(2023) $80 MQA Decoder

[4-earredwonder]

How is it lossy? I'm talking of the baseband of the CD. Unfolded it is just a regular CD. It would not be compatible if it wasn't. I would have to read more about it (so don't quote me) but from the article that I linked to it sounded like even the high frequency (encoded) portions are lossless. If not it is a very close approximation. The encoded parts show up as low level noise, that does not make the CD lossy, even if the unfolded version is.

So you don't listen to Dolby Digital or DTS? Both are lossy. I remember you arguing with me when I criticized the sound of MP3!

par4ken, you are quite correct in assuming that if the unencoded/unfolded MQA CD was lossy it would not conform to the RBCD standard and would NOT play in a standard CD player!

And when you play the MQA CD in an OPPO 205 which has MQA decoding, the TV monitor clearly shows 24 bit with varying higher upsampling rates.

 

[kfbkfb]

As for de-blurring, if that means anything real then it can be done on a lossless stream. Why improve the sound with de-blurring (whatever that means)

IIRC (I can't find the info at the moment), the deblurring can be set to correct for the few professional ADCs used in the early 1980s (the analog brickwall anti-aliasing filters caused the blur [phase shift]), apparently, the digitized copies had notes about which pro ADC was used, so the MQA deblurring can be set to to fully correct for the blur.


Kirk Bayne

 

[JediJoker]

How is it lossy? I'm talking of the baseband of the CD. Unfolded it is just a regular CD. It would not be compatible if it wasn't. I would have to read more about it (so don't quote me) but from the article that I linked to it sounded like even the high frequency (encoded) portions are lossless. If not it is a very close approximation. The encoded parts show up as low level noise, that does not make the CD lossy, even if the unfolded version is.

You just answered your own question. That added noise means reduced fidelity. It's not "lossy" in the same way that MP3 or DTS are, in that information is not thrown away, but the existing data are degraded—distorted—by added noise. There's also the matter of the black box "de-blurring," which would also be a form of distortion.

 

[barfle]

You MQA haters make me want to tear my hair out! All of you are condemning a system without hearing it first. Your rhetoric is purely based on "religious beliefs". You remind me of the surround haters who think that music must be presented over only two speakers!

The CD's are worth it whether they sound good simply due to better mastering or if the sound is improved due to the so called "de-blurring" process. I hope to find that out for myself. I will not be unfolding them as I have no means of doing so. If the CD's sound bad to me I will let you all know.

I might be starting a new controversy but I maintain that high resolution audio is a big step up from regular CD audio. Obviously you can't hear frequencies that high but it would allow for better phase accuracy in the high end. That might account for the sound improvement. On that same or related note SACD's converted to PCM lose something in the translation unless care is taken with the noise filtering.

MQA's attack is therefore twofold. Add back in the missing high end and adjust for phase anomalies that otherwise tend to cause "digital" harshness or blurring. That seems like a reasonable proposition, hardly "snake oil". Does it live up to it's claims, again I don't know but many here seem to think so.

It sounds like MQA was developed largely for streaming but as already been mentioned with high speed internet that point is rather moot.

I don’t think I’m a hater, I just think it’s a day late and a dollar short of being a major breakthrough. I’ve heard a few “unfolded” downloads and they sound lovely. But there isn’t much material there to warrant the hardware purchase, at least to me.

Dr. Mark Waldrep (Dr. AIX) dedicated an entire chapter in his book to dissing MQA. I thought that was excessive.

 

[par4ken]

You just answered your own question. That added noise means reduced fidelity. It's not "lossy" in the same way that MP3 or DTS are, in that information is not thrown away, but the existing data are degraded—distorted—by added noise. There's also the matter of the black box "de-blurring," which would also be a form of distortion.

The added noise would be inaudible. The article says that the random noise that is present is replaced by the encoded non random noise.
Adding noise does not make it lossy anymore than adding dither does.

Fair to argue that non random noise might sound worse, if you could hear it under normal listening conditions.

