PDA

View Full Version : Meridian MQA - Breakthrough? LMS possible?



ctbarker32
2014-12-04, 17:48
Very interesting announcement from Meridian today.

You can read here:

Meridian MQA Site (http://musicischanging.com/#convenienceVQuality)

MQA Report by Mark Waldrep (http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=3851)

If it lives up to hype it could be a breakthrough? If they incumber it (decoding) with IP licensing costs then I predict failure. Time will tell.

Hopefully, a LMS option will evolve if MQA catches on?

mherger
2014-12-04, 22:56
> Hopefully, a LMS option will evolve if MQA catches on?

Ahmm.... they claim "Downloaded/ streamed in any lossless format", "100%
compatible. Easy to download and stream.". That's about all the facts
they give. Sounds like hot air compressed losslessly to zero bytes?

--

Michael

cliveb
2014-12-05, 02:59
Hot air. Absolutely NOT a breakthrough. Just another proprietary format in a world already awash in more audibly-transparent formats than it needs.

See http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=107666

netchord
2014-12-05, 06:26
see Virus Killer's post here:

http://www.meridianunplugged.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=225234#Post225234

everything you need to know.

it is truly a paradigm shift.

CommanderROR
2014-12-05, 06:49
While this sounds interesing, it does not (IMHO) fix the real problem, which occurs during recording. So much music, especially classical music, is already crippled with auto-gain, bad mic placement (too close, too far, too many, too few) and similar issues.
All that information that gets thrown away before the sound engineers start messing with it (and they often do enough harm, mixing, equalizing and so on) cannot be restored with a fancy compression alogrithm.
Also, this would probably mean new DAC Hardware, because of the "unfolding" of the timing information described in the Viruskiller Forum Post. Maybe this is a good thing, I don't know enough to tell. Maybe it would be best, if that firm would offer some samples to the general public. A decent PC should be able to decode their stuff in software, then we could see. I also don't see many streaming or download services jumping on this, they mostly seem to think mp3 is wonderful, and most of their customers probably agree, so...maybe it will sink, maybe it will float. Time will tell.

For myself, I'm always on the hunt for the right sound, and I have not found it yet. My problem is, I'm professional musician, I earn my money playing in a small (60 member) philharmonic orchestra.
So, for me the ideal I'm aiming at is something like a 50-80 Speaker surround sound. No recording will ever be able to reproduce that, but I'll take the next best thing... ;)
Sadly, finding recordings that sound even remotely real is almost impossible. Mostly it's the normalization that hurts most, because in real life, 40 string instruments playing really soft and then playing really loud is a gigantic step, on most recordings it's almost no difference. This is of course a good thing for some cases, because, if you are listening to "background" music, you don#t want to fiddle with the volume all the time, but for concentrated listening, it is important. Maybe some day we will be given a choice, full dynamic range, or compressed, and can switch between the two with a tap or click. For that, we need masters with the full range, and sound engineers that give us normalization as an option and don't force-feed it to us.

Okay, sorry for the OT... ;)

pippin
2014-12-05, 07:20
I think it's actually a pretty clever move. Use high sample rates so that you can tell people you are really high definition but just throw away all that useless information about the pink noise in the ultrasonic frequency ranges. All the HD-marketing bang for CD-quality bandwidth-bucks.
All fine :)

cliveb
2014-12-05, 07:21
see Virus Killer's post here:

http://www.meridianunplugged.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=225234#Post225234

everything you need to know.

it is truly a paradigm shift.
Hmmm. A few quotes from VirusKiller's post:


the "compression" applied to the master file (which can be anything from a (non-ideal) 44.1/16 master up to 8x sample rate) is not lossy in the conventional sense. There is nothing removed from the file that would allow a human being to differentiate between the MQA encoding and the master as heard in the studio. Lossy? No, that would be an extremely unfair and naive description. "Encoded for human hearing" would be more accurate.
So the MQA encoding process removes parts of the signal in a manner that will not be audible to a human listener. Exactly how is this something new? "Encoded for human hearing" is *precisely* what traditional lossy encoders (MP3, Vorbis, AAC, etc) have always done - some better than others. Meridian might claim that their encoding is more transparent than others, but to say it isn't "lossy" is basically a lie. And given the fact that modern high bitrate MP3/Vorbis/AAC/etc is indeed transparent in all but the most extreme and contrived situations, is there actually any need to invent another format?

I appreciate that when played back through a suitable MQA decoder, the removed parts are intended to be restored, meaning it is no longer lossy. But the idea is that MQA encoded stuff will be playable on legacy equipment without a decoder, in which case it *is* lossy. Sounds a bit like a more extreme form of HDCD to me.


MQA has broad music industry backing from execs, artists, and producers.
No Sh*t, Sherlock. The music industry will welcome with open arms *any* technology which promises to allow them to sell their back catalogue yet again.


Hearing Louis Armstrong through a pair of 7200SEs – as if he was in the room – was a jaw-dropping moment that I will never forget. It *is* that good.
The most recent recording that could ever possibly have been made by Louis Armstrong would date from 1971 (the year he died). This predates Dolby SR by 15 years. Do you honestly think there was any recording technology available in 1971 that could have captured the ~100kHz bandwidth which Bob Stuart seems to think is required to cope with the human ear's ability to distinguish events down to the 10 microsecond interval? (Note: this is the same Bob Stuart who once stated that 19 bits and 60kHz sampling rate were sufficient - presumably back in the days when that's the maximum that Meridian could envisage delivering). Or that has an S/N ratio even remotely approaching the 96dB that 16 bit PCM is capable of? No, didn't think so. In which case, perhaps the wonderful sound that VirusKiller heard might have been more to do with the mastering, playback equipment or room, and *nothing* to do with it having been encoded by the wonderful MQA system?

MQA is another solution in search of a problem, and gullible audiofools are going to lap it up just because it's Meridian. If Microsoft or Sony had come up with this, it would have been laughed at for the smoke & mirrors it is.

netchord
2014-12-05, 07:54
MQA is another solution in search of a problem, and gullible audiofools are going to lap it up just because it's Meridian. If Microsoft or Sony had come up with this, it would have been laughed at for the smoke & mirrors it is.

which you know because you've heard it?

ctbarker32
2014-12-05, 10:27
From my further reading, I think it is incorrect to describe MQA as a lossy format as is currently understood e.g. MP3 vs FLAC/ALAC.

It would appear that MQA is as much to do about audio timing information as it is about frequency information? I'm thinking along the lines of Time Aligned Speakers?

The encoding process seems to mimic the way 20 bit Metadata is embedded in HDCD CDs and is then turned on via HDCD aware DACs. Thus the ability to use existing containers FLAC, PCM, etc. Meridian has already announced an MQA aware DAC - The Meridian Explorer 2 DAC.

cliveb
2014-12-05, 10:35
which you know because you've heard it?
Nice of you to ignore everything else I said (for which you presumably have no answer).

You're right, I've not heard MQA. I have no need to.

Look: the world is full of basic understanding about all manner of things, backed up by plenty of empirical evidence. And there are crackpots in every sphere who would like to challenge the standard model. When dismissed, they always resort to the same line: "but how can you know if you haven't tried it?". Well, life is just too short to give every crackpot idea the time of day (*). The more at odds it is with the standard model, the less inclined we are to waste our time testing it.

And high-end audio is absolutely chock-full of crackpot ideas so at odds with what we are very sure to be true that they really don't deserve even the slightest iota of our attention.

Here's an extreme example to illustrate the point:
ME: your pickup cartridge would sound so much better with my revolutionary nylon stylus mounted on a cantilever lovingly crafted from cold pasta.
YOU: don't be daft
ME: how can you say that without trying it?
YOU: you're mad

Some of us apply the same reasoning when presented with the latest nonsense from the hires-peddling crowd.

So yes, I am closed-minded to many things that can't conceivably be true. (Who was it said that you need to be careful keeping an open mind, else your brains might fall out?)

(*) I'm not saying that Bob Stuart is a crackpot. Meridian have done some fine things in the past. (I especially applaud their advocacy of digital active speakers). But MQA doesn't make any sense, other than as another way to fleece a gullible public.

cliveb
2014-12-05, 10:47
From my further reading, I think it is incorrect to describe MQA as a lossy format as is currently understood e.g. MP3 vs FLAC/ALAC.

It would appear that MQA is as much to do about audio timing information as it is about frequency information? I'm thinking along the lines of Time Aligned Speakers?
It doesn't really matter whether it's to do with timing or frequency information. As I read it, the MQA process starts with a hi-res source of some kind, strips out stuff and plonks some meta-data in the LSBs that allow a suitable decoder to reconstruct it. So, just like a sort of "super HDCD" as you say. When it's played on a legacy device without the decoder, stuff is "missing". That's lossy in my book.


Meridian has already announced an MQA aware DAC - The Meridian Explorer 2 DAC.
Quelle surprise. Who'd have thought that selling extra unnecessary hardware might be one of the incentives for Meridian?

ctbarker32
2014-12-05, 11:00
When it's played on a legacy device without the decoder, stuff is "missing". That's lossy in my book.
Using your definition doesn't that include all digital audio systems known to date. The CD system is based on samples of an analog sound that is "sampled" at a defined rate and then the original sound is reconstructed at playback by a DAC that inserts misssing bits to complete the reconstruction? Sounds Lossy to me?

I think it is early days and we all be able to evaluate MQA over time and decide for ourselves if it represents a breakthrough.

pippin
2014-12-05, 11:15
If you can reconstruct the original information, it's not lossy. Lossy codecs don't reconstruct the missing information.
If it's not reconstructing irrelevant information, like ultrasonic sound you can probably discuss to eternity but the codec then is technically lossy.
A/D or D/A conversion is not lossy (if the sampling frequency is high enough to fulfill the sampling theorem no information is lost) but may be inaccurate or distorting.

garym
2014-12-05, 12:28
While this sounds interesing, it does not (IMHO) fix the real problem, which occurs during recording.

Couldn't agree more. The problems with a lot of recorded music these days is in the mixes and lack of dynamic compression (aka "the loudness wars"). A different lossless container can't solve those problems. We have plenty of bit perfect lossless containers for digital music. We just need sanity with the mixing board!

Apesbrain
2014-12-05, 14:07
The CD system is based on samples of an analog sound that is "sampled" at a defined rate and then the original sound is reconstructed at playback by a DAC that inserts misssing bits to complete the reconstruction? Sounds Lossy to me?
Maybe semantics but the DAC redraws the original waveform; it doesn't insert any "missing" bits.

netchord
2014-12-05, 16:22
Nice of you to ignore everything else I said (for which you presumably have no answer).

You're right, I've not heard MQA. I have no need to.

Look: the world is full of basic understanding about all manner of things, backed up by plenty of empirical evidence. And there are crackpots in every sphere who would like to challenge the standard model. When dismissed, they always resort to the same line: "but how can you know if you haven't tried it?". Well, life is just too short to give every crackpot idea the time of day (*). The more at odds it is with the standard model, the less inclined we are to waste our time testing it.

And high-end audio is absolutely chock-full of crackpot ideas so at odds with what we are very sure to be true that they really don't deserve even the slightest iota of our attention.

Here's an extreme example to illustrate the point:
ME: your pickup cartridge would sound so much better with my revolutionary nylon stylus mounted on a cantilever lovingly crafted from cold pasta.
YOU: don't be daft
ME: how can you say that without trying it?
YOU: you're mad

Some of us apply the same reasoning when presented with the latest nonsense from the hires-peddling crowd.

So yes, I am closed-minded to many things that can't conceivably be true. (Who was it said that you need to be careful keeping an open mind, else your brains might fall out?)

(*) I'm not saying that Bob Stuart is a crackpot. Meridian have done some fine things in the past. (I especially applaud their advocacy of digital active speakers). But MQA doesn't make any sense, other than as another way to fleece a gullible public.

you seem to have missed some key info, in that MQA is based on new neuroscience research. so, while you may be sure you know what's true, it seems the actual science was not settled.

Wombat
2014-12-05, 18:58
I really can't find why MQA betters timing and other things.
How i read it it simply is a streaming format that keeps bit depth and HF content needed for what HiRes is touted.
So for a bitrate of 1MBit/s it may store bits 1-13 lossless and peels away HF content that is of no use.
So PCM 24/192 in -> 13-24/96-XXX out. There are lossy processes at work. For compatible playback bits 1-13 may be all you hear then and the additional burried inside info is noise. Maybe correction files can restore the original.
One problem it claims to solve is that recent lossy codecs are questioned to introduce problems with ringing of the filters near the audible band.
Meridian uses filters that don't have these problems bacause they don't cut as low as recent codecs.
I may be wrong but i saw no exact explanation of Meridian themself yet but some hyped listening.
In the end you should simply get the 24/192 original when HighBitrate makes one happy.

