Thanks for this great link, @Steven_Beckhardt
Now it is absolutely clear to me why an album like Hypnotic Eye on a good system sounds vastly better in MQA than in the 16/44.1 lossless version. They were optimized for different target systems. I had not been aware that two versions are sometimes produced but it does make sense if you need to survive in the loudness wars and want to also serve the audiophile crowd. I love the way Ryan Ulyate describes how he cares about both versions.
The only thing you can debate in this game, with respect to ‘sound quality’ are subjective opinions, and nothing more.
For example, some people are adamant that they prefer the sound of 320kbs MP3 to RB CD. Some people can’t tell the difference between a CD version of a piece of music, and a 24-bit version (and this one’s been almost scientifically proven, I think!). Some people prefer the old versions of Kate Bush’s back catalogue, compared to the new 24/44.1 remasters. And blow-me-down, some people might even prefer the sound that MQA makes compared to other formats. And visa-versa.
And the lost goes-on. And it’s endless.
Music appreciation is completely subjective, What music appreciation isn’t is some-sort of religion, or cult where you have to ‘believe’ what you are told, and be ‘objective’ about something, or damnation.
I’ve been in this game long enough to know that there is no definitive in audio, no audio-equivalent of the ‘Holy Grail’. The only two ‘definitives’ in this life are death and taxes!
The Holy Grail is actually the crown jewels that the recording studios own. You can buy their final stereo mixed down Hi-Res as downloads or simply stream via Qobuz Hi-Res.
That statement is misleading…
A: “I absolutely love potatoes.” (or: “I absolutely hate potatoes.”)
B: “Oh, interesting. Tell me more…”
A: “I love potatoes because they contain more strychnine than any other tropical fruit on the planet. The strychnine is what makes potatoes so incredibly tasty and, more importantly, extremely healthy, too. But the best thing is they contain zero calories and zero carbohydrates…”
If you guys want to talk about your subjective opinions there is a dedicated thread:
https://community.roonlabs.com/t/roon-decoding-mqa-listening-impressions/
There are reasons other than sound quality that makes MQA disappointing. This thread is a great place to discuss and even debate them.
Many a true word spoken in typo…
That’s only half true. As @hwz’s potato analogy clearly demonstrates, the reasons people give for their “subjective” opinion can be “objectively” wrong. “De gustibus non est disputandum” doesn’t mean you can’t (or shouldn’t) discuss whether or not a given line of reasoning is logical/convincing/correct (etc.).
I love dairy cows because they’re such incredible ice skaters. That’s my “subjective opinion”. Who are you to judge me?
I have the original hi-resolution versions of both hypnotic eye and Mojo. So they did release a high resolution version at the time those albums were released. If Tidal only carries the MQA version then you are missing out on these fine original masters.
Your Mytek DAC plays all PCM thru MQA filters, once any MQA track is played. In other words, it doesn’t switch back to non MQA filters for non MQA material unless you make the switch in settings (DSD playback is the exception).
Ergo, all your SQ comparisons are based on a false comparison which favors MQA.
BTW, almost all MQA DACs behave this way. The known exceptions are the dCS units and the iPRO DSD by iFi. The newest iFi firmware for their other small DACs plays back PCM thru their own proprietary filter unless you set it to do something else.
Who indeed? But I feel compelled to offer some advice - don’t forget to take the tablets your doctor prescribed!
Are you sure @danny2 ? Or you just assumed all MQA DACs will default to MQA filter for PCM? Mytek DACs uses ESS Sabre DAC chip and have at least 5 selectable PCM filters (9.2.18 PCM Filt Shpe or PCM Filter Shape) when playing PCM. Moreover, MQA decoder can be completely switch off (9.2.7 MQA Decoder). I’ve extracts from the Mytek Brooklyn DAC manual…
Unless you didn’t read the manual before using it . My comparison is absolutely correct when comparing PCM first vs MQA using Mytek Brooklyn DAC. Each is using their intended respective digital filters.
P.S: By the way, I don’t favour MQA because I don’t like the sound signature.
