MQA Sounds Really Good!

[solderdude]

The only possible advantage I see of an MQA release is when mastering is redone properly.
For that MQA is not needed, just a remastering which could be in any format.
The label releasing it could receive money for the remaster. Bob won't.
That new and improved master could be 'protected' by using a proprietary encoding process for which one has to pay.
This way you can re-release an older album and get money for it again but part of it would flow into Bob's hands but could end up with a better master.
There could thus be added value IF the mastering indeed was better.
Just releasing a mastertape again run through the MQA encoder only without remastering would not be beneficial for the consumer but is to Bob.

 

[Vincent Kars]

I think I really ought to read up on this whole arcane MQA thing one day because I really don't get it;

Try this one: https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/reviews/mqa-a-review-of-controversies-concerns-and-cautions-r701/

 

[somebodyelse]

Actually I kinda wonder if there is any audible difference between software decoded MQA (like Roon) and hardware decoded DAC?

Keep in mind that 'hardware decoded' appears to be decoded on software running on (usually) an XMOS chip, with manufacturers having to use a 216 instead of a 208 to get enough processing power. If the original MQA claims are to be believed there will be some settings specific to the DAC model, but at this point we're in secret sauce territory.

 

[Veri]

Do we have a budding songwriter who can do an MQA parody to the tune of YMCA?

Why MQA ……….. .

Would love that!

 

[Thomas savage]

Do we have a budding songwriter who can do an MQA parody to the tune of YMCA?

Why MQA ……….. .

Don't know but @amirm has all the outfits ..

 

[DonH56]

Don't know but @amirm has all the outfits ..

There are things about your relationship with Amir we really do not need or want to know...

 

[HammerSandwich]

I keep wanting to test this but can't find the time....

Even worse for your schedule, you should test with 2 different MQA DACs. Are MQA's promises of studio-to-stereo authentication bogus, if all outputs are not (reasonably) identical? If they are effectively the same, how does one justify an expensive MQA DAC?

Yes, rhetorical questions, but I would enjoy the test results.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Are you sure about that?

That seems to contradict what the UI says, where it says "MQA Core Decoder to 96 khz".

Di d you know that if you hold down the left button on the remote for a few seconds it will display the sample rate of the file it is receiving?

 

[mi-fu]

I keep wanting to test this but can't find the time....

Would love to see those tests.

MQA-equipped DACs are now getting cheaper, like SMSL M500. I'd want to know if such purchases are worthwhile - or just stick with Roon's MQA function.

 

[Mtbf]

If you play the MQA version of this Astrud Gilberto album version, and compare it to the normal “CD” version, you”ll notice immediately that the MQA version is quite a bit louder. So no level matching here. It is a remix/remaster, as so many of the MQA versions. In other words, it‘s a smoke screen. Most of them sound the same, some better and some even worse than the original version. You can hear exactly the same differences when you compare the hi-res versions to the standard 16/44,1 versions on Qobuz. Because they are remixes/remasters. MQA is a load of BS and who pays the bill? You do. Best way to stop this is to ignore it completely.

 

[600lbs of Sin]

This is my first post on ASR. Happenstance, led me to ASR about a year ago and I have been lurking since. My story is not unique, in that I'm infatuated with music and audio reproduction, yet dismayed by practices of the consumer audio equipment industry. I am equally disturbed by the recording industries tricks, games, and unethical ways.

Despite the obstacles put forth by said industries, I have put together a nice system and can finally "enjoy the music." Much time and money wasted on a 20 plus year journey. All that is left to do is fine tune equipment, reduce boxes, and simplify controls. At some point I will make a post to get advice from all the great minds on this forum. Forgive the "Readers Digest" version of my backstory.

I'll add a list of my equipment to further give insight on my perspective, as it relates to the OP's statement.

