Never have I heard a MQA title that sounds worse than the 16/44 version., I have heard some that are a coin toss, but never worse.
I find non decoded MQA files sound great on my systems. I was playing Jack Johnsons new release in MQA and it sounded brilliant. Describing sound has the same problem for me as describing wine. If I had to say, itās a smooth Shirazā¦
Iām a big fan of MQA in general. But to my ears, in my system, an undecoded MQA file is flat, grey, and veiled in comparison to the same master in redbook. Not a wide difference, but a sure one.
On mine too. But on a slight margin I prefer non decoded mp2.8.
Well, just wait until you have an opportunity to fully decode MQA, the difference is more than you can ear!
That new Doors release of singles is just bad in general; sounds awful in high-res also. Nothing to do with MQA.
I agreed, good mastering (less DSP) is important and it can happen in any format including Redbook and Hi-Res. Some mastering has its gain purposely tuned up so high, it almost near to saturation point! Thatās really sucks!
1 Like
That was my point.
A few things thatās puzzled me about the MQA processing is 1) does the user get to decide where and what device does the initial unfolding? and 2) whether any particular device (hardware or software) is best positioned and or equipped to do this initial unfolding. In my specific system where the Roon Core is running on a MacMini (hope to acquire a Nucleus soon) it sends the bitstream to a dCS Network Bridge which will soon have first unfold capability, before it sends it to my MQA Renderer (now capable in my Berkeley Ref 2 DAC). So, if Roon also offers first unfold, which device can I choose, if I have a choice (nobodyās suggested how this will work)? Is it best in hardware? Is it best in a device that may receive bitstreams from many network locations or other devices, etc.? As for Roon doing the initial heavy lifting, that would be ideal for sending the bitstream in a fashion supporting all Roon capable hardware/software and let the downstream device either handle rendering or not, based on whatever rules exist for treating the bitstream. Iām assuming that the process is both light enough and smooth (not spiky) in its use of system resources that the choice of what platform hardware of environment is not material. But I may well be wrong about that.
Anyone have answers to any of this?
In a way, yes. In Audirvana you can effectively chose whether the first unfold is done there or full unfold on the device.
Comparatively? And for first unfold? In principle it is the same math, so in principle it shouldnāt matter. The second unfold is device dependant - but as of now that is the only option: if you have a renderer it will take the first unfolded and render it.
You should listen to it and decide for yourself. I donāt think thereās any way to tell you a-priori.
I have a Dragonfly red. I get the impression (from memory comparing the sound prior to the rendering firmware update and after) that the first unfold gets you almost all of the impact and the subsequent rendering is more like a small tweak. I could definitely live with just the first unfold - and that would be my preference for Roon to implement.
1 Like
Well I suppose time will tell. Iām hoping that MQA for Roon is not a forced march. Just send the bitstream to my dCS without change and let the dCS do the first unfold. As for sending to other Roon capable endpoints that can render, let Roon do the initial unfold. Let Roon negotiate with the downstream device or allow the downstream device to dictate that it will do the unfold.
In the world of video we have EDID data structure and process as the means for ensuring things work, but Iām guessing it may or may not be as simple in audio.
Iām with you @Steven_Bova . I think MQA represents a far greater improvement in SQ than generally recognized in this thread (@miguelito and others). Reading these comments perfectly illustrates how āout of touchā most of us participating here are. The comparisons spoken of here are utilizing expensive hires libraries via multi-$1000 / multi-$10k playback systems. In contrast, the vast, vast majority of music lovinā folks are listening to streaming services on āsystemsā under $1000ā¦with mp3 files. Who should Meridian target? As if 10% of music lovers have even heard of Roon! They have not. As if 10% of music lovers are willing to embrace the expense and complexity of setting up Roon in their homes. They are not. Roon is the very definition of niche. There seems to be a stance here that this niche audience is what should determine the future of MQA. It would be, imo, utterly insane for Meridian to prioritize Roon using audiophiles for its success or survival. Roon is a smallā¦tinyā¦ player in Meridianās strategy. Yet, many here, seem to think Meridian should be bending over backwards to work with Roon. Itās the polar opposite!
The benefits of MQA for streaming SQ are ENORMOUS. And streaming is where most music lovinā folks get their music. Content, hardware and delivery are NOT niche. The music industry (of Universal, Sony and Warner, etc) is embracing MQA quite rapidly. The (delivery) streaming modelās embrace is growing quickly as well including Tidal, HDmusicStream, Deezer, groovers, etc. ALL THIS YEAR. Tidalās MQA library, though still hard to fully discover, has grown a ton in the last 2 months. MQA capable (AFFORDABLE) players are hitting the market, like the V30 and Sony players. Again, which is bigger LG & Sony ā¦ or Roon?? The Essential phone (android) will soon have a MQA headphone accessory module. And @miguelito, it aināt Meridianās fault Apple isnāt on board. Apple hasnāt exactly been leading when it comes to music SQ, streaming or not! And Iām an Apple user (iPad, iPhone, Apple TV, MBP).
Roon is a wonderful product, but when I sit to listen, I now click on Audirvana. Given the choice of SQ (MQA with Audirvana) vs presentation (Roon + dependence on my hires library) choiceā¦the Audirvana SQ is too significant for me to deny. Not sure how much longer I can watch the $650 Sonic Transporter gather dust.
1 Like
@Krutsch / ā¦ saying :
āI think MQA listening impressions are being driven by mastering quality of re-released material (good or bad).ā ā¦
That is true for every single track you own! You say this as if itās unique to MQA. āGarbage in, garbage outā is not a new concept or unique to MQA. MQA has never claimed to magically transform the original recordings.
1 Like
The record companies. The selling point is to be able to sell their music yet again, in yet again another format. If it werenāt for this MQA would not exist.
@miguelito And youāve never purchased redbook remasters of music you already owned? Youāve never purchased hires versions of music you already owned ? Of course, money is a driving force, but your perspective is still extremely cynical. Iāve met Bob Stuart on several occasions. He is driven to improve the listening experience and increase music enjoyment in a sincere way. He also runs a business. He works hard and has made significant contributions. He deserves to be compensated.
1 Like
I think it was in this thread that some people were stating undecoded MQA sounded worse than CD.
Well, I am listening to Frank Sinatra in MQA undecoded on my Meridian system and have to say it sounds spectacular. Itās like they are in the room. Truly āThe Ghost in the Machineā. Amazing!
Maybe I dont understand your post, You need to find them in Tidalā¦( MQA files) Since your the community moderator I assume you know this, and I am new here, what is it I dont know?..what does SFAIK mean?..I assume its something like SNAFU.
@andybob If Iām reading your post correctly, I feel it perfectly reflects one of the two camps regarding MQA & Roon in this thread. I read your post as āRoon is fundamental to my music enjoyment experience. If hardware, DACS, technology outside of Roon offers superior SQ, I donāt careā. Not even worth your time to locate the files. I think this is very clarifying and I will not attempt to argue against your perspective, although I could not be more different.
I think it means So Far As I Knowā¦