is MQA going to be the new Standard? Is it better than DSD and PCM, opnions.

[Lee]

I don't like DSD. Delta-sigma DAC's often sound fine, but for whatever reason DSD - that is similar in nature to Delta-sigma/classD - does not. I don't like classD either so... who knows why a Delta-sigma DAC doesn't bother me.

That being said, I welcome MQA if it gets us off the DSD train.

I have the luxury of recording live acoustic music and DSD sounds a bit better than really good PCM compared to the live event. Try more DSD files and I think you will find the well-recorded ones are quite special.

 

[bmoura]

I have the luxury of recording live acoustic music and DSD sounds a bit better than really good PCM compared to the live event. Try more DSD files and I think you will find the well-recorded ones are quite special.

That's been my experience as well. DSD excels, especially with live acoustic, jazz and classical music.
As for using MQA processing on PCM recordings, you are better off listening to PCM music files in their original 24/96 PCM form without MQA processing to my ears.

 

[paul79]

The hardware matters too... Every DAC I have tried, including some very highly regarded DAC's soften up playing DSD. Granted, these were all Delta Sigma types. That was until I heard DSD played back through my Totaldac. It is insanely good. Only the recording matters, for both PCM and DSD using it. I cannot pick out if it is DSD or PCM during listening, other than seeing it displayed, unlike other DAC's I have listened to.

 

[bmoura]

The hardware matters too... Every DAC I have tried, including some very highly regarded DAC's soften up playing DSD. Granted, these were all Delta Sigma types. That was until I heard DSD played back through my Totaldac. It is insanely good. Only the recording matters, for both PCM and DSD using it. I cannot pick out if it is DSD or PCM during listening, other than seeing it displayed, like other DAC's I have listened to.

Perhaps so. Although I heard MQA over an $80,000 Meridian System and still found it lacking compared to 24/96 PCM played on lower cost systems...

 

[paul79]

No experience with MQA.....

 

[wisnon]

The hardware matters too... Every DAC I have tried, including some very highly regarded DAC's soften up playing DSD. Granted, these were all Delta Sigma types. That was until I heard DSD played back through my Totaldac. It is insanely good. Only the recording matters, for both PCM and DSD using it. I cannot pick out if it is DSD or PCM during listening, other than seeing it displayed, unlike other DAC's I have listened to.

Haha, you are late to the DSD party, but WELCOME! LoL

 

[YashN]

I don't like DSD. Delta-sigma DAC's often sound fine, but for whatever reason DSD - that is similar in nature to Delta-sigma/classD - does not.

So, you prefer PCM converted by the DAC into SDM which is D/A converted rather than a pure DSD stream which goes to D/A without the extra steps necessary with PCM?

What is it you hear better in the first case and on which tracks?

 

[paul79]

Lol!

 

[paul79]

Well Warner Group just signed with MQA...... I read allot of back and forth about this MQA, but nobody seems to have real experience with it in a hifi setup.

 

[thedudeabides]

I asked the "real experience" question on the first MQA thread I started about a year ago on WBF. This may be the second or third.

Seems like much is still anecdotal and speculation on this forum and probably others.

Regarding the DSD issue, I've compared the RB version to the SACD version on several CD's I have. The SA's sound much more saturated and liquid, with less "apparent" detail, at first listen. As in slow, soft, etc. However, assuming the disc is well recorded and mastered, there's no contest IMHO. The SA clearly rules as the sonic winner.

 

[bmoura]

No experience with MQA.....

In that case, you should download some of the test MQA files from 2L or attend an MQA demo and compare.

 

[wisnon]

I asked the "real experience" question on the first MQA thread I started about a year ago on WBF. This may be the second or third.

Seems like much is still anecdotal and speculation on this forum and probably others.

Regarding the DSD issue, I've compared the RB version to the SACD version on several CD's I have. The SA's sound much more saturated and liquid, with less "apparent" detail, at first listen. As in slow, soft, etc. However, assuming the disc is well recorded and mastered, there's no contest IMHO. The SA clearly rules as the sonic winner.

Did you use spinners for this or a Dac fed by computer/streamer?

 

[mauidan]

Schiit Audio announced that they would not be supporting MQA:

http://schiit.com/news/news/why-we-wont-be-supporting-mqa

 

[rbbert]

PS Audio isn't thrilled about the sound, either

 

[bmoura]

PS Audio isn't thrilled about the sound, either

Very true.
http://www.psaudio.com/forum/directstream-all-about-it/mqa-controversy/#p55837

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Very true.
http://www.psaudio.com/forum/directstream-all-about-it/mqa-controversy/#p55837

Well, that is what they say. And, of course, they may be right. I think that if I were making a niche DAC, I too, would beg off on MQA at the current time, bide my time and wait for the market to tell me I need to go there and pay the licensing fees. If the market says it's hot, then I would do a 180 and sing its praises as I implemented it and put its logo on my gear. But, quite a lot needs to fall into place as far as acceptance of MQA. It is all largely smoke and mirrors at this point, including many ongoing negotiations with manufacturers and others over licensing fees.

But, in all this, how much are pure and absolute sonics really the question? Follow the money is what I what I say. Can we deeply trust Paul McGowan to give us an honest, no $$, sonic assessment of the technology? Believe what you will.

 

[still-one]

Well, that is what they say. And, of course, they may be right. I think that if I were making a niche DAC, I too, would beg off on MQA at the current time, bide my time and wait for the market to tell me I need to go there and pay the licensing fees. If the market says it's hot, then I would do a 180 and sing its praises as I implemented it and put its logo on my gear. But, quite a lot needs to fall into place as far as acceptance of MQA. It is all largely smoke and mirrors at this point, including many ongoing negotiations with manufacturers and others over licensing fees.

But, in all this, how much are pure and absolute sonics really the question? Follow the money is what I what I say. Can we deeply trust Paul McGowan to give us an honest, no $$, sonic assessment of the technology? Believe what you will.

Couldn't be the NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome?

 

[bmoura]

Can we deeply trust Paul McGowan to give us an honest, no $$, sonic assessment of the technology? Believe what you will.

Having heard MQA, I'm with McGowan on this one.
No MQA, thanks.

 

[still-one]

Having heard MQA, I'm with McGowan on this one.
No MQA, thanks.

MQA is like everything else in the hobby, there is no consensus on anything.

 

[Ken Newton]

Directly related discussion. http://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/more-mqa-controversy.533/