MQA Discussion
- Thread starter still-one
- Start date
http://www.stereophile.com/content/listening-mqa#cp3kmAj6ToocuiAS.97
The difference is definitely there but it is a different type of difference, sort of like the difference between 2 dac's.
It's either choose between MQA vs non-MQA file or between MQA dac vs non-MQA dac.
It all depends on what type of sound one likes in his system.
The difference is definitely there but it is a different type of difference, sort of like the difference between 2 dac's.
It's either choose between MQA vs non-MQA file or between MQA dac vs non-MQA dac.
It all depends on what type of sound one likes in his system.
still-one
Active member
- Thread Author
- #503
Actually it is not similar to the difference between two DAC's where preferences come into play. All of the MQA files I own or have heard have better clarity around each voice, instrument or sound. You never knew that "something" was there until it is gone. Let's hope that this is the case when, or if, we start getting mainstream releases from record labels. Most of the stuff available now is not worth owning.
Both TAS and Stereophile have reported a more forward perspective for MQA. I had the same experience comparing the hires PCM version via the Esoteric N-05 dac to the MQA version of the same file via the Meridian 808v6.
While sitting in rows 1 to 3 compared to rows 6 to 9 is a matter of personal preference, accurate instrument placement in the soundstage is not.
But it is agreed that the difference is definitely audible.
I'm really curious about the decoding of MQA. I've heard some say they can do it with a firmware upgrade (but is this faux MQA?) Is this MoP (MQA over PCM). MQA over PCM, akin to DoP? Others say a board change/hardware change is required for "TrueMQA"?
At this stage, MQA remains M=Q+A.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
At this stage, MQA remains M=Q+A.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
AJ Soundfield
Well-known member
Dr Lesurf may provide some answers here:
http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/MQA/origami/ThereAndBack.html
Think I'll pass on the whole remaster all music thing.
cheers
AJ
Whether MQA can be done purely as a firmware upgrade depends on hardware characteristics and business considerations. For an audiophile DAC product, if it is done and certified by MQA, then it is true MQA in that it complies with MQA requirements.
MQA folds higher sampling rates of PCM into 44.1/48kHz PCM. DoP encapsulates DSD in a PCM format for ease of transfer (over USB or SPDIF).
radioactive
New member
I was thinking about the statement that, "MQA is a disruptive technology". It sure felt like 2 years ago, a new, competitive, and better-sounding DAC was released by manufacturers just about every other week. Now, it's more like every other month. I've read comments that they don't want to release something that's going to become "obsolete" because of lack of MQA support. They also don't want to invest in MQA and licensing fees when it might end up going nowhere. It appears they're waiting this out just like a large amount of audiophiles.
Sadly, the innovation and trickle-down of technologies into more affordable DAC's isn't happening like it was and there don't seem to be as many newcomers to the market. Just an observation, but a lot of this seems to be due to MQA - anyone have good insight into this?
Sadly, the innovation and trickle-down of technologies into more affordable DAC's isn't happening like it was and there don't seem to be as many newcomers to the market. Just an observation, but a lot of this seems to be due to MQA - anyone have good insight into this?
I think you nailed it pretty good. MQA is definitely causing pause.
Either MQA is causing pause amongst hardware manufacturers/record labels or hardware manufacturers/record labels are causing pause for MQA.
MQA needs more of the latter to sign up before wider acceptance/success but the latter won't sign up before wider acceptance/success of MQA.
Looks like a Mexican standoff. The continued waiting for more hardware and content has slow rolled the initial excitement and momentum of MQA to a crawl and as previously mentioned, it is probably over for MQA.
No amount of intermittent write-ups on MQA or updates from Meridian is going to reignite interest as long as hardware and content remain lacking.
I sent this letter to Stereophile:
Dear editor,
I don't think you are giving your readership a fair and accurate picture of MQA. Benefits to the audiophile consumer are limited if any. Streaming hi-res audio? For awhile at least, until widespread gigabit internet is more common (probably soon), and even now FLAC offers similar file size reduction. DSD? not compatible. Hi-res PCM? 24/192 is not lossless with MQA, and any proposed or possible audio benefits from the proprietary filtering can almost certainly be matched if not bettered by other means.
What MQA does offer is the ability for the record companies to keep the digital data of their "master" audio files unavailable to the public, and it can provide a nice revenue stream to Meridian. It appears to me that you may be placing the interests of a few advertisers above the interests of your subscribers.
Yours truly,
Rob Bertrando
Dear editor,
I don't think you are giving your readership a fair and accurate picture of MQA. Benefits to the audiophile consumer are limited if any. Streaming hi-res audio? For awhile at least, until widespread gigabit internet is more common (probably soon), and even now FLAC offers similar file size reduction. DSD? not compatible. Hi-res PCM? 24/192 is not lossless with MQA, and any proposed or possible audio benefits from the proprietary filtering can almost certainly be matched if not bettered by other means.
What MQA does offer is the ability for the record companies to keep the digital data of their "master" audio files unavailable to the public, and it can provide a nice revenue stream to Meridian. It appears to me that you may be placing the interests of a few advertisers above the interests of your subscribers.
Yours truly,
Rob Bertrando
Kuoppis
New member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2015
- Messages
- 5,203
... and you could add that their position was rather vague, which does not help a lot (4 of 7 attempts identified correctly as MQA).
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
It does? Did you forget the emoji :lol:
Randy Myers
Well-known member
Well, and for the average user the MQA decoder... not many people can afford a Meridian. There will have to be upgrade paths, firmware updates, etc. If they are counting on everyone replacing their DAC along with content then it will be a very very long time, if ever... 
<- emoji
<- emoji
still-one
Active member
- Thread Author
- #517
Well, and for the average user the MQA decoder... not many people can afford a Meridian. There will have to be upgrade paths, firmware updates, etc. If they are counting on everyone replacing their DAC along with content then it will be a very very long time, if ever...
Randy, that is a fair comment. At the same time I am comparing the sound to dCS, MSB, Esoteric, Berkeley, Playback Design, Nagra.....
Randy Myers
Well-known member
Hmmmm.... Lampi might be worthy of being on your list.
Unfortunately way beyond anything I would be looking at. From my understanding the the Meridian low model does not do other formats well and the Brooklyn appears to be decent, but much better units in the range (NuPrime and Benchmark come to mind).... so... nothing that a normal working Joe (ok, Randy) like me could ever afford. Also I would love to see if I could hear a difference between a full on MQA and a DSD equivalent... I don't think I have ever read about that comparison... it always seems to be comparing to PCM and/or streaming. I could care less about streaming....
Unfortunately way beyond anything I would be looking at. From my understanding the the Meridian low model does not do other formats well and the Brooklyn appears to be decent, but much better units in the range (NuPrime and Benchmark come to mind).... so... nothing that a normal working Joe (ok, Randy) like me could ever afford. Also I would love to see if I could hear a difference between a full on MQA and a DSD equivalent... I don't think I have ever read about that comparison... it always seems to be comparing to PCM and/or streaming. I could care less about streaming....
still-one
Active member
- Thread Author
- #519
I have only heard Lampi once and it was in a unfamiliar set-up so my ho-hum opinion is not fair. Besides I have no desire to have a DAC with tubes.
The only brief comment from a artist who releases most of his music on DSD and has started having those tracks given the MQA treatment is that they were close. I will try and find his comments.
Randy Myers
Well-known member
If this is the person you mentioned before (David Elias), most of his material was all recorded directly in DSD. Some excellent recordings by the way 
...
I would be interested in some material that was originally recorded analog, tape probably, and then compare a digital version directly created in MQA and directly in DSD. That would be a good comparison. Hard Drive space is irrelevant, so if MQA takes up less storage this does not really matter. I could understand someone streaming having this concern but not someone who downloads high rez files.
...I would be interested in some material that was originally recorded analog, tape probably, and then compare a digital version directly created in MQA and directly in DSD. That would be a good comparison. Hard Drive space is irrelevant, so if MQA takes up less storage this does not really matter. I could understand someone streaming having this concern but not someone who downloads high rez files.