MQA Discussion

"When I first learned about WB getting behind the MQA format, I thought it meant that they would mine their catalog and create MQA versions of everything. That’s not the case. According to Jeff Dean, only the 3500 “high-resolution” albums that have already been transferred from analog masters to high-resolution PCM digital files are being targeted for MQAing."



Disappointing turn of events.......
 
If the PCM files are the digital masters, there's nothing wrong. From this source, (to put it simply) it applies the digital correction based on the ADC profile.
 
So I thought (and read) that MQA was not allowing A/B comparison tests? Did they change their mind(s) and are they now going to allow dealers to A/B in the stores? If so, I think that would settle that. All you'd have to do is go into your audio dealer and do an A/B....



audio.bill said:
Found this comment on an MQA audition at RMAF on Computer Audiophile and thought it would be of interest here, copied below for reference.

"What really impressed me and what I attended with the main intention to hear was MQA. I've read about it and wondered for a long time, and I must say that I was HUGELY impressed. I spent a lot of time in the room with MSB and YG. I'm not a fan generally of YG speakers, but the sound with MQA was superb.

I thought MQA likely was hype, but the demo provided direct a/b's of numerous hi res tracks in regular 24-96 hi res pcm, then followed immediately with the same track in MQA, and the difference was not subtle. Everyone in the demos had the same reaction, and I sat through a lot of demos. I also listened to Led Zepplin stairway to heaven sounding about the best I've ever heard it.

Granted, I do not know if the demo tracks were the ones that present MQA in the best light, but, to me, MQA and that room in particular was the star of the show. MQA is sort of what I thought (or hoped) hi res would sound like. It's just more "musical" to me based on the demo. A lot of people said it was "smoother" and it is somehow.

One other thing. The MQA people said that the entire Warner catalogue has been encoded for MQA. They would not (or could not) provide any update on timing regarding MQA streaming over Tidal, other than saying Tidal is "committed" to MQA."
Click to expand...
 
radioactive said:
So I thought (and read) that MQA was not allowing A/B comparison tests? Did they change their mind(s) and are they now going to allow dealers to A/B in the stores? If so, I think that would settle that. All you'd have to do is go into your audio dealer and do an A/B....
Click to expand...
MQA must have changed their stance on allowing A/B testing, since they previously were expressly prohibiting such demos. I would venture a guess that it was due to the number of people questioning MQA's true benefits when they were not allowing direct comparative testing.
 
radioactive said:
So I thought (and read) that MQA was not allowing A/B comparison tests? Did they change their mind(s) and are they now going to allow dealers to A/B in the stores? If so, I think that would settle that. All you'd have to do is go into your audio dealer and do an A/B....
Click to expand...

They were performing A/B tests at RMAF.
 
still-one said:
They were performing A/B tests at RMAF.
Click to expand...

I surmise they were performing A/B tests with the same dac.

It is unlikely they would have hooked up a non-MQA dac like the dCS Rossini or PS Audio Directsream to A/B an MQA file via the MQA DAC vs. the same non-MQA file via a non-MQA DAC.

If so, not really a true A/B test.
 
j2020 said:
I surmise they were performing A/B tests with the same dac.

It is unlikely they would have hooked up a non-MQA dac like the dCS Rossini or PS Audio Directsream to A/B an MQA file via the MQA DAC vs. the same non-MQA file via a non-MQA DAC.

If so, not really a true A/B test.
Click to expand...

They weren't comparing DACs they were comparing tracks. so it was a A/B comparison. As they were using the SOTA MŚB Select DaC the Rossini and PS Audio units were irrelevant.
 
still-one said:
They weren't comparing DACs they were comparing tracks. so it was a A/B comparison. As they were using the SOTA MŚB Select DaC the Rossini and PS Audio units were irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I am afraid you have missed my point.

As I have stated several times previously in this thread, an MQA dac shows incremental improvement in SQ going from non-MQA to MQA files. If not, what's the point of an MQA dac in the first place? I have personally observed this in my home system with the Meridian 808v6.

The real A/B comes when comparing MQA via an MQA dac vs non-MQA via a non-MQA dac of equivalent quality.
Yes, MQA sounds better than non-MQA via the MSB dac but how does that MQA file compare with the same non-MQA file played through the dCS Rossini or PS Audio Directstream?
I am sure dCS and PS Audio would be interested too and so would a lot of audiophiles amongst us.
 
j2020 said:
I am afraid you have missed my point.

As I have stated several times previously in this thread, an MQA dac shows incremental improvement in SQ going from non-MQA to MQA files. If not, what's the point of an MQA dac in the first place? I have personally observed this in my home system with the Meridian 808v6.

The real A/B comes when comparing MQA via an MQA dac vs non-MQA via a non-MQA dac of equivalent quality.
Yes, MQA sounds better than non-MQA via the MSB dac but how does that MQA file compare with the same non-MQA file played through the dCS Rossini or PS Audio Directstream?
I am sure dCS and PS Audio would be interested too and so would a lot of audiophiles amongst us.
Click to expand...

It is obvious to most of us in this hobby that not all DAC's/Players sound the same so. You are no longer comparing just what MQA does to the SQ you now interject the variable of a different source component.

