Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[PeterV61]

I hope JRiver will adopt MQA, otherwise I will need to look for other software

[Awesome Donkey]

I hope JRiver will adopt MQA, otherwise I will need to look for other software

I suggest doing a search of the forums for MQA. It's likely not going to happen for a variety of reasons. Personally, I'm willing to say MQA is a blatant audiophile scam full of snake oil and acts as a "soft" DRM AND it's not even true lossless.

But if you're using the Tidal app with MQA masters, you *can* use MC to pass-through MQA from Tidal using the WDM driver.

[JimH]

We have no plans to do MQA.

[kr4]

We have no plans to do MQA.

No need.  JRiver passes MQA through to an MQA-capable DAC.

[Awesome Donkey]

No need.  JRiver passes MQA through to an MQA-capable DAC.

If I recall, it requires volume to be set at 100% and no DSP is used, correct?

[kr4]

If I recall, it requires volume to be set at 100% and no DSP is used, correct?

Yes.  Bit-perfect, if you will.

[michael123]

There is mp3, no need for MQA

[Awesome Donkey]

There is APE, no need for MQA

Fixed that for you.

[JezQ]

I hope JRiver will never adopt MQA, otherwise I will need to look for other software

[pschelbert]

We have no plans to do MQA.

a wise decision, as it is "Phishing for Phools" no serious user will need MQA.

See here form the experts: http://www.linkwitzlab.com/links.htm#Putzeys

Peter

[Catskinner]

There are some "lively" discussions about MQA in the audio hardware section of Steve Hoffman music forums and the general attitude there is either MQA is not contributing anything positive to sound quality or it's basically a pension plan for ex-Meridian executives. I'm rather pleased that JRiver won't support it and prefer to see the effort and resources invested in bettering the user experience - which is something that MQA will undoubtedly worsen for anyone using computer audio.

The main reason is that going MQA means giving up on any other kind of DSP, including volume leveling, room correction or digital filtering and that's very bad for us.

[fitbrit]

Yes.  Bit-perfect, if you will.

Don't forget to set either JRiver or "no" dithering also, and not TPDF.

[fitbrit]

No need.  JRiver passes MQA through to an MQA-capable DAC.

One of the problems with that is that Berkeley have implemented a half-baked MQA solution, where their DACs can be upgraded (for an extra $600) to become MQA renderers only. That requires unfolding in the upstream hardware, which Tidal can perform, but MC cannot. Mytek, on the other hand, does it all beautifully and without issue. The Brooklyn DACs themselves aren't as nice as the Berkeleys, however.

[RD James]

Don't forget to set either JRiver or "no" dithering also, and not TPDF.

The dither setting really needs to be zone-specific or moved into the Output Format DSP.
It can even be changed while tracks are playing, but can't be set per-zone.
Affects file conversions too. I always want it to be used in conversions, but do not want it used in certain zones.

[amdismal]

MQA is a shocking scam from a company that I used to trust. They couldn't get any money from streaming 24/96 (or indeed higher), and that would hardly be a technical challenge now we get HD streams on Netflix, so they invent something contrived that they can assert ownership over, which is manifestly inferior to 24/96, and lock up both production and replay chain with it.

As soon as Spotify do lossless I'm leaving Tidal because of their support for MQA.

[Awesome Donkey]

MQA is a shocking scam

I agree. Plus it acts as a DRM and it's not actually true lossless. I'm glad companies like JRiver and Schiit aren't interested in "drinking the MQA Kool-Aid", so to speak.

[amdismal]

it's not actually true lossless.

They spout some nonsense about improved timing response or removal of pre-echo or something. That's coming right out of their rear ends for sure.

[Hendrik]

The dither setting really needs to be zone-specific or moved into the Output Format DSP.
It can even be changed while tracks are playing, but can't be set per-zone.
Affects file conversions too. I always want it to be used in conversions, but do not want it used in certain zones.

The reason it is global is in fact because it should be active for conversions and all sorts of processing. Not all "zones" in media center can be configured directly, for example the special zones used for conversions cannot be configured separately, or the "zone" thats being used for processing audio in live dsd encoding, etc. A global setting triggers all of those, a per-zone setting leaves them on the default.

