MQA Discussion

rbbert said:
I think one of the Mytek's would be reasonable DAC's to use
Click to expand...

An updated Mytek Brooklyn has already been used and through it MQA has been found to be lacking a poster on this thread and his friend who owns the Brooklyn. Both of them felt that DSD playback was superior to MQA when playing the same tracks in both formats.
 
lallygagger said:
An updated Mytek Brooklyn has already been used and through it MQA has been found to be lacking a poster on this thread and his friend who owns the Brooklyn. Both of them felt that DSD playback was superior to MQA when playing the same tracks in both formats.
Click to expand...

That's true, but what I also noted was that the music used was just two classical downloads from 2L as other music genres were not available, for all I know maybe the DSD was just a better engineered piece. So for me, I'm going to wait on more MQA music before I determine the merits of MQA. I don't feel anyone can make a finite decision from listening to a couple of downloads.
 
CPP said:
That's true, but what I also noted was that the music used was just two classical downloads from 2L as other music genres were not available, for all I know maybe the DSD was just a better engineered piece. So for me, I'm going to wait on more MQA music before I determine the merits of MQA. I don't feel anyone can make a finite decision from listening to a couple of downloads.
Click to expand...

That there should be more than just two files to listen to before making a definite decision I agree with in principal. But it seems to me that if MQA is indeed superior , then it should be superior in every case where the same file is used for comparison, regardless of whether it is a file of classical music, blues, jazz or whatever.

All 2L music is really well engineered. In which case the MQA version would be the same well engineered file as the non MQA version. The only difference would be MQA or non MQA. All other variables would be equal. Which is the way that any well concieved experiment is run... all variables are equal save one.

I have the 2L Mozart Violin Concerto in D major in 24/192 and MQA. With my non MQA DAC I think I can hear a little difference between the two. I can't really explain what it is, I just know I like it a little better. Perhaps it is that the violins sound a little smoother and in better balance with the rest of the orchestra. At first I didn't seem to hear any difference at all and I reported this in a former post. it took listening to the two many times for me to notice it and I only began hearing it two days ago.

So do I really hear it or am I tricking myself? I don't know. But if I am truly hearing MQA as being superior to 24/192, however slightly, then when using an MQA encoded DAC there should be a readily noticeable difference, I should think.
 
In any case, given that MQA is being touted as being, not slightly but significantly better than all PCM formats and also DSD the fact that two people find DSD versions of any file whatsoever to be better than the exact same file treated with MQA when using an MQA DAC is NOT heartening.

I don't know if either of these two people have a hidden agenda. But I wonder what agenda the professional reviewers might have?
 
lallygagger said:
In any case, given that MQA is being touted as being, not slightly but significantly better than all PCM formats and also DSD the fact that two people find DSD versions of any file whatsoever to be better than the exact same file treated with MQA when using an MQA DAC is NOT heartening.

I don't know if either of these two people have a hidden agenda. But I wonder what agenda the professional reviewers might have?
Click to expand...

What makes you think reviewers would have an agenda? I would gladly review an MQA DAC as long as they provided a hard drive of files with it. I would compare it against the sound of my digital rig and report what I heard. I don't own any stock in audio hardware or software companies so I have no agenda. I have long stated my personal pecking order in the hierarchy of sound quality:

1. Tape (15 ips 2 track)
2. Phono
3. DSD
4. PCM

Where MQA fits in that hierarchy remains to be heard, but my mind is open.
 
+1, about keeping an open mind.

I would not draw any conclusions just from someone else's say-so or from a public demo.
You have to hear it for yourself in a familiar system, preferably your own, and with music you are familiar with.
 
I have been looking on the http://www.soundliaison.com/ site but I do not see the exellent Carmen Gomes download in the MQA format, but Pioneer is using it to promote the player.....?
A.S. said:
and it is a handy format for portable players;
attachment.php
http://www.whathifi.com/news/pioneer-xdp-100r-worlds-first-mqa-ready-hi-res-music-player
Click to expand...
 
j2020 said:
+1, about keeping an open mind.

I would not draw any conclusions just from someone else's say-so or from a public demo.
You have to hear it for yourself in a familiar system, preferably your own, and with music you are familiar with.
Click to expand...

