Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Meridian Audio's new... sub-format called MQA. (Read 151677 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Meridian Audio's new... sub-format called MQA.

Reply #200 –
Well, it looks like MQA is not going to wither away, at least what I saw in CES. The push from Meridian is quite incredible. They really want it to be succeeded, even if that means literally burning cash.

The problem is they expect to get those cash back by encouraging/forcing people to buy new DACs and stuffs.

Meridian Audio's new... sub-format called MQA.

Reply #201 –
Quote from: wnmnkh on
The problem is they expect to get those cash back by encouraging/forcing people to buy new DACs and stuffs.

It is among the obvious benefits of the licensing stranglehold business.

Meridian Audio's new... sub-format called MQA.

Reply #202 –
I don't see the CD dying any time soon.  So, no new DACs needed here.

The placebophiles will be all over this new format.  But, I think MQA faces an uphill battle.  FLAC is entrenched as the audiophile codec of choice right now.  Hard drive space is cheap and high speed internet is everywhere.  I feel like thsi solves a problem that existed last decade.

Yes, you can cram more music on a device if it's lossy compressed, but if there's one thing placebophiles have proven, it's that they're willing to spend money.  Most of them won't hesitate to buy a FiiO X5 and cram 2 256 GB MicroCD cards in there, and then buy a second X5 for all the music the first player couldn't hold.

And you also face the placebophile belief that lossless is always superior to lossy.  They'll probably say that it's better than MP3, but not as good as FLAC.

Re: Meridian Audio's new... sub-format called MQA.

Reply #203 –
Did anyone dig deeper into the MQA fog? Some things seem to become clear when reading around.
Very likely it is only about selling the latest remaster again in a way you need certified MQA hardware to decode it.
New A/D conversions will be sold as being superior only because of the patended technology.
So far nobody has decoded digital data to test anything with value.
No way you can handle the digital decoded data for anything because you won't get it over digital out or a software that makes it usable PCM data.
No room correction, no own digital speakers and much other things. Leave alone own editing, EQ, cutting, mixing...

My possibilities are very limited with analysis so i may be pretty off.
2L offers some MQA encoded testfiles that contain the compatible playable content.
There is a piano sample in MQA "2L-120_01_stereo-44k-24b.mqa.wav" and non MQA "2L-120_stereo-44k-16b_01.wav"
Since it is piano there is not much content above 10kHz and a delta file of both creates a dip in the noisefloor at ~12kHz.
Can this be a phase shift kicking in at 12kHz because of some apodizing going from linear to non linear?

I see noise shaped dither as plus while others already claim degration because they can 'see' the noise raising above 12kHz as degration already. Must be the species without ATH :)
At the end of one sample "2L-048_14_stereo_96kHz_FLAC.mqa.flac" i find ~100ms dithered silence that i try to visualize.
Wavosaur isn't the most scientific tool i guess.
May this be the minimum noisefloor of the MQA process? How to quantify the shape to real bit-depth?
I have a pic showing the shape of these 100ms above against iZotope 16bit dither but don't know what setting exactly.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Re: Meridian Audio's new... sub-format called MQA.

Reply #205 –
Many of those 2L recordings are so good that you could convert them to 128kbps mp3 and they'd still sound better than 99% of the recordings in the world. If people are just listening cold to those recordings (MQA or not!), they'll think they sound great, because they do. Without a comparison, it's not a helpful demo.

I think we need to be very careful to have a technically accurate discussion here on HA. It's great that some of the details are being analysed. Remember that marketing hype will always be that. Cry BS on the BS, but don't claim it's all BS. Truth is, there was an (endlessly debated) test that showed avoiding "CD filtering" could produce an ABX-able improvement (caveats: filtering that you didn't really have to use even for CDs; improvement was very very small), and MQA is supposed to bring that improvement without bloating the file size, with a check of bit-perfect delivery of what was sent.

That's all fine, in and of itself. Some of the other problems will probably be worked around too. Doubtless when this technology is licensed to receiver manufacturers, they will have access to the digital data internally to do room correction, EQ etc. If it gets really popular, there's bound to be a not-very-legal reverse-engineered open source decoder appear.

The two problems I see are 1) the marketing is a bit confused, and 2) it's lossy. For downloading today (and streaming in a few years), why wouldn't audiophiles just pick the 192kHz version? I guess a family of formats (44.1, 96k, 192k) would make sense, where the 192k is authenticated but lossless, the 96kHz is lossless to 24kHz and authenticated, etc, and they all use the specified filtering. That would make sense. That could be their plan.

I quite like the idea of authenticated. I'm not claiming that any of the not-bit-perfect issues I've seen over the years have been audible, but it's annoying to see people's incompetence in inadvertently changing digital audio signals, and this would put an end to that. Until someone takes the output of an MQA decoder, runs it through a $20 radioshack analogue equaliser, and feeds it into an MQA encoder. The result is still "authenticated" but is a long way from the original ;-) Nothing to stop people selling brick-walled masters in MQA either.

Cheers,
David.

Re: Meridian Audio's new... sub-format called MQA.

Reply #206 –
The argument I'm seeing repeatedly is that MQA sounds *better* than even the most outlandishly encoded PCM. For instance, over at AudioStream the resident clown declares:

"I'll just add that the MQA encoded file sounded a lot better than the 24/352.8 original, which sounded just lovely to begin with."

This seems to be the consensus among the placebophile cognoscenti, its insanity notwithstanding...

Re: Meridian Audio's new... sub-format called MQA.

Reply #207 –
Quote from: WernerO on
There is a bit of file analysis here
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/miska/some-analysis-and-comparison-mqa-encoded-flac-vs-normal-optimized-hires-flac-674/
I did read around there already and in miskas analysis "MQA data appearing as high frequency noise" is simply the dithershape visible in spectral view i picture above.
I wrote elsewhere already for the unencrypted part:
"Now take well shaped dither plus proper downsampling and the claim better as standard cd is not very far fetched. You seldom see noise shaped dither to maximize the dynamicrange on CDs."
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Re: Meridian Audio's new... sub-format called MQA.

Reply #208 –
There's an old AES paper (from Peter Craven, I think) which talks about using noise-shaped dither to reduce the real signal on a CD to about 12-bits and then hide a lossy encoded 5.1 version of the same content in the (now unused) least significant bits (also noise shaped).

It sounds like the idea, in a different form, is being used here.

Cheers,
David.
P.S. Apologies if I have misremembered this - the paper is in a box somewhere in my loft, and I'm not about to go and find it!

Re: Meridian Audio's new... sub-format called MQA.

Reply #209 –
When i watch the realtime FFT while playing it really seems it has a low resolution and the noisefloor is pretty high.
My first feeling was it can be maximum 14bit noise shaped but these 100ms silence i found above seem to be 16bit.
That was the point why i asked if someone with more knowledge can analyse it.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Re: Meridian Audio's new... sub-format called MQA.

Reply #211 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
. For downloading today (and streaming in a few years), why wouldn't audiophiles just pick the 192kHz version?

I suppose it could be worse (i.e., even sillier than 192kHz as the 'standard').  The woo merchants could have gone the route of touting even higher sample rate PCM.


Quote
Nothing to stop people selling brick-walled masters in MQA either.

Sigh.  So many 'solutions' to the wrong problem.

Re: Meridian Audio's new... sub-format called MQA.

Reply #212 –
Quote from: krabapple on
So many 'solutions' to the wrong problem.
Not if you consider that it is an attempt to solve a supply-side problem rather than a demand-side problem.

Re: Meridian Audio's new... sub-format called MQA.

Reply #213 –
Quote from: Willakan on
The argument I'm seeing repeatedly is that MQA sounds *better* than even the most outlandishly encoded PCM. For instance, over at AudioStream the resident clown declares:

"I'll just add that the MQA encoded file sounded a lot better than the 24/352.8 original, which sounded just lovely to begin with."

This seems to be the consensus among the placebophile cognoscenti, its insanity notwithstanding...