Moon 390 Dac Streamer, Oppo 205, wyred 4 sound mamps x2, Revel F208 (ports plugged), JL Audio E112 x2,

Now MQA, The Moon 390 is said to unfold MQA properly and it streams tidal internally. So one piece in the chain for comparison purposes of MQA. I have loads of cd's and also stream with an apple tv > oppo 205 > moon 390 (with option to use mood dac or oppo dac via bypass). So I compared Tidals MQA vs non MQA versions vs CD versions vs apple music.

Results, lets just say it took longer to write this post than to identify the flaws in MQA. Not unlike a remastered cd vs. original, the top and bottom are castrated from the recording. While some of the mix may produce more consistent levels, which can be more pleasurable experience in a system that lacks upper and lower frequency response. My summation is that MQA kills the dynamic peaks and valleys of the recording. Thus robbing the song of its most important characteristic Emotion. Hopefully my thoughts add too the discussion.

 

[600lbs of Sin]

Sorry for double posting my equipment list. I don't post too forums often.

 

[watchnerd]

There are things about your relationship with Amir we really do not need or want to know...

Hold on a minute.....

I do.

 

[watchnerd]

Results, lets just say it took longer to write this post than to identify the flaws in MQA. Not unlike a remastered cd vs. original, the top and bottom are castrated from the recording. While some of the mix may produce more consistent levels, which can be more pleasurable experience in a system that lacks upper and lower frequency response. My summation is that MQA kills the dynamic peaks and valleys of the recording. Thus robbing the song of its most important characteristic Emotion. Hopefully my thoughts add too the discussion.

Given that you attribute "castration" to mastering when it comes to CDs, how are you determining the MQA genital mutilation is due to MQA itself and not just mastering?

 

[watchnerd]

Di d you know that if you hold down the left button on the remote for a few seconds it will display the sample rate of the file it is receiving?

I did not!

 

[600lbs of Sin]

Given that you attribute "castration" to mastering when it comes to CDs, how are you determining the MQA genital mutilation is due to MQA itself and not just mastering?

Many albums on Tidal have an MQA version alongside a non MQA version. I just A and B the versions. I have also made a play list with the same song (both versions) on shuffle in an attempt remove personal bias.

 

[watchnerd]

Many albums on Tidal have an MQA version alongside a non MQA version. I just A and B the versions. I have also made a play list with the same song (both versions) on shuffle in an attempt remove personal bias.

Yeah, but the MQA versions are also remastered.

You're comparing two different masterings, whether MQA is involved or not.

 

[600lbs of Sin]

Yeah, but the MQA versions are also remastered.

You're comparing two different masterings, whether MQA is involved or not.

True, but every comparison I have made the results are consistent, the top and bottom end are removed in the MQA version. How would one go about comparing the same master as you state? If I understand correctly (haven't cared enough to dive deep in the nuances of MQA) MQA in of itself is a remaster.

Bottom line, I have yet too find a remaster or MQA, that I prefer over the original master. I've got no skin in the game, and will continue too try new things. Just my assessment.

 

[600lbs of Sin]

If anything, I would love for MQA to be better. I have an expensive device that can play it. I've wasted countless dollars buying remastered cds that I already own. I'm rooting for something better. Yet too find it though.

 

[watchnerd]

True, but every comparison I have made the results are consistent, the top and bottom end are removed in the MQA version. How would one go about comparing the same master as you state? If I understand correctly (haven't cared enough to dive deep in the nuances of MQA) MQA in of itself is a remaster.

Bottom line, I have yet too find a remaster or MQA, that I prefer over the original master. I've got no skin in the game, and will continue too try new things. Just my assessment.

I don't know if it's possible to completely differentiate MQA remastering from MQA encoding given the content we have access to.

I guess, in my situation, since I don't have an MQA HW decoder, and Roon does a half decoding / first unfold, it's half MQA?

I just think we have to be careful that the sonic differences people hear with MQA, including what I've heard, may be due to different masterings or volume differences, and not whatever MQA is claiming to do in the ultrasonic arena.

Also, for old recording that weren't originally recorded using MQA ADCs (is anybody actually doing this now?), I think the "deblurring" stuff can't / won't apply.