What ever !! I am still trying to reduce jitter! To me that is s a first order improvement in hi res sound. Personally all I listen to, in the process of studying Piano Jazz, is Bill Evans , Keith Jarret , Chick Corea and Herbie Hancok, I don't internet Stream I only listen to my ripped files and new down loads,so I am not looking for a Broadcastable " HI RES" solution. I have a DAC capable of MQA but I don't have the time or inclination to buy and stream MQA. Although it sounds convenient for good sound and a variety of music if you want it. IT IS TOO BAD THAT IT IS A RIPPOFF SCAM EVEN IF IT SOUNDS BETTER OVER THE INTERNET.
IT IS CLEAR THAT THE HIFI INDUSTRY IS CAPABLE ON A MASS SCALE TO RIP OFF CONSUMERS;
PROOF... ON THE INTRODUCTION OF CD AUDIO IN THE 80'S THE HYPE WAS THAT THIS IS PERFECT DIGITAL REPRODUCTION. IT SOUNDED LIKE CRAP , AWFULL GLARE HORROR PAIN AND CLEARLY SO. YET SALES PEOPLE CARRIED ON WITH THE HYPE AND EVERY RECORD LABLE PUT OUT AAD REHASHES OF AWFUL SOUND AT $16 PER POP. IT WAS UNBEARBLE TORTURE TO THE EARS. A FORTUNE WAS MADE BY THE RECORD COMPANIES AT THE TIME.
IT IS TRUE THAT 16/44 CAN SOUN G R E A T WHEN YOU REDUCE THE JITTER BUT THE SOUND IN THE 80'S (AAD BAD DACS ETC) WAS A HORROR SHOW ,YET THE INDUSRY AS A WHOLE S O L D I T AND THE MASSES BOUGHT IT!
SO TO THOSE THAT SAY THEY TRUST THE WAVE OF AGREEMENT IN THE INDUSTRY I SAY TRUST YOUR OWN EARS. AS A PERSON THAT WAS GANGED UP ON BULLIED AT AUDO SHOWS BACK , I SAY TRUST YOUR EARS .
MQA souds like a good alternative FOR NOW if you like the sound , I am waiting for bandwith costs to collaps and PCM HI RES broadcasts that are FREE FREE FREE at last.

There needs to be an industry standard or logo representing the production process of hi res files in the market place. Answering the following questions; Is this a remaster of an original analogue recording to 24 bit 96/192? Is this a digital 16/44.1 original recording "remastered " to 24 96 24/193? I cant seem to find this information on HDtracks , if it is there it is not obviouse

Double-blind tests are like tasting wine w/ noseclips on. I more trust perceptions coming from an extended period of 'normal'domestic listening, but only if: the test system into which a new component is inserted is of the (rare) neutral type , the room has been dealt with so it does not dominate, and only very familiar program material is used.Listening experience helps too. This whole idea that there is massive rookery in audio specialty products, especially cables, falls down when you look at the huge numbers of people involved over the decades; as a consumer, if I bought an upgrade accessory and it did not make obvious improvements, I'd return it and get a refund. So all of these enthusiasts are brainless sheep who just love being taken over & over for big bucks? I don't think so.

Overall, it's a nice interview though.

Dear Peter Jasz

Initially I wanted to reply with facts, details and technical arguments. However, I came to the conclusion, that this would most probably not influence your mind, attitude and unpolite style of conversation, thus waste of time.

I wish you all the best and enjoy what you think is the correct way of accurate music reproduction.

Hi Peter: Your points/comments are sensible and honest ! (I do not possess, nor do I wish to, such restraint. lol )

Some people are just daft. That's fair enough. But for some otherwise talented engineers (perhaps taken out of context?) to boo-hoo this most remarkable (in theory) achievement in a forum bereft of his peers is both poorly chosen --and any links to their articles (on such forums) should be repealed upon the author's request.
(But then again, perhaps any "coverage" is better than none, in their eyes. But "What about Me" some, surely must decry, left to languish in obscurity --OK, too dramatic. lol)

I have not had the luxury of evaluating MQA, but the simple theory is not lost on me; namely, extended passband to 40-50 KHz --and inversely proportional sampling rates between 88-96-KHz, (when duped consumers are of the belief that ultra- high fs equates with Hi-Rez), the remarkable discovery (of correctable) ADC studio recorder distortions and the latest research on auditory acuity should all be (as I believe you said), celebrated, not diluted by the washed-out reasoning of fools looking for their (fleeting) moment of distorted recognition --man I gotta cut that out.

In any event, to be heard in a sea of obscurity must surely be reason enough for much of the foolish arguments to surface here; the most offending being: "BUT it's not bit-for-bit accurate --to the original. To what I say "Thank Goodness", the distortions and pressure to offer Hi-Rez (to consumers) without appreciating the difficulties (and sheer inability in too many cases) to deliver that promise, requires a sensible approach for both professional end user alike. This is what I believe MQA ultimately represents.

