MQA General Discussion

[gmt]

best troll of the day!

[jhwalker (John Walker)]

How can you “not accept” the multiple reports from well-known and respected engineers, who say the MQA versions of their projects sound better? Besides packaging higher resolution material in a 24/44 or 24/48 wrapper, the MQA process both claims to filter for original ADC distortions (where known) and apply DAC-specific filters to correct distortions at the output end.

If this claim is true, the output cannot help but sound “better” (or certainly different) than before, and trained engineers should be able to hear that.

[Michael_Schilder]

I can, come think of it i just did :).
There are many claiming the opposite as well hearing, no difference between 96/192kHz and unfolded MQA
Ill leave you people to it enjoy the music.

[Chrislayeruk (Chris)]

If that is true then it shows MQA has achieved one of its aims to its strongest critics.
High Res in a small file (Relative) that’s streamable and sound at least the same as 192/24 versions.
So, given that, what’s not to like?

[erich6]

@anon55914447

But surely you’re not arguing we’ve reached that point yet? In fact the objective evidence, not anecdotes, points the other way so far

If by objective evidence you mean running MQA and high-resolution versions of the same music through a spectrum analyzer and looking for differences in the PSD then I’ve only seen a few done and while they conclusively show that for their selected tracks there isn’t much difference that hardly settles whether MQA and high-resolution sound the same. MQA argues frequency-domain analysis isn’t sufficient to fully represent analog audio fidelity. I haven’t seen objective evidence to prove or disprove this. I have seen (and heard) quite a bit of subjective evidence showing MQA is at least as good as high-resolution music if not better. I don’t have an MQA-enabled DAC so the closest I have to compare is Tidal MQA software decoding and in my limited tests I find little difference between MQA and high-resolution music I own. I definitely can tell a difference between MQA masters and other masters previously released for digital streaming. If MQA encourages studios to release better masters for digital streaming that’s a big win already in my book. It doesn’t have to sound better than high-resolution (“as good” is good enough for me).

@anon55914447

But unless you’re schlepping around in a mobile anechoic chanmber any benefits of MQA, real or imagined, or going to be outweighed by the ambient conditions. In fact, I’d heartily recommend listening to 320k mp3 in these conditions, as it’s been shown to be audibly transparent in controlled DBT.

I travel a lot for business and when I travel I carry a Windows laptop PC with 256GB solid state drive, an iPhone 6s with 64GB memory, a decent mobile DAC, and decent headphones. All are modern devices, not the top of the line, but also not at the bottom of the market. Neither the laptop nor the iPhone make it practical for me to carry my music library with me. Yes, I can (and do) preload albums prior to each trip but that assumes I know exactly what I will fancy while on the road which isn’t always the case. Alternatively, I can stream music from Tidal but hotel wifi networks are a joke and my mobile phone service is relatively expensive so I limit what I stream. For both storage and streaming, MQA’s efficient and effective use of communication bandwidth add a lot value to me.

Also, when at home, I commute to work in my car, which has a decent Infinity stereo system. Again, not top of the line but pretty decent. I like to plug my iPhone into the USB connector and listen to music. Again, MQA’s compression scheme is useful here.

In both of these cases I do not need to be in a “mobile anechoic chamber” to tell the difference between Tidal and Spotify streaming. It’s very noticeable to me.

I appreciate your perspective and wish to further debate the merits of MQA with you. However, while you’ve rightly called out some posters for “snide, passive-aggressive comment” I think you are doing the same with snarky comments like “schlepping around in a mobile anechoic chanmber.” I can handle it but this sort of thing doesn’t bring out the best behavior in people.

[erich6]

@joel

No, and this is not what is being claimed. What is being claimed is that humans can detect exquisite timing details in the envelope of the audio that require more than conventional 192kHz PCM to reproduce (in a suitably transparent system, whatever that may be); and that we are actually more sensitive to the envelope than frequencies.

Thanks for elaborating; that is the claim I’ve seen as well. The point I was trying to make is MQA argues that dynamic range bits and sampling frequency aren’t sufficient parameters to fully represent analog sound fidelity. My subjective experience tells me they are on to something as better mastering and analog playback systems do much more to sound than bits and digital sampling.

[anon55914447]

There must be around 35-40dB of of usable dynamic range in a car in a normal environment driving at say 40mph. In addition to this, a car a heavily compromised acoustic.

Frankly, I am utterly astonished that anyone could tell the difference between regular lossless and MQA in this environment.

Or for that matter 320kbs mp3 and lossless, since every published DBT has found that the the general public cannot - and this has been done under controlled conditions, not an automobile acoustic.

So I’ll retain my scepticism on this point.

[erich6]

@anon55914447

I’m curious in seeing how the symbiotic relationship of (relatively) small manufacturer and big record label(s) pans out. I have a strong hunch as to what will happen, based on history, but I honestly don’t have any irons in the fire over and above that.

I’m curious about this as well. What is the analogous history you have in mind? What’s your prediction of what will happen?

[erich6]

I like what MQA is trying to do and I’m supportive but I also think it is reasonable inference to worry MQA will reduce or eliminate differentiation between DACs. It’s already difficult to tell the difference between the DAC chips inside different “DAC devices.” Usually it’s the analog section, circuit board design, adaptable choice of filters/sampling, power conditioning, connections, and other factors that end up driving differentiation. If I were in the DAC design and manufacturing business I would look at these factors as my differentiators and not worry too much about having MQA as an option for the DAC (think of it as another filter/sampling choice). But, I’m not in that business so this is far from an expert opinion.

[erich6]

@anon55914447

There must be around 35-40dB of of usable dynamic range in a car in a normal environment driving at say 40mph. In addition to this, a car a heavily compromised acoustic.

