Thanks very much Hans from a grateful English viewer. I've just watched parts 1 & 2 and found them very interesting - and your English is better than many over here! Good old Meridian - Let's hope MQA takes off like it should - the quality assurance is a massive bonus for the end-users.
Ik heb al veel artikels gelezen over de zin en onzin van hi res audio. In deze video spreekt iemand met kennis terzake die het bovendien duidelijk en niet vooringenomen kan uitleggen. Bedankt Hans voor deze fantastische video's.
Thank you so much for the informative videos. Your videos are among the best if not the best on youtube to educate people about audio, keep up the good work!
Thank you very much for this comprehensive lesson! Even in 2022, I'm someone who is pretty new to MQA and this video really brings some *mindblowing* aspects about how MQA works! Greets from HiFi Klubben Germany!
Thank you so much for your endeavours. I really enjoy your blend of observations, understandings. I feel in some ways we are on the journey with you Hans! Cheers :)
I've been watching quite a few of your videos. Subscribed. Very informative. I like how you utilize research in your informative vids, as many folks don't do so, at least on RUclips. --Subscribed. ---The MQA graph looks like an EKG. ---I never thought about time smearing, but it makes perfect sense. ---So, I suppose time smearing is a form of colorization of the audio information.
Another great video, Hans. Your enthusiasm for MQA has certainly sparked my interest in the format and I have a DAC that supposedly supports MQA. Unfortunately, try as I might, I seem unable to set the playback software up to correctly decode MQA through my system, if I assume that proper decoding should result in a specific LED colour lighting up on the DAC.Technical assistance has so far proved ineffectual.
Really thanks a lot man for all your efforts and sharing this wonderful informative videos with us! Greets again from Belgium. I hope Apple will add it to iTunes.
6 лет назад
Without a doubt, MQA is a step forward for audio branch, Hi-Fi loose its old meaning. We are on a higher level now there old LPs and CDs became obsolete. By other means, for listening of MQA as I noticed as many years TIDAL Hi-Fi/MQA user, we all need more powerful computers or specially adapted hardware capable for computing enormous amount of compressed data at 24/196 bit rate.. I noticed immediately how my somewhat aging MacBook Pro, at listening MQA files worked with almost full processor potential and need an upgrade very soon, a new, more powerful one. Thank you for great and informative videos
It was a design goal to need very little computational power for unfolding MQA: every modern smartphone can do the decoding. The Mytek Brooklyn DAC I use does the full decoding and rendering and runs on very simple processors. If your MacBook runs hot during MQA playing you might consider cleaning the interior and check if the ventilators still work. Unless you're seeking an excuse to buy a new one, of course😉
For once, I’m thankful (I’ll explain) that I wear hearing aids 😂 Due to the unavoidable latency of these things, I don’t have to concern myself with time smearing. Nothing defined in MQA compares with what I deal with day I and day out with my [digital] Oticons. The reason that I am thankful is that I can stop worrying and just enjoy the music on relatively cheap mid-fi equipment rather than lusting after esoteric high end audio. Then again, audiophile trinkets are very pretty and tempting only for that reason and maybe just the knowledge that they are built “better”. I put better in quotes only because high end audio equipment, although built to a higher standard, is not necessarily more reliable. The Toyota/Mercedes analogy demonstrates this. The Toyota gets the job done and is virtually indestructible while the Mercedes entertains, but requires constant (expensive) attention. I’ll settle for “consumer-grade”, dependable hifi, thanks 🙂 Keep up the great work, Hans. Despite my handicap, I really enjoy your audio classes. I wonder if you could maybe cover hearing aid technology and it’s relationship to audiophilia sometime...?
Well Bill, I have disturbing news for you: Time smearing deforms the flanks of percussive sounds of consonants like P's and T's and those are even more important to people with impaired hearing. They are the key stones of intelligibility. That is why compression to reduce loudness differences have an adverse effect in hearing aids, they also kill the flanks of consonants. Sorry😁
That’s ok, Hans. It is what it is and I much better off with hearing aids than without. And I am enjoying music more now than I had over the last 10 years or so. That I can’t hear people yammering about nonsense and politics is not necessarily a handicap 😉
Thanks again, Hans. I just found out that my Oticon OPNs use “frequency shifting” compression. That may explain why the ELAC Debut b5.2 speakers sounded so bright to me. My usual NHT speakers begin to drop off at about 12khz and I find them to be about right to my (new) ears. I found the ELACs grating by comparison where everyone else seems to like them. My guess is that the Oticons “move” some of the otherwise inaudible (to me) very high frequencies that the Debuts can indeed reproduce down into the range that I can hear and overboosting them - making 8-10Khz frequencies exaggerated and the ELACs intolerable to me. What a mess both hearing loss and “correction” are! I guess I’ll have to do what everyone else does (or should do) - buy what sounds right and ignore specifications.
Thank you. Great video. I am waiting for the players to be updated. Right now there are two portable units and Meridian's player, Prime amp and Explorer. Do you think companies will produce new players ready to play MQA?
+ForeverBlackCat At the end of the month Bluesound will release an update that will activate MQA on all (including first gen) of their players. Onkyo and Pioneer have portable players announced. For the rest: you could also use a bit-perfect streamer - from the earliest Squeezebox to Auralic Aries and connect an MQA DAC to it, as long as you set the volume to off or to 100%
I think what happens is when a recording is taken at a higher sample rate and deeper bit depth, the actual recorded result is closer matched to the source and accurately represented when played back at the same rate. Therefore formats like DSD are touted as near to analogue as possible without using a tube triode monoblock setup and pricey playback system. It's a definite improvement over the lossy formats I have been duped into using over the years. Lossless FLAC, DSD and CD are what I normally listen to. Whether our ears are limited or not, why not take advantage of technology. It's like saying if they find a most effective fuel for cars that they shouldn't change them because they won't drive any different. Ergo hybrid fuel cars.
A "hardly even a novice" question : at 48k , would the ratios be the same as what the CODEC it's designed for 192k? or is that area so spoken for it would be to redundant (mp3s,ACCs) ? are you an educator Mr. Beekhuyzen? A very well balanced video. Thank You
+David Gennaro I don't get your question. Coupled you please rephrase it? I am not an educator by profession, merely a tech journalist with a lot of milage;-)
Hi Hans, thank you very much for all you helpful and informative videos. Given the the major advantage of MQA is that it can deliver the studio master to your home (at least this is the claim). I wonder what you think about using studio monitors at home instead of speakers. The monitors differ and we don't know which exact one was used for a particular recording, but conceptually monitors promise to play the sound as intended by the recording engineer.
Hans, thank you for recommending this book. It really clarified a lot of things for me. Do you have a list of recommended books like this one posted somewhere?
Bedankt Hans, for a great video, but you must also mention why MQA is so controversial and what some audiophiles don't like about it. What are the negatives?
I have found three kinds of people that don't like MQA: those that haven't heard it and thus judge what they can't judge and those that complain about paying royalties and thus try to block new developments since no company will develop new technology if they can't make money of it. And then there are manufacturers that for several reasons don't like their equipment being certified by MQA. Only the last group I understand. Some use technology they bought a license on and are not allowed to give that knowledge to others. Then there are manufacturers that only make very limited numbers of their high end products and have to earn back the certification costs over that limited number of products. Furthermore there are manufacturers that constantly develop their products and should have each and every incarnation of their product licensed again.
