Thanks Jeff, I debated over whether or not to include my system details for fear that it would come across as needless self aggrandizement. But, I thought it would be useful to offer the context in which I’m hearing the differences. I should add that when I’m listening to the same tracks on my MBPro’s speakers then I can’t really detect any appreciable difference. On a good set of headphones I do start to hear a slight difference. So, it isn’t a stretch to think that the resolving power of one’s system will have a direct bearing on one’s impression of the MQA format.
I’d like to add that I’ve been able to listen to some of my favourite tracks in MQA and off my own CDs and in some cases the difference was startling. The MQA tracks gave me the most rewarding listening experiences I have ever had on music that was very familiar to me. The three-dimensionality of the music was palpable and quite moving. I’m quite sold on MQA and am hoping that my next DAC (the LH Labs Vi DAC SE tube, if it ever ships) will include hardware MQA decoding. If not, I’m going shopping for one that does.
I’m sorry, I did not realise that others may have listed their equipment in their profile, or that your comment was not directed just at me. However I still think it is best if the equipment is listed in this thread alongside the MQA vs Redbook comparison. It will save lots of clicking away to profiles which may or may not show the equipment.
I wouldn’t say it going to sound better, but it sounds different to a Redbook. In my opinion, MQA has a typical sound signature of its own, just like DSD to PCM. Don’t get into ‘buy in’ symdome which one sounds better; Redbook is perfect for everyday causal listening and if you want something better then you have to buy the studio recordings.
It sounds better than red book, but in my opinion, proper room correction, be it with DSP or with other acoustic solutions, gives far more advantages than MQA. The summum would be MQA with DSP room correction, but this is still not possible
mqa is end to end. So to get mqa to an mqa dac for decoding, the signal must be passed on untouched, i.e. no DSP, no Upsampling, no Room Correction. etc.
I’ve been listening very carefully comparing MQA toFLAC streaming on Tidal and so far they sound about the same. The MQA might have a little more body, but the Flac at the same time sounds a little more clean.
I still want to listen more and have an open mind, but I think the sonic benefits from DSP like Acourate might be far greater.
Listening through LUMIN S1 DAC/streamer to MasterSound 845 Compact amp with Elrog power tubes and Avantegarde Duo Grosso speakers with JL Audio subs.
Until recently where I saw - in one of the hundreds of MQA threads here in the Roon forum - a diagram from the MQA company that seemed to imply that they designed MQA such that external processing (altering the signal) could occur between the 1st and 2nd unfolds. Granted, I can’t back that up by pointing you to that thread. Sorry. But if anyone wants to go digging, it’s here somewhere. And the direct implication was that you could insert DSP between the 1st two unfolds.
Or that’s how I understood it anyway.
I know… this is kind of like the saying “No pics? Then it didn’t happen.” Except this is “No link? Then you didn’t see it.”
That is a very old diagram and not a guarantee that is still the intended sequence. Also, I think that was focused on “in hardware” driven DPS not software applied in the middle of the mqa stream.
Do not get your hopes too high for intermediate DSP between the MQA decoder and renderer stages. If it happens at all, it likely will work only within a single hardware component (e.g. a Meridian box) that does MQA decoding and rendering plus surround processing, room correction, etc.
I’m not holding my breath for anything. Nor am I convinced that said diagram actually proves anything. I’m merely pointing out that the “no way to DSP” thinking that I used to believe to be an absolute, appears to have had some pretty official counters to that thinking.
How the individual reader chooses to interpret the fluid, and not particularly concrete, state of affairs with MQA in light of this information is up to them. I’m just a bystander watching the MQA landscape unfold. But I do believe that - in light of this - it is not possible to say “no way to DSP”, because it would appear, the we really just don’t know.
And with that, I’ll duck out of this conversation. I’ve said enough. Have fun.
you should think so following all discussions.