We don't currently have a way to define both a global setting and per-zone overrides, and I'm not sure that makes for good understandable settings.

[RD James]

The reason it is global is in fact because it should be active for conversions and all sorts of processing. Not all "zones" in media center can be configured directly, for example the special zones used for conversions cannot be configured separately, or the "zone" thats being used for processing audio in live dsd encoding, etc. A global setting triggers all of those, a per-zone setting leaves them on the default.

We don't currently have a way to define both a global setting and per-zone overrides, and I'm not sure that makes for good understandable settings.

That's why I suggested moving it into the Output Format DSP.
For things like conversions, that would still be easy to enable and configure.
 
The issue for me is that I generally keep dither disabled and use a VST plugin for it, but it doesn't work properly with file conversions, breaking gapless playback. (works fine for actual playback)

[fitbrit]

I'm seeing a lot of disparaging remarks about MQA. Yet everyone that I know who has tried it, including me, has been impressed by the sound that comes out of even modest hardware. I am wondering whether those that think it is a scam or nonsense have tried playing with it on compatible hardware. I was very much against the concept until I heard it. I am willing to consider that I don't understand what I am hearing, and that I am duped by my own ears. I cannot rule that out. Have any of you tested it in an unbiased or blind way?

[JimH]

I'm seeing a lot of disparaging remarks about MQA. Yet everyone that I know who has tried it, including me, has been impressed by the sound that comes out of even modest hardware. I am wondering whether those that think it is a scam or nonsense have tried playing with it on compatible hardware. I was very much against the concept until I heard it. I am willing to consider that I don't understand what I am hearing, and that I am duped by my own ears. I cannot rule that out. Have any of you tested it in an unbiased or blind way?

It would be interesting to see if you (or others) can get 100% a couple of times on the Listening Test we added in MC22:
https://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=107924.0

Most people can't distinguish reliably much beyond 128K MP3.

[tyler69]

Most people can't distinguish reliably much beyond 128K MP3.

That is a bold statement. Can you provide any (scientific) backup?

[JimH]

Try the Listening Test and report your results there.

[Hendrik]

That's why I suggested moving it into the Output Format DSP.

That wouldn't solve anything, still a majority of "special" zones that can't be configured, and even if they could, you would have to go through a whole bunch of them just to make one setting, so global it is.

[Hendrik]

I'm seeing a lot of disparaging remarks about MQA. Yet everyone that I know who has tried it, including me, has been impressed by the sound that comes out of even modest hardware.

IMO thats because MQA is like 3 things combined, their crappy audio format only being one of them. They also use "better" mastering for MQA tracks, which probably influences the audio more than anything. They could just throw the better mastering into established audio formats (say FLAC at 192/24), but then they couldn't sell hardware licenses and make even more money.

Unfortunately they made it so that this is impossible to prove conclusively, because there is no way to fully unpack an MQA in software, the final step is always done in hardware.

But you can already judge it partially, if you play MQA from Tidal without passthrough to a non-MQA DAC, does it already sound good? Because at that point its just plain PCM, which you could pack into ordinary FLAC.

[flac.rules]

That is a bold statement. Can you provide any (scientific) backup?

See the tests on Hydrogen Audio, 128 is difficult for many, around 200 is the limit for most in most music (some sounds have artifacts that are easier to pick up)

[pschelbert]

That is a bold statement. Can you provide any (scientific) backup?

I did the test with foobar ABX tester.

mp3, 256VBR, I cant distinguish. mp128 I can. Use high quality headphones like STAX
Rip a very critical CD, or flac
convert it to mp3
Do ABX test

MQA: it degrades sound-quality, test with 2LNo test files.

And the files are bigger in MQA. What's the point to go to MQA?

Peter

[RD James]

They could just throw the better mastering into established audio formats (say FLAC at 192/24), but then they couldn't sell hardware licenses and make even more money.

There's certainly no quality advantage of MQA over FLAC or some other truly lossless format. It's a lossy compression format built for streaming.
The point was to compress the quality of 24-bit 192kHz audio into a 16-bit 44.1kHz file for online streaming services... if you believe that 192kHz audio is better than 44.1kHz. Which it's not, if you're human.

