DSD is in fact PDM), then it is converted to PWM, You can think about it as DAC but it is located between amplifier and loudspeaker, the conversion is done after amplification, crazy, nevermind, I dont think they can implement any changes to this process according to MQA file decoding information, because they never build analog signal inside the amplifier. MQA is like HDCD because it is not open but owned by a company like Meridian. There will be never a general consent, but lets see what happen next few years. Regards
The biggest problem of MQA is that it is very hard to understand what it does. Everyone picks out what he likes - or dislikes - and judges the system on that. The principle advantage of MQA is the reduction of time smearing. The level achieved by MQA can only be achieved by taking the temporal behaviour of the DAC into account. Therefore what you suggest - decoding in the software - is not easily achievable if not impossible to do reliably at the consumer's home. The consequence is that any DSP function in the player itself - including replay gain - can't be done. For the replay gain Roon has a very good solution: the RAAT protocol Roon uses includes a volume control signal and over time many devices will be able to work with this signal to adjust the 'volume knob' on the DAC or amp with integrated DAC. See my reviews of the Cocktail Audio X35 (th-cam.com/video/N84d4RahheY/w-d-xo.html) and the Auralic Altair (th-cam.com/video/zZWU938s2vM/w-d-xo.html). Digital correction of the transfer function of the room is a way of correcting things that should nog wrong in the first place. It is my experience that both reducing jitter to the extreme and reducing time smearing by MQA together does reduce the influence of the room on the sound. BTW, the last thing you want is to use a three decade old server system, developed for video, to be used for advanced audio. DLNA and its APnP AV sibling are just that. Sonos and Bluesound offer far more superior software, Sonos for the low end of the market en Bluesound for the market just above and through NAD for the even more demanding audio enthousiast. The real new development, of course, is Roon that can play with anything ranging from a Raspberry Pi to a Brinkmann DAC.Companies like Lyngdorf, Chord and PS-Audio use their own interpretations of PDM but they are proprietary technologies that can be adopted to MQA but that will cost money and giving their code to MQA - which is not going to happen. MQA has provided PS-Audio with a way around that. I can imagine other might use an equal scheme. More important is that a wide range of people get in contact with 'cleaner' music for since the arrival of digital music the quality has gone down. MQA might reverse the trend, getting a wide public interested in music reproduction again. If that doesn't happen, the market formed by people like us might become too small for the larger companies and that will certainly have consequences for us.
Many thanks Hans. I like your video and Your response. I agree, MQA is some kind of trade off. I am an audiophile but I value the convinience and flexibility above sound quality. I build my setup the way I like but i select the best components for the best audio quality. MQA brings higher quality but makes the system less convenient. Its existence depend on Meridian marketing not on the sound quality. For ordinary people it is good that something better than MP3 is advertised. MP3 ruins the music. I was a fan of MP3 in mid 90s but I couldnt belive it survived almost 30 years. Even if MQA will not suit my system I will watch it the same way as DSD, HDCD, DVD-Audio. I think MQA is 10 Years to late. 5mb/s for original 96/24 is not a problem or it will be not a problem virtually just tomorrow. storage gets cheaper and internet gets faster.
and the time smearing can be minimized if the DAC uses proper reconstruction filter, correct me if I am wrong. probably that is what MQA enforces on DAC.
The most important information You gave me here is the protocol to stream music from disk to renderer. we have sonos, roon, bluesound, dlna, openhome, AirPlay.
Could You make a video comparing this protocols, how it can influence udio quality. I thought it should not influence, but I ma not sure, some of the protocols can have some issues. Curently - for almost 8 years I use OpenHome - Linn. But my plan is to replace it with something modern. I found Roon very promising, looking for best renderer for Roon. Linn was first known company to deliver digital music streaming. their solution is still one of the best. they did it almost 10 years earlier than other big audio manufacturers. but it looks they became isolated. my current favorite is Auralic - in fact Auralic is compatible with OpenHome but brings much more, I also consider Sotm SMS-200. but auralic aaeries mini is more flexible, can be moved to other system, it hast DAC built in. For Main system I only need renderer with digital output: USB/HDMI/coaxial. Regards