Some people consider that with the current situation regarding storage and bandwidth the case for admirably creative proprietary solutions to stream smaller hi res files is now substantially less pressing. The money invested in sophisticated tech can instead be allocated to bandwidth and storage with fewer strings attached. This describes the current situation. As regards quality of course we can trust Meridian, but it is to be expected that Qobuz and other concerns will exercise due diligence, good business practices and quality control. Both systems have already been deployed. There is room for both in an open market. Both have advantages and disadvantages. Perhaps one may eventually prevail. In the interim, in "proper audiophile fashion" I will be using both out of interest in the technologies involved. :-)
Thanks for a very informative video Hans. One thing I am not completely clear on. You mentioned that MQA could be implemented either on the hardware side or the software side. Would this mean that, being on the software side, it would send out a standard 24/192 signal from your player of choice that would work with ones existing DAC? That would be my interpretation. Or would you need a MQA capable DAC to decode the signal. Perhaps it's all speculation at this point as to how Meridian will market their licensing? Again, thanks for a great channel.
+jpfister98204 When I wrote this program, it was all theory based. Now we're closer to real wold solutions it's more clear how it will work in practice. To fully profit from the benefits of MQA, you will need a d/a-converter that is able to not only decode the MQA signal but also work on the time smearing solution. That DAC can be an external DAC digitally connected to a transparent digital player (ie one that only relays the MQA bits unaltered to the DAC) or it can be an internal DAC as with for instance the Bluesound players. If you connect a d/a-converter to a player that has internal MQA decoding (like, again, the Bluesound players), the digital output will only feed 94 kHz/24 bit max.
Interesting stuff. I have a DAC/headphone amp combo that I am rather happy with from iFi which is great for home listening on more power hungry cans, but not really what I would consider to be portable. Pioneer has a new portable unit that is apparently MQA ready called the XDP-100R which looks to have a very nice feature set. I've had rather mixed results with the actual audio quality of DSD tracks, as well as pretty limited selections. Hopefully the smaller file size and quality of the MQA format will be more enticing to record companies so that we can move into a realistic and accepted high resolution audio format. The future will tell I suppose. Cheers!
Thanks for that talk. By the sound everything you've highlighted here, unlike with DSD, there is not that much advantage of a using a native MQA DAC, instead of a software implementaion with a PCM DAC of similar quality, except perhaps having the DAC approved by the creators of MQA? Or perhaps I'm missing something?
You're absolutely missing the key point of MQA. The signal to MQA DAC can be compensated for the impulse behaviour of the DAC by the MQA filtering. That is the most important item of MQA. Unless you use a DAC that has a very, very good impulse response. Think 10 K or above.
Great video again. Thank you. Have you had a chance to compare MQA with let's say DSD256 or DSD512 upsampled with the HQPlayer and sent through microRendu or sMS-200? If so, could you put few words on this, please?
No, and if I had, I wouldn't have. There never will be DSD256 or higher files from 'normal' artists. Production of DSD is so limited that only a small number of music styles can be produced. I only have 24 hours a day and like to spend them on researching practical news developments. I understand that it would have been an interesting test for the hifi enthousiast, but it will take so much time to find music produced in DSD and then converted to MQA (and thus PCM) and - to be sure, find music that is produced in PCm (DXD) and then converted to DSD. Or rather have recordings that were simultaneously recorded in both DSD and DXD. Or...... Get my point:-)
Thank you for the reply. Probably I didn't articulate myself well enough. Yes, there are no DSD512 recorded music, "normal" artists. But, my question was heading the other way (if this makes any sense): If MQA is able to downsample 24bit 192kHz to CD size, unfold it and apply some technique to make it sound better than the original, the same logic could be applied for HQPlayer and upsampling to DSD512. In other words (if I got it right from reading CA forum), when upsampled to DSD512, HQPlayer's algorithms have better room to work with. Hence, I wondered if HQPlayer does the same thing as MQA (only related to the time domain correction), but in a different way, and whether it does it better or worse?
Got it. I can't comment on HQPlayer since I was not allowed a review sample - they actually didn't even answer my mail. But let me say that MQA DOES NOT downsample as such. It creates a down sampled version for non-MQA equipment but keeps the hi-res version for MQA users in the same file. That's the clever bit. And I can't think of a way HQPlayer can do that. It can downsample but then you loose information when you back upsample. What HQPlayer can do is to 'replace' poor up sampling in a DAC by doing it in a far more powerful PC. This way you 'improve' the quality of your DAC. That will reduce time smearing in those cases that the DAC does poorer up sampling. It doesn't 'correct' the time smearing of the DAC the way MQA does (it, at the same time also reduces the time smearing of the ADC).
I understand, I didn't put it well when I wrote MQA downsample. Not sure which HQPlayer sample you were requesting, but the software is available for a month of trial period. The documentation is not so great, but you can get an overview what each filter does in their manual: www.icat-inc.com/image/HQPlayer-manual.pdf I would really like to hear your thoughts on it, of course used with NAA like MR or sMS-200.
Thank you very much for that. Have you any experience of the Waversa wbridge. Would something like that pass the MQA through to a Meridian DSP setup (G98 into 8Ks) for decoding?
Mr. Hans, if JRiver (in my case) integrate MQA codec in their player will I be able to keep my actual DAC (Ayre QB-9 DSD)? Thank you for another great lesson.
Luís Gambão Louis, The MQA encoder/decoder is able to analyze time behavior within its limits. If you use a software player like JRiver with a plug-in for playing MQA files, your DAC just is fed with a normal signal at its highest sample rate. So an MQA 24/192 files will be decoded by JRiver to a normal 24/192 signal of which the time smearing caused by the recording process is kept within 10 µs. If Ayre would issue a MQA update for your lovely QB-9 DSD (if possible) then a JRiver plug-in would not be necessary plus that the MQA decoder will also 'know' the time behavior of your DAC. So, yes using a plug-in in JRiver (or any other software player - Amarra just announced a plug-in) your DAC (or any other) will playback MQA files. But it would even be better if you use a MQA compatible DAC.
Very good explanation indeed, but at the end of the day it all boils down to the source material availability and corresponding willingness of companies and copyright holders.
tolis vasco Thanks for the compliment. I agree that in the end we need both software and decoders. But Meridian had to start somewhere. Without their initiative there would be no chance to innovation....
+Keith Moran why would you choose for mp3? But even is you do, recording at 192/24 does give a better result. Just as scanning an image at 600 dpi in TIF and reducing in to 300 dpi and jpg.
Hi Hans! First time I saw your video I did not heard about MQA before. Now I have seen several audiophile channels reviews about MQA and some of the tells that MQAs file size reduction has come to the market several years late, right in the era where internet bandwidth has increased hugely. Today you can stream 4K videos over several internet platforms, so why worry about saving some bandwidth for hi fi streaming? Why not just use FLAC for audio streaming? Have you make some video talking about this particular view? Thanks
The Hans Beekhuyzen Channel Indeed, but I’ve never seen the “folding” and “unfolding” process explained as well anywhere else. What are your thoughts on MQA today?
