As We See It

I'm afraid it isn't.

Can we recall the drubbing all digital has been getting until just recently ?

As far as "anonymous" commenters are concerned, we should include the Acid Spitting from Stereophile's Analog Turntable Set-up guru, including the ugly insult he sent me in a ( blocked response ) email.

However, ugliness is not at all a common feature of Stereophile's Vast Readership.! We should acknowledge the high ideals and standards of propriety belonging to the vast group of those composing Journalism or commentary.

Unfortunately, the nightly news is filled with ugliness seeping out Washington (lately), setting a horrible example for the nation to follow. We might have to tolerate it but we don't have to accept it. The option of silencing ugliness is UnAmerican, we have the Constitution for gods sake!!

I've admired J.Atkinson since the 1980s in England, he and Stereophile ( under his... ) remains worthy.

Meridian has been brilliant for a lonnnnnnnnnng time, I'm happy to see B.Stuart finally hit one outa the Park. In fact I'll buy another entire Meridian System ( I've owned 3, so far ), probably the DSP33 & the matching control electronics.

Everybody's talking about MQA, phew, who could've guessed that Meridian would achieve "Center Stage" here in the States?

Congratulations are in order.

21st Century Tony in Michigan

I have criticized MQA via online forums, but I do not consider my criticisms "nasty". And I post under my own real name, same as here at stereophile.com. I have nothing to hide.
To me, MQA is a solution looking for a problem. I would prefer to have real, uncompressed, hi resolution audio files, and allow my choice of DAC to use my choice (of designer's) digital filters, not proprietary MQA filters.
My biggest fear is of widespread acceptance of MQA, and that record labels may choose to release music as MQA and forego releasing native, hi resolution music. I have no problem with MQA being available as an "option" on music files, as long as I am assured that the original hi resolution native file will also be offered; but as one who is aware of the history of record companies, I see little chance of this happening if MQA gains wide acceptance.
I do believe MQA could offer a benefit to "normal" casual music listeners if it were replace MP3 as the new standard format for non-audiophiles, and I think this could be a good thing (as long as native hi resolution will be available for audiophiles who want it) as it might re-engage normal listeners with music again.
The list of designers who oppose MQA is pretty impressive, some of the very best minds in digital audio development, hmmm.

Best,

barrows

I'm old enough to remember when Phillips (remember them - the folks that invented the digital audio format?) first introduced 4X oversampling in CD players back in the early 1980s. The rationale for it was to reduce the need for steep anti aliasing analog filters which were subject to tolerance variations, high phase shifts, and the associated high frequency ringing that amplifiers of most types have a hard time dealing with. I have yet to encounter a person who can detect high frequencies above 20 khz. Similarly, most people would either run away or resort to ear plugs if subjected to sounds that are 90db above their audibility threshold. So what are we really talking about here? Is it possible to segment ultra high audio frequency bands and encode them using bytes that are restricted to sound levels below the noise floor? It certainly seems plausible. But more importantly, WHY would anyone waste time and energy doing that if only dogs and bats can hear it? Btw, if more upper frequency data is being sampled and recorded, there is no way for the file to be the same size or smaller. Segmentation of the bit stream and upper bands doesn't magically add sampled data that doesn't take up space. In all likelihood, the reason the MQA files and non MQA files are similar in overall size is because the source material has precious little data in it above 20khz.

In the meantime count me in the "pro" camp. I strongly believe in science but I also trust my own ears.

... two different versions of the same original music file, one which has undergone only the "audio origami" process and one which has undergone only the time-domain error compensation process?

It would be interesting to know which process - extra bandwidth/bit-depth resolution (as packed into a redbook size file) or time-domain error reduction - seems to make the greater audible difference.

..."always-superb sound quality we have heard from decoded MQA files"

Yada Yada Yada.....

Why do so few others (except the group of paid Facebook shills) hear this miracle?

And Stereophile can't be getting much advertising money out of it to date.

