Free firmware updates for the above mentioned personal audio products will be available for download from the "Support" pages at www.meridian-audio.com on February 4. Owners of 800 Reference Series products and SE loudspeakers must contact their Meridian dealer to learn if the updates can be performed at home, or if they will require a trip to the dealer. Anniversary systems owners should contact Meridian Customer Support to learn what to do.
As detailed in our story of January 4, 2016 could very well turn out to be the year that MQA fulfills its promise to deliver a major improvement in sound quality to large numbers of music lovers. MQA is working with a significant number of partners who are in various stages of planning or implementing the technology. These include music labels, music retailers, and manufacturers of mobile devices and hardware. While Meridian is the first to make a shipping announcement, other companies will no doubt follow when they are ready.
On the label front, Grammy Award-winning audiophile label 2L, as well as labels Camerata and HQM, have already encoded their catalogs with MQA. Still silent are the major labels.
In addition, 7digital, a leading B2B (business-to-business) digital music and radio services company that has 46 clients running digital music services that reach consumers in 33 countries around the world, has announced their first content available in MQA. Onkyo is one of the 46 businesses working with 7digital to include MQA technology in indie label offerings in their high-resolution music store. Once Tidal music service, an MQA-partner that streams CD quality music, comes on board with MQA-encoded content, and then begins to stream high-resolution files encoded with MQA, it is reasonable to expect that the rate at which MQA-encoded music and MQA-capable equipment appears will accelerate.
What is MQA?
To understand what MQA is all about, you are invited to read Stereophile's ongoing coverage. Our first article on the subject, with analysis by John Atkinson and added listening commentary from yours truly, appeared on December 21, 2014. Most recently, we reported on a most convincing MQA listening session, held at CES 2016, that was attended by John Atkinson, Michael Fremer, Peter McGrath, and me.
In addition, Michael Lavorgna of our sister publication, AudioStream.com, has published an excellent nuts and bolts explanation of MQA. The article includes a manufacturer's comment from Bob Stuart, originator of the MQA concept.
In comments posted to some of our articles, as well as on forums, some people claim that unless you have an MQA-enabled DAC, MQA encoding degrades sound quality below that of CD. Still to come are reports of listening tests that both Michael Lavorgna and I will perform independently in which we use MQA and non-MQA enabled DACs to listen to before and after MQA-encoded files and the CD versions. Michael has already published information about this here. It is also quite likely, given my travel schedule over the next three weeks, that Michael will conduct his tests and publish results before I do.
About this future test, Bob Stuart expressed the following by email, "The benefit of backward compatibility is that without a decoder you get better than CD quality. If the original is, for example, DXD or 192k, we don't claim the result would be better than the original without a decoder (and in any case, only the content creator could confirm this). The right test is to compare an un-decoded MQA file to the CD version since this mode covers places where the big files can't be played for whatever reason."
In a face-to-face Skype conversation on January 29, Bob addressed claims that MQA is poised to unleash another format war upon music lovers. "There's no simple dictionary definition of 'format,'" he said. "MQA is a coding of PCM that looks like PCM when the coding is complete. Hence, to listeners, it behaves like PCM. In that sense, it's not a format.
"If, however, you took the view that a format means that the data is laid out in a particular way, then it's a format. The situation is, in some ways, analogous to FLAC. Like FLAC, MQA is simply a means of conveying information. Do you consider FLAC a format?
"It's complete nonsense to claim that MQA is a closed system. I guess what people are addressing is that MQA is an end-to-end system, and we are getting involved at both ends, ie, at both the content creation and playback ends of the chain."
In short, anyone who can currently play CDs or PCM files will still be able to play them once they are encoded with MQA. Our listening tests will either confirm or contradict Bob's claim that even without an MQA-enabled device, you will derive better than CD-quality from an MQA-encoded file.
Finally, Bob addressed accusations as to his financial motivation for developing MQA. "The MQA enterprise is funded by very small royalties on the music, and quite low royalties on hardware. We're talking about modest license fees for software and hardware. MQA is not about world domination; our goal is to improve the sound quality of distributed music and to stay in business while doing so."
COMMENTS
Director (Now they call it the Direct) DAC? I didn't see it listed as something that can be upgraded yet. I was hoping that it has a upgrade path. Any word on whether or not that model will be upgraded? Meridian still sells the model.
Thanks!
That's all I can say.
Dear Jason,
Currently, is there any off-the-shelf MQA Encoder / Analogue Digital Converter in the marketplace? (I have been sifting through the web for hours to find an answer)
Thanks so much in advance!
Regards, Babak
Hi-Reality Project
For the smattering of comments this update will likely generate.
