MQA audio, anyone tried it?

[yepimonfire]

I've never been one to buy into the whole 24/96 audio craze because I never heard a difference in an abx comparison. This does something different than regular 24/96 however. From the website :

Conventional audio formats discard parts of the sound to keep file size down, but part of this lost detail is the subtle timing information that allows us to build a realistic 3D soundscape in our minds.

Without it, music becomes flattened. And our ears know it isn’t real.

With MQA, we go all the way back to the original master recording and capture the missing timing detail. We then use advanced digital processing to deliver it in a form that’s small enough to download or stream.

The result is astonishing. Every nuance and subtlety of the artist’s performance – every tiny drop of emotion – is authentically reproduced. When you listen, you’ll be transported right into the very moment of creation. You’re there.

In a nutshell, from what I've read, it compensates for the timing issues in both the AD converter in the studio, and the DAC during playback, eliminating the issues with digital playback.

So does it work, or is it just hype? I was pretty skeptical, but I figured I might as well give it a shot. Tidal is now streaming MQA on all of Warner music groups albums, so I purchased a tidal hifi subscription and fired up some tunes.

I don't have an MQA capable DAC, but Tidal includes software decoding. From what I've gathered the major differences between software decoding on a standard DAC and an MQA DAC is there is no "deblurring" on the playback end, just the recording end, and the maximum resolution from software decoding is 24/96, though a majority of studios rarely exceed this. I connected my receiver to my PC via Hdmi, enabled exclusive mode and forced maximum volume in Tidal and set the output to 2 channel 24/96 LPCM.

I definitely heard something different, tidal also had the original non master versions of several of the same albums, so I switched back and forth between the same songs to see if I could notice a difference. Immediately I noticed the Master version sounded like a veil had been lifted, it was if the focus had been dialed in to perfection, with incredible separation between instruments and fine details. The music sounded much more transparent and three dimensional, whereas the original lossless version sounded flat and blurred. There wasn't anything like extended highs or bass or anything like that, tonally it was the same as the original, just much sharper and realistic sounding.

To be positive I wasn't experiencing a placebo effect, I had my wife switch back and forth between the original and the mqa versions on several different songs while I recorded my guesses. I managed to correctly guess the MQA version on 7 out of 8 different songs. The music was the same level on both the masters and the originals so none of the mqa versions were any louder or softer.

So far, I'm convinced. MQA is most definitely capturing something that a regular lossless file doesn't. Has anyone else had a chance to listen and had similar results?



Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Tapatalk

 

[jinjuku]

I haven't tried MQA mastered files as of yet. I need to find something on Tidal that I currently have on disc and compare that way.

I've seen opinions all over the map with regards to PCM/MQA/DSD. What I don't get is what is the source they have done all these remasters from? There is a good chance they were PCM sources.

I typically don't participate in systems that employ DRM. I'm not a thief and I prefer not to be treated like one.

 

[rojo]

I've never been one to buy into the whole 24/96 audio craze because I never heard a difference in an abx comparison. This does something different than regular 24/96 however. From the website :

Conventional audio formats discard parts of the sound to keep file size down, but part of this lost detail is the subtle timing information that allows us to build a realistic 3D soundscape in our minds.

Without it, music becomes flattened. And our ears know it isn’t real.

With MQA, we go all the way back to the original master recording and capture the missing timing detail. We then use advanced digital processing to deliver it in a form that’s small enough to download or stream.

The result is astonishing. Every nuance and subtlety of the artist’s performance – every tiny drop of emotion – is authentically reproduced. When you listen, you’ll be transported right into the very moment of creation. You’re there.

In a nutshell, from what I've read, it compensates for the timing issues in both the AD converter in the studio, and the DAC during playback, eliminating the issues with digital playback.

So does it work, or is it just hype? I was pretty skeptical, but I figured I might as well give it a shot. Tidal is now streaming MQA on all of Warner music groups albums, so I purchased a tidal hifi subscription and fired up some tunes.

I don't have an MQA capable DAC, but Tidal includes software decoding. From what I've gathered the major differences between software decoding on a standard DAC and an MQA DAC is there is no "deblurring" on the playback end, just the recording end, and the maximum resolution from software decoding is 24/96, though a majority of studios rarely exceed this. I connected my receiver to my PC via Hdmi, enabled exclusive mode and forced maximum volume in Tidal and set the output to 2 channel 24/96 LPCM.

I definitely heard something different, tidal also had the original non master versions of several of the same albums, so I switched back and forth between the same songs to see if I could notice a difference. Immediately I noticed the Master version sounded like a veil had been lifted, it was if the focus had been dialed in to perfection, with incredible separation between instruments and fine details. The music sounded much more transparent and three dimensional, whereas the original lossless version sounded flat and blurred. There wasn't anything like extended highs or bass or anything like that, tonally it was the same as the original, just much sharper and realistic sounding.

To be positive I wasn't experiencing a placebo effect, I had my wife switch back and forth between the original and the mqa versions on several different songs while I recorded my guesses. I managed to correctly guess the MQA version on 7 out of 8 different songs. The music was the same level on both the masters and the originals so none of the mqa versions were any louder or softer.

So far, I'm convinced. MQA is most definitely capturing something that a regular lossless file doesn't. Has anyone else had a chance to listen and had similar results?

Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Tapatalk

Sounds like BS marketspeak technobabble to me, putting a fluffy chocolate coating on variable bitrate tech that's been around for decades. I'm surprised you were able to A/B test the two formats with such a high success rate though. And you're sure that wasn't a fluke? And that Tidal hasn't somehow degraded the original versions in order to promote their premium offering; or perhaps vice-versa, that maybe an extra couple milliseconds hasn't been added to one channel to accentuate stereo separation, or they artificially employed similar Q sound techniques as used by Nuance several years ago?

Well, my maltempered skepticism notwithstanding, it sounds like whatever they've done is increasing your enjoyment of your system. Far be it from me to argue with that. Sounds like you're getting your money's worth.

 

[Bucknekked]

So far, I'm convinced. MQA is most definitely capturing something that a regular lossless file doesn't. Has anyone else had a chance to listen and had similar results?

yepimonfire:
I don't have a dog in this discussion. I just re-encoded all my CD's in to a lossless file format. But, I'm interested in MQA because I don't know anything about it and you are "hearing a difference". Any claim to something I can audibly hear is worth checking out. Let's see, who is cheerleading for MQA? I found two sources.

"While the technology has received little comment in the general and mainstream press, it has been exalted by the audiophile and hi-fi press. Robert Harley, editor of The Absolute Sound has referred to it as "The most significant audio technology of my lifetime".[11] Editor John Atkinson writing in Stereophile magazine following the UK launch in December 2014 wrote "In almost 40 years of attending audio press events, only rarely have I come away feeling that I was present at the birth of a new world."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_Quality_Authenticated#cite_note-atkinson_stereophile_dec2014-12

So, two leading cheerleaders for MQA call it the most significant audio technology of my lifetime and the birth of a new world. Both write for publications I have heard referred to here on AH as somewhat susceptible to "claims". (insert massive understatement here).

Where are other data points on MQA? I honestly don't know because as soon as I read the stuff from The Absolute Sound and Stereophile I stopped reading. Having just finished playing CD roulette for a week re-encoding in a lossless format my entire library, I am in no mood to hear about a technology that is capturing something that lossless file formats miss. I don't know how lossless file formats are missing something relevant.

If you are enjoying the MQA experience and you find it better than other formats, who am I tel say any different? I don't know beans about MQA, haven't heard any sample tunes, and don't have audiophile ears.
If MQA makes your audio experience better, keep it up.

 

[KenM10759]

I've got a Bluesound Vault 2 feeding my system and a Tidal HiFi subscription which now offers a growing list of MQA tracks. Like all Bluesound streaming capable devices I get "full" decoding. I also don't consider myself to have "audiophile ears."

