MQA disappointing


I’m well aware of that – apologies if I came across thinking otherwise.

My issue is the ambivalence. There’s no reason for the audio community to allow Meridian to get away with this crap.

Big industry gambles, no, depends on ambivalence to push agendas. We have ISP’s planning to segment the internet: the fast lane for those that can pay, slow lane for the rest. We have 80 yr old politicians that can’t operate a smartphone preaching to the public about the benefits of such a plan. Do you think ambivalence wins out?

(ein) #1391

Sorry you’re going to have to be a little clearer? But probably.
Please explain. I’m a bit thick?

This thing is not compatible with digital audio before it start. License, hardware mix, new different format (origami is container, but it is also - yes - audio format). Many of technologies, very useful, technologies who enhanced SQ stand in opposition to MQA. Opposite to different DSP technics (you can’t have cake and eat cake… sorry), opposite to room correction (big MQA disadvantage), opposite to real time conversion (ie. binauralization) and so on, and so on. So, you have something CLOSED for digital audio technology (today and tomorrow), not compatible to 99% audio hardware also with highly debatable SQ.

(Chris ) #1392

That’s a long way to call me a fool… I’m saying just listen to it… (The Bublé) it’s an incredible performance quality wise. :joy:


Probably best you don’t use it then?


I’ll start by listening to it but thanks for the tip.

(Martin Kelly) #1395

I’m sorry, but your facts are wrong here, and your reasoning is a little faulty, within the framework of ‘Faulty Reasoning’.
Let’s look at the facts first: MQA is a separate corporate entity, and is not a subsidiary and/or formally connected any longer with Meridian in any way, save that Bob Stewart is still heavily involved in both separate companies. Yes, MQA May have started off at Merdian, but it is now a separate entity.

As to ISP’s segmenting the internet, I’m not quite sure that a) there is a coherent point being made in your comment, and/or b) I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make. ISP’s have always segmented customer bases. It’s how they make their money!

After all, if that weren’t true, the old adage ‘You get what you pay for’ wouldn’t hold true. In my own personal situation, I accept that the more I pay to my ISP, the faster my connection. That makes sense to me. Does it not you you?

And no, ambivalence might not win out. But you have to argue on the facts, and the facts alone. And there is far too much prejudice and conjecture in this thread to make any coherent argument against MQA sound in the least convincing. At the moment.


Martin, are you being serious right now? You start off by saying my “facts are all wrong” and yet all you do is confirm the facts:

A) Meridian started MQA (with the music industry in mind).
B) Bob Stuart is still, as you said, “heavily involved in both companies”.

Jeez man, no conflict of interest there, huh? But hey, I’m sure Bob’s a great guy!

Lastly, my ISP comparison was hinting at net neutrality (thus, exactly relevant) but I could’ve been clearer on that.

(Martin Kelly) #1398

Ahh, net neutrality. You must be in the US? I see there is vote later this week. It already applies in the EU, so it would seem.

And as to MQA and Meridian, the only fact my post confirmed was that Meridian and MQA are completely separate companies.

You so eloquently stated in an earlier post:
‘There’s no reason for the audio community to allow Meridian to get away with this crap.’

As I have already stated, MQA and Meridian are completely separate companies. To paraphrase you, ‘Meridian isn’t trying to get away with any crap.’ It is MQA that you allege is ‘trying to get away with crap’, and not Meridian. Is this clear?

(Sean) #1400

Which MQA DAC did you use, if you don’t mind me asking?


I thought Bob had walked away from Meridian.

(Jeremy) #1402

PS Audio DS Sr. with Bridge II

(Chris ) #1403

As all the pointless discussion continues I had a listen the Yes, Roundabout in MQA and it sounds astonishing… especialy the Harmonics at the beginning and mid track. The complex layers are teased out beautifully… Not disappointed at all…

(Jeremy) #1404

Are you unable to hear that Buble uses auto-tune?

I hear it constantly on all his work.

If you haven’t noticed that then perhaps your hearing acuity and/or setup isn’t really capable of easily distinguishing distortion of MQA.

(Andrew Cox) split this topic #1405

8 posts were merged into an existing topic: Auto-tune is a total debacle; prove me wrong


If you constantly hear auto-tune on all of Bublé’s albums, you’ve got a serious problem…

It’s true that most of his albums don’t sound very good. His newest record is an exception, though.


Nobody’s capable of “easily” hearing that (MQA “distortion”). You admitted that yourself more than once. Or should I say “had to admit”…?

Are you sure there’s a technical explanation why this “unnatural distortion” is particularly obvious to you in cover songs you dislike?:thinking:


Of course MQA has many claims, they even said it is lossless when it was later found out to be lossy. This put them in some credibility doubts. (Don’t blame them it’s all about marketing)

MQA emphasised on time domain correction means these filters are leaky allowing aliasing, noise and distortion to reflected back to audio range. Do you want your music tinted with all these or you want to listen to the original Hi-Res masters?

If you like to listen to effects of these abnormalities which some described a bit like ‘analog’, good harmonics sounding etc, then it is a personal preference. Just like some like solid state vs vacuum tube amps. The thing is, this is all about marketing and trying to get you on board. In the end of the day, you can’t take every words they said, do you own research!

(Chris ) #1415

I think you need to prove this first.

Second, I was talking about the clarity of, and the overall impact of the sound.

(Rudi) #1416

I just compared the Tidal MQA Version of Roundabout and the 2015 Remaster in 24/96kHz from the BluRay. The hires sounds clearer to me, the MQA sounds more “meaty”, like a dish with a flavor enhancer. I’m not saying the MQA sounds bad at all, the tonality fits the music well. It does sound like a different master though.

@Chrislayeruk You always say that CD sounds like it has something missing and that MQA sounds better. This would actually not be a surprise, as a 24/48kHz MQA file contains more information bits than a 16/44.1kHz CD.
Have you ever compared MQA to the same hires master?

(Chris ) #1417

I have a few, but life is too short to hunt down files just to compare. I like to just listen to music and not spoil my music by over listening to individual tracks.
It’s interesting that John Darko covered this point when he was sent files to asses MQA.
He was pleased he did not listen normally to most of the music sent to him as he didn’t wish to destroy the pleasure of his beloved music. One Steely Dan Album was the exception…