INTERACT FORUM

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: MQA  (Read 12623 times)

PeterV61

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1
MQA
« on: November 20, 2017, 04:48:29 am »

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

Awesome Donkey

  • Administrator
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 7319
  • The color of Spring...
Re: MQA
« Reply #1 on: November 20, 2017, 05:11:05 am »

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.
Logged
I don't work for JRiver... I help keep the forums safe from Viagra and other sources of sketchy pharmaceuticals.

Windows 11 2023 Update (23H2) 64-bit + Ubuntu 23.10 Mantic Minotaur 64-bit | Windows 11 2023 Update (23H2) 64-bit (Intel N305 Fanless NUC 16GB RAM/256GB NVMe SSD)
JRiver Media Center 32 (Windows + Linux) | Topping D50s DAC

JimH

  • Administrator
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 71212
  • where the buffalo roam
Re: MQA
« Reply #2 on: November 20, 2017, 06:43:14 am »

We have no plans to do MQA.
Logged

kr4

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
Re: MQA
« Reply #3 on: November 20, 2017, 07:02:50 am »

We have no plans to do MQA.
No need.  JRiver passes MQA through to an MQA-capable DAC.
Logged
Kal Rubinson
"Music in the Round"
Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile

Awesome Donkey

  • Administrator
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 7319
  • The color of Spring...
Re: MQA
« Reply #4 on: November 20, 2017, 07:28:45 am »

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?
Logged
I don't work for JRiver... I help keep the forums safe from Viagra and other sources of sketchy pharmaceuticals.

Windows 11 2023 Update (23H2) 64-bit + Ubuntu 23.10 Mantic Minotaur 64-bit | Windows 11 2023 Update (23H2) 64-bit (Intel N305 Fanless NUC 16GB RAM/256GB NVMe SSD)
JRiver Media Center 32 (Windows + Linux) | Topping D50s DAC

kr4

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
Re: MQA
« Reply #5 on: November 20, 2017, 08:24:50 am »

If I recall, it requires volume to be set at 100% and no DSP is used, correct?
Yes.  Bit-perfect, if you will.
Logged
Kal Rubinson
"Music in the Round"
Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile

michael123

  • Galactic Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 484
Re: MQA
« Reply #6 on: November 22, 2017, 01:55:24 pm »

There is mp3, no need for MQA :)
Logged

Awesome Donkey

  • Administrator
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 7319
  • The color of Spring...
Re: MQA
« Reply #7 on: November 22, 2017, 02:59:22 pm »

There is APE, no need for MQA :)

Fixed that for you. :P
Logged
I don't work for JRiver... I help keep the forums safe from Viagra and other sources of sketchy pharmaceuticals.

Windows 11 2023 Update (23H2) 64-bit + Ubuntu 23.10 Mantic Minotaur 64-bit | Windows 11 2023 Update (23H2) 64-bit (Intel N305 Fanless NUC 16GB RAM/256GB NVMe SSD)
JRiver Media Center 32 (Windows + Linux) | Topping D50s DAC

JezQ

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: MQA
« Reply #8 on: November 24, 2017, 02:48:20 am »

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

pschelbert

  • Galactic Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 459
Re: MQA
« Reply #9 on: November 24, 2017, 06:34:40 am »

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
Logged

Catskinner

  • Recent member
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Re: MQA
« Reply #10 on: November 27, 2017, 12:57:23 am »

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.

Logged

fitbrit

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 4877
Re: MQA
« Reply #11 on: November 27, 2017, 05:35:38 pm »

Yes.  Bit-perfect, if you will.

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

fitbrit

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 4877
Re: MQA
« Reply #12 on: November 27, 2017, 05:39:15 pm »

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.
Logged

RD James

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 1871
Re: MQA
« Reply #13 on: November 28, 2017, 01:41:04 am »

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.
Logged

amdismal

  • Junior Woodchuck
  • **
  • Posts: 53
Re: MQA
« Reply #14 on: November 28, 2017, 04:35:25 am »

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.
Logged

Awesome Donkey

  • Administrator
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 7319
  • The color of Spring...
Re: MQA
« Reply #15 on: November 28, 2017, 04:39:38 am »

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.
Logged
I don't work for JRiver... I help keep the forums safe from Viagra and other sources of sketchy pharmaceuticals.

