MQA Discussion

I've heard the two DACs you mention on XLF's and Boulder 3000 series and the Rossini was noticeably better on Redbook. Just goes to show your opinion is not everyone else's.



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...
 
That was the point I was making in my response. There is no consensus in this hobby. Comparing files on different devices will get different results depending on who is auditioning and their preferences.
 
still-one said:
That was the point I was making in my response. There is no consensus in this hobby. Comparing files on different devices will get different results depending on who is auditioning and their preferences.
Click to expand...

True. But that won't stop audiophiles and audio journalists from running A/B tests for dac's and formats.

If we can compare dac's with respect to dsd vs pcm, so can we compare dac's with respect to MQA vs non-MQA.

And then we can decide which format sounds better than another with respect to a particular file.
 
j2020 said:
True. But that won't stop audiophiles and audio journalists from running A/B tests for dac's and formats.

If we can compare dac's with respect to dsd vs pcm, so can we compare dac's with respect to MQA vs non-MQA.

And then we can decide which format sounds better than another with respect to a particular file.
Click to expand...

And there is no winner/looser in the dsd vs pcm debate, so virtually any decision is this hobby is personal and therefore moot except to the individual.
 
still-one said:
And there is no winner/looser in the dsd vs pcm debate, so virtually any decision is this hobby is personal and therefore moot except to the individual.
Click to expand...

The dsd vs pcm battle is not being fought by any proprietary owner of either format simply because Sony has stopped caring or touting dsd.
But now we have Meridian touting the superiority of MQA vs all other non-MQA material. And when a bold claim like this is made, Meridian is of course open to challenge.
So, does the best MQA dac playing MQA(say, Merdian's own Ultradac) produce SQ superior to the best non-MQA dac playing non-MQA(say, the Vivaldi stack)?

It is a simple question that can be easily answered but no one has done such an A/B. And I just keep wondering why this is so.
 
j2020 said:
So, does the best MQA dac playing MQA(say, Merdian's own Ultradac) produce SQ superior to the best non-MQA dac playing non-MQA(say, the Vivaldi stack)?
Click to expand...

Great question.

We really won't know until we can conduct our own tests. When Meridian did the MQA demo's, I heard some songs that absolutely blew me away (Elvis, Sinatra, etc.) - that left little doubt how they would compare against redbook on the best DAC. But then, you get into a room at RMAF where there's an Aurender A10, some modest speakers, grab the ipad and listen to the MQA files (about 40 albums they had). And my reaction was mixed.

I'm hoping Tidal will throw the switch by the end of the year. When I met with Bob Stuart at RMAF, he said the ball is in the hands of Tidal. He said Tidal has to "throw the switch, we're ready." I'm curious what the hold up is. Licensing? Bandwidth? Other technical issues? Lack of interest? Perhaps Tidal is focusing on how to stay in business rather than MQA.
 
Thanks for the post. My findings were similar re: MQA and Bob Stuart. Nice guy. It was good to see John Bevier post about the MicroMega M1. John is a terrific guy and we are all very excited about the M1. I think I'll get mine in red to match my red Sopra 3's. With APS behind the MicroMega, it is going to be THE all-in-one under $10K to watch.
 
j2020 said:
The dsd vs pcm battle is not being fought by any proprietary owner of either format simply because Sony has stopped caring or touting dsd.
But now we have Meridian touting the superiority of MQA vs all other non-MQA material. And when a bold claim like this is made, Meridian is of course open to challenge.
So, does the best MQA dac playing MQA(say, Merdian's own Ultradac) produce SQ superior to the best non-MQA dac playing non-MQA(say, the Vivaldi stack)?

It is a simple question that can be easily answered but no one has done such an A/B. And I just keep wondering why this is so.
Click to expand...

I give up. You keep getting answers but you don't want to hear or believe them. You seem to "think" that by adding MQA capabilities to DAC's changes the sound for other formats. A MSB Select or a Brinkmann Nyquest's capabilities on DSD or PCM do not change because they can play MQA.

Since I heard the MSB Select for the the first time "I" have believed it is the best DAC on either PCM or DSD. You seem to want discount this DAC in any comparison because it can now play MQA files too. If dCs decides to add MQA capability to the Vivaldi along with the Rossini will that be eliminated as a option from your list too?

