My take on MQA

Agreed, although in general for me anything DSD sounds better (downloads and SACD) and then high resolution downloads. CDs take up the rear but are tremendously improved running through the Wyred 4 Sound Remedy! Of course there are variances depending on recording and mastering, etc., but I am talking in over all tendencies!
 
Zero said:
PCM. DSD. Lossless. Mp3. MQA. Vinyl. Tape.

Honestly, I've yet to encounter one format that conquers all. Or more specifically, I've yet to encounter results from one specific format that is consistently superior to another. Even the compression artifacts of an .mp3 can benefit certain recordings. My take on the situation may change over time, but thus far, this has been my overall experience.
Click to expand...

Have you tried master tape vs glass masters .... ?


For those not familiar .... : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDlbN8p8Jww

Going by whats available, IMO, tape masters do offer the most realistic reproduction , followed by D2D Vinyl . In regards to CD, PCM. DSD. Lossless. Mp3. MQA, i can agree with your assessment, which is , no one specific digital format is consistently superior to another...


Regards
 
The bottom line is still how MQA sounds. Will the purported remastering + HF aliasing distortion spicing sound better or....
 
It has real potential to improve many aspects of new recordings.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
 
Mike said:
Spatial cues.

Good read here:

https://mqa-production.s3.amazonaws.com/default/0001/01/6a10f3ba2385770ac3658df2cadc537ffcd09cd3.pdf
Click to expand...
Couldn't find anything there other than Harleys personal experience/opinion. I can show quotes where he said essentially the same about all the other Hi-Res formats throughout the years.:)
There is nothing inherent about the MQA process that would change spatial information, other than remastering. The aliasing distortion from the "lazy" encode filtering could change it slightly, though not always for the better.
But anji said "new" recordings. What spatial effects created by original recording with MQA, vs say, 24/96, which has been used in studios for an awful long time now?
 
I haven't the background to validate the higher math: I understand that the MQA handshake acts as an apodizing filter that reduces timing artifacts on playback.

The claim is a timing error in playback of less than 3 microseconds. I've heard worse errors than this in live music settings, where the monitors are poorly positioned.

This should be evident on recordings where all concerned are playing at the moment of recording, less so if the recordings are dubbed, stitched or multitracked together.

I gather it has the same potential as pitch correction, but haven't heard an A-B comparison to verify the claim.

I'm leery of any proprietary 'chain' that requires a license the codec, for media I've purchased.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
 
AJ Soundfield said:
Couldn't find anything there other than Harleys personal experience/opinion. I can show quotes where he said essentially the same about all the other Hi-Res formats throughout the years.:)
There is nothing inherent about the MQA process that would change spatial information, other than remastering. The aliasing distortion from the "lazy" encode filtering could change it slightly, though not always for the better.
But anji said "new" recordings. What spatial effects created by original recording with MQA, vs say, 24/96, which has been used in studios for an awful long time now?
Click to expand...

Filtering.

 
That's a lot of bang for the buck (the A10) -- full MQA, 4TB of storage and 120GB SSD. Plus the latest AKM DAC chips that Esoteric loves so much.

Just curious Mike, but how did the A10 compare when playing back non-MQA digital (not streamed) such as DSD or 24Bit to some of the other DAC's you're fond of? I ask because upgrade fever is in the air for my Debussy and I have a sh!t-ton of storage on my SAN. I'm more looking at the DAC capabilities and perhaps even the streaming. Finally, is it "Roon Ready".

As for what I've heard with plain 'ol unfolded MQA is that some songs are exactly like Mike describes. They remind me of awesome Vinyl, but even crisper (if that's possible). Analog sources tend to have a rounded-off high-end to my ear and there's none of that with MQA. I also found that there seemed to be more dynamics however less fatigue (yes, a conundrum I know). When I finally heard it through my friends 808 (2nd try), it was not day-vs-night when compared to unfolded-to-my-Debussy at 24/96 (no full MQA). It gave it that extra 10% that we all pay so much for in the end. You know, that saying that once you get to a certain level there's a bit of diminishing returns and every little improvement costs exponentially more. It's a shame they don't make that 808 in silver ;) (they don't do they?) Anyway, the 808 is a solid performer.

Oh yeah, did I mention that my dog doesn't leave the room when I'm listening to MQA? Strangest thing I tell you. Anything else and he leaves ;)

Bryan


Mike said:
A10.
Click to expand...
 
radioactive said:
That's a lot of bang for the buck (the A10) -- full MQA, 4TB of storage and 120GB SSD. Plus the latest AKM DAC chips that Esoteric loves so much.

Just curious Mike, but how did the A10 compare when playing back non-MQA digital (not streamed) such as DSD or 24Bit to some of the other DAC's you're fond of? I ask because upgrade fever is in the air for my Debussy and I have a sh!t-ton of storage on my SAN. I'm more looking at the DAC capabilities and perhaps even the streaming. Finally, is it "Roon Ready".

