MQA already dead in the water? No full decoding DAC alternatives...

AJ Soundfield said:
This makes zero sense. If not MQA, how is the "original file" encoded? >24/96 PCM (ADC) like almost everything over the last 2 decades?
What is MQA "fixing" there? >48kHz "ringing"??
Click to expand...

I had lost the article when our Cable service took a crap. So I found the darn thing again, so read away. http://audiophilereview.com/cd-dac-digital/listening-to-mqa-at-the-new-airshow-mastering-room.html from what I read in the article it was a 24/192 master.
Who knows what MQA is fixing or breaking. I didn't write the code.

But what the author said "On the comparisons between 192/24 master files and the MQA'd versions I could not reliably tell a difference between them."
 
mep said:
...All that matters is that you and everyone else who enjoys the effect of listening to a lossy codec are having a good time.
Click to expand...
I suspect that in this case, it is the streaming aspect (and access to more music than one owns physically) which is most important. And as noted, MQA is not “lossy” compared to 16/44.1, which is itself better than most streaming music. In Keith’s case, as in mine, there is no apparent extra cost associated with MQA; it’s just there to listen to if one prefers.
 
So, we’ve had quite a bit of this Bob is a robber and MQA is a lossy DRM scheme influence in this thread. It’s all good, the variance of opinions is what creates the richness in a conversation.

Here’s an opinion from Stereophile’s Herb Reichert, who is essentially a headphone guy (75% of listening based on own account). That means, he spends a lots of time with listening to minutiae detail with lesser outside interference through e.g. acoustics, ambient noise etc.

A couple of extracted observations:
- the MQA listening experience is particularly pleasant
- apparently vintage recordings affected to a lesser extent by MQA encoding
- MQA sounded as though it was tweaking the EQ in the presence region
- most MQA versions sounded rounded off and smoother (did he just describe analogue)

https://www.stereophile.com/content...or–headphone-amplifier-herb-reichert-may-2017

Whatever the case, I am going to listen to a PS Audio DSD DAC today and might buy it just to explore MQA a little more in detail [emoji3].


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Here is a recorded direct comparison of FLAC/ MQA using a PS Audio DSD DAC. Unfortunately the recording eliminates some of the effect and the demo system does not really permit a comprehensive experience either.

But played back through my main system I find there are clear audible differences.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Kuoppis said:
Whatever the case, I am going to listen to a PS Audio DSD DAC today and might buy it just to explore MQA a little more in detail [emoji3].
Click to expand...
Ultimately, the only thing that should matter is how it sounds to you, not me, an audio prophet, or anyone else.
Hence me doing my own due diligence and not caring a whit whether I should feel emasculated because I didn't hear the second coming...or yet another audiophile tempest in a teapot. YMMV
 
I had a nice opportunity to listen to MQA at RMAF in the Esoteric room on their new N-01 network player. I listened to MQA vs. 44/16 on Tidal. I consistently heard more detail and refinement with MQA. But what I wasn’t expecting was hearing substantially more ease in the presentation and a broader soundstage with MQA.

I know the naysayers insist that to do an apples-to-apples comparison, I should be comparing the MQA file to an equivalent high res. file. I haven’t done that. But since I have no interest in purchasing MQA files, and I’m only interested in listening to the MQA catalog through Tidal, and the options on Tidal are 44/16 and MQA, I’ll take the better sounding MQA files (IMO) for no additional cost, thank you very much!

Ken
 
Kuoppis said:
Here is a recorded direct comparison of FLAC/ MQA using a PS Audio DSD DAC. Unfortunately the recording eliminates some of the effect and the demo system does not really permit a comprehensive experience either.

But played back through my main system I find there are clear audible differences.


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

For fun, compare the opening of track 2 on this 2015 album:

http://www.nataliemerchant.com/albums/paradise-is-there/

I️ compared the HD tracks 24/48 with the Redbook and then ultimately the MQA version on Tidal. To me, right from the opening few seconds, the HD Tracks and redbook versions sound shrill (pre and post ringing?). The MQA is smooth as silk.

I️ was using the Berkeley REF2 MQA for this test.
 
