The Next Once-in-a-Generation Breakthrough in Audio: MQA

[MachineGhost]

Warner Music just licensed the MQA technology for the long-term, so the game is now on.  Get the full details about MQA here: An Inside Look at Meridian’s Master Quality Authenticated (MQA)

[img width=800]http://i.imgur.com/G4OTLs0.png[/img]

[Pointedstick]

What's wrong with current audio technology? Serious question, I have no idea.

[dragoncar]

What's wrong with current audio technology? Serious question, I have no idea.

Temporal blur causes earbleeds

[MachineGhost]

What's wrong with current audio technology? Serious question, I have no idea.

Well, the temporal blur seems to be the major problem.  The brain is exquisitely tuned to temporal distortions.  It is a cumulative negative effect so any digital filter used along the chain from microphone to loudspeaker adds to it.  This results in locational difficulties of instruments and sounds.  I guess you could say the "stage presence" of current digital music is flat when playbacking compared to live music.

So basically what MQA has come up with is eliminating and/or reducing the temporal blur while also using an infinite sampling rate to preserve all of the high frequency harmonics that also helps in localizing sounds, and done it in a way that is completely compatible with existing technology.  Better yet, its not lossless at all so it doesn't throw away any critical data based on cockamamie theories about how the brain/ear supposedly hears, but is 4x smaller than losssy formats because it doesn't use a fixed sampling rate for data that doesn't require it and also encodes and hides the data from two higher frequency spectrums below the noise floor in the normal frequency spectrum (i.e. CD player compatible spectrum).  It's ingenious!

[Pointedstick]

What's temporal blur?

Honestly, music from my computer sounds fine to me. Is this one of those things where most people don't notice it, but those who do are being driven slowly mad?

[MachineGhost]

What's temporal blur?

Honestly, music from my computer sounds fine to me. Is this one of those things where most people don't notice it, but those who do are being driven slowly mad?

Isn't this like trying to explain to a fish what water is?

If you had a VHS video tape and then saw Beta video tape, you would immediately perceive that Beta was a better experience.  Then you saw a LaserDisc and it was an even better experience!  Then you saw a DVD and it was even better better!!  Then a Bluray!!! Then an Ultra Bluray!!!!  But its hard to be cognizant of what you're missing out on at any given time until you first experience a new level of sensation.





So I guess the simplest way here is to compare the exact same recorded music to meatspace music (or MQA).  Then after hearing the latter, you will have the right frame of reference to perceive how annoyingly unnatural and inferior the former really was and then becomes thereafter.  You then can't go back.

Here's some test music files where you can compare a "master" to various encoding formats: http://www.2l.no/hires/
Do keep in mind if you have a poor quality DAC and/or speaker, you may not be able to hear any differences.

BTW, so far from the spares few reviews I've read, MQA is falling flat compared to higher resolution PCM.  Oops.  But it seems like the problem may be that Meridian's current DAC can't unfold the MQA back all the way to the native sampling rate of the master and is capped at 192KHz.  Idiotic.

[Pointedstick]

What's temporal blur?

Honestly, music from my computer sounds fine to me. Is this one of those things where most people don't notice it, but those who do are being driven slowly mad?

Isn't this like trying to explain to a fish what water is?

If you had a VHS video tape and then saw Beta video tape, you would immediately perceive that Beta was a better experience.  Then you saw a LaserDisc and it was an even better experience!  Then you saw a DVD and it was even better better!!  Then a Bluray!!! Then an Ultra Bluray!!!!

Actually, I mostly stopped noticing the difference after DVDs. I could sort of academically see more sharpness with Blu-Ray but I actually kind of prefer DVD-level visual quality. I occasionally see stuff on 4K screens and I really can't tell the difference at all.

I honestly think that at a certain point, pursuing ever more fidelity is an exercise in futility, not to mention diminishing returns. To watch Blu-Ray-quality video on my computer would require exponentially more resources than the DVD-quality stuff I get from Netflix and ripped DVDs and only be like 2% better. I barely even notice the difference.

The biggest difference I've ever actually managed to perceive for digital audio was in the conversion to 432hz. Definitely sounded better, but it didn't seem worth the effort to convert everything I have.

[MachineGhost]

I honestly think that at a certain point, pursuing ever more fidelity is an exercise in futility, not to mention diminishing returns. To watch Blu-Ray-quality video on my computer would require exponentially more resources than the DVD-quality stuff I get from Netflix and ripped DVDs and only be like 2% better. I barely even notice the difference.

The biggest difference I've ever actually managed to perceive for digital audio was in the conversion to 432hz. Definitely sounded better, but it didn't seem worth the effort to convert everything I have.

You'll love MQA then since its an infinite frequency (like analog) without the size and effort.  In video terms, I'd say MQA is more equivalent to High Dynamic Range and Deep Color rather than just 4K which seems pretty ho hum (i.e. how critical is it that we really need to see the acne or individual pores on actor's faces???).  It's about enhancing the overall experience to be more natural than just upping the sharpness.

I definitely notice the difference between CD and streaming even at the alleged transparency rate with AAC.  CD's sound fuller and less artificial.  MQA should make that even better!  And thinking ahead, MQA + Dolby Atmos would be the ultimate experience for movies and VR: http://www.dolby.com/us/en/brands/dolby-atmos.html

[Cortopassi]

Pun intended:  I think this is all going to fall on deaf ears.

If it is more efficient file-size wise and improves quality, then certainly it may eventually take over.

But from a quality point of view, the biggest buyers of music, which I assume range in age from teenagers to 40s aren't going to care or hear the difference through their earbuds.

Who even owns a stereo system anymore with a quality amp and cares about THD and S/N ratios and such?  I used to look at all those specs 25 years ago when buying huge ass stereos and speakers.  I see no interest or care of quality level in the current generation.

I position this article as proof:

http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2015/07 ... -an-idiot/

People are more concerned about other people seeing that "b" on the side of their head than the music sounding good!