The Cambridge University research suggests that timing is important and audible.
The time-alignment of speaker driver out is also important and audible. As well as the brands mentioned above, Meridian introduced EBA to their DSP speaker range a few years ago. It can be toggled on/off and is subtle but very easy to hear. I leave it switched on with certainty about what I hear and prefer.
I don’t think it is coincidence that this feature arrived a year or so before MQA.
I enjoyed this digital filter time domain article in Stereophile a decade ago. I am pleased to see it posted online. It should be required reading for everyone in this thread.
AJ
Surprise:
None of the audiophiles participating in this thread ever mentioned equalizing loudness of the CD/MQA listening material. Even a difference of 0.5 dB makes music ‘better’ than the quieter version.
Also, the observed effects may well be a consequence of a remastering of newly published MQA material. Remastering explained some of the reported effects from SACD-re-issues of former CD albums. (Note: I do have and listen to SACDs myself, so I am not a luddite.)
Then there is the ubiquitous ‘novelty-effect’: Psychologically, everything new–particularly if you paid for it–is experienced as ‘better’.
These potential confounding factors make the reports in this thread dubious to me.
I do have a final question though: If MQA builds upon the existing digital material that has been archived in HiRez formats by the labels, how can MQA then extract new information that is not present in the source material, and published in the so-called ‘studio-masters’?
I recall another Stereophile article in which Bob Stuart has not always thought that time coincidence sounds better. But Bob has changed his mind or tune on higher sampling rates, too. That just goes to show that these matters are not settled but are still in question.
AJ
I’m not sure about speakers but getting the source fix (ringing in both ADCs and DACs) will definitely minimise the issue. I’ve a Holo Spring R2R DAC that is capable of bypassing the over-sampling digital filter. In a NOS (Non-Oversampling) mode, which I choose to listen most of the time I will able to hear effects of the instruments, like the timbre when the guitar string is plucked, the reverb sounds very natural from high to low. To me it sounds very ‘real’ and ‘organic’, it is like listening to a real performance even at 44.1k.
Of course the downside with this (44.1k) I’m going to run into frequency domain distortion (This will definitely improve with Hi-Res), but so far I can’t hear that ‘distortion’ in my system. Time domain distortion is very real, coupled with jitter they all play an important role. Here is an brief article that explain between Oversampling and Non-Oversampling:
Anything based on a CD master presents as CD resolution. It isn’t a secret.
Also edited to add that the indicators make a clear distinction between an MQA encoded file and an Authenticated Master. Are you suggesting that the indicators will not tell the consumer the truth? Finally has any official MQA partner taken their files down or were they unofficial?
MODERATOR NOTE: This post (and circa 30 others) has been moved from the Are you willing to say MQA definitely sounds better than Redbook 16/44 Rips? Ronnie’s reply was posted whilst in the other topic as should be read that in that context.
@Kii_Audio
I’m afraid your post is complete MISINFORMATION on every single point… and each point has been specifically and in detail countered in many other threads here and elsewhere
Why not focus on the subject at hand in this thread and post your listening impressions??..and, just to be clear, an example of a perfectly valid opinion would be as follows
Any posts like the above in this thread would be perfectly valid…but all we have is a continuous line of people who [for the most part] say they are happy with what they hear from MQA titles…closely followed by a sequence of “eggsperts”, with constant claims, essentially saying that those people cannot possibly be hearing what they claim to be hearing
I’m reminded of the old adage
And with that, would these so called “eggsperts” posting in this thread over the last 12 hours or so, please post your LISTENING OBSERVATIONS of MQA material…as these are the only valid opinions in this thread…and indeed in the Real World
There’s no more information that can be extracted from the HiRes or early digital recordings that was done in 44.1/48k. However, some albums for instance Madonna, ‘like a Virgin’ was mastered in 1984 presumably from analogue master tapes. Analog master tapes can easily record beyond the CD standard above the 22.5k, so doing a hi-res recording at 96k into MQA makes sense. The advantage of time domain correction or so call ‘de-blurring’ can be applied to improve the SQ at the master level. On the DAC side, further ‘de-blurring’ can also be applied provided the decoder and DAC is connected directly, so called ‘Hardware decoding’
The beauty of the Internet…everyone can claim to be “too close to be misinformed”
Your claim has been debunked on too many occasions…with many measurements showing musical data above 44k / 22khz
Warner have also limited their initial tranche of MQA to 30,000 tracks [2,400 albums]…as those were the albums that had already received High Res releases on QoBuzz, HDTracks et al…in 24/96 and 24/192 formats
So your claim that the Warner MQA content on Tidal is based on 16/44 material is simply misleading
As to your last point, I’ve taken the liberty of correcting your post
Listen for yourself and make the call, a fully decoded MQA in Tidal desktop app sounds better than Redbook 44.1k. Listening is believing!
Thank you.
Here are the statements of said company. The first statement had to be modified by MQA request.
Breaking News: HIGHRESAUDIO to stop offering MQA. Proprietary system solutions and licensing models aren’t what customers want. MQA is NOT lossless, the original signal is never recovered, estimate to recover at most 17bits (reduces the sampling rate), reduces the frequency range, SNR reduced by 3bit, aliasing with artifacts at 18kHz. MQA encoding filters manipulate drastically the original source. No analysis tools are available to verify the encoded MQA content. Therefore no quality control is possible. highresaudio.com stands for offering purity, original mastering source, none manipulated, tweaked or up-sampled content and codecs that are widely supported and offer use of freedom.
“We hope that MQA will adjust all the above issues. We are truly disappointed, the way MQA has progressed in the past year. We have been mislead and blinded by trust and promises.”
here is the second statement:
HIGHRESAUDIO to stop offering MQA. We decided not to offer and support MQA any longer. We will take MQA out of the shop by 01.03. We already have taken down the MQA icon and search function in our shop.
HIGHRESAUDIO stands for offering purity, original mastering source, none manipulated, tweaked or up-sampled content and codecs that are widely supported and offer use of freedom. You can trust us in what we do and have to offer!
We sincerely hope for the future, that MQA will supply analysis and verification tools in order to ensure the quality of product.
P.S. This is a revised version from our post yesterday! Which was not a fake. Upon request from MQA, we deleted that post.
The MQA Saga continues…
Talk about misunderstandings.
Ever hear of dither? 17bit dithered is more than enough to capture the dynamic range of real world recordings - even 14bits is good enough. You understand the aliasing components at 18khz are well below the noise floor and hence inaudible? The aliasing components to worry about are well outside the audio range but are reduced by up-sampling and a slow roll off filter to avoid ringing. Its not done because it’s actually audible - it at about 96khz - its done purely to prevent slew rate issues with some amps.
And no talk of the timing advantages.
Not a reasonable comparison for me.
I have heard the difference - it’s better.
Thanks
Bill
One of their points of critic is:
MQA is NOT lossless, the original signal is never recovered.
I think thats also why many equipment manufacturers shy away from MQA atm.
But its us the buyers of Audio who decide if MQA will be a success or not.
For that shop MQA is a lossy format with other flaws. Thats why they stop selling it.
But also MP3 is a huge success. Why not another lossy format?
And if it sounds so good as I read here and people like it, nobody (maybe Apple) will stop it from beiing a success.
Well there is lossless and lossless. Its lossless to 48k (very rarely the touch-up channel may overload and it not strictly lossless). Above that its full of aliasing components but since that is all noise its of zero concern. Below 48kz is full of aliasing components to but its at least 3 bits below the recordings noise floor and hence inaudible.
There is a lot of BS written about MQA. Please take the time to read the technical detail I posted from Wikipedia.
But more important have a listen.
Thanks
Bill
You should direct your communication about aliasing etc. to the managers of that shop.
Looks like its them who dont understand the glory of MQA.
I see no reason to listen from time to time to MQA. I also listen from time to time to MP3.
Sure, make up your own mind - the market will. Its the final arbiter - not you or me.
I have investigated its technicalities - what its doing IMHO is a legitimate advance.
I have heard it, and it does sound better.
Thanks
Bill
Personally, having spent way past the point of reasonable diminishing returns on high-end audio equipment over the years, I have been astonished to find that MQA sounds markedly better than red book - to my ears, in my listening environment. I wasn’t expecting to hear such notable improvement.
This idea that we know what (and how) to measure all that we need to measure, to objectively quantify the quality of audio reproduction, is pretty naive - IMHO, of course!
As for MQA, I’ve often heard it said, that in life, timing is everything…
This is quite disturbing especially original digital master source get ‘up-sample’ and sell as HiRes recordings. If the source is originally recorded in analog master than it is good to apply HiRes recordings in the A2D process. I guessed we all have to be wary not to fall victim in the ‘up-sampling’ saga. It can happen anywhere.
I even hear it with the crappy speakers on my computer. But maybe its all in my imagination.
Anyone can try it - give it a go.
Thanks
Bill