To add to the slap down your radical subjectivism is getting, this simply is not true. If it were then engineering, measurement, and objective evaluation would have no place in consumer electronics at all - audio is just an extension of consumer electronics. This radical subjectivism is indeed part of the audiophile myth, and this myth is leveraged by many to create the “high end” art & wine space where dubious engineering and bling (such as overbuilt case work, cable risers, grounding boxes, etc. etc.) are sold as “sounding better”. All that is myth, and the reality is that sound and its reproduction, being a physical phenomena, is much more of an objective phenomenon than your radical subjectivism recognizes.
As your suggestions about what should and should not be discussed on this thread around MQA or anything else…thanks but no thanks!
Was not there reports by owners of your DAC that despite what the manual/ESS/Mytek were saying how it was supposed to work, in fact that MQA filters were staying “on” after MQA was played? These reports I believe (could be wrong) were confirmed somehow (perhaps by analyzing captured output)? If all this is true, has this “bug” been fixed by Mytek via firmware update or the like?
I don’t see how anything in the manual page contradicts what I wrote. Unless Mytek recently changed something in the DAC setup, that’s how the setup works (as I wrote): if the MQA filters are engaged and you playback an MQA file, the DAC then uses them for all PCM playback till you disengage them. The filters built into the ESS chip are irrelevant in this context.
Did you see the NOTE in yellow at the bottom of the page you excerpted? I think it is telling you exactly the same thing as I did. It says when you enable the MQA filter the filtering is “fixed”. Guess what that means? It means it’s fixed with the MQA filters in play. Note: “all above settings are not available”…
I’ll be happy to be proved wrong. Write Mytek and ask them if you enage the MQA filter, and then play a mixed playlist of MQA and non MQA PCM tracks, if the MQA filter switches on and off appropriately for each track and both the MQA and non MQA filters are used (this assumes you don’t manually disengage MQA). This certainly used to be true. Find out if it still is.
I prefer 16/44.1 over MQA consistently.
7 posts were split to a new topic: Commercial Affiliations
Phew, what a thead.
Some things to consider:
-
It seems to me that MQA is very system dependent: if something goes wrong in the whole unfold chain, MQA doesn’t work. There should be an automatic fallback to 44,1 (if I read everything right) but all in all there seem to be a lot of differences between all the brands of rendering hard- and software.
-
With all compressed formats (and remember: FLAC is a compressed format) SQ depends heavily on the codec that is used. Just listen to an mp3 file decoded with one of the earliest codecs and repeat with a recent codec. There is a marked difference in SQ.
-
I don’t really get the whole DRM discussion. I don’t think the market will drop 44,1 releases any time soon. So if you don’t have MQA capable hard- or software, MQA shouldn’t bother you.
-
Some MQA releases are very different from the orginal. Just listen to Roberta Flack’s Killing me Softly. The MQA version is a different master so you can’t compare (and I don’t like the MQA version, not because of the SQ but because of the bad arrangement).
Personally, I find it’s a mixed bag. Sometimes it sounds better, sometimes worse, sometimes I can’t hear a blind bit of difference.
A bit like remasters, actually.
Huh? So what if FLAC is compressed? FLAC files can be uncompressed and, unlike MP3, is lossless so your comparison fails there. Also, all software that decodes FLAC and MP3 MUST come up with the same result. So it’s not the quality of the decoding that would make the sound different. How the software utilizes system resources could make a difference in sound quality though. As could a myriad of other aspects of different playback software.
I’d listen to Stuart’s take on this, actually. When he says it’s more a philosophy than a format, it’s something that should be taken seriously. There seems to be a rather strong overlap between MQA lovers and Meridian owners, which could have to do either with people liking the Meridian sound, or MQA sounding better on Meridian systems (dear Meridian owners: this isn’t an invitation for you to chime in with one of your frequent “MQA sounds great on my Turbo Encabulator 3000” posts, even if you love Turbo Encabulator 3000 talk).
That’s not a statement formal empirical research seems to agree with. As @Speed_Racer pointed out, you also need to make a distinction between lossy and lossless formats.
It’s thankfully fringe at this point, but MQA-CD would like a word with you. That abomination bastardises the perfectly acceptable CD format, it is out now, and it should very much concern and bother you.
This shows how mendacious and problematic MQA’s naming and rhetoric is. If the original master isn’t the authenticated master, but a remixed master is authenticated after being approved by some record industry exec, and sold under the guise of getting closer to the intention of the artist and as what the intention of the artist was, then what was the intention of the artist ?