Windows 11 2023 Update (23H2) 64-bit + Ubuntu 23.10 Mantic Minotaur 64-bit | Windows 11 2023 Update (23H2) 64-bit (Intel N305 Fanless NUC 16GB RAM/256GB NVMe SSD)
JRiver Media Center 32 (Windows + Linux) | Topping D50s DAC

amdismal

  • Junior Woodchuck
  • **
  • Posts: 53
Re: MQA
« Reply #16 on: November 28, 2017, 04:47:11 am »

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.
Logged

Hendrik

  • Administrator
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 10661
Re: MQA
« Reply #17 on: November 28, 2017, 03:01:24 pm »

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.
Logged
~ nevcairiel
~ Author of LAV Filters

RD James

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 1871
Re: MQA
« Reply #18 on: November 28, 2017, 09:26:29 pm »

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)
Logged

fitbrit

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 4877
Re: MQA
« Reply #19 on: November 28, 2017, 10:40:26 pm »

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?
Logged

JimH

  • Administrator
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 71212
  • where the buffalo roam
Re: MQA
« Reply #20 on: November 29, 2017, 01:40:23 am »

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.
Logged

tyler69

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 946
Re: MQA
« Reply #21 on: November 29, 2017, 02:29:55 am »


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

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

JimH

  • Administrator
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 71212
  • where the buffalo roam
Re: MQA
« Reply #22 on: November 29, 2017, 03:35:43 am »

Try the Listening Test and report your results there.
Logged

Hendrik

  • Administrator
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 10661
tmp
« Reply #23 on: November 29, 2017, 03:49:07 am »

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.
Logged
~ nevcairiel
~ Author of LAV Filters

Hendrik

  • Administrator
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 10661
Re: MQA
« Reply #24 on: November 29, 2017, 03:52:14 am »

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.
Logged
~ nevcairiel
~ Author of LAV Filters

flac.rules

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
Re: MQA
« Reply #25 on: November 29, 2017, 07:16:14 am »

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)
Logged

pschelbert

  • Galactic Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 459
Re: MQA
« Reply #26 on: November 29, 2017, 08:17:55 am »

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
Logged

RD James

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 1871
Re: MQA
« Reply #27 on: November 29, 2017, 12:47:19 pm »

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.
Logged

robt

  • Galactic Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 313
Re: MQA
« Reply #28 on: November 29, 2017, 03:32:37 pm »

... 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..... ;D
Logged

pschelbert

  • Galactic Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 459
Re: MQA
« Reply #29 on: November 29, 2017, 04:04:45 pm »

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.
Logged

thorsten

  • World Citizen
  • ***
  • Posts: 194
Re: MQA
« Reply #30 on: November 30, 2017, 01:20:10 pm »

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.
Logged

astromo

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 2239
Re: MQA
« Reply #31 on: November 30, 2017, 01:56:57 pm »

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.
Logged
MC31, Win10 x64, HD-Plex H5 Gen2 Case, HD-Plex 400W Hi-Fi DC-ATX / AC-DC PSU, Gigabyte Z370 ULTRA Gaming 2.0 MoBo, Intel Core i7 8700 CPU, 4x8GB GSkill DDR4 RAM, Schiit Modi Multibit DAC, Freya Pre, Nelson Pass Aleph J DIY Clone, Ascension Timberwolf 8893BSRTL Speakers, BJC 5T00UP cables, DVB-T Tuner HDHR5-4DT

michael123

  • Galactic Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 484
Re: MQA
« Reply #32 on: December 01, 2017, 08:38:45 am »

Fixed that for you. :P

Ape is lossless
Mp3 is lossy as MQA is lossy
Logged

fitbrit

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 4877
Re: MQA
« Reply #33 on: December 04, 2017, 10:16:14 pm »

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.
Logged

RoderickGI

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 8186
Re: MQA
« Reply #34 on: December 04, 2017, 11:13:38 pm »

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.
Logged
What specific version of MC you are running:MC27.0.27 @ Oct 27, 2020 and updating regularly Jim!                        MC Release Notes: https://wiki.jriver.com/index.php/Release_Notes
What OS(s) and Version you are running:     Windows 10 Pro 64bit Version 2004 (OS Build 19041.572).
The JRMark score of the PC with an issue:    JRMark (version 26.0.52 64 bit): 3419
Important relevant info about your environment:     
  Using the HTPC as a MC Server & a Workstation as a MC Client plus some DLNA clients.
  Running JRiver for Android, JRemote2, Gizmo, & MO 4Media on a Sony Xperia XZ Premium Android 9.
  Playing video out to a Sony 65" TV connected via HDMI, playing digital audio out via motherboard sound card, PCIe TV tuner

JimH

  • Administrator
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 71212
  • where the buffalo roam
Re: MQA
« Reply #35 on: December 05, 2017, 01:12:33 am »

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.
Logged

JimH

  • Administrator
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 71212
  • where the buffalo roam
Re: MQA
« Reply #36 on: December 05, 2017, 01:41:41 am »

Logged

pschelbert

  • Galactic Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 459
Re: MQA
« Reply #37 on: December 05, 2017, 08:53:07 am »

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
Logged

winterwolf

  • Recent member
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Re: MQA
« Reply #38 on: December 05, 2017, 11:48:20 pm »

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
Logged

JimH

  • Administrator
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 71212
  • where the buffalo roam
Re: MQA
« Reply #39 on: December 06, 2017, 01:13:15 am »

Closing this now.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up