MQA Discussion
- Thread starter still-one
- Start date
Ok I don't get it. I wanted to compare another MQA file to a regular 16bit track from Tidal. I understand my exasound DAC only unpackages it at 24/48khz but I should still hear a difference from it to the rebook version right? I check out Rush a Farewell to Kings by searching Rush, all albums, and upload Xanadu. There are 4 album options here; 3 look the same and one says remastered. First it is annoying that I don't know a way to tell which album is a MQA or not; I can only tell by playing it and clicking on the signal path to see the bit rate.
So I check out one album; it is an MQA 24bit/96khz track. I listen to it and download the other tracks from the other 3 albums. I listen to the next track from the remastered album. I assumed it would be the rebook version, but after a while I check, and it is also an MQA 24bit/96khz track. Hmmm....and as it is playing it shows both playing at the same time in the playlist (see below) as it knows it is the identical track.
The other track is also a MQA 24bit/96khz track, and the fourth? it is a 24bit/192khz MQA track. Why 2 different MQA tracks in there in 4 different albums? and no redbook version? Weird.
So I check out one album; it is an MQA 24bit/96khz track. I listen to it and download the other tracks from the other 3 albums. I listen to the next track from the remastered album. I assumed it would be the rebook version, but after a while I check, and it is also an MQA 24bit/96khz track. Hmmm....and as it is playing it shows both playing at the same time in the playlist (see below) as it knows it is the identical track.
The other track is also a MQA 24bit/96khz track, and the fourth? it is a 24bit/192khz MQA track. Why 2 different MQA tracks in there in 4 different albums? and no redbook version? Weird.
Attachments
Is MQA the PCM version of DSD's SHM? Essentially a combo of audiophile remastering and hi-rez format?
Just like SHM tried to convince people that the magic was in the Super High (quality) material used to make the disk, we could call BS on it, in that when ripped, the quality remained. This contradicts the disk reflectivity argument, as a rip is bit perfect to the physical medium copy.
My conjecture is that MQA is similar and the whole filter correction argument is just misdirection. MQA found a path to remuneration via the hardware unlock rather than the impossible to control digital media. HWare manufacturers pass on the one time unlock fees to the consumers and everyone is happy. Furthermore, even without the full unlock, one can get partial 24/96 via the Tidal app and MQA gets something from the monthly fees.
Its a practical and not onerous revenue model that one can opt in or out of. No fuss, no muss.
Norman - MQA is not the PCM version of DSD's HCM. The theory behind MQA is to go back to the best available studio master. If that's tape, then tape. If that's DAT, then it's DAT. If it's 16/44, 24/48, 24/96, 24/192 or even higher - than that's what they use. Filters applied = MQA.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
CPP
Active member
The thing is Mike, we really don't know what master the labels are even providing. There is nothing in any notes associated with the music to tell us. I wish there was. For all we know we could be listening to a CD complied into MQA. I wish MQA was a little more forthright about the music , like including the original master release date, label, engineer, studio, etc.. That would be pretty cool.
still-one
Active member
- Thread Author
- #1,026
Even if they are re-masering every single MQA release why would anyone care? We are getting better sound for no additional cost for the music. Whether someone wants to pay for a new or updated DAC is the same decision one has to make when deciding to purchase a DSD cable unit or one that handles music above 16/44.1.
AJ Soundfield
Well-known member
Isn't it funny that the biggest opponents have NEVER heard MQA? Those who have, love it? Funny, you would think actual experience meant something. Guess not.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
CPP
Active member
Yes, but you know there are people that do care. Its like setting down with that LP, and looking at the jacket and all of those comments. Makes the enjoyment even more fun.
AJ Soundfield
Well-known member
Almost as funny as folks who think they are clairvoyant and know who has heard what.
Almost as funny as folks who think they are clairvoyant and know who has heard what.
Oh really? Where? In your system? BS. You know nothing about MQA. You haven't heard it IN YOUR SYSTEM for weeks. Until then...you have no opinion. You can prattle on like all the other negative nelly's WHO HAVE NEVER HEARD FULL BLOWN MQA IT IN THEIR SYSTEM.
Mike Chaffee heard it in his system and told me last night "it's the most natural sound". He's giving a big presentation on MQA at CEDIA.
AJ Soundfield
Well-known member
How do you know this?
Have you? What equipment? The number of devices doing full blown MQA are very small. So what are you using to achieve it? What has been your long term observations? What have you compared it to?
AJ Soundfield
Well-known member
Not so sure now?
Mytek Brooklyn...for over 2 months. Tidal of course.
My observation is that the differences..if any at all, are extremely subtle. At times, it seemed I preferred the MQA, others the non-MQA. Exactly as one would expect when there is remastering done. Sometimes it will help, other times they got it right originally.
Another audiophile tempest in a teapot over archaic stereo for dinosaurs. While real audio scientists laugh.
Good. Mytek Brooklyn is ok. I've been listening for 9 months and I think it's a winner.
AJ Soundfield
Well-known member
I thought it lacking dynamically (the Brooklyn). To each their own regarding MQA.
As long as they don't start encoding original masters with it, then I'd be just fine with others liking it all they want.
But that's not the plan. They want to do exactly that..and once that aliasing distortion becomes embedded with the silly filter, then it's too late, there in no way to remove it. That's hardly "authentic" or a choice.
Too bad you missed the last demo. You could have heard what real, dramatic, not subtle, stereo enhancement sounds like
Too bad you missed the last demo. You could have heard what real, dramatic, not subtle, stereo enhancement sounds like
Your speakers?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
AJ Soundfield
Well-known member
Yes, at the SSC clubhouse. Cardioid coaxial main speakers for highly forward directional direct sound, with a rear firing array of indirect drivers getting their own decorrelated signal. Listeners could turn the rear radiation up/down/off to hear the effect.
On top of that there were (again decorrelated) rear channels, fed by a Logic7 processor. Again, a remote allowed those to be turned up/down off.
Music was...MQA and non-MQA via Tidal over the Mytek.
So yes, pure old fashioned archaic stereo music, but with lots of not so subtle spatial enhancement. If desired.
My understanding it Duke Lejune (sp) of Audiokinesis will be demoing something kinda slightly similar at RMAF. Go check out if you attend.
On top of that there were (again decorrelated) rear channels, fed by a Logic7 processor. Again, a remote allowed those to be turned up/down off.
Music was...MQA and non-MQA via Tidal over the Mytek.
So yes, pure old fashioned archaic stereo music, but with lots of not so subtle spatial enhancement. If desired.
My understanding it Duke Lejune (sp) of Audiokinesis will be demoing something kinda slightly similar at RMAF. Go check out if you attend.
HCM?
I said SHM- super high material.
I will extrapolate on my hypothesis when we meet in person. I think you will agree when I fully lay out the case.
Typo. Meant SHM.
You will hear MQA when you visit next week!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk