AudioCircle

Industry Circles => Empirical Audio => Topic started by: audioengr on 18 Jul 2016, 05:39 pm

Title: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: audioengr on 18 Jul 2016, 05:39 pm
Interesting article:
https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/163302855-is-mqa-doa (https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/163302855-is-mqa-doa)
Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: paul79 on 25 Jul 2016, 02:26 pm
Interesting indeed. Thanks for sharing.

I have yet to read where anyone that has listened to it thinks it makes things worse though  ??

No experience myself of course.... Just keeping an open mind.
Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: Blackmore on 25 Jul 2016, 02:35 pm
I believe Paul McGowan and Ted Smith of PS Audio have written on their forum that they think it makes their DACS sound worse. You have to read Paul's comments with some eye towards him promoting his own products, but it is interesting to read a contrary review.

Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: nickd on 25 Jul 2016, 03:40 pm
I was worried my DAC may not be "up-gradable" to MQA.  :lol:

After reading the article, I am comfortable again. I still long for higher resolution from Pandora and some streaming services However it appears I am in the minority. Few of the non audiophile population feel that way.

My 28 year old son (it tech a with degree and lots of certs) just looks at me like I'm crazy when I talk about high resolution digital audio.
Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: ctsooner on 6 Aug 2016, 12:13 am
I was able to listen to it for an hour or so about a year ago.  One of the reps was in a local shop and we listened on the top Meridian system in the store. It sounded very good. It really did, but I wouldn't say it blew me away.  I just wasn't familiar with the Meridian system I heard as I don't like them. 
Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: bhobba on 12 Jan 2017, 02:16 am
I believe Paul McGowan and Ted Smith of PS Audio have written on their forum that they think it makes their DACS sound worse. You have to read Paul's comments with some eye towards him promoting his own products, but it is interesting to read a contrary review.

I don't think it was worse.

The claim is what John Darko found (ie its actually better than the original hi res files it came from):
http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2016/06/an-inconvenient-truth-mqa-sounds-better/

What Paul McGowan found was while very close to the original it was slightly worse:
http://www.psaudio.com/pauls-posts/mqa-thoughts/

But even that is a good achievement.  Paul was told it could be better if it was optimized for the PS Audio DAC.

IMHO its the future of streaming services like Tidal.  Now I have a Tidal subscription I really don't buy new CD's or do downloads anymore except the occasional ones not in their library - but that's very rare.

The real issue with it IMHO is companies like PS Audio that constantly release new software updates don't want it because they will need to update the MQA decoder as well to get the best results.   We will see if it takes off enough so they will have no choice.  But even without it it sounds good - just not quite what is claimed.

Thanks
Bill
Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: OzarkTom on 12 Jan 2017, 03:27 am
I was worried my DAC may not be "up-gradable" to MQA.  :lol:

After reading the article, I am comfortable again. I still long for higher resolution from Pandora and some streaming services However it appears I am in the minority. Few of the non audiophile population feel that way.

My 28 year old son (it tech a with degree and lots of certs) just looks at me like I'm crazy when I talk about high resolution digital audio.

You might want to read this article about Pandora.

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/739-ces-2017-nice-surprises/
Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: FullRangeMan on 12 Jan 2017, 10:50 am
The article seems lucid, MQA looks another HDCD.
Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: Steven Stone on 12 Jan 2017, 05:07 pm
You can pontificate all day if you wish OR you could get Tidal (the demo is free), download and configure their desktop app and listen for yourselves on ANY DAC since the app has decoding up to 96/24 built in. Lots of people have written about MQA before they've heard it, which is too bad...
Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: ctsooner on 13 Jan 2017, 02:17 pm
You are so correct.  It's typical of so many on the internet to talk about things they don't know about etc...  All too often folks look at graphs and measurements and make their minds up.  Folks forget how to listen.  I'm on the fence over the long term viability of MQA, just like I was about so many other formats of various listening and visual's before it.  Heck, I owned the Sony video format that was much better than VHS and fell through due to marketing, to laser disks to......name your tune.