You seem to want a definitive answer whether MQA is better than other formats and that will never happen in this hobby. You want to discount anyone (not just MQA) who has stated that it sounds better (or no worse) than other formats. If it was just Meridian or MQA that was touting the benefits then we could all chalk it up to just another sales pitch.

Like most everything in this hobby I take all claims with a grain of salt. That includes the as you put it MQA claim it is superior to all other formats. I also question the narrative from several other digital companies due to the "Not Invented Here" syndrome.

Done. At least until their is more news on the subject.
 
Mike said:
Great question.

We really won't know until we can conduct our own tests......
Click to expand...

Many thanks in advance, Mike. Very much looking forward to your findings.
Enough said for now so that we can move on from here. :)
 
I don't know if this link has already been posted here or not as I have not been keeping up with the progress of this thread since about page 50 (haven't had the time). If it has been posted already then I apologize for posting it a second time. If it has not then you might want to take a look at it. Actual measurements of 24/192 and MQA decoded were done using a Meridian Explorer2 DAC.
The findings are very interesting... and while I was getting very enthusiastic about MQA I am much less so now.

http://archimago.blogspot.it/2016/02/measurements-impressions-meridian.html
 
lallygagger said:
I don't know if this link has already been posted here or not as I have not been keeping up with the progress of this thread since about page 50 (haven't had the time). If it has been posted already then I apologize for posting it a second time. If it has not then you might want to take a look at it. Actual measurements of 24/192 and MQA decoded were done using a Meridian Explorer2 DAC.
The findings are very interesting... and while I was getting very enthusiastic about MQA I am much less so now.

http://archimago.blogspot.it/2016/02/measurements-impressions-meridian.html
Click to expand...

What we can measure, only tells a small fraction of the story of what we actually hear. MQA is supposed to get the spatial queues better, like analog does. That, we cannot measure.

MQA = TBD.
 
Mike said:
What we can measure, only tells a small fraction of the story of what we actually hear. MQA is supposed to get the spatial queues better, like analog does. That, we cannot measure.

MQA = TBD.
Click to expand...

Yes, but it may not be such a small fraction. How much better is MQA than other formats? That's the question. It has been suggested on this forum by people who have spent some time listening to and comparing MQA files to non MQA files.. even through such a performer as the Meridian 808v6... that the improvement is incremental at best. And it has also been suggested that MQA did not always best DSD.

From reports such as these it might be that the ''small fraction'' could be the amount of improvement that MQA actually brings to the equation.
While measurement does not tell the whole story, according to the article whose link I posted, MQA adds other other undesirable issues in order to get that small fraction of spatial improvement.

Also with respect to another issue that is being discussed, primarily by j2020 and Still-One, ie: MQA performance in a lesser DAC versus NON MQA performance in a higher quality DAC, I think that j2020 makes a valid point.

John Darko, in a review of MQA through the Mytek Brooklyn, makes the case that MQA is indeed better. But what I find interesting is that he feels that MQA through the Mytek Brooklyn is NOT better than redbook through the Aqua La Scala, he also states the he personally prefers other formats through the PS Audio Directstream Jr to MQA through the Mytek because he prefers the Jr's overall tonal quality.

http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2016/06/an-inconvenient-truth-mqa-sounds-better/

And Still-One feels that his DAC outperforms the Rossini even when the Rossini is playing MQA decoded files.

Of course this is not comparing non MQA and MQA performance between two super expensive DACs like Merdian Ultra and Vivaldi as j2020 would like. But if Darko's assessment is accurate, this tells me that if you have a DAC that you feel is particularly fine sounding (which I think I do) you are not necessarily going to get better sound quality from MQA through some other DAC.

And this, both from a musically aesthetic sense and from an economic sense, seems important to me.

From a musically aesthetic standpoint, Many of us have spent considerable money and time dialing in our systems to where we truly like them. I for one am VERY happy with mine overall, but especially with respect to timbre, tonal density and quality. We all know how important synergy is and how changing one component can change everything. So if we have a system that we love, is it worth it to change the DAC for what might or might not be a small fraction of improvement with respect to spatial cues and at the same risk getting some reduction in some other area... eg., tonal quality?

From an economic standpoint, are we going to sell a DAC (taking a loss) that we think is truly musically great and then spend as much or more in order to get an MQA DAC that is in the same league as what we had in order to get an incremental improvement (and, if reports are to be believed, in some files no improvement whatsoever)?

