MQA Discussion

[Mike-48]

I especially liked this part of his conclusion:

Having abandoned keeping to the Sampling Theorem, the results become a matter of subjective opinion, and the creator of the individual MQA file or stream may have some control over this judgement. It then becomes a question of whether each listener likes the result or not. In some ways the creator of an MQA file is placed in the position of being a ‘magician’ who has to know how to get the best sound from an existing recording. Unfortunately, the music business has a mixed track record in such matters. For example, the tendency to equate ‘good’ sound with ‘sells well’ which has led to many Audio CDs being level compressed and clipped to be LOUD on the basis that this ‘sells more CDs’.

[cmarin]

Dan,

Thank you for the link to Jim Lesurf's article.

Although I haven't researched the matter to any great extent, and some of it is beyond me, it is the best detailed explanation of the MQA process I've yet read.

It provides a clear explanation of the type of artifacts that are created when the so called MQA "folding" and "unfolding" is applied to the original file.

As mentioned in the article, it is a subjective cure that may or may not be preferred by a given listener.

For my part, I was able to experiment with a high end MQA DAC for an extended period of time. At first, as in other cases before, I was enamored by the change. But after going back and carefully comparing it over an extended period to my long standing reference DAC, I found the latter preferable.

The preference for my reference DAC could have been due because my reference DAC was superior to the MQA DAC regardless, or because the MQA processing added unfavorable processing, or both. But in either case, I'm on the MQA sidelines for now.

[jdandy]

Carlos.......To use Tony's comment from his earlier post, "I was an early adopter when I was younger, I'm less interested in being one at this stage in my audio journey." That sums it up for me, too. I'm not in a wait and see mode. At this time in my audio journey, and it has been a long and expensive one, I am enjoying the best sound reproduction in my home I have ever experienced. I simply don't find myself excited in the least about another format or hardware upgrade with purported audible improvements that are subjective at best. I am not an MQA hater, just someone who doesn't see a need for a complicated, multilevel solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. My hopes are centered on the future providing unadulterated high-res streaming.

[cmarin]

Originally Posted by jdandy

Carlos.......To use Tony's comment from his earlier post, "I was an early adopter when I was younger, I'm less interested in being one at this stage in my audio journey." That sums it up for me, too. I'm not in a wait and see mode. At this time in my audio journey, and it has been a long and expensive one, I am enjoying the best sound reproduction in my home I have ever experienced. I simply don't find myself excited in the least about another format or hardware upgrade with purported audible improvements that are subjective at best. I am not an MQA hater, just someone who doesn't see a need for a complicated, multilevel solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. My hopes are centered on the future providing unadulterated high-res streaming.

Thumbs up Dan!

From an old timer who still doesn't use graphical emoticons ... well not often anyway

[EfeTe]

Originally Posted by jdandy

Here is an interesting article by Dr. Jim Lesurfs: MQA or “There and back again”

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/MQA/origa...reAndBack.html

Thanks for this Dan -enlightening stuff! Or at least clarifying.

[nicoff]

Originally Posted by cmarin

Dan,

Thank you for the link to Jim Lesurf's article.

Although I haven't researched the matter to any great extent, and some of it is beyond me, it is the best detailed explanation of the MQA process I've yet read.

It provides a clear explanation of the type of artifacts that are created when the so called MQA "folding" and "unfolding" is applied to the original file.

As mentioned in the article, it is a subjective cure that may or may not be preferred by a given listener.

For my part, I was able to experiment with a high end MQA DAC for an extended period of time. At first, as in other cases before, I was enamored by the change. But after going back and carefully comparing it over an extended period to my long standing reference DAC, I found the latter preferable.

The preference for my reference DAC could have been due because my reference DAC was superior to the MQA DAC regardless, or because the MQA processing added unfavorable processing, or both. But in either case, I'm on the MQA sidelines for now.

Thanks for sharing. Would you mind telling us which are the two DACs that you compared?

[cmarin]

Hi nicoff,

The Pacific Microsonics Model 2 DAC and a Meridian MQA DAC.

[gbaby]

Jim?

[j3brow]

Originally Posted by cmarin

Hi nicoff,

The Pacific Microsonics Model 2 DAC and a Meridian MQA DAC.

Curious which Meridian DAC. 808v6, 818, Ultra, Prime, explorer??

[cmarin]

Originally Posted by j3brow

Curious which Meridian DAC. 808v6, 818, Ultra, Prime, explorer??

Ultra