In defense of MQA, I believe the (16-20-bit, 44.1 KHz) accuracy is bit-perfect, the minimum information extending beyond 22.05 KHz. easily compressible and expandable --ultimately overcoming the wide-held belief that a 22.05 KHz. bandwidth (Red-Book CD) a limiting component to ultimate resolution.

That's it. For now.

peter jasz

Fritz: You're on the "fritz" !

" ... In order to judge MQA’s claim as true or false a deep knowledge of digital audio technology is necessary. Andreas has this expertise."

Mr, Andreas has the expertise and not Bob Stuart (and Co.) ? That's a joke. You're a joke.

You go on to prove it:

" ,,,,Only to rely on listening test, personal taste and expectations can be misleading."

You not only been mislead, but lead-headed.

I've not personally evaluated MQA, but the fact the listener's, professional reviewer's, engineers, studio personnel (around the Globe) are all delighted carries enough weight for me so that I'll enjoy my time with MQA (whether I prefer it or not) when the opportunity presents itself.

To suggest there is no "science" or credibility behind it is delusional --as your comments and the half-baked "blurbs/rants" from those who only wish they had the foresight, skills and industry insight to pull it all together.

You see, the thing about "patent-ability" is that nay-sayers have their chance to refute any claims. That Andrea (and other "hot-shots" ) did not shoot it down (by their technical brilliance) in a forum that challenges everybody tells me their qualifications (as it relates to MQA) are suspect.

Carry on listening to your contentment. MQA won't miss you. Or me --for now !

peter jasz

Peter Veth says:

"But please understand that MQA is Lossy because it gets rid of artefacts
induced by digital filters duing the complete recording chain"

Baloney. It is lossy for the exact same reason MP3 and all other "psycho-acustic" encoding algorithms/techniques are...

Yes I completely agree, I have tried doing ABX testing, with a couple of systems, and I am obviously been biased, I cannot tell the difference in any of the Recent recordings in the Jazz, smooth Jazz, Gendre that have been recorded in 24/96 and above. Most of my playlist is not in MQA, yet. I am only comparing the sound to my long ago ripped collection, which I had stopped listening to. So as mentioned, those audiophiles who still prefer their real Hi Rez downloads, upscaled to larger bit buckets if they are analogue, or true 5.1 recent studio creations, have nothing to fear, we are talking streaming music here. To quote Dr. Mark Walrep, "Yes, there are real high-resolution recordings available but they aren't being produced and released by the major labels. They'll keep trying with expensive marketing campaigns, slick brochures, seminars, testimonials, and "alternative facts" but the only way to experience a hi-res audio track to actually make one and play it back. And the only period we've had the ability to capture and deliver audio at "better than CD quality" has been during the last 20 years — that means that the vast majority of old analog recordings and standard resolution digital recordings being offered in "hi-res" audio are just the same old fidelity in new clothes. It's unfortunate the the industry is so consumed with reselling old recordings that they aren't being truthful about the fidelity of the tracks they're selling AND that they aren't making new recordings of higher fidelity." His recent post on his web site is interesting as well. http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6013

@Peter
"High-end audio systems often sound better with analog recordings than with digital ones. The temporal decay is one of the few points at which analog systems beat their digital counterparts and it is therefore a very important Parameter."

With all due respect - but this is completely wrong. Repeating false Audio myths does not make them true. In order to judge MQA’s claim as true or false a deep knowledge of digital audio technology is necessary. Andreas has this expertise. Many others as well, among those not convinced by MQA’s proposal.

OK, you love the sound of MQA, you’re convinced it sounds better than the original. That’s fine, I respect your personal opinion and taste. I’ve done some test and measurements as well. My conclusion: MQA sounds worse than a true original 24/96 recording. Some of the MQA coded tracks are a few dBs louder, even this can change perception, some are remasters. In order not to be fooled with these MQA vs. non MQA comparisons, you need to confirm you really listen to the same master, same release of an Album at the same volume level. I’ve attended a MQA demo at recent Munich High End Show in Munich, where Bob Stuart played carefully selected tracks, running an MQA vs. PCM comparison. Despite the less than ideal situation at a show, one could clearly distinguish the MQA “sound”. It’s now a question of self-biasing, if one perceives the MQA sound as better than the original. You now can claim the same self-biasing aspect to me as well - that’s fine Working in the audio business, we are doing a lot of listening tests and try to collect various comments on the same A/B/X tests, but are also trying to corroborate the hearing results with technical aspects, technical principles and measurements. Only to rely on listening test, personal taste and expectations can be misleading. To me, MQA is Emperor’s new Clothes, based on theory and listening tests.