Very informative. Out of curiosity... Bluesound (Node 2, or the NAD Bluesound card) -- do they support hardware unwrapping, i.e., will they enable the same quality as Meridian's system (I'm not talking about the quality of amps or loudspeakers), or is the Bluesound system similar to software unwrapping, e.g., in Tidal? (I guess the Tidal system cannot utilize information about the applied DA converter, while the Bluesound system perhaps can do that -- at least when part NAD amplifiers...)
Hi, as I heard you are sensitive to pre-echo's, what are your opinions on Apogee DA16x converters? What do you think about the prismsound ADA8-XR? What do you feel is the very best ADDAC on earth? Thanks for your input. :-)
+Lawrence O Ah, I'm sensitive to time smearing but that doesn't make me God:-) I can only comment on equipment I have reviewed and the ones you mention I didn't. That might happen in the future but until than I have no comment. I will certainly not review AD's since that is not what I aim at and I will never declare a device to be the best on earth. IMHO anyone who dare to state that of any device should be mistrusted :-0
Would you be willing, AND is it technically feasible in this medium, to give actual examples of such defects as time smear and others you commonly experience?
Hi so streaming in 48khz in 2 ch pcm in ny Yamaha av receiver is that good quality i try spotify and tidal hi fi and they both stream the same format and sound the same thanks!
I meant to ask. Isn't a 24 bit/96 hHz recording the same recording as an MQA recording done at the same bit and sampling rate? So, if that might be the case, what is the difference in sound quality MQA seems to impart? Is it the way MQA files are delivered with the minimum amount of time smearing? In regards to time smearing, I am not certain about how to listen for it?
Hoi Hans. Ik heb sinds kort een Bluesound Node 2 streamer die binnenkort een MQA-upgrade krijgt. Ik gebruik deze met externe DAC "Chord Hugo". De "Chord Hugo" is (nog) niet MQA-ready ... Als ik het goed begrijp worden de MQA-bestanden eerst omgezet door de Bluesound om ze nadien nog een niveau hoger te tillen met de Chord Hugo? Mijn bestanden worden dan correct verwerkt volgens het MQA-algoritme? (bluesound verbinden met chord doe ik met optische kabel)
+Popdroid Musicoloog Het is officieel nog niet bekend wat er precies gebeurt met externe DAC's maar een goed geïnformeerde bron heeft me verteld dat bij MQA signalen de Bluesound (en andere streamers) maximaal 96 kHz uit bieden op de digitale uitgangen terwijl de interne DAC niet beperkt wordt.
Hans, in this video you describe the Nyquist theorem as “a theorem nonetheless.” Given the a priori nature of theorems, it’s unfair to suggest that difficulty implementing a theorem says anything about the soundness of the theorem itself. Regardless, digital files with sample rates above approximately 44.1kHz are simply wasted space / bandwidth. The benefits of higher sample rates are only seen during analog to digital conversion and vice versa, where digital aliasing filters are easier to implement with additional spectral padding above the Nyquist frequency. Once filtered, however, the extra samples above the Nyquist frequency can simply be discarded! As far as 24 bit is concerned, even state of the art reel-to-reel masters from the 60's and 70's are limited to about 70db of dynamic range, or 12 bits in digital terms. Taking that information and up-sampling it to 24/192kHz isn't adding any fidelity.
I have never intended to say that the theorem was invalid. See ruclips.net/video/geaoEt-9V-w/видео.html. As far as hires is concerned, The fact that you don't hear a difference doesn't mean there isn't. There are now sufficient scientific publications that confirm this. And, don't forget: the dynamic range - i.e. the bit depth - also determines the distortion level.
I think you missed my points. First, many people don't regard the work of Shannon and Nyquist as theorems but as reality. Well, they are a reality as theorems but are impossible to implement faultlessly. Second, the influence of the time smearing caused by the anti-aliasing and reconstruction filters is only recently recognised as being clearly audible. Third, comparing analogue and digital the way you do might be just incorrect. Analogue tape might have only 70 dB' dynamic range but it has no rock solid ceiling while digital has. Furthermore in digital the S/N equals the distortion. In favour of digital is that once digital, the signal can be transported and stored without loss when done properly while with analogue there always will be degradation.Given a proper stereo, the difference between a good 44.1 kHz and 192 kHz recording is obvious.
Hello Hans. Great video. I still have a few questions which you might (hopefully) be able to answer. Not all digitally recorded music was recorded in 24 bit 192 Audio. Most of the first digital recordings were done as 16/44.1 or 16/48 back in the 80's and most of the 90's. As time went on some switched to 24/48, 24/96, and some as 24/192. Obviously, previous to digital, they were recording to analog tape and even today, they still use analog tape for many recordings. Here's my questions. 1. Can they gain any improvement with MQA for any of these recordings that aren't original recorded using 24/192? 2. What's the encoding process? Is it a simple process that can be done in large batches or is it more time consuming that has to be done more carefully to ensure it's done properly? 3. I know that Warner Music has agreed to move their content to MQA, but how long is that going to take? They have quite a lot of albums to encode. 4. What happens if they can't get the other major record labels to adopt MQA? There's Sony and BMG and some others. How long do they estimate that it's going to take to convert the tens of millions of tracks that these streaming sites like Tidal, Spotify, Apple Music, Deezer, etc. have in their respective catalogs, but can we actually expect that when one of these offers MQA that they will actually have a large catalog of content using MQA and will they be able to use the older low bit/sample recordings? Thanks in advance and take your time in answering if you need to contact others for the answers.
@@TheHansBeekhuyzenChannel Thank you, but I do not know what is a "Nyquist graph", and "Nyquist plot" feels kinda unrelated. Given that half of your video explains basic concepts that everybody knows, I am hoping that you could explain in an easier to understand way. Your graph whatever the name, still shows "spectral level" in dB vs. frequency, and I have not seen any proof or even suggestion that one could encode anything with spectral level lower than -144dB with 24 bits. If it is somehow possible, would be interesting to know. Also, I have heard Mr. Bob Stuart saying that "temporal smear" is somehow corrected in the MQA file even without "unfolding" and I do not understand how is it possible, or why a simple CD could not be "corrected" same way without that unfolded information present. Thanks.
Thanks for giving way more info than the official MQA vids, which contain not much more than marketing and jargon. As a long-time user of hi-res audio (24-bit PCM and DSD) I failed to see what MQA offered, but you clarified nicely. Much more efficient compression, especially good for streaming. No good to me at the moment (I don't use streaming services) but very interesting!
A couple years on I've had a chance to listen to a number of MQA files and compare them with regular PCM FLAC. Although MQA does something pleasant to the sound, I did find it slightly lossy and prefer FLAC better. Of course, the merits for streaming audio are very good, but for someone like me who buys and downloads all his music, I prefer the sound of regular PCM, and above that DSD. Also, I've found that even 352khz MQA does not have perfect time resolution, especially compared to DSD which sounds close to perfect.