Mnyb
2014-12-06, 00:15
I agree wth the statements re recording quality .

.... So wake me up when we routinely gets music released that actualy has intrisinic sq beyound the humble cd :)

When the world has changed and all music has the same sq as those very few audiophile recordings that achive this AND with real music with artist any one heard of ( dont get me started on the uselessnes of audiophile music labels ).

Then we may discuss less data intense means of broadcast .

Wonder if not moores law have made all this obselete by then ?

Dont get me wrong i'm a fan of Meridian equipment and the fact that most of what they do is science based ( not all things ) which is rare in high end hifi .

And i also like some AiX hirez recordings they sometimes contains real music not only good sound .

Btw wonder what mr waldrep ( aix itrax ) has to say he have posted on this forum before ?

R1200CL
2015-10-29, 14:50
> Hopefully, a LMS option will evolve if MQA catches on?

Ahmm.... they claim "Downloaded/ streamed in any lossless format", "100%
compatible. Easy to download and stream.". That's about all the facts
they give. Sounds like hot air compressed losslessly to zero bytes?

--

Michael

Any update? Is MQA technically possible to implement in either the LMS or SB Touch?

I guess the SW modifications must be done in SB Touch, not the LMS. Correct ?

Mnyb
2015-10-29, 17:59
... But again why if you have a wimp/tidal sub at HiFi rate your covered ?

Yet another format to a market that already has 10 times more format than it needs .

Well if it takes of commercially and be a major player .. I'd want it to, but I don’t see that yet .

There is no point in early adopting this until they offer something unique that people really want and cant get otherwise .

What would it cost ?

R1200CL
2015-10-29, 18:18
... But again why if you have a wimp/tidal sub at HiFi rate your covered ?

Yet another format to a market that already has 10 times more format than it needs .

Well if it takes of commercially and be a major player .. I'd want it to, but I don’t see that yet .

There is no point in early adopting this until they offer something unique that people really want and cant get otherwise .

What would it cost ?

MQA is hi res streaming, and not the same as hi-fi subscription, that is 16/44. It is mayby wrong to call it a new format, as it's Flac.

Early adopting would benefit those that would like to stream hi res and Tidal.
And yes, very unique, as only a few media players would have this option I guess. Maybe only Auralic.

Cost: the effort of adding a plugin to SB Touch ?

http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?103609-MQA-High-End-Streaming&highlight=

Hope someone that understand MQA can answer my question.

Mnyb
2015-10-29, 22:40
With cost i mean sbscription cost for the MQA service .

I do understand that it's hirez streaming with some novel compression ( call it lossy hirez ) that in it itself is piontless as 16/44.1 is good enough for human beings .

Besides that excruciatingly few recordings actually challenge the confines of the pedestrian CD format .

I do understand I have several hundreds of DVDA discs and hires downloads . It's simply the recording quality itself that distinguish a good record from a bad record . The consumer container is irrelevant if it's equal to or better than 16/44.1 .
Try to downsample one of your own hires recordings ( do not compare with the CD release ) to 16/44.1 and compare that blind . Yes the CD version and Hirez version can sound different but that's simply because it not the same master it has again nothing to do with if it s 16/44.1 or 24/192 as when a format is good enough for our hearing it does not improve further.

What is unique ? you can subscribe to other services with good enough sound quality and most likely a much wider catalog .
Do they offer some music we will not otherwise hear from anyone else . If we got discrete multichannel that would have meant something ,that's was the only real improvement DVDA and SACD actually had .

It's a marketing exercise the the goal is to get $$$ from audiophiles . We already have the means to get the soundquality and catalog .

Is it possible ? technically probably if an API and some specs appear . Legally who knows content provides can be finicky .
As squeezebox firmware is not developed these days a server side plugin for LMS that transcodes to all kind of players would probably be "possible" and the way to go as its support all squeezeboxes and does not depend on mysqueezebox.com .

Julf
2015-10-30, 03:25
Is it possible ? technically probably if an API and some specs appear . Legally who knows content provides can be finicky.

There is probably a steep licensing fee, as well as NDAs, making an open source implementation unlikely.

BTHOEM
2015-12-03, 12:13
Hi,

In an article in a Norwegian magazine today, Tidal seems to have decided for MQA as their format for a high resolution streaming offering next year:
http://www.lydogbilde.no/nyheter/hi-fi/hoyopplost-tidal-i-2016

Can we hope for a codec for Squeezebox?

Bjørn Tore

R1200CL
2015-12-03, 14:08
There is probably a steep licensing fee, as well as NDAs, making an open source implementation unlikely.

I'm afraid you are right. I've tried to investigate, but I do not get any answer from Tidal support here in Oslo, nor from MQA itself.

Still this licence fee should not be a showstopper. I'm sure someone has a clever solution to that. Maybe even as part of your Tidal streaming service to Squeezebox. Meaning your Tidal hi-fi subscription will cover it.

Those who know this much better than me, must hava a technical solution to how solve a one time payment for a new codec to your Squeezbox (Touch).

Maybe Pippin or M. Heger can explain this better.

Mnyb
2015-12-03, 14:22
Hi,

In an article in a Norwegian magazine today, Tidal seems to have decided for MQA as their format for a high resolution streaming offering next year:
http://www.lydogbilde.no/nyheter/hi-fi/hoyopplost-tidal-i-2016

Can we hope for a codec for Squeezebox?

Bjørn Tore

It can be an issue if they also remove their current hifi option with CD quality FLAC ?

The article does not say what they intend to do with the current hifi offering ?
It would be really bad if they removed that . For the reason that the majority of recordings >99% they have in thier catalog (or any catalog ) is basically in less than CD quality and would not benefit from MQA (If there was a benefit which I strongly doubt ).
So its select labels like 2L AIX or LINN etc that have recordings that could take advantage of this .

If they introduced some kind of super hifi service good for them , but if the old hifi service is intact we can still use that with our squeezeboxes ?

R1200CL
2015-12-03, 14:34
Hi,

In an article in a Norwegian magazine today, Tidal seems to have decided for MQA as their format for a high resolution streaming offering next year:
http://www.lydogbilde.no/nyheter/hi-fi/hoyopplost-tidal-i-2016

Can we hope for a codec for Squeezebox?

Bjørn Tore

I think there is an error in that article, as there is others places as well when the technical part of Tidal is discussed.
It says the implementation has to be in the DAC. That is not the only way to implement MQA as far as I have understood this. It could be done there. But it can of cause also be done in the player/streamer.

MQA is SW based, so there should be no need of a new DAC, if your streamer can be upgraded. But you can of cause purchase a new DAC as an (expensive) solution. Or maybe get a payed? firmware upgrade.

Will be interesting to see what other companies choose to do. (Sonos, Blue Sound, Aralic, EC, and more).

An other interesting thing is what type if MAQ we will get. I thaught there only exist 24/96. But now the article takling about MQA 44,1 is better than PCM 24/96. I'm confused.

We will just be pasient and wait to understand if there will be different MQA qualities as well.

Can we hope for Triode to write a codec ?

Personally I do not mind to pay for MQA on my Touch, if that is what will make it happen.

Tidal hi-fi on a good stereo is much better that CD. Even if you have an expensive CD transport.

R1200CL
2015-12-03, 14:52
It can be an issue if they also remove their current hifi option with CD quality FLAC ?

The article does not say what they intend to do with the current hifi offering ?
It would be really bad if they removed that . For the reason that the majority of recordings >99% they have in thier catalog (or any catalog ) is basically in less than CD quality and would not benefit from MQA (If there was a benefit which I strongly doubt ).
So its select labels like 2L AIX or LINN etc that have recordings that could take advantage of this .

If they introduced some kind of super hifi service good for them , but if the old hifi service is intact we can still use that with our squeezeboxes ?

Tidal will not remove hi-fi. In order for MQA to work, it has to be implemented two places as you probably know, so even if all Tidal was MQA, you would still only get the old hi-fi. Actually it important to understand Tidal will only support MAQ. This mean that they just "transmitt" what has been offered to them from the record companies. Right ?

Also most Tidal is FLAC quality today. I hope you are not saying than less than 99% isn't. It's rater the opoøsite.
(All Tidal is CD quality).

Since takling about streaming quality. I'm using iPeng. I have several times tried to convince Pippin to have a more easier way to show what quality your stream is. With MQA even more important I think. We will se what he comes up with.
He has given a solution that most likely will be available next year. (You find his replay to me in his thread).

Mnyb
2015-12-03, 15:48
Tidal will not remove hi-fi. In order for MQA to work, it has to be implemented two places as you probably know, so even if all Tidal was MQA, you would still only get the old hi-fi. Actually it important to understand Tidal will only support MAQ. This mean that they just "transmitt" what has been offered to them from the record companies. Right ?

Also most Tidal is FLAC quality today. I hope you are not saying than less than 99% isn't. It's rater the opoøsite.
(All Tidal is CD quality).

Since takling about streaming quality. I'm using iPeng. I have several times tried to convince Pippin to have a more easier way to show what quality your stream is. With MQA even more important I think. We will se what he comes up with.
He has given a solution that most likely will be available next year. (You find his replay to me in his thread).

There are two dimesnions to this about 80% ort so of tidal is encoded as 16/44.1 lossles FLAC that’s the music they have (for now ) and some washed up old mp3's .
So these recordings stop at 20k . Is not the MQA "process" done from higer rez originals rigth ? it's not like most labels are going to re-upload millions of songs to tidal in higer rez to take advantage of this ?
In the majority of cases because they could not do it even if they wanted to, their master is a 16/44.1 .

Then we have actual soundquality of the recording itself they rarely challenge the 16/44.1 container they are held in, some older noisy recordings may be perfectly reproduced by properly dithered 13 bits or so in the best case .
Due to the typical quality of typical recordings the 16/44.1 limitation is not actually a limitation it's actually more than enough to reproduce the content .
Some of them can still sound great and wonderful in their own respect , but they don't challenge the media there released on (not like in the old days when cassette and vinyl did not represent what was on the master tape ) .

I tend to think that attacking the medium is barking up the wrong three ? It is and audio gear company behinds it it's what they do, sell audio gear and software, but maybe not necessarily what we need .

I do have respect for some of meridians ideas and products (se my signature) but some things they do baffles me a bit .

R1200CL
2015-12-03, 16:35
Here is a better article:
http://www.whathifi.com/news/tidal-to-launch-hi-res-audio-streaming-in-2016

And some more info:
Q. Does MQA work with any native file format? Can MQA files be played in iTunes?
A. MQA is inherently a form of PCM and can be delivered to listeners as a conventional lossless file, such as WAV, FLAC or Apple Lossless at 44.1 or 48kHz at 24 bits. MP3 or AAC (lossy coders) will destroy the potential quality. If you play the file though a device without an MQA decoder, you’ll hear better-than-CD sound quality. If you play the file through a device with MQA decoding, you’ll hear the sound in the studio’s original bit rate, which could be anything from 44.1 to 768kHz. The decoder precisely matches the DAC to recreate the analog with minimal temporal blur. MQA can also retain many benefits over ‘last-mile’ links such as AirPlay or Bluetooth.

Text from here:http://www.cepro.com/article/executive_qa_how_mqa_brings_listeners_close_to_ori ginal_audio_performance/

Mnyb
2015-12-03, 22:19
The interesting part is how they at tidal are going to run the MQA encapsulating process on everything in their catalog and especially how and why it works on on existing 16/44.1 masters ? MQA's own site is mostly sales blurb.

The hydrogen audio tread is a bit more revealing on how it actually works .

But afaik to get the special MQA data to add to the file , you get that from a Hirez original master with a special process .
It will "work" with an original from for example 2L then tidal can have this MQA fle and it given the rigth DAC unpacks with some >20khz information and the DAC can choose its most suitable filter algorithm etc audiophile blizz in progress .

I'm not convinced it applys to the majority of tidal files and if they do some processing to make them different it would make me even more sceptical ;) the best thing you can do with an existing 16/44.1 master is to play it as it is . In there are plenty of file formats to,choose from .

So tidal will be able to stream some select music from audiophile labels with "better than cd quality" the rest is like it is today .

But can this be embedded in a normal flac or wav file or is it going to be a special file format ?

If it's a new file format to it can be tricky for squeezebox to support this . Not only for squeezeboxes btw every endpoint needs some MQA license , now I see brilliant money grab here....

My pow hardware manufacturers should resist this and let it die like 8 track or any other obsolete format . It only applies to a tiny amount of source material to begin with . And it don't really apply as Hirez is not at all necessary to begin with .

