Whats your opinion on MQA

[Kal Rubinson]

Originally Posted by Randy Myers

However, in almost every case that I have compared PCM in various resolutions against the same file in DSD I could hear what was to me a fairly big improvement.

Have you accounted for the format in which the performance was originally recorded?

[Randy Myers]

You are correct Kal in that most are not originally recorded in DSD. Some are, but many are created from the original recordings also. And I 100% agree with you that the recording and engineering are the most important factor in what we hear.

However, all else being equal, I prefer listening to the DSD version (dsf file) compare to the PCM version (flac) in almost every case. There are several programs people use to up-convert their PCM files to DSD on the fly, such as HQ Player. I prefer to pre-convert and play the dsf file instead of converting on the fly.

And as you say, it is a personal preference. If MQA ever reaches critical mass I may have to consider a MQA DAC. If their claims that their delivery system (MQA) improves on the original (hmmm, this is a something that would need to be proved to me), then so be it.

I know there are still discussions going on about software decoding (such as within Roon for example). No idea if this would ever truly happen or if it is even possible, but I believe it would go a long way towards market acceptance.

However, I would definitely need to compare a MQA encoded file to a DSD version. This is one place that David's albums would be ideal, and actually could happen today since both versions are available.

Since file size is not a big issue to me, the sound between these two is the critical point for me.

[Kal Rubinson]

Originally Posted by Randy Myers

However, I would definitely need to compare a MQA encoded file to a DSD version.

That would be interesting but it is unlikely for that to happen in any straightforward way. The DSD would have to be converted to PCM for there to be an MQA. However, since MQA has a special sauce that corrects for mic and PCM A/D convertor, I do not see how that could be incorporated.

One might think of comparing an MQA made from a DXD original with the DSD made from that same DXD.

[Randy Myers]

David's albums... I have all of his original DSD recorded albums. He has had all of them converted to MQA... probably one of the best comparisons available I would think.

[aqman]

I was wondering when we would have an MQA thread on AA. A few months ago I read everything I could find on MQA and then bought the Meridian Explorer 2 and tried all the free tracks on 2L. Here is my opinion and thoughts so far.

First, just based on reading and from what I understand about how MQA works. There are two separate aspects, which could be implemented independently- debluring and origami. The MQA folks claim getting the impulse response near perfect is the important thing. The origami lets them put it in a standard flac package at low sampling rates.

It is not clear if you need a time coherent playback system to get either the theoretical or practical benefits. Most tweeters won't get anywhere close to producing the impulse response shown in many MQA plots. It would be nice to see this measurement, as done by JA in Stereophile, with MQA source compared to 96/24. MQA's demo system has often been the Meridian system that is DSP'd to be time coherent.

Decoding the origami may add aliasing artifacts and it is not clear if this is audible or fatiguing over long listening times. The decoding may also change frequency response, which makes comparing to the e.g. DXD file not necessarily a fair comparison. There needs to be a software decoder available, and immediately for audiophile press reviewers.

The 44/24 MQA flac is not really smaller than a 96/20 flac when both are compressed. For streaming, the file format is not relevant for the user, so backward compatibility doesn't seem relevant here.

If MQA files are being sold at prices higher than the already high-priced traditional high-res files, it really seems like gouging.

The audiophile press needs to turn up the sensitivity on their BS meters and act more in the interest of the consumer.

If MQA sounds amazing and can fix all the bad recordings of the last 20 years then all above sins are forgiven.

Now for the listening. I used the ME2 with the line out going through the Benchmark DAC2 HGC as a pre-amp. I compared the MQA file decoded with the ME2 to the highest sampling flac up to 192 khz, and the un-decoded MQA file on the DAC2. Rest of system is Benchmark's AHB2 amp going to Magico S1. I listened to all the free downloads on the 2L site.

In short, my preference was for almost all recordings:

DAC2 192 >ME2 MQA > DAC2 MQA undecoded > ME2

MQA does help on the ME2. MQA seemed to offer the most difference on voices and strings. DAC2 192 sounded smoother. ME2 MQA was a bit sharper. Soundstage was a wash. Over a 30 min listening period, I preferred the smoother sounding DAC2.

I'm looking forward to trying more content, but have no plans to buy a nicer MQA dac. Put all the effort into the recording/mastering and give it to me at 96/24 and I'll be very happy.

[Randy Myers]

Thank you for your input. This is what I am hoping to get more of. Honest opinions and testimonials from people using realistic level equipment!

[doggiehowser]

Never understood why this MQA thread in the General Audio section isn't the one that's generally used.

In the interest of not polluting the Bryston Audio thread with non Bryston related discussions, I propose we use this one instead.

IMHO

[EfeTe]

Does make sense DH.

My 2 cents. I am not a firm believer, have tried a number of native MQA's and listen to Tidal Masters via my DAC everyday and, though I might hear a certain improvement (over regular FLAC) here and there this is very slight in my view.

Even today following MQA's first wave of success among the public, I still prefer DSD over it if I've got a choice. Although (as it has been discussed on this and various other threads) generalization is no good.

[krustycat]

IMHO, MQA is still very shady although I understand the excitement and willingness of both the streaming companies and DAC/Streaming factories, about selling new products on high demand as customers more and more just basically want to be able to easily stream and play high fidelity music over internet through a DAC , remote controlled with the phone if possible.

I get it.

But, on my tests through tidal and my DAC, i still prefer DSD, that of course uses much larger files or SACD's.

I get that too.

[doggiehowser]

I always figured I would try to get the best quality where I can get it.

I agree - DSD sounds superb - whether it is on the PS Audio DS DAC, or my EMM Labs or the Playback Designs. But not everything is available on SACD/DSD format. So if I can get a good quality copy of any song I like,, I would grab at the chance.