• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Is MQA in your Future?

botrytis said:
I have always thought Atkinson was a hack as most of the other reviewers on Stereophile, TAS.

I believe the MQA would lose and there are several reasons why. First, you cannot guarantee where the MQA master is from, if it is even the same one used for a 96/24 FLAC file (this is a HUGE issue for a lot of people who buy and listen to high-res files). Then you have the higher baseline volume that MQA puts into the decode (that is 3 9 db higher and the compression of the overall playback - which is also 3-9 db) - this is why MQA is pushing the streaming area since most use some type of compression system to broadcast the music through anyway. That is quite a bit of change from a system that says to present exactly what the engineers wanted originally to hear from the master.
Click to expand...

So much misinformation I don't know where to start. If I had you over my house and you were able to distinguish the MQA sample (played on an MQA DAC) vs. the non-MQA sample (played on a non-MQA DAC) with 100% accuracy (hearing the things you claim to hear in MQA that are so egregious), I'd give you a Benchmark DAC as a prize.

BTW, do these "people" that buy hi-res files lose their minds when they're duped into buying a 16/44 sample that is dumped into a hi-res container? Can they even tell? As for the "HUGE issue" about provenance, the majority of people out there don't know what master version they're listening to regardless of the format.

Peace
 
Last edited:
botrytis said:
First - I only get high-res files from reputable sources and those can be tested, which Onkyo, Linn, Highresaudio, etc. test and make sure they are true high res. Audiochecker is one such program that makes sure a high res FLAC, APE, or ALAC file is just that, high res and it is pretty easy to do. https://www.highresaudio.com/en/content/qualityguarantee and https://www.onkyomusic.com/US/why-high-quality-audio

With MQA there is NO SUCH PROOF, except MQA saying it is a high res master. One cannot check anything due to the removal of bit-depth and sample rate by MQA encoding. Thus, MQA HAS to upsample everything to get back close to the original bit depth and that to me is FRAUD pure and simple.

http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2017/06/measurements-audioquest-dragonfly-black_24.html

Example of testing which NO MQA pro-group has done.
Click to expand...

My challenge to you is about the sound quality, not provenance - to confirm SQ we don't have to take MQAs word for the tracks we use in this test being original masters . We can use samples provided directly from the recording studio that mastered them in the first place. In other words the SAME original master in different formats.

I guarantee that you will fail the test I propose and NOT hear any of the egregious things you claim to hear in MQA.
 
botrytis said:
MQA does not have the sound quality, to me, the pieces I have heard have been thin, fuzzy and compressed. HOW IS THAT QUALITY? To me it isn't - I was part of the archimago blog test also.

I am going to agree to disagree on this. MQA, to me, is a useless piece of tech WE DO NOT NEED and I will not buy it.

If MQA was so positive about their system, why didn't they show to debate?
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/mqa-bails-on-rocky-mountain-audio-fest.701041/

http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6046

if it is as good as MQA says it is, why do they avoid actually discussing with other experts. What do they have to hide?

https://mrapodizer.wordpress.com/2015/01/13/mqa-what-is-meridian-hiding/

MQA patent - Lossy is used quite often in this patent to describe MQA based on their patent. https://patentscope.wipo.int/search...=nano+OR+filter+OR+ceramic&tab=PCTDescription

Finally, a very scientific explanation and analysis of MQA

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwifrdLkvenYAhVN-qwKHfjHAG0QFghJMAU&url=https://www.xivero.com/downloads/MQA-Technical_Analysis-Hypotheses-Paper.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0qqMr9I6tlsxfpEFfDZOIT

and another explanation

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/MQA/origami/ThereAndBack.html

The end result being, "There is no such thing as a FREE LUNCH", meaning there is issues with MQA, that they do not want to discussed or have discussed.
Click to expand...

Yes we will agree to disagree and personally I don't care if MQA lives or dies tomorrow.

But when I read your claims about these supposed egregious sound differences you say you hear I have to call it. It's sounds to me like you've done a heck of a lot more reading to determine what you think your're going to hear as opposed to actual extended listening and comparing in a familiar environment like your home with your gear using both an MQA and non-MQA DAC.

Again, I stand by my assertion that you will NOT be able to detect the supposed inferiority you claim to hear in the MQA decoded file.

MQA may be unnecessary and bring on a lot of things, but egregious SQ is not one of them.
 
Last edited:
botrytis said:
I have friends that have MQA DACs (which includes local audio shop owners - where some listening tests have been done). I am lucky in that respect.
Click to expand...

As expected but what DACs did you have at home, for how long and what files did you use?
 
botrytis said:
That is a non-sequitur. If I didn't like it there in the multi- tens of thousand dollar systems, why would I bring it home? To be more unimpressed?

I went in with an open mind, heard what I said I did. That was enough for me.

As I said, agree to disagree. I am done with this thread.
Click to expand...