So, the author is claiming that a file that LOSSY compressed with MQA sounds better than the lossless original it came from.  If this is more than just placebophile BS (meaning you can actually ABX the difference),, then there has got to be some kind of EQ or other adjustment going on there by the decoder.

Re: Meridian Audio's new... sub-format called MQA.

Reply #214 –
Quote from: apastuszak on
If this is more than just placebophile BS (meaning you can actually ABX the difference),, then there has got to be some kind of EQ or other adjustment going on there by the decoder.
1) ABX is a test for difference, not preference.

2) It is entirely possible that a listener may have a preference for artifacts (vinyl, anyone???).  I recall a discussion about this as it relates to 128kbit mp3, though I can't be bothered to look for it.

Re: Meridian Audio's new... sub-format called MQA.

Reply #215 –
Quote from: apastuszak on
So, the author is claiming that a file that LOSSY compressed with MQA sounds better than the lossless original it came from.  If this is more than just placebophile BS (meaning you can actually ABX the difference),, then there has got to be some kind of EQ or other adjustment going on there by the decoder.
It's always entertaining to watch these people maneuvering themselves into these dilemmas.

Either there is no audible difference and they have proven for the millionth time that they are not trustworthy and listen with their eye$,
or MQA is not transparent either due to being lossy (quantization distortion) or due to additional processing causing distortion.
"I hear it when I see it."

Re: Meridian Audio's new... sub-format called MQA.

Reply #216 –
I think some commenters are being far too sensible and rational. MQA is being marketed, and has been seized upon by audiophiles, as not just a better way to distribute compressed music, nor even a better form of digital audio.

MQA is the 'third way': a completely new way of recording and playing back music. There is no conflict in the idea of MQA-encoded audio sounding better than the original PCM file from which it was taken because the MQA process "de-blurs" it. And it doesn't end there, because in future, the recordings can made with MQA from end to end - there are official MQA ADCs in the pipeline.

MQA should not be thought of as "digital" at all. All those vinyl-o-philes who condemn all digital audio for its "silver sheen" and "lack of musicality" can now confidently take their first steps in a brave new world. etc. etc.

Re: Meridian Audio's new... sub-format called MQA.

Reply #217 –
Quote from: Green Marker on
MQA is the 'third way': a completely new way of recording and playing back music.
Ah, right. The penny has dropped. MQA is being positioned in the audiophile's mind to take up where DSD leaves off.
And to think most of them have only just bought their DSD-capable DACs.
They must be wetting themselves at the thought of being pickpocketed again so soon.

Re: Meridian Audio's new... sub-format called MQA.

Reply #220 –
People buy and listen to and "enjoy" crap. It's as simple as that .. in a capitalist world. ;)
But, in defense of consumers, see the loudness war. Producers are just as stupid as consumers, I guess.
"I hear it when I see it."

Re: Meridian Audio's new... sub-format called MQA.

Reply #221 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: apastuszak on
If this is more than just placebophile BS (meaning you can actually ABX the difference),, then there has got to be some kind of EQ or other adjustment going on there by the decoder.
1) ABX is a test for difference, not preference.

2) It is entirely possible that a listener may have a preference for artifacts (vinyl, anyone???).  I recall a discussion about this as it relates to 128kbit mp3, though I can't be bothered to look for it.

True.  But if they're claiming that MQA sound better than FLAC, then we have some DSP going on also.  I kinda object to that idea.  And it's gonna put more work on the process.  Now they have to see how it sounds for PCM release (FLAC, MP3/ACC, CD) and how it's gonna sound when MQA DSP is applied.

Re: Meridian Audio's new... sub-format called MQA.

Reply #222 –
Quote from: apastuszak on
DSP going on
That has always been Meridian's schtick.  I take it you've read about their magical apodizing filters?

Re: Meridian Audio's new... sub-format called MQA.

Reply #224 –
We don't know if there is any extra DSP going on. We already know that MQA cannot be lossless despite their claims, but doing some hidden DSP like EQ or dynamics processing really would take the biscuit.
"I hear it when I see it."