What’s not to like? When People come to listen to my set up for the first time, it’s fun to watch there jaws drop.
Having read many of the CES reports the last few days and seeing quite a few about MQA the most notable thing to me is several well respected speaker manufactuers talking enthusiastically about MQA. Paul Barton, Richard Vandersteen and Peter Wilson are all very enthusiastic and they have no axe to grind by selling more music or hardware. This is a good sign to me that MQA really does offer worthwhile improvements. Let’s hope we’ll all get to try MQA decoded files through Roon before too long.
3 Likes
This is good: http://www.audiostream.com/content/mqa-continued
1 Like
Regarding the forum discussions, Lavorgna writes,
“What we have here is a clear case of premature evaluation.”
I wish I had said that. 
1 Like
I completely disagree with that statement. People have every right to ask about products that have been put on out to the public or advertised and i find it awfully arrogant that he would dismiss legitimate questions.
When answers to legitimate inquiries are obfuscated through marketing/representatives and a press that send out mixed messages a backlash should be expected. How many CES reports on the Stereophile group of sites are factually inaccurate? There are a few involving Roon alone.
2 Likes
“Evaluation” the making of a judgement about the amount, number, or value of something; assessment.
I took his comment as “premature judgement” not “premature questions”.
2 Likes
It has been a judgement about the explanations about MQA at that time, and this is absolutely appropriate. When information increases, judgement can change, but not before.
Respectfully, i disagree with your assessment for two reasons. 1 in the preceding paragraph that leads directly to this statement, below, he specifically mentions the “tough questions” (Notice the correct use of quotes in my statement and not the use for dramatic effect as he does) forum goers are asking and 2 Not only are the examples he gives completely legitimate questions but ones he should be asking, not just those in forums. If the audio press (and MQA PR) where doing a good job of reporting rather than contradicting themselves at each step the confusion would be much subsided.
If you follow the audio forums, you’ll see lots of people jumping all over MQA and the audio press for these proof of concept demos at CES. Some are asking for answers to what they consider to be “tough questions”. These “tough questions” seem to be based mainly on three concerns (and a lot of confusion); do we all have to buy new hardware and new music, is MQA forcing us into their sandbox whether we like it or not, and will MQA be another DSD where you get all dressed up and find there’s not a lot of places you want to go.
He isn’t using evaluation in a strict dictionary sense but rather as a play on words that happens to be very close to another common phrase beginning with premature. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt that he is trying to be humorous rather than applying a not-so-subtle jab at those forum goers.
As a format I am neither for nor against MQA. I have high hopes that it provides a better option for streaming but i also have some doubts on it becoming a viable method given industry and logistical constraints. My issue is not with Bob Stuart or the engineers who designed what could well be a great product but the marketing team and the audio press who have seemed to fail at many steps thus far.
2 Likes
Well worth reading. Thanks for sharing.
Yes, thank you for sharing. It was a inresting reading 
Except that the analysis and conclusions are flawed in at least two places. I am not going to explain where and why. As with most information on the Internet, it is important to understand what is worth reading and what is not. I feel, in general, that the blogger has failed to grasp what MQA is about technically (from publicly available material).
Ain’t that the truth.
Here’s a different slant about the on going MQA discussions from Darko.
It’s not lack of technical detail that bothers me.
When someone’s trying to publicise a new audio feature, it’s not unreasonable for consumers to ask what equipment they will need in order to use it. MQA give every impression of not knowing the answer to that question themselves and of making things up as they go along. It makes me suspicious of a “bait and switch”. Get us interested with a lot of hand waving about software implementation through Auralic, Roon and Tidal but then delay it until hardware licensees have milked us first.
So no. I’m not down on MQA because I feel entitled to know their proprietary secrets. I’m down on them because weeks after the debacle at CES they still haven’t answered very basic questions about software implementation and equipment requirements.
1 Like
Old Darko’s not doing himself any favours by calling people with legitimate questions, observations and criticisms “petulant bullies”. That post just seems like a load of arm-waving with no actual content.
I think he is referring to the scale of vitriol and anger that a few blogs and posters seemed to get wound up with. We saw that on this forum with some very OTT comments. It actually dissuades people who might actually have some answers from engaging in the discussion.
Fair enough, but he’s got sucked into the same game, on the other side of the fence.
I find the whole MQA thing totally mystifying/mesmerising at this stage……
FWIW its actually quite fun just to watch - success or failure, I can see it becoming a cases study in ‘how not to release a new product’
MQA “Here it is, trust us, you’ll love it - look - these people smiled when they heard it”
Consumer “Great, what exactly is it, what does it do, and what do I need to get it?”
MQA “Er, …. it does stuff via thingmambobs and possibly via a few whatsamcallits and maybe or maybe not a little extra doodad - and here are the graphs - and look its just really great, and really amazing…”
Consumer “OK, fantastic, I’m sold.”
[actually, I should probably swap Consumer with ‘Audiophile’ for want of a better word. A generic earbud listener on their mobile phone probably won’t care as long as the files play back on everything they use and don’t sound worse than mp3]
Really, why not? The author was clear in stating that without an MQA decoder, he can’t evaluate the full benefit of MQA; instead, he seems to be addressing the claim that it’s still better than lossless-compressed PCM without the appropriate hardware.
My take-away is: without an MQA DAC, it’s little more than digital packing peanuts. I’m not trolling, I am asking what’s wrong with that conclusion.
1 Like