So, I can only conclude that Stereophile is 'pushing' it as part of the PERFECTLY NORMAL process of 'keeping the pot boiling' with anything 'new' to give us a reason to buy the magazine or look at this site. It is 'of interest' after all, whether it actually improves anything or not.

Most DAC manufacturers, including dCS, either don't give a frequency response above 20KHz or show a sharp cut off at or near that point regardless of the sample rate.

So even the golden eared gods won't hear anything.

http://www.soundstagehifi.com/index.php/opinion/1104-mismatched-masters-and-false-frequencies-is-mqa-better-worse-or-just-different

In any case, MQA is likely destined to be a niche product in an already niche market at best. Most people don't have the equipment to decode it or the headphones/speakers to tell the difference in quality. TIDAL, last I read, had roughly 1% of the market share of paid music subscribers, and many of them pay for the basic package that does not include MQA.

In an age where I can stream 4K content to my TV and storage is cheaper than ever, there isn't a dire need for compressed music. Even granting superior sound quality (which is debatable as long as questions remain about which masters are used), MQA will probably end up like DSD, SACD, or 5.1 surround sound mixes.

I agree with some of the comments above. There's no need to misrepresent the dissatisfaction with MQA as being "nasty". Sure, forum comments can get heated at times, but that's just par for the course and happens with all kinds of contentious topics; not just audiophilia.

However, I must say that the advertising and claims from and about MQA have been unbelievable (like the TAS articles and some of the writing here). This has provided much fodder for critics to really bite into with very good reason!

The limitations of MQA are relatively clear and can be enumerated with backing information; much of this has nothing to do with sound quality:
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2017/10/mqa-final-final-comment-simply-put-why.html

We already have information about the digital filters (derived from various MQA DACs), comparisons of MQA unfold with HD download tracks, and blind listening test results with single unfold through the software. This is on top of other technical work available elsewhere like this:
https://www.xivero.com/downloads/MQA-Technical_Analysis-Hypotheses-Paper.pdf

We actually know quite a lot about MQA already. The magazines seem to be just catching up with articles like this. When are you guys going to post the filter impulse responses when "rendering" above 24/96 for example? That's already known for months at this point...

Sound quality is only a small part of the numerous issues with MQA. There are greater implications many are unhappy with and deserve more discussion than just filtering and claims of temporal "de-blurring".

Precisely.
I just looked at a mid price Cambridge Audio 10-12 year old 'universal' disc player I purchased at the time and still have.

It's got nine little labels on the front saying what it supports. Including 'divX' which I've never even heard of, let alone looked at, assuming, perhaps wrongly, that's it's for video discs

SACD? In the heyday of 'silver discs' there was a Virgin video/audio Megastore near me. Over the years I brought hundreds of discs from them. I never ever even SAW an SACD, let alone bought one.

In a year or two's time I will give even MORE than the other guy's ten dollars if MQA is anything bigger than a forgotten label on the front of a few electronic boxes made by companies that less than one percent of the population have ever heard of :)

I was initially quite impressed reading in Stereophile and parallel publications that MQA was a major step in sound quality but I have not heard any convincing listening experiences myself yet. I have seen until very recently not much support of MQA by the majority of equipment manufactures and some told me they will do it but only to satisfy customers which were told by the audio press that MQA is the future. So is marketing of MQA driven by the audio press?

It's not MQA's critics who are making any claims, it is MQA who are making the claims and attempting to sell the product.

So it is up to them to prove their claims.

And if their claims were true none of this discussion as to whether it works or not would have happened. Obviously.

MQA isn't an Audiophile decision or product.

Why should we enthusiasts have a say ( or want to ) in compression engineering when our established commitment is to Vinyl, $30,000 Turntables, Arms and all things Phono, for gods sake.

Smart Phone people are calling the shots now!

Those Record Companys are getting ready to have their catalogs playing on iPhone based music systems, MQA is designed to assure high sound quality from compressed files. Anyone that has a problem with iPhone music systems should take it up with Apple, not Stereophile & John Atkinson.