After the initial onslaught of ''WOW MQA IS GREAT'' reviews, reviewers seem to be taking a closer look at MQA... amongst them some who praised it very highly to start with... and the result is that opinions seem to be more varied and less enthusiastic. While they seem to agree that MQA is an improvement, it seems that with further scrutiny and comparison with other formats, they do not think it to be the overwhelming improvement that, at first, they were touting it to be.

Also I have read that a lot of manufacturers are resisting being pushed on to the MQA band wagon as they were with DSD. They feel that with DSD they had to respond to public clamor and implement DSD in their DACs or risk losing sales. The ones I have read about, at this stage of the game, say that they are not going to cave in to pressure. And some don't want to go there because they don't feel that MQA is intrinsically better than other formats.

Michael Lavorgna, sending DSD to the Brooklyn from HQPlayer heard the music to be ''sweeter'' and ''that much more spatially right (Michael's emphasis) and relaxed'' than MQA through the same DAC.
http://www.audiostream.com/content/mqa-reviewed#EqVjt3QXAWAuRrhb.97


It would seem that the jury is still out on MQA, not only due to the lack of content available but also with respect to just how good it is or isn't compared to hi-res PCM and DSD.
 
Mike said:
What we can measure, only tells a small fraction of the story of what we actually hear. MQA is supposed to get the spatial queues better, like analog does. That, we cannot measure.

MQA = TBD.
Click to expand...

I strongly suspect these can be measured, and I'll bet Meridian is doing that, or at least thinks they are.
 
lallygagger said:
And Still-One feels that his DAC outperforms the Rossini even when the Rossini is playing MQA decoded files.

From an economic standpoint, are we going to sell a DAC (taking a loss) that we think is truly musically great and then spend as much or more in order to get an MQA DAC that is in the same league as what we had in order to get an incremental improvement (and, if reports are to be believed, in some files no improvement whatsoever)?

Also I have read that a lot of manufacturers are resisting being pushed on to the MQA band wagon as they were with DSD. They feel that with DSD they had to respond to public clamor and implement DSD in their DACs or risk losing sales. The ones I have read about, at this stage of the game, say that they are not going to cave in to pressure. And some don't want to go there because they don't feel that MQA is intrinsically better than other formats.

It would seem that the jury is still out on MQA, not only due to the lack of content available but also with respect to just how good it is or isn't compared to hi-res PCM and DSD.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify my earlier post #616. I stated that I preferred my 808 vs the Rossini on PCM material when comparing the two DAC's in my system. I also didn't hear any differences in the Rossini SQ when it was fed a MQA file which it passed as straight PCM since dCs has not released a MQA capable version yet.

Regarding your economic standpoint comment, there are many in this hobby who swapped out their PCM only DAC's to have access to DSD's perceived negligible improvement. I'm sure there will be some willing to do so should MQA content proliferate.

There is always resistance to something new in this hobby but:
From what was shown at RMAF MQA capable DAC's are coming to market. MSB launched its first MQA-ready product, the Select DAC, and Aurender showcased its new A10 MQA capable music server. Brinkmann demonstrated their new Nyquist MQA-capable DAC, while Bel Canto introduced their ACI600 integrated amplifier, Cary Audio launched its first MQA-ready product, the DMS-500. In addition, established MQA partners Meridian Audio showed their new Ultra DAC in a loudspeaker-based demo, Mytek demonstrated the Manhattan II and Bluesound launched the world's first MQA-ready soundbar, the Pulse Soundbar.

Michael Lavorgna, writing in AudioStream, said, "My takeaway from this is MQA is a train that has left the station and has the momentum to deliver". If you want to read his entire post. http://www.audiostream.com/content/what-mqa#L91Mkf0DmjvXef1Q.97
 
A lot of this doesn't exactly paint a rosy picture to me...

In terms of a "train that's left the station", it looks like a tiny train going to a small town.

We now have about 8 MQA "capable" DAC's? But only about half are actually capable of processing MQA at this time. In terms of content, Warner doesn't seem to be in much of a hurry. And from what's been written, their plan is to take songs that have already been converted to hi-rez (from analog masters) and use the PCM to make MQA-compliant files. We already have a hi-rez version available to purchase. For those that have made the purchase, probably less than half will make it again (to purchase the MQA version). My point is that it's not new or significantly different material.

