Is MQA good enough to get Analog Guys to enjoy it? Or still cause Digital Fatigue?

[caesar]

In my experience, a lot of early CDs have that bad digital glare. Most newer DACs take it out with minimum phase filters, and such. Others take out even more by up sampling to DSD. But I have never heard dsd sound good on rock, blues, and most jazz. That super duper high up sampling takes the PRAT and rhythmic drive from the music- Unfortunately.

 

[Rodney Gold]

The leap is too far for a dedicated diehard vinyl guy.. its a jump into digital as well as a jump into computer based music..setup is not generally plug and play with digital computer based music.
So , albeit I like MQA .. I dont think it would be the trigger for aforementioned vinyl guy to jump ship

 

[Ken Newton]

caeser, I essentially agree with your observation. Specifically, about how digital filter settings that giveth in some areas also taketh away in others.

 

[microstrip]

(...) no other commercial product I know of uses HQ Player. all the other commercial servers are 'bit-perfect' direct.

the question becomes does one think digital needs fixing? if you do, then HQ Player or MQA both do that in their own ways.

Mike,

Why should we consider that HQ player (or similar) is "fixing"?

IMHO probably some DACs need "fixing", but we have no reason to consider that the format needs it. But yes, MQA clearly claimed to "fix" recordings, although they do not say how.

 

[Rhapsody]

In my experience, a lot of early CDs have that bad digital glare. Most newer DACs take it out with minimum phase filters, and such. Others take out even more by up sampling to DSD. But I have never heard dsd sound good on rock, blues, and most jazz. That super duper high up sampling takes the PRAT and rhythmic drive from the music- Unfortunately.

Wish you could hear rock and jazz DSD on my system....they sound great to me, with a LOT of PRAT and rhythmic drive, if it's there in the recording.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Hi Mike, I have had good success with HQ Player. However, I don't know what the optimized version is. Is it a separate product or do you have a specific set of settings that you use to optimize HQP? If so, can you share? One issue I have with HQP is the myriad of possible settings. Thanks, Larry

Larry,

forgot to answer your question on the settings. i'll try to answer to the degree I understand it right now.

my Aqua Formula dac is a dxd capable PCM RTR ladder dac. so HQ Player is set up to up sample everything to dxd for inputting into the Formula dac. so dsd gets converted to dxd.

and currently I'm using 'Closed Form' and 'NS 5' as the settings.

 

[Rhapsody]

The leap is too far for a dedicated diehard vinyl guy.. its a jump into digital as well as a jump into computer based music..setup is not generally plug and play with digital computer based music.
So , albeit I like MQA .. I dont think it would be the trigger for aforementioned vinyl guy to jump ship

Rodney, totally agree a vinyl guy is NOT going to jump ship because of MQA.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike,

Why should we consider that HQ player (or similar) is "fixing"?

IMHO probably some DACs need "fixing", but we have no reason to consider that the format needs it. But yes, MQA clearly claimed to "fix" recordings, although they do not say how.

because that is exactly what it is doing. it is using math to fix problems in the digital file. as opposed to simply through putting bit for bit 'bit perfect'. other commercial servers all only do 'bit perfect'. my ears tell me 'fixing' is the way to do it.

you know me well enough to realize I cannot explain it further. likely go to the Computer Audio forum where Jussi (the guy who wrote HQ Player) hangs out and ask your questions.

 

[microstrip]

because that is exactly what it is doing. it is using math to fix problems in the digital file. as opposed to simply through putting bit for bit 'bit perfect'. other commercial servers all only do 'bit perfect'. my ears tell me 'fixing' is the way to do it.

you know me well enough to realize I cannot explain it further. likely go to the Computer Audio forum where Jussi (the guy who wrote HQ Player) hangs out and ask your questions.

Thanks. Just one ignorant question - can you switch the "fixing" on and off when upsampling the files to DXD in the SGM? Or is it intrinsic to the HQ upsampling?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Thanks. Just one ignorant question - can you switch the "fixing" on and off when upsampling the files to DXD in the SGM? Or is it intrinsic to the HQ upsampling?