MQA marketing is a bit deceptive , breakthrough in sampling theorem temporal blur ? The same FUD as ever , basically the audio myth that 16/44.1 don't preserver timing better than 1/44.1kHz but more cleverly disguised .

But it's a marketing exercise we will see what's comes out of it . There are to many backers already it worries me , but they are mostly hifi brands that sees an opurtunity

Julf
2015-12-04, 03:28
But can this be embedded in a normal flac or wav file or is it going to be a special file format?

My understanding is that it can be, as the additional bits to make your pet bat Eric happy are hidden as noise in the lowermost bits of a 24-bit stream or file. But the decision to actually do that is a commercial/licencing decision...


MQA marketing is a bit deceptive

Just a bit, yes. They make it sound like they have come up with a way to break the laws of physics, when all they do is use the extra space of a 24-bit file (as no real recording has any meaningful data in the lowest bits) to encode HF information. A bit like the good old steganography programs that hide a secret message in the background noise of picture files.

kidstypike
2015-12-04, 04:13
... make your pet bat Eric happy ...

Are all your pets called Eric?

Mnyb
2015-12-04, 04:42
My understanding is that it can be, as the additional bits to make your pet bat Eric happy are hidden as noise in the lowermost bits of a 24-bit stream or file. But the decision to actually do that is a commercial/licencing decision...



Just a bit, yes. They make it sound like they have come up with a way to break the laws of physics, when all they do is use the extra space of a 24-bit file (as no real recording has any meaningful data in the lowest bits) to encode HF information. A bit like the good old steganography programs that hide a secret message in the background noise of picture files.

OK but then it has to be streamed as 24 bit files , embedding in the LSB's of a 16 bit is imho making more damage than god ,

But the good thing is that if is done in a flac or wav container anything not supporting MQA can just discard the information .

LMS or Squeezebox does not even have to be aware . if you keep volume at 100% the MQA enabled DAC conected to your squeezebox willl find the secret sauce and do it's thing .

So to support this nothing have to be done in LMS or the plugin ?

However an analog out on a RasPI or something ,then someone has to write an player supporting it , to keep the pet bat happy :) eric would not be pleased otherwise.....

Suppose people want some transcoding solution for their existing Transporter or Touch and its analog out (would be piontless on any other squeezebox as they only do 48k)

Julf
2015-12-04, 05:36
Are all your pets called Eric?

There's nothing so odd about that: Kemal Ataturk had an entire menagerie called Abdul!

bonze
2015-12-04, 05:37
Are all your pets called Eric?
I wonder if he has a bee (or half a bee :) )

kidstypike
2015-12-04, 05:38
There's nothing so odd about that: Kemal Ataturk had an entire menagerie called Abdul!

Didn't!

Julf
2015-12-04, 05:38
OK but then it has to be streamed as 24 bit files

Indeed.


LMS or Squeezebox does not even have to be aware . if you keep volume at 100% the MQA enabled DAC conected to your squeezebox willl find the secret sauce and do it's thing .

So to support this nothing have to be done in LMS or the plugin ?

Hopefully. Still remains to be seen how it works in practice.

R1200CL
2015-12-04, 15:39
Good video to learn more about MQA.
http://youtu.be/r_wxRGiBoJg

I can confirm MQA works with FLAC.

Mnyb
2015-12-04, 21:19
Have read the up a bit more on it , it seems like its a high risk that the AES paper behind this is junk science , missunderstanding the Gibbs effect again , using contorted test to fit pre existing beliefs about filter ripple . Their clams are not uncontested.

Also evident is that it is a lossy system , this is not lossles anymore . That would not matter much in 24 bit you would not hear that . If you think that the HF content >20kHz is so important that you can scrap the losslesnes of the signal why not use OGG or any other lossy codec that can support 96kHz sample rate . It can be used in 16 bit signals too ....

I can see the interest from the streaming industry , if the format has other properties that facilitates streaming and is lossy ( that would be liked by record companies ) it's good for them .

It would be interesting to see if a high end company actually will be able to market a lossy system to audiophiles :)

I'll stop ranting about it now .

What matters is how the Tidal service will implement this and if and how it will effect the solutions we have for Tidal .
It's good to hear that it can be used in flac with probably only an insignificant detoriation of SQ even on non MQA equipment

Also if other services will implement it , we might have to deal with it somehow . But if the signal can be like HDCD ignored by equipment not supporting it then we might not need to deal with at all , we have our music anyway .

Then the old question about content content and content if there is only a slim selection off audiophile chestnuts it will not succeed .

R1200CL
2016-01-03, 20:45
Finally a prove (or indication?) that MQA does not have to be implemented in a DAC.

"A soon to be released firmware update to all three Aries streamer models will bring AURALiC’s Lightning platform to v3.0, from which the Aries, the Aries LE and Aries Mini will all get MQA compatibility but that RoonReadiness (initially) only applies to the two big fellas. Roon support for the Aries Mini in still “in progress”."

http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2016/01/auralic-to-add-mqa-roonready-to-aries-at-ces-2016/

So now I hope someone with the right knowlegde investigate if or what is needed technically in order to implement MQA into a Squeezebox Touch.

I'm convinced it can be done. I like to hear those deny this from a technical point of view.

Maybe even the Chromcast Audio will Get MQA support.

Edit: some more information
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f13-music-downloads-and-streaming/tidal-high-res-mqa-news-26734/index3.html

"I spoke with a Meridian rep at AXPONA about MQA, and he confirmed that MQA processing could be performed in a media player's software. He also said that they were in talks with some of those providers about adding it to their products. If they do so I would expect there to likely be an additional charge for that functionality if it is marketed as an optional add-on."

Julf
2016-01-04, 05:57
So now I hope someone with the right knowlegde investigate if or what is needed technically in order to implement MQA into a Squeezebox Touch.

I'm convinced it can be done. I like to hear those deny this from a technical point of view.

Of course it *can* be done, if you have the required information (that seems to be protected by a non-disclosure), but if you do, you are probably breaking Meridian's licensing terms. I understand that there is also some form of DRM - breaking that would violate the DMCA.

Mnyb
2016-01-04, 06:11
Of course it *can* be done, if you have the required information (that seems to be protected by a non-disclosure), but if you do, you are probably breaking Meridian's licensing terms. I understand that there is also some form of DRM - breaking that would violate the DMCA.

Yes it can't be done by some enthusiast , it must be a commercial agreement of some sort . That cost money so it has to be paid by users in the end , so it's must be a commercially viable plugin . Done by a company .

So will Tidal do the plugin either directly via LMS mysqueezebox.com or ickstream and pay the license fee ? As they are the only ones getting any real income ? Or someone else . I don't know if ickstream gets some 0.0001$ for brokering costumer to tidal and deezer etc and if that would suffice to license MQA ?

Yes it can be done , someone must just find it worth the effort . It must generate positive income .

If the streams can be played anyway without MQA ? Or not ? That would also decide what's worthwhile ?

R1200CL
2016-01-04, 12:32
I've aksed. https://forum.ickstream.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=600

Still I would guess a user like Triode, Michal H, and Pippin would have the knowlegde of who to aks, effort of work, etc.

I shall also sende a message to Tidal even though not sure how they can contribute to a possible plugin or firmware upgrade.

First I think we need to agree upon that the plugin has to be on the player and not in LMS, next can it be a plugin, or does it have to be a firmware upgrade. I'm sure someone reading this know for sure what is needed from a pure technical point of view.

If comersial issues I suggest to start something on kickstarter or similar together with the person that are willing to so the development. But leave that for now. I'm interested to know for sure if it can be done and what is needed in order to make this happen.

R1200CL
2016-01-04, 12:39
Y

If the streams can be played anyway without MQA ? Or not ? That would also decide what's worthwhile ?

Yes it can be played anyway !!!!

I'm a bit supriced you did not know. Please at least read the links i provided in this thread, or search some basic knowlegde about MAQ.

I'm after facts from those that know LMS and Squeezebox Touch firmware and plugins. Not opinions.

Julf
2016-01-04, 12:39
First I think we need to agree upon that the plugin has to be on the player and not in LMS

I guess the answer is "it depends", as usual. Remember that MQA is just a compression format. Thus it can be uncompressed either in LMS or in the player, but doing it in LMS will result in more network bandwidth being used.


next can it be a plugin, or does it have to be a firmware upgrade.

Plugins are a LMS feature. You can do the MQA decompression in a plugin on LMS or in player firmware.


If comersial issues I suggest to start something on kickstarter or similar together with the person that are willing to so the development. But leave that for now. I'm interested to know for sure if it can be done and what is needed in order to make this happen.

The first step would be to find out licensing terms and costs.

Julf
2016-01-04, 12:40
I'm after facts from those that know LMS and Squeezebox Touch firmware and plugins. Not opinions.

What level of exam do I need to pass to show sufficient knowledge?

Mnyb
2016-01-04, 12:50
If it's Done in LMS it can support all players even the older ones . And software players like squeezelite SqueezePlay etc a server implementation would include and enable a lot of players .

And player firmware is very rarely updated these days . probably nerver .

An "app" done for Touch is also a possibility . You can install apps on the Touch besides the server side plugins . So an MQA app is one idea . Advantage if an mysqueezebox.com supported service include MQA you can run without a server .

Yes I did read some of the links , but I have never come across an actual implementation yet . It been hinted that indeed deezer and tidal Aubusson with MQA will still work on non MQA enabled players . Anyone actuall tried yet ? I've seen on ickstream that some services started with 24 bit ?
I can only run tidal or Spotify where I live ..

R1200CL
2016-01-04, 13:07
What level of exam do I need to pass to show sufficient knowledge?

It seems to me that you just passes by your privious answer 😀

Would you have any interest and time to do the neccessary development ?
(If we solve any licence issues)

R1200CL
2016-01-04, 13:11
If it's Done in LMS it can support all players even the older ones . And software players like squeezelite SqueezePlay etc a server implementation would include and enable a lot of players .

And player firmware is very rarely updated these days . probably nerver .

An "app" done for Touch is also a possibility . You can install apps on the Touch besides the server side plugins . So an MQA app is one idea . Advantage if an mysqueezebox.com supported service include MQA you can run without a server .

Yes I did read some of the links , but I have never come across an actual implementation yet . It been hinted that indeed deezer and tidal Aubusson with MQA will still work on non MQA enabled players . Anyone actuall tried yet ? I've seen on ickstream that some services started with 24 bit ?
I can only run tidal or Spotify where I live ..

Thanks. This clear a bit. Let us hope the next two weeks can enlighten us a bit as I guess some secrets will be answered during CES.

I like your app idea :D

Julf
2016-01-04, 13:23
Would you have any interest and time to do the neccessary development ?
(If we solve any licence issues)

Thanks, but unfortunately very limited time - and not really convinced there is any benefit (except to generate licensing income fro Meridian - or, to be precise, the new "MQA Limited").

R1200CL
2016-01-04, 15:13
I guess the answer is "it depends", as usual.

The first step would be to find out licensing terms and costs.

Julf
Who in the Squeezebox world be best suited to email MQA and ask ?

"MQA offers full professional support from its expert team of software and hardware engineers for manufacturers wishing to incorporate a decoder into existing or projected products with minimum delay.
Please contact MQA at info@mqa.co.uk for full details of the range of development and support options available."

http://hifipig.com/mqa-integration-made-simple-ces-2016/

Maybe you could ask ?
I do not have enough technical skilles to email them, nor the autorithy to represent the Squeezebox community.

Mnyb
2016-01-04, 20:59
For newer services that would be the ickstream team go to thier forum there is already a tread .

They are all here already it's erland, pippin and remd .

Here it is mherger .

I'm with Julf here , why ?

Unless actually not implementing MQA ( but using some legacy mode and bypassing it ) makes the service sound worse than the good old 16/44.1 they seems to want to abandon :(

I do see the streaming service benefit here ( not us consumers ) it is a proprietary lossy format with DRM . A FLAC service like tidal practically broadcast the CD master which makes the paranoid record companies unhappy . I do understand why streaming services may like the format .

You can ofcourse record "off air" as in the good old days , but reintroduce some generational loss would make some happy .

R1200CL
2016-01-04, 23:21
I'm with Julf here , why ?

Unless actually not implementing MQA ( but using some legacy mode and bypassing it ) makes the service sound worse than the good old 16/44.1 they seems to want to abandon :(

I do see the streaming service benefit here ( not us consumers ) it is a proprietary lossy format with DRM . A FLAC service like tidal practically broadcast the CD master which makes the paranoid record companies unhappy . I do understand why streaming services may like the format .

