|
|
Post by Loop 7 on Sept 15, 2017 22:00:42 GMT -5
I may be in a different camp than most here. I have heard MQA and on some albums I can tell a difference. On others, not so much. I would pay $100 if most albums could be differentiated with MQA. Same here. I can't tell any difference on albums that suffer from over compression and loudness; they still sound awful and fatigue my ears regardless of their MQA handling. Examples: Rush: Moving Pictures Sonic Youth: Goo Beach House: Bloom However, there are a few MQA encoded orchestral albums, from 1950's - 1970's analog tapes, that sound remarkable and superior to the high resolution versions which have been available for a year or two. Examples:   |
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Sept 15, 2017 22:57:24 GMT -5
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs 
Posts: 18,485
|
Post by DYohn on Sept 16, 2017 10:24:10 GMT -5
MQA and DSD. Keep them both away from me.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,255
|
Post by KeithL on Sept 18, 2017 14:48:58 GMT -5
In that limited context your points of interest should be somewhat different. Tidal ALREADY does the "first unfold" in software (at least the PC and Apple computer clients do). This means that you can play the output of your Tidal client on any DAC and receive the benefit of the first level of MQA encoding. Therefore, the only real question you need to think about is whether paying for an "MQA certified DAC", which "performs the second unfold" and has been "hardware profiled by MQA" makes an additional improvement. (In other words, whether buying a DAC that is an "MQA renderer" would make a significant difference or not.) I am only interested in mqa as it relates to streaming tidal masters. I do not see myself purchasing mqa cd's or files. I'm paying for HiFi streaming anyway and I like playing the best available master period. |
|
|
|
Post by ludi on Sept 18, 2017 15:19:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Sept 18, 2017 16:05:30 GMT -5
In that limited context your points of interest should be somewhat different. Tidal ALREADY does the "first unfold" in software (at least the PC and Apple computer clients do). This means that you can play the output of your Tidal client on any DAC and receive the benefit of the first level of MQA encoding. Therefore, the only real question you need to think about is whether paying for an "MQA certified DAC", which "performs the second unfold" and has been "hardware profiled by MQA" makes an additional improvement. (In other words, whether buying a DAC that is an "MQA renderer" would make a significant difference or not.) I am only interested in mqa as it relates to streaming tidal masters. I do not see myself purchasing mqa cd's or files. I'm paying for HiFi streaming anyway and I like playing the best available master period. Yes, I have been steaming tidal from Macbook pro to oppo DAC via USB. I have looked at other mqa enabled DAC's. I'm happy with the first fold and using the ess sabre DAC's. It's still new and i will wait and see what other products and solutions develop. It would be nice if oppo could/would remedy this through a firmware update enabling the second mqa fold . We shall see. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Sept 18, 2017 16:52:38 GMT -5
It makes sense to me. The debate will likely either come off as controversial or paint MQA in a not so great light. I'd rather they succeed on their own merits without going back and forth. |
|
|
|
Post by bigscreen100 on Sept 25, 2017 23:48:10 GMT -5
At first, I was skeptical that the MQA format would be beneficial, but I'm a Tidal subscriber and I had a stereo DAC that supported MQA, so I tried it using files from the same master. I found the MQA encodings to closer to the sound of real instruments. The difference isn't large, but small improvements are what I'm striving for in this hobby. I don't think I would buy a stereo DAC that didn't have MQA support. Likewise, if a pre-pro had MQA support, I would strongly consider it.
|
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Sept 26, 2017 8:15:28 GMT -5
I think MQA does an amazing job on the old standards that will never again be recorded by the crooners of the 40's, 50's and 60's who mostly have now passsed. They sound like they have been recorded today. Dr. AIX is jealous he didn't think of something like MQA. Geniuses battle amongst themselves the hardest (think Edison vs Tesla)!
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,255
|
Post by KeithL on Sept 26, 2017 9:20:45 GMT -5
So...... Are you talking about actual new MQA masters created from the analog master tapes? (I didn't think they'd made any yet.) Or are you talking about MQA re-masters of existing digital masters - which were created some time in the past from those analog master tapes? It kinds of sounds like you're talking about restoration of already-existing digital copies of old analog recordings. If so, then how can you tell what to credit to MQA encoding, what to credit simply to "good restoration", and what to credit to "the special abilities of restoration by the MQA encoder"? And, for that matter, how can you compare it to what a new digital version, made from that same analog master using the latest ADCs and editing equipment, would sound like? And, no, playing a file that's been MQA encoded with and without the recommended MQA decoding enabled really doesn't count. What you would need to compare would be two copies of the new version, after all the re-mastering: - one as an MQA encoded file, played back on an MQA decoder and DAC - the other as a regular 24/96k or 24/192k PCM file, played back on a regular DAC As I've said before, if they've figured out a new way to do a better job of re-mastering existing recordings, then I'm all for it. I just wish they'd issue the results as ordinary files that can be played properly without special equipment - rather than insisting on all the current "decoder baggage" that comes with MQA. (Use that MQA encoder to correct all the time domain problems from those old conversions, give me the new version as an MQA file and a 24/192k PCM file, and let me hear the difference for myself.) As far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out on the technology itself... But the business model is a nightmare (which is what Dr Aix and some others consider to be "a deal breaker")... (it would be really nice if we could separate the two - and judge the technology solely on its own merits - but they've apparently done their best to make that impossible.) I think MQA does an amazing job on the old standards that will never again be recorded by the crooners of the 40's, 50's and 60's who mostly have now passsed. They sound like they have been recorded today. Dr. AIX is jealous he didn't think of something like MQA. Geniuses battle amongst themselves the hardest (think Edison vs Tesla)! |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,255
|
Post by KeithL on Sept 26, 2017 9:32:11 GMT -5
I'm curious..... and I'm being serious here. Where did you find actual copies of the exact same content, made from the exact same master, in both MQA and non-MQA formats? (Ones where you could reasonably say "those are two different copies of the exact same content in different file formats" rather than "those are two different re-masters from the same original master".) I'm sort of waiting for someone to do a digital capture of the output from Tidal when playing an MQA file. If you captured the 24/96k output after the first unfold had been done, you would then have a file that had all the benefits of "the MQA