I'm not 100% clear whether you can up-sample, but not 'fix'. but I would be very surprised if you cannot. I will send a note to Edward Hsu to join in so we get better than my pathetic techie guessing.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Bob, I'm now minded to go in yr direction
My system has been down for a yr, and from a previous diet of 2/3 vinyl and 1/3 cd (on Eera Tentation cdp) w my digital and lps co existing nicely, and my personal preference ever so slightly moving to accepting digital more and more, in the last 12 months I've had a 100% diet of SGM server dishing up HQP/512 dsd via T&A Dac8 heard at Barry Blue58's, and I am a convert
So much so, that my last major upgrades are lab grade passive air isoln to max out my tt, but no tt/arm/cart/phono upgrades, followed by a massive upgrade myself from the Eera to likely SGM/Dac8/Sablon Reserva Elite unpwrd USB
You can see from this decision how much in yr camp I am, even as an avowed died in the wool analog maniac

 

[Fiddle Faddle]

I am of the opinion that a great recording streamed over 16/44.1 is going to sound better than a mediocre original recording that has been MQA'd (HW or SW unfolded) or DSD.

I would be stunned if anyone here disagreed with you on that one!

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I would be stunned if anyone here disagreed with you on that one!

we have mostly moved on from a dsd centric mind set. it's all about the native file and execution. but that is because our PCM playback has come so far.

 

[dminches]

Why do some people exclusively into digital want to convert people into analog (especially since most analog guys really dig digital too)? it isn't one or the other. I seriously doubt anyone who has spent tons of money on their analog front-end and collection will be switching to MQA and dump analog. Personally, I enjoy both.

 

[still-one]

I would be stunned if anyone here disagreed with you on that one!

Nope. I haven't found a recording yet that doesn't sound better in MQA than either the CD version or played ripped from a server or streamed. I am sure there are few out there but all comparisons I have made the MQA version wins out.

 

[still-one]

Nope. I haven't found a recording yet that doesn't sound better in MQA than either the CD version or played ripped from a server or streamed. I am sure there are few out there but all comparisons I have made the MQA version wins out.

I will edit this comment. I haven't found a MQA version that sounds worse than the than either the CD version or played ripped from a server or streamed.

 

[Al M.]

because that is exactly what it is doing. it is using math to fix problems in the digital file. as opposed to simply through putting bit for bit 'bit perfect'. other commercial servers all only do 'bit perfect'. my ears tell me 'fixing' is the way to do it.

you know me well enough to realize I cannot explain it further. likely go to the Computer Audio forum where Jussi (the guy who wrote HQ Player) hangs out and ask your questions.

For me PCM doesn't need fixing. I don't need HQ Player and MQA. I'll keep happily spinning my 16/44 CDs straight.

I don't experience digital fatigue either, but then I also recognize that personal sensibilities vary.

 

[astrotoy]

Larry,

forgot to answer your question on the settings. i'll try to answer to the degree I understand it right now.

my Aqua Formula dac is a dxd capable PCM RTR ladder dac. so HQ Player is set up to up sample everything to dxd for inputting into the Formula dac. so dsd gets converted to dxd.

and currently I'm using 'Closed Form' and 'NS 5' as the settings.

Thanks, Mike. I'll see whether I can figure out how to try those settings. Larry

 

[Legolas]

In my tests to date I prefer MQA to Redbook, but I am only using the file and NOT with MQA steps 2 and 3 in the DAC. I am basically using the 96K file v the 44.1K file straight. My DAC is an NOS tubed unit, and I don't upsample or use EQ. I also don't have digital filter in the DAC. I am unsure if this is contributing to my own results, but it is better with the MQA file so far.

I will report back with more detailed findings once Audirvana comes out with Version 3 that supports MQA. At the moment I am using the Tidal app on my Mac Mini which is not as good sounding as Audirvana in my system on Redbook. I am therefore thinking Audirvana and MQA will sound even better, but not wanting to get too excited about it until I get my mitts on V3. I would say that MQA in Tidal desktop app is very slightly better than Redbook in Audirvana, but is much better then Redbook in Tidal app. So an interesting test ahead.

 

[amirm]

because that is exactly what it is doing. it is using math to fix problems in the digital file.

No, that is not what it is doing.