There's variation in the effect. Some titles are from the 1970's and weren't of particularly great recording quality to begin with. Those are really not noticeably better, nor are they worse. Newer or very good quality older recordings on the other hand, really do benefit from MQA. It's never really what I would describe as say the difference between hearing a given track on a transistor radio and then on a $15,000 stereo system, but it's definitely there. Not being an audiophile, I can best describe it as a more coherent sound quality and more pleasing to listen to. You have to hear it and play a couple of tracks back-to-back with CD/lossless and MQA to know if you like it, but I can't imagine not liking the improvement in music that really does take advantage of it.

That's my take on MQA. Glad to have it.

 

[Bucknekked]

I've got a Bluesound Vault 2 feeding my system and a Tidal HiFi subscription which now offers a growing list of MQA tracks. Like all Bluesound streaming capable devices I get "full" decoding. I also don't consider myself to have "audiophile ears."

There's variation in the effect. Some titles are from the 1970's and weren't of particularly great recording quality to begin with. Those are really not noticeably better, nor are they worse. Newer or very good quality older recordings on the other hand, really do benefit from MQA. It's never really what I would describe as say the difference between hearing a given track on a transistor radio and then on a $15,000 stereo system, but it's definitely there. Not being an audiophile, I can best describe it as a more coherent sound quality and more pleasing to listen to. You have to hear it and play a couple of tracks back-to-back with CD/lossless and MQA to know if you like it, but I can't imagine not liking the improvement in music that really does take advantage of it.

That's my take on MQA. Glad to have it.

Perhaps I simply don't understand MQA at all.
From your description it would imply that MQA is a new source format? How does MQA relate to CDs?
I may have taken a wrong turn somewhere trying to get the value proposition.

 

[KenM10759]

It's a file format that is approximately the same size as a 16 bit/44.1khz CD yet offers resolution that appears as big as a 24 bit/192khz file with decoders that display the rate, such as a Mytek Brooklyn. It is a file which is absolutely compatible with a CD format in that any DAC which can convert a CD to analog can also play an MQA file. Under that condition you get a file which could sound a tiny bit better than a CD (imperceptible to me), but with a full decoder you do have the potential to have very noticeably better sound quality.

I have about 500GB of music ripped from CD's in WAV and FLAC format stored on my Vault 2 which I can play anytime on my system, and do so without any computer being on. I just need wireless or Bluetooth working to control the Vault 2 with my Android tablet or phone. Heck, it's even got touch controls on top to play, advance, back or pause if I walk over to it so I suppose as long as I had a means to load a playlist or something into the play queue I'd be listening.

Much of the time I just prefer to listen to new music or music I don't own, via Tidal HiFi. It's not worth obsessing over to get MQA. I had bought into the Bluesound game to get Tidal HiFi and have access to a lot more music (new to me music) than I could ever get even by listening to Sirius/XM in the car and then go buy the CD's of music I liked. The $20 a month I pay for Tidal HiFi is cheaper than a few CD's or even one good new 180g LP and I can listen to it over and over again any time I want, never degrading sound quality or wearing down the life expectancy of a cartridge or CD player. (Though there are times I just enjoy putting an LP on the turntable.)

Some more reading for you:
http://www.audiostream.com/content/mqa-decoding-explained#yHP8JSrObHx0gkcH.97
http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2017/01/mqa-tidal-where-are-we-now/
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2017/01/comparison-tidal-mqa-music-high.html

 

[Bucknekked]

It's a file format that is approximately the same size as a 16 bit/44.1khz CD yet offers resolution that appears as big as a 24 bit/192khz file with decoders that display the rate, such as a Mytek Brooklyn. It is a file which is absolutely compatible with a CD format in that any DAC which can convert a CD to analog can also play an MQA file. Under that condition you get a file which could sound a tiny bit better than a CD (imperceptible to me), but with a full decoder you do have the potential to have very noticeably better sound quality.