I heard MQA as a dealer who had the rep in visiting with it about a year before they came to market with it and I was impressed.  I have and listen to a lot of high resolution music at home.  I find it's still all about how good or bad the recording is as nothing can compensate for that.  I heard fully unfolded files on an all Meridian system (not my favorite high end gear) and it sounded better than the same cuts in non MQA format that they played along side.  I will no doubt use it on my iPhone and through my AudioQuest Red, once that's available.  I have my QX5/20 from Ayre that won't have it available, but I will listen to the Tidal stream with and without to see if I want to use it on my main rig.  Again, I'm so glad it's available for some of their catalog and will be able to easily listen to cuts to see if I like it better or not. 

Too many folks get hung up on 48 vs 96 vs 192 and all the number in between.  Personally, I hear differences, but not huge at all.  I hear much larger differences going from 16 bits to 24 bits.  Adding more information seems to do much more for the musical experience in my system than the sampling rates. 
Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: werd on 21 Jan 2017, 07:20 am
You can pontificate all day if you wish OR you could get Tidal (the demo is free), download and configure their desktop app and listen for yourselves on ANY DAC since the app has decoding up to 96/24 built in. Lots of people have written about MQA before they've heard it, which is too bad...

Hi

Ok i appreciate the tip. I use tidal (hifi account) from ipad into my Yamaha receiver configured for multiroom use. However, I did what you said and downloaded it on to my gaming desktop. I got it and sounds good and tidal sounds good over my gaming headphones.  I am assuming i have it? The only thing is i can't compare it. Is there anyway i can turn this off or am i stuck with no comparison?
Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: werd on 21 Jan 2017, 08:25 am
Edited due to lousy dac and headphones on comp  :lol:
I can actually replicate this MQA Brand sound with my Bryston BDA2. Well with out the dynamics loss of the MQA. It sounds like my bda 2 on an aluminum shelf a bunch of heavily shielded rca cable. I am trying to remember the braiding type. Definetly not your holographic cables Empircal use to sell. Dam i forget.. oh well who cares.
Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: werd on 21 Jan 2017, 03:46 pm
I don't mind it for my ceiling speakers using tidal. I am not sure how happy I would be about it in the sweet spot . I would likely turn it off.
Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: Steven Stone on 21 Jan 2017, 03:58 pm
"I can actually replicate this MQA Brand sound with my Bryston BDA2. Well with out the dynamics loss of the MQA. It sounds like my bda 2 on an aluminum shelf a bunch of heavily shielded rca cable. I am trying to remember the braiding type. Definetly not your holographic cables Empircal use to sell. Dam i forget.. oh well who cares."

I would disagree based on matched level A/B tests using my own original master files. If you had a Mytek Brooklyn you could turn the MQA processing on and off from your listening chair for some more tightly controlled listening comparisons that rely less on longterm aural "memory."
Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: werd on 21 Jan 2017, 04:07 pm
Well i would need to be able switch it off at the sweet spot to get a meaningful opinion.. How do you match level?
Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: garyalex on 21 Jan 2017, 04:17 pm
All I can say is that some of the conclusions reached in this article are not consistent with my admittedly limited experience with MQA.  I've listened to MQA files on Tidal.  My DAC does not natively support MQA.  Even so I found some of those files to sound very good.  So far I've restricted my listening to albums I've heard many times previously.  One of those that I found to sound better than its non-MQA version was the Crosby , Stills and Nash "Daylight Again" album.  To me it sounded smoother and less digital.  There were others for which this difference was less apparent or not apparent at all.  So far I haven't heard anything that sounds worse.  Just my experience.
Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: ctsooner on 21 Jan 2017, 05:46 pm
Let's see if it really comes to pass for the masses in either mid or hifi.  I still don't think I'm missing a thing with a great system and if it does catch on, I'll do the upgrades later on.   So far I'm not missing it a bit.  I will be using it on my tidal stream and AQ Red DAC once I can and that will be perfect for me if it makes most recordings sound better.  It's just so early to figure out if it's better and by how much and in what types of systems. 
Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: wushuliu on 21 Jan 2017, 10:32 pm
Interesting. So the article is saying that MQA is actually a lossy format with some whizbang processing. So the end product may sound great, but it's not any closer to 'master tape'. No wonder some companies are skeptical.
Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: witchdoctor on 21 Jan 2017, 10:41 pm
Interesting article:
https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/163302855-is-mqa-doa (https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/163302855-is-mqa-doa)

