A question about MQA

Status
Not open for further replies.
E
skbe said:
Why?
Isn't it a good way to test if within your system and your own hearing capabilities you can recognize which sounds better to you?
Because at the end of the day what is the point of MQA, HIRES, original analog sound, CD if one cannot hear the difference?
Click to expand...

If you enjoy blind testing audio gear with your buddies, that’s great. I would rather listen to music.
 
still-one said:
The haters keep hating and we continue to have access to more MQA content each week. Over 25000 currently available.
Click to expand...

25,000. Wow. I'm impressed. Is that all they could come up with in, what, five years? Why bother with it if you can get real "hi-res" via Quobuz, for example?
 
Al M. said:
25,000. Wow. I'm impressed. Is that all they could come up with in, what, five years? Why bother with it if you can get real "hi-res" via Quobuz, for example?
Click to expand...

You realize that is significantly more than available DSD releases. I believe those have been out for 20 years.
 
Al M. said:
25,000. Wow. I'm impressed. Is that all they could come up with in, what, five years? Why bother with it if you can get real "hi-res" via Quobuz, for example?
Click to expand...

Your “real high res” is most likely just upsampled 16/44.

It’s a bit like high res for dummies, isn’t it?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
This happens every time there's a new format, the investors go to war, it's like election years. The idea of streaming a small package that is opened at its destination to provide up to 3 times the data just sounds smarter than throwing out the information that doesn't fit. sending a 128kbps that opens to a 320 quality file at its playback source has to be a good thing when the majority never use anything more than their tablet or smart phone and spotify or tidal. This is the intended market for mqa.
 
steve59 said:
This happens every time there's a new format, the investors go to war, it's like election years. The idea of streaming a small package that is opened at its destination to provide up to 3 times the data just sounds smarter than throwing out the information that doesn't fit. sending a 128kbps that opens to a 320 quality file at its playback source has to be a good thing when the majority never use anything more than their tablet or smart phone and spotify or tidal. This is the intended market for mqa.
Click to expand...

I don't agree that MQA was intended and marketed exclusively for people who listen over their phones or tablets. What are you basing that statement on?
 
Kuoppis said:
Your “real high res” is most likely just upsampled 16/44.

It’s a bit like high res for dummies, isn’t it?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

So what is the provenance of all the MQA files?
 
Kuoppis said:
Your “real high res” is most likely just upsampled 16/44.

It’s a bit like high res for dummies, isn’t it?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It is!

(Although there is also some real 96/24 or 96/192.)

But this is too funny. I have been ridiculed here for still sticking to just CD by people who were praising the virtues of "high-res", but as you say for the most part (or at the least for a large part), they haven't listened with their "hi-res" to anything other than Redbook CD format anyway.

***

And by the way, as you will note, I consistently put "high-res" in quotation marks: the name "high-res" ("high resolution format") is a misnomer as it implies that CD is not high resolution. That attitude is based on a misunderstanding of digital theory. And especially with recent advances in digital implementation, which come closer to ideal theory than in the past, this attitude also flies in the face of audible practical reality.

If you can't get extraordinarily high resolution from CD (physical or file format), in terms of timbral micro-detail, separation of instruments and quality of spatial information, something is lacking with your digital setup and your system.
 
mep said:
E

If you enjoy blind testing audio gear with your buddies, that’s great. I would rather listen to music.
Click to expand...
Nice false dichotomy. Every blind test I've performed on audiophiles was them listening to/enjoying music.
But I fully understand why audiophiles avoid them. Trust ears/just listen? No way! ;-)
 
AJ Soundfield said:
Nice false dichotomy. Every blind test I've performed on audiophiles was them listening to/enjoying music.
But I fully understand why audiophiles avoid them. Trust ears/just listen? No way! ;-)
Click to expand...

You can label it however you want. I could care less about your idea of fun. I'm the one paying for my gear and I'm the one that determines how I make my purchasing decisions. Why don't you start your own thread about your wonderful system and explain how you made all of your purchasing decisions?
 
mep said:
I don't agree that MQA was intended and marketed exclusively for people who listen over their phones or tablets. What are you basing that statement on?
Click to expand...

I will go back to the page on the meridian website that I distilled that idea from.
 
it's trivial to determine when hirez is real and when it's not. if you have a dac that stays native (bit perfect) all the time then......just.....listen. the best version is the source file and stick with that.

while it's rare when 16/44 happens to be the source file, it does happen. i have a few like that. and they can sound really good. but almost everything out there was sourced from higher rez than 16/44, or transferred from tape at a higher rez, and those are best heard native......100% of the time.

does higher rez sound better than 16/44? so far in my experience; yes. but i am one to always look for the best sounding versions and so have lots of comparative time doing that. sometimes MQA is the best sounding version; sometimes not. in my experience a native higher rez file almost always sounds better on my system than the MQA version. some of my high rez (higher than 16/44) is from streaming, some from my files.

overall i'm neutral on MQA. i appreciate when it does sound better, sometimes it's just different. but i don't think it's a big deal and could live without it.

politically i don't like the whole Bob Stuart/Meridian 'music czar' approach to things, and the dog and pony show way MQA was introduced; it was unfortunate. but it's actually not a bad thing, just not a great thing. with the growth of bandwidth i'd much rather see 24/196 or 24/176 become the defacto standard level of resolution.
 
MQA delivers master quality audio in a file that’s small enough to stream or download – the days of sacrificing quality for convenience are over. Visit mqa.co.uk for more information.

copied off the meridian homepage. I have no education in anything digital so can only comment on how things sound to me. Having a full meridian system I wouldn't be taken seriously anyhow. I heard a rumor some internet companies are going to start charging for bits used as more people opt for streaming services instead of the monthly $350 cable bill. Again, not knowing squat about it, in such a case wouldn't lossless compression streamed live be a good thing?

 
Mike Lavigne said:
it's trivial to determine when hirez is real and when it's not. if you have a dac that stays native (bit perfect) all the time then......just.....listen. the best version is the source file and stick with that.

while it's rare when 16/44 happens to be the source file, it does happen. i have a few like that. and they can sound really good. but almost everything out there was sourced from higher rez than 16/44, or transferred from tape at a higher rez, and those are best heard native......100% of the time.

does higher rez sound better than 16/44? so far in my experience; yes. but i am one to always look for the best sounding versions and so have lots of comparative time doing that. sometimes MQA is the best sounding version; sometimes not. in my experience a native higher rez file almost always sounds better on my system than the MQA version. some of my high rez (higher than 16/44) is from streaming, some from my files.

overall i'm neutral on MQA. i appreciate when it does sound better, sometimes it's just different. but i don't think it's a big deal and could live without it.

politically i don't like the whole Bob Stuart/Meridian 'music czar' approach to things, and the dog and pony show way MQA was introduced; it was unfortunate. but it's actually not a bad thing, just not a great thing. with the growth of bandwidth i'd much rather see 24/196 or 24/176 become the defacto standard level of resolution.
Click to expand...

Mike, I fully agree. Why to be religious about this or that format? Most likely none of them is the best alternative above any other for all use cases.

Just enjoy PCM, DSD, MQA, vinyl or tape as you please. Enjoy the variety, let them serve your enjoyment of music.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top