Don’t listen to the naysayers about how MQA is crap

Meanwhile, the releases keep coming and sounding wonderful on my system…

1 Like

Same on my system - both with and without MQA…

1 Like

I must have a split personality :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye: I both ‘love’ and ‘hate’ MQA!

But, that is the thing, it doesn’t sound wonderful on my system, and I’ve done a ton of testing.

You are using a Meridian system doing a full decode, yes?

As someone who listens to MQA content and likes it I understand that you and anyone else who comes to a similar conclusion would choose not to listen to it. I think that is how it should be and I appreciate that Roon may still have some work to do with Roon Radio to allow users who don’t want to listen to MQA content to eliminate it entirely or limit the number of MQA tracks played to the minimum possible.

I don’t know that I can define “minimum possible” that well but I appreciate that any MQA tracks in a user’s library ( presumably none if the user does not want to listen to MQA but you never know :roll_eyes: ) or any tracks only available for streaming as MQA might end up getting played if selected by Roon’s algorithm.

If only some of the naysayers could be a little more understanding regarding everyone’s right to their own opinion and not denigrate the format or those who enjoy it so vehemently.

Tim

2 Likes

Yep, it is odd is it not - Roon when dealing with streaming almost reverts back to a simple software player with limited functionality. Yet Roon does not interface with Spotify or any of the other mass market services, it serves as a front end to the two “audiophile” services with their layered lossy, CD, and hi res tiers. Here is the solution I think:

Yes, Meridian DSP SE speakers and a 218 preamp Roon endpoint. Visitors are amazed at the quality also with or without MQA, but MQA is a clear step up in overall naturalness. It’s hard to find the words, you just have to listen.

1 Like

Chris, right off the bat, what you are hearing is completely different than anyone doing a software 1st decode into a non-MQA DAC. And even if you are letting Roon do the first unfold, you are using a DAC for which specific MQA filters were created for use during the 2nd unfold.

The only time I have heard MQA and have it be jaw-droppingly good was when it was played back through a Meridian system, DSP7200 SEs to be exact. Stunning. But, I don’t own those, and MQA as played back through my other systems not doing the full end to end decode do not sound anywhere close, or even the same, as when played back through that Meridian gear (not talking about the Explorer here).

So, I guess, I am asking you to understand that people not running your kit, are not hearing what you are. And when they say, that in their systems, MQA does not sound right or thin, consider that, in fact, it may sound thin or not “quite right”.

I believe it is valuable information for people to know, in case they are really interested in MQA, which gear will maximize their enjoyment; and, which gear will not.

2 Likes

There are many of us that don’t have Meridian products and MQA is far from sounding “thin” or strange sounding. This thread is very similar to listening to analog biased guys putting down digital. No matter how good digital is, the analog guys will try to convince you that digital sucks. They throw out the same propaganda against digital as people throw out against MQA.

3 Likes

The thing is, amazing sound is possible with MQA (As with Meridian DSP SE systems) so if the sound is not right in a particular system, you have to look elsewhere. It’s not because of MQA.

There are threads here about Bi Amping and Tri Ampingand active speakers. My DSPs do this.

There are threads about Room correction, My DSPs do this.

There are threads discussing crossovers, passive, active digital. My DSPs do this digitally.

There are threads about jitter, cables, emerging interference etc, My DSPs deal with this.

These are all noble and active areas to consider when tweaking a system and when it’s all sorted, MQA should sound great.

I just chose to buy a system that required no extra tweaks as it was designed, as a system and hindsight tells me, with getting the best out of MQA in mind.

I always remember Meridian used to say Hot Rod or Hi Fi in their marketing. For many the Hot Rod approach is a large part of the fun in building a Hi Fi system, but for me, I just wanted something properly designed.
You could use the analogy of a NUC to run Roon or buy a Nucleas+ . Choices, choices, choices…

Meridian has always used similar filters to MQA so I would hope it sounds good to owners as that’s the sound they obviously prefer.

My cousin thinks his Sonos bar thingy is the best sounding speaker system ever. He has zero point of reference, so I believe him.

That is my concern, so since we have many MQA experts (no snark intended) gathered here I would like to ask a question of anybody.

