Interact Forum: Home Download Purchase Company

home download purchase support company
INTERACT FORUM
Welcome, Guest November 24, 2020, 01:58:41 pm
Please login or register.

Forever Login
Login with username, password and session length
Search
HOME HELP SEARCH CALENDAR LOGIN REGISTER
INTERACT FORUM > More > Old Versions > JRiver Media Center 23 for Windows > MQA
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down PRINT
Author Topic: MQA (Read 9249 times)
PeterV61 MQA
Member « on: November 20, 2017, 04:48:29 am »
Posts: 1
I hope JRiver will adopt MQA, otherwise I will need to look for other software
Logged
Awesome Donkey Re: MQA

Administrator « Reply #1 on: November 20, 2017, 05:11:05
Citizen of the Universe am »
Quote from: PeterV61 on November 20, 2017, 04:48:29 am

Posts: 5747
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
Autumn shade...
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 10 Pro October 2020 Update (20H2) 64-bit | macOS Big Sur 11.0.1 | Arch Linux (GNOME) 64-bit |
Raspberry Pi OS 10 Buster 64-bit (Raspberry Pi 4 Model B 4GB)
Topping D50s USB DAC | Edifier R2000DB Bookshelf Speakers
JRiver Media Center 27 (Windows/Mac/Linux)
JimH Re: MQA

Posts: 63441 We have no plans to do MQA.
Logged
JRiver
Getting Started Up and Running FAQ Weird problems License Info Wiki S
where the buffalo roam
kr4 Re: MQA

MC Beta Team « Reply #3 on: November 20, 2017, 07:02:50
Quote from: JimH on November 20, 2017, 06:43:14 am
Posts: 518 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

Quote from: kr4 on November 20, 2017, 07:02:50 am

Posts: 5747
If I recall, it requires volume to be set at 100% and no DSP is used, correct?
Logged
pharmaceuticals.
Autumn shade...
kr4 Re: MQA

Posts: 518 Quote from: Awesome Donkey on November 20, 2017, 07:28:45 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 Re: MQA

Galactic Citizen « Reply #6 on: November 22, 2017, 01:55:24
pm »
Posts: 420
There is mp3, no need for MQA
Logged

Citizen of the Universe pm »
Quote from: michael123 on November 22, 2017, 01:55:24 pm

Posts: 5747
There is APE, no need for MQA
Fixed that for you.
Logged
pharmaceuticals.
Autumn shade...
JezQ Re: MQA

Member « Reply #8 on: November 24, 2017, 02:48:20
am »
Posts: 4
I hope JRiver will never adopt MQA, otherwise I will need to look for other software
Logged
pschelbert Re: MQA

am »
Posts: 419
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 Re: MQA

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

Posts: 4753 Quote from: kr4 on November 20, 2017, 08:24:50 am

Yes. Bit-perfect, if you will.
Don't forget to set either JRiver or "no" dithering also, and not TPDF.
Logged
fitbrit Re: MQA

Posts: 4753 Quote from: kr4 on November 20, 2017, 07:02:50 am

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 Re: MQA

Citizen of the Universe « Reply #13 on: November 28, 2017, 01:41:04
am »
Posts: 1869
Quote from: fitbrit on November 27, 2017, 05:35:38 pm
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 Re: MQA

Junior Woodchuck « Reply #14 on: November 28, 2017, 04:35:25
am »
Posts: 52
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

Posts: 5747 Quote from: amdismal on November 28, 2017, 04:35:25 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
Autumn shade...
pharmaceuticals.
amdismal Re: MQA

Junior Woodchuck « Reply #16 on: November 28, 2017, 04:47:11
am »
Posts: 52
Quote from: Awesome Donkey on November 28, 2017, 04:39:38 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 Re: MQA

Quote from: RD James on November 28, 2017, 01:41:04 am

Posts: 8666
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 Re: MQA

pm »
Posts: 1869
Quote from: Hendrik on November 28, 2017, 03:01:24 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 Re: MQA

Posts: 4753 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 Re: MQA


Posts: 63441
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
JRiver
tyler69 Re: MQA

am »
Posts: 946
Most people can't distinguish reliably much beyond 128K MP3.
That is a bold statement. Can you provide any (scientific) backup?
Logged
JimH Re: MQA

Posts: 63441 Try the Listening Test and report your results there.
Logged
JRiver
Hendrik tmp
Quote from: RD James on November 28, 2017, 09:26:29 pm

Posts: 8666
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
Hendrik Re: MQA


Posts: 8666
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
flac.rules Re: MQA

Regular Member « Reply #25 on: November 29, 2017, 07:16:14
Posts: 1200 Quote from: tyler69 on November 29, 2017, 02:29:55 am

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 Re: MQA

am »
Posts: 419
Quote from: tyler69 on November 29, 2017, 02:29:55 am
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 Re: MQA

pm »
Posts: 1869
Quote from: Hendrik on November 29, 2017, 03:52:14 am
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 Re: MQA

Stream « Reply #28 on: November 29, 2017, 03:32:37
Galactic Citizen pm »
Posts: 313 Quote from: RD James on November 29, 2017, 12:47:19 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.....
Logged
pschelbert Re: MQA

pm »
Posts: 419
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 Re: MQA

World Citizen « Reply #30 on: November 30, 2017, 01:20:10
pm »
Posts: 149
Quote from: tyler69 on November 29, 2017, 02:29:55 am
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 Re: MQA

