MQA

Randomly stumbled upon this. Anybody heard of this?

 

Alright that video was pretty hilarious and very sensational. The technology is actually pretty cool as it should in theory allow "Hi-Res" audio files to be compressed into much smaller files while still being lossless and "Hi-Res". There are just now starting to be some devices (DACs and DAPs) that support the playback of this file type.

 

I thought we already had a huge thread where people were airing their grievances about this?

 

I always enjoy a good orgasm (eargasm?) compilation reel

 

the only good thing about that video was the redhead... no way they got her randomly.

 

I've read MQA is also a future offering for Tidal HiFi subscribers. Haven't heard any MQA files but sounds promising in theory- could be the future for hires streaming audio.

 

this will only be useful in the streaming space. Selling someone their whole audio collection for the umpteenth time with the promise of better sound quality is getting to be a harder sell every time the music industry tries it.

 

I think we will have to confirm that we can perceive those ultrasonia sound in hi-res audio first before talking about "hiding" them as noise. Mqa files almost double the size of a 16/44.1 file according to 2l.

 

In our opinion, MQA would have a profound negative effect on the industry. We have just sent a press release to our entire list stating that we will not be supporting MQA, and the reasons why.

The release: http://schiit.com/news/news/why-we-wont-be-supporting-mqa

The copy:

Why We Won’t Be Supporting MQA
Schiit’s Position on a Proposed Audio Format

May 26th, 2016, Valencia, CA. Today, Schiit Audio announced that they would not be supporting MQA, a proprietary audio format claiming “studio quality sound you can stream or download.” Schiit Audio feels that it is important to support its customers—and potential customers—by clarifying the company’s position on MQA, so that they may choose another DAC provider that backs the format, if they feel it is important to them.

“Although there are still many questions to be answered about MQA, we feel we know enough to make a decision,” said Jason Stoddard, Schiit’s Co-Founder.

Stoddard outlined the primary reasons:

1. We believe that supporting MQA means handing over the entire recording industry to an external standards organization. MQA wants:

• Licensing fees from the recording studios
• Licensing fees from the digital audio product manufacturers
• Hardware or software access/insight into the DAC or player
• Subscription fees from every listener via Tidal, and/or royalties from purchases of re-releases by the recording industry

2. Our experience with standards-driven industries is sub-par. Consider the surround market. Companies making surround processors now have to support a dizzying array of different standards, none of which is a market differentiator, and the exclusion of any single standard can mean commercial failure. The result is a market in which competition is stifled and consumers are confused.

3. We don’t believe MQA is a differentiator for high-end DACs if it is available on phones. Consider SRS, the Sound Retrieval System, as an instructive example. Before being acquired by DTS, it claimed to be on “over a billion devices.” However, there is little evidence any consumers considered SRS a must-have, differentiating technology.

4. We consider MQA to be yet another “format distraction” that makes high-end audio more confusing and insular. This is a reflection of our position in the market—nearly 1/3 of our revenue is from $99 and under products, and we have one of the youngest customer bases in the industry. It is our experience that when someone starts getting into great audio, they just want a product that will make their current music sound better, rather than one that requires additional investment in streaming subscriptions or new releases.

5. We feel that, even from a market perspective, many questions need to be answered. When will we see MQA on Tidal? At what cost? What percentage of the library will be MQA? How many releases should we expect to see from Warner in the next 12 months? What will be the cost? Again, a historic example may be cautionary. Consider Sony and DSD. DSD is a Sony technology that they promoted, and yet they released very few recordings in DSD.

Mike Moffat concurred, saying, “In addition to the market questions outlined by my partner, there are many performance questions (about MQA) that cause great concern. Actual decoded bit depth for both MQA and non-MQA DACs, claims of ‘lossless,’ the need for MQA to tweak their decode algorithm for a specific DAC (and their ability to perform this optimization on-schedule for a DAC manufacturer who might be, well, a little smaller than HTC,) the impact on the DAC manufacturer’s own proprietary technology and product development, and the impact on the DAC manufacturer’s own competitiveness.”

Moffat further opined that Schiit Audio considers the further development of in support of the primary 16/44.1 PCM format to be of the most value to its customers, citing extremely strong sales of Schiit Audio’s multibit DAC products, and the positive reception to its “DACs for the music you have, not the music you have to buy,” message.

Asked if there was any chance Schiit Audio might support MQA if it became the dominant format in the market, Moffat answered, “If it becomes the dominant audio technology, or even a very popular second-place format, we would have to evaluate it in the same way we evaluate other lossy compression standards, such as home theater surround formats, Bluetooth codecs, and MP3 variants.”