What a bunch of propaganda from a self serving manufacturer. Of course the fact that I don't need to buy a dac to get MQA never occurred to them right?
If anyone needs to prove the benefit to themselves open tidal. Pick a Masters version of an album and load it into a new playlist. Take the Hifi version of the same album and load it into the same playlist. Hit shuffle, and then play. Close your eyes and see how many times in a row you can pick the MQA version. The upgrade is obvious to my ears, and I didn't even have to buy a thing.
Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: wushuliu on 21 Jan 2017, 10:56 pm
What a bunch of propaganda from a self serving manufacturer.

But are they wrong? What bothers me is the part about the source 24bit file not being preserved...

Quote
Note that the original 24-bit signal is never recovered. MQA does not losslessly preserve the original 24-bit signal. For this reason MQA is not truly a lossless system. At best, the MQA system losslessly conveys 17-bits at 96 kHz. Unfortunately this very complicated process is less efficient than lossless FLAC compression of the 17-bit file. It is also only slightly smaller than a FLAC version of the original 24-bit signal. MQA does not make it easier to stream 96 kHz files. With a 96 kHz 18-bit input, FLAC compressed MQA requires higher data rates than FLAC compressed PCM while delivering lower quality than 18-bit losslessly compressed PCM. MQA also requires special mastering and special playback hardware. Conventional FLAC compression requires neither.
Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: witchdoctor on 21 Jan 2017, 11:07 pm
But are they wrong? What bothers me is the part about the source 24bit file not being preserved...

Don't believe them or me, just do your own blind listening test like I posted and let your ears be your guide.
Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: wushuliu on 21 Jan 2017, 11:26 pm
Don't believe them or me, just do your own blind listening test like I posted and let your ears be your guide.

But that's not the same thing. It could very well *sound* better because of the processing, but if what's coming out isn't the same as what went in then it shouldn't be considered lossless or higher fidelity, just another high quality albeit lossy option with its own secret sauce.

But there's no way to know exactly what the chain is for Tidal tracks anyway, cause they aren't transparent about it. So using Tidal as the reference point for MQA is just problematic period.
Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: witchdoctor on 22 Jan 2017, 12:06 am
But that's not the same thing. It could very well *sound* better because of the processing, but if what's coming out isn't the same as what went in then it shouldn't be considered lossless or higher fidelity, just another high quality albeit lossy option with its own secret sauce.

But there's no way to know exactly what the chain is for Tidal tracks anyway, cause they aren't transparent about it. So using Tidal as the reference point for MQA is just problematic period.

Think for a minute, all you can hope for is to reproduce what the engineer captured in the mix right?
Watch these engineers discuss MQA if you don't want to trust your own ears:

https://youtu.be/5U-D_4DK6to

 
Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: witchdoctor on 22 Jan 2017, 12:19 am
Look at this statement from that article-

UNPROVEN CLAIMS

It is curious that most of the claimed sonic advantages of these formats have never been proven.