Hi Hans. Perhaps one's experience is relative to the system you are using. My evaluation has been using the Mytek Manhattan II DAC. I used various pieces of classical music from 2L records, but my main comparison was a 2006 Mozart Violin Concerto album in the original DXD FLAC, a 2016 version that was re-mixed and re-processed with MQA filtering but encoded as FLAC, and actual MQA encoded files of the same album. I found that the MQA Remix sounded better than the original recording, but also clearer and more precise than the .mqa.flac file. My conclusion is that MQA processing is beneficial, but the MQA encoding makes details a little bit fuzzy. I've recognized the same qualitative characteristics on other MQA encoded recordings, which sounded relatively fast, light, and euphonic, but also slightly dark and less resolving.
Hallo Hans, Eindelijk een goede uitleg waarom 24/192KHz toch zinvol kan zijn. Volgens mij moet daar wel een goede opname tegenover staan om het te horen. Ik heb deze week een open source tool ontdekt, SPEK (spek.cc) om het audio spectrum zichtbaar te maken in diverse audioformaten en vroeg me of dit ook MQA informatie laat zien. Het is geschikt voor Linux, Mac en Windows.
+Johan van Rietveld Als je er een MQA file mee opent, dan zal Spec alleen de 44.1 kHz 16 bit content laten zien. Om de hogere kwaliteit in de file te zien moet het eerst door een MQA decoder.
+The Hans Beekhuyzen Channel Dit antwoord lijkt me iets te kort door de bocht. Ik meen te begrijpen dat sprake is van decoding van het MQA signaal middels software of firmware update van bv een netwerkstreamer om vervolgens op DAC niveau een bewerking te ondergaan middels een aantal microprocessors om de Redbook informatie in volle omvang geschikt te maken voor DA Conversie. De SABRE DAC in de Mytek Brooklyn is toch technisch niet gewijzigd voor MQA?
+Pim Van Loenen De decoder is - in ieder geval voorlopig - gekoppeld aan de DAC. Het MQA signaal wordt dus in de DAC - of in het apparaat waar de d/a-conversie plaatsvindt zoals de Bluesound spelers - gedecodeerd, voorzien van een correctie om fouten in de d/a-conversie te compenseren en dan naar de DAC gestuurd. Overigens is de Sabre DAC op vele manieren te gebruiken, je kunt er zelfs de hele filtering zelf voor schrijven, zoals bij de Mytek Brooklyn (ruclips.net/video/kfJYHhONdSI/видео.html). Theoretisch zou een speler de decoding kunnen doen maar dan kan die of de compensatie voor tijdsversmoring in de DAC niet meenemen of er moet voor elke DAC een bestand komen met daarin de fingerprint. Maar hoe zorg je er dan voor dat die info van de DAC in de decoder komt? Handmatig is geen goede oplossing want dat gaat in de consumentenwereld altijd fout. Ik weet dat op het web dit antwoord niet populair is en dat iedereen 'slimmer' wil zijn, maar leg je er maar bij neer: als je MQA wilt spelen, dan moet je of een MQA compatibele DAC of een MQA compatibele netwerkspeler kopen.
+The Hans Beekhuyzen Channel Oké Hans, glas helder. Maar dan heb ik als consument wel de vraag hoe ik straks aan MQA content kom. Ik ben geen liefhebber van downloads zoals HD-tracks. Mijn CD's en SACD's staan op zolder. Ooki heb ik geen NAS, veel te bewerkelijk. Wel ben ik groot liefhebber van TIDAL (en nu ook nog van Qobuz). Wat heb ik nu precies nodig om straks MQA muziek van TIDAL naar een MQA-DAC te streamen. Gaat dat goed komen met merken als Auralic en Aurender via een firmware update? Momenteel werk ik met de Auralic Aries streaming bridge, prima geluid maar de App kan nog wel iets gebruiksvriendelijker ;) Of moet ik uitwijken naar een PC? Kortom hoe krijg ik het bron materiaal binnen? Tijd voor een nieuw filmpje ;)?? Ik hoor graag van je!
+Pim Van Loenen Dat komt idd allemaal aan bod in een nieuwe video. Maar om je gerust te stellen: als je nu een MQA DAC aansluit op de Auralic Aries en je download MQA audiobestanden van bijvoorbeeld 2L.no (daar staan gratis bestanden in allerhande resoluties), dan spelen die bestanden nu al perfect MQA gedecodeerd af zonder update voor de Aries. Dat geldt voor elke streamer en computer die je digitaal aansluit op een MQA DAC en die bit perfect werkt (dus geen oversampling, volumeregeling oid.) Dus uit de Tidal app direct via USB bit perfect de MQA DAC in, zodra Tidal start met MQA (en dat kan niet lang meer duren). Overigens, als je niet helemaal tevreden bent over Lightning, kijk dan eens bij Roon (ruclips.net/p/PLMbsmejHnP8G1SNPFesNWKEXI9eHamMx1). Sinds enige tijd kan de Aries als endpoint voor Roon dienen. Bij de link staat ook een link naar een code voor 2 maanden gratis proberen.
@@TheHansBeekhuyzenChannel Yes, enjoying it is what matters most =o) ...however, all investments / (for me MQA is a) paradigm shift must be justified, one way for justification is knowing what you are getting into. While VolksWagen / Audi where touting excellently low emissions from their diesel engines, in practicality it was just a very selective trick. This is the reasons for why I do not blindly accept just the word from the manufacturers. Several independent testers experience are invalueable as they have more equipment, unique experience, vastly more knowledge etc. Since MQA group has written that MQA is only (mostly?) for "natural sounds" (or was it normal music?) it puts me in the "press x to doubt" category since alot of my listening material is really screwy electronic music.
thank you again for the comprehensive lesson about audio - i find myself spellbound by your explenaions :) keep up this amazing channel of yours!!
Thanks for you kind words. Tell the world.
Hans you are the best learned so much from you ,and I'm 67 years old ,and loved audio most of my life thank you so much 😊😊
Thanks again, Hans. These videos on hi res audio and mqa are truly illuminating
You are like my father explaining me something.
So interesting.
Thank you for helping me out with all this information.
You are a great Human being.
Thanks very much Hans from a grateful English viewer. I've just watched parts 1 & 2 and found them very interesting - and your English is better than many over here!
Good old Meridian - Let's hope MQA takes off like it should - the quality assurance is a massive bonus for the end-users.
La mejor explicación que he obtenido del MQA. Increíble su profesionalidad y conocimiento. Le felicito humildemente. Saludos desde Cuba.
Muchas gracias por este lindo cumplido
Ik heb al veel artikels gelezen over de zin en onzin van hi res audio. In deze video spreekt iemand met kennis terzake die het bovendien duidelijk en niet vooringenomen kan uitleggen. Bedankt Hans voor deze fantastische video's.
Thanks!
Thank you so much for the informative videos. Your videos are among the best if not the best on youtube to educate people about audio, keep up the good work!
+Moussa Obeid You're most kind. Thank you and tell your friends on the web about the videos.
Sure I will!
I feel like I'm back in undergrad again. Thorough explanations. Appreciate your work.
😁Thanks
Thank you very much for this comprehensive lesson! Even in 2022, I'm someone who is pretty new to MQA and this video really brings some *mindblowing* aspects about how MQA works!
Greets from HiFi Klubben Germany!
Glad it was helpful!
Sir Hans! I've seen both of the videos. The least I wanna say here is that you're an asset.
Wow, thanks
Best audio videos on youtube
A great video as usual. Thank you Hans. Teachers like you are scarce on YT.