I've been writing for 30 years or more that our technological future is unlimited. People of all types fail to grasp that. Politicians run negative campaigns instead of shouting from the rooftops that we have never had the opportunities we have today. I don't know the history on MQA exactly, but I remember a serious technique of cryptology called steganography, going back to the late 1990's at least, and it seems like MQA may benefit from that technique and others....
I think 99% of people grasp it but take it for granted, with considerable justification. It's all only the "rude mechanicals" (Shakespeare) part of civilization anyway. Gizmology does NOT define civilization.
Steganography.
That goes back a lot further than the 1990s. Wiki says the first RECORDED instance goes back to 440 BC, and off course it will have been used long before that but not recorded. If you USE it you don't tell everyone you are doing so, do you?
Basically all it means is that if I communicate "See you in the King's Head at 6pm and I will come on my Kawasaki" means "We will attack the nuclear bomb store on February 12th" and the part after "6pm" is merely irrelevant garbage added for further obfuscation. And because NONE of it is encrypted it neither stands out as an encrypted message, nor can it be decrypted. Thus it is 100% secure under all circumstances. I don't see how such things can be related to MQA.
Steganography as Cypherpunks defined it when I was a member meant burying encrypted text into (for example) unused bits in a JPEG photo. Since MQA is coding info into unused bits in an audio file, it's analogous at the very least. The art of disinformation is a very different thing, something I'm also familiar with.
As all your posts are.
I was directly involved in the IBM 'Encryption units' sold commercially that later became the "US National Data Encryption Standard" fully approved by the NSA and popular among banks, the military, etc. worldwide.
As for MQA I am curious. When they become available I will try one PROVIDED I can have it on free trial. I am CERTAINLY not going to buy one 'on spec'.
As dCS DACs are all entirely their own design, with no 'off the shelf' DAC chips and are updateable by firmware downloads I may well be able to do that for a tiny MQA licence fee and will try it, should dCS think it worthwhile to supply it. Should dCS NOT choose to do this I will take it as a "no no" as dCS equipment has generally a MUCH higher sound quality than anything Meridian has ever delivered, admittedly at a commensurate much higher price.
But MQA seems to be very vague. It is a constantly changing (by Bob Stuart talks only) moving target. Though as far as one can gather the 'folding' (a non-technical term to say the least and totally lacking any verbal, mathematical, or graphical 'public' information) seems to be quite a good idea assuming it means anything at all. The problem I have is that Meridian stuff, though certainly NOT 'poor' has never fully 'delivered' in terms of SQ in Meridians entire existence. It does make some "better than standard though not reported as outstanding" designed in audio system options for "not exactly the extreme of high end" cars such as Jaguar.
Now that you mention it, there are some things to be concerned about. And I'm just speculating here. I don't want to have six sets of speakers or headphones, to swap between for each music track to sound its best on speaker X, Y, or Z. One set, which sounds best or most neutral is preferable. Hopefully MQA has an even-handed result with nearly all of their encodings. Dolby wasn't perfect in the early consumer versions, and I recall playing some music where the highs would occasionally shift unnaturally - not the 'pumping' effect of a mistracking codec - it was smooth enough - but more like extended tape dropouts. I'd hate to play through an MQA album and hear the background noise changing, or some other random distractions where the MQA encoding isn't consistent. Firmware updates are great features, but they need to be reversible.
I have no idea if MQA uses data folding but it is a well known procedure used in manipulating a data structure which, of course, is what MQA is in its essence. So it's easy enough to see how Meridian engineers are doing what they are doing. Frankly, I'm hoping others soon realize how it's done and we have a battle of efficiency and more importantly, a battle to improve sound quality simply using software. Software is easy to change and upgrading firmware in a dac isn't all that difficult. Manipulating the information on the master tapes isn't difficult either since it is easily digitized. The biggest difficulty is the logistics of getting all those involved in the industry to work together.
Open source is always best for the consumer, but makes it difficult for those trying to profit from their work. Bottom line is that this isn't rocket science and imo is simply a first step in what, as others have posted here, should be an open horizon of opportunity to improve the music. And that is what it is all about.
"Software is easy to change and upgrade."
It's also easy for a software issuer to destroy your enjoyment and/or productivity, if they violate the cardinal rule of software development: Never, ever remove functionality for existing users. Make a new version, mark it clearly, inform users of removed functionality - all OK when users are informed and they have the option to use whatever they paid for for a reasonable time.
But some software co's do violate that rule, and so relying on software can be like living in a minefield.