Then I'd say you had no control over the variables of your testing and comparisons. No direct and thorough long term familiarity with the system, equipment, room and set-up you were auditioning. In addition, no baseline for your comparison. You have come to a rigid determination that MQA sounds egregiously inferior based on a flawed protocol.
 
botrytis said:
No I came to the conclusion, as others have, that MQA is an inherently flawed, over complicated way to deal with DRM. That is all it is.
Cheers and enjoy.
Click to expand...

Yes, MQA may be "an inherently flawed, over complicated way to deal with DRM", heck it may even be the Devil incarnate. But don't change the subject, that has nothing to do with with the inferior sound quality claim you're making and that's what I take issue with.
 
Last edited:
We seem to be going around in circles here. A brief summary (leaving out the comments directed at other members):

- I've heard MQA and it sucks
- I've heard MQA and it's great
- I've heard MQA, and meh, sometimes it sounds better, sometimes worse, sometimes just different (or not)
- All the comparisons are flawed
- I heard a well-done comparison, and it showed (a) MQA sucks, (b) MQA's great
- It's all a conspiracy to monopolize the music industry
- It's really hard to do the comparison
- It's a short-term solution for streaming with limited bandwidth

Is that about it? I'm sure I've missed something, but I'm not seeing much new in this thread. Is there really a point in continuing?
 
RichPA said:
We seem to be going around in circles here. A brief summary (leaving out the comments directed at other members):

- I've heard MQA and it sucks
- I've heard MQA and it's great
- I've heard MQA, and meh, sometimes it sounds better, sometimes worse, sometimes just different (or not)
- All the comparisons are flawed
- I heard a well-done comparison, and it showed (a) MQA sucks, (b) MQA's great
- It's all a conspiracy to monopolize the music industry
- It's really hard to do the comparison
- It's a short-term solution for streaming with limited bandwidth

Is that about it? I'm sure I've missed something, but I'm not seeing much new in this thread. Is there really a point in continuing?
Click to expand...

Well we can talk about who's ears are better for a few pages I'm sure..

Eric
 
The industry is in a quandary, with the MQA lossy product, gaining notice in the streaming/consumer realm, it has merits at this point, but why stream lossy, when full Lossless streaming will be hear soon. Can you turn off the MQA and get full lossless, 24/96 and beyond. A product that supports that option I think will be rubbing the crystal ball into the future. As always full transparency, show providence, blockchain of audio. MQA is a software license, it should be able to be turned off and on. Players that can do all of the above will move forward. One of the reasons that a lot of Players have balked at the MQA short term bandwagon. This is a streaming issue. Those who have a large true HiRez library, keep playing, buying a lossy product should not even be considered.
 
E-Stat said:
It is a marketing and business issue that will soon be changed when Quobuz launches its lossless 24 bit high resolution streaming service to the US later this year where it has existed in Europe for some time.
Click to expand...

Personally, I'm interested because competition is good and high quality streams is my end goal- but if you look around at all the people that don't even want to pay $20 mo. to "rent" their CD quality music from Tidal (I also remember all the threads claiming it wasn't CD quality) I think even less will be willing to pay $30 per mo. to stream 24/192 from Qobuz.
 
Some people just like to fuss and go against the grain when they sense change and some people are just plain lazy and don't want to put in the work or effort to have a great sounding rig I.e. Setting up a TT that can sound as good or better than a hi res cd so they complain about progress and balk at anyone who goes with the flow. But it all comes down to opinions everyone has one. MQA imo sounds great, to some people it doesn't, there are so many different variables as to why some think it sounds great and some don't that it's overwhelming, no one's setup is exactly the same is one reason. So to conclude, the ones that like to live in the dark ages and balk at those who are looking at progression, let em stay there, there's no convincing them of the light at the end of the tunnel and for those that have an open mind, keep on keeping on.

Audiofreak71
 
Last edited:
Audiofreak71 said:
Some people just like to fuss and go against the grain when they sense change and some people are just plain lazy and don't want to put in the work or effort to have a great sounding rig I.e. Setting up a TT that can sound as good or better than a hi res cd so they complain about progress and balk at anyone who goes with the flow. But it all comes down to opinions everyone has one. MQA imo sounds great to some people it doesn't, there are so many different variables as to why some think it sounds great and some don't that it's overwhelming, no one's setup is exactly the same is one reason. So to conclude, the ones that like to live in the dark ages and balk at those who are looking at progression, let em stay there, there's no convincing them of the light at the end of the tunnel and for those that have an open mind, keep on keeping on.

Audiofreak71
Click to expand...

That's right and if you go back to when the CD was introduced, it was also the Devil incarnate in some circles. Good thing there were no audio forums back then! Can you imagine how silly they would read today?
 
You are correct, I remember that time also when all the nay sayers were against cd and said it would never last. Sure would have been something if there were forums back then and to look at it now. Progression is good, having an open mind is even better, that way if something doesn't work out hey at least we can say we tried it and then it's on to the next.

Audiofreak71
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom