Discussion in 'Digital Sources' started by phantomrebel, Jul 1, 2018.
I don't see how this is going to take off but you never know. Anyone giving it a go? Experiences?
From what I can tell from conversations at parties, MQA isn't exactly generating a buzz in the pro audio community. I rarely see posts about it over at Gearslutz. To me, MQA is pretty ho-hum.
Some digging required, but comments on the MQA CD in the above-mentioned threads as well as plently of standard-issue MQA bashing (mostly).
The MQA seedies will me made with an optically superior grade of plastic, reducing jitter and errors. That will make as much difference as anything IMHO.
You will need an MQA capable/licensed playback device to hear the claimed benefits.
Otherwise, it's redbook (though numerically lossy, whether that is audible is what alot of the debate is over).
I have the Cocktailaudio X40 and was thinking about upgrading to the X45pro which supports MQA-CDs. I have an email into them to see if the next X40 firmware upgrade will also include this. If yes, it's an easy decision, I will order a few of these discs from Japan and report back. The early selection looks decent at least.
For now, these are the titles I have purchased. I am more interested in them as "another version in my collection"....
17 versions of Dire Straits' "Brothers In Arms" on CD/SACD
Also, 5 versions of Dire Straits' self-titled debut album on CD/SACD, 5 versions of Beach Boys' "Pet Sounds" on CD/SACD, etc. As for the benefits of MQA, I have an Oppo 205 which can decode MQA if I download the latest firmware upgrade. Maybe next week.
MQA is not an assurance of proper mastering or proper source tapes. Not High Res. MQA only benefits, MQA, Ltd.
Nice, let us know how they compare to your other versions. Unfortunately, I was told by the factory that my X40 will not support this format even with firmware, so my only choice would be an upgrade to a X45 or X45p, which is $3-5K that I'd rather spend elsewhere at the moment.
Also, MQA is lossy. How can lossy be a master? Lossless FLAC files are just fine, along with standard DSD SACD discs without this junk.
Junk? Have you actually heard a MQA-CD then?
I would never argue that MQA is a true master file type, that wasn't the point of this thread. I'm merely interested in user's experiences with these new MQA-CDs. The technical and controversial aspects of the file type have been discussed elsewhere and are somewhat meaningless without actual listener opinions in some format.
Heck, one could argue that DSD is in a sense "lossy" if one is interested in the portion above 22.05 kHz. But who cares?..It's OK to throw out what cannot be heard. Vinyl records have little relation to the original master, but raise your hand if you enjoy listening to them.
The question is, for someone like Danny who has numerous digital versions of a particular album, does this new format bring anything different to the listening experience? Same question that was asked about XRCDs and other unique CD formats when they first came out.
Yes, I've heard them on MQA DAC and on a non MQA DAC. Lossy algorithm. Why do we need MQA? Why do we need something which degrades quality? Why do we need another proprietary, closed format? CD, SACD, and FLAC flles are just fine. MQA does not assure quality. It's as good as the sources supplied by record labels. Many of these titles I own multiple versions of, "Brothers In Arms" is a major example of limited to 16/48 digital. "Endless Summer" save for the DCC version, also has some Duophonic sources by the way. MQA benefits MQA, Ltd's pocketbook. Otherwise, it benefits nobody. XRCD at it's best was and is a good format, and several of those titles are arguably the best digital available.
Separate names with a comma.