Astell & Kern - MQS Player from iRiver

Scubadevils

Spotted this earlier, I wish I hadn't as my S9 no longer feels good enough...this thing will playback MQS or 'Mastering Quality Sound' which I'd never heard of before but according to the product description, this means...

Astell&Kern brings you the original sound, right at the moment of the studio recording and before the compression format of the CD, just the way the sound is meant to be heard
http://www.advancedmp3players.co.uk/shop/MP3_Players.1/Astell_and_Kern.611/AK100/Astell_and_Kern_AK100_Personal_MQS___Ultimate_Portable_Hi-fi_Music_Player.14014.html

Its actually iRiver behind the product too which is interesting...

http://www.astellnkern.com/

HD music available from www.hdtracks.com - I haven't looked around it yet really but looks like there is a reasonable selection.

Anyway, its £569 so I won't be getting one for a while

Morf

What rubbish capacity for such an expensive device.

Scubadevils

32GB internal with two micro SD slots would be sufficient for me, if I had the cash that is!

Morf

Scubadevils wrote: »

32GB internal with two micro SD slots would be sufficient for me, if I had the cash that is!

I have about 75 gigs in 320kbps. I imagine quite a lot more in FLAC or equivalent. Just wouldn't be worth shelling so much out on (even if I had the money).

pleasant Co.

Any idea how much space these MQS files take up? I'm ignorantly assuming that it's intended to use files of higher quality than bog standard stereo flac.

Scubadevils

Morf wrote: »

I have about 75 gigs in 320kbps. I imagine quite a lot more in FLAC or equivalent. Just wouldn't be worth shelling so much out on (even if I had the money).

I've about 400GB in FLAC - at the moment I load up my S9 (32GB) with a mix of stuff and then add/delete as I go, usually every couple of weeks. Only recently I ordered an album where there was an option to download a wav version of the album ahead of the physical release date, I popped the wav on the S9 and was blown away by the sound quality... that had me tempted to start ripping everything in wav, it would mean probably only 30 albums or so on the S9 at any time but I think I'd take that for the sound quality - there was a time where I carried a few cassettes in my pocket to swap around in the walkman so I've certainly advanced from there! So I'd have the same logic for this thing, if I was lucky enough to be able to buy one. That said, the music available in MQS looks quite limited and not a whole lot of what I want. I'd be interested to hear what this player sounds like running wav's or even FLAC on decent headphones.

pleasant Co. wrote: »

Any idea how much space these MQS files take up? I'm ignorantly assuming that it's intended to use files of higher quality than bog standard stereo flac.

No idea actually but its says this on the Astell&Kern website:

When compared to CDs, the music files used during the mastering process in studios (24bit/192kHz) contains 6.5 times more information and results in a more original, precise and enhanced sound.

Should we assume the file would then be 6.5 times the size of a wav?! That would be big alright!

Scubadevils

Another interesting point, not one I've been aware of either and seems to be little elsewhere online from a quick google but a claim again on the Astell&Kern site (I can't link direct to it but it's under Features/Total Memory) -

The additional memory card slot holds an important point. 24bit album recordings will soon be released with music files stored in Micro SD memory cards. For a mainstream album, LP (vinyl) records would be considered as first generation, second generations are cassette tapes, and Compact Discs (CDs) is the third and current generation. Fourth generation albums are considered as MQS albums that are released in high capacity Micro SD memory cards. Comfortably enjoy two albums at once through the dual memory card slots of the Astell&Kern. < The Astell&Kern supports MQS high-resolution music stored on Micro SD cards. >

Morf

Bit presumptuous isn't it?

Our product will be ahead of its time predicting the new format for high quality music.

Music companies are already not interested in decent packaging on most cds let alone investing in another format.

Custardpi

Another company (after Neil Young's Pono efforts, wonder how that will pan out) trying to create their own proprietary lossless format. FLAC already fills the demand for high quality digital files, can't really see what another format can bring to the market.

Scubadevils

Morf wrote: »

Bit presumptuous isn't it?

Our product will be ahead of its time predicting the new format for high quality music.

Music companies are already not interested in decent packaging on most cds let alone investing in another format.

Yeah it is a tad. I had hoped I'd find more info looking it up elsewhere online but nothing so presumably it is iRiver making the claim - you'd have wonder where it will ever go.

Yes, on the whole (mainstream) music companies are not doing much for decent packaging (crappy jewel cases) but in many niche genres they are, I've seen some of the best looking packaging for CDs and vinyl in recent years than ever before - a hell of a lot more well designed digipak cases. Vinyl has clearly made a bit of a comeback too, again probably more in a niche capacity but I certainly hope there will continue to be a market for physical audio formats.

Custardpi wrote: »

Another company (after Neil Young's Pono efforts, wonder how that will pan out) trying to create their own proprietary lossless format. FLAC already fills the demand for high quality digital files, can't really see what another format can bring to the market.

Read about that Pono elsewhere on boards but forgot to delve deeper - must look it up... I thought that was pretty recent too, it sounds like from what you are saying it hasn't succeeded?

I'd love to hear it (MQS) for myself and discover if there is any real difference. I've been a FLAC fan for years now but as mentioned in my previous post I was really impressed recently listening to wav files on the S9, as such I have a real interest now in hearing something that claims to be better again.

Custardpi

In fairness it's early days yet for the Pono format (not sure if it's even been properly launched & on sale at present) but I really can't see it taking off because of the failure (though perhaps I haven't read enough on it) to not merely articulate how it's better than MP3 (a given obviously) but how it's superior to existing lossless formats, like hi-res FLAC files. As far as I understand it the files will be about the same size as 24 bit/192 khz FLAC files (basically decent studio master quality or close enough to it) so I assume they'll be of the same quality. Personally I reckon that's overkill, 96khz is a more than adequate sample rate at the consumer end, but even leaving that to one side I see no reason why another format would be better than the aforementioned FLAC files, especially given how compatible FLAC now is across various platforms.

Brian

Required reading: http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

He works on Ogg by the way.

@Scubadevils: Both FLAC and WAV are lossless formats. Any difference you heard between them is psychological. In fact it's very unlikely that you can hear a difference between FLAC and 320k on a portable device.

no human can tell the difference between Flac and mp3 320kps. has been long debated and it's just psychological...

Custardpi

glasso wrote: »

no human can tell the difference between Flac and mp3 320kps. has been long debated and it's just psychological...

In a portable setting probably not, but given a decent dac & stereo system & provided the original recording was of a high enough quality (so there's more to reveal) then the music will be more realistic. At higher resolutions (e.g. 24/96 or 24/88.2) the difference will be even more apparent, again depending on the quality of the original recording.

Scubadevils

Brian wrote: »

Required reading: http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

He works on Ogg by the way.

@Scubadevils: Both FLAC and WAV are lossless formats. Any difference you heard between them is psychological. In fact it's very unlikely that you can hear a difference between FLAC and 320k on a portable device.

Yeah I know they are both lossless. The difference was noticeable, no doubt about it - now unless it was down to the specific recording in terms of the wav file I downloaded, I've still to try rip some others and compare. Anyway, I'm certainly not going to get into a debate over what one can or cannot hear... I know what I hear, and that's all that matters to me!

Scubadevils

Really interesting article Brian, thanks for sharing.

Now I wonder should I try encode an album in various formats and test myself! I suppose you have to ask the question, if it is only psychologically perceived rather than aurally, does it not still apply that it sounds better?! Until of course you are convinced otherwise...

Another thing I need to consider - any MP3 files I've ripped have been on iTunes on my Mac. All FLAC have been done using the Cowon Jet Audio software, presumably there could be a difference there in terms of the encoding process?

I did a 'test' before playing back the same album on 320, CD and then vinyl - the conclusion for the people listening was that the most noticeable difference was the transition to vinyl, the sound being much richer and full. At the time I very much put this down to the 'superior' quality of vinyl, but I wonder now is it more to do with the individual hardware components - i.e. the turntable was better than the CD player in terms of of audio output... the MP3 file was via iTunes through a line-out from the Mac into an amp, both the turntable and CD player were played via a mixer on into the same amp. Anyway, kinda off topic but in similar vein so thought I'd mention.

Brian

I think the basic point is the 16/44.1 is perfectly fine for audio distribution but that it is misused in mastering due to pressure from musical trends (see "loudness war").