De-blurring might be better described as pre-distortion. The technique was used in the tube days with the driver tubes distortion closely matched to that of the output tube the distortion would cancel itself out. If it is added to correct the ADC that was originally used then no problem at all, the distortion cancels out. If it is more generically applied to correct both ADC and DAC it might conceivably sound worse on some equipment.

 

[Owen Smith]

The encoded parts show up as low level noise, that does not make the CD lossy, even if the unfolded version is.

It makes the CD slightly lossy.

So you don't listen to Dolby Digital or DTS? Both are lossy.

I listen to them when I have to ie when nothing else is available to me.

I remember you arguing with me when I criticized the sound of MP3!

I remember. MP3 can sound OK and it can sound poor. Again I listen to it when no better option is available to me.

My complaint with MQA CDs is they could have put out a normal CD with the excellent mastering on, but they have actively chosen to use MQA snake oil and degrade the baseband CD audio.

 

[Owen Smith]

IIRC (I can't find the info at the moment), the deblurring can be set to correct for the few professional ADCs used in the early 1980s (the analog brickwall anti-aliasing filters caused the blur [phase shift]), apparently, the digitized copies had notes about which pro ADC was used, so the MQA deblurring can be set to to fully correct for the blur.

That makes sense, thank you. But it does not match what MQA said about de-blurring, they talk about timing differences due to microphone placements and things like that. This is my biggest beef about MQA, they don't describe accurately and clearly what the different parts of it do. Some of it might have merit, the excellent mastering certainly does and corrections for decades old ADCs might, but they bury it all in a morass of techno babble and actively obfuscate things.

 

[cbmmm3]

It makes the CD slightly lossy.

I listen to them when I have to ie when nothing else is available to me.

I remember. MP3 can sound OK and it can sound poor. Again I listen to it when no better option is available to me.

My complaint with MQA CDs is they could have put out a normal CD with the excellent mastering on, but they have actively chosen to use MQA snake oil and degrade the baseband CD audio.

dedicated to Those Who Doubt -

 

[Owen Smith]

dedicated to Those Who Doubt -

Oh I'm sure many MQA CDs sound fine. But could they sound better without the added MQA noise and distortion? We'll likely never know because any other issue of the music will likely be different mastering.

 

[par4ken]

It makes the CD slightly lossy.

No! That is not what we refer to as lossy. Even a hi-res recording down sampled is not considered "lossy". Yes that may just be just "semantics" and I do understand what you are saying.

I listen to them when I have to ie when nothing else is available to me.

Me too.

Oh I'm sure many MQA CDs sound fine.

So why all the fuss about it? I would not purchase an MQA CD in preference to a high resolution (Blu-ray, SACD) version. It is my hope however that these CD's are not brick walled like most regular CD's are. Why not focus your hatred on an industry that keeps releasing a (defective) compressed (or to use your term "lossy") product. At least MQA are/were striving for better sound quality.

 

[Owen Smith]

So why all the fuss about it?

Because they could sound better if this deliberately added distortion (as you call it if you don't like lossy) was not added. It's unecessary.

At least MQA are/were striving for better sound quality.

Actually I believe the primary driver was to create a scheme for earning royalties, both from the music industry encoding titles and from the hifi industry making playback equipment. If they were mainly interested in better sound quality they would have licenced software players to do the unfolding rather than restricting it to hardware playback devices.

 

[jaap74]

In defiance of MQA I institute my own 'blurring' process when I listen to music, which usually involves beer and Jack Daniels

 

[4-earredwonder]

dedicated to Those Who Doubt -

Oh I'm sure many MQA CDs sound fine. But could they sound better without the added MQA noise and distortion? We'll likely never know because any other issue of the music will likely be different mastering.

Owen, a wood of advice: When cbmmm3, the UNDISPUTED MQA KING speaks .... LISTEN!

Rick has over 300 MQA encoded CDs and a Luxman MQA enabled disc spinner costing US 3500 clams and very fine separate components!

 

[barfle]

In defiance of MQA I institute my own 'blurring' process when I listen to music, which usually involves beer and Jack Daniels

I've always felt that a glass of Chivas Regal made my system sound better. The second glass improved it even more. I'm unclear as to what the third glass does.