All you need to do is "prove" it to yourself. Try the blind A/B comparison I posted in this thread. That the collective idiots at Benchmark didn't do this themselves is either because they are too dumb to figure it out, too biased to tell the truth, or too scared that if they told you how to compare for yourself in a blind listening test in just 15 minutes like I did it would reduce their profits. Pick any of the above excuses for the hack job article it still comes out as propaganda. PS Audio is spewing the same venom for the same reasons IMO.
If you want to disagree please at least do a blind listening test before hitting the send button.
Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: werd on 22 Jan 2017, 02:18 am
What a bunch of propaganda from a self serving manufacturer. Of course the fact that I don't need to buy a dac to get MQA never occurred to them right?
If anyone needs to prove the benefit to themselves open tidal. Pick a Masters version of an album and load it into a new playlist. Take the Hifi version of the same album and load it into the same playlist. Hit shuffle, and then play. Close your eyes and see how many times in a row you can pick the MQA version. The upgrade is obvious to my ears, and I didn't even have to buy a thing.

I have been trying to do that. Look at Blood Swear and Tears, Spinning Wheel track. There is the regular release and there is a Remastered release. Are you telling me that MQA is only the Remastered Release?
Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: witchdoctor on 22 Jan 2017, 03:07 am
I have been trying to do that. Look at Blood Swear and Tears, Spinning Wheel track. There is the regular release and there is a Remastered release. Are you telling me that MQA is only the Remastered Release?

I am sharing how to do a blind listening test comparing a Hifi version with a Masters version in Tidal. I am not comparing any other formats. I couldn't find BST in Tidal but here is an example using the Doors. Create a new playlist, add both albums and hit shuffle, then play.

Masters version-

#NowPlaying "L.A. Woman" by The Doors in @TIDALHiFi tidal.com/album/68710999

HIFI version

#NowPlaying "L.A. Woman" by The Doors in @TIDALHiFi tidal.com/album/19373759

Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: wushuliu on 22 Jan 2017, 04:43 am
Think for a minute, all you can hope for is to reproduce what the engineer captured in the mix right?
Watch these engineers discuss MQA if you don't want to trust your own ears:

https://youtu.be/5U-D_4DK6to

1. The video discusses authentication, so are we supposed to listen to MQA tracks with the assurance that ALL tracks have been approved by the artist?

2. Authentication is not related to the lossless vs lossy. In fact the most revealing part of the video was the japanese engineer. If you notice he was the most specific and referred to MQA as being the best BALANCE for streaming. I thought MQA was supposed to be lossless? If they are openly marketing as a lossy advanced compression format I have no problem but that does not seem to be the case.

3. Blind testing or non-blind testing is irrelevant to how MQA processes the music. I can process an audio file all by myself with my own dithering and you might like it better than the original but doesn't mean it's 'master quality'.

In fact the more I research MQA the more confused I am as to what they are doing.
Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: jhm731 on 22 Jan 2017, 04:56 am


In fact the more I research MQA the more confused I am as to what they are doing.
+1
Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: witchdoctor on 22 Jan 2017, 10:47 am
1. The video discusses authentication, so are we supposed to listen to MQA tracks with the assurance that ALL tracks have been approved by the artist?

2. Authentication is not related to the lossless vs lossy. In fact the most revealing part of the video was the japanese engineer. If you notice he was the most specific and referred to MQA as being the best BALANCE for streaming. I thought MQA was supposed to be lossless? If they are openly marketing as a lossy advanced compression format I have no problem but that does not seem to be the case.

3. Blind testing or non-blind testing is irrelevant to how MQA processes the music. I can process an audio file all by myself with my own dithering and you might like it better than the original but doesn't mean it's 'master quality'.

In fact the more I research MQA the more confused I am as to what they are doing.

I can see that you are confused. I don't think you will find what you seek posting in a chat room. I suggest a good pair of headphones or speakers and possibly a glass of wine and the remote control to your system may help.
Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: witchdoctor on 22 Jan 2017, 10:50 am
bump
Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: witchdoctor on 22 Jan 2017, 01:51 pm
Steve, you are a smart guy. Please take some time when you have it, try the blind listening test and post your thoughts. There can be no right or wrong, this is just subjective opinion. Like I said, don't believe me, don't believe the article, just believe your ears.
Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: rbbert on 22 Jan 2017, 02:38 pm
In fact the more I research MQA the more confused I am as to what they are doing.

