You keep parroting this, yet everyone knows MQA absolutely doesn’t produce the sound heard in the studio. Mastering engineers have confirmed this. Can you please explain what the MQA marketing of studio sound actually means?
As far as I can tell, it’s how BS want’s it to sound, which is similar to his Meridian DACs.
Jeez Chris, does your gullibility know no bounds…you of all people that sees music production and recording on a weekly basis?
My ears are giving me the best recorded sound I have ever heard. I am happy.
You sure pick and choose to see what you want. There are plenty of artists who are behind MQA.
Nobody should be able to tell you you’re not enjoying what you are hearing.
However it’s this kind of statement that keeps the anti-MQA crowd fired up. Chris, if we take this statement literally, then no matter whether you have a $100 DAC or a $5000 DAC, if both support MQA, then both sound identical when playing MQA. Clearly that is not the case and I’m sure not what you are saying.
Both sides here have made some valid points and also presented some fairly extreme opinions as fact. Me? I like the sound (sometimes) but I don’t like the hype and I am very skeptical that the certification/authentication process is substantive in most cases. And I don’t like a closed standard end-to-end system that if successful ends up with one patent owner and the record companies controlling the market.
I will still listen, and not feel guilty about it. But, not unlike Britain for most of her existence, I want the Continental powers that be to be fragmented to maintain a balance of power rather than have the Continent dominated by a single player.
Yip, I think the entire forum knows by now you like what you hear and none of us are disputing that, but that’s no bearing on the hogwash “MQA DACs are tuned so the resultant sound is the studio sound”
Clearly the sound will be better on better equipment. But you will have the original file played to the best that the equipment can deliver. Massive speakers will bring a bigger sound, this is common sense great amps will control those speakers and on and on. MQA takes nothing from this. But you are streaming the studio approved file.
I chose the DSP route as I have no interest in chopping and changing things. So my speakers are a designed system. Amps, speakers, design DSP. This gives me The Studio Sound as near as is possible in my room.
Makes sense especially if the DSPing is doing some room correction.
MQA would only mess that up but obviously you like the sound of the results.
I set my Meridian DSP5200 SEs to corner position and activate Enhanced Bass Alignment. Min boundary control and that’s it. In a normal UK sized living room, they sound superb.
Please enlighten us. I couldn’t find many such references when I was looking.
I’ll bet that sounds superb. I have to think that a totally integrated Meridian system is something to experience.
There’s no such thing of a ‘Studio Sound’ unless you are physically present in recording studio. This is just another marketing tactics to get you and many onboard.
Here’s the thing, MQA actually alter the sound characteristics of the original recordings and this is really a serious issue here. We can literally take it as ‘mesmerising’ sound but in the end of day, this is NOT what the artists and recording studios want you to listen.
This is the typically sound signature you will hear across all genres and it is easy to spot on! So where is the magic then?
That’s because you don’t want to find them. Start with David Elias.
A little research shows his stuff was MQA encoded for Tidal but also sold as downloads once done. There are better DSD recordings of his stuff as well.
Seems like a bit of a stretch to say he is a clear supporter rather than just wanting his stuff on Tidal in the highest bit rate they provide.
Where as one of the bigger current engineers clearly thinks MQA doesn’t deliver what he was going after in the studio. Loudness wars aside.
http://fairhedon.com/2017/11/05/an-interview-with-mastering-engineer-brian-lucey/
Again you are reading what you want to see. Not accurately
Be still, one 
To quote for the lazy audiophile: "
Brian Lucey: When I first heard about MQA I wondered why would anyone bother with such a concept, as streaming the full file is only going to get easier over time, and the reduction of data with MQA is minimal . Let’s just sell the 24 bit files at the mastering session sample rate, not higher and not lower, and call it a day? Too easy perhaps for the creativity of modern commerce.
My initial info on MQA (the claims of less data with no loss, and that it was correcting PCM) led me quickly to be skeptical about the intentions behind the initiative, especially given that video streaming money has dried up. It’s logical corporate think to move into controlling the global audio stream. However I’m always open minded and am not a crusty cynic like some, so I gave it an open minded listen. Not bad, not great was my impression. It’s definitely a lossy codec , that was clear. And like Mastered for iTunes or any reduction scheme the losses are in critically important areas. Where as mastered for iTunes is harmonically cold and loses some low volume/low end information, actually altering the groove to make everything sound like a nerdy white wedding band, MQA brightens the high-mids in the Mid section while thinning the low-mids on the Sides. There’s also some harmonic distortion which some people could find pleasing, If I want that distortion in the master I would’ve put it there in the first place. The results of MQA I would call fatal to the source material even as they are very subtle.
A real negative is the millions of dollars in DA stock that is being made obsolete with their cynical end run on proper vetting. MQA has been targeting the weakest players in our world, the audiophiles. And they’re targeting those most dependent on pimping new tech, the audiophile press. Meanwhile, one sided presentations at trade shows leave no time for deep Q and A and any real discussion panels are eschewed by MQA. The most excitement about MQA seems to be from perfectionist consumers who want that blue LED and sense of authentication, pressuring DA makers to send that licensing money to MQA and catch up with a demand invented by MQA. A cynical marketing scheme to be kind about it . Or as Mike Jbara told me in a written exchange, “As a team of engineers and a company, we have a POV behind our tools and that is what we talk about.”
I’m most concerned about the bogus claims that MQA is fixing approved masters. Not possible, and a rude assertion to trillions of hours of hard work by teams of people making records for decades. Pure marketing hyperbole . Nothing in audio is perfect, there is no Original Sin, and there is no going back to the place of ideal perfection. Ultimately there is no free lunch in digital, and music production is about a constant flow forward … shaping distortions and how they play with frequency balance and transients. When a record is first tracked, then rough mixed, mixed, revised, mastered, revised in mastering and finally approved … there is no fixing it. Anything that changes violates 5-20 people who have all signed off. Distortion artifacts are musically incorporated in to all music production, there is no perfection in music. That way of thinking is bogus and anti music. Music is flawed and that’s a good thing, it’s the humanity. Perfection has no place in music production, it’s a dangerous myth. MQA has no future in the world of serious engineers in my view, it’s a corporate money scheme at this point. Yet we will see how it turns out, most people are lazy and greed goes a long way on it’s own power.
"
I read the buried part where he parroted the MQA marketing about fixing timing even though that’s the opposite of what a MQA MP filter does. That part?
I am not sure you can quote one person who speaks out against MQA and claim that to be representative. It ignores that large number having their stuff released in MQA right now. What is actually happening is most artists are ignorant or are willing to speculate on the potential success of MQA. And of course Lucey talks about music production as if it is some sort of centre of excellence. There are excellent people in the industry but loudness and ‘mixing for MP3’ is the norm and much more damaging to music than MQA has proven to be so far in my opinion based on my listening. Maybe Lucey is insulted by the way MQA is marketed as a means of achieving a better sound but there are quite a few in the industry who it would seem could do with the guidance!
I didn’t.
/10chars