However:
All this anxiety and excitement make for interesting and distressed commentary.

21st Century Tony in Michigan

There’s so many ways one can have his standard-resolution rig sound considerably better in computer audio practically for free, that any discussion concerning n-time purchase of the same old masters through some fancy compression (!) encoding is completely irrelevant in 2018, save perhaps for some open-pocket old folks who are made believe money can buy them ultrasonic ears.

John Atkinson,

You can see my comments re: MQA here:

https://www.stereophile.com/comment/566718#comment-566718

I too, like you read the MQA whitepaper with great interest. They had done something with intelligence, I though: a novel approach like JPG or GIF vs raw to storing digital music.

And yet, you look at JPG at various compression ratios (basically any) and you can see the colour and image degregation. You you can see, the image artifacts brought on by the compression algorithm.

The MQA guys are betting (and a good bet) that the dynamic range of the recording is less than 144.49 dB, or the dynamic range of a 24-bit recording.

Maybe they are thinking is is 70 dB.

But shouldn't the dynamic range of the MICs be higher?

Back when I did recording, I bought a pair of Earthworks mics - they were terrible mics, but I didn't want to spend as much as the B&K mics you guys at Stereophile were using. 130V would be nice.

I made sure however to get at least a pair that would record up to 40 kHz, though 50 would be nicer for 96 kHz recording (DAT 2x).

I made sure to get a matched pair, also, and to go for the QTC series, for better dynamic range and less self-noise (20 dB noise floor).

To get a snare drum, the pair were rated for handling 138 dB. That's only 23-bit (just under), but I figured that's leaving one bit for dither, which I found really improved the sound. We'll there's still that pesky 20 dB of self-noise still.

I didn't get a Pacific Microsonics model two ADC, which would of been the thing for a decent quality recording, but that was where I was headed.

http://www.goodwinshighend.com/manufacturers/pacific_microsonics/pacific_microsonics_model_two.htm

Now, reading the MQA white paper, the novelty and ingenuity of the recording scheme sticks out, but can you tell me (or anyone else) that they followed it, in the sense, that reading it, it made sense how it actually solved what Meridian were saying they did in it.

Other than the nice little light that goes on on the DA converter, I can't get how audiophiles wish to have MQA.

The same audiophiles (or perhaps not) who prefer FLAC whole-heartedly to MP3, or ALAC (Apple Lossless), etc.

My internet connection is capable of transfering 18,750 Kb/s (150 mbps) or 18.85 Mb/s.

That's enough for DSD (2.8224 MHz, 1-bit), 2x, 4x, and 8x!

I'm really not sure why sub-standard DA converters which can't even play 24-bit with a 24-bit dynamic range get so much press today.

But perhaps we can come up with a name for the phenomenon?

I remember when the Halcro DM 88 (and 58) came out and were reviewed by Stereophile.

https://www.stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/806halcro/index.html

They had great dynamic range (THD < - 140 dB, take that MQA!) and if I were remember correctly, were proclaimed on the cover of one leading magazine, "The Best Amp(lifier) Ever!"

I was expecting, after that, all future amp reviews (at least for the year) to be compared to the Halcro, with respect to sound and performance, and yet nothing of the sort happened.

With DACs, when MSB Technology with their Select DAC, actually knocks on 32-bit performance (so many DACs claiming to be 32-bit with only 16-bit or so performance...), and yet other DACs which are reviewed are not compared to such, or at least knocked for not having a 24-bit dynamic range or noise-floor (there are some exceptions other than MSB).

With encoding, how can claims like "lossless" or "near-lossless" of MQA not be compared to the actual frequency response and dynamic range of the loss-less digital medium?

With MQA, I really expect a better White Paper. With magazines, I really expect a better analysis rather than propaganda. :)

I really liked seeing this article, and look forward to the future articles mentioned!

Thanks, JA!