For all those with a large collection of true HiRez music, that have their panties in a bunch, and have not even listened to streamed MQA music, get off your high horses. For those of us who ripped our entire music collection's long ago, and had not bought into expensive Dac's and HiRez downloads, MQA streaming is of remarkable ease of use and equipment simplicity. It sounds great to my ears and to anyone I have demonstrated it to. There is a increased sound stage and dynamics to most all the old analogue, up converted catalogue that I have sampled, and it sounds at least as good or in most instances better than most of the other Lossless streamed formats that I have heard. A $3-400 investment in a entry level DAC and a $20 rental fee, is music to my ears, and money saved, when I can sample the entire Tidal library, download to my Phone for offline playback, when in the car or boat. 5 months into this format, I can pick out the MQA songs most of the time, the new Releases cannot come fast enough. I think it can only bring more casual listeners in the Audiophile world. Great music is wonderful to share, now there is a affordable way to do that. In time full Rez streaming will be here, but for now I think MQA is a logical progression and option toward that end.

Right on. Suspecting Bob Stuart of trickery is idiocy. MQA is a paradigm shift, since we can now stream better sound than we can physically reproduce. DSD is so irrelevant; it's a PCM world in the final analysis. Besides, both SACD & DSD have a definite sonic character that follows them everywhere; a kind of silky sheen. No question that the time domain issues have been at the bottom of the 'digital audio issue' all this time. MQA is the real fix for that area where the ear is so sensitive.

Yes, I know how MQA works. And I have listened to it.

I was wondering what Andreas's conclusions were from listening to it. And implicitly, if he had listened to it, or if his statements about the lack of sound quality improvements are speculative.

Hi Anders, the MQA algorithm and deblurring methodology works effectively in the analogue domain. Thanks findings as described in this journal reveals something what is behind it. According to MQA, the algorithm is NOT some sort of an evolution of the famous Meridian apodizing filter. They went a step further..https://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/02/human_hearing_o/

David Chesky is convinced as well..! http://www.stereophile.com/content/chesky-release-mqa-cds-may#tjOfCS67fSWujg0g.97

That counts for so many factors in this industry indeed. Therefore be critical to yourslef and test it.. double blind would be nice, but from personal experience it always takes som tome before really start appreciating (or not) the SQ improvement when altering tweaks, cables etc or maybe MQA..

I took a brief look to your thread and what you tell is partially true. But please understand that MQA is Lossy because it gets rid of artefacts induced by digital filters duing the complete recording chain. It filters and reconstructs the recording and in this process, the sound is coming closer to the original moment of recording. You have to listen to it before judging the product I would say.

Hi David, I did not say that I do not like DSD.. I like both DSD and MQA to be honest. But MQA interests me because of it's positive effect on the SQ of older PCM recordings as well as new ones. DSD has its limitations as well. you will know that for mastering, DXD = 32/384 PCM is used. So as soon as all recording are recorded and easily and on-lien available in DXD, well, everyone will be happy I suppose.. Meanwhile, MQA is my appetite 🙂

Well, Peter, there are a significant number of people who would respectfully disagree with you.

I'm one of them.

You are free to embrace MQA, but many of us will not. DSD represents the real way, to my ears.

MQA is a game changer, since it is the only technology available which is capable to correct for both past and present time-smear errors in the whole audio chain.

I've found a very informative publication on the subject of temporal decay http://www.breem.nl/Artikelen/vMaanen/temporal-decay.pdf

Below a summary, with some personal additions:

High-end audio systems often sound better with analog recordings than with digital ones. The temporal decay is one of the few points at which analog systems beat their digital counterparts and it is therefore a very important parameter.

Any audio system has the tendency to 'smear out' the the signal both in amplitude and time, which always leads to a degradation of the original sound.

Digital PCM recording requires a very steep low pass filter before digitization to alleviate aliasing. Such a filter introduces anomalies including ripple, resonance at the cutoff frequency, oscillation (ringing) phase shift and high frequency loss.

CD quality has a temporal blur of 5 ms, 24/192 1/10th of CD (500 microseconds), but MQA has found a method to reduce this to 10 microseconds throughout the entire digital encoding and decoding chain.

Nowadays, such anomalies can be overcome by using oversampling techniques or by using another format like DSD. But it is a fact that all digital recordings in the 80's and 90's intrinsically are degraded by these influences and even nowadays 24/96 recordings are, since filtering can severely degrade the temporal behaviour of audio systems.

So..let's focus much more to this beautiful aspect of the new algorithm.. MQA is capable to repair the temporal blur of PCM recordings to a very large extend. It is therefore capable to restore the original sound of the Mastertape and enhance the temporal decay of the recording.

It is therefore not at all a MP3 'marketing scam' .. It is a paradigm shift and a new, disruptive technology.. This explains why not everyone is happy with its existence and fear is firing up rumours and aligations. That is a shame, since it will be much wiser to embrace such innovations and make use of it.