MQA discussion

[DaveyF]

I think that there is obviously validity to those who always ask....'how does it work?' Particularly in this hobby, where we have seen more than our fare share of 'BS' marketing.
Skepticism in this hobby is, at least imho, a good thing....particularly as the prices asked for a lot of this stuff is bordering on insanity and in many cases an insult to one's intelligence...again IMHO.
Having said that, at the MQA demo that Peter put on, there was uniform agreement that the MQA files were absolutely superior sounding to the standard files that Peter brought along. This superiority in SQ was unanimous....including among several real techie guys in the audience. All were convinced after having used their own ears that something very right was happening here. To my ears it was an easy determination. Apparently some of the tech guys understood the technology and were very complimentary about it.
Once again, go out and listen to a good MQA demo and then let's discuss......

 

[Don Hills]

... Having said that, at the MQA demo that Peter put on, there was uniform agreement that the MQA files were absolutely superior sounding to the standard files that Peter brought along. This superiority in SQ was unanimous.... ...

At the demo, was it known at all times which version (standard vs MQA) was being listened to?

 

[Lee]

At the demo, was it known at all times which version (standard vs MQA) was being listened to?

Yes, but the difference was great enough that I don't believe that introduced bias.

 

[opus112]

The difference heard already had the expectation bias factored in. Bias is unconscious so no-one believes what they hear is influenced by bias, all perceive themselves as unbiassed.

 

[DaveyF]

The difference heard already had the expectation bias factored in. Bias is unconscious so no-one believes what they hear is influenced by bias, all perceive themselves as unbiassed.

So, in other words, a room full of experienced listeners heard absolutely no difference with this demo, except for their mind playing games and fooling them into believing that they heard a not inconsiderable difference....is that what you would have us believe ???
Once again, a post from a member who I very very seriously doubt has even heard any MQA demos!
Going with the same logic, I would then question if the hobby should exist at all, after all, we are all using " expectation bias" whenever we listen to any piece of high end gear vs. any gear from Walmart....are we not.
The Walmart special sounds exactly the same as the Dan D'Agostino piece in reality, except for what our brains are telling us based on this expactation 'bias'....LOL!
Ok, enough........

 

[DaveyF]

Yes, but the difference was great enough that I don't believe that introduced bias.

+1

 

[DaveC]

From the link:
"Using conventional digital converters and processing, audio has been blurred more than we realise and in a way that makes it unnatural, remote and lacking immediacy."

It is this kind of hyperbole that makes me skeptical and incredulous. Unnatural, remote and lacking immediacy? Really? I mean, REALLY? I have plenty CDs where in my system the music grabs you with impactful immediacy *), just like with vinyl elsewhere. And I have heard stunning naturalness partially in my system, but even more so elsewhere, where we marveled, for example, how incredibly realistic piano sounded on the best recordings on Redbook CD -- with a coherent, rich and weighty harmonic envelope, with incredible cleanness and clarity, also in the high register, and with perfect decay of tones.

Perhaps MQA is even better than this, and it will be interesting to experience it -- but it is ridiculous to claim that everything with digital so far was 'wrong'. If you need MQA to go from a 'remote' to an immediate sound something is wrong not with digital as such, but with digital through your system.

That talk about MQA reminds me of the hyperbole when SACD was introduced as a 'savior' from the allegedly 'rotten' CD format.
________

*) and not as an artifact of 'flatness' -- my system is very good at portraying spatial depth

Yeah, I gotta say this is dubious at best. Considering it's more than possible to make a rip of vinyl and rtr tape that is nearly indistinguishable from the original analog source it seems to me problems are in other places.

I'll still keep an open mind and listen to MQA if/when possible, probably RMAF coming up soon, but the tech details are lacking or make little sense to me right now.