You can ofcourse record "off air" as in the good old days , but reintroduce some generational loss would make some happy .

I think you have totally misunderstood what MQA is and offers. You should not tell direct lies like this.

MQA is Lossless. No DRM. They do not want to abandon 16/44.1. And all major record companies support MQA, and actually have started the prosess of implementing MQA into their masters. Tidal will support MQA.

I'm sure you are able to do a Google search for MQA (you may even limit it to the last week)

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/beyond-high-resolution/
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f13-music-downloads-and-streaming/tidal-high-res-mqa-news-26734/

I can't understand why you are against implementing MAQ into Squeezebox, or have I misunderstood your post ?

I like to use my Tidal hi-fi subscription with MQA on my Squeezebox Touch. (For hi res streaming). I think this is a fair request or ?

Thanks for letting me know who is the Squeezebox "management".

Hopfully they read this post and can email MQA about licence issue. http://www.musicischanging.com has just updated their pages.

Let us wait a cople of weeks and CES is over, and see what happens. MQA is very new to people, and for some strange reason, many are skeptical to MQA.

Julf
2016-01-05, 04:00
I think you have totally misunderstood what MQA is and offers. You should not tell direct lies like this.

You are not winning any friends by that approach. If you think Mnyb has misunderstood something about MQA, then please point out the facts. Calling stuff "lies" is not helpful, unless you have clear evidence that Mnyb is spreading false information on purpose.


MQA is Lossless.

Depends on your definition of "lossless". It is lossless for the upper bits, but "steals" lower bits to represent HF information.


And all major record companies support MQA, and actually have started the prosess of implementing MQA into their masters.

So which record companies have actually committed to supporting MQA?


I can't understand why you are against implementing MAQ into Squeezebox, or have I misunderstood your post ?

And I can't understand why you are so for implementing it. What benefits do you think it will bring?


Hopfully they read this post and can email MQA about licence issue. http://www.musicischanging.com has just updated their pages.

Interestingly, the only "content partner" they list is 2L, not really one of the major record companies. If the others are supporting MQA, why are they not mentioned?

The "how it works" section is thick on hype, thin on facts.


MQA is very new to people, and for some strange reason, many are skeptical to MQA.

The "strange reason" might be that it is yet another proprietary, licensed format that doesn't bring any benefits.

Mnyb
2016-01-05, 04:02
Qubus sublime offer some sort of 24bit https://forum.ickstream.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=392&start=10

Why I'm against it it just another proprietary format in an industry already fragmented by to many closed formats like iTunes etc. No one really needs yet another format .

If someone wants to develop an universal high quality streaming format it should IMO be completely open source .
There are technical reasons why DASH or similar is implemented , so a format better suited to steaming and handling all the traffic in better way may be what the industry needs . But I suppose Moores law will make streaming cd quality flac quite feasible anyway . Maybe we need THE FORMAT whatever that is streaming and online purchasing and downloads seems to me being locked into a decade long never ending format war . I just whished it could end .
I see MQA as a shameless money grab .

If I would be King for a day I say FLAC and MP3 and that's it :) flac do support all kinds of bitrates btw 24 bit would work .

And soundquality wise 16/44.1 is not a limiting factor . 1 the recordings or 2 our biology is the limit . I been suckered into the Hirez thing before in my life as I have hundreds of DVDA disc to prove that . It is not a proven fact , quite the opposite that resolution above 16/44.1 is needed for human listeners . Meridian has done some very bad "research" lately trying to prove thier point both about pre ringing in filters and the need for > 20 kHz frequencies in audio I suspect it's more marketing than research .

I would love discrete multichannel streaming :) no one up for that ?

So there is no point what's so ever to stream 24 bit audio as thier is no point in 24 bit audio in general . Ultraviolet television would make more sense then I could get a tan viewing wildlife documentaries ....

But I do cheer on if someone wants to develop this if large proportion of the streaming industry adopts it we need it whether we like it or not ! Just like ntsc never was the best to format or vhs never was the best video format .
We simply have to use the formats our content is delivered in . But I cringe a bit when a format is sold to us with no reasonable rationale behind it ?

Mnyb
2016-01-05, 04:35
2L is one of the niche labels ( like aix ) that do true hirez recordings but that's <0.01 % of the content needed to drive a streaming network ? and audiophile labels rarely records any real musician that anyone care to listen to with some notable exceptions like Opus 3 recording the excellent Eric Bibb .

What about all the other music ? Should you dimension the network for content never listened to . It's like building freeways for NASA's crawler ( that pulls the rocket to the launch pad ).

i think I have 40% of all aix discs and I do listen 2-5 of them regularly . And they did a good effort to find musically viable artists to record , a good try and I respect that . But it's hard doing it the other way around as the audiophile labels do . " let's do a good record " who should be on it ?

The amount of records "worthy" of this treatment ( let's pretends it does something for a moment ) is so small that everyone interested probably have half of them in thier shelves already ? Or on thier hard drives . So why stream it ?

Sites likes HD tracks seems to have a lot of hirez records . Buts that's not really true ,they are sold in 24/192 containers but are mostly the same stuff as ever , most bits will be noise with all the 60's Rock records they sell as pretend hirez when 16 bit 44.1 kHz probably would preserve all the fidelity they ever had

Most good labels do have a strong artistic vision behind them , documenting a genre or music styles that they love .

I would like to try this on a cocktail party , let's listen to the shiefeild labs drum record followed by Jazz at the pawnshop... ;) boo

It just that nobody attacks the real problem the subpar recordings we are swamped with ! All our current distributing formats is good enough for them , they are not yet a problem . We can open this discussion again when everyone has the same intrinsic recording quality as 2L AIX or Linn et all .

R1200CL
2016-01-05, 07:47
Thanks Mnyb

You have spent a lot of time explaining your point of view. Maybe it is time for me to sell my Touch while prices are still are good, and purchase an Auralic with Roon support.

I just got email from Tidal support saying the product (Squeezebox) is discontinued, and MQA will not be supported from them.

If MQA ltd also indicates the same answer, I guess MQA never will happen on Squeezebox, as without their support I suppose it will be impossible to implement MQA.

toby10
2016-01-05, 08:20
MQA isn’t even relevant yet and seems geared more for mobile audio. If/when implemented it will be on a very select few stations/services for the next few years.
Likely be a “premium” service for those few niche services for a while, and may remain very niche for a very long while.

Writing apps/plugins for such a niche market seems rather silly for a discontinued product line. Heck, I’ll be happy if my SB players are even functioning 5 years from now as is, much less supporting new audio codecs. :)

R1200CL
2016-01-05, 17:05
If someone like to read more real facts about MQA.
http://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20160105/17501.pdf

And some videos about MQA:
http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/mqa-explained-in-short-videos/

Julf
2016-01-06, 00:46
If someone like to read more real facts about MQA.
http://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20160105/17501.pdf


"The requested URL /tmpFiles/elib/20160105/17501.pdf was not found on this server."

How about you actually explaining what you think we have gotten wrong about MQA? It is a proprietary way to compress "hi-res" files by using lower-order bits of a 24-bit file format to encode the high frequency content. It is kind of compatible with non-MQA systems because the encoded high-frequency material will drown in the noise margin of a 24-bit file.

R1200CL
2016-01-06, 20:42
"The requested URL /tmpFiles/elib/20160105/17501.pdf was not found on this server."

How about you actually explaining what you think we have gotten wrong about MQA? It is a proprietary way to compress "hi-res" files by using lower-order bits of a 24-bit file format to encode the high frequency content. It is kind of compatible with non-MQA systems because the encoded high-frequency material will drown in the noise margin of a 24-bit file.

I can't see anything wrong in your statment. It's the shortest or best :p description I've seen so far...

So let us stop discuss what it is or not. I'm not the right person to discuss this with, as I have no knowlegde except from what can be found online.

I have got a nice answer on the IckStream site about the possibilities of having MAQ implemented.

I may add it still seems that if you like to have the very last prosent of audio quality implementert in a MQA chain, you most likely need to do something with the DAC. But for sure decoding can be done by SW in streamer / player. As we have seen pure streamer will have MQA firmware updates soon. We also know from Tidal's Pål Bråterud the following

"At beginning, we will just transport MQA files (in FLAC wrapper) to external hardware that's supporting MQA decoding. But we will certainly also soft decode in the future also on desktop so you can enjoy MQA quality with any DAC. In mobile applications we will of course soft decode from launch.

To begin with it will be a rather limited offering of higher than redbook content, but eventually we will also run all our redbook content through as you then will lose the brickwalling artefacts and also get better and more accurate coding of the PCM itself.

For us it is more important that we do this right rather than have a vast catalogue of questionable character. Quality over quantity. As we go along we will fill up the tanks quicker and quicker."

Furter reliability information is:
http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/meridians-master-quality-authenticated-the-interview/
http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/beyond-high-resolution/
So you really do not need my explaination ;)

Broken URL is OK.

StephenPG
2016-01-06, 21:27
What are brickwalling artefacts?

R1200CL
2016-01-07, 06:37
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringing_artifacts

You may Google brickwall filter to better understand what I guess Pål is takling about.

http://cara.gsu.edu/courses/MI_313/digi2.htm
"The problem of aliasing and the need to provide total band-rejection at the Nyquist frequency mandated the implementation of a filter which has a very steep frequency rejection curve (over 90dB/octave at the Nyquist frequency, typically). These filters are called brickwall due to this steep cutoff frequency. These are analog filters generally speaking.

Steep filters such as these can cause significant time delays (phase distortion) in midrange and high audio frequencies. These problems are especially acute in the ADC but the DAC also introduces a smaller frequency-dependent delay which is contributed by the smoothing filter at output.

No analog filter can be both extremely steep and phase linear around the cutoff point."

You may also Google apodizing filter or Peter Craven’s 2004 AES paper.

Julf
2016-01-07, 06:46
What are brickwalling artefacts?

A square wave contains a sum of all odd harmonics up to infinity. If you remove some of the higher ones, the resulting wave is of course not perfectly square any more - the top will show a "ripple" proportional to the removed higher harmonics. This is usually referred to as the Gibbs phenomenon (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_phenomenon). If the removed harmonics are higher in frequency than the limit of human hearing (as usually is the case in digital audio systems), the effect is purely visual and not audible - another case of the dangers of using your eyes rather than your ears.

Julf
2016-01-07, 06:48
Furter reliability information is:
http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/meridians-master-quality-authenticated-the-interview/
http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/beyond-high-resolution/


So you are seriously quoting TAS as a source of reliable information?


Broken URL is OK.

Indeed. We didn't need it anyway :)

R1200CL
2016-01-07, 07:03
So you are seriously quoting TAS as a source of reliable information?

It seems so :D. Is there anything wrong with that. Is the interview not real ?
It was not my intention to misleading anyone. I though the information was correct.

Julf
2016-01-07, 07:12
It seems so :D. Is there anything wrong with that. Is the interview not real ?
It was not my intention to misleading anyone. I though the information was correct.

Well, all I can say is that it has wonderful pearls of wisdom like "In other words, you can get more information down the pipe than the sampling theorem would indicate, providing the signals have finite-rate of innovation, which is true for music.".

I would agree modern pop music has a very finite rate of innovation, but... Was that line generated by a random buzz phrase generator?

R1200CL
2016-01-07, 08:24
Well, all I can say is that it has wonderful pearls of wisdom like "In other words, you can get more information down the pipe than the sampling theorem would indicate, providing the signals have finite-rate of innovation, which is true for music.".

I would agree modern pop music has a very finite rate of innovation, but... Was that line generated by a random buzz phrase generator?

Good point. It is good to be sceptical to some of the marketing BS.
Maybe this link can point you in tre right direction. It is getting to advanced for me.
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f13-music-downloads-and-streaming/tidal-high-res-mqa-news-26734/index5.html#post498988

Julf
2016-01-07, 08:42
Good point. It is good to be sceptical to some of the marketing BS.
Maybe this link can point you in tre right direction. It is getting to advanced for me.
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f13-music-downloads-and-streaming/tidal-high-res-mqa-news-26734/index5.html#post498988

Thanks, CA is not much better than TAS (one has to remember CA is a commercial, advertiser-paid site), but good old Jud usually has the sense to link to reasonable resources.

pablolie
2016-01-07, 11:04
This probably has been discussed before, but I just wonder why I should be interested in MQA encoding for the music library I already have in my home environment. I see no bottlenecks to get even my 24/192 content (which I have, even though its merits in a home environment are a tad questionable to begin with, but that's another discussion altogether :-D) to any device in my home. Even with lowly, old 802.11g wireless (which the SB ecosystem supports), and even less so with 802.11ac which gets you a few Gbit/s across the house. So thank you very much, at home FLAC or whatever I already have works well enough.

Which makes me think the sweet market spot for MQA is HiRez music streaming, since MQAs big virtue is it can pack a 24/192 stream (~9Mbit/s) into the equivalent of a 16/44 stream (good ole 1.4Mbit/s). Which is relevant if (a) your bandwidth connection is less than ~12Mbit/s and (b) you still insist on listening to music in HiRez wherever you are. Well, I don't, I am perfectly fine with Spotify-like streaming when I am not at home in front of the music shrine - but that's just me. This is the way that Meridian seems to see it as well, too - I rememebr reading their manifesto and it was all about streaming services, not about encoding your music at home. So the question is - does the SB ecosystem even benefit from MQA?

d6jg
2016-01-07, 15:13
Totally agree Pablo

R1200CL
2016-01-07, 15:17
This probably has been discussed before, but I just wonder why I should be interested in MQA encoding for the music library I already have in my home environment.
It will have no effect on your present library, as non of those files are MQA encoded. So you should not be interested :D


I see no bottlenecks to get even my 24/192 content (which I have, even though its merits in a home environment are a tad questionable to begin with, but that's another discussion altogether :D ) to any device in my home. Even with lowly, old 802.11g wireless (which the SB ecosystem supports), and even less so with 802.11ac which gets you a few Gbit/s across the house. So thank you very much, at home FLAC or whatever I already have works well enough.
Again you are 100% correct.


Which makes me think the sweet market spot for MQA is HiRez music streaming, since MQAs big virtue is it can pack a 24/192 stream (~9Mbit/s) into the equivalent of a 16/44 stream (good ole 1.4Mbit/s). Which is relevant if (a) your bandwidth connection is less than ~12Mbit/s and (b) you still insist on listening to music in HiRez wherever you are.
Again you are 100% correct, but read my last comment b.
Actually when I first read about MQA, I did not expect download MQA files as an option.


Well, I don't, I am perfectly fine with Spotify-like streaming when I am not at home in front of the music shrine - but that's just me.
I ask myself as well if hi res streaming has any value when you are only using your phone and headset. As I think you need quite good equiment to benefit from this. However my Tidal Hi-Fi subscription sounds very well from my iPhone, and since I can download CD quality, I can even bring the files with me and play on a plane. Or in the car. Or just use Airplay / Chromcast.


So the question is - does the SB ecosystem even benefit from MQA?

Yes, if:
a: You are a Tidal Hi-Fi subscriber and has a Squeezebox Touch, and probably other SB products, but I'm thinking 24/96 is needed as minimum. Tidal is the only subscription available in CD quality on SB platform, and said to support MQA. If other will come, those should be included.
b: Download (expensive) MQA fils, and use SBT / SB-products. Look at 2L or 7Digital store to get a price idea.

Also it's said that even non MQA equipment will benefint from a MQA stream / file. (So Tidal Hi-Fi subscribers get a free ride:cool:)

No, if
Your DAC is MQA enabled. (Edit: or have a Roon subscription).

I do not know enough about Squeeze Lite as a possible option.

Assuming MQA is as fantastic as those few who have heard say it is, I still think you need good equipment in order to benefit fully from MQA, but I may be wrong. But that apply to hi-res as well...
Also any stremer or sw player will have a standard DAC profile, so in order to have the very best, you will probably look for a MQA enabled DAC. I predic there will be a lot of discussions at a later stage if you really need that last DAC specific parameter, as long as your SW player or streamer support MQA.

I wonder if Chromcast Audio will support MQA :D Tidal will support CA. (Airplay does not support HRA)

*(HRA = High Res Audio)

Mnyb
2016-01-09, 02:36
"The requested URL /tmpFiles/elib/20160105/17501.pdf was not found on this server."

How about you actually explaining what you think we have gotten wrong about MQA? It is a proprietary way to compress "hi-res" files by using lower-order bits of a 24-bit file format to encode the high frequency content. It is kind of compatible with non-MQA systems because the encoded high-frequency material will drown in the noise margin of a 24-bit file.

Yes that's how I got it to ( half of the people in this tread do not have English as first language ) thanks for the short version .

Btw TAS an CA are not reliable sources you read thier stuff with great scepticism , TAS had a completely bollocks article serie on digital audio where they basically claimed that the laws of physics where wrong due to thier sighted listening tests ... :D

Mnyb
2016-01-09, 03:15
There was some good technical discussion at hydrogen audio . But hey seems to move thier web space . So treads are just not aviable rigth now

Btw just because it's a AES paper does not mean it's good or legit . Meridian has a good position in the society and IMO uses the science flair that publicate papers within AES gives for marketing purposes . These result are not undisputed .

Does it make AES bad ? No this is a problem all research organisation and universities has to grapple with from time to time , you won't believe how much crap research even very respected universities realease to the world . It's kind of self correcting but it takes time .Over time several studies of a phenome takes place and it can even take a meta study to give some kind of final verdict.

A more valid to aproach to a hifi streaming service would be to curate the content to the best known version of a work ? This has much more impact than the bit container I take the 320k MP3 version of the definitive master of something any day over the latest loudness war compressed master in glorious 24/192 the differences between suitable bit containers are subtle at best the differences between masters are really huge .
Hey you could even throw in MQA streaming on the side in this scenario . Now and then the music would have a true 24/192 pedigree trough the recording and mastering chain these files could be given the MQA treatment . So on the rare occasion some subscribers could get the satisfaction of seeing " the MQA light " turn on . But it would not be used on program material where it would not work ( most music ever recorded ).

It can prove a bit problematic to score true 96k or 192 k masters for the bat content . HD tracks for example is ripping SACD disc for a lot of thier content ? And they have huge problems with hirez masters that are nothing more than doctored CD masters to begin with . A logistical nightmare .

A would love a streaming service that tackled the whole quality problem , not just obsessing over bits and kbits .

Btw to get "bat friendly" content you may need to listen to rather closed miked music as the frequencies die of fast in the air and I do wonder how many of the classic microphones that record engineers love work in this domain what about thier polar pattern and frequency response ?
And who will monitor this during production ? Do we even want it . The ultrasound can pose a real problem for amplifiers and speakers and actually do more good than bad . So even if we have a 24/192 master it must still be carefully evaluated .
I do think 2L AIX and several others understands this very well .
But what about some indie self production where they happen to have 24/192 sound cards and current software ? Or some random pop production that also happens to exist in the 24/192 domain .

And it returns to the problem of setting up a quality control system that would ensure a hifi streaming service for real . It would require all the record companies and independent artist to run back to thier archives and do some QC work and possibly reupload a better master . We are talking about millions of man hours fixing this ? And in most cases the record company want the crappy compressed version . So that would in some cases require the streaming service to rip an early 90's version of some cd against the record companies intent, to get the best master ? How to resolve that .

R1200CL
2016-01-09, 08:26
WOW Mnyb. I'm impressed. Very well written. I agree about what you say about HD tracks, as I found their so called hi-res not better than redbok. Exeptions for some tracks though.

If I have understood the MQA prosess correctly as an end to end chain, you actually have to go back to the masteres, so I do think the record companies actually are doing this job you? don't think they are. (Or you aks the key question).

I might be totally wrong here, and if so, then I can't see any future succsess for MQA for the privious recordings.
So yes, we need a confirmation from record companies that they will be doing the MQA coding. Maybe also a reason why Tidal seems to wait another 6 months before release MQA streaming.

Link to another thread discussions the subjekt about MQA.
https://community.roonlabs.com/t/tidal-to-launch-mqa-hi-res-audio-streaming-in-2016/5408/107

Julf
2016-01-09, 08:58
If I have understood the MQA prosess correctly as an end to end chain, you actually have to go back to the masteres, so I do think the record companies actually are doing this job you?

There is no specific technical requirement that forces you to go back to the original masters, but unless you have supposed high-frequency content, MQA doesn't give you any benefits, so applying MQA encoding to a 44.1/16 recording is quite possible and doable, but entirely pointless.

Then again, who would have thought the record companies would upsample existing recordings to be able to sell them as "hi-res"? :-/

Mnyb
2016-01-09, 10:06
Yes the recordings has to contain actual ultrasonic content otherwise MQA is pointless even for is intended purpose .

And not any haphazard ultrasonic content the producer has to know what he is doing .

Did not both Theta and Pioneer ( legato link ) both had some failed aproach to guess/generate the overtones . the failure is that the information is lost forever can not be recreated .... Sadly I thinks it's very tempting to do this again to generate content .

The recording process do use 24/192 these days to avoid brick wall filters etc and further use floating point data in subsequent software that mixes and produces the stuff . The benefits are clear to all of us but actually it does not necessarily needs to be distributed in that format to the end user . Like most digital processing the practice to use very high Rez source material makes good sense just like in Photoshop ( I did buttons for my remote control app in more than 1000*1000 res even if they are shrunken down to 72px in iRule , but all plugins and effects etc worked so much better ) . But the subsequent distribution to consumers ? We have very good resamplers and dither algorithms these days .

Anecdote I have even used bad algorithms and rather sloppy conversion processes for my own tests , and I could still not detect any difference that's how good today's stuff is .

If you want to "test" hirez in some ABX fashion use SoX or something and resample some of the better hirez recordings you have . Do not compare to the cd release or cd layer that came with the disc ;) they obviously sound "different" ( because the obvious fact that they are not the same master )

Personally looking at most distortions curves on power amps they peak in the HF and also typical HF resonance peaks in tweeters ( transformer resonances in tube amps anyone ? ) I only see a possible way for intermodulation distortion this would sound different ofcourse .....

Julf
2016-01-09, 10:40
The recording process do use 24/192 these days to avoid brick wall filters etc

Apart from audiophile recordings most commercial recordings are still in 24/48 or 24/96.


If you want to "test" hirez in some ABX fashion use SoX or something and resample some of the better hirez recordings you have . Do not compare to the cd release or cd layer that came with the disc ;) they obviously sound "different" ( because the obvious fact that they are not the same master )

Indeed. Using SOX it is trivially easy to produce different resolutions of an original recording, so there is no excuse not to do a proper comparison (OK, the only trouble is finding material that really is "hi-res").


Personally looking at most distortions curves on power amps they peak in the HF and also typical HF resonance peaks in tweeters ( transformer resonances in tube amps anyone ? ) I only see a possible way for intermodulation distortion this would sound different ofcourse .....

Yes, and because of that, "hi-res" might actually sound *worse* (due to intermodulation distortion caused by HF noise).

Mnyb
2016-01-09, 11:48
Yes about the 24/192 we have to have a positive outlook sometimes , are that many studios still stuck in 24/48 ? 24/96 is all ok probably the rigth compromise .
Having been in some actual studios , it differs :) maybe the ADC is not the bottleneck but something else . It can be a mashup of disparate equipment and everyone can not buy the new toys all the time .

Btw for download files why not 16/48 ? It would suit computers much better and be easier to downsample to from the source .

The extra 2kHz that *may* be a problem for a extreme human listener is there ? I do have the odd 24/48 recording too it may reflect the actual studio master ...

But now we are to off topic I stop now ....

Hopefully someone can be on topic on actual squeezebox implementations of services with MQA , in the case of actually using it or safely bypass it , either way is a solution ( you can still use whatever service it's about ).

Julf
2016-01-09, 12:53
Yes about the 24/192 we have to have a positive outlook sometimes , are that many studios still stuck in 24/48 ? 24/96 is all ok probably the rigth compromise .
Having been in some actual studios , it differs :) maybe the ADC is not the bottleneck but something else . It can be a mashup of disparate equipment and everyone can not buy the new toys all the time.

Often the limiting factor is the software and digital audio processing computer - 48 vs 96 makes a big difference once you start stacking lots of channels.


Btw for download files why not 16/48 ? It would suit computers much better and be easier to downsample to from the source.

Downsampling is downsampling, the ratio doesn't really matter. But ironically mp3s are increasingly starting to be 48... :)


I do have the odd 24/48 recording too it may reflect the actual studio master ...

It means they are actually being honest! :)

DanSmedra
2016-01-09, 17:53
Fact #1: MQA has several parts/components.

Fact #2: Confusion of what it is and how it works is currently the status-quo.

Fact #3: A growing number of top audio companies have become believers.

19693

PS. 2L has some MQA files available on their website.

Julf
2016-01-10, 05:55
Fact #1: MQA has several parts/components.

An encoder and a decoder? :)


Fact #2: Confusion of what it is and how it works is currently the status-quo.

Indeed. But the proponents of the system are not doing a very good job to clear up the confusion.


Fact #3: A growing number of top audio companies have become believers.

Not sure about "believers", but I can see why equipment vendors would love yet another format that will obsolete older gear and encourage people to upgrade. The real question is how many major record companies support the system - it will live or die based on availability of content.

The only real case for MQA is "hi-res" streaming - and I am not sure there is a business case for that. While record companies no doubt would love another opportunity to sell you yet another copy of the music you already have, for locally stored content MQA doesn't offer any advantage over 96/24 FLAC.

Mnyb
2016-01-10, 07:18
Designing a licensable format is some kind of industry holy grail .

Look no further than Sony , they try this all the time Phillips and Sony struck gold with the CD they made some profit whoever sold the player , but that patent has expired so royalty is not the same anymore , then Sony tried the SACD DSD thing. Etc .

There is some kind of balance that needs to be struck . Design a format for its own sake just to create license fee vs an universal standard that fulfills a consumer need .
The CD was such a format and the DVD too . LP and cassette where fidgety and complicated and only the enthusiast consumer ever got the best out of these format . cd just fixed that .

Seems to me that everyone wants to create the new FM radio , but they fall shorts as for example Apple wants thier monopoly .
And other bizarre factors creeps in . Broadcaster are not happy to just broadcast anymore they want endpoint control too ?

Wombat
2016-01-10, 10:08
If they were interested in some honest facts they long had offered a HiBit file and the corresponding MQA->ANDBACK file.
You have to wait until some underdog blog creates such files.
Lets see what all this shows. From the short silent parts of the first 2L samples the undecoded (16bit?) part has some noisefloor i'd very vague rate by eye as maybe 14bit noiseshaped, not more.

R1200CL
2016-01-10, 11:50
?......., for locally stored content MQA doesn't offer any advantage over 96/24 FLAC.

So even if original recordings is offered DXD FLC 24/384, I could understand that those resolutions is just close to marketing BS ? My DAC has limitations, so I can't test how good or better DXD might be.

R1200CL
2016-01-10, 11:53
If they were interested in some honest facts they long had offered a HiBit file and the corresponding MQA->ANDBACK file.
You have to wait until some underdog blog creates such files.
Lets see what all this shows. From the short silent parts of the first 2L samples the undecoded (16bit?) part has some noisefloor i'd very vague rate by eye as maybe 14bit noiseshaped, not more.

Not good enough this link then ?
http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html?

What is missing ?
Are you requesting a decoded MQA file ?

Wombat
2016-01-10, 12:07
Are you requesting a decoded MQA file ?
Yes

DanSmedra
2016-01-10, 12:34
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS8V2juQMiw

19707

R1200CL
2016-01-10, 13:36
Yes

He, he, maybe DVD John can do ;)
MQA is a patented technology.

But why would you like to decode a MQA file, as a reasonable DAC can do as well as streamers ?
I do not know how hard it is to tap a spdif or USB interface, and save the file, but that would fullfill your request I guess.
You would in any case have a Tidal hi-fi subscription or purchase MQA encoded music.

Wombat
2016-01-10, 13:55
He, he, maybe DVD John can do ;)
MQA is a patented technology.

But why would you like to decode a MQA file, as a reasonable DAC can do as well as streamers ?
I do not know how hard it is to tap a spdif or USB interface, and save the file, but that would fullfill your request I guess.
You would in any case have a Tidal hi-fi subscription or purchase MQA encoded music.
MQA is some lossy way storing music that can be decoded to the maximum samplerate your DAC handles + apodizing thats all. I want to know what data Meridian thinks can be missing against a solid 24/96 when decoded to 24/96 for example.

Mnyb
2016-01-10, 14:00
For streaming the small bitrate is a good thing , especially for the service that streams , keeping bandwidth low . If you have decent ISP your bandwith is not a problem , I can only imagine the loads Tidal and Spotify has....

But for downloadable files ? Then a 24/96 PCM / Flac file is much better , it's more money in a sold file it could easily cover bandwith cost . And you download once . If you stream you use bandwith every time you listen .

But the industry might like a file format that's not quite a copy of the studio master .

If they get common , we might actually see some intense reverse engineering as people would,like foobar2000 plugins etc , KODI anyone ? . And people would expect things like jriver, media monkey and dBpower amp to be able to convert the files .
Some of these apps are paid for so they could probably license .

R1200CL
2016-01-10, 14:12
You need a new DAC.

"It is unfortunately that MQA has decided to pull back the integration on ARIES/ARIES LE during CES as they have decided to make it an 'end to end' technology which means it will always requests a MQA certificated DAC to work.
ARIES ARIES LE, will be able to playback or stream music contains MQA format but will not listed MQA certificated device, to benefit from MQA, you will need a MQA certificated DAC and this is the only way.
We are sorry about the decision made by MQA. DAR"

https://www.facebook.com/auralic.ltd/posts/910944658974032

What a disaster.
I wonder what has happend behind the scene the last 24 hours.

DanSmedra
2016-01-10, 14:40
You need a new DAC.

"It is unfortunately that MQA has decided to pull back the integration on ARIES/ARIES LE during CES as they have decided to make it an 'end to end' technology which means it will always requests a MQA certificated DAC to work.
ARIES ARIES LE, will be able to playback or stream music contains MQA format but will not listed MQA certificated device, to benefit from MQA, you will need a MQA certificated DAC and this is the only way.
We are sorry about the decision made by MQA. DAR"

https://www.facebook.com/auralic.ltd/posts/910944658974032

What a disaster.
I wonder what has happend behind the scene the last 24 hours.


Disaster? How so? Only if someone is hoping to get something incredible for nothing. Santa Claus is a myth.

I wouldn't be surprised that the Chinese attempted to reverse-engineer, steal the technology, and market it under a different label. They do it, if possible, with nearly everything else.

fuzzyT
2016-01-10, 14:50
As noted, that URL is broken.

Here's the AES citation page:
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=17501

The PDF is free to download from there. Direct linking to the document
URL is unlikely to work, as it looks like they are using a temp URL
scheme that changes daily.

--rt



On 1/5/16 7:05 PM, R1200CL wrote:
>
> If someone like to read more real facts about MQA.
> http://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20160105/17501.pdf

Mnyb
2016-01-10, 15:15
Really strange ?? End to end ok , can a streamer output for example the Tidal stream unaltered on spdiff and a certified DAC use it ? That Facebook tread raises even more questions ? Or do they actually envision that the network stream should go into the AVR or DAC directly and come out analog ?

I've sort of understood that some kind of optimised filter is a part of a MQA certified DAC . This could be done in software to , that's the thing there a lot of media boxes around that outputs via hdmi to AVR ?

It would not take off with such stric limitations , if they want widespread adaptation .

Yes the Chinese copy everything , but MQA could enforce some endpoint cryptography , just like most streaming services do or in fact it will probably be done by the streaming service .

R1200CL
2016-01-10, 17:19
Yes

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/miska/some-analysis-and-comparison-mqa-encoded-flac-vs-normal-optimized-hires-flac-674/

Wombat
2016-01-10, 17:39
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/miska/some-analysis-and-comparison-mqa-encoded-flac-vs-normal-optimized-hires-flac-674/
Thanks for the link!
Nothing like decoding but some nice ideas how to critisize MQA.
Miska is one of the major dsd promotors and naturaly has strong ambitions against MQA :)
I see he finds the undecoded playable part indeed has less bit resolution as a simple cd. Like i mentioned before maybe more like 14bit noiseshaped.

Edit: what he calls "MQA data appearing as high frequency noise" is imho the dithershape.

R1200CL
2016-01-10, 20:08
https://www.facebook.com/auralic.ltd

Correction to previous posting RE: MQA, written by someone not at CES.) During CES, MQA discovered that wireless high-resolution Music Streamers without built-in DACs (i.e., AURALiC’s ARIES, ARIES LE & ARIES MINI) require a slightly different implementation of its technology.
MQA has not yet completed finalizing the definitive version of the technology; no MQA partner has yet to receive the actual final version of this emerging technology, which will be downloadable to any product in the very near future.) Because of this, AURALiC’s original plan to include TIDAL/MQA capability in the v3.0 firmware being issued today will not occur.
Xuanqian Wang
President & CEO

Mnyb
2016-01-10, 22:08
Thanks for the link!
Nothing like decoding but some nice ideas how to critisize MQA.
Miska is one of the major dsd promotors and naturaly has strong ambitions against MQA :)
I see he finds the undecoded playable part indeed has less bit resolution as a simple cd. Like i mentioned before maybe more like 14bit noiseshaped.

Edit: what he calls "MQA data appearing as high frequency noise" is imho the dithershape.

That's not good it means that MQA decoding is needed or you actually get less than CD quality ? Even if the file is playable .

I was under the impression that at least got 16 bit quality . I understand the idea that you can replace everything below bit 18-20 with MQA info as this is just random noise in any recording , there are virtually no system that in practice is more than 20 bit it gets thoroughly masked by analog noise in your DAC and the rest of the chain and your are probably lucky if the recordings is practically 16 bit .

But if you are for DSD , here you get another opportunity ultrasonic garbage in the signal ;)

Maybe streaming 16/88.2 flac would be better if the HF content is what you dream necessary ( which is not true in reality but for argument ). A much simpler idea ?

All this because some missunderstand sample theory , you don't get better information on the <20khz content by delivering signals with higher content ( note that recording with high sample rate is good because it simplifies the ADC filters no brick wall filter needed ,nothing else )

R1200CL
2016-01-10, 22:40
http://www.head-fi.org/t/787020/review-comparison-of-5-high-end-digital-music-servers-aurender-n10-cad-cat-server-totaldac-d1-server-auralic-aries-audiophile-vortex-box/240#post_12240206

+1

Wombat
2016-01-11, 07:59
-1
" Similar to claims made by @Vert, he has trouble with his CD rips sounding good and he finds the music he streams from Tidal to sound better, even better than CD playback. He said Tidal sources their streams directly from the manufacturer who often provides source material that is of higher quality than the physical CDs that you can buy."

If they do so they should be boykoted altogether. It is lots of crap written lately with only getting people into streaming for quality.

Wombat
2016-01-11, 09:07
That's not good it means that MQA decoding is needed or you actually get less than CD quality ? Even if the file is playable

It may be even worse. If you can believe one find of esldude at CA the MQA file even has a different frequency response in this non decoded musik. This whole crap smells like a tricky way shoving DRM in the ears with leaving out nothing in manipulating our perception.

Julf
2016-01-11, 09:17
are that many studios still stuck in 24/48 ?

For one example, I took a really recent recording - David Bowie's Blackstar, just because... Looks like at least two of the tracks were recorded or processed in 48 K, even on the "24 / 96" off HDtracks.

R1200CL
2016-01-11, 16:22
For those that enjoy these things.

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/meridians-mysterious-mqa-site-22575/index2.html#post378620

pablolie
2016-01-11, 20:19
...
But the industry might like a file format that's not quite a copy of the studio master .


Doesn't it have plenty? I have repeatedly read that often listeners prefer the MP3 copy of stuff compared to the lossless original, perhaps because the psycho acoustic model throws a slight bathtub EQ in there.

Mnyb
2016-01-11, 22:07
Doesn't it have plenty? I have repeatedly read that often listeners prefer the MP3 copy of stuff compared to the lossless original, perhaps because the psycho acoustic model throws a slight bathtub EQ in there.

I was thinking I the realm of thier copying/piracy paranoia .

cdmackay
2016-01-12, 18:53
For one example, I took a really recent recording - David Bowie's Blackstar, just because... Looks like at least two of the tracks were recorded or processed in 48 K, even on the "24 / 96" off HDtracks.

why am I not surprised? :)

Julf
2016-01-13, 04:37
why am I not surprised? :)

The upside is that HDtracks provides us with a big double-blind test. Do we hear people saying "oh yes, tracks 5 and 6 on that album don't sound a bit less hi-res than the others"? No. It is just people who look at spectrograms who notice any difference. Do we hear a lot of "Oh, the hi-res version sounds so much better" until it turns out the "hi-res" is only upsampled (or even despite it). Yep, we do. Conclusions left to the reader... :)

DanSmedra
2016-01-13, 10:25
In case anyone missed the beta screen that slipped out at TIDAL, which was quickly removed. But someone got a screen capture.

19727

Wombat
2016-01-13, 11:09
An authentic MQA button, impressive...
It seems several others do speculate about how it works. I have no idea also but sill guess the magic with old material is really not more as this apodizing. I have played with 2 files and the delta has some cancelation at 12kHz i don't understand yet.
My guess is that the apodizer is linear to some point and changes phase maybe from these 12kHz on!? It may also affect lower frequencies.
We know how people get horny about minimum phase and similar tricks. A good move from a marketing perspective though. Many will hear the 'better' sound.
Very vague speculation. Sorry when i waste everyones time but since i find no clarification that convinces me, i can't resist :)

R1200CL
2016-01-13, 13:58
In case anyone missed the beta screen that slipped out at TIDAL, which was quickly removed. But someone got a screen capture.

