Ya, can't wait for your comparisons too.
MQA Discussion
- Thread starter still-one
- Start date
Ya, can't wait for your comparisons too.
Thanks for the additional links.
It looks like if one hears an improvement from the MQA file over the non-MQA file downloaded from 2L via the 808v6, this could be due more to the 808v6's powerful DSP engine at work than the MQA process itself. If so, then RH's review of the Explorer 2's performance with MQA vis-a-vis that of the 808v6's, would not seem to corroborate this possibility.
Well, well, let's just sit back, relax and wait for Mike to come to our rescue with his own comparison results.....
Even if a format is intrinsically superior, e.g. 24/192 vs 16/44.1, one should not expect 24/192 from a very cheap DAC to outperform 16/44.1 from audiophile-class equipment people in this forum uses. Software alone does not nullify serious hardware advantages.
From a user point of view, MQA can be seen as just another hi-res format, along with 24/96-192 PCM and DSD - neither are going away. In the future I expect the debate of PCM vs DSD to continue as PCM vs MQA vs DSD. I don't see a winner emerging with universal acceptance, and I guess that people may find MQA to sound better on some hardware just as DSD to sound better on some hardware. MQA complicates the discussion by different processing to be done on different recordings and to the DAC.
As long as MQA significantly broadens the availability of true hi-res albums that otherwise would not be made, and sounds better than redbook CD, I'd consider it a success (but I realize people here have far higher expectations :audiophile: - this is an audiophile forum after all)
+1.
radioactive
New member
The way I understand it, MQA is not just a DAC, it's a "process", which I don't think has been clearly explained. The degree of quality of the DSP section plays a much greater role in an MQA DAC Unit (the whole piece of equipment) than in a typical DAC Unit because there is a significant amount of processing being done on the signal. I suspect this has a lot to do with the 808v6's praise.
The story about taking older recordings and inputting info on the AD and Mic's then getting MQA to do its customized wizardry makes this a much more complicated discussion. It means there are options to get such a unit that can do magic on regular files. It also means that users may not get the best results from MQA if they're not listening to a "properly encoded and processed" file unless all the variables are set and it sounds like there are too many to account for to consistently output high quality analog from a digital file.
[edit] By that I mean by regular users. The studios "should" be able to gather all the recording metadata and feed that into the system when they create an MQA "master" file. But as we all know, not everyone does their job to the highest standards, AND sometimes data, the metadata I'm talking about, gets lost, modified, or otherwise rendered useless due to years of storage, mishandling by transferring ownership, or transferring a master to another studio for their remastering special sauce (e.g., MOFI, Sterling Sound, Abbey Road,etc.). I've heard horror stories of masters losing their labels and people having to find out what they were by playing them back (gasp, for so many reasons - and no, don't ask)...to a tape master.
I get get the concerns of creating a digital version that is considered the equivalent of the original master. Intellectual Property is a company's net worth. But these are works of art (well, some are. I can do without all the Poison and Ratt original masters, but that's art for you. Not everyone agrees what is and what isn't ). Don't you wish that museums had a digital state-of-the-art copy of every piece of art? There are thousands of pieces of art that have been lost through disasters (man made and natural). It's better than nothing is all I'm saying so I sincerely hope that studios don't jump on MQA as a master until it's proven to be superior to the digital masters they use today.
The story about taking older recordings and inputting info on the AD and Mic's then getting MQA to do its customized wizardry makes this a much more complicated discussion. It means there are options to get such a unit that can do magic on regular files. It also means that users may not get the best results from MQA if they're not listening to a "properly encoded and processed" file unless all the variables are set and it sounds like there are too many to account for to consistently output high quality analog from a digital file.
[edit] By that I mean by regular users. The studios "should" be able to gather all the recording metadata and feed that into the system when they create an MQA "master" file. But as we all know, not everyone does their job to the highest standards, AND sometimes data, the metadata I'm talking about, gets lost, modified, or otherwise rendered useless due to years of storage, mishandling by transferring ownership, or transferring a master to another studio for their remastering special sauce (e.g., MOFI, Sterling Sound, Abbey Road,etc.). I've heard horror stories of masters losing their labels and people having to find out what they were by playing them back (gasp, for so many reasons - and no, don't ask)...to a tape master.
I get get the concerns of creating a digital version that is considered the equivalent of the original master. Intellectual Property is a company's net worth. But these are works of art (well, some are. I can do without all the Poison and Ratt original masters, but that's art for you. Not everyone agrees what is and what isn't ). Don't you wish that museums had a digital state-of-the-art copy of every piece of art? There are thousands of pieces of art that have been lost through disasters (man made and natural). It's better than nothing is all I'm saying so I sincerely hope that studios don't jump on MQA as a master until it's proven to be superior to the digital masters they use today.
Unfortunately, as was mentioned early in this thread, MQA appears to be "all or nothing"; the individual "parts" (or processes) will not be available separately. In other words, if you like the idea (and the results) of trying to match ADC and DAC characteristics, you also have to accept the lossy compression package.
Has Bob Stuart or JA, RH from the audio press come forward to dispute the assertion that MQA is lossy compression or is this already an indisputable fact now?
radioactive
New member
No no I don't think so, but the QA discussion over at CA if I'm recalling correctly stated that it wouldn't work any other way the way it's designed. I think they said it would have to be redesigned to be lossless, and if it were it wouldn't have the sales and marketing advantages of being low data rate utilization (easily streams because it's a small file).
At its core MQA is lossy. They're doing filtering of signal bands that aren't audible (sound familiar? If not look up all the marketing around MP3 when it came out) and that's one of the ways that they get smaller file sizes. Meridian also is using their proprietary lossless compression algorithm, but it's not so good as to accomplish all their claim to fame statements on file size. If that were truly the case then their algorithm would be used in enterprise backup systems and other data storage and recovery systems.
At its core MQA is lossy. They're doing filtering of signal bands that aren't audible (sound familiar? If not look up all the marketing around MP3 when it came out) and that's one of the ways that they get smaller file sizes. Meridian also is using their proprietary lossless compression algorithm, but it's not so good as to accomplish all their claim to fame statements on file size. If that were truly the case then their algorithm would be used in enterprise backup systems and other data storage and recovery systems.
http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2016/05/mytek-tease-manhattan-ii-with-mqa-and-streaming-module/
Interesting little insight into why Mytek jumped early onto the MQA bandwagon.
Interesting little insight into why Mytek jumped early onto the MQA bandwagon.
lallygagger
New member
What difference does it make if it's lossy?
If it sounds great, as great as it is purported to sound (and I know not everyone who has heard it is in agreement on that)... but if it does to you, would you reject it because it is lossy?
I would be listening to MP3 if it sounded great.
If it sounds great, as great as it is purported to sound (and I know not everyone who has heard it is in agreement on that)... but if it does to you, would you reject it because it is lossy?
I would be listening to MP3 if it sounded great.
Thanks for the link which is an interesting read.
So, it is possible to be data lossy but not sound lossy.
With Meridian's proprietary algorithm in the folding and unfolding process, the resulting sound from an MQA file may actually be better than the original despite data loss.
Hmm.... let's just wait for Mike's experiments.
MP3 can sound great, or at least close, compared to a 16/44.1 original. The point is that it's hard to argue that a lossy file will sound as good as the orginal lossless file from which it is derived, although it may be close.
I'm feeling the heat! LOL. When I do the shootout, I will be sure we have others over to listen as well and offer their comments.
CPP
Active member
Yep when you do this let me know, I'll drive down. But lets be sure we have some music that includes besides classical other genres as well.