I have about 500GB of music ripped from CD's in WAV and FLAC format stored on my Vault 2 which I can play anytime on my system, and do so without any computer being on. I just need wireless or Bluetooth working to control the Vault 2 with my Android tablet or phone. Heck, it's even got touch controls on top to play, advance, back or pause if I walk over to it so I suppose as long as I had a means to load a playlist or something into the play queue I'd be listening.

Much of the time I just prefer to listen to new music or music I don't own, via Tidal HiFi. It's not worth obsessing over to get MQA. I had bought into the Bluesound game to get Tidal HiFi and have access to a lot more music (new to me music) than I could ever get even by listening to Sirius/XM in the car and then go buy the CD's of music I liked. The $20 a month I pay for Tidal HiFi is cheaper than a few CD's or even one good new 180g LP and I can listen to it over and over again any time I want, never degrading sound quality or wearing down the life expectancy of a cartridge or CD player. (Though there are times I just enjoy putting an LP on the turntable.)

Some more reading for you:
http://www.audiostream.com/content/mqa-decoding-explained#yHP8JSrObHx0gkcH.97
http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2017/01/mqa-tidal-where-are-we-now/
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2017/01/comparison-tidal-mqa-music-high.html

I like the layout of your Vault system. Sounds like it's got a lot of flexibility for quality replays and room for a great music library. I thought my library was big, but, yours at 500gb is hefty heft hefty.

The puzzle of how to find "new to me" music is a tough one. I make slow but steady progress with a network of friends. A little Spotify here and there. Dumb luck occasionally works. It's an ongoing work in progress.

MQA? I will just have to see what my audio future brings in terms of upgrades. I have speakers in my short term future (yay), perhaps a new amp in the longer term. Who knows? If the Mac Mini gets a bit feeble, maybe a Vault.

I enjoyed your post. Thanks for the info

 

[lovinthehd]

@Bucknekked--have you tried Pandora? I think its much better than Spotify for letting it lead you to new artists...but I think you need to load up your possible radio stations to reflect your general tastes and use the like thing for best results.

Some day I may try MQA but it seems to need a significant investment in time and expense to implement so no real interest yet, altho some positive comments on forums I've seen are interesting.

 

[Bucknekked]

@Bucknekked--have you tried Pandora? I think its much better than Spotify for letting it lead you to new artists...but I think you need to load up your possible radio stations to reflect your general tastes and use the like thing for best results.

Some day I may try MQA but it seems to need a significant investment in time and expense to implement so no real interest yet, altho some positive comments on forums I've seen are interesting.

I tried a couple of streaming services before settling on Spotify. I chose Spotify because all my adult children and a few friends use it. I don't know how it compares to others. 2 of my adult children work for Verizon so I get all my cellphone advice from them too. So far, so good. It's nice to have educated, tech savvy, grown up kids that will also pick up the check occasionally.

 

[lovinthehd]

I've only tried a couple myself, Pandora and Spotify stuck, mostly because they're built in apps on my two main avrs and can also access it with a pc, a variety of peripherals and my phone too, even at the place I do some part time work, we all use Pandora, switching among our accounts, to listen to during the day. If it's going to be something specific like an album or artist I've run across then I like to go to Spotify and immediately create a playlist in my phone to sample later on one of the avr setups; Pandora is more for long runs of time where you let it go on station mix and creating a continual playlist based on your established tastes (if Spotify can do that I haven't figured it out).

 

[terry duty]

My Brother and I both enjoy Tidal and it's MQA albums. WE are only able to use the Tidal software decoder. But i'm looking for a hardware decoder built in for my next AV receiver. I own DVD audio dics that I have converted to flac. I am a big fan of HI Rez and MQA in our opinon is much better than CD's and the hardware decoder is the only way to get the full rez ability of MQA so very much looking forward to when I can own a hardware decoder. I am one of those who think that MQA is the future way to hoi rez. Snd I know this is a very opionated topic so I also enjoy other formates of High rez like DSD and flacs from DVD audios and SACD as well. But for streaming hi rez MQA al the way. Because as Tidal has demonstRATED IT works for streaming hi rez. And I don't mean to piss off any non MQA pepole here thats noyt my intent at all this it's just my and my brothers opion as Tidal subscibers. Which they also have CD quailty albums s well on Tidal. And my brother is slso big into vinyl snd tubes.And if you watch the you tube videos from the previos Rocky Mountain Audiofest you will see that many audiophiles love Tidal over any other formats of streaming music services for their quality of sound.

