A handful* of people here seem to really love MQA, and I sense a bit of a Meridian affinity in general. But nonetheless if it sounds better to any individual, then why not…
I just wish I heard the difference when I listened using the Explorer. If it was there I couldn’t really tell. Certainly it was a long way off what I’d expected from all the hype and videos of people taking their headphones off in tears.
I listen to electronic and the like, and was using mine with non-uber-highend headphones, but I would have still expected at least some kind of Eureka moment. Or at least an added smile. Or some foot tapping.
No idea whether it’s dead or not, too early to tell. If anything it will probably be the streaming format for high-def music. I certainly don’t see much buzz about MQA DACs.
I’d actually like to hear it in a high-end setup but just not really interested enough to track that down, and have no time, so will just be on the off chance in the future.
(* probably far more than I handful but I just happen to notice the same few posters singing MQAs praises).
It was launched via streaming in January and it is now only April. I don’t remember CD going from niche format to vinyl slayer in a little over 3 months. It will be years before we can look back at this with real clarity about what is going on right now.
There is some good MQA out there, but I feel that most of it doesn’t approach the stunning quality of the cherry-picked demo tracks that I heard circa. November 2014 and early 2015 (Bob Dylan, Ella & Louis, Metallica, Hilary Hahn - to pick some examples from different genres). Hopefully the best is yet to come.
Just listen to Brent Cobb ‘Shine on rainy day’ MQA on release. Even undecoded it sounds incredibly natural, like he is in the room.
The thought that this can sound better excites me but as it has cost me nothing over my initial Hi Fi investment I would have made anyway I am happy now.
The very thought that audio this good could be streamed over the internet not that long ago was as much science fiction as the internet it’s self.
So, if MQA can deliver this, you can’t fault the format. You can fault particular implementations but that won’t be MQA’s fault.
If on your system this doesn’t sound amazing, you have system or room issues.
So, will I invest in MQA hardware? hell yess!
Will I be happy in the meantime with Vanilla undecoded MQA? Hell yes!
So as I see it, MQA forces you to do nothing. If it’s not important to you then just ignor it. The worst that can happen is you will get better sound anyways or get better DAC’s available from companies that consider they can out perform MQA. Bring it on as in the end it’s the MUSIC that’s important… or is it?
I believe that some of the best recordings stand out no matter what format you listen to, it does not need to be hi-res or anything special. When I listen to good recordings on Spotify Premium I can tell instantly. Whether I could tell the difference if those good recordings receive another ‘lift’ from hi-res or MQA whatever is debatable. I also believe that you cannot make a silk purse from a sows ear. Poor recordings will always be poor in my view no matter what modern remastering or treatment such as MQA the recording is given. I will not be getting anxious about missing out on the MQA version of Hawkwind’s Doremi Fasol Latido.
That’s the thing, if MQA brings me as close to the original intent as is possible, I’m for it. I can tell for sure it doesn’t hurt anything.
A good recording and mastering has to be the first step and it shows anyway. Studio de blur has to add to this. The rest is cherry on the pie, but I like good pie…
Yep, I was also at MQA demos in that time frame. I remember sitting listening ( the Ella and Louis and Dylan demo pieces were certainly memorable) and then I began looking at the equipment they were using. They had brought in the DSP-8000 SE speakers for the demo!!?!! And I remember thinking that using those speakers wasn’t a fair test as they could make anything sound good, lol.
But they also show up poor masterings… Swings and roundabouts. It’s a fair point, but to me it just highlights how poor mid-fi equipment (and a lot of supposed high-end kit) actually is - it’s never really had to deal with really top notch material. IMHO.
I fully understand the emotianal attachment “Roon Guys and Pals” are showing to their exbrand.
Thats somehow lovely.
But: Time goes on and with it came the decision for a new product, at least economically independent of Meridian. Emotionally independent and grown up, I am not really sure.
Problem now is that MQA is some MP3 on Steroids, or it might be.we dont know yet.
Roon can be a totally independent and revolutionary product for the Audio Industrie.
Even if MQA fails.
Like many, I have done that comparison, compared to regular CD upsampled version of older Analogue music, the MQA version does stand out. Comparison to modern 24/196 digital recorded media, that is well recorded, the difference is marginal, not statistically different.ie Flip a coin. When I am listening to MQA tracks streaming Tidal, somehow it seems that the soundstage has expanded, I have my system set to Stereo, All Channel, however under MQA I am much more aware of the rear channels? It is like it switched to 5.1 surround? That has been my head scratching moment. Now remember the fact that many of the comparisons at audio shows of MQA comparisons, have been streaming vrs. a High Band Width Download through High end equipment, at a fraction of the band width. The fact that MQA does not sound dramaticly inferior is a great testament to the technology. I had long ago ripped my entire library, sold all my own content, and had slowly stopped listening to music, except when I did a demo, of my BlueRay Concert Library, the convenience was too great for the outcome. Now that I can stream my entire library, and millions of tracks, right now only a hundreds of albums MQA, has me listening to music again, and sampling new music. The MQA content cannot come fast enough. I have complained a number of times to Tidal about that.
I totally agreed, Roon by itself is a revolutionary music playback software in its class compared to others out there. It doesn’t need MQA has it main core feature in order to sell its product.
This post refers back to the suggestion by @Rugby in post #1404. I downloaded a trio of files from 2L. The Mozart Violin Concerto piece, in 96/24, 44.1/16, and 44.1/16 MQA. After doing some casual listening on my PC where I was unable to tell the difference between any of them I decided to do a more formal comparison using Foobar2000 ABX Comparator. The aim was to compare the 44.1/16 file with the undecoded MQA version. The results are posted below and can be verified (if so desired) by pasting the text results at the url http://www.foobar2000.org/abx/signaturecheck
The Music was played back through Sennheiser Momentum on-ear headphones. I have to say that for the most part I believed I was guessing the result and became tired and fatigued quite quickly trying to discern any difference. However I scored 11/16 which shocked me. I do not think it proves much. I think I will need a bigger number of trials, and that would be even more tiresome, but I may go on to do another trial routing the music through to the DAC in my Yamaha DSP AX 757SE amp (via the computer’s S/PDIF output) and into my Revel Performa M22 speakers.
Is there anyone else prepared to undergo such a trial and publish their verifiable results?
EDIT - I’m not sure why the verification process fails copying text from this forum to the foobar url, but it looks like some of the characters get altered in the posting process. I cannot see a way to upload the original text log file, any suggestions?
EDIT2 - Hopefully here’s a dropbox link to the text file
