MQA discussion

awsmone · Sep 20, 2017

mauidan said:
Here a listening test suggested by Gordon Rankin:

"Go to Amazon and buy Rebecca Pigeon's MQA cd. Rip it play it back with something that does not support MQA like iTunes or whatever. Then play it back with Audirvana or something else that supports MQA and the result is 24/176.4 from a 16/44.1 track. Then compare that to maybe the HD Tracks downloads at 24/96, 24/88.2 (I think the closest sounding to the MQA), or Bob Katz version at 24/176.4."

Of course you'll need to borrow a MQA DAC.

Thanks I have a high res version of that ALBUM so will have a go
Appreciate it

asiufy · Sep 20, 2017

spiritofmusic said:
Brad, I've had some "fly by night" systems in my house, but "in the end", my final system is "making memories".
Btw, only the truly musically enlightened understand what we're wittering on about ?

Just don't expect "something for nothing", or you'll end up in "tears". Or you would've been better off with "a passage to Bangkok" instead!

How's that? Can you tell which album I'm listening now

Mike Lavigne · Sep 20, 2017

I've just compared the 192-24 MQA of Beck 'Sea Change' over Tidal to my own 88.2/24 file off my Hard Drive on the MSB Select II/SGM.

the 88.2/24 file is better; more decay and cleaner......more focus, a touch more spacious, more textural nuance, and more bass slam. the MQA 192/24 has sense of being a bit 'processed' and lacking refinement. i'd say that in this particular case they are not close.

the MSB is pretty awesome on these high rez files; the best of them get into pretty good analog territory.....which I have written about before.

MQA Truth · Sep 20, 2017

Mike Lavigne said:
I've just compared the 192-24 MQA of Beck 'Sea Change' over Tidal to my own 88.2/24 file off my Hard Drive on the MSB Select II/SGM.

the 88.2/24 file is better; more decay and cleaner......more focus, a touch more spacious, more textural nuance, and more bass slam. the MQA 192/24 has sense of being a bit 'processed' and lacking refinement. i'd say that in this particular case they are not close.

the MSB is pretty awesome on these high rez files; the best of them get into pretty good analog territory.....which I have written about before.

Are you aware there is no such thing as "24/192 MQA"?

It cannot produce any frequencies above 48 kHz, so it is limited to 24/96.

Anything above is upsampled in the final unfold.

Wihtout a doubt, your 24/88 Sea Change is derived from the SACD master.

Mike Lavigne · Sep 20, 2017

MQA Truth said:
Are you aware there is no such thing as "24/192 MQA"?

It cannot produce any frequencies above 48 kHz, so it is limited to 24/96.

Anything above is upsampled in the final unfold.

Wihtout a doubt, your 24/88 Sea Change is derived from the SACD master.

no, not aware of those details. only reporting what i'm hearing. and the read-out on my dac.

I own the SACD but evidently not a dsd rip of it.....that I can find.

MQA Truth · Sep 20, 2017

Mike Lavigne said:
no, not aware of those details. only reporting what i'm hearing. and the read-out on my dac.

I own the SACD but evidently not a dsd rip of it.....that I can find.

Understood. Appreciate your observations.

awsmone · Sep 21, 2017

Mike Lavigne said:
I've just compared the 192-24 MQA of Beck 'Sea Change' over Tidal to my own 88.2/24 file off my Hard Drive on the MSB Select II/SGM.

the 88.2/24 file is better; more decay and cleaner......more focus, a touch more spacious, more textural nuance, and more bass slam. the MQA 192/24 has sense of being a bit 'processed' and lacking refinement. i'd say that in this particular case they are not close.

the MSB is pretty awesome on these high rez files; the best of them get into pretty good analog territory.....which I have written about before.

Thanks Mike for your observation

Having one of the best digital front ends, it's an important test against standard hi res

I am intrigued by the issue raised by MQATruth about a frequency limit in their downloads

So are we saying there's is no difference between A 24/192 and 24/96 MQA file? What about master quality ?

awsmone · Sep 21, 2017

So are we comparing apples with apples

I have uploaded the 2l site with comparative test downloads

If you look at the Britten Op4 ..it's originally a DXD recording so 352.8 that's a 344 MB file
Yet the MQA is only 32MB can that really be the same file compressed?
In fact the closest file is 24/96 at 51mb which makes senses as a compression to 32MB certainly it's seems a stretch to 352.8 which would be 10.75:1 compression ie 344:32

rbbert · Sep 21, 2017

The interesting thing is, using FLAC on classical music one usually gets a better than 50% compression, so the FLAC of 24/96 would probably be 25 MB or less

MQA Truth · Sep 21, 2017

Mike Lavigne said:
no, not aware of those details. only reporting what i'm hearing. and the read-out on my dac.

I own the SACD but evidently not a dsd rip of it.....that I can find.

FYI:
http://store.acousticsounds.com/d/95281/Beck-Sea_Change-DSD_Single_Rate_28MHz64fs_Download

Al M. · Sep 22, 2017

Very interesting observations by recording engineer Brian Lucey on the subject, on this thread:

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussi...tereophile-loudness-button-and-tweaking-eq-in

(his first post is at end of first page, he continues on page 2)

Basically he says the 'improvements' reported with MQA are artifacts. And yes, he has heard MQA, on his own work.

853guy · Sep 22, 2017

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...nfront-critics&p=469932&viewfull=1#post469932

853guy said:
MQA Truth said:

Let me repeat, the comparison should NEVER EVER be against Redbook.

MQA claims to encode 24 bit mastered files. It should only be compared to the corresponding hirez download.

Click to expand...

I have to agree.