Ah great: an examination of MQA in the time domain. Sad that Jim Austin's article uses the contextually meaningless phrase "time domain" and seeks to deploy impulse responses as though they tell you much about real world signals. I note John Atkinson's tiny footnote (about impulse responses being technically illegal signals) which is intended as a get out clause for the dissemination of nonsense about what impulse responses are.

It is sad that the article does not acknowledge that you can have what looks on Stereophile terms like a neat impulse response while still reproducing a signal completely wrong in the time domain at every instant other than the sampling moments.

How is this possible? Because as any fule 'no' the time domain and frequency domain are mathematically interchangeable and any imperfection in the frequency domain *must* correspond with an imperfection in the time domain. So what does it mean to say that something is perfected in the time domain? And why is this only ever illustrated with illegal signals?

Certainly doing it meaningfully would involve trying to find real world events which inconveniently don't occur in most recordings ever made (which have bandwidth too limited). Only then could you show any pre-ringing in the unperfected straight pcm version. And that in turn would involve the concession that none of this could possibly apply to most music ever made, or frankly to most of what goes on in any recording.

And you would still have the problem of needing the pre-ringing to be detectable below the noise floor let alone the masking.

Nah, let's use the impulse response

At all. Ever. A relatively terrible internet connection now is a DSL connection which, at 1Mbit will handle streaming of any music format we can throw at it (as long as it doesn't rain on those 100 year old lines and connections). Phone companies and cable companies are now exceeding 100Mb connections to the house and next year Verizon Wireless will make it all moot with 5G wireless. Most can fit every song they've likely ever owned on a few hundred dollars of hard drive now, without compression. Meanwhile, Cambridge Audio makes some very very very accomplished DAC's for under 1000 USD that handle up to 88.2kh and higher encoding, which means it can handle far more dynamic range and frequency extension in PCM than your very best SET or Class A SS amp can deliver, anyway.

And you wonder why kids don't get into audio, and when they do it's LP's and Cassettes. It's because the average under 35 with an 8th grade science and math reads this drivel and realizes his country once sent a man to the moon and now solves problems that don't exist just to do so.

Quote:

Does the (MQA) filter's inherent aliasing degrade sound quality?

Hi John, it would be better to ask whether the added aliasing distortion of MQA **increased** sound quality for its proponents, since that is the only possibility for MQA "audibility". The "Time smear" is marketing mumbo-jumbo nonsense for this added distortion...pleasing or not.
That's all MQA is about, adding HF aliasing distortion...and whether one can hear/prefers this.

Side note: I'll ask anyone the same question I asked Mark Waldrep/AIX:
Please list the recordings with music having >16 bits of measured dynamic range. The content itself, not the container/format.
Please also provide controlled listening evidence that 50-70yr old men can hear >20kHz.
Otherwise, this is all another par for course audiophile tempest in a teapot.

AJ Soundfield Audio

What I think annoy most people, including me about the MQA issue is that some people like me have already bought a Streamer and some many downloads from HD tracks that weren't cheap. SO now to come and say well listen people, forget about 24 Bit /192 KHz recordings, we have a better thing called MQA and you need to buy again everything in this new format....THIS is the problem most people have...to say that 24 Bit 192 KHz files are sounding worse then the new MQA files....that is the problem....

The reason that the best DAC designers say NO to MQA is that they have to replace there own superior filters with really bad MQA filters, people need to accept the fact that these files are 44.1khz rate and you need to filter frequency above 21k before you tack the ultrasonic potion of the decoder,
so the time domain horsedudu the are preaching is just that.

They claim time domain precision by using leaky filters (this is not how physics work) that it severly compromise the audible band below 20k.

I think we can all agree that in the world of 4K Netflix streaming and lossless audio compression world,

Downloading 24b 96k or 24b 192k FLAC is a breeze no need for MQA.