 

MQA really confuses me. I don't understand the "master quality" label, for starters. If the recording is being stored in the analog domain on a tape, is there some new process for creating an MQA file? My understanding is that the file is still PCM, it's just been processed somehow (lossy compression?) to make it smaller. Or am I really not understanding at all? If I understand it correctly (which I probably don't), wouldn't it be possible to download MQA files and play them on most DACs?

Anyone have a link that isn't just propaganda for MQA?

 

IIRC MQA is just a process which turns a 24/96 hi-res audio file to 24/44.1 while retaining the information from 22kHz to 48kHz(or higher) when properly decoded. They do it by encoding the ultrasonic sound to inaudible noise -70dB or something in the audible frequency, and it will sound just like normal CD quality if you don't extract out those ultrasonic sound from noise and play it with a normal DAC, with maybe a higher noise floor. Everything is still in PCM. I am not so certain though as I couldn't find where I read it.

 

HDCD, SACD, DSD...I have yet to find anything wrong with PCM compressed as FLAC. MQA will be talked about nonstop by the press and independent reviewers and amateur-reviewers and Head-Fi people will rank all future purchases based on MQA support. Then after two years (+/- one year) it will be quiet again. Just as it went with DSD.
As Jason points out, the MQA folks stand to profit tremendously at the expense of everyone else.

The grand majority of consumers, including many enthusiasts, don't find great need for more than Redbook, or even to have lossless over a properly encoded high-bitrate lossy file. Or to spend any money on headphone/IEMS/bluetooth speakers/two-channel home rig etc. So this is really aimed at a super-specific market. Those who have gone along with prior schemes will divide into two camps: the people who call BS and sit it out, and the usual suspects who will throw hundreds or thousands at anything a forum or magazine tells them too. In the end, it will amount to little.

Something like Roon support actually offers functionality. This is yet another attempt at fixing a problem that doesn't exist. If you're introducing noise to provide higher sample rate files I'd rather just have it run through a proper SRC without all the extra mucking about and special setups.

 

So the DAC support for MQA would merely be for streaming these files? I take it that a stand alone MQA file could be decoded by playback software up to 24/192 or whatever and played as such? In my opinion, the "MQ" title seems entirely misleading. If that is the case, the existing "hi res" PCM files are already "master quality".

Such a very small portion of titles are available at the higher rates; of which some are just 16/44 and upconverted. I at least understand the appeal of DSD, even though it's basically in the same boat.

 

Meridian reps once wanted to talk me into their set-up: Amarra-MQA-green AQ "directional" cableExplorer 2-AQ Nighthawk

Nope nope nope

 

A blast from the past, for further hilarity:

"Up until now, the Model One processor has been Pacific Microsonics' sole product for the professional market, and its only hardware product. Used mainly in mastering rooms, more than 70 of the units are now in use worldwide at top facilities such as Sony Music, Sterling Sound and Gateway Mastering on the East Coast, Future Disc, OceanView Digital and Precision Mastering in the West, and Georgetown Masters and MasterMix in Nashville. Bernie Grundman Mastering is in the process of acquiring a total of ten units (six in Hollywood and four in Tokyo). But Pacific Microsonics' main focus is on licensing HDCD decoding for inclusion in consumer audio hardware. According to Ritter, 1999 looks like the year when HDCD licensing will move into mass market goods, largely because of synergy between developments in the realms of consumer and professional audio."

"The continued and growing acceptance of HDCD on the pro side," Ritter says, "has translated into our current list of well over 2,000 HDCD CD titles released so far." According to the company, that's double the number of HDCD titles available since the end of 1997. And with more than 125 million HDCD-encoded CDs sold so far, it's hard to argue that HDCD is simply an obscure phenomenon. Many of the encoded CDs are very high-profile projects, including recent releases from artists such as Bruce Springsteen, Garth Brooks and Jewel.

"Look at the Billboard Top 200," Ritter says. "At any given time you'll find between 20 and 30 HDCD titles. So it's not just a lot of titles, but titles from important artists. That has really caught the notice of some of the larger companies in the consumer electronics arena. In the past, the consumer hardware manufacturers who have licensed HDCD-more than 90 companies-were relatively high-end. But this last year we started to see products that are at prices that will really move us into the mass market." As evidence of this trend, Ritter cites recent HDCD licensing announcements, including a $399 DVD player from Toshiba, a $400 CD changer from Harman-Kardon, a five-disc changer from Denon at the $299 price point, a Marantz consumer CD-R recorder (HDCD decoding only), and upcoming products from Kenwood and TEAC."

So, Peak HDCD (17 years ago) was 2000 titles, deals with biggies like Sony, Toshiba, Denon, Marantz, TEAC, Harman...

...and where are they now?