My take is the more instructive A/B will not be either a comparison of an MQA file through an MQA converter with decoding versus non-decoding, nor the Redbook version versus the MQA version, but the original 24/96 non-MQA source file through the same MQA converter versus the MQA file with decoding.

That comparison has already been done apropos content mastered by the original Mastering Engineer, for whatever that may be worth, here: https://www.gearslutz.com/board/12407154-post218.html

Best,

853guy

If you click the Gearslutz link you can see his A/B conclusions when comparing the original 24/96 files from his mastering sessions to the MQA versions through a Mytek Manhattan.

Best,

853guy

microstrip · Sep 22, 2017

Al M. said:
Very interesting observations by recording engineer Brian Lucey on the subject, on this thread:

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussi...tereophile-loudness-button-and-tweaking-eq-in

(his first post is at end of first page, he continues on page 2)

Basically he says the 'improvements' reported with MQA are artifacts. And yes, he has heard MQA, on his own work.

Others say the opposite. Some posters insist on equalization in the 4-6 kHz zone, others deny it formally ...

Each of us can pick the post and member we want to support our dreams and beliefs.

853guy · Sep 22, 2017

microstrip said:
Others say the opposite. Some posters insist on equalization in the 4-6 kHz zone, others deny it formally ...

Each of us can pick the post and member we want to support our dreams and beliefs.

Hello Micro,

Yes, it's well established that MQA files do not differ in terms of spectral analysis (of the ones that have been analysed).

But as Mr. Lucey states in the above links, it would be easy to alter the M/S balance in favour of the Mids, pushing certain frequencies forward. Parallel compression and/or Multiband compression would accomplish a similar (but different) thing. I believe that's the audible artifact Mr. Lucey is referring to in his posts. Neither of those methods are forms of EQ, adding spectral content - only changing its audible balance relative to the original file.

Best,

853guy

Al M. · Sep 22, 2017

853guy said:
Hello Micro,

Yes, it's well established that MQA files do not differ in terms of spectral analysis (of the ones that have been analysed).

But as Mr. Lucey states in the above links, it would be easy to alter the M/S balance in favour of the Mids, pushing certain frequencies forward. Parallel compression and/or Multiband compression would accomplish a similar (but different) thing. I believe that's the audible artifact Mr. Lucey is referring to in his posts. Neither of those methods are forms of EQ, adding spectral content - only changing its audible balance relative to the original file.

Best,

853guy

BTW, Brian Lucey was supposed to sit on the MQA discussion panel at RMAF that was cancelled. Now I understand why the MQA folks might be afraid of him and wanted to avoid confrontation...if the things Lucey claims are true.

adyc · Sep 22, 2017

Al M. said:
BTW, Brian Lucey was supposed to sit on the MQA discussion panel at RMAF that was cancelled. Now I understand why the MQA folks might be afraid of him and wanted to avoid confrontation...if the things Lucey claims are true.

+1

microstrip · Sep 22, 2017

853guy said:
Hello Micro,

Yes, it's well established that MQA files do not differ in terms of spectral analysis (of the ones that have been analysed).

But as Mr. Lucey states in the above links, it would be easy to alter the M/S balance in favour of the Mids, pushing certain frequencies forward. Parallel compression and/or Multiband compression would accomplish a similar (but different) thing. I believe that's the audible artifact Mr. Lucey is referring to in his posts. Neither of those methods are forms of EQ, adding spectral content - only changing its audible balance relative to the original file.

Best,

853guy

As far as I read, more than 3000 tittles have been encoded from the original files. And we must expect that the professionals from the recordings companies who have listened and compared the files and have tools to diagnose it did not notice it ... Sorry, it looks like a big conspiratorion theory. Mr. Lucey has access to the free 2L files as any of us - why does not he present data on his guess?

I have no horse in this race until I get MQA, but considering the facts I read I would not bet in any other horse in this race. But I want to see it from an unbiased perspective!

NorthStar · Sep 23, 2017

??? https://archimago.blogspot.ca/2017/09/mqa-core-vs-hi-res-blind-test-part-ii.html

It is only for pleasure, for fun ... subjectively and objectively ... salt of grain ...
all that jazz in life.

* I am going shopping for a new tuntable; I need a relaxing break in my life, before flying to the next Galaxy. :b

Al M. · Sep 24, 2017

awsmone said:
Finally MQA is explained and we can all rest easy

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/the-politics-of-mqa/

In the discussion section below the article (sort by: newest) there is a interesting debate 2 days ago between Michael Ritter from Berkeley Audio Design and others. I guess all parties have interesting points to make in this debate. A worthwhile read, in my view, and more question marks of course. For example, the ideal of MQA vs. its real-world implementation.

ack · Sep 24, 2017

Al M. said:
In the discussion section below the article (sort by: newest) there is a interesting debate 2 days ago between Michael Ritter from Berkeley Audio Design and others. I guess all parties have interesting points to make in this debate. A worthwhile read, in my view, and more question marks of course. For example, the ideal of MQA vs. its real-world implementation.

Interesting discussion indeed, between Ritter, "Steve" and "firedog". The takeaway for me from Ritter is this: "The result was that MQA came within spitting distance of what 192kHz, 24-bit PCM is capable of using optimum A/D and D/A conversion filtering."

Personally, I did not hear this "spitting distance" even from RBCD, let alone 24/192. So I guess I need to listen again, when there is more material that interests me.

MQA discussion

Well-Known Member

Industry Expert/VIP Donor

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

Banned

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

Banned

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Banned

VIP/Donor

Active Member

VIP/Donor

Active Member

VIP/Donor

VIP/Donor

VIP/Donor

Member

VIP/Donor

VIP/Donor & WBF Founding Member