As a one time IT security consultant for a number of alphabet agencies in the US, I'm very familiar with steganography. It's actually being used today in IP protection for photographers - for a fee, you can have licensing info is embedded in all of your digital files - not in the metadata, but in the image itself - and the company scans the internet constantly looking for the signatures. But I digress...
MQA reminded me of a number of data compression and speed techniques like FASP and ARIA, and some other tricks being used in streaming video services. Embedding data about the original environment and sound does hit me as being a bit tricky, and maybe not optimal depending on your listening rig. I'm really interested, at least in part because I'm into technology - but I'm having a hard time imagining what else could be added to what I hear on my setup today, which is realism so intense that it's set my dogs running off insane through the house trying to find the new person in the house. And guests who go dead silent during a meal and wander slowly into the listening room and stand there listening. If it can get better than that... I'm really interested, but I wonder how much more can be done.
I understand no none is interested in buying CDs anymore, but for those of us who feel reassurance from holding something in our hands, are there any plans to manufacture MQA-encoded CDs? Does anyone know if such CDs would sound better than the equivalent music on SACD? In other words, given that both formats are physically the same size, which would be the preferred one from the point of view of sound quality?
You'll be fine with SACD. Remember that MQA is encoded as a 24-bit file/container. This will not work as a CD.
"You'll be fine with SACD"
SACD was a FAILED format from day one and remains a failed format. I'm in the UK. We had HUGE 'record' shops, often run the MAKERS of 'records' such as His Masters Voice, EMI, etc. in the heyday of CD. I NEVER SAW AN SACD. Their numbers were so small as to be totally invisible.
Now we have DSD, which is basically the same format. Again - FAIL. Not even Sony support it (there are no DSD files in Sony's large music label catalog) and the music availability is again so small as to be invisible.
"No one is interested in buying CDs anymore"
They have certainly been impacted by low quality MP3 downloads. But more CDs are sold in ONE DAY of the Beatles ALONE than in the WHOLE 12 MONTHS of 2015s so-called 'Vinyl revival' sales for ALL music.
"How much more can be done"
EVERYTHING can be done. Not that you are likely to ACTUALLY HEAR any difference. Because whether 192/24 sounds better than CD 44.1/16 is highly disputed, with the majority saying they can't hear any difference. And they don't ALL have cloth ears or $500 systems. And the majority won't hear any difference with MQA either, that's for sure.
We HiFi enthusiasts are ALWAYS wanting something we falsely try to claim is 'better'. About 4 years ago a guy on another 'respected' site (CA) was complaining that his brand new Audio Research DAC couldn't play 384/32. There was ZERO music available in that format then and there STILL isn't any. Now the same idiots are unhappy with DSD 64 (which they all said was "wonderful" at first), and want 2X DSD or 4X DSD and have complained the new Chord DAC can't play 8X DSD.
Yes, I agree, given the same original master, CD/SACD/Hi-Res PCM/DSD files should all be essentially transparent these days with modern gear. Heck, LAME MP3 256+kbps is fine as well.
However, I do believe the Meridian "de-blur" DSP being touted for MQA has an audible effect. That to me is potentially the most interesting part to this if one believes this is beneficial and I wish could be dissociated from the "origami" compression piece which limits compatibility and requires the proprietary decoding (IMO unnecessarily).
Master Quality Authenticated
Blur
Origami
Meridian Versatile Distribution System
Do they think we are going to fall for this garbage?
The ONLY thing I ever considered buying from Meridian was a nice looking 'modular' amplifier which if you wanted more facilities you pulled the 'rails' out and slid on appropriate modules, which plugged together side by side.
The extra modules, such as the FM tuner, NEVER appeared despite queries from buyers and 'promises' from Meridian.
It was tested as 'not very good for the price' by BOTH John Atkinson AND Martin Colloms.
And we won't forget the hopelessly unreliable Lecson amplifier, will we? THAT was one of their efforts before they changed their name. Which they probably did because of the fallout from the notorious Lecson. Not only did the finned tubular power amp blow up at frequent intervals, the over designed glass sliding adjusters, stuck on with sticky tape, fell off the preamp. Mounted vertically on the wall as recommended, you could find a little pile of them on the floor the next morning.
Modern Meridian products? Not as good as B&O though double the price (not that B&O are bad). They are a UK company owned by a Swiss 'fashion watch' company and have so little impact on the UK HiFi scene they are near invisible.
Ever hear of Clive Sinclair and his HiFi 'masterpieces'? As a UK person with a LONG memory Meridian remind me VERY much of Sinclair's efforts. All fancy 'designer' casing and no action. Have a look at "The Well-Tempered Computers" nice picture of the inside of the Sooloos touch screen/CD ripper control unit. It's a near enough 'regular' PC in a fancy case at ten times the price.