Frankly, I am utterly astonished that anyone could tell the difference between regular lossless and MQA in this environment.

Or for that matter 320kbs mp3 and lossless, since every published DBT has found that the the general public cannot - and this has been done under controlled conditions, not an automobile acoustic.

So I’ll retain my scepticism on this point.

I can’t tell the difference between MQA and high-resolution in my car, at home, or anywhere. But I can tell the difference between Tidal and Spotify streaming (and between Tidal HIFI and MQA though that’s probably just because it’s a better master). It’s not the dynamic range that makes a difference to me–it’s the clarity of the music. What’s DBT in this context? I only know of it as “Dialectical Behavior Therapy” which I may be needing soon

[Jeff_C]

@erich6

I like what MQA is trying to do and I’m supportive but I also think it is reasonable inference to worry MQA will reduce or eliminate differentiation between DACs.

I would see that (all DACs sounding the same) as a good thing. Think about an imaginary perfect high fidelity system. 100% fidelity to the source media it is reproducing can only have one sound. If anything sounds different to that imaginary perfect high fidelity system, it cannot, by definition, be perfect high fidelity anymore. So if you can hear differences between DAC’s then my conclusion would be that only one of them comes closest to high fidelity, and all the others fall some way shorter.

Apply the same thought processes to all the other pieces of equipment in the hifi chain. For those who believe amps sound different, it follows that there are a lot of non hifi amps masquerading as hifi amps out there.

[hifi_swlon (Steve)]

@evand

1080 posts about mqa. Can there be anything left to say?

Apparently so…

[Mattkimb96 (Ken)]

Not totally sure about that…the biggest single performance upgrade my system ever experienced was when I upgraded from the Aesthetix Pandora to the Aesthetix Pandora Eclipse.

[anon55914447]

@erich6

What is the analogous history you have in mind? What’s your prediction of what will happen?

SACD, HDCD, DVD-A, aka The Undead.

[thyname]

Other than the $2,000 Mytek Brooklyn, are there (cheaper) MQA capable desktop headphones DACs (preferably DAC/Amp combos)?

And no, Explorer2 is not powerful enough for high impedance / high quality headphones like HD 800 I have.

[Ronnie]

Take a look at the Meridian Prime [with or without the separate Power Supply]

Was £800 / $1,000 I believe recently…more expensive before that

https://www.meridian-audio.com/en/products/dacs/usb-dacs/prime-headphone-amplifier/

[MusicFidelity (Guy)]

Frequency domain distortion (especially 44.1k) can be overcome by over-sampling and digital filtering but it creates time domain distortion; a phenomenal called ‘ringing’. Very little research is being made in time domain distortion in the early day of digital audio.

It has been found time domain distortion can effect how instruments sound in the audible range; its tonal characteristics. Having a sharp and clean impulse response with most of the energy concentrated at its peak will bring out all the original tonal characteristics, some described as ‘organic’ and real to the original recording. DSD is supposedly trying to solve this time domain distortion by doing away over-sampling digital filter but the drawback with 1-bit noise shaping is noise start to rise sharply above the 20kHz. MQA is supposedly trying to correct this ‘ringing’ effects by using the ‘de-blurring’, minimizing the ‘ringing’ effects. MQA will definitely sound better than 16/44.1 Redbook.

[WiWavelength (Andrew J Shepherd)]

@MusicEar

It has been found time domain distortion can effect how instruments sound in the audible range; its tonal characteristics. Having a sharp and clean impulse response with most of the energy concentrated at its peak will bring out all the original tonal characteristics, some described as ‘organic’ and real to the original recording.

As a counterpoint, though, unless you are using a select few time coincident loudspeakers (Vandersteen, Dunlavy, Quad, original Thiel, et al.) or applying digital impulse response correction, you are experiencing even more extreme time domain distortions from the crossovers in your loudspeakers.

Very few loudspeakers can preserve waveforms. Nearly all loudspeakers skew in time any non single sinusoidal waveforms. Just look at a typical loudspeaker acoustic output of a square wave. It is anything but square, more like a jigsaw – because not all frequencies are being reproduced in the proper time relationship.

Yet, this is standard for most loudspeakers. So, the audibility of time domain distortion is in question.

AJ

[Henry_McLeod (Henry)]

That is a hell of an assumption to leap to! I would assume that the reason active crossovers are normally considered superior, or that the aforementioned brands are considered unusually good then that actually suggests that time domain distortion is audible. There is the case that people may not notice if used to it, that is quite different from not being able to hear it.

But… Most listening here have used the Explorer2 myself included. Superior mastering is immediately apparent and I assume that is responsible for a lot of what I hear using my Explorer2 or my none MQA Audiobyte Black Dragon. What I am not able to do with my Explorer is toggle decoding on or off. Until I can I can’t say definitively is what I hear is down to decoding or just mastering. Either way I like a lot of what I hear.

[WiWavelength (Andrew J Shepherd)]

@Henry_McLeod

That is a hell of an assumption to leap to! I would assume that the reason active crossovers are normally considered superior, or that the aforementioned brands are considered unusually good then that actually suggests that time domain distortion is audible. There is the case that people may not notice if used to it, that is quite different from not being able to hear it.

But… Most listening here have used the Explorer2 myself included. Superior mastering is immediately apparent and I assume that is responsible for a lot of what I hear using my Explorer2 or my none MQA Audiobyte Black Dragon. What I am not able to do with my Explorer is toggle decoding on or off. Until I can I can’t say definitively is what I hear is down to decoding or just mastering. Either way I like a lot of what I hear.

If responding to my post, you are the one making assumptions. I am not. Saying that something is in question is not assuming that the matter is settled.

AJ