 

[DaveC]

I think that there is obviously validity to those who always ask....'how does it work?' Particularly in this hobby, where we have seen more than our fare share of 'BS' marketing.
Skepticism in this hobby is, at least imho, a good thing....particularly as the prices asked for a lot of this stuff is bordering on insanity and in many cases an insult to one's intelligence...again IMHO.
Having said that, at the MQA demo that Peter put on, there was uniform agreement that the MQA files were absolutely superior sounding to the standard files that Peter brought along. This superiority in SQ was unanimous....including among several real techie guys in the audience. All were convinced after having used their own ears that something very right was happening here. To my ears it was an easy determination. Apparently some of the tech guys understood the technology and were very complimentary about it.
Once again, go out and listen to a good MQA demo and then let's discuss......

Or, maybe the demo you heard was of carefully selected or manipulated tracks meant to hype MQA?

Other opinions I've heard that don't have anything to do with the particular demo you heard don't seem nearly as positive. Not trying to be a dick, but you keep insisting everyone needs to go out and hear MQA, maybe you do too to get a feel for what's it's like in other than perfect demo conditions that may not be representative of the average MQA encoded track?

Personally, I have no opinion except the technical explanations for MQA are lacking, otherwise as I said I'll keep an open mind and listen.

 

[rbbert]

So, in other words, a room full of experienced listeners heard absolutely no difference with this demo, except for their mind playing games and fooling them into believing that they heard a not inconsiderable difference....is that what you would have us believe ???
Once again, a post from a member who I very very seriously doubt has even heard any MQA demos!
Going with the same logic, I would then question if the hobby should exist at all, after all, we are all using " expectation bias" whenever we listen to any piece of high end gear vs. any gear from Walmart....are we not.
The Walmart special sounds exactly the same as the Dan D'Agostino piece in reality, except for what our brains are telling us based on this expactation 'bias'....LOL!
Ok, enough........

Please, don't demonstrate such ignorance. History is chock full of examples where masses of people, often very intelligent people, were hoaxed or otherwise fooled into believing something which was demonstrably false.

 

[bonzo75]

Or, maybe the demo you heard was of carefully selected or manipulated tracks meant to hype MQA?

Other opinions I've heard that don't have anything to do with the particular demo you heard don't seem nearly as positive. Not trying to be a dick, but you keep insisting everyone needs to go out and hear MQA, maybe you do too to get a feel for what's it's like in other than perfect demo conditions that may not be representative of the average MQA encoded track?

This is my only issue. I am totally impressed by MQA, but only on demo tracks, and do not have any idea of non-demo tracks. Like I said, two people who had the Meridian sold it quite quickly after buying it for MQA, and one with MSB switched back to PCM. Of course that was a few months back so maybe no. of tracks have grown. The quality is there for sure in MQA, whether that extends across 1000s of tracks, we will find out over the next 6 months or a year. But wrong to dismiss quality out of hand. Even if they were carefully mastered, they were still better than well mastered digital.

 

[KeithR]

Or, maybe the demo you heard was of carefully selected or manipulated tracks meant to hype MQA?

Other opinions I've heard that don't have anything to do with the particular demo you heard don't seem nearly as positive. Not trying to be a dick, but you keep insisting everyone needs to go out and hear MQA, maybe you do too to get a feel for what's it's like in other than perfect demo conditions that may not be representative of the average MQA encoded track?

Personally, I have no opinion except the technical explanations for MQA are lacking, otherwise as I said I'll keep an open mind and listen.

I believe Asiufy has done hundreds of comparisons as he related on this thread and has offered anyone to stop by and hear for themselves.

 

[DaveC]

I believe Asiufy has done hundreds of comparisons as he related on this thread and has offered anyone to stop by and hear for themselves.

If only I lived closer I'd love to stop by and listen.

 

[DaveyF]

Please, don't demonstrate such ignorance. History is chock full of examples where masses of people, often very intelligent people, were hoaxed or otherwise fooled into believing something which was demonstrably false.

We are talking about audio reproduction here...at least as far as I can tell. That is certainly what i am talking about....and the post that opus112 was talking about. No one is stating that 'expectation bias' does not exist.

 

[DaveyF]

Or, maybe the demo you heard was of carefully selected or manipulated tracks meant to hype MQA?