Mike said:
For fun, compare the opening of track 2 on this 2015 album:

http://www.nataliemerchant.com/albums/paradise-is-there/

I️ compared the HD tracks 24/48 with the Redbook and then ultimately the MQA version on Tidal. To me, right from the opening few seconds, the HD Tracks and redbook versions sound shrill (pre and post ringing?). The MQA is smooth as silk.

I️ was using the Berkeley REF2 MQA for this test.
Click to expand...

Thanks Mike,

I would love to do this if I had a Berkeley Alpha USB Converter...sigh.

Ken
 
rbbert said:
I suspect that in this case, it is the streaming aspect (and access to more music than one owns physically) which is most important. And as noted, MQA is not “lossy” compared to 16/44.1, which is itself better than most streaming music. In Keith’s case, as in mine, there is no apparent extra cost associated with MQA; it’s just there to listen to if one prefers.
Click to expand...

Is that a specious statement? I'm talking about hi-rez files that are above RBCD. These files are being truncated through the process of the lossy MQA codec. Are you back on the MQA bandwagon?
 
Mike said:
To me, right from the opening few seconds, the HD Tracks and redbook versions sound shrill (pre and post ringing?). The MQA is smooth as silk.
Click to expand...
Bob Stuart admitted at AES there is zero scientific evidence of audibility from "ringing". None. 50 year old men can't hear 20k, much less 24k!! (when overactive imagination is removed from equation).
Far more likely is the fact that the MQA "process" involves re-equalization. If you heard "shrillness", it's because someone (not "some ADC" ) f'd up the original mastering...not uncommon!
 
Then call it Jitter. That's why I put the ??. If the original recording was f'd up, then it was likely the Mastering Engineer! Oh, the irony.

MQA is here to stay. Don't like it? Don't listen to it. But like I've said, we can't measure everything we can hear.

I'll continue to focus on feedback like this:

b0691d638b2474085cdd0d058f9c9232.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Alpinist said:
I had a nice opportunity to listen to MQA at RMAF in the Esoteric room on their new N-01 network player. I listened to MQA vs. 44/16 on Tidal. I consistently heard more detail and refinement with MQA. But what I wasn’t expecting was hearing substantially more ease in the presentation and a broader soundstage with MQA.

I know the naysayers insist that to do an apples-to-apples comparison, I should be comparing the MQA file to an equivalent high res. file. I haven’t done that. But since I have no interest in purchasing MQA files, and I’m only interested in listening to the MQA catalog through Tidal, and the options on Tidal are 44/16 and MQA, I’ll take the better sounding MQA files (IMO) for no additional cost, thank you very much!

Ken
Click to expand...

This pretty much echoes my experience with MQA so far.
 
AJ Soundfield said:
Bingo.
Not "jitter". Not "ringing", not all the MQA concocted bogeymen. Just plain ol human subjective f up. Like you said.:)
Click to expand...

I said it could be ringing or jitter for the reason MQA sounds better in most of my comparisons. Whatever it is, I love it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
mep said:
Is that a specious statement? I'm talking about hi-rez files that are above RBCD. These files are being truncated through the process of the lossy MQA codec. Are you back on the MQA bandwagon?
Click to expand...
As yet, I don’t see many good sounding affordable streaming options that also have a large quantity of music. It seems to be Tidal or nothing. So it’s 16/44.1 or MQA. All I’m saying is that if it doesn’t cost more it’s nice to have the option. Of course, since I’m not currently a Tidal subscriber, it’s actually not an option yet for me :P
 
AJ Soundfield said:
You should love "it" :)
Nothing not to love about better sound!! (even if it has zero to do with "MQA" bogeymen and everything to do with mastering)
Click to expand...

But that's the rub isn't it? I couldn't hear what I'm hearing without the bogeyman. If I didn't have full blown MQA, I couldn't access what I'm hearing. If Tidal could do the full blown MQA and then ANY DAC could receive it, we would be rocking. But that's not how it's designed.

I will say, I'm glad I don't have to buy ANOTHER copy of Kind of Blue! At least with Tidal, Master files are included.

I wonder why Tidal doesn't call it MQA? They call them Master files. Hmmmm....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top