Trying to find a new revenue stream for Meridian and the major record labels?
Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: witchdoctor on 22 Jan 2017, 03:00 pm
Trying to find a new revenue stream for Meridian and the major record labels?

or

Trying to bring back lost customers who are sick of the ongoing degradation of audio. We have descended from a "golden age" of analog master recordings being created with tube based gear (some of which still sells for $$$$ today) and then distributed in vinyl to compressed digital recordings mastered on a laptop with Pro Tools and being streamed in 128 kb via earbuds on an iPhone.
Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: wushuliu on 22 Jan 2017, 03:11 pm
I can see that you are confused. I don't think you will find what you seek posting in a chat room. I suggest a good pair of headphones or speakers and possibly a glass of wine and the remote control to your system may help.

Lol!
Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: rbbert on 22 Jan 2017, 05:00 pm
or

Trying to bring back lost customers who are sick of the ongoing degradation of audio. We have descended from a "golden age" of analog master recordings being created with tube based gear (some of which still sells for $$$$ today) and then distributed in vinyl to compressed digital recordings mastered on a laptop with Pro Tools and being streamed in 96KB via earbuds on an iPhone.

Hmm. This is not totally compatible with the fact that many of the MQA recordings on Tidal are from the latest, over-compressed peak-limited masterings of any given album.  Note that I said many, not all, in anticipation of the likelihood that you will soon post a couple of ones that aren't  :wink:
Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: witchdoctor on 22 Jan 2017, 05:11 pm
Hmm. This is not totally compatible with the fact that many of the MQA recordings on Tidal are from the latest, over-compressed peak-limited masterings of any given album.  Note that I said many, not all, in anticipation of the likelihood that you will soon post a couple of ones that aren't  :wink:

Well there are good masters and bad masters. There are tracks I like and tracks I don't like, regardless of the master. Here is a playlist of around 2000 master tracks. I put it on shuffle and kicked back. Every time I hear a track that is a WOW I favorite it. I am listening to music I haven't heard in a while, finding artists or genres I may not be familiar with, and of course finding examples of some bad masters. All in all I think it a great way to listen AND I didn't have to buy 2000 downloads to find out what I preferred:

#NowPlaying the playlist "MQA Masters" in @TIDALHiFi tidal.com/playlist/2b8c4ae7-692a-43b1-abee-2f8eaef41af0
Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: witchdoctor on 22 Jan 2017, 05:19 pm
BTW, you make a good point about the current state of recording. It makes you wonder why we should spend all this $$$$ on hardware and such when ultimately the root of the problem isn't in the gear, it's in the source. If any new tech such as MQA leads to a better source in the future maybe we don't have to spend so much on hardware to get good SQ,
Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: witchdoctor on 22 Jan 2017, 10:04 pm
Nice tracks

#NowPlaying "Fascination (2016 Remastered Version)" by David Bowie in @TIDALHiFi tidal.com/track/68648794

#NowPlaying "Soul Seranade" by Aretha Franklin in @TIDALHiFi tidal.com/track/68694276

Nice album

#NowPlaying "Private Dancer" by Tina Turner in @TIDALHiFi tidal.com/album/68729527
Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: ALRAINBOW on 21 Feb 2017, 05:01 pm
I tried MQA a few times with the Manhattan dac with he1000 phones it's nice
And yes it is above cd quality too so as for streaming it's free and worthwhile to use
As I have tidal. Glad they did it.
On my home rig it matters too it's not as good as a sacd rip or a shm disk
But it's free
I will nkt go buy a MQA dac.  Just so you know any maker who wants there dac to play MQA must give them all info of the workings of there machines so many makers will not do this.
Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: AJinFLA on 21 Feb 2017, 05:48 pm
"An astonishingly short two years after writing that, I can report that digital audio has taken a significant step forward in its inexorable march toward superiority over analog. The development to which I refer is called High Definition (HDCD)."

