MQA may not be all that's claimed

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 6417 times.

ctsooner

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 281
Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
« Reply #40 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.

Mike in NC

Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
« Reply #41 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.
« Last Edit: 2 Mar 2017, 12:38 am by Mike in NC »

Mike in NC

Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
« Reply #42 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?

audioengr

Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
« Reply #43 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.

witchdoctor

Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
« Reply #44 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:

brother love

Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
« Reply #45 on: 13 Jun 2017, 10:51 am »
What a dumb headline.

Pot, meet kettle.

mav52

Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
« Reply #46 on: 13 Jun 2017, 11:41 am »

orientalexpress

Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
« Reply #47 on: 13 Jun 2017, 01:26 pm »
Pot, meet kettle.
Now that funny  :lol: :lol: :lol:

ctsooner

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 281
Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
« Reply #48 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.

audioengr

Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
« Reply #49 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.

ctsooner

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 281
Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
« Reply #50 on: 16 Jun 2017, 11:49 am »
What bout that Silver USB cable you sold me?  That thing is really good.

RPM123

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 371
Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
« Reply #51 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

audioengr

Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
« Reply #52 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.

audioengr

Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
« Reply #53 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.