MQA-CD - possible SACD successor?

[MrSmithers]

Here's another excellent video from Techmoan. I didn't think they would start MQA in a physical way! I wonder what the surround capacities of MQA are? Would seem perfectly possible to me...

 

[salsdali]

The Doors 50th Ann Ed CD of Waiting for the Sun will have it

http://www.superdeluxeedition.com/n...-for-the-sun-50th-anniversary-deluxe-edition/

Audiophiles might be interested to know that the CDs in this new release have been encoded with the MQA (Master Quality Authenticated) process. These are fully compatible with standard CD players, but when connected to an MQA-enabled device, it can play the same disc back in hi-res 176 kHz /24 bit. I’ve never tried this myself – any good?

 

[LuvMyQuad]

Why do we need MQA? Ive read a few articles, and in spite of the company line, none of it seems to result in better sound quality. Many of the expert opinions I've come across consider it to be nothing more than the newest in a long line of DRM schemes.

 

[ArmyOfQuad]

Finally, the music industry has responded with what has been lacking and needed for such a long time. A way to deliver hi-res audio.

(says the person that never heard of bluray, dvd-a, sacd, hi-res flac files, hi-res wav files, hi-res dsd files.....)

 

[ar surround]

By not continuing to support Quadraphonic, DVD-A, SACD, and a bunch of stuff in between and after, the major labels and manufacturers have really turned people off to any more "this is finally the holy grail" claims. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Not gonna happen a third time.

 

[fredblue]

Here's another excellent video from Techmoan. I didn't think they would start MQA in a physical way! I wonder what the surround capacities of MQA are? Would seem perfectly possible to me...

surround capacity of an MQA CD would be whatever CD can do in that regard, I suppose?

Redbook spec had some 4-channel option for CD, that's never been implemented afaik.?

 

[fredblue]

i got the Steely Dan "The Royal Scam" MQA CD in the mail the other day (courtesy of CD Japan, import duty plus handling fee was almost as much as the disc.. but that's a gripe for another thread! bah!) only had one quick listen but was pretty unimpressed.

I then swapped it out for my trusty old Nimbus mastered UK MCA CD and by comparison the new MQA was much the worse for it; lead vocals and cymbals were too bright and in your face, bass was diminished, the soundstage seemed narrowed somehow, overall it was louder than the Nimbus.. ugh.

fwiw I enjoyed the warm yet detailed sound of the Platinum SHMs of Countdown To Ecstasy & Pretzel Logic (which have the same mastering as the SHM-SACDs, afaik) so I wasn't expecting the DSD remaster on this one to be so unpleasantly bright and forward and kinda lean on low end too.

it may be that the MQA CD needs to be processed through the MQA decoder/DAC (whatever it is) to get the full effect, I don't know.. but as a straight CD I won't be 'playing it again, Scam'.

 

[fredblue]

ps. i would just add briefly, that imho we don't need a successor to SACD (or any of the other formats out there, to me they all have their merits/uses) but if MQA brings us more/new surround music with it I'll doubtless feel compelled to dive in feet first with (yet another) new format!

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Here's another excellent video from Techmoan. I didn't think they would start MQA in a physical way!

Totally unnecessary. Hybrid compatible SACD is superior.

I wonder what the surround capacities of MQA are? Would seem perfectly possible to me...

Not possible. The disc capacity is inadequate. Remember, the CD is capable of a maximum of 75-80 minutes of 16/44.1 in two channels. Multichannel, typically 5.1, would require a capacity 5 to 6 times greater for the same program content. FWIW, I have a dozen or so multichannel MQA albums (as files) and, while they are significantly more compact than their high resolution un-MQA equivalents, they are proportionally larger than their stereo MQA equivalents.

 

[MrSmithers]

I have a soft spot for SACD as it’s what got me into surround sound. Plus I’m still sort of captivated by those little square info sheets you got with them! Even though I know the other formats do things equally well. Agree there’s not really any need for this...