" But, as you might also expect, the 24/192 two-channel (DVD-A) tracks sounded by far the best, and quite significantly so. Everything at 48kHz and below sounded pleasant if not terribly detailed, but when shifting into high gear at 88.2kHz, the resolution became transparent enough to hear the warts in the recording, and even perhaps the limitations of the hardware. And it sounded more liquid, as did all the high-resolution formats."

"Every Stereophile writer who has auditioned DSD under critical conditions—Robert Harley, Peter van Willenswaard, Jonathan Scull, and me—has found it both very much better than 16/44k1 CD and much closer to the analog experience."

"As compelling as the untreated hi-res file sounded, I literally laughed at the difference when the MQA version began. Not only did it feel as though a veil had been lifted, with far more color to the sound, but instruments also possessed more body. With more meat on dem bones, I also noticed less of a digital edge on the violin. I've heard Hahn in concert several times, and this was the closest to real I've ever heard her violin sound on recording."

Borrowed from elsewhere with edits...but you get the gist. :wink:
BTW, I thought remasters were supposed to sound different. Otherwise why bother? Especially with a nice dose of HF aliasing distortion spicing up the meal. Just the way the arti$t$ intended! Yummy!

cheers,

AJ
Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: ctsooner on 1 Mar 2017, 03:18 pm
Thanks for posting.  I will be heading over to The Audio Store here in Newington CT today to go listen to some Focals and also Merdian MQA. I have heard it a few times at his store and really want to give it a go today to see what differences I have been hearing.  The point Wich brought up about poor recordings does have me thinking and concerned.  All too much music I seem to love isn't recorded the best.  We really need a great EQ preamp, but most don't know how to use it or where to use it, plus you'd have to EQ each and ever recording as they would all be different, plus you don't know HOW they should sound as you weren't in the studio with them.  I do wonder how things can and will move forward in our quest for the best sounding music.  A great high res system can do only so much.
Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: Mike-48 on 1 Mar 2017, 04:20 pm
1. The video discusses authentication, so are we supposed to listen to MQA tracks with the assurance that ALL tracks have been approved by the artist?

2. Authentication is not related to the lossless vs lossy. In fact the most revealing part of the video was the japanese engineer. If you notice he was the most specific and referred to MQA as being the best BALANCE for streaming. I thought MQA was supposed to be lossless? If they are openly marketing as a lossy advanced compression format I have no problem but that does not seem to be the case.

3. Blind testing or non-blind testing is irrelevant to how MQA processes the music. I can process an audio file all by myself with my own dithering and you might like it better than the original but doesn't mean it's 'master quality'.

In fact the more I research MQA the more confused I am as to what they are doing.

(1) "Authentication" is a marketing term, meant to sell MQA. It means whatever MQA wants it to mean.

(2) MQA is lossy and proprietary. It will inhibit development of digital signal processing (because it won't output a fully decoded digital signal) (bye-bye, MiniDSP), and it may very well inhibit development of better DACs.  The savings in bandwidth for Tidal, etc., would better be addressed by fixing US Internet speeds to be as fast as South Korea, Sweden, Norway, or Japan.

(3) I agree completely.

and . . . you are not meant to know what they are doing. If MQA wanted you to know exactly, they'd put their process into the public domain, instead of turning it into a licensing and copy-protection scheme.
Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: Mike-48 on 1 Mar 2017, 04:23 pm
"An astonishingly short two years after writing that, I can report that digital audio has taken a significant step forward in its inexorable march toward superiority over analog. The development to which I refer is called High Definition (HDCD)."