Why does it HAVE to be bad? BTW, I've talked to Sir Clive in person at Comdex, and he was a real leader in developing small electronic products, of which I owned several.
And he obviously conned you.
Read about him on Wiki and also follow the links to his other enterprizes and then you will see.
In the UK EVERYONE interested in electronics owned some of his stuff. It NEVER worked as specified.
His amplifiers were so optimistically specified that a new unit found its way into the English language the "SINCLAIR WATT" :)
The classic was an IC amp. 10 watts. But it wasn't. Plessey made a two watt IC amplifier. They had lots of rejects (it was the fairly early days of ICs). Sinclair got thousands of their rejects from the local dump, tested to find the ones thst worked at all, 'imagined' 10 watts, relabelled them 'Sinclair' and sold them mail order.
MQA? No it doesn't HAVE to be bad. But with Meridian's history it likely will be just a con.
You obviously knew a different Clive Sinclair. The man I knew was developing new, useful, portable devices that helped pave the way for the future. I'm sorry to hear about the quality control, but I've suffered worse from Sony corp.
When he talks about "format". Since MQA is a legal entity, protected by patent/intellectual property law in a way the "PCM" is not, he certainly seems to be deliberately obfuscating here. "Backwards compatibility" is neither here nor there, since this is simply a business decision as to how to market a format that is intellectual property (PCM is not Meridians intellectual property obviously). With a trivial software tweak you can remove this "backwards compatibility" and the end user has no "rights" or recourse because he agreed to a license that allows Meridian to do this. An end user agrees to no such thing when he purchases a PCM encoded file.
His question/comparison of Meridians intellectual property to FLAC borders on the absurd (for those who are not aware, FLAC stands for "Free Lossless Audio Codec", Free being the operative word here - not as in $free$ but free of intellectual property).
I have to ask if Bob is really this ignorant (not using the term pejoratively) about what he and Meridian have created? Perhaps he is that insulated from the business end of things? I actually don't believe this, thus the title of this post - he is in damage control here and not being honest...
Remenber patents AREN'T an endorsement. They are just a 'registration' that something is unique and original. NOTHING more than that.
And HiFi magazines, though interesting to us tiny number of people, only survive by keeping the 'HiFi as a hobby' pot boiling. (I'm obsessed with trout fishing. There are LOTS of magazines as trout fishing is a popular hobby. I gave up buying them - there is only so much they can say about a *** fish!)
And those of us who imagine (or pretend) they can hear the difference between 96 and 192 or whatever will of course imagine that MQA sounds better too.
HiFi has got NOTHING to do with music (as 'Jud' said years ago, "When did anyone ever come out of a concert saying "Wasn't the bass good?"") and EVERYTHING to do with geeky fancy equipment collecting.
We all know that, but few of us admit it. I do.
in particular about keeping "the hobby" focused on "the music". However, IP has consequences beyond "a registration", in that certain legal consequences flow from that. End users agree to these things by their "consent" of the license during purchase, and these things are enforceable (and are enforced all the time) in courts of law (obviously).
Bob has agreed to answer questions submitted by the ignorant herd that populate the dreaded "forums". Many of those questions center on "format" and it's function in the audio market place, DRM, etc. Perhaps he will answer these questions more forthrightly than he has here. Someone should warn him that many in the forums are not so easily confused as the fan boys who show up at his demo's ;)
I don't think it would apply to Meridian but in the UK we CAN'T sign our rights away even if we want to.
So all these nonsensical 'Terms and Conditions' that (for example) Microsoft put on Windows and that you have to check the "I agree" box before it will install or run are totally meaningless here.
And that CAN apply to DRM, such as "You purchased it, you own it, it's now yours not theirs so you are free to do whatever you want with it" is the law here. Though buying a CD and copying it, then selling the original, is a grey area that as far as I know has not been legally tested.
For example, 99% of our excellent libraries are state owned, and 'free at the point of delivery' as they are paid for from general taxation. There are photocopiers in most that you can use to copy anything, presumably even an entire book. If you don't know how to work the copier an assistant will show you.
They have CDs and DVDs too. So using THEIR logic there can be NO 'formal state objection' to my taking some home, ripping them, and taking them back, can there?
Not that I would ever do such a thing of course :)
I understand that CD is 16 bit and MQA is 24 bit but the info being put forth indicates that MQA is a "beginning to end" concept so if there is MQA at the beginning CD's will be produced with some amount of the technology unless separate masters for MQA and non-MQA will be produced.
The Meridian MQA firmware is ready to download.
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources |  |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 Stereophile