I appreciate that!
your style of teaching is both unique, and a blessing subscribed.
Thank you for your reply. Please keep us updated.
+ForeverBlackCat .My pleasure
Thank you so much for your endeavours. I really enjoy your blend of observations, understandings. I feel in some ways we are on the journey with you Hans!
Cheers :)
Thank You! I learned a lot and is waiting to hear the promised MQA into audio system.
I've been watching quite a few of your videos. Subscribed. Very informative. I like how you utilize research in your informative vids, as many folks don't do so, at least on RUclips.
--Subscribed.
---The MQA graph looks like an EKG.
---I never thought about time smearing, but it makes perfect sense.
---So, I suppose time smearing is a form of colorization of the audio information.
Welcome aboard!
Very interesting videos. I'm writing a thesis on this subject and I found them really useful. Thanks a lot, I will stay in touch...
***** Love to read it when it's finished. In the mean time: lots of inspiration.
Another great video, Hans. Your enthusiasm for MQA has certainly sparked my interest in the format and I have a DAC that supposedly supports MQA. Unfortunately, try as I might, I seem unable to set the playback software up to correctly decode MQA through my system, if I assume that proper decoding should result in a specific LED colour lighting up on the DAC.Technical assistance has so far proved ineffectual.
Great videos! Thank you from Los Angeles.
Beryl Green My pleasure
Really thanks a lot man for all your efforts and sharing this wonderful informative videos with us! Greets again from Belgium. I hope Apple will add it to iTunes.
Without a doubt, MQA is a step forward for audio branch, Hi-Fi loose its old meaning. We are on a higher level now there old LPs and CDs became obsolete. By other means, for listening of MQA as I noticed as many years TIDAL Hi-Fi/MQA user, we all need more powerful computers or specially adapted hardware capable for computing enormous amount of compressed data at 24/196 bit rate.. I noticed immediately how my somewhat aging MacBook Pro, at listening MQA files worked with almost full processor potential and need an upgrade very soon, a new, more powerful one. Thank you for great and informative videos
It was a design goal to need very little computational power for unfolding MQA: every modern smartphone can do the decoding. The Mytek Brooklyn DAC I use does the full decoding and rendering and runs on very simple processors. If your MacBook runs hot during MQA playing you might consider cleaning the interior and check if the ventilators still work. Unless you're seeking an excuse to buy a new one, of course😉
This man is SOOOOOOOOOO informative. SUBB
Excellent and understandable presentation. thank you. Very well done.
Thank you sir.
For once, I’m thankful (I’ll explain) that I wear hearing aids 😂 Due to the unavoidable latency of these things, I don’t have to concern myself with time smearing. Nothing defined in MQA compares with what I deal with day I and day out with my [digital] Oticons. The reason that I am thankful is that I can stop worrying and just enjoy the music on relatively cheap mid-fi equipment rather than lusting after esoteric high end audio. Then again, audiophile trinkets are very pretty and tempting only for that reason and maybe just the knowledge that they are built “better”. I put better in quotes only because high end audio equipment, although built to a higher standard, is not necessarily more reliable. The Toyota/Mercedes analogy demonstrates this. The Toyota gets the job done and is virtually indestructible while the Mercedes entertains, but requires constant (expensive) attention. I’ll settle for “consumer-grade”, dependable hifi, thanks 🙂
Keep up the great work, Hans. Despite my handicap, I really enjoy your audio classes.
I wonder if you could maybe cover hearing aid technology and it’s relationship to audiophilia sometime...?
Well Bill, I have disturbing news for you: Time smearing deforms the flanks of percussive sounds of consonants like P's and T's and those are even more important to people with impaired hearing. They are the key stones of intelligibility. That is why compression to reduce loudness differences have an adverse effect in hearing aids, they also kill the flanks of consonants. Sorry😁
That’s ok, Hans. It is what it is and I much better off with hearing aids than without. And I am enjoying music more now than I had over the last 10 years or so. That I can’t hear people yammering about nonsense and politics is not necessarily a handicap 😉
Thanks again, Hans. I just found out that my Oticon OPNs use “frequency shifting” compression. That may explain why the ELAC Debut b5.2 speakers sounded so bright to me. My usual NHT speakers begin to drop off at about 12khz and I find them to be about right to my (new) ears. I found the ELACs grating by comparison where everyone else seems to like them. My guess is that the Oticons “move” some of the otherwise inaudible (to me) very high frequencies that the Debuts can indeed reproduce down into the range that I can hear and overboosting them - making 8-10Khz frequencies exaggerated and the ELACs intolerable to me.
What a mess both hearing loss and “correction” are! I guess I’ll have to do what everyone else does (or should do) - buy what sounds right and ignore specifications.
Thank you. Great video. I am waiting for the players to be updated. Right now there are two portable units and Meridian's player, Prime amp and Explorer. Do you think companies will produce new players ready to play MQA?
+ForeverBlackCat At the end of the month Bluesound will release an update that will activate MQA on all (including first gen) of their players. Onkyo and Pioneer have portable players announced. For the rest: you could also use a bit-perfect streamer - from the earliest Squeezebox to Auralic Aries and connect an MQA DAC to it, as long as you set the volume to off or to 100%
I think what happens is when a recording is taken at a higher sample rate and deeper bit depth, the actual recorded result is closer matched to the source and accurately represented when played back at the same rate. Therefore formats like DSD are touted as near to analogue as possible without using a tube triode monoblock setup and pricey playback system. It's a definite improvement over the lossy formats I have been duped into using over the years. Lossless FLAC, DSD and CD are what I normally listen to. Whether our ears are limited or not, why not take advantage of technology.
It's like saying if they find a most effective fuel for cars that they shouldn't change them because they won't drive any different. Ergo hybrid fuel cars.
A "hardly even a novice" question : at 48k , would the ratios be the same as what the CODEC it's designed for 192k? or is that area so spoken for it would be to redundant (mp3s,ACCs) ? are you an educator Mr. Beekhuyzen? A very well balanced video. Thank You
+David Gennaro I don't get your question. Coupled you please rephrase it? I am not an educator by profession, merely a tech journalist with a lot of milage;-)
Hi Hans, thank you very much for all you helpful and informative videos.
Given the the major advantage of MQA is that it can deliver the studio master to your home (at least this is the claim). I wonder what you think about using studio monitors at home instead of speakers. The monitors differ and we don't know which exact one was used for a particular recording, but conceptually monitors promise to play the sound as intended by the recording engineer.
Hans, thank you for recommending this book. It really clarified a lot of things for me.
Do you have a list of recommended books like this one posted somewhere?
Bedankt Hans, for a great video, but you must also mention why MQA is so controversial and what some audiophiles don't like about it. What are the negatives?
I have found three kinds of people that don't like MQA: those that haven't heard it and thus judge what they can't judge and those that complain about paying royalties and thus try to block new developments since no company will develop new technology if they can't make money of it. And then there are manufacturers that for several reasons don't like their equipment being certified by MQA. Only the last group I understand. Some use technology they bought a license on and are not allowed to give that knowledge to others. Then there are manufacturers that only make very limited numbers of their high end products and have to earn back the certification costs over that limited number of products. Furthermore there are manufacturers that constantly develop their products and should have each and every incarnation of their product licensed again.
