Comparison of PCM and MQA

[Wim_Hulpia]

How more biased can it become when the admin of the “MQA development and reviews” facebook page is entering this discussion? The same admin that has very close contact with Bob Stuart who even is a member on that facebook page. They even personally met. lol

@Peter_Veth

Hi Wim, congrats on purchasing Roon after all

I didn’t, what makes you think I did?

[Moderated]

@Peter_Veth

also 16 bit 44.1 MQA which is simply bliss

16/44 mqa is the most ridiculous format, there’s nothing to fold. The ony thing that happens is that 16bits are compressed into 15bits, because they want to light up a green led and show a sample rate on the dac display, and 1 bit is needed for that. Not a single 16bit mqa has a studio dot, and the reason is obvious, they sound worse then redbooks.

I prefer the original unmangled 16/44 PCM where I still have the choice to select linear filters, which outperform the minimizing filters mqa uses.

@Peter_Veth

what he thinks of MQA and he confirmed the testimionial which is written in the Stereophile article. The improvement of his personally recorded PCM files was overwhelming and even emotional for him.

We know how mqa is doing tests for the public:
They play a 16/44 cd against a 24/96 mqa. No wonder it should sound better then, since a 24/96mqa, coming in a 24/48 flac, is still about 2.5x the size of a 16/44 redbook. Probably they also used a linear fast filter for the redbook, keeping all the pre and post ringing, to make the mqa sound even better. They should have compared it with the original 24/96 masters and using the same kind of filters, but then mqa would sound worse.

@Peter_Veth

When Peter then played the MQA version, my jaw dropped

My jaw dropped as well, when I read how they make tests invalid so Mqa comes out as a winner.

@Peter_Veth

No other technology is capable to deblur PCM files form the era of digital recording.

If you mean the removal of preringing, all minimizing filters can do that.
If you mean less harshness, all slow filters can do that.
Minimizing filters are non linear and actually create blur. It’s a property of such filters that makes lower sounds come first, creating a unnatural punchier bass.

@Currawong

MQA’s digital filters cause the very thing MQA is supposed to fix: time smearing

Yep the result of using a minimizing filter.

@Peter_Veth

Just listen for example to Tracy Chapman’s debut album

I did, the PCM is way crisper and detailed. The mqa sounds damped.
I don’t know but I think you compared mqa with mp3 in your findings.

@kwangomango

I just created a playlist in Roon with the Tidal MQA and Qobuz version of the title track and kept skipping between them without knowing which version was track 1 and which was track 2.

I much preferred the Qobuz version in this instance. The vocals, acoustic guitar and drums all sounded much more realistic. The MQA version sounded smother but with less space and decay around the instruments - everything sounded like it was at the same volume.

Look, Peter, he’s thinking the same.

@Peter_Veth

Hi, listening to 1st unfolds sounds very good, but on a good system, the full end-to-end MQA is the best experience. This is related to the conjugating filters in the MQA DAC.

So you admit mqa is supposed to sound worse then CD, unless you pay extra for it?

@Currawong

Quite a few MQA-flagged 44.1/16 files on TIDAL have also been analysed, showing that they are bit-perfect identical to the non-MQA versions. This is clearly dishonest behaviour on TIDAL’s part.

Yes on Tidal you’ll never find the original PCMs, because MQA ltd is affraid people should start comparing mqa with the original pcms and start prefering the PCMs and notice it’s all a scam.

@Currawong

That being said, any “unfold” beyond the first, is only up-sampling using a very short digital filter. I have seen absolutely zero proof of any actual digital origami beyond the first.

True, there is no proof whatsoever there are more unfolds.
And then you should take a look at mqa-cd which is by definition 16bit. There everything is folded into 3 bits i.s.o. 7 bits making it even lossier then regular 24bit mqa. And the remaining 16/44 has to become 13/44 to make room for those 3 bits. MQA-CD sounds VERY bad if you don’t buy an mqa decoder. And if you do buy one, don’t expect to reach the sound quality of an orginal 16/44. Mqa-cd is showing it’s all about the money.

@Peter_Veth

16/44.1 MQA all the way up to 24/352.8 MQA is simply BLISS

They are all lossy. The originals are always better. (Especially true for 16bit mqas, those are horrible)

@danny2

No one else legitimately markets upsampled files that way. If HDTracks sells a 24/192 file that’s just an upsample of a lower rate file they are accused of ripping off consumer and have to remove the files from their site. Only MQA thinks it’s okay to sell upsampled files and claim they are the resolution of the higher rate master file.

A good summary Danny2 !