Ah yes, and this
"Not only were the MQA files smaller than the original PCM files, they were smaller than the uncompressed 16/44.1 CD version of the recording, so that claim by MQA is incontrovertible."
Again any fule 'no' that this is an entirely bogus comparison, but you have to read it carefully to see what it means. What is the point in comparing a flac compressed file with a non flac compressed file? What relevance does an uncompressed cd file have- anyone downloading 16/44 is likely to use flac. And MQA is much bigger than that 16/44 file. So why say it? Could it be because to the average stereophile reader it sounds as though John Atkinson just said that an MQA file is smaller than the usual 16/44 download (flac).
But it goes further because you can get essentially the same container as mqa using noise shaped 16/96 which is about the same size as MQA.[if you didn't work this out you never tried and/or never thought critically about the topic].

You can even use a dumb lazy filter when creating and replaying the 16/96 file so that it will create images when reproduced, some of which will be similar to the data correctly recorded by 192khz sampling (as well as loads of rubbish). Just like MQA.
So why do we need the proprietary format, even assuming that there is a technical need for what it delivers?

Is this being nasty?

I won't repeat too much what's already been said, but...
a) I've listened to MQA and certainly don't find anything SO great and SO obviously better. Some albums I liked the MQA version a bit more, some less than the original. I also don't know if I'm really listening to the MQA version based on the same master as the non-MQA. Because of that I basically don't get the point.
Why introduce a whole additional format - that also demands HW changes - is the result isn't truly and obviously better?

b)file size: the whole discussion is bogus. MQA files aren't actually 24 bit, so you could use something like 16/96 or 18/96 and you'd have just as high resolution files and file size that's the same or less.

c) corporate control DRM: I still see this as the only reason for MQA to exist. The record labels must see an economic benefit to it (and smaller file size isn't it) and as far as I can see the only one is if MQA catches on and then they take the actual hi-res masters off the market, and leave us with only the MQA versions. Those who don't have an MQA DAC will then be left with an crippled file that isn't close to hi-res. It's a way for the labels to protect the "crown jewels" so they're not out in the market, and will be a way to charge more for the "not-crippled" versions of files.

MQA is a happy thing for people who stream. I do not believe it was deserving of the breathless praise it got while it only existed as "I heard five cuts at an audio show and it is the greatest thing since perfect sound forever."

It is a substitute for a high rez original for someone listening over the interwebs.

Great.

The place to really watch is whether it will be a viable accessory for listening to hi rez once that format is streaming or being played back in the home.

If MQA is all that, I should be able to get a DSD feed on a transport or digital source, feed that into a MQA 'Sonic Improver,' and then hear improved sound from the original source. If MQA can take the original, perform its origami magic, and then output 'better sound' it will survive.

MQA will live or die, in the long run, based on whether it improves high rez originals.

_

PS Audio has a new rig that can get the original DSD layer out of an SACD...feed that into an MQA 'folder upper' and then decode it and see how it works.

(Sounds kind of like those Spacing Guild guys in Dune who get all spiced up and origami space/time.)

So, as a listener of streaming music 90% of the time, I just want better sound. I don't really care to compare critically MQA vs DSD vs uncompressed (or losslessly compressed - like FLAC) PCM -- at least not today.

My bar is much, much lower. I just want more content that is higher res than Red Book.

I find some 24 bit content on Tidal, but rarely do I find any *new releases* in > 44.1kHz.

In this respect, I do not view MQA as a success. I bought an MQA DAC and lived with it for 5 months earlier this year. For all the genres I listen to, I follow the Billboard weekly charts. In the span, the # of tracks on the Billboard charts that were avail in MQA from Tidal was a whopping TWO. Yes, just 2.

Contrast this with Bluray... Within 2-3 years of introduction, it was difficult to find a new movie release on DVD to not be avail in Bluray.

MQA fans shout me down pointing to the large catalogs of re-encoded material -- oh great, so, if I like a new track, 4 years from now it will be available in MQA. Until MQA becomes a first format of choice for the studios, it is of little value to me.