Some people consider that with the current situation regarding storage and bandwidth the case for admirably creative proprietary solutions to stream smaller hi res files is now substantially less pressing.
The money invested in sophisticated tech can instead be allocated to bandwidth and storage with fewer strings attached.
This describes the current situation.
As regards quality of course we can trust Meridian, but it is to be expected that Qobuz and other concerns will exercise due diligence, good business practices and quality control.
Both systems have already been deployed. There is room for both in an open market. Both have advantages and disadvantages. Perhaps one may eventually prevail. In the interim, in "proper audiophile fashion" I will be using both out of interest in the technologies involved. :-)
Thanks for a very informative video Hans. One thing I am not completely clear on. You mentioned that MQA could be implemented either on the hardware side or the software side. Would this mean that, being on the software side, it would send out a standard 24/192 signal from your player of choice that would work with ones existing DAC? That would be my interpretation. Or would you need a MQA capable DAC to decode the signal. Perhaps it's all speculation at this point as to how Meridian will market their licensing? Again, thanks for a great channel.
+jpfister98204 When I wrote this program, it was all theory based. Now we're closer to real wold solutions it's more clear how it will work in practice. To fully profit from the benefits of MQA, you will need a d/a-converter that is able to not only decode the MQA signal but also work on the time smearing solution. That DAC can be an external DAC digitally connected to a transparent digital player (ie one that only relays the MQA bits unaltered to the DAC) or it can be an internal DAC as with for instance the Bluesound players. If you connect a d/a-converter to a player that has internal MQA decoding (like, again, the Bluesound players), the digital output will only feed 94 kHz/24 bit max.
Interesting stuff. I have a DAC/headphone amp combo that I am rather happy with from iFi which is great for home listening on more power hungry cans, but not really what I would consider to be portable. Pioneer has a new portable unit that is apparently MQA ready called the XDP-100R which looks to have a very nice feature set. I've had rather mixed results with the actual audio quality of DSD tracks, as well as pretty limited selections. Hopefully the smaller file size and quality of the MQA format will be more enticing to record companies so that we can move into a realistic and accepted high resolution audio format. The future will tell I suppose. Cheers!
Quality content, excellent presentation! Professional, state of the art, calm intro to a sophisticated domain.
Much appreciated!
You are awesome. Thank-you.
Thank you too!
Thanks for that talk. By the sound everything you've highlighted here, unlike with DSD, there is not that much advantage of a using a native MQA DAC, instead of a software implementaion with a PCM DAC of similar quality, except perhaps having the DAC approved by the creators of MQA? Or perhaps I'm missing something?
You're absolutely missing the key point of MQA. The signal to MQA DAC can be compensated for the impulse behaviour of the DAC by the MQA filtering. That is the most important item of MQA. Unless you use a DAC that has a very, very good impulse response. Think 10 K or above.
Great video again. Thank you.
Have you had a chance to compare MQA with let's say DSD256 or DSD512 upsampled with the HQPlayer and sent through microRendu or sMS-200? If so, could you put few words on this, please?
No, and if I had, I wouldn't have. There never will be DSD256 or higher files from 'normal' artists. Production of DSD is so limited that only a small number of music styles can be produced. I only have 24 hours a day and like to spend them on researching practical news developments. I understand that it would have been an interesting test for the hifi enthousiast, but it will take so much time to find music produced in DSD and then converted to MQA (and thus PCM) and - to be sure, find music that is produced in PCm (DXD) and then converted to DSD. Or rather have recordings that were simultaneously recorded in both DSD and DXD. Or...... Get my point:-)
Thank you for the reply. Probably I didn't articulate myself well enough.
Yes, there are no DSD512 recorded music, "normal" artists.
But, my question was heading the other way (if this makes any sense):
If MQA is able to downsample 24bit 192kHz to CD size, unfold it and apply some technique to make it sound better than the original, the same logic could be applied for HQPlayer and upsampling to DSD512.
In other words (if I got it right from reading CA forum), when upsampled to DSD512, HQPlayer's algorithms have better room to work with.
Hence, I wondered if HQPlayer does the same thing as MQA (only related to the time domain correction), but in a different way, and whether it does it better or worse?
Got it. I can't comment on HQPlayer since I was not allowed a review sample - they actually didn't even answer my mail. But let me say that MQA DOES NOT downsample as such. It creates a down sampled version for non-MQA equipment but keeps the hi-res version for MQA users in the same file. That's the clever bit. And I can't think of a way HQPlayer can do that. It can downsample but then you loose information when you back upsample. What HQPlayer can do is to 'replace' poor up sampling in a DAC by doing it in a far more powerful PC. This way you 'improve' the quality of your DAC. That will reduce time smearing in those cases that the DAC does poorer up sampling. It doesn't 'correct' the time smearing of the DAC the way MQA does (it, at the same time also reduces the time smearing of the ADC).
I understand, I didn't put it well when I wrote MQA downsample.
Not sure which HQPlayer sample you were requesting, but the software is available for a month of trial period. The documentation is not so great, but you can get an overview what each filter does in their manual: www.icat-inc.com/image/HQPlayer-manual.pdf
I would really like to hear your thoughts on it, of course used with NAA like MR or sMS-200.
Thank you very much for that. Have you any experience of the Waversa wbridge. Would something like that pass the MQA through to a Meridian DSP setup (G98 into 8Ks) for decoding?
No, sorry
Mr. Hans, if JRiver (in my case) integrate MQA codec in their player will I be able to keep my actual DAC (Ayre QB-9 DSD)? Thank you for another great lesson.
Luís Gambão Louis, The MQA encoder/decoder is able to analyze time behavior within its limits. If you use a software player like JRiver with a plug-in for playing MQA files, your DAC just is fed with a normal signal at its highest sample rate. So an MQA 24/192 files will be decoded by JRiver to a normal 24/192 signal of which the time smearing caused by the recording process is kept within 10 µs. If Ayre would issue a MQA update for your lovely QB-9 DSD (if possible) then a JRiver plug-in would not be necessary plus that the MQA decoder will also 'know' the time behavior of your DAC. So, yes using a plug-in in JRiver (or any other software player - Amarra just announced a plug-in) your DAC (or any other) will playback MQA files. But it would even be better if you use a MQA compatible DAC.
Great videos!
Greetings from Mexico!
***** Tnx Fernando
Very good explanation indeed, but at the end of the day it all boils down to the source material availability and corresponding willingness of companies and copyright holders.
tolis vasco Thanks for the compliment. I agree that in the end we need both software and decoders. But Meridian had to start somewhere. Without their initiative there would be no chance to innovation....
Hi Hans. Is there
a benefit to recording music at 192/24 if we must convert those files to 44/16 to distribute on mp3 and cd today?
+Keith Moran why would you choose for mp3? But even is you do, recording at 192/24 does give a better result. Just as scanning an image at 600 dpi in TIF and reducing in to 300 dpi and jpg.
Hi Hans! First time I saw your video I did not heard about MQA before. Now I have seen several audiophile channels reviews about MQA and some of the tells that MQAs file size reduction has come to the market several years late, right in the era where internet bandwidth has increased hugely. Today you can stream 4K videos over several internet platforms, so why worry about saving some bandwidth for hi fi streaming? Why not just use FLAC for audio streaming? Have you make some video talking about this particular view? Thanks
See my playlist on MQA
So Qobuz is now streaming 24/192, but still a lot of good information here.
