I'm completely sold on MQA. Thank God for the Bob Stuarts of this world


(MGXmusicUK) #1

MQA is the new MP3
#2

I have ‘muted’ in anticipation of the forthcoming posts :expressionless:


(Steve Dougherty) #3

Kudos to Darko for the very good interview. Stuarts’ ability to communicate well gives him credibility regardless of what you think of MQA. I like every thing I heard in theory. Seems to me If everything he says is true then it should be easier for MQA to demonstrate the high quality sound of their product. Are these guys genius engineers but just poor salespeople?


#4

Yes! It’s more or less the history of Meridian as well. It’s the fate of a Meyers-Briggs “T” in a political, emotional world.


#5

I definitely not ‘sold’ into it. Some people just don’t get it…even there’s are so many published technical aspects of MQA out there. May I invite you to read this article and you will understand why.


(Steve Dougherty) #6

Hi I think everyone here has read that. And yes it all makes sense. I just think in theory they had a good idea, to authenticate a hi res file from start to finish. Clearly they failed in the execution or the benefits of MQA would be more obvious to the ear. I for one trust very few hi res download sites as they have no control of what the studio gives them. So I would welcome an authenticated file. Is this guy the villain we make him out to be? I doubt it, perhaps they just poorly executed their project and financial pressure from backers has forced them to put out a product before it works. So maybe there is a villain in MQA, I don’t just think it’s this guy.


#7

There’s no villain here. Everyone who advocates the improvement in delivering high quality audio deserve to be recognised for their achievements.

Like wise, we already got hi-res PCM and DSD capable of delivering high quality studio sound. There’s no need for authentication; as long the process is lossless, you are getting the exact master copy, it is that simple!


#8

No two DACs sound alike” - DARko said.

Of course!

So this is obvious, that this year I’ll necessarily buy 3 new DACs and next year next 5!
And still I will buy, buy and buy - till I spent my last penny…
Long live the Producers!


(Henry) #9

The point being made was about being able to trust your source. Most providers have been slapped down on more than one occasion for supplying upsampled Redbook as high Res files. Some have even made it on to physical SACD’s. In principle, knowing implicitly where your file comes from has value. And it is one of the many features MQA Ltd have tried to shoehorn into their product. I am not saying MQA is the holy grail but it does have value propositions that we have been forced towards because of unscrupulous industry players.


#10

I will re-phase it… No two DACs with the same model and same batch will sound alike. I guessed if you dig down what Bob Stuart has to said, all MQA DACs must be certified (calibrate) in-house before they are shipped to customers?

Well I let you guys figure out…


#11

I thought the point of MQA was to remove to A/D “colour” and put it back to where it was. This means the DAC must be able to be instructed. Is that what we’re supposed to figure out?


#12

To be precise, it is ‘de-blurring’ filters or simply, slow roll-off minimum phase filter with no anti-aliasing applied after the ADC. Most ADCs uses sharp-cut off digital filters + anti-aliasing which has high degree of pre and post ringing but it also suppress aliasing artifacts.

This is nothing new here, depending mastering process, some studios choose different type of digital filters which suite to their liking.


#13

That’s good then.


(Robin Carmack) #14

I own the hi res of Quiet Winter Night and prefer the MQA version. It really is exceptional. I listen to what sounds the best whatever the format. While people are arguing over measurements and such, I am enjoying the music :wink:


#15

I find MQA is better than red book and gave up doing the comparisons a long while ago and just go right for the MQA version if it’s available. The difference between MQA and HIRes is smaller though I usually prefer the MQA version if I can tell them apart. Given the high cost of HiRes downloads I just stream the MQA version rather than pay the extra price for hires downloads so I’m not doing any more comparisons on those either.

I’m enjoying the music more, saving money and spending less time listening to “formats”. Sounds like a winner to me.


(String ) #16

Maybe it’s a matter of taste, I just LOVE MQA!
It doesn’t matter if it’s 48, 96, 196 or 352,8 kHz.
Okay I have spent 40 years in the recording studio, with Studer and Revox Mastertapes machines, I have a Revox B-77 (the studio version).
So I playing old master tapes on, but I haven’t used it since TIDAL started with their Masters and I buy my first MQA Dac!
Just the simple Meridian Explorer 2, it’s cheap and doing it’s work.
Cd or PCM isn’t perfect and have never been, they had to quick to release it. So the faults have never been solved and we have used us to live with it!
(I don’t even remember what the faults are anymore, but for whose who are interested Google it).

I think and hope that MQA is here to stay, if you don’t like it don’t listen to it!
Today is many people in LOVE with mp3, ogg etc…It’s okay for me!

MQA is a wonderful format, I love Led Zeppelin the Remastered Version that their guitarist Jimmy Page made, sounds incredible because you can hear every bass tone John Paul Jones play. Everything John Bonham is playing on the drums.
Fleetwood Mac’s Rumors from 1977, haven’t sound so great since it’s was played on Sound City’ Master tape machine!
Diana Krall’s Albums with piano and bass wow, it’s like they are in my room and playing.

There are a thing that I think, is a huge difference between thinking MQA is okay, or just LOVING It and don’t think it’s especially good at all!

I don’t know how many of you that have heard, music instruments live?
Not being on a concert! But heard a drum set without microphones, just standing or sitting close to it? The same thing with a bass, acoustic guitar, piano, different horns, violin or cello…Because it’s a pretty great difference to know what these music instruments, sound on their own and even more if it’s a great musician that playing!
When it’s get a microphone and played true a PA system with other musician’s! I have heard almost every single instrument, played with good, great and not so good musicians and I think it’s also why I LOVE MQA!

Just as I have heard it in the studio, with microphones and recording it, made a mix and mixed it down to a master tape machine!
After I have pushed play and as I always do, sitting down, laying on the floor, going to another room and listening in the headphones, it’s so I can hear if it sounds good on every different place!

I think or believe it’s why I LOVE MQA :heart:

Love & Respect


(David Olson) #17

First mention of Myers-Briggs in an Audio Forum award goes to…Akimo!


#18

I guess that was the definition of “off-topic”


(David Martin) #19

Good discussion! First I would like to second the award to Akimo for bringing Myers-Briggs into this forum. There is probably more insight to be gained into audiophiles using this metric than we care to imagine. And it’s hard to imagine an ENTJ would choose the same system as an ISFP? Well at least Audiophilia hasn’t found its way into the DSM-V! I’m kidding to some degree, but not entirely. Back to seriousness, I am enthralled by some MQA tracks yet find most too similar to redbook to bother. I have yet to read anyone’s explanation of why some files respond and others do not. What are the underlaying characteristics of a recording that would be bettered by MQA vs. those that would not? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Thanks all!


(Henry) #20

Good mastering. The difference where one clearly betters the other is good mastering. MQA may then be able to communicate cues Redbook cant but on modern recordings the differences tend to be small.