" But, as you might also expect, the 24/192 two-channel (DVD-A) tracks sounded by far the best, and quite significantly so. Everything at 48kHz and below sounded pleasant if not terribly detailed, but when shifting into high gear at 88.2kHz, the resolution became transparent enough to hear the warts in the recording, and even perhaps the limitations of the hardware. And it sounded more liquid, as did all the high-resolution formats."

"Every Stereophile writer who has auditioned DSD under critical conditions—Robert Harley, Peter van Willenswaard, Jonathan Scull, and me—has found it both very much better than 16/44k1 CD and much closer to the analog experience."

"As compelling as the untreated hi-res file sounded, I literally laughed at the difference when the MQA version began. Not only did it feel as though a veil had been lifted, with far more color to the sound, but instruments also possessed more body. With more meat on dem bones, I also noticed less of a digital edge on the violin. I've heard Hahn in concert several times, and this was the closest to real I've ever heard her violin sound on recording."

+1

Thanks, AJ, for posting.  MQA is incredibly reminiscent of HDCD. Do audiophiles have such short memories?
Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: audioengr on 13 Jun 2017, 01:22 am
Edited due to lousy dac and headphones on comp  :lol:
I can actually replicate this MQA Brand sound with my Bryston BDA2. Well with out the dynamics loss of the MQA. It sounds like my bda 2 on an aluminum shelf a bunch of heavily shielded rca cable. I am trying to remember the braiding type. Definetly not your holographic cables Empircal use to sell. Dam i forget.. oh well who cares.

I may have a buyer for my cable business, so you may see these again, even improved more!

Steve N.
Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: witchdoctor on 13 Jun 2017, 01:30 am
What a dumb headline. Find me one ad for anything that's "all that it claims",
A Bluesound Node + Tidal Masters is worth the price of entry, period.  :thumb:
Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: brother love on 13 Jun 2017, 10:51 am
What a dumb headline.

Pot, meet kettle.
Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: mav52 on 13 Jun 2017, 11:41 am
Pot, meet kettle.

Bingo
Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: orientalexpress on 13 Jun 2017, 01:26 pm
Pot, meet kettle.
Now that funny  :lol: :lol: :lol:
Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: ctsooner on 15 Jun 2017, 12:50 pm
Steve, that's awesome on the cable business front.  I loved that USB cable. I'm still so pissed at myself for giving it up.  The only other cable I"ve had in the system that may be a bit better and not by much is the TotalDac one.  Like I said, if better, incrementally so.  Keep us posted please.  Thanks.
Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: audioengr on 15 Jun 2017, 08:13 pm
Steve, that's awesome on the cable business front.  I loved that USB cable. I'm still so pissed at myself for giving it up.  The only other cable I"ve had in the system that may be a bit better and not by much is the TotalDac one.  Like I said, if better, incrementally so.  Keep us posted please.  Thanks.

Its the analog cables that I am selling the technology for.
Steve N.
Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: ctsooner on 16 Jun 2017, 11:49 am
What bout that Silver USB cable you sold me?  That thing is really good.
Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: RPM123 on 16 Jun 2017, 03:27 pm
And there is this Soundstage opinion piece written by Doug Schneider.

http://www.soundstagehifi.com/index.php/opinion/1057-mqa-one-year-later-suddenly-more-questions
Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: audioengr on 16 Jun 2017, 05:37 pm
What bout that Silver USB cable you sold me?  That thing is really good.

I still sell these.

Steve N.
Title: Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
Post by: audioengr on 16 Jun 2017, 05:43 pm
And there is this Soundstage opinion piece written by Doug Schneider.

http://www.soundstagehifi.com/index.php/opinion/1057-mqa-one-year-later-suddenly-more-questions

The difficulty is that even if the same DAC can do MQA, DSD and PCM, the implementation of each is different and may affect SQ for each.  Even in the same DAC, it's not a level playing field between the formats IMO.  This is even assuming that the test track is exactly the same, except for the encoding.

Steve N.