Well, that video is 5 years old.
The Hans Beekhuyzen Channel Indeed, but I’ve never seen the “folding” and “unfolding” process explained as well anywhere else. What are your thoughts on MQA today?
Very informative. Out of curiosity... Bluesound (Node 2, or the NAD Bluesound card) -- do they support hardware unwrapping, i.e., will they enable the same quality as Meridian's system (I'm not talking about the quality of amps or loudspeakers), or is the Bluesound system similar to software unwrapping, e.g., in Tidal? (I guess the Tidal system cannot utilize information about the applied DA converter, while the Bluesound system perhaps can do that -- at least when part NAD amplifiers...)
I have no information on this. I will try to find out.
Hi, as I heard you are sensitive to pre-echo's, what are your opinions on Apogee DA16x converters? What do you think about the prismsound ADA8-XR? What do you feel is the very best ADDAC on earth? Thanks for your input. :-)
+Lawrence O Ah, I'm sensitive to time smearing but that doesn't make me God:-) I can only comment on equipment I have reviewed and the ones you mention I didn't. That might happen in the future but until than I have no comment. I will certainly not review AD's since that is not what I aim at and I will never declare a device to be the best on earth. IMHO anyone who dare to state that of any device should be mistrusted :-0
Would you be willing, AND is it technically feasible in this medium, to give actual examples of such defects as time smear and others you commonly experience?
Unfortunately, that is not possible. Sorry.
Thanks for your quick response.
I am new to your channel and really enjoy and appreciate your videos.
Very good, Keep up the good work! :)
+Maxwell Herman Thanks sir, I'll try. Tell the world and help me further increase views.
Hi so streaming in 48khz in 2 ch pcm in ny Yamaha av receiver is that good quality i try spotify and tidal hi fi and they both stream the same format and sound the same thanks!
You might consider using Tidal at uncompressed
I meant to ask. Isn't a 24 bit/96 hHz recording the same recording as an MQA recording done at the same bit and sampling rate? So, if that might be the case, what is the difference in sound quality MQA seems to impart? Is it the way MQA files are delivered with the minimum amount of time smearing? In regards to time smearing, I am not certain about how to listen for it?
You find all you might want to know about MQA here: ruclips.net/video/r_wxRGiBoJg/видео.html
Thank you, it was interesting to listen.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Hoi Hans. Ik heb sinds kort een Bluesound Node 2 streamer die binnenkort een MQA-upgrade krijgt. Ik gebruik deze met externe DAC "Chord Hugo". De "Chord Hugo" is (nog) niet MQA-ready ... Als ik het goed begrijp worden de MQA-bestanden eerst omgezet door de Bluesound om ze nadien nog een niveau hoger te tillen met de Chord Hugo? Mijn bestanden worden dan correct verwerkt volgens het MQA-algoritme? (bluesound verbinden met chord doe ik met optische kabel)
+Popdroid Musicoloog Het is officieel nog niet bekend wat er precies gebeurt met externe DAC's maar een goed geïnformeerde bron heeft me verteld dat bij MQA signalen de Bluesound (en andere streamers) maximaal 96 kHz uit bieden op de digitale uitgangen terwijl de interne DAC niet beperkt wordt.
Hans, in this video you describe the Nyquist theorem as “a theorem nonetheless.” Given the a priori nature of theorems, it’s unfair to suggest that difficulty implementing a theorem says anything about the soundness of the theorem itself. Regardless, digital files with sample rates above approximately 44.1kHz are simply wasted space / bandwidth. The benefits of higher sample rates are only seen during analog to digital conversion and vice versa, where digital aliasing filters are easier to implement with additional spectral padding above the Nyquist frequency. Once filtered, however, the extra samples above the Nyquist frequency can simply be discarded! As far as 24 bit is concerned, even state of the art reel-to-reel masters from the 60's and 70's are limited to about 70db of dynamic range, or 12 bits in digital terms. Taking that information and up-sampling it to 24/192kHz isn't adding any fidelity.
I have never intended to say that the theorem was invalid. See ruclips.net/video/geaoEt-9V-w/видео.html. As far as hires is concerned, The fact that you don't hear a difference doesn't mean there isn't. There are now sufficient scientific publications that confirm this. And, don't forget: the dynamic range - i.e. the bit depth - also determines the distortion level.
It's actually almost impossible to not hear it if you aren't listening to something wretched on something wretched.
I think you missed my points. First, many people don't regard the work of Shannon and Nyquist as theorems but as reality. Well, they are a reality as theorems but are impossible to implement faultlessly. Second, the influence of the time smearing caused by the anti-aliasing and reconstruction filters is only recently recognised as being clearly audible. Third, comparing analogue and digital the way you do might be just incorrect. Analogue tape might have only 70 dB' dynamic range but it has no rock solid ceiling while digital has. Furthermore in digital the S/N equals the distortion. In favour of digital is that once digital, the signal can be transported and stored without loss when done properly while with analogue there always will be degradation.Given a proper stereo, the difference between a good 44.1 kHz and 192 kHz recording is obvious.
a theorem is always used even if it proven
Hello Hans.
Great video.
I still have a few questions which you might (hopefully) be able to answer.
Not all digitally recorded music was recorded in 24 bit 192 Audio. Most of the first digital recordings were done as 16/44.1 or 16/48 back in the 80's and most of the 90's. As time went on some switched to 24/48, 24/96, and some as 24/192. Obviously, previous to digital, they were recording to analog tape and even today, they still use analog tape for many recordings.
Here's my questions.
1. Can they gain any improvement with MQA for any of these recordings that aren't original recorded using 24/192?
2. What's the encoding process? Is it a simple process that can be done in large batches or is it more time consuming that has to be done more carefully to ensure it's done properly?
3. I know that Warner Music has agreed to move their content to MQA, but how long is that going to take? They have quite a lot of albums to encode.
4. What happens if they can't get the other major record labels to adopt MQA? There's Sony and BMG and some others.
How long do they estimate that it's going to take to convert the tens of millions of tracks that these streaming sites like Tidal, Spotify, Apple Music, Deezer, etc. have in their respective catalogs, but can we actually expect that when one of these offers MQA that they will actually have a large catalog of content using MQA and will they be able to use the older low bit/sample recordings?
Thanks in advance and take your time in answering if you need to contact others for the answers.
Q1: they claim they can and I am under the impression they're right
Q2-4: I really don't know
Care to explain how it is possible to record below -144dB with 24 bits? Thanks.
It's a Nyquist graph, not an amp vs level graph.
@@TheHansBeekhuyzenChannel Thank you, but I do not know what is a "Nyquist graph", and "Nyquist plot" feels kinda unrelated. Given that half of your video explains basic concepts that everybody knows, I am hoping that you could explain in an easier to understand way. Your graph whatever the name, still shows "spectral level" in dB vs. frequency, and I have not seen any proof or even suggestion that one could encode anything with spectral level lower than -144dB with 24 bits. If it is somehow possible, would be interesting to know.
