DSP not work with MQAs. MQA ready DAC work in MQA mode (full comp mode) and any DSP is automatically switch off. That is big disadvantage, especally today, when many streamers, all-in-ones… modern sources/effectors works with heavy DSP. Of course MQA is 100% DSPier, 100% native MQA-DSPier and 100% BLACKBOX. You have nothing to do with that. More and more disadvantages…
Mhm, they say Master Quality, the best… blah, blah, blah… not even close!
PS. Sometimes I like hear music via real time PCM-DSD conversion (22,5MHz - 512). With MQA you can not do that.
You can use Roon’s DSP after the MQA is being decoded, Roon will retain the renderer information so a MQA DAC will do final rendering, (Full MQA decoding).
You can use Roon’s DSP after the MQA is being decoded, Roon will retain the renderer information so a MQA DAC will do final rendering, (Full MQA decoding).
Yes, I know it, but its not native (its only on Roon, I think), so…
This is your “truth”, to me the DRM argument is very overblown. I have no concerns about DRM. But I guess it has to be dragged up again, and again and again…
About a month ago a well-known and widely respected audio designer took part in one of our blind tests. Before the test, he’d claimed he could easily hear the difference between MQA and HiRes and also between FLAC and WAV. The tests clearly demonstrated he couldn’t (neither the former nor the latter). Of course, he blamed this on our audio system and on the way the test had been carried out. That’s why we agreed to repeat the whole thing – with his own music, on his own system, in his company’s (acoustically tuned) listening studio (where they do all their own testing!). We also used the test method he demanded…
Surprise, surprise, he failed again. This time the results were even worse (score of less than 55%!!!). Unfortunately, I’m not allowed to tell you who I’m talking about. In fact, the guy explicitly warned us he’d sue us if we gave away his name…
Not surprised at this. It requires training to know what to listen for and only someone who has trained themselves could reliably pick MQA from non-MQA. Like anything, training is required. In the case of MQA, it requires listening to multiple tracks of both MQA vs non-MQA for many many hours over days and weeks.
Once the training has been done, it is easy to recognize the characteristic MQA sound after replaying short specific sections back to back A to B about 5 or ten times. Specific sections are required as the difference is not always easily audible on every vocal and every instrument. It is often necessary to repeat up to 5+ times in order to be certain. Audio memory isn’t very good when it comes to detail. It is the same for compressed MPG or AAC files vs lossless - once you get to 320KBPS it is dramatically harder to identify the two. At 50 Kbps it becomes extremely obvious.
Anyone who claims hearing differences between identical FLAC or WAV of the same bit depth and sample rate either has an equipment or software issue or is dreaming. There is no difference at all in identical lossless digital files. I am certain of this. So your audio engineer claims are suspect to begin with but might serve him/her as a great marketing tool - I can hear things others can’t - use my services.
That’s exactly what the DAC designer I talked about in my last post kept (and probably still keeps) telling people, too… (Unlike you, he says he loves MQA and says it sounds far superior…)
Well that aspect is true. If there is an actual difference in the files and filter then it should be audible. Do you really doubt that? The only discussion is to what degree is the difference audible?
For a person who can’t identify MQA from non-MQA what is the point of MQA - no point at all. I think that despite disagreements on this thread - most people who try hard enough can hear audible differences and these folks could learn to identify one from the other given enough practice.
Your analysis of WAV vs FLAC doesn’t take into account that compressed (albeit lossless) FLAC files need ‘unpacking’ by the renderer, usually a Roon endpoint/DAC/network player in our ecosystem, into LPCM. This ‘unpacking’ of FLAC vs the replay of uncompressed WAV/LPCM has been associated with current microvariances and a ‘loss of linearity’ within the DAC and its power supply. Some listeners therefore maintain that WAV does indeed sound better than FLAC, although any difference must be very small, or negligible depending on the system you’re using to listen to them.
So the situation isn’t quite as ‘black and white’ as you make it out to be, and may well be system dependant.
The same applies to your simplistic analysis of MQA vs FLAC/WAV. There are many published reports that state/claim that MQA can indeed sound as good as FLAC/WAV, and that it can be very difficult to distinguish between them, again depending on the system you use to listen to it.
Many, many years in this game has taught me to avoid derivative definitives. That’s because they don’t exist. I would respectfully suggest you do the same
You don’t undrestand implications. MQA is not pure, bitperfect, lossless format. Its interpretation, closed, „one way” interpretation. So, what means master, what means studio quality, whats means per se authentication? DSPier locked, no compatible (native, per se, logically) with standad digital audio technics & technologies (many audio hardware use DSP, ie upsampling/resampling, real time PCM to DSD processing etc).
Agreed that software or hardware rendering may cause problems. Furthermore, filter type selected in a DAC can influence observations and confuse the listener.
Most people probably don’t check what type filter they pre-selected as default. So comparisons are often invalidated. I did say it can takes many hours and even weeks of listening work with great care to double check setting so to get to the crux of the problems with MQA.
Of course, you can always shoot from the hip - which frankly is what most people seem to do.
Which “aspect” is “true”? The fact that he couldn’t hear a difference, although he claimed the difference was easily discernible (once you know what to listen for)?
We’ve carried out HUNDREDS of tests (for my post-doctoral thesis). Most of the people who took part were “trained professionals” (professional musicians, sound engineers, audio designers etc.). Not a single person achieved a score higher than 65%. Many participants were shocked at their own inability to hear what they thought “should” be easily audible…
I’m not saying the difference is “inaudible”, but I AM saying it’s a lot more difficult to discern than some people claim it is (including people who keep emphasizing that this sort of thing requires special training…)
Agreed. It’s a very subjective issue, and it doesn’t ‘stop’ with ‘MQA vs the world’.
Does upsampling PCM to DSD improve SQ, or cause problems with filtering? Does DXD sound any better than ‘downsampled’ DSD? Is 320kbs MP3 indistinguishable from RB?
The list of ‘comparisons’ is endless. And everyone has their own analysis and opinion.
Sure, some people might not ‘like’ the sound of MQA, but others seem to like it. ‘Diff’rent strokes for diff’rent folks’. Personally, I like the sound of MQA, and I respect those who think differently. What I don’t respect or acknowledge is the statement/definitive: ‘MQA definitely sounds worse than other formats. End of.’ It does not. It is just someone’s opinion that MQA may sound worse than other competing formats, and not irrefutable FACT.
People can ‘object’ to MQA on other grounds, such as DRM, marketing etc etc, but the SQ of MQA is simply subjective to the listener. And will always be.
