All nice discussions but those who have heard it - including me - are flabbergasted. See http://tinyurl.com/ojuhv6v for in-depth story on MQA
Anyone heard about Meridian's new project called MQA
- Thread starter thedudeabides
- Start date
Flabbergasted. Now there's a word I hadn't heard in a while. It seems to me that you're pretty much alone in your findings.
No, I've not heard MQA. Does that make me close minded?
Does your experience tell you that there's more music info that can be extracted from a given recording medium?
Defective or poorly designed, Don? Really?
Could it be better to consider components, all components, incomplete? As in an automobile engine is incomplete without a transmission, differential, axle, and wheels/tires? Or a component is incomplete without electricity? Or a component is more complete when the noisy AC from the street has been properly addressed? Or even more complete when utilized with dedicated circuits/lines wired on the same phase at the service panel with cryo'ed romex, power cables, fuses, and outlets?
Or when it comes to unwanted energy, would you consider a lightning rod as defective or poorly designed simply because its owner neglected to attach a grounding wire to it? How do you suppose a lightning rods deals with unwanted energy?
And yes, I should be able to prove what I say and I can. Just not in these forums where "high-end" audio performance wars seem to won and lost these days and real audible performance no longer matters.
Last edited:
My question is why at all the press demos Meridien doesn't let the audience listen to an un-MQA'd file for comparison?
Good question. I also have the impression that the demo's are always done using Meridian equipment.
Talk about maximizing one's minimums.
Among the many snippets and articles that sound like they're scripted, here's one from Kal Robinson from the May, 2015 Stereophile issue that I've grown fond of.
"Of course, all of us know who've been been downloading and filling up terabytes of storage, hi-rez multichannel files are huge. So, as we wait for Internet streaming speeds to rise and the costs of storage hardware to fall, Meridian's MQA system allows a 24-bit / 48kkHz file to contain higher=rez information by repacking the information above 24kHz into a region below the file's audible noise floor. While Meridian has awed us with the quality of its MQA demonstrations, let's not lose sight of the fact that it is an efficient and functionally lossless compression algorithm that will speed transmission and save storage space. Moreover, Meridian's Bob Stuart has assured me, more than once, that MQA is entirely compatible with any number of channels."
An excellent example of superior writing skills where the author used just the right amount of emotion and inflection.
Last edited:
in my demo they did play Roberta Flack's 'Killing Me Softly' with and without MQA.......according to what they told us. it sounded better but so what. it was all staged so everything they said and we heard required faith in Bob 'PCM' Stuart.
I have less than zero faith in Bob Stuart's future music format vision.
at best my demo was a weak data point. at worst it was a fraud. who knows? time will tell.
First, welcome to the forum
.Second, I did listen to the system at CES. It was on a Meridian system only though. And only MQA encoded. Here are my pictures and notes from CES: http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...Picture-Thread&p=301335&viewfull=1#post301335
As to the subjective observations in that report, well, they are dime a dozen about anything in high-end
. Until such time that we get bias controlled test data, negative and positive reports are of little value, objectively speaking. All is not lost though. There is a decent video blog in that link that includes more speculation about how MQA works, including mention that Bob and crew have reviewed what he is saying:
One thing is for sure. The audience for this technology has no prayer of grasping what the system is doing. And the audience that can tell, i.e. those with signal processing and psychoacoustics experience, will likely be very unwilling to accept any merit for the technology without a lot more proof. So we will continue to get speculations here.
Thanks Mike, they didn't at Axpona nor as I was told by Brian Moura, the West Coast reviewer rollout. Perhaps Brian can add more.
Thanks. I tried to step rather lightly here because, while the demos have sounded excellent, they continue to avoid direct comparisons between MQA and non-MQA files of the same recording. This is in contrast with the first demo JA and I had of the prototype version at CES 2014 where we were able to A/B ad lib. In that demo with, admittedly, the unfinalized version, MQA was distinctly better in most comparisons and indistinguishable in the remainder. As a result, I am optimistic but only time will tell.
Also, please excuse my editing of your post.
As to the subjective observations in that report, well, they are dime a dozen about anything in high-end
One thing is for sure. The audience for this technology has no prayer of grasping what the system is doing. And the audience that can tell, i.e. those with signal processing and psychoacoustics experience, will likely be very unwilling to accept any merit for the technology without a lot more proof. So we will continue to get speculations here.
Astute comments I do believe.
Fixing problems we actually aren't sure are problems, with solutions that we aren't sure are solutions. Hey what could go wrong?
Yes, really. The designer should know the likely environment the amplifier will be used in and have designed and built it to be as far as possible audibly unaffected by that environment. This includes vibration resistance, power line injected noise, ground injected noise ("ground loops") etc. If they haven't, then they obviously consider these performance parameters unimportant and you have to wonder what else they considered unimportant.
I agree with you on your last few words.
I have, in the past, done tests on the effect of vibrations on audio equipment. Most of it was testing the effect of turntable suspensions and isolating products, but I did do tape decks and amplifiers as well. Unsurprisingly, improving the isolation of the turntable netted the biggest improvements. Some systems had only 10 or 15 dB difference between the source and the transmitted vibration levels. I'll bet there are people here who don't know how good their turntable isolation is in real numbers, and at what frequencies.
Well, the article and video were made after reading (and rereading) 150 pages of patents, AES papers and the like. It actually tells you more than any press release from Meridian. And it does make sense technically. I have the feeling many of the comments on my work were made without reading the article or watching the video. I see no valid arguments against my article, only vague remarks like "Meridian press release". If you had visited my Youtube channel and watched the first version of MQA Part 2, You'd understand why Bob Stewart was asked to comment on version 2.
I'm not saying that MQA is the new codec and that nothing could be wrong with it. I just said that so far it impressed me heavily. Especially the demo on High End Munich was extremely good.
Well the cynical me would use one of the worst case comparisons and a seriously messed hirez and CD release in terms of digital transparency from master file, plenty out there for them to choose from.
On the plus side it would show a true real world improvement though
Cheers
Orb
Well the cynical me would use one of the worst case comparisons and a seriously messed hirez and CD release in terms of digital transparency from master file, plenty out there for them to choose from.
On the plus side it would show a true real world improvement though
Cheers
Orb
Okay, maybe it is a little bit of MQA trying to be all things to all people. A side note, MQA was said to be in the running, and the early choice to be used with Neil Young's Pono venture. Was it dropped because it was too complex, was it just a matter of Pono being ramped up before MQA would be ready? Who knows.
Back to demo's.
Demo's MQA vs 128 mp3. Yeah, yawn, like who cares. Even though 128 might be the biggest market numerically by far, still a yawn otherwise as anyone who cares isn't buying 128 mp3 in the first place.
MQA vs CD, in much of the target market a yawn, for those in the high quality market, if specifically done with same masters, a bit more than a yawn. Not much though, FLAC files of CD would be less bandwidth.
MQA vs some high quality, hirez masters, for the high quality, high end market two outcomes. One, this low bit rate format equals the full unadulterated hirez masters. A big WOW from the audiophile world. A big Wow from those on the edge of this market if CD rates provide improved quality.
Two MQA vs some high quality hirez masters, and not just equal, not just transparent, but a big, super double WOW for an improvement! Ditto for those thinking CD is enough. And doesn't hurt one bit those who might consider it in the 128 mp3 or 320 mp3 market. If they can get better than hirez quality at nominal bit rates why not. In time it could mostly sweep other streaming formats completely form the market. You don't think Corolla budgets can be lured in with demonstrated Lexus results?
And seriously, do you think for a minute Stuart et al don't know from day one the comparison audiophiles want to hear is MQA flat up against the same files without MQA. If it only matches it a big win for MQA, if it does more than that again, super, double WOW!
Or is it like his filter tests. An unusually steep, steep filter, with less than industry acceptable dither, and with super duper high fidelity system in super conditions people can hear the difference over many trials at 59 to 61% of the time. If that is the difference MQA offers or less then who cares?
Based on your criteria, Don, you can rest assured that perhaps 99.9999% of all component mfg'ers consider at least some of those things unimportant. Yes, in a perfect world all those things would be considered and properly addressed. But here on planet earth, many are not. Especially when it comes to proper AC mgmt and proper vibration mgmt.
With regard to mechanical vibrations, are you speaking of proper vibration mgmt or improper vibration mgmt? I see that you used the term "isolation" when discussing vibration control at your TT. Tell me, which vibrations are you attempting to isolate your TT from in a universe that is made up entirely of vibrations of one sort or another?
That really is the key to the MQA encode/decode system. The goal is to transmit music at "CD quality" transmission levels, most likely by streaming services.
As for how it sounds, listeners need to hear MQA and judge.
Also worth noting - Meridian has yet to demonstrate MQA in its undecoded form. So that is a big question about the format.
It will be interesting to see if the streaming services that use MQA also offer non-MQA encoded music for listeners who do not have MQA decoding built in to their DACs.
Interesting. Now I've never considered a Meridian system to be super duper but you do bring up an interesting thought. It seems the majority of MQA demo's include a Meridian or Bob Stuart-owned system.
You don't suppose Bob would intentionally doct... Nah, never mind.
I am not keen on steep brickwall filters (and here we are not talking about the unusually steep at limits), which can be the default with many DAC chips (and definitely was in the past), anecdotal but does seem reviewers and others I know including myself prefer the mix of minimum-linear phase to balance echo/ripples.
With you that it is pointless to compare to 128 mp3 unless the industry is willing to give Spotify and others the advantage of comparable MQA at that rate.... My money would be they say a definite no
MQA vs CD, actually that is relevant from multiple perspectives; a) stops the various chains involved (labels-studios-distribution and streaming channels) from messing up the quality, b) quality CD streaming will be the ground the industry will try to push more in a few years.
One aspect that needs to be considered that I do not think MQA actually handles yet or will is that of network radios, there is a push to have high quality radio over network (BBC here in the UK sees this and meets resistance when they initially removed it from one of their channels), so efficient streaming here is also ideal but this is then real-time studio to consumer client.
MQA vs hirez masters, well technically as consumers we do not hear the original digital recorded-edited master but one created for specific criteria that can mean downsampled/upsampled/transcoded and quite often these can be a mess.
A very good hirez release vs MQA would then come down to subtle differences of correcting all phase-frequency/ripples, which may surprise us - I have not had the chance to hear MQA myself but get the philosophy Stuart/Craven are pushing; but the footprint for selling very good hirez 96kHz+ is niche to say the least until "mainstream" (yeah whatever that is lol) releases become available.
I think Gerzon actually came up with the idea many years ago for resolving phase issues (appreciate this is just one aspect) not just for speaker but the recording.
Cheers
Orb
Indeed, more's the pity. That doesn't mean we should also consider them unimportant. If we prefer amplifiers that don't require expensive platforms and line conditioners to give of their best, manufacturers will make them. The biggest problem is that their performance in these areas is rarely reviewed.
It was mainly in the area of air-borne and structure-borne vibration from the speakers in the room. Back before online forums, we had to actually get together to discuss audio topics, and we came around to how to prevent feedback when playing records loud. (As you do when you're young...) I was especially interested because I had refrigerator-sized cabinets with 15" Altecs, and I had to go to heroic lengths to reduce the resulting effects. So we set up a technique where we placed the needle on a stationary record, and recorded the line-out to a cassette deck. At the same time, we played music and test tones through the amplifier and speakers at similar levels to what the record (LP) playback level would have been. By paying attention to the gain settings, we were able to determine the "signal to feedback" ratio, and measure and hear how effective various techniques were in preventing feedback. Solid vs suspended plinth/sub-chassis, modelling clay damping of arm boards, sorbothane and Micro Seiki feet, glass vs wood vs concrete vs granite bases on Sorbothane, springs and inner tubes.
Similar threads