Also, I have heard Mr. Bob Stuart saying that "temporal smear" is somehow corrected in the MQA file even without "unfolding" and I do not understand how is it possible, or why a simple CD could not be "corrected" same way without that unfolded information present.
Thanks.
Would a mqa file sound the same with the same headphones but different MQA hardware?
I have no HP experience but I wouldn’t be surprised if it does.
Love it.
too bad there was no side by side with CD quality. that would have been the true test
+Bill Westfall Well, I did describe the difference between HTDtracks and MQA versions of the Köln Cooncert by Keith Jarret.
Thanks for giving way more info than the official MQA vids, which contain not much more than marketing and jargon. As a long-time user of hi-res audio (24-bit PCM and DSD) I failed to see what MQA offered, but you clarified nicely. Much more efficient compression, especially good for streaming. No good to me at the moment (I don't use streaming services) but very interesting!
+Dave Cochrane Coming weeks I'll publish the first real time reviews of MQA DAC's and they might prove you wrong. So keep track of me:-)
Excellent
🙏
A couple years on I've had a chance to listen to a number of MQA files and compare them with regular PCM FLAC. Although MQA does something pleasant to the sound, I did find it slightly lossy and prefer FLAC better. Of course, the merits for streaming audio are very good, but for someone like me who buys and downloads all his music, I prefer the sound of regular PCM, and above that DSD.
Also, I've found that even 352khz MQA does not have perfect time resolution, especially compared to DSD which sounds close to perfect.
This is absolute oposite to my experiences - and I do have DACs that do MQA and listen to them daily.
Hi Hans. Perhaps one's experience is relative to the system you are using. My evaluation has been using the Mytek Manhattan II DAC. I used various pieces of classical music from 2L records, but my main comparison was a 2006 Mozart Violin Concerto album in the original DXD FLAC, a 2016 version that was re-mixed and re-processed with MQA filtering but encoded as FLAC, and actual MQA encoded files of the same album. I found that the MQA Remix sounded better than the original recording, but also clearer and more precise than the .mqa.flac file. My conclusion is that MQA processing is beneficial, but the MQA encoding makes details a little bit fuzzy. I've recognized the same qualitative characteristics on other MQA encoded recordings, which sounded relatively fast, light, and euphonic, but also slightly dark and less resolving.
Hallo Hans, Eindelijk een goede uitleg waarom 24/192KHz toch zinvol kan zijn. Volgens mij moet daar wel een goede opname tegenover staan om het te horen. Ik heb deze week een open source tool ontdekt, SPEK (spek.cc) om het audio spectrum zichtbaar te maken in diverse audioformaten en vroeg me of dit ook MQA informatie laat zien. Het is geschikt voor Linux, Mac en Windows.
+Johan van Rietveld Als je er een MQA file mee opent, dan zal Spec alleen de 44.1 kHz 16 bit content laten zien. Om de hogere kwaliteit in de file te zien moet het eerst door een MQA decoder.
+The Hans Beekhuyzen Channel Dit antwoord lijkt me iets te kort door de bocht. Ik meen te begrijpen dat sprake is van decoding van het MQA signaal middels software of firmware update van bv een netwerkstreamer om vervolgens op DAC niveau een bewerking te ondergaan middels een aantal microprocessors om de Redbook informatie in volle omvang geschikt te maken voor DA Conversie. De SABRE DAC in de Mytek Brooklyn is toch technisch niet gewijzigd voor MQA?
+Pim Van Loenen De decoder is - in ieder geval voorlopig - gekoppeld aan de DAC. Het MQA signaal wordt dus in de DAC - of in het apparaat waar de d/a-conversie plaatsvindt zoals de Bluesound spelers - gedecodeerd, voorzien van een correctie om fouten in de d/a-conversie te compenseren en dan naar de DAC gestuurd. Overigens is de Sabre DAC op vele manieren te gebruiken, je kunt er zelfs de hele filtering zelf voor schrijven, zoals bij de Mytek Brooklyn (ruclips.net/video/kfJYHhONdSI/видео.html). Theoretisch zou een speler de decoding kunnen doen maar dan kan die of de compensatie voor tijdsversmoring in de DAC niet meenemen of er moet voor elke DAC een bestand komen met daarin de fingerprint. Maar hoe zorg je er dan voor dat die info van de DAC in de decoder komt? Handmatig is geen goede oplossing want dat gaat in de consumentenwereld altijd fout. Ik weet dat op het web dit antwoord niet populair is en dat iedereen 'slimmer' wil zijn, maar leg je er maar bij neer: als je MQA wilt spelen, dan moet je of een MQA compatibele DAC of een MQA compatibele netwerkspeler kopen.
+The Hans Beekhuyzen Channel Oké Hans, glas helder. Maar dan heb ik als consument wel de vraag hoe ik straks aan MQA content kom. Ik ben geen liefhebber van downloads zoals HD-tracks. Mijn CD's en SACD's staan op zolder. Ooki heb ik geen NAS, veel te bewerkelijk. Wel ben ik groot liefhebber van TIDAL (en nu ook nog van Qobuz). Wat heb ik nu precies nodig om straks MQA muziek van TIDAL naar een MQA-DAC te streamen. Gaat dat goed komen met merken als Auralic en Aurender via een firmware update? Momenteel werk ik met de Auralic Aries streaming bridge, prima geluid maar de App kan nog wel iets gebruiksvriendelijker ;) Of moet ik uitwijken naar een PC? Kortom hoe krijg ik het bron materiaal binnen? Tijd voor een nieuw filmpje ;)?? Ik hoor graag van je!
+Pim Van Loenen Dat komt idd allemaal aan bod in een nieuwe video. Maar om je gerust te stellen: als je nu een MQA DAC aansluit op de Auralic Aries en je download MQA audiobestanden van bijvoorbeeld 2L.no (daar staan gratis bestanden in allerhande resoluties), dan spelen die bestanden nu al perfect MQA gedecodeerd af zonder update voor de Aries. Dat geldt voor elke streamer en computer die je digitaal aansluit op een MQA DAC en die bit perfect werkt (dus geen oversampling, volumeregeling oid.) Dus uit de Tidal app direct via USB bit perfect de MQA DAC in, zodra Tidal start met MQA (en dat kan niet lang meer duren). Overigens, als je niet helemaal tevreden bent over Lightning, kijk dan eens bij Roon (ruclips.net/p/PLMbsmejHnP8G1SNPFesNWKEXI9eHamMx1). Sinds enige tijd kan de Aries als endpoint voor Roon dienen. Bij de link staat ook een link naar een code voor 2 maanden gratis proberen.
So... incredibly.... complex.
You don't need to understand the tech to enjoy the music.😅
@@TheHansBeekhuyzenChannel Yes, enjoying it is what matters most =o) ...however, all investments / (for me MQA is a) paradigm shift must be justified, one way for justification is knowing what you are getting into. While VolksWagen / Audi where touting excellently low emissions from their diesel engines, in practicality it was just a very selective trick.
This is the reasons for why I do not blindly accept just the word from the manufacturers. Several independent testers experience are invalueable as they have more equipment, unique experience, vastly more knowledge etc.
Since MQA group has written that MQA is only (mostly?) for "natural sounds" (or was it normal music?) it puts me in the "press x to doubt" category since alot of my listening material is really screwy electronic music.