Other opinions I've heard that don't have anything to do with the particular demo you heard don't seem nearly as positive. Not trying to be a dick, but you keep insisting everyone needs to go out and hear MQA, maybe you do too to get a feel for what's it's like in other than perfect demo conditions that may not be representative of the average MQA encoded track?

Personally, I have no opinion except the technical explanations for MQA are lacking, otherwise as I said I'll keep an open mind and listen.

Sure, one can always postulate that any given demo has in some way been 'rigged'. I sincerely doubt in this instance that was the case....
Dave go out and see if you can hear a good MQA demo, like the one I believe that I heard, and then form an opinion. If you happen to have the same experience as I did, and I'm sure you have good enough ears to determine the differences, you will more than likely be as enthusiastic as I am. Just to be clear, I am in no way a digital fan. So, even though I felt that the MQA was a BIG step up over the standard file, digital in general has a long way to go before I would prefer it over analog..never mind tape!
That's not really the point, the point is, at least IMHO, that MQA is a serious improvement for the current digital landscape. Not something to be easily dismissed as simple 'BS' marketing.

 

[mauidan]

Easy/cheap MQA home demo:

For $89. You can get a Audioquest DragonFly Black (free shipping) from AudioGeeks.com

For free, you can get a 30 day trial of TIDAL Premium.

I went for the Audioquest DragonFly Red ($179.) with more power to drive my Sennheiser HD800.

I also bought a Audioquest Golden Gate 3.5mm to RCA cable ($59.99), so I could hook the DAC to my main system.


PS- Make sure the DragonFly has latest software version- Firmware v1.06. A Desktop Devise Manager Application is available on the Audioquest website.

PPS- In the Tidal streaming settings, make sure the Exclusive Mode box is selected. The DragonFly LED will light Purple to indicate a MQA file is playing.

 

[asiufy]

Easy/cheap MQA home demo:

For $89. You can get a Audioquest DragonFly Black (free shipping) from AudioGeeks.com

For free, you can get a 30 day trial of TIDAL Premium.

I went for the Audioquest DragonFly Red ($179.) with more power to drive my Sennheiser HD800.

I also bought a Audioquest Golden Gate 3.5mm to RCA cable ($59.99), so I could hook the DAC to my main system.


PS- Make sure the DragonFly has latest software version, a Desktop Devise Manager Application is available on the Audioquest website.

PPS- In the Tidal streaming settings, make sure the Exclusive Mode box is selected. The DragonFly LED will light Purple to indicate a MQA file is playing.

Great post, +1.

 

[Don Hills]

Yes, but the difference was great enough that I don't believe that introduced bias.

I rest my case...

 

[asiufy]

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/arti...rlin-ifa-show/

As I said, major moves into the mainstream. More streaming, and even more download availability as well, now with e-Onkyo in Japan.

 

[DaveC]

Sure, one can always postulate that any given demo has in some way been 'rigged'. I sincerely doubt in this instance that was the case....
Dave go out and see if you can hear a good MQA demo, like the one I believe that I heard, and then form an opinion. If you happen to have the same experience as I did, and I'm sure you have good enough ears to determine the differences, you will more than likely be as enthusiastic as I am. Just to be clear, I am in no way a digital fan. So, even though I felt that the MQA was a BIG step up over the standard file, digital in general has a long way to go before I would prefer it over analog..never mind tape!
That's not really the point, the point is, at least IMHO, that MQA is a serious improvement for the current digital landscape. Not something to be easily dismissed as simple 'BS' marketing.

Rigged is too strong a term... maybe the tracks were selected to highlight the best results possible from MQA though? I only say that because your impression is one of the more favorable and demos are put on for a specific purpose.

 

[awsmone]

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/arti...rlin-ifa-show/

As I said, major moves into the mainstream. More streaming, and even more download availability as well, now with e-Onkyo in Japan.

This makes sense as it's one of the three attributes of MQA, packaging high res in streaming

Similar to SACD, you have a hi res unhackable file which makes catalogue owners sleep easy

.....where do get that Walmart special ?