Bryan
Click to expand...
The Aurender A10 certainly offers a lot of features and an exceptional value especially with its full MQA decoding. However I'd like to point out that it does not use the latest AKM DACs which would be their AK4497. It uses the previously released AK4490 which is still a quality chip which is used in many other DACs, but their latest AK4497 is their next generation and latest design which Esoteric is now using in some of their newer products. Aurender products are not Roon Ready (at least at this time.) Hope this helps!
 
Mike said:
Filtering.

Click to expand...


Bollocks :P
1st, music hasn't been captured that way is a long time...and there is no evidence to support audibility with that sort of playback filtering (which is commonplace even today). The sharp filter is a prerequisite to prevent aliasing. This is basic sampling theory. His "lazy" filter is a nice recipe for aliasing distortion. Yummy! :)

But ok, let's assume the net result of MQA playback is "better" spatial cues.
Which part of it is due to the remastering, which part the "MQA" origami?
The only way to know would be to take the remaster (which goes beyond just filters, including EQ etc. and obviously should sound different, possibly spatially)...and compare that to the "MQA" decoded version.
What if the 16/44, or 24/96. etc playback remaster has same enhanced spatial cues?
Not going to happen of course...
 
radioactive said:
That's a lot of bang for the buck (the A10) -- full MQA, 4TB of storage and 120GB SSD. Plus the latest AKM DAC chips that Esoteric loves so much.

Just curious Mike, but how did the A10 compare when playing back non-MQA digital (not streamed) such as DSD or 24Bit to some of the other DAC's you're fond of? I ask because upgrade fever is in the air for my Debussy and I have a sh!t-ton of storage on my SAN. I'm more looking at the DAC capabilities and perhaps even the streaming. Finally, is it "Roon Ready".

As for what I've heard with plain 'ol unfolded MQA is that some songs are exactly like Mike describes. They remind me of awesome Vinyl, but even crisper (if that's possible). Analog sources tend to have a rounded-off high-end to my ear and there's none of that with MQA. I also found that there seemed to be more dynamics however less fatigue (yes, a conundrum I know). When I finally heard it through my friends 808 (2nd try), it was not day-vs-night when compared to unfolded-to-my-Debussy at 24/96 (no full MQA). It gave it that extra 10% that we all pay so much for in the end. You know, that saying that once you get to a certain level there's a bit of diminishing returns and every little improvement costs exponentially more. It's a shame they don't make that 808 in silver ;) (they don't do they?) Anyway, the 808 is a solid performer.

Oh yeah, did I mention that my dog doesn't leave the room when I'm listening to MQA? Strangest thing I tell you. Anything else and he leaves ;)

Bryan
Click to expand...

Bryan - it's a great piece. You know, I would say it fairly competes with other $5K DAC's (and you get 4TB storage, music player, volume, headphone, etc.). But no Roon. As of right now, the biggest challenge to MQA adoption is hardware. There is a tiny smattering of options. I like the A10 in the "under $10K" range, but my money is going to be on the Berkeley Ref 2 when it goes full blown MQA in Q2. I know how hard they've been working on it and how unique their approach is vs "the rest".

As for MQA, trust me, it's more of a PITA for me because most of my digital products (Chord DAVE, Lampi, Esoteric, etc.) don't handle MQA. But, it's here (and maybe even "here to stay") and at least worth exploring. I stand by my OP and glad you heard what I hear. It seems like your dog agrees.
 
Mike said:
As for MQA, trust me, it's more of a PITA for me because most of my digital products (Chord DAVE, Lampi, Esoteric, etc.) don't handle MQA. But, it's here (and maybe even "here to stay") and at least worth exploring.
Click to expand...
That's the irony.I thought they all sounded very good, including the MQA tracks.
If I had to name a favorite...it was the Chord...even though non-MQA. Something special going on there.
 
Now one of you guys to get the wife to agree and its game over. Wife plus dog...unassailable combo. LoL
 
Thanks Mike,

And I'm not kidding about the dog. He's 2 now and never sits in my listening room for more than 10 minutes. When I had the 808 for a couple of days, he came in, sat down, then laid down and went to sleep -- for several listening sessions. Funny thing, I thought he had just come around. But he hasn't done it since. Probably a fluke -- I mean who the heck knows what goes through a dog's mind other than his next meal! But it is funny as hell.

I'll be interested in hearing the Berkeley. Heard so many good things about their DAC's.

Mike said:
Bryan - it's a great piece. You know, I would say it fairly competes with other $5K DAC's (and you get 4TB storage, music player, volume, headphone, etc.). But no Roon. As of right now, the biggest challenge to MQA adoption is hardware. There is a tiny smattering of options. I like the A10 in the "under $10K" range, but my money is going to be on the Berkeley Ref 2 when it goes full blown MQA in Q2. I know how hard they've been working on it and how unique their approach is vs "the rest".

As for MQA, trust me, it's more of a PITA for me because most of my digital products (Chord DAVE, Lampi, Esoteric, etc.) don't handle MQA. But, it's here (and maybe even "here to stay") and at least worth exploring. I stand by my OP and glad you heard what I hear. It seems like your dog agrees.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top