If a DRM-like scheme is instituted would it still be possible to extract the music for ripping to disk or is it at that point to tightly integrated with DRM that it can’t be recovered?

These arguments about whether MQA sounds better or worse than RedBook, etc. are a fool’s errand. Since the experience is subjective (like interconnects, streamers, power cables, etc.), there’s no answer one way or the other. Let everyone listen the way they want. Personally, I never use MQA as a matter of principal, and sonics.

That is the point, but without a “tightly integrated cypher scheme” like Apple tried more than 10 years ago now. What you would extract (and you can do this easily enough today) is a kind of super MP3 - something very close to 16/44 (less so to say, 17/96) but not quite. Lot’s could be said here. You “possess” a reasonable facsimile, but not the original. The labels can tell their investors “we fixed the pirating problem - consumers now have something close but no cigar to our “crown jewel” masters”. The trade publications can say “we audiophiles now have an end to end recording that is perceptually the same thing as a hi res master, even if it is not exactly the same as a hi res master”, everyone can say “we don’t need lossless mp3 AAC streaming any more - the masses can now enjoy ‘hi res’ without the downsides”.

That was how it was supposed to work out, and that is how MQA wanted to sell itself to the market. The devil is in the details. A super MP3 is still an lossy encoding. DRM is still not in the consumers interests in any real way. MQA still is a rent seeking licensing scheme along the entire recording/delivery/manufacturing/end user chain. So MQA does not really deliver very well on the pros even from a label perspective, but certainly delivers on the cons as a $licensing$ scheme…

Thanks for the reply.

If I read it correctly, yes it can be extracted but it’s sh*t. So not really a copy protection scheme for people that don’t care about the quality of the music. For the rest of us, it’s all down hill from here.

For those that say DRM will never happen, my reply is if they can do it they will do it. All that’s happening now, MQA-CDs for example, are just a prelude.

Today, in Amerika, the division is between what’s good for a political party and what’s good for the country. For the MQA fanboys (whether the sonics are truly improved or not) there’s a parallel there.:neutral_face:

Well, sort of. Is it as good as the original, 16/44 or above? No, but that is the point. Is it darn close? Yep. Can a golden ear audiophile listening to his $6k headphone rig (like me :wink: ) tell the difference when the masters are the same (something that many skip over in their subjective listening reports) between MQA and the equivalent 16/44 or hi res? Sometimes, barely. If the music has sufficient HF content I can start to hear the HF f&^*ery that the MQA folding process introduces. But I am 1 out of a 1000, one out of a million. Most people don’t have $6k HP rigs. Most folks don’t even have Roon and/or a “mid fi” system. Most people listen to mp3/aac music with phones and earbuds made in China with about $1 in parts. For them it works.

Which brings us to the irony: Bob S background an experience was in Audiophiledom, so he knew how to sell this superMP3 to audiophiles who are always and willing to purchase anything, no matter how dubious, for a sound quality tweak that only they usually can hear. They talk about “veils” being lifted and other nonsense, and they convince themselves quite easily that the fad tweak of the week does absolute wonders to their systems.

In other words, the very people who should have been least interested in a superMP3 are the very people Bob S choose as his “market opinion leaders”, and of course he was right.

1 Like

Now Bob S. Is a liar. When does this propaganda stop? Just like somebody else noted, if you don’t like it, then say you don’t like it and drop it. No need for bogus reasons that are incorrect. When most of us say we like MQA, we don’t come up with bogus reasons why it’s better. We let our ears do the judging

3 Likes

Amen. Like letting your nose do the judging of that fine white powder the nice guy on the street corner gave you for cheap is always the right way to examine a problem. Who cares what’s in the baggy, plus, the guy seemed nice so why would he do anything bad ?

And if you’re thinking of quitting, or that smoking isn’t good for you, don’t forget that more doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette.

3 Likes

I would use my nose on a nice Malbec for sure… Quality assured :joy:

1 Like

You mean that drink whose quality has been proven to mostly derive from the sticker, with experts having trouble telling the difference between bottles ? :stuck_out_tongue:

The taste is also influenced by the music you play… :sunglasses:

1 Like