I haven’t heard anything MQA encoded but if the surround files are small enough to get more titles released, then great! I’ll be racing fredblue in the virtual checkout

 

[LuvMyQuad]

Totally unnecessary. Hybrid compatible SACD is superior.
Not possible. The disc capacity is inadequate. Remember, the CD is capable of a maximum of 75-80 minutes of 16/44.1 in two channels. Multichannel, typically 5.1, would require a capacity 5 to 6 times greater for the same program content. FWIW, I have a dozen or so multichannel MQA albums (as files) and, while they are significantly more compact than their high resolution un-MQA equivalents, they are proportionally larger than their stereo MQA equivalents.

Kal,
Can you elaborate on any audible advantages you may or may not have heard from fully decoded MQA? I have to assume there aren't many of us here who have had the opportunity to listen to decoded MQA at all.

 

[Jeffrey Michael]

Before anyone considers MQA, they should read this:

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/...-of-controversies-concerns-and-cautions-r701/

 

[JonUrban]

YAWN!

I'm done with "new formats" - and so is the rest of the world. Throw these in the pile with the DualDisc's and MVI Discs.

 

[ssully]

LOL, no. Just, no. Don't believe the hype. And any difference you hear, are due to plain old mastering difference, not magical 'deblurring'.

 

[fac23]

Without an MQA decoder this format sounds worse than a standard CD. What a stupid product.
Also, MQA files are meant to deliver a sort of Hi-res experience at the file size of a CD quality audio which will not help 5.1 downloads at all – I would be totally fine with a 5.1 Flac in 44.1kHz/16bit (= CD quality), which would be much smaller than MQA. Heck, I'd rather subscribe to a dolby digital 5.1 streaming service (if the data rate was above DVD level), than buy into this MQA nonsense. Mind you, I do believe lossless Hi-Res can offer slight audible benefits, I just don't see an honest need for a proprietary new format in times of ever increasing internet bandwidth.

 

[himey]

Totally unnecessary. Hybrid compatible SACD is superior.
Not possible. The disc capacity is inadequate. Remember, the CD is capable of a maximum of 75-80 minutes of 16/44.1 in two channels. Multichannel, typically 5.1, would require a capacity 5 to 6 times greater for the same program content. FWIW, I have a dozen or so multichannel MQA albums (as files) and, while they are significantly more compact than their high resolution un-MQA equivalents, they are proportionally larger than their stereo MQA equivalents.

Can you expand on the dozen or so multichannel MQA albums you have? That is interesting. Curious how that all came about.

 

[himey]

High resolution MQA files are smaller than FLAC files mainly because many of the original 24 bits are discarded. Obviously that isn't a good thing no matter how they try to spin it.

 

[sukothai]

From his last newsletter, here is what Dr. Aix thinks about MQA:

What most writers — especially ones that have no experience engineering a record — get wrong is that the pathway from analog "masters" to "high-resolution" digital file doesn't improve the fidelity of the original master — if done well, it maintains whatever fidelity (including the narrow dynamic range and limited frequency response) was present in the original master. This is the mantra of MQA supporters and the goal of its inventors — to minimize any sonic degradation due to the transfer from analog to digital. 96 kHz/24-bits can do this without any loss and without the overcharges associated with MQA's licensing agreement. The 11,000 MQA albums on Tidal didn't come from high-resolution sources so why all of the praise for a method that makes claims to produce high-resolution streams? It's crazy. It's why many of the high-end makers of DACs have decided to pass on MQA. They're right.

 

[fac23]

High resolution MQA files are smaller than FLAC files mainly because many of the original 24 bits are discarded. Obviously that isn't a good thing no matter how they try to spin it.

I don't know if you're referring to my post, but are they smaller than 16bit flacs?

 

[himey]

I don't know if you're referring to my post, but are they smaller than 16bit flacs?

No I wasn't. What I know is that FLACs don't handle 24 bit files as efficiently as it handles 16 bit files, however, MQA discards bits and 24 bit files becomes closer to 17 bits. That's why MQA hires is smaller in file size.