Posts: 2216 Quote from: thorsten on November 30, 2017, 01:20:10 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
MC27, Win10 x64, HD-Plex H5 Gen2 Case, HD-Plex 400W Hi-Fi DC-ATX / AC-DC PSU, Gigabyte Gigabyte
Z370 ULTRA Gaming 2.0 MoBo, Intel Core i7 8700 CPU, 4x8GB GSkill DDR4 RAM, Schiit Modi Multibit DAC,
Freya Pre, Nelson Pass ACA v1.6 monoblocks, Ascension Timberwolf 8893BSRTL Speakers, BJC 5T00UP
cables, DVB-T Tuner HDHR3-DT, MC21 Linux Build running Ubuntu 17.10 x64
michael123 Re: MQA

Galactic Citizen « Reply #32 on: December 01, 2017, 08:38:45
am »
Posts: 420
Quote from: Awesome Donkey on November 22, 2017, 02:59:22 pm
Fixed that for you.
Ape is lossless
Mp3 is lossy as MQA is lossy
Logged
fitbrit Re: MQA

MC Beta Team « Reply #33 on: December 04, 2017, 10:16:14
Posts: 4753 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 Re: MQA

MC Beta Team « Reply #34 on: December 04, 2017, 11:13:38
Posts: 8133 Quote from: fitbrit on December 04, 2017, 10:16:14 pm

I do like the results personally.
Probably because of this:

Quote from: Hendrik on November 29, 2017, 03:52:14 am
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 Re: MQA

Administrator « Reply #35 on: December 05, 2017, 01:12:33
Quote from: fitbrit on December 04, 2017, 10:16:14 pm

Posts: 63441
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
JRiver
JimH Re: MQA

Posts: 63441 Split Listening Test is Unfit
Logged
JRiver
pschelbert Re: MQA

Galactic Citizen « Reply #37 on: December 05, 2017, 08:53:07
am »
Posts: 419
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 Re: MQA

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

Posts: 63441 Closing this now.
Logged
JRiver
Pages: [1] Go Up PRINT
« previous next »
INTERACT FORUM > More > Old Versions > JRiver Media Center 23 for Windows > MQA
Jump to: ===> JRiver Media Center 23 for Windows go
SMF 2.0.17 | SMF © 2019, Simple Machines

| © , p
XHTML RSS WAP2
About Media Center: Forum | Getting Started | Purchase

Support: Forum | Wiki | Developer | Licensing | Privacy Policy | Links
Corporate Solutions: Overview | Customers | Company
Other Products: ICE | Media Center Remote
Copyright © 2010-2020 JRiver, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Interact Forum: Home Download Purchase Company

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Interact Forum: Home Download Purchase Company

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

home download purchase support company

Please login or register.

HOME HELP SEARCH CALENDAR LOGIN REGISTER

Author Topic: MQA (Read 9249 times)

Awesome Donkey Re: MQA

Quote from: PeterV61 on November 20, 2017, 04:48:29 am

JimH Re: MQA

Posts: 63441 We have no plans to do MQA.

where the buffalo roam

kr4 Re: MQA

No need. JRiver passes MQA through to an MQA-capable DAC.

Awesome Donkey Re: MQA

Quote from: kr4 on November 20, 2017, 07:02:50 am

If I recall, it requires volume to be set at 100% and no DSP is used, correct?

kr4 Re: MQA

Yes. Bit-perfect, if you will.

michael123 Re: MQA

Awesome Donkey Re: MQA

Quote from: michael123 on November 22, 2017, 01:55:24 pm

Fixed that for you.

JezQ Re: MQA

pschelbert Re: MQA

See here form the experts: http://www.linkwitzlab.com/links.htm#Putzeys

Catskinner Re: MQA

fitbrit Re: MQA

Posts: 4753 Quote from: kr4 on November 20, 2017, 08:24:50 am

fitbrit Re: MQA

Posts: 4753 Quote from: kr4 on November 20, 2017, 07:02:50 am

RD James Re: MQA

amdismal Re: MQA

Awesome Donkey Re: MQA

Posts: 5747 Quote from: amdismal on November 28, 2017, 04:35:25 am

amdismal Re: MQA

Hendrik Re: MQA

Quote from: RD James on November 28, 2017, 01:41:04 am

RD James Re: MQA

fitbrit Re: MQA

JimH Re: MQA

Quote from: fitbrit on November 28, 2017, 10:40:26 pm

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

tyler69 Re: MQA

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

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

JimH Re: MQA

where the buffalo roam

Quote from: RD James on November 28, 2017, 09:26:29 pm

Hendrik Re: MQA

Quote from: fitbrit on November 28, 2017, 10:40:26 pm

flac.rules Re: MQA

Posts: 1200 Quote from: tyler69 on November 29, 2017, 02:29:55 am

pschelbert Re: MQA

I did the test with foobar ABX tester.

MQA: it degrades sound-quality, test with 2LNo test files.

RD James Re: MQA

robt Re: MQA

Posts: 313 Quote from: RD James on November 29, 2017, 12:47:19 pm

I know someone with a ferret, I'll see if it has a take on this.....

pschelbert Re: MQA

thorsten Re: MQA

astromo Re: MQA

Posts: 2216 Quote from: thorsten on November 30, 2017, 01:20:10 pm

michael123 Re: MQA

fitbrit Re: MQA