 

[jinjuku]

I had the Meridian Explorer 2 and returned it after 20 days. I wasn't impressed compared to my 24/192 tracks.

Tidal I ditched due to the small catalog. Spotify and Pandora are better offerings IMO .

 

[Bucknekked]

I haven't tried MQA mastered files as of yet. I need to find something on Tidal that I currently have on disc and compare that way.

I've seen opinions all over the map with regards to PCM/MQA/DSD. What I don't get is what is the source they have done all these remasters from? There is a good chance they were PCM sources.

I typically don't participate in systems that employ DRM. I'm not a thief and I prefer not to be treated like one.

Just recently I did do some MQA comparisons with music from other sources. I did the 30 day premium trial with Tidal and you get access to MQA titles. I have many of those titles on Spotify where I get the 320kbps stream. I also had some of the music on CD. So I did my own bakeoff.

The long and the short of it : no audible difference for me. For an example, Sheryl Crowe's new album "Be Myself" is a pop album on Tidal that's available on Spotify that I also bought the CD for. They all sound great. They all sound the same to me. I can't tell a lick o difference.

There is a difference in the price. Tidal at $20 bucks a month. Spotify Premium at $10 a month. And a used cd for $2.99 and no future payments.

I can take that a step further with HD Tracks and an HD album for $40 bucks or so compared to a ripped and used CD at $2.99 of the exact same album: Alison Kraus/ Robert Plant, Raising Sand. Again, listened to them both. Both sound great. Not a lick of difference side by side.

EDITORS NOTE: No HD , MQA, or other audiophile notions were damaged in the expression of this opinion.
Its all just my opinion.

 

[Bucknekked]

Just to throw a little gasoline on the fire, lets toss "which is better vinyl or digital" in to this question.
Its a natural followon to the bits, bytes and format discussions. And it has about the same answer.
Here is a great YouTube video I ran across that summarizes my OPINION quite nicely.
Its just an opinion. No facts from here on out.

GOOD VIDEO ON VINYL VS DIGITIAL FORMATS

 

[MrBoat]

It's better until you get used to it like everything else. Then the search for the next best thing continues. There is no light at the end of this tunnel as long as they can keep squeezing nickels out of it.

I've listened to music for most of my life. As long as the recording was good, and the speakers better, I have not wanted for anything else. I actually appreciate a difference between live and recorded music. Listening to live music, indoors, just seems wrong to me anyway.

 

[cpp]

Not impressed. Just give me a nice recording and I can forget MQA, tried it, nothing special.

 

[class a]

Just upgraded to MQA. To me less digital harshness, better bottom and more defined top end. For me I like it.

 

[PENG]

Not impressed. Just give me a nice recording and I can forget MQA, tried it, nothing special.

Agree, if the recording is good, it doesn't matter if it is in CD, SACD, 192/24, DSD512, or MQA. If the recording is bad, no format can make it sound good.

 

[2channel lover]

IMO, Hi Res is here to stay because there is a segment of the music buying population that want it, pure and simple.

Technology never rests. In just about every industry they are always trying to raise the bar, music is no different. Are they always successful? No, but that's never a good reason to stop trying. Bob Stuart is just next up.

I've dabbled in SACD...so far I like what I'm hearing, I agree wholeheartedly with PENG's comment...to paraphase...a good recording is a good recording, the format can't make a bad recording sound good. I haven't heard a MQA recording yet, so don't have a firm opinion of it yet. Right now I would challenge the theory of it becoming mainstream.