Thus, I've given up the MQA DAC for another unit that I feel is the absolute best for PCM content...

Using common tools in modern electronics laboratories (e.g. JA's bench at Stereophile), may allow some insight.

E.g. there are some audiophile claims of WAV superiority to FLAC. Perhaps the extra processing the decoder chip has to do to unpack compressed files is not so clean, etc.
How to test this:
---spectrum analyzer: looking at chip's power pins may reveal distortion.
--- thermal camera : how much thermal energy does the chip radiate processing FLAC vs. WAV? Thermal cameras have become common, even economical (e.g., add-on for Smart Phone). Thermal images/videos of digital ICs -- while playing music or test tones -- would be useful.

Similar techniques could be used to objectify MQA processing.

Such knowledge discovery can be standardized as new audio Measurements and benchmarks. That may appease the Objective community somewhat.

JA wrote:

"Jim Austin examines the D/A aspect of this claim in his article in this issue..."

Will this article be avail. online anytime soon?

The length of this comment thread, and the average length of post, provide a spectacular picture of the contentiousness.

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

While all the bother with MQA? There is nothing better than SACD anyway. Multi-channel,DSD 5.1 rig or better. Nobody wants another unproven system forcing people to buy unnecessary costly equipment
- or is this why the audio equipment & press are pushing it.

I say buy yourself a modest Oppo-205 at least & be thrilled by the glorious sound which meets your ears and that's as good as it gets.
The audio press has tried for years to bury SACD unsuccessfully without success. Why? Because audiophiles know it's the best.

Guess all our golden eared friends are going to start demanding that loudspeaker manufacturers sell only tweeters that have flat clean response out to 50khz without the dreaded "time smear" and off axis response roll off...Good luck with that. Such devices are about as common as unicorns. The fact that most amp output stages are intentionally band limited for protection - well, we won't even go there...
If only the "expert reviewers" that read and write these ridiculous arguments could hear what engineers in the field are thinking and saying about them.... But alas, even if our diamond jewel tweeters can't accurately render the signals in a meaningful way, at least we can polish them...

MQA has people putting on their thinking caps.

I remember when Dolby was rolled out ( 1968ish, with the help of KLH ) and we all had to "buy-in" to the demonstrably better technology.

Dolby was in London England, funny how those clever Brits seem to have a hand in many of our Audio advancements.

I can now imagine how the little MQA logo will be printed on the front of our electronics ( and possibly smart phones ). This just might be an "Investment" Grade Audio Investment opportunity. hmmmm........

21st Century Tony in Michigan

I only have one problem with MQA and that is availability. At least here in Norway it’s almost impossible to find content outside of Tidal and things doesn’t look too good financially for that company: https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/12/16768650/tidal-money-problems-sprint-investment

Hi folks,
The point isn’t if MQA sounds better, same or worst.
To me this is a proprietary closed solution designed to generate licence fees at both the recording end and the playback end. It is a money grab. This industry is dying, it members are becoming extinct and there is no plan to attract the next generation. So all this industry can do is resell versions of the same material under a different format or package. So how many file formats do i need of my favourites. I thought that after SACD it would be clear to all that this idea of dedicated hardware and re-encoded music is dead-end.

Seriously sad to see all this... doesn’t do a thing to bring new younger audiophiles.

I’m 50, so I watched and Listened for a few years and I see more poor choices then good ones.
- loudness wars on FM and on recordings
- proprietary closed solutions
- stratospheric prices disconnected from cost of living and disposable income.
- out right exclusion of women
- magazines and reviewers with conflict of interests
- need i go on?

From the recording industry to the broadcast industry to the audio equipment industry instead working together they have hurt each other now they wonder why the next generation doesn’t buy music, doesn’t buy gear and actually doesn’t care.

I feel for the artists and musicians because they are stuck unless they become completely vertical alone by recording and distributing their music outside this. At least their art will be heard but they won’t get rich.

Good luck with your format wars... you are on life support and seem to ignore it.