“Just sayin: MQA is just…the best ever, the best I ever heard. Album xy in MQA is sooo great.”
He is just a fan boy who has seen the light.
Enough technical and detailed explanation.
True, but this thread is like a car accident. You can’t cope with the sight of it, but you can’t look away, either…
8 Likes
Chris explained, so we don’t need a likely explanation as we have the actuall one?
Very well said, thank you!
3 Likes
and it was also suggested that it should be listened to on a full MQS set up (like Chris’s) where the differences may be far from small (or not). So, who knows? (those who’ve tried the full set up?)
Where? I must have missed the explaination why he only mention format if it is MQA, even though format is a relevant part of the music, as he mentioned. Please guide me to the explaination.
This Chris said this Chris said that “discussion” is going nowhere …
@Chrislayeruk is big boy, if you want to ask him a question please do so directly.
Please discuss the topic not the posters.
2 Likes
I agree. For those who post that MQA is Tony the Tiger “Great!” in SQ, why? MQA, factually, is a superMP3. It’s a darn good one that is pretty transparent - its sins of commission (i.e. distortion, out of phase filtering) and omission (i.e. lossy deduction of the 16/44 or hi res PCM upon which it is based) are pretty low level. As @HWZ rightly notes, anyone who is hearing significant differences is hearing things - there is no factual basis for their assertions of significant SQ improvement.
Of course, we could be wrong about the facts. Where are we wrong? What is the technical basis for an assertion that MQA is a SQ improvement (in a small or big sense) in any way, shape, or form?
1 Like
Haven’t you heard that MQA is astonishing? 
You may find out in due course. Sounds good to me, but as you say (every day) it might be the “distortion”. Either way, I’m not disappointed by the sound, I’m impressed. Have you heard it through Meridian SE speakers ?
I wouldn’t say astonishing all the time but sometimes certain moments are “astonishing”. I listened to a demo a few years ago and Roberta Flack did sound astonishing (and I’ve looked the word up). Have you listened yourself?
What course? Is MQA (or anyone else) preparing to address the technical facts? How do you know this, and when/where is this going to happen? Sure, they have been exposed enough to back down from some of their more obvious errors (for example, “lossy” became “perceptually lossy”). However, what can they say to the measured distortion their folding and filtering scheme causes - this is all known digital art. They can’t say it is not what it is.
In any case, what is the factual basis for the assertion that MQA is a sound quality improvement over the source PCM used to create it?
This hobby doesn’t require something be proven for it to be accepted.
- Where is the fact that tubes sound better than solid state
-Where is the fact that analog sound better than digital
-Where are the facts that show cables and power cords improve SQ
-Where are the facts that show either a high powered amp sounds better than a lower powered one. (or just the opposite )
-Where are the facts that DSD sounds better than PCM.
-Where are the facts the lower distortion values sound better especially when we are talking about the fourth decimal points to the right.
This is a hobby that is predicated on preferences.
1 Like
In due course is a phrase generally meaning in the fullness of time. There may be considerations that you are not currently aware of. [Moderated]
My setup is as “full MQA” as you can get (dCS Rossini). I find the differences between uncompressed high res and MQA small (given identical masters of course). Whether they are “astonishingly” small, is subject to debate (just like whether a particular recording in a given format sounds astonishingly good in absolute terms or not).
I often wonder and worry about the interaction between AutoTune and MQA. Have you guys detected any issues?
I sure hope I didn’t cause this latest flare-up. Note the grin above.
Just trying to lighten the mood a bit. Sorry if I confused.
PS: Gosh, Chris you like Buble AND MQA??! You… you… reprobate you.
1 Like
Mate, you’ve spoken much more ‘sense’ on this thread today, compared to the drivel that has preceded it in last 1k+ posts. Bring it on! 
1 Like
Not really. This hobby is predicated upon consumer electronics, which is predicated on engineering.
Besides, power cords, DSD, PCM, analog, digital - none of these are proprietary, DRM technology.
High fidelity does not = radical subjectivism.
1 Like