You just restated my points. We are in agreement.
 
lallygagger said:
An updated Mytek Brooklyn has already been used and through it MQA has been found to be lacking a poster on this thread and his friend who owns the Brooklyn. Both of them felt that DSD playback was superior to MQA when playing the same tracks in both formats.
Click to expand...

My experience with MQA encoded tracks at the Meridian MQA demo I heard was unencoded 24/96 FLAC and DSD editions of albums sound better than their MQA encoded and decoded counterparts.

But it is important to remember that a key goal of MQA is to reduce the size of music files so they fit into streaming services with 16/44 and lower bandwidth.
I think that is the arena where MQA may find success.
 
bmoura said:
My experience with MQA encoded tracks at the Meridian MQA demo I heard was unencoded 24/96 FLAC and DSD editions of albums sound better than their MQA encoded and decoded counterparts.

But it is important to remember that a key goal of MQA is to reduce the size of music files so they fit into streaming services with 16/44 and lower bandwidth.
I think that is the arena where MQA may find success.
Click to expand...

The problem is that it keeps being touted as the Swiss Army knife of digital. It does all things for all people and scratches every itch better than every other digital solution. I appreciate your candid observations of the SQ.
 
mep said:
The problem is that it keeps being touted as the Swiss Army knife of digital. It does all things for all people and scratches every itch better than every other digital solution. I appreciate your candid observations of the SQ.
Click to expand...

True. The hype about sound quality has been pretty heavy in some quarters.
Even though we are talking about taking 24/96 and 24/192 PCM audio, running it through processing that reduces the file size and then there are claims of improvement vs. the original.

For another comment on MQA recently, check this MQA reaction from SoundStage at the recent High End Munich show earlier in May:

"The uninspiring MQA demo we heard in the Brinkmann Audio room overshadowed the introduction of Brinkmann’s new DAC, which was far more interesting."
Click to expand...
http://www.soundstageglobal.com/ind.../629-high-end-2016-product-coverage-gallery-4
 
bmoura said:
True. The hype about sound quality has been pretty heavy in some quarters. ....

For another comment on MQA recently, check this MQA reaction from SoundStage at the recent High End Munich show earlier in May:
"The uninspiring MQA demo we heard in the Brinkmann Audio room overshadowed the introduction of Brinkmann’s new DAC, which was far more interesting."




http://www.soundstageglobal.com/ind.../629-high-end-2016-product-coverage-gallery-4
Click to expand...

There certainly is no consensus on the sound quality of MQA...
 
bmoura said:
My experience with MQA encoded tracks at the Meridian MQA demo I heard was unencoded 24/96 FLAC and DSD editions of albums sound better than their MQA encoded and decoded counterparts.

But it is important to remember that a key goal of MQA is to reduce the size of music files so they fit into streaming services with 16/44 and lower bandwidth.
I think that is the arena where MQA may find success.
Click to expand...

So....the file size would be comparable to what is available today on Tidal (audiophile level service) after the added overhead of the MQA processing. If I'm understanding this correctly, the MQA processing will pile on top of a less than redbook sized digital recording. I can't see how that would be an improvement especially if the reports of "how MQA music sounds" have been more of a disappointment than a boon.

Perhaps I'm missing the entire boat here, but if any of what I've written above is accurate then wouldn't the un-jacked with original redbook recording be a better facsimile of the original recording (assuming the redbook recording is a decent one and not overly compressed or otherwise mucked up)?
 
MikeCh said:
So....the file size would be comparable to what is available today on Tidal (audiophile level service) after the added overhead of the MQA processing.
Click to expand...

Actually MQA is meant to have a file size / bitrate smaller than hi-res PCM. It is larger than FLAC 16/44.1 redbook currently on Tidal. (Some people tried to prove that non-MQA hi-res PCM actually compresses better than MQA, but that's another story.)

I do not doubt MQA with proper decoding will sound better than the redbook version of the same music from Tidal on the same hardware. I'll leave it to you guys to find out how it compares to hi-res PCM or DSD. :lol:
 
I am sticking with Berkeley Alpha Dac reference. Was informed they will have MQA capability should it be commercial success. I trust their ears and engineering prowess. They aren't fad chasers. They lock and load on proven parts selection and engineering that lead to no compromise sonic performance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top