So no one actually has the installation file ? It's from Tidal webpage ?

cdmackay
2016-01-13, 16:36
The upside is that HDtracks provides us with a big double-blind test. Do we hear people saying "oh yes, tracks 5 and 6 on that album don't sound a bit less hi-res than the others"? No. It is just people who look at spectrograms who notice any difference. Do we hear a lot of "Oh, the hi-res version sounds so much better" until it turns out the "hi-res" is only upsampled (or even despite it). Yep, we do. Conclusions left to the reader... :)

I would really like to discount 24/96+ as pointless, indistinguishable from 16/44.1, except for one concern: the availability of "hi res" versions - however delivered, MQA or not - from better masters than the CD version, and with no way to get a 16/44.1 version of that master. But, as we've discussed elsewhere, without curation, there's no way to know what is what. Arse!

The DR loudness database/site could have been a useful (similar) effort, but as most of its content is not detailed enough (e.g. only artist/title, no other details), it's not much use in identifying worthwhile masters.

I would love to see - and contribute to - a wiki/database of available albums/tracks (with source info), which noted DR, and whether the mastering was noticeably better than CD. that could also include pointers to those tracks on the various streaming services. e.g "Deezer track 924493", etc.

apols got getting a bit OT...

Wombat
2016-01-13, 20:07
Alert backwards. I was able to find a moment of pure silence in one of the sampletracks and it may be absolutely full 16bit left. It is really hard to find music that really needs that. In this case they seem to have left silence dither for a moment at the end of the file.
It is nice shaped dither curve! In the pic above is the MQA noisefloor against iZotope 16bit silence. I forgot if that iZotope sample has the low or medium strong shape.
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.
It may look bad on spectral plots for some but that is how shape works, ATH in use.
19741

Mnyb
2016-01-13, 22:39
Alert backwards. I was able to find a moment of pure silence in one of the sampletracks and it may be absolutely full 16bit left. It is really hard to find music that really needs that. In this case they seem to have left silence dither for a moment at the end of the file.
It is nice shaped dither curve! In the pic above is the MQA noisefloor against iZotope 16bit silence. I forgot if that iZotope sample has the low or medium strong shape.
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.
It may look bad on spectral plots for some but that is how shape works, ATH in use.
19741

Aha I missed your previous commnet that the noise added is the dither shape . That's better ?

So MQA adds a dither shape ?

So the signal is properly resampled with dither to 16 bit in MQA . If you decode MQA data wold the dither shape curve continue >20 kHz .

The studio in most cases did use some dither in the 24 bit realm to ? But that is probably not preserved in the MQA process .

Meridian , do think that there is a "proper" dither shape some of thier older processors had several to choose from , but nowadays they use some unspecified shape as a part of thier secret sauce in thier audio gear . It's probably what I listen to everyday when using my digital volume control .

Wombat
2016-01-14, 08:38
Aha I missed your previous commnet that the noise added is the dither shape . That's better ?

So MQA adds a dither shape ?
It does truncate bit depth when creating the 16bit unencrypted contend from HiBit. Maybe they use it also while applying their apodizing lowpass on existing 16/44.1 material.
Using dither is a must and using a noise shape is best practise. Good noise shaped dither can raise the dynamic range before you hear the noise of dither a lot.
I am pretty sure there are not many recordings in the world that really can stress the 16bit noisefloor then.
Good noiseshaping relates to the working of your ear, the ATH. HF noise is less critical as it looks like spectral. You won't hear it.


So the signal is properly resampled with dither to 16 bit in MQA . If you decode MQA data wold the dither shape curve continue >20 kHz .
No idea, this is still Top Secret.


The studio in most cases did use some dither in the 24 bit realm to ? But that is probably not preserved in the MQA process .
24bit dither is that low in level it doesn't really matter.


Meridian , do think that there is a "proper" dither shape some of thier older processors had several to choose from , but nowadays they use some unspecified shape as a part of thier secret sauce in thier audio gear . It's probably what I listen to everyday when using my digital volume control .
Your gear will most likely already work in 24bit. Even Meridian will use flat dither for that.

Mnyb
2016-01-14, 10:09
Probably flat then . meridian and mr Stuart can make you confused . Sometimes they are very close to objective no nonsense science sometimes not . For example the active speakers with crossovers and audio processors works in 24/96 ( they accept 24/192 inputs ) as this is deemed good enough forever and no DSD ! And actually promoting active speakers for >25 years while the rest of audiophiledom has listened to Nordost cables for 100k$ instead of fixing the real problem with speakers....

But the latest apodsing filter craze and this MQA thing ? Huh

Wombat
2016-01-14, 11:02
But the latest apodsing filter craze and this MQA thing ? Huh
Creating the "fear of ringing" was one of the best marketing ideas for audio ever. Simple to show in misleading pics and offering a cure to the non-issue is a running gag for many years now.

Julf
2016-01-15, 03:50
Creating the "fear of ringing" was one of the best marketing ideas for audio ever. Simple to show in misleading pics and offering a cure to the non-issue is a running gag for many years now.

Indeed. Looking at this picture:
'
19747

you can either see a perfectly normal square wave with harmonics above the 5th cleanly removed by a perfect sinc convolution - or you could see a horrible ringing that clearly must be audible.

Mnyb
2016-01-15, 04:11
Indeed. Looking at this picture:
'
19747

you can either see a perfectly normal square wave with harmonics above the 5th cleanly removed by a perfect sinc convolution - or you could see a horrible ringing that clearly must be audible.

loks exactly as bandwith limited squarewave should ;)

kidstypike
2016-01-15, 04:40
I think you guys need new glasses :rolleyes:

Julf
2016-01-15, 04:51
I think you guys need new glasses :rolleyes:

Wow! Yes! Not only ringing, but asymmetric ringing - only on positive half-waves!

Now, wait... Are those cowbells?

kidstypike
2016-01-15, 05:12
Wow! Yes! Not only ringing, but asymmetric ringing - only on positive half-waves!

Now, wait... Are those cowbells?

Dumb bells.

Mnyb
2016-01-15, 06:22
The most missleading part imo is that is no such thing as squarewaves in instruments ? show me an instrument with infinite freq response .

How much transient the signal is , its always a slope somewhere .

The Squarewave is simply a test signal and it should look like that . And the impulse response curve that very popular, is that not also a test signal ? nothing in nature does that either , a single positive impulse ?

Julf
2016-01-15, 07:19
The most missleading part imo is that is no such thing as squarewaves in instruments ? show me an instrument with infinite freq response .

How much transient the signal is , its always a slope somewhere .

The Squarewave is simply a test signal and it should look like that . And the impulse response curve that very popular, is that not also a test signal ? nothing in nature does that either , a single positive impulse ?

The other thing is that a square wave looks very, very different (not square at all) if you phase shift the harmonics. It still sounds exactly the same. Eyes are not ears...

Furry
2016-01-17, 01:43
Hopefully someone can be on topic on actual squeezebox implementations of services with MQA , in the case of actually using it or safely bypass it , either way is a solution ( you can still use whatever service it's about ).

I'm not sure anyone has been, yet; the subject of this thread seems to ask two questions, but the discussion seems (so far) to only be about the first; 'Breakthrough?'. Setting aside the debate about whether or not MQA is cynical proprietary-format snake-oil and/or a DRM vehicle, for a while, what about the second question: 'LMS possible?'.

How would LMS handle MQA, if Tidal does eventually stream it? Would LMS pass it through to an MQA-supporting DAC? (e.g. Meridian Explorer 2 hanging off a RPi?), or would (could) it process/convert MQA to PCM/FLAC?

I guess a plugin would be required for the second case (and is it even feasible that LMS would be 'allowed' or able to decode MQA?), but what about the first, for 'pass-through'?

Mnyb
2016-01-17, 01:50
I'm not sure anyone has been, yet; the subject of this thread seems to ask two questions, but the discussion seems (so far) to only be about the first; 'Breakthrough?'. Setting aside the debate about whether or not MQA is cynical proprietary-format snake-oil and/or a DRM vehicle, for a while, what about the second question: 'LMS possible?'.

How would LMS handle MQA, if Tidal does eventually stream MQA? Would it pass it through to an MQA-supporting DAC? (e.g. Meridian Explorer 2 hanging off a RPi?), or would (could) it process/convert MQA to PCM/FLAC? I guess a plugin would be required for the second case, but what about the first, for 'pass-through'?

Pass trough would actually work rigth now as the LMS system is today without any changes. That's why how tidal for example will implement it becomes interesting . The MQA info is coded into normal PCM so a wav or flac file or in some kind of stream then again it becomes interesting how they intend to do it ...

Furry
2016-01-17, 01:53
Pass trough would actually work rigth now as the LMS system is today without any changes. That's why how tidal for example will implement it becomes interesting . The MQA info is coded into normal PCM so a wav or flac file or in some kind of stream then again it becomes interesting how they intend to do it ...

Thanks for quick reply, Mnyb! (I was still editing my post, although no significant change).

Julf
2016-01-17, 02:54
I guess a plugin would be required for the second case (and is it even feasible that LMS would be 'allowed' or able to decode MQA?), but what about the first, for 'pass-through'?

Right - it is really a non-issue. Either no adaptations are needed (and MQA is handled in the DAC) or somebody would have to license the proprietary technology and implement it in LMS (and I am pretty sure you wouldn't be allowed to implement it as part of open-source software), so no go.

R1200CL
2016-01-17, 11:24
Right - it is really a non-issue. Either no adaptations are needed (and MQA is handled in the DAC) or somebody would have to license the proprietary technology and implement it in LMS (and I am pretty sure you wouldn't be allowed to implement it as part of open-source software), so no go.

Maybe Roon can be a solution, as they like to support MQA if allowed. Roon support will not cost extra.

Squeezebox Touch works with Roon today. I've not tested. http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?104044-Roon-a-SqueezeBox-ecosystem-alternative/page5

Also IckStream is an option.
https://forum.ickstream.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=600

According to MQA website SW implementation will be a option.

Julf
2016-01-17, 12:35
According to MQA website SW implementation will be a option.

Closed binary software, as long as you pay licence fee.

R1200CL
2016-01-22, 00:53
http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2016/01/mqa-promises-something-for-everyone/

rkrug
2016-01-22, 01:20
R1200CL <R1200CL.79vyzz (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> writes:

> http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2016/01/mqa-promises-something-for-everyone/

Hm.

So in theory, if I

a) Rip a CD
b) know the AD converter used for the conversion to digital
c) I could theoretically (if I would have the software) make the MQA
correction?


>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> R1200CL's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=63832
> View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102648
>
>

alverus
2016-01-22, 07:56
This sounds a little bit like magic and fairy-dust to me.

A algorithm which could guess how to improve sound sounds like the Holy Grail of maths.
But I don't believe in holy things, I believe in science. And this sounds not like things work...
Also the author didn't make it better by propagating that it would sound so much better the non MQA audio...
Come on, for Audiophiles, it seems to me, that every little 'shit' is a whole universe of distance...

Bye

Alverus

Mnyb
2016-01-22, 08:57
R1200CL <R1200CL.79vyzz (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> writes:

> http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2016/01/mqa-promises-something-for-everyone/

Hm.

So in theory, if I

a) Rip a CD
b) know the AD converter used for the conversion to digital
c) I could theoretically (if I would have the software) make the MQA
correction?


>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> R1200CL's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=63832
> View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102648
>
>

I think the best result comes ( if any at all ) if the source is a hirez master of some sort . So the master and the whole production shall ideally be 24/96 or better .

For CD quality we can just assume that the software used to resample and dither to 16/44.1 does it job as it always has .
So is MQA really targeted at this application ? Of course they want us to use it for everything...

It all hinges around two beliefs that actually are not proved at all .

Apodising filters or similar is better .

>16/44.1 is needed for a consumer distribution format .

In that case MQA does actually work it preserves >20 kHz information in a compact format with a gentle roll of .

And I assume some further magic can be done if the function of the ADC filter is known , but I think this can be a logical trap once the signal is bandwith limited the information is truly lost and you could arrive at the same limited signal by many means.
However some optimisation can probably be done . For example an ever gentler filter function in MQA algorithms if you know what the ADC did etc .

cdmackay
2016-01-22, 20:09
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?105070-A-Look-at-MQA

R1200CL
2016-01-28, 14:40
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/your-chance-ask-bob-stuart-anything-about-mqa-27412/

Ins236
2016-02-19, 16:14
Closed binary software, as long as you pay licence fee.

