MQA General Discussion

“What MQA claims to do is make corrections for the ADC used for recording and DAC’s used for playback”

When you add used for recording to your statement, you get the whole picture, and it confirms why MQA can be better than straight PCM.

I’m not contending it necessarily is better, but some keep insisting it cannot be better, which is untrue.

No. MQA claims to fix issues in the original HI-Res PCM, thus making it better than the original.

This is entirely possible given advanced filtering, upsampling, etc., as those who use sophisticated software (e.g., HQPlayer) know.

Whether or not the MQA process is in that league, I can’t say, but you can’t keep insisting it cannot better the original - it can.

1 Like

The problem there is I haven’t been in a studio or heard good masters in their native environment so I won’t simply repeat the marketing. If I can get ‘as good as’ I’d be happy. If I got ‘better than’ I probably wouldn’t even know that was what I was getting although I do acknowledge the potential for the corrective part of MQA to be a breakthrough.

Agreed but… This only makes any sense at all when you have one ADC in the chain - for example when you transfer an old analog tape to digital. In just about every recording process these days you have a multitude of microphones, ADCs, and even channels that never existed in the analog domain like synths. The concept of one microphone going to one ADC is naïve at best.

From what I have read, the most common recording workflow used by engineers with great concern for quality recordings is: record to digital, then mix on an analog console, then transfer to digital for mastering. This is the closest that one gets, realistically, to the simplified workflow that the MQA PR depicts (because there’s one ADC after the analog console).

My point is there’s 90% PR and 10% of reality in all these claims… :slight_smile:

Has there been any update from the Roon team on when MQA software unfolding might be implemented?

Having recently purchased an MQA-capable DAC, I’m not hearing any sonic benefit to justify the bother of switching between HQP and Roon-Ready modes on my µR, switching zones in Roon and enabling MQA on the DAC (which locks the DAC to one specific filter mode for all streams) just to play an MQA file and have it unfolded by the DAC.

Software unfolding is working in the Tidal desktop app (at least according to the OSX Midi app), which is nice since it no longer matters to anything downstream whether a file is encrypted with MQA data or not (I’m not concerned about missing 24/192 hardware unfolds).

This is the most recent thing I’ve seen:

https://community.roonlabs.com/t/wild-speculation-full-mqa-software-decode-bundled-with-rock-debunked/25130/29?u=orgel

How can one fix a bad recording and make it sounds better? The time domain correction which is applied to AD and DA conversion is novel feature of MQA. However, it went too far by incorporating lossy compression to drastically reduce the file size. Let me ask you, how can one justify that the sound quality doesn’t degrade or change because lossy compression is applied?

With that in mind, when one try to fix something and break another one, it just doesn’t add up. If MQA were just uncompressed Hi-Res PCM with time domain correction, I can agree that it may improve upon it, otherwise, don’t waste your efforts on claims that doesn’t live up to the facts.

Clearly you know best…

This has been responded to on a number of occasions and a lot of people do thinkj it adds up. To acknowledge it requires a person to dismiss some of the current thinking about the significance of sample rates and instead give credence to an alternative technique - time domain correction. A number of people have expressed a positive experience from this technique when listening to MQA… and now you are making me repeat the same old crap that has been regurgitated for the last 1700 posts - I hope you’re happy! :slight_smile:

1 Like

So, then dont repeat it.
All is said anyways.

To be fair, they are also numbers of people who dismiss it. if you look carefully about their arguments one can easily spot it and it is consistent throughout their arguments. The blog has generated such a high figure of post primarily they are many claims that are not substantiated and unanswered. People are simply fed up with claims and not facts.

If MQA is indeed a superior format, why has it generated a large proportion of divided opinions not just here but across the broad?

1 Like

Clearly Warner Music, United Artists, 2L, Bob Ludwig and many more respected and knowledgable mastering engineers and companies have been fooled into using a Lossy damaging codec, or they are cynically manipulating the industry with a view to profit.
This is the only conclusion I can now reach based on all the authoritive negative reactions to MQA.
I am now convinced.

Well it took you a while but I think you’ve finally got it!

irony1
ˈʌɪrəni/
noun
the expression of one’s meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.

Oh, I see.
I am sure nobody got that.

:sunglasses: Double irony…

Guy

My response wasn’t an attempt to convince you of the benefits of MQA. I used the term “a number of people” rather than “everyone” because that would have be presumptuous, arrogant and would make me look like someone who was trying to force a point by exaggeration. I was trying to explain to you how other people get the numbers to add up. i.e. they are giving credence to an alternative technique - time domain correction.
I am not suggesting that they are correct nor that you are.Just how it comes to be. (as discussed a number of times), The point that you have made is not the first, second or third time that it has been raised.

A fact:

Appreciating music/sound quality is subjective and cannot be determined by numbers and is subject to multiple factors

An answer to the question:
If MQA is indeed a superior format, why has it generated a large proportion of divided opinions not just here but across the broad?

Because people are different. But I would also suggest:

They’ve listened to it and don’t think its superior
They’ve not listened to it and they’ve dismissed the concept because they don’t understand or don’t believe in the concept.
They are prejudiced against the perceived commercial implications
They have been influenced by people they respect who are anti
Their equipment/setup isn’t revealing the benefits that others feel they are receiving

Can you explain why some people do like it?

Cheers
Tom

2 Likes

Humor is usually most effective when there is a grain of truth in the statement. :wink:

2 Likes

This link may be helpful.

https://www.stereo.de/news/newsdetail/bob-stuart-interview-in-voller-laenge/

2 Likes

Yawn :sleeping:

1 Like