Since dcs has indicated they are working with MQA to implement MQA in the Rossini is that going to remove that as an option in your AB comparison? You seem to want to eliminate Brinkmann and MSB since they have added the capability to their DAC's.

I have never heard a MQA track sound worse than the non-MQA version, "but" not all MQA tracks sound "much" better than the non-MQA version. As I have noted some are rather meh.
 
still-one said:
It is obvious to most of us in this hobby that not all DAC's/Players sound the same so. You are no longer comparing just what MQA does to the SQ you now interject the variable of a different source component.

Since dcs has indicated they are working with MQA to implement MQA in the Rossini is that going to remove that as an option in your AB comparison? You seem to want to eliminate Brinkmann and MSB since they have added the capability to their DAC's.

I have never heard a MQA track sound worse than the non-MQA version, "but" not all MQA tracks sound "much" better than the non-MQA version. As I have noted some are rather meh.
Click to expand...

Let me try again.

It is obvious that not all DAC's are the same. All audiophiles know this and that's why we A/B dac's all the time in a familiar system to find one that sounds the best in our systems.

So, again, does an MQA file via an MQA dac sound better than a non-MQA file via our favorite dac which happens to not do MQA. This is a very simple concept to understand amongst all audiophiles.

I am sure dCS or PS Audio or Chord or Totaldac would be more than happy to demo the superiority of their DAC's in SQ for a non-MQA file over the same MQA file played through another MQA dac. At this point, the A/B is over.
 
In my view, there are two potentially-informative ways to test MQA's sound quality:

1) One system with an MQA DAC--
(a) Play a non-MQA digital download or stream of a song;
(b) Play the MQA version of the same song.
*If the non-MQA version was streamed, then stream the MQA version. If the non-MQA was downloaded, then... well, I'm sure you all get the gist.
*The only variable changed in this test is the version of file played, non-MQA or MQA.
*This test is to ascertain what, if any, differences there are between the MQA file and its non-MQA version.

2) One system with an MQA DAC and a non-MQA DAC, same brand and model except for the MQA capability.
(a) Play a non-MQA download or stream through the MQA DAC.
(b) Play the same version through the non-MQA DAC.
*The only variable changed here is the DAC.
*This test is to ascertain what, if any, differences an MQA DAC presents compared to the non-MQA version of the same DAC.
 
j2020 said:
Let me try again.

It is obvious that not all DAC's are the same. All audiophiles know this and that's why we A/B dac's all the time in a familiar system to find one that sounds the best in our systems.

So, again, does an MQA file via an MQA dac sound better than a non-MQA file via our favorite dac which happens to not do MQA. This is a very simple concept to understand amongst all audiophiles.

I am sure dCS or PS Audio or Chord or Totaldac would be more than happy to demo the superiority of their DAC's in SQ for a non-MQA file over the same MQA file played through another MQA dac. At this point, the A/B is over.
Click to expand...

Well the Rossini was not superior to my DAC in "my" system playing the same PCM file whether it was MQA or non MQA. I can't believe you think that a company like MSB would cripple their DAC(s) just to add MQA capability and sound worse on all other formats. I don't ask my dealer(s) to loan me products I will not be purchasing so I will not be borrowing a Vivaldi stack to use in the comparison.
 
still-one said:
Well the Rossini was not superior to my DAC in "my" system playing the same PCM file whether it was MQA or non MQA. I can't believe you think that a company like MSB would cripple their DAC(s) just to add MQA capability and sound worse on all other formats. I don't ask my dealer(s) to loan me products I will not be purchasing so I will not be borrowing a Vivaldi stack to use in the comparison.
Click to expand...

This is precisely my point.
dCS can easily set up an A/B of its Vivaldi stack vs the upcoming MQA-capable Rossini or the MSB Select to show whether an MQA file played through the Rossini or MSB Select sounds better than the same non-MQA file played through the Vivladi stack.
If not, it would confirm that a higher quality non-MQA dac would make a non-MQA file sound better than an MQA file.
 
Any opinions on Warner Music's announcement that they won't be doing any new analog transfers for their MQA offerings, merely applying the MQA process to their existing hi-res digital offerings?
 
rbbert said:
Any opinions on Warner Music's announcement that they won't be doing any new analog transfers for their MQA offerings, merely applying the MQA process to their existing hi-res digital offerings?
Click to expand...

Are you surprised? Digital is perfect anyway so why not fold the laundry in digital?
 
rbbert said:
Any opinions on Warner Music's announcement that they won't be doing any new analog transfers for their MQA offerings, merely applying the MQA process to their existing hi-res digital offerings?
Click to expand...

Didn't Meridian announce that Warner will convert its entire catalogue?
Looks like either Meridian got shafted or Meridian's initial announcement was disingenuous.

http://www.stereophile.com/content/warner-music-group-goes-mqa#mRCP60Iff0TuMWfZ.97
"The agreement makes it possible to digitize the entire WMG catalogue in the superior MQA-encoded format of various resolutions,....."


http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2016/05/mqa-inks-warner-music-group-deal-lands-on-bluesound/
"The agreement paves the way for recordings from WMG’s diverse roster of acclaimed artists and its world-renowned catalogue to be made available in studio master quality through MQA distributors.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top