[shamu144]

I personnally welcome those discussions. We are stepping into the unknown, and it is no suprise that it comes with resistance. We can now start talking about the importance of digital filters and time response, which have had very little exposure in the audio enthusiats circles since the birth of digital audio I believe. Yes, every manufacturer has its own understanding of what should be the "best" filter which is why I guess some are strongly reluctant to adopt MQA in their DAC, and that's understandable. But all those discussions about who has the best implementation are pointless, and manufacturers should really take note of this. You can just get Audirvana (or other brilliant  software like HQPlayer, etc...) and start playing with digital filters settings, minimizing considerably the impact of the proprietary filters in your DACs. The "best" settings is simply the one that will sound best to your ears. No proprietary filters in DACs make any sense to me in the future of digital audio. Customizable filters is already a reality and appear to me much more attractive for end users.
 
Where I do see great value for MQA is in introducing a new standards for the mastering process to achieve the best possible sound at the source as well. This could allow reliable consistency in music production, something that I believe is far from being true today. Meridian to me seems a very credible actor in the field to push for such a standard. Others are more than welcome to try. Also, the fact that MQA high res files can be packed into 24/48khz makes it terribly convenient for today's audio distribution infrastructures. I sincerely hope they will succeed.

 

[bigro]

  Regardless of all the hand wringing, accusations and other ideas going on in the thread, the fact of the matter is that if you use streaming services, Tidal's masters are some of the best sound quality you can get from streamed audio atm without having to **** around with players, files and all that other crap from the dinosaur age. 

Not really, inside all of that foldy file stuff the output that goes to the DAC chip is still PCM. Like all the other "crap from the dinosaur age". 

 

[germay0653]

  I don't think I'm insulting anybody. nobody is an expert on everything. I've been using computers since I'm 12, I'm 40 now but all I know is as a user, I can't make one, I can't code anything, I don't follow the PC master race and don't know what is TOTL or not. and TBH I'm not really interested in learning or I would have done so by now. I'm your average computer user who's ignorant about computers. it's a fact. and of course being ignorant about those stuff makes me way more gullible to unrealistic marketing. a guy with more knowledge would pick up on some half empty claims, or contradicting points about computer specs. I wouldn't.
now try to sell me fake pringles and you'd see the all extent of my expertise. for some it's nerdy audio tech, for some it's cat figurines, we're going to be ignorant about something.
 
 for some products, the target will logically be people who don't know too much about the technology. take pono with a campaign showing a DAP used as a line out in a car vs low bit rate mp3, while making statements about providing the real sound like artist intended, there was from the start a certain need to be ignorant about a good deal, not to start laughing. often Neil Young became overwhelmed by his own topics on TV.  people, IMO, clearly were attracted by a philosophy of pono, not by component details and objective demonstrations. how could they, for all the campaign there was close to no actual information about the device or its objective fidelity. reason why I didn't back it, I spent 2 years waiting for output specs that never came. it was all about the idea of good sound instead of actual good sound.
I feel that MQA is attracting the same people. some general idea of good sound like the artist intended, some confusing impulse response that looks like a clear and serious argument to people who don't know much about impulse responses, and off we go. but objectively, it's basically a file with more samples. like any other file with more samples. and the DAC is a DAC, it just reads one more format and may or may not apply a particular filter. not much to make a tech obsessed audiophile wet his pants. those who will come to MQA are, IMO, more likely to be those who once again are attracted by a philosophy of good sound, but don't necessarily get much else of the process. and I expect a good deal of people to be convinced of the format's "superiority" just because they enjoy some masters and mistake the master for the format. something a more objective, more techy person would wish to control with certainty before making any claim about how good the format is.

You are definitely passionate and I wish some people that I've met in my life had as much as you do.  It's to be applauded.  These weren't your words, but to metaphorically imply that we're like sheep following the pied piper, in the case of MQA, can cause one to be bit defensive in response.  I was defensive and apologize for that. I do not want to turn this into an emotional shoving contest. I agree that objective, scientifically applied, testing with metrics to back it up is the best way to go.  My intent is to learn and grow.
 
I have a little bit of a scientific background, a degree in Biology, and know enough about computers, I have been an operator, a programmer, systems administrator, manager and director in that field.  Am I an expert?  By no means.  I know enough to be dangerous, so to speak, but I do have enough knowledge to understand some of the basics.  I'll rely on the real experts in digital audio like Vincent Brient, Jason Stoddard, Bob Stuart, Jurgen Reis, etc. to offer their opinions and hopefully guide us without deception.
 
But back to the topic of MQA.  Some, not all, aspects of what MQA is trying to accomplish, at least in my mind, could possibly have some merit based on the basic understanding I have of it, specifically the de blurring.  Are there tests to physically, electrically and chemically measure how our ears and brains react to and perceive the time differences or the pre and post ring additions to a signal?  I don't believe there are and I could be blowing smoke out my butt but in the absence of such testing, I am keeping an open mind to the possibility that we can perceive the differences and we just have not developed the science to the point where it can be measured.

 

[Dbrau544]

I have been a Tidal Premium subscriber for some time now and have been enjoying the MQA files through the Explorer2 for the past few days.  Great sound through Sony-MDR-7Z headphones or through my home system utilizing a 20 year old Jolida integrated amp.  Compares well with HD FLACs and much improved over other steaming options.  I hope Tidal and others continue to support and expand the available catalog.  

 

[castleofargh]

Quote:

  You are definitely passionate and I wish some people that I've met in my life had as much as you do.  It's to be applauded.  These weren't your words, but to metaphorically imply that we're like sheep following the pied piper, in the case of MQA, can cause one to be bit defensive in response.  I was defensive and apologize for that. I do not want to turn this into an emotional shoving contest. I agree that objective, scientifically applied, testing with metrics to back it up is the best way to go.  My intent is to learn and grow.
 
I have a little bit of a scientific background, a degree in Biology, and know enough about computers, I have been an operator, a programmer, systems administrator, manager and director in that field.  Am I an expert?  By no means.  I know enough to be dangerous, so to speak, but I do have enough knowledge to understand some of the basics.  I'll rely on the real experts in digital audio like Vincent Brient, Jason Stoddard, Bob Stuart, Jurgen Reis, etc. to offer their opinions and hopefully guide us without deception.
 
But back to the topic of MQA.  Some, not all, aspects of what MQA is trying to accomplish, at least in my mind, could possibly have some merit based on the basic understanding I have of it, specifically the de blurring.  Are there tests to physically, electrically and chemically measure how our ears and brains react to and perceive the time differences or the pre and post ring additions to a signal?  I don't believe there are and I could be blowing smoke out my butt but in the absence of such testing, I am keeping an open mind to the possibility that we can perceive the differences and we just have not developed the science to the point where it can be measured.

 
I understand how what I say can come as an attack. but to be clear, marketing is manipulation. an accepted one but just the same. I never thought that mislead consumers were idiots, you can't know what you don't know. if anything they could sometimes be victims.
a professional must knows what he's doing, it's his job. when a brand markets a product with half truths and unproved insinuations, I find it fair that it becomes a ****strom. it's in the game, you play and when you get caught, your PR campaign becomes a nightmare. a fair reward for an unclean job.
 I'm almost always raging at marketing. and more specifically at unproved claims. the pono DAP is in fact a fine DAP. MQA is a format, why would I hate a format? if I don't like it, I don't use it. the end. I always rage about DSD(because I still believe it's a stupid concept to go 1bit and waste so much data on removing noise), but it's also just a format and the effective resolution is very good. I rarely have problems with objects and software, what I don't like I don't use. I'm more of a mad dog barking at the marketing guy when he passes in my street ^_^.
 
 
 
about audibility of time delays in music, it would be like trying to give a fixed value to audible distortion levels. the answer is always contextual. depending on frequency, how loud are the other sounds, what type of disto/delays...
but you can find a few papers testing different things, like the one making mention of the 5 to 8µs used so often by the MQA guys as if it was a relevant value when it's an absolute extreme using very specific test signal in the way that would give the optimal result.
that's like taking this guy's result

and then going everywhere telling people how humans are know to run 100m in 9.45s.  it comes from a true value, but it's silly(dishonest) to take it out of context just to try and make a point. ^_^ (there is also the guy running downhill

but he didn't break that record and did a lame 9.5s).
 
ok enough silliness from me for today.

 

[germay0653]

  Quote:
 
I understand how what I say can come as an attack. but to be clear, marketing is manipulation. an accepted one but just the same. I never thought that mislead consumers were idiots, you can't know what you don't know. if anything they could sometimes be victims.
a professional must knows what he's doing, it's his job. when a brand markets a product with half truths and unproved insinuations, I find it fair that it becomes a ****strom. it's in the game, you play and when you get caught, your PR campaign becomes a nightmare. a fair reward for an unclean job.
 I'm almost always raging at marketing. and more specifically at unproved claims. the pono DAP is in fact a fine DAP. MQA is a format, why would I hate a format? if I don't like it, I don't use it. the end. I always rage about DSD(because I still believe it's a stupid concept to go 1bit and waste so much data on removing noise), but it's also just a format and the effective resolution is very good. I rarely have problems with objects and software, what I don't like I don't use. I'm more of a mad dog barking at the marketing guy when he passes in my street ^_^.
 
 
 
about audibility of time delays in music, it would be like trying to give a fixed value to audible distortion levels. the answer is always contextual. depending on frequency, how loud are the other sounds, what type of disto/delays...
but you can find a few papers testing different things, like the one making mention of the 5 to 8µs used so often by the MQA guys as if it was a relevant value when it's an absolute extreme using very specific test signal in the way that would give the optimal result.
that's like taking this guy's result

and then going everywhere telling people how humans are know to run 100m in 9.45s.  it comes from a true value, but it's silly(dishonest) to take it out of context just to try and make a point. ^_^ (there is also the guy running downhill

but he didn't break that record and did a lame 9.5s).
 
ok enough silliness from me for today.

 
Thanks!  Appreciate the honesty.

 

[leaky74]

Just stumbled across this:

https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?act=url&depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&nv=1&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://www.sempre-audio.at/HIGHRESAUDIO_stellt_Angebot_an_MQA_Daten_ein.id.5543.htm&usg=ALkJrhhZEEzhlS4IhZ9_pdGZhn5PFRYa3w

 

[TheTrace]

Just stumbled across this:

https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?act=url&depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&nv=1&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://www.sempre-audio.at/HIGHRESAUDIO_stellt_Angebot_an_MQA_Daten_ein.id.5543.htm&usg=ALkJrhhZEEzhlS4IhZ9_pdGZhn5PFRYa3w

boom

 

[castleofargh]

Just stumbled across this:

https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?act=url&depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&nv=1&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://www.sempre-audio.at/HIGHRESAUDIO_stellt_Angebot_an_MQA_Daten_ein.id.5543.htm&usg=ALkJrhhZEEzhlS4IhZ9_pdGZhn5PFRYa3w

if they really stopped because they just now realized they wouldn't get 24bit, someone clearly didn't do his homework at highresaudio. information on MQA was fairly clear about that from the start even when they started with the "origami" analogy. it was explained that they were filling the lower bits with information about ultrasonic content. anybody can read the patent and clearly get this part(but admittedly it's long and super boring to read).
I'm guessing there was some huge misunderstanding about the "lossless" reconstruction of the signal mentioned by MQA. it meant lossless 17/192 or something like that. never 24/192. MQA is potentially lossless, the same way 16/44 can be lossless. it's also not 24/192.
and about aliasing... one can't reject strong filters because of ringing, and at the same time expect no aliasing from a gentle low pass. or maybe I'm missing something obvious?
 
I feel like all the information was here and highresaudio just missed it until now.(am I defending MQA now?

)

 

[shamu144]

No problem, I'll stick with Tidal

 

[manpowre]

The last 2 weeks Ive been spending alot of time listening to the Tidal MQA albums, and found a few albums that I really enjoy, for me new music to listen to, which is the awesome part of this great hobby, there is always something new to listen to!
 
Especially the album Three by Blue Man Group, with alot of great slammy drums and cymbals and other street instruments. Complex soundstage with alot going on in the songs. Album is a 2016 recording, so its updated with recording equipment.
 
Last weekend I had light tinnitus (is that the english word), and I bought a sound pressure device to measure the DBA coming from my headphones, and the MQA albums Ive been listening to are 3-6 decibel louder on MQA than the 16/44 normal Tidal hifi stream! I figured I had been playing this album Three at 83 decibel, while the peaks of some of the songs when all instruments are playing was 86 decibel. So I turned down my volume knob 2 notches to get it below 80 decibel on the MQA albums. 
 
Listening to the Three album every day, going between the MQA version and the 16/44 version, I preferred the 16/44 version as some of the heavy drum beats when the songs explode just cracks up on MQA while in normal 16/44 it is under control. If this is due to the extra loudness I dont know.
 
Then a few more days have gone by, the light tinnitus is gone, and I read about the MQA being effectively 17 bits after decoding, and thinking, this Three album needs high dynamic range to play efficient, so I decided to purchase the album on hdtracks.com in 24/44.1. Seems like this album was mastered in 44.1 but 24 bits dynamic range, so great I thought, exactly what I was after to get more dynamic range. Lets download it and start listening to it.
 
And I have to say that is a pretty big difference ! First of all, the mastering of it from hdtracks is similar loudness level as the tidal 16/44, so I could turn up the volume a bit again, getting it to 79-80 decibel. 
 
Second, the details of every plastic drum/hit I can clearly hear the hit before the slam comes, even when the songs explode with alot of instruments its spot on. Instrument separation is glass clear with the hdtracks version.
 
Third, I am thinking that over the last 2 weeks listening to the MQA albums I have been turning the volume knob on my amp between songs in albums not to get it too loud, and also sometimes within a song I had to turn the volume knob to compensate either for sound to be too low or too high. With the HDtracks version of this Blue Man Group album I didnt turn the volume knob even once playing the whole album from hdtracks version.
 
I start to wonder if the MQA encoder will change the loudness even within a single song ? I read about the 17 bits and noise being added to the song being decoded, is this the main reason for the extra loudness ? I doubt this album Three is mastered over again for the Tidal MQA version. So something happened to the MQA version of this album for sure in a audible negative way !
 
I actually start to dislike MQA due to the extra loudness level. I just cant purchase every album I hear from hdtracks to confirm this (gonna be expencive). But I think I will continue purchase albums I really enjoy and spend alot of time with from HDtracks !.

 

[groove93]

Be careful with Tinnitus. I've had it since my teenage years in Highschool and it got really bad in 1991 my Junior year.
 
I've done A/B comparisons with MQA and non-MQA streams, which also included Flac files I own of the same content. Flac files are mainly 44.1/16 and some are at 24-bit but I don't notice a difference.
 
The MQA streams are louder for me as well. I use a Laptop connected to a Meridian Explorer 2, Sennheiser HD600 Headphones, and a Schiit Asgard2 Headphone Amp. Diminishing Returns is what I'm dealing with. I've listened to a variety of music in the Master Library such as Coltrane, Ornette Coleman, Fleetwood Mac's "Rumors", Van Morrison, Chaka Khan, Prince, and ELP. While they all sound great, my expectations for some type of enhancement with the MQA files was not met. 
 
I have a 3 month free trial as a result of purchasing the Explorer 2 and I will take full advantage of it, but after that it appears I won't miss it, for my local library of Flac files suits my needs.

 

[saddleup]

People need to stop taking things so personally.  This is a public forum after all.

 

[JeremyLaurenson]

Has anyone found a decent online store that actually serves up in MQA in the USA? Hiresaudio never allowed purchases and us.7digital.com haz zip.

 

[HesNot]

Anyone heard word on the Android and/or IOS apps with MQA enabled?  I have a Pioneer XDP which is compatible from a hardware perspective but no Tidal software yet...