 

[4-earredwonder]

I've always felt that a glass of Chivas Regal made my system sound better. The second glass improved it even more. I'm unclear as to what the third glass does.

OMG, barfle, one Expresso martini with a shot of baileys knocks me on my !

 

[par4ken]

I received my first MQA CD the other day. Grand Funk Railroad "Mark, Don & Mel 1969-71", it arrived at the same time as my new digital car amplifier. I will post more about that in another thread. As I have said before my interest in these CDs is how they sound not unfolded. I do not currently have anyway to unfold them. My thoughts are that as an audiophile format it is unlikely that any of these release will be brickwalled. So far so good! This MQA CD shows a DR value of 12, while my vinyl rip shows DR11!

While given the choice I would rather choose SACD or Blu-ray but not every title is available in either of those formats. My purchase of regular CDs has dropped to a trickle over the last several years, I've been burned too many times by all the remastered brickwalled crap! One exception is Cherry Red, I have never received a brickwalled CD from them!

IMHO criticism of the format degrading CD performance is unfounded. Depth of MQA answers a few questions. As for how they sound unfolded I am open minded but have no firm opinion as I have not yet heard it.

I ripped the two discs and burned them to a single disc to play in the truck and it sounds fantastic. Using the Rocktron Circle Surround Car decoder the surround is amazing, very discrete sounding. Vocals and drums are upfront with guitars in the rear. The lack of compression really comes through. I don't understand those who want compressed audio in their vehicles!

 

[marpow]

I have a large assortment of MQA CD's. I do not know how to debate on this subject. So I can only offer this one statement or you come over to my house for listen.
My player is the Luxman D-03X,>McIntosh C1100 stereo preamp>McIntosh MC452 Stereo Amp>two B&W fronts.
I listen to lots of stereo, discs of various varieties, and downloads of various varieties. Probably half and half of lossy and lossless stereo.
Fact: There is no guarantee that any of these numerous varieties are the clear winner in sound.
Fact: MQA discs, albeit not a clear winner in sound, for the most part sound dang good. Why? The titles are original, they are not advertised as remastered or remixed. They are taken from original masters likely in the same year the MQA is released.
Fact: They (MQA's) are good sounding lossy CD's even when not played through a MQA decoder.
Fact: This is a sore subject for many. Some have drank the Kool-Aid and some won't even try. They argue that your paying for a bullshit scheme that others make money off, in my case the discs and the Luxman. Placebo, dammit, of course they sound better, they are MQA and I spent all this extra money, it can't be bullshit. If you are taking a CBD product and you think it makes your knee feel better, keep taking it right? Regardless of what anyone says otherwise.
Fact: They are stereo, many QQ members won't even consider listening to stereo let alone MQA stereo.
Fact: Many MQA CD's are the same titles as SHM SACD's. If that is the case I do not buy the new MQA if I have the old SHM SACD, I do not believe the new MQA will outshine the old SHM SACD.
Fact: I have many stereo CD's 16bit/44.1Khz, of my favorite bands, remastered/remixed with added live tracks, sounds like crap, I have went back in time and purchased the original CD's and they sound exceptionally better, and they are both considered lossy.

To summarize based on my personal experience. I never ever have felt I made the wrong decision in cost of player and cost of Stereo MQA discs. I love listening to the titles as I pick music I am familiar with and they do sound exceptionally good in there lossy format.
Just this week I received 4 new MQA titles, Van Halen's last 4 albums with Sammy Hagar, completely blows away in sound any previous versions I have, 1986,1988,1991,1995 CD's and 2023 Remasters from HDTracks.

My advice, if you think the MQA scenario is bullshit, than never try it, and throw this whole fuckin' thread in the garbage can.

 

[JediJoker]

Fact: I have many stereo CD's 16bit/44.1Khz, of my favorite bands, remastered/remixed with added live tracks, sounds like crap, I have went back in time and purchased the original CD's and they sound exceptionally better, and they are both considered lossy.

No. Standard Redbook CDs are not lossy in any way, unless struck from a lossy source (like MP3; it has happened, especially in bootlegs).