MQA - One Filter to Rule them All?


Hi Everyone,

Just thought I'd start another flame....er, discussion. I've been reading some about MQA.  It has several components, but I want to focus on one in particular. The digital filter compensation.

The other two parts are compression and authentication.

We don't have a lot of DAC's to listen to with MQA right now, but here's my understanding.

By measuring time or amplitude errors in ADC's AND DAC's MQA seeks to correct the behavior, making the entire A/D --> D/A chain closer to ideal. It's pretty ambitious. What I'm wondering is, assuming this is real and not snake oil, does this mean all MQA DAC's will begin to sound alike? Will otherwise mediocre DAC's step up, and great DAC's not have that much to contribute anymore?

If so, maybe this will usher in another great era of tone controls being built into our preamps or DAC's instead of having to make tonal changes via cables and tweaks.

What say you? Assuming MQA is not snake oil, (could be, haven't heard it) doesn't it mean all DAC's will sound the same?

Best,


Erik
erik_squires
@erik_squires

I consider HDCD a cautionary tale. It received similar over-the-top press when it was introduced. However, Pacific Microsonics now is out of business (bought by Microsoft), and there are no HDCD hardware decoders available. I believe those were always in a DAC chip, and since DAC quality has improved since the HDCD days, even using NOS HDCD DAC chips (if available) in current products would be a poor idea.

A non-proprietary software decoder does exist and is built into (e.g.) JRiver Media Center. It is not a success. From discussions on the JRiver forums, it's clear that no one knows how to use the public-domain decoder to figure out which HDCD features are needed on any particular recording.

Smaller storage requirements are always nice (one reason I wish some real research on DSD would be done, so we'd know how to get the good parts of DSD sound from a reasonably efficient format). Still, storage is getting smaller and cheaper, and to my ears, high-rate mp3 is indistinguishable from lossless encoding, except on a high-quality audio system in a quiet location.

Have I stated enough heresies for one morning?

@mike_in_nc

No heresies.  I remember HDCD, there was also a Windows decoder, which I once thought about reverse engineering and converting to Java, or C for Linux but lost interest. :) It actually decompiled fairly nicely.  I believe Microsoft ended up with the HDCD license (lots of good it did them) and that's how the decoder came about.

I don't remember over-the-top reviews. Where there any?

I'm not sure what the lesson is except that you can only tell a fad in retrospect. :) The same could be said for SACD and yet the format remains.

MQA does have the undeniably useful feature of compression, even if we ignore all the sonic claims. I think that one way or another, their view on how to compress audio will remain relevant for years to come. Whether it lives on in a proprietary format or in open source formats remains to be seen.  Technology, specifically bandwidth and storage, may have moved onto the point that it has become irrelevant.  20 years ago, MQA compression would have been a godsend and could have saved high end music from the MP3 era. 

Best,


Erik

@erik_squires

My memory is that Stereophile was extremely enthusiastic about HDCD at the time. Their online archive doesn't go back far enough for me to see if my memory is right.

Meridian also introduced MLP, Meridian Lossless Packing, which became an optional standard for DVD-audio. I would prefer that new codecs be lossless and reversible.

OK, I just gave up on MQA. Stereophile's latest article starts with such shameless hyperbole that it's gone off into the land of cold-fusion, dark energy reactors, and healing cancer with magnets.

It's not like I didn't know Stereophile has to make a buck to stay in business, but this level of bs is higher than my waders. I can't be polite and smile anymore.

Now I'm going to go try to do some DSD streaming and see if I find a compelling reason to eat up all my hard disk space with DSD downloads.

Best,

Erik
I didn't think that Stereophile's latest was nearly as orgasmic sounding about MQA as Robert Harley at TAS.  If MQA bombs, Harley really ought to leave the business after such shameless shilling.
  My take on MQA is that it is a high Res format that allows for more compression than other high Res formats, which rely on tremendous amounts of over sampling , and therefore take up more data space.  Streaming companies will love it because they will save bandwidth.  
  Casual listeners don't care about better sound.  Those of us who do care won't be able to hear any superiority from other high resolution formats because the differences will be minor, subjective, and system dependent, like many other Audio Tweaks.  Manufacturers will ( are) chafing and being under Meridian's Thumb and will subvert the implementation .  It will join SACD as barely hanging on by a thread in the market place, until some wizard behind the booth attempts to get us to repurchase our collections with the latest 'breakthrough '