The OP’s head rises from the lake in the moonlight
I am the OP who started the “MQA disappointing…” topic a year ago or so that has brought over 2,000 responses. Hence the (now) head rising from the lake… I’m writing this out of a sense of responsibility only to complete the thought in that first post, since it was clearly tentative.
At the time I stated clearly that I’d only listened to the “first unfold” done by Tidal, and so had only an initial impression, not a final opinion. Since then I’ve gotten a fully MQA-capable DAC (the dCS Rossini, reportedly the most capable DAC in MQA terms) and listened enough to have a real opinion.
Which is that, in my system in my room, I like MQA. Is it a seismic shift in audio as the mags seemed to say? In terms of sound quality, it doesn’t take me that far, but to me it is clearly superior to the good sound I’d had previously (and still do with non-MQA), and I will always choose it as a Version if it’s available. Makes me think that at the level of high end audio, there are no seismic shifts, only incremental improvements, albeit some really nice.
How does it compare to hi-res recordings? 24/192 I tend to think is comparable, but this isn’t a firm opinion.
I have no interest in (or ability to discuss, for that matter) the “lossy vs. lossless” or any other argument about MQA. I just like the way it sounds.
Perhaps ‘duck your head’ is better knowing as soon as you mention MQA a thread will go to the dogs. Let the games begin, but I encourage you all to leave it alone.
Jim_F
(Remember - It's easier to Keep a Customer than to get a New One)
2105
MQA seems to appeal to some, not so much to others. Consider the range of audio gear available. One can have a very competent system (vintage or new) for less than $1K. Or you can go all in for several thousand or several hundred thousand dollars. The point is, these are choices we make based on our financial ability and our level of commitment. However, if MQA becomes the standard, we may no longer have a choice. FLAC is free, MQA is not. If MQA becomes the standard, we may be at the mercy of corporate pricing policies for the music format and if we want to continue in the hobby, we’ll have to pay with no choice available. That’s my problem with the MQA closed standard.
It has becoming very clear now that it is not going to win the hearts on big players and audiophiles. It has somehow becoming a back burner catered to those who continue to support them. The only streaming provider is Tidal and none other else.
In the coming years ahead, open standard on lossless audio will be the defacto standard. The rest is just history.
Thanks for the comment and humor, Mustafa. The most knowledgeable expert I know feels that WAV is the best sound, but I don’t know that it’s available streaming, either in 16-bit or 24-bit, due, if I understand correctly, to file size. If MQA is only slightly more compressed than 24-bit WAV, that means it’s pretty good, and therefore probably the best available streaming or close to it, with the following qualification: I’ve compared 24/96, even 24/192 Qobuz recordings with the same recording on Tidal MQA and they are so close I can’t claim to hear a difference usually. Thanks for your opinion. By the way, that dust trail you see is me scampering away after making that post
Jim Heckman
Jim_F
(Remember - It's easier to Keep a Customer than to get a New One)
2110
I have both Tidal and Qobuz and listen to MQA, 24/96, 24/192, and even 16/44.1. It’s all good.
James I think you misinterpreted Mustafa’s comment. “sounds” slightly more compressed has nothing to do with the digital delivery compression and file size but rather the audible effect of MQA processing on the original master in his subjective opinion.
1 Like
Jim_F
(Remember - It's easier to Keep a Customer than to get a New One)
2112
I don’t hear that. As I said, it’s all good to me.
file size and sound quality are not related. File size only matters if it eats up too much of the bandwidth. Given enough bandwidth file size becomes a non-issue.
Thanks, Jeff. I weary of chasing the last microgram of sound quality, and so am content with MQA, whatever its technical merits or demerits may be. Certainly I may have misinterpreted Mustafa’s comment–I wouldn’t know!
Happy listening,
Jim
That’s totally fine, James. But if ever confronted with the option to purchase MQA or 24-bit WAV or FLAC (for the same price), I’d opt for the latter. See example image below:
Interesting… My own experience is that most albums sound about the same. I find that there are many versions of “MQA” treatment and those are distinctively different:
1- Just plain old transfer - nary a difference
2- Transfer+extra sauce - some transfers seem to have a noticeable EQ applied to them. In fact it doesn’t quite sound like a plain EQ but some slightly more elaborate DSP on it. It sounds pleasing but it’s as if you added MSG to the music, not natural
3- A few (very few comparatively) where they have gone all the way to the master and done it more carefully. These are the ones where MQA sounds “better”, but almost surely it is through a better remaster than anything MQA-related. These are the ones that are used as demos.
My personal take:
If MQA would have been billed as a “perceptually lossless” compression algo, where in some cases we have “added DSP to improve the sound”, then I would have been all for it. Instead, it’s billed as “As the artist intended”, “Artist validated mixes”, “ADC time correction”, etc etc … All sorts of easily debunkable bullshit that I cannot tolerate.
I think an MQA-free world would be a better world.
Hmm. I level matched my inputs using a $6k SACD player and a $6k non-MQA DAC letting Roon do the first unfold. To me, the MQA versions sounded closest to what I was hearing from my Original Master Recording SACD disks. That said, when I upsample 44.1 FLAC files to DSD the result is a little lifeless. Your experience with your gear may obviously differ.
I have a $32k DAC that fully decodes MQA (dCS Rossini + dCS Master Clock). The rest of my system is an Audio Note Kondo Ongaku and a pair of Avantgarde Duo Mezzo horn speakers.
I rip SACDs with a PS3 and play DSD directly from those DSF files. I’ve compared extensively and that’s what I base my opinion above on.
Obviously, both DSD and MQA have something in common; both improve the timing response when compared to regular PCM using steep and sharp filter. It boiled down to what you like the sound. DSD excels in depth, 3D and soundstage, while MQA is good for vocals as it adds some richness and body to the music. PCM with steep and sharp filter tends to sound bright and fatigue after listening for a period of time.
)