[robt]

... if you believe that 192kHz audio is better than 44.1kHz. Which it's not, if you're human.

I know someone with a ferret, I'll see if it has a take on this.....

[pschelbert]

streaming is no problem with full resolution. For example, Qobuz "can do"

And yes, try to compare 44.1/16bit to 192kHz/24Bit (PCM), and you cannot distinguish by ear.
With measuring equipment easy though.

[thorsten]

That is a bold statement. Can you provide any (scientific) backup?

Easy: http://archimago.blogspot.de/2017/09/mqa-core-vs-hi-res-blind-test-part-ii.html

I also tried the Test but didn‘t finish because of Setup rebuilding  but I found it very hard to destinguish the files.

[astromo]

Easy: http://archimago.blogspot.de/2017/09/mqa-core-vs-hi-res-blind-test-part-ii.html

I also tried the Test but didn‘t finish because of Setup rebuilding  but I found it very hard to destinguish the files.

Thanks for that reference. Reads like a comprehensive method was applied and given the practicalities of getting something like this done - an impressive effort. There might be some out there who will point to the science aspect - as in where's the sandstone / granite buildings cum ivory tower credentialed dudes in lab coats? I'm not so concerned. To the remaining sceptics I'd say, have a go yourself and put together a better method/execution model and get it done (within my lifetime as well please).

Happy listening all. Looks like I'll be suffering with my blurred music until something better comes along.

[michael123]

Fixed that for you.

Ape is lossless
Mp3 is lossy as MQA is lossy

[fitbrit]

Using some of the 2L files, I conducted a blind test with a client of mine. He preferred MQA over the same track in hi-res lossless. Among MQA files, he preferred a version of the same track that had a larger file size.
I prefer the Tidal Masters tracks over their HiFi ones. This is with the Mytek Brooklyn DAC, and a very modest system. I'll have to check whether the DAC can be configured to turn off MQA processing so that I can compare the very same file. I wonder whether the DAC is doing some sly processing after the decoding, but before DAC process to make it sound more full and pleasing? I wouldn't put it past anyone in the industry, but I do like the results personally.

[RoderickGI]

I do like the results personally.

Probably because of this:

They also use "better" mastering for MQA tracks, which probably influences the audio more than anything.

Unfortunately they made it so that this is impossible to prove conclusively, because there is no way to fully unpack an MQA in software, the final step is always done in hardware.

Which makes it a deliberate scam. Very underhanded. But I do wonder where they get the better masters. Maybe they are the same Masters as available elsewhere, just tweaked to be more pleasing to most people, rather than true to the original sound.

[JimH]

Using some of the 2L files, I conducted a blind test with a client of mine. He preferred MQA over the same track in hi-res lossless. Among MQA files, he preferred a version of the same track that had a larger file size.

You could probably duplicate that result by using two copies of the same MP3 file with the volume slightly increased on one.

See if he can pass our Listening Test.

[JimH]

Split Listening Test is Unfit

[pschelbert]

Hi

the trick with higher volume I have seen on a Lampizator DER-7 DAC.
DSD is 2dB louder than PCM, and then people conclude DSD is better.
Fake, it isn't. Its just louder...

Peter

[winterwolf]

I played around with MQA quite a bit. in the end everything is subjective to your own listening preference.

I used an Explorer 2 as MQA DAC (full unfolded) which feeds into a McIntosh MHA100 Headphone amp. I compared it against the MHA internal DAC (twice unfolded with Tidal MQA) as well as no MQA (Tidal HIFI setting).

The winner is not MQA vs. not MQA but the DAC. the Mcintosh DAC is just much more dynamic then what the Explorer 2 can produce (at least to my ears). MQA looses to HIFI (again to my ears) since it sounds a little stale since literally the noise floor is so low that my ears are missing something. It feels less alive.

You can argue that MQA is doing exactly its job and my ears are trained to a higher noise floor due to years of listening. This could be but again every ear is different.

I think it is cool that there is movement again in the high rez music world and that audio manufactories are trying to differentiate. In the end more choice for us. MQA or not, Atmos or not, SACD or not. Pick your poison 

Happy listening
-- WW

[JimH]

Closing this now.