MQA has closed source libraries for most intel & arm linux platforms

One manufacturer of music servers in this list is selling the open source MPD (music player daemon) as their own player without telling their customers. The customers box does not include the GPL license or modified source code. Same applies for the website and manuals: it's all hidden from the audiophile buyer that they use an existing OSS player.

They have announced to decode MQA in their products, which means they will add the closed source decoder to MPD 0.17 which they use, as there's no other way to decode MQA from within MPD (mpd is both server and player in one binary). MPD can't call an external player to do the work, all new formats and decoders have to be added to the decoderlist files in the source tree.

So even though it is closed software, as soon as you integrate closed software like MQA into GPLv2 or v3, the whole modified work has to be released under the GPL.
So as soon as someone makes this mistake, you can obtain the source as it is a derived work.

Ins236
2016-02-19, 16:17
As I cannot put a link in my first post, here's the link with the closed source MQA libraries and which platforms they already have a build for:

http://audioxpress.com/article/Master-Quality-Authenticated-MQA-Launches-Major-Partnerships-and-New-Development-Platforms-at-CES-2016.html

Ins236
2016-02-19, 17:19
There is probably a steep licensing fee, as well as NDAs, making an open source implementation unlikely.

Even if money was no object, it would still be impossible because of the GPL.

One of the MQA partners is using MPD 0.17 in their products (which cannot contain closed source according to Max Kellermann, see this post http://mpd-devel.musicpd.narkive.com/Hwoeiqro/possible-gpl-violation-by-pika-technologies-inc ). You just can't link MPD to a closed source MQA decoder library, as the GPLv2 which applies to the old MPD 0.17 as used by this vendor cannot work together with closed source or pattented software without violating the GPL.

Julf
2016-02-20, 01:49
So as soon as someone makes this mistake, you can obtain the source as it is a derived work.

Only if you win a long, nasty and expensive law case...

Mnyb
2016-02-20, 02:00
So even though it is closed software, as soon as you integrate closed software like MQA into GPLv2 or v3, the whole modified work has to be released under the GPL.
So as soon as someone makes this mistake, you can obtain the source as it is a derived work.


Even if money was no object, it would still be impossible because of the GPL.

One of the MQA partners is using MPD 0.17 in their products (which cannot contain closed source according to Max Kellermann, see this post http://mpd-devel.musicpd.narkive.com/Hwoeiqro/possible-gpl-violation-by-pika-technologies-inc ). You just can't link MPD to a closed source MQA decoder library, as the GPLv2 which applies to the old MPD 0.17 as used by this vendor cannot work together with closed source or pattented software without violating the GPL.


Only if you win a long, nasty and expensive law case...

I'll doubt it altogether .

If Meridian themselves did that, included some closed source MQA code in a project of this kind , it kind of holds ? I'm no practitioner of law or anything . But entirely possible .
Or anyone specifically writes code and then include into GPL project without sources , they are probably acountable in some way , violating license or whatnot ?

But if a third party ,read anyone just grabs a closed source binary out of the blue without the knowledge of the originator of the software include it in some projekt where it should not be ,the original maker of the code can not be responsible in any way ? that would be silly ? If that where the case there would be no closed source code left ? Just throw bit of desirable code into a random GPL projekt and bob's your uncle :) What more likely is that that peice of code had to be removed from the project altogether .

If you borrow my car and run over someone I’m not a part of that .

Julf
2016-02-20, 03:18
But if a third party ,read anyone just grabs a closed source binary out of the blue without the knowledge of the originator of the software include it in some projekt where it should not be ,the original maker of the code can not be responsible in any way ? that would be silly ?

Indeed. Just because someone violates the GPL doesn't mean that somebody else's code (that happens to be included) suddenly and magically becomes open source.

bpa
2016-02-20, 03:25
At a guess Meridian could use the Spotify and libspotify as a "template" for their library. Libspotify seems to have been used and no litigation although IIRC libspotify availability may have been "forced" becuase there was a reverse engineering library and spotify was then small and probably couldn't afford financially or reputationally a law suit

Mnyb
2016-02-20, 04:13
As the MQA algortitm has a known input and output so it can be reverse engineered . We will probably at some point have a reverse engineered library .

In the past with MLP Meridian liaison with Dolby and now its trued-HD or something .

So there is some kind of MQA consosrtium , maybe partly to be able to step in such matters to enforce rigths .

Dolby get their due from the chip makers and most audio brands ,with the probable exception of some Chinese made dvd players etc , they don’t care much for "patent" "license" copying was/is rampant .

That leads to for example ffmpeg who clearly do AC3 audio aka Dolby Digital ? so this is not unheard off ? how does it do that . So this is a situation similar to libpsotify except no one knows if dolby is involved or if its reverse engineered.
Seems like many libraries for linux audio contains truckloads of reverse engineered codecs ? Libavconv ?

I tried to figure out but it becomes complicated well above my pay grade https://www.ffmpeg.org/legal.html

A kind of grey area where things sometimes go under the radar .

But I think it can heat up in audio products .

If some one makes a multimedia streamers who really is a small linux box running mpd or squeezelite or anything and sell it as a pre-packed product . Then I think Dolby ,MQA , DTS et all want thier money and you to put their sticker on the front .

Julf
2016-02-20, 05:24
As the MQA algortitm has a known input and output so it can be reverse engineered . We will probably at some point have a reverse engineered library.

Not sure - is there really enough interest and motivation?

Mnyb
2016-02-20, 05:39
Not sure - is there really enough interest and motivation?

I dont know , but its not an encrytion algorithm its designed to decode varius inputs from unknown sources on varius playback systems , so its a codec . My personal guess is that it does not obfuscate that much .

But its not the same demands as to look at movies or hear radio on non suported platforms :) that really drives reverse engineering , like DVD did .

If its to hard there would not be enough interest and motivation .

gplrender
2016-06-06, 09:07
I have done a technical analysis of the first MQA decoder for linux, will post it in the next post, as my first post is not allowed to have external URL's.

gplrender
2016-06-06, 09:07
As MQA libraries now exist for Linux, I was curious how BlueSound has integrated MQA into their BusyBox based platform.

I already did a technical analysis to spot GPL violations in the BlueSound product, just by downloading their firmware update file:

http://www.bluesound.com/en-eu/downloads/

Just unzip, mount the ISO and it will contain a rootfs tarball. The latest one has an MQA decoder. An older version without MQA can also be browsed here:

https://github.com/sashahilton00/spotify-connect-resources/tree/master/Powernode%20Firmware/rootfs

While BlueSound violates the GPL by stating that you can't modify the software in their EULA, they have taken away your rights under the GPLv2, as their product is busybox based. So BS is violating the GPLv2. They don't ship any GPLv2 code with the product, and no written offer is included. So BlueSound is a copyright violatin.

How does the BlueSound product work? The have a perl middleware that communicates with the client, indexes music, and starts the standard linux command line players like flac, madplay, ...... . You could say that it is a closed source program similar to what LMS is doing. They use some stupid perl based encryption which is easy to break if you figure out where the decryption key is in the library (the manual of the relevant perl module even warns about this). But this is not the point.

The point is that for MQA, BlueSound did probably not violate the GPL or LGPL.

They open all these command line players (like flac) to decode to standardout. They developed their own alsa program, that reads the raw data from the raw output of the flac and madplay command line players, and then pushes it to the alsa layer via their own closed source alsa player:

/usr/bin/dspout

readelf -a /usr/bin/dspout

Dynamic section at offset 0xbca4 contains 28 entries:
Tag Type Name/Value
0x00000001 (NEEDED) Shared library: [libbluos_ssc.so]
0x00000001 (NEEDED) Shared library: [libasound.so.2]

They have added their own mqa render to alsa:

/etc/asound/asound.conf.simple

pcm.mqa_render
{
@args [RATE]
@args.RATE {type integer}
type rate
slave {
pcm "digital"
rate $RATE
}
converter ssc
}

This ssc converter is loaded via

/usr/lib/alsa-lib/libasound_module_rate_ssc.so

This library contains the proprietary MQA decoder and works like a sample rate converter. It is not illegal to make a derived work of a LGPL based work such as the ALSA framework, but I'm not sure that also means adding a proprietary library to an existing library.

LGPL is allowing you to write your own close source program and linking that to an open source LGPL library without violating anything, but in the case of libasound_module_rate_ssc.so it's not 100% clear if this is allowed by ALSA's LGPL.

So the main question is: does LGPL allow do to what bluesound does? If yes: sorry, no MQA decoder.
If LGPL does not allow this, then they should released the code behind libasound_module_rate_ssc.so, or their product will be a copyright violation.

Soli
2016-08-19, 11:45
MQA has closed source libraries for most intel & arm linux platforms

One manufacturer of music servers in this list is selling the open source MPD (music player daemon) as their own player without telling their customers. The customers box does not include the GPL license or modified source code. Same applies for the website and manuals: it's all hidden from the audiophile buyer that they use an existing OSS player.

They have announced to decode MQA in their products, which means they will add the closed source decoder to MPD 0.17 which they use, as there's no other way to decode MQA from within MPD (mpd is both server and player in one binary). MPD can't call an external player to do the work, all new formats and decoders have to be added to the decoderlist files in the source tree.

So even though it is closed software, as soon as you integrate closed software like MQA into GPLv2 or v3, the whole modified work has to be released under the GPL.
So as soon as someone makes this mistake, you can obtain the source as it is a derived work.
Both Auralic (0.18.x) and Aurender (0.17.x) are using MPD. I have looked briefly at Aurenders source and they are using a couple of exec calls to circumvent the GPL on *some* things. i cannot say for certain that this is the case with all of their code. (Tidal integration and other stuff)

Auralic are denying that they use MPD but it's obvious that they do use MPD since they forgot to change the client string. You can search for it on the Minimserver forums. They are probably violating the GPL big time in all sorts of manners and getting away with it. Anyways karma will win, they'll get hit by a suit someday and that will be the end of the company.

R1200CL
2017-01-28, 15:59
With the latest release of MQA, it should technically be possible to upgrade SBT to support MQA. (The analog part)

But how can it be done, and who can look into this, and how do we finance such an option ?

Is it just to forget ?

toby10
2017-01-29, 00:40
.... Is it just to forget ?

yes

R1200CL
2017-01-29, 04:43
yes

Based on what ?

Apesbrain
2017-01-29, 08:34
Can't MQA be digitally passed through Squeezebox so long as volume is locked at 100%? Of course, you'd need to have an MQA-capable DAC to "unfold" it.

Mnyb
2017-01-29, 09:37
Can't MQA be digitally passed through Squeezebox so long as volume is locked at 100%? Of course, you'd need to have an MQA-capable DAC to "unfold" it.

Thats proven to work with files , the current Tidal app at mysqueezebox.com does not do this alledgedly ? I dont know about the ickstream app ?

Julf
2017-01-29, 12:40
Based on what ?

Based on it not being a technical problem, but a licensing/business strategy problem.

toby10
2017-01-30, 03:04
Based on what ?

Asking for someone to develop an app/plugin for a discontinued product line that was a niche product to begin with. Further narrow down this small niche market for the very few who want MQA. Extremely small market, licensing issues, questionable gains, lot of time involved to write/maintain it, niche product streaming a niche format, etc... How does one monetize that to make it worth their while?

Even in here, the single most active SB user & enthusiasts forum out there, and there is very little interest.

Mnyb
2017-01-30, 03:25
Asking for someone to develop an app/plugin for a discontinued product line that was a niche product to begin with. Further narrow down this small niche market for the very few who want MQA. Extremely small market, licensing issues, questionable gains, lot of time involved to write/maintain it, niche product streaming a niche format, etc... How does one monetize that to make it worth their while?

Even in here, the single most active SB user & enthusiasts forum out there, and there is very little interest.

" Yes ".

But i do wonder how the non MQA hifi subscription will work , its the same subcription but what do we get with non MQA equipment .
If it is as good as it was before MQA then it just nothing new . But if the implementation is such that without MQA you get sligthy worse quality than the good old 16/44.1 HiFi subscription :/
Then it migth bee a need to avoid the drawbacks of not using the codec rather than reap the questionable benefits (if they exists ) :/

There are two gruops .

For the oficial Tidal app it's probably Mherger ? (there is only one , sounds a lot like highlander ... :D )

The ickstream app ,remd ,pippin ,erland ?

A good Topic Question would be is there any consequnce of MQA implentation in Tidal that we need to adress in the current plugins ? Is something to be done to maintain these plugins as good as they are ?

Avoiding regression migth peak more intrest than a new feature ?