Originally, I thought that MQA was something that had to be done at the time of conversion to digital (or during the mastering process if done in the analog domain). Wasn't that what they were selling with the little light? "Master Quality Authenticated"? Or "As the artist intended"? Now, it's "made from existing PCM"! It sounds like anyone can make MQA files from PCM audio. Based on that, I don't see why they can't do it "on-the-fly" in their MQA DACs while being fed PCM? Some of this seems to be done for the sake of "proprietary's name". It wouldn't make them as much money if MQA was only a DAC (or player) capability. Only with MQA's current process can get royalties on every file/song.

Based on Archimago's article, it sounds like MQA is mostly a DSP "process" (though not entirely as he suggests), which tends to go with my statement before about being able to update DAC's that have purpose-built ASIC (DAC's like the ESS Sabre, or Wolfsen's, etc.) chips which are "etched-in-stone"; what's being updated is some other section (likely the DSP and filter) of the "DAC Unit".

Even if MQA sometimes sounds incrementally better, there are significant detractors that still exist. I give you that there are a few more DAC's and some content, but it's got a very long way to go to mainstream adoption.
 
radioactive said:
A lot of this doesn't exactly paint a rosy picture to me...

In terms of a "train that's left the station", it looks like a tiny train going to a small town.

We now have about 8 MQA "capable" DAC's? But only about half are actually capable of processing MQA at this time. In terms of content, Warner doesn't seem to be in much of a hurry. And from what's been written, their plan is to take songs that have already been converted to hi-rez (from analog masters) and use the PCM to make MQA-compliant files. We already have a hi-rez version available to purchase. For those that have made the purchase, probably less than half will make it again (to purchase the MQA version). My point is that it's not new or significantly different material.

Originally, I thought that MQA was something that had to be done at the time of conversion to digital (or during the mastering process if done in the analog domain). Wasn't that what they were selling with the little light? "Master Quality Authenticated"? Or "As the artist intended"? Now, it's "made from existing PCM"! It sounds like anyone can make MQA files from PCM audio. Based on that, I don't see why they can't do it "on-the-fly" in their MQA DACs while being fed PCM? Some of this seems to be done for the sake of "proprietary's name". It wouldn't make them as much money if MQA was only a DAC (or player) capability. Only with MQA's current process can get royalties on every file/song.

Based on Archimago's article, it sounds like MQA is mostly a DSP "process" (though not entirely as he suggests), which tends to go with my statement before about being able to update DAC's that have purpose-built ASIC (DAC's like the ESS Sabre, or Wolfsen's, etc.) chips which are "etched-in-stone"; what's being updated is some other section (likely the DSP and filter) of the "DAC Unit".

Even if MQA sometimes sounds incrementally better, there are significant detractors that still exist. I give you that there are a few more DAC's and some content, but it's got a very long way to go to mainstream adoption.
Click to expand...

All very good points!!

I contacted Michael Lavorgna and he told me that at CES he asked about the possibility of a software MQA decoder and he was told that it is indeed coming. However since it is not their first priority nor even their second priority it will be sometime down the road before it is released.

This, for me, is great news because as I said, I really like my present DAC so I will happily wait for the software. :celebrate008_2:
 
Then there is the cost factor of MQA music files.....

There is a thread in another forum that discusses how good Redbook can be and I agree.

With today's new gen dac's, Redbook can sound stunning next to hires pcm/dsd/MQA.
Looking at the prices from the 2L website, the premium over CD-quality FLAC for hires pcm/dsd/MQA may not be justifiable.

https://shop.klicktrack.com/2l/474324

With my current direct thumbdrive-AQ JB-dac set-up, my vast Redbook collection on FLAC sounds truly, truly amazing!
 
radioactive said:
Now, it's "made from existing PCM"! It sounds like anyone can make MQA files from PCM audio. Based on that, I don't see why they can't do it "on-the-fly" in their MQA DACs while being fed PCM?
Click to expand...

MQA process applies "de-blur" correction to the digital master based on the specific ADC used, because different ADC have different imperfections.

Likewise, MQA DAC applies correction to the music data based on the specific MQA-certified DAC.
 
Wilkie.. I hear you, however....

Bob Stuart is quoted as saying there are relatively a few number of ADC's that have been used and it would be possible to account for them -- this was in his discussion on a software MQA Player --

So if the hardware DAC is known then the other variable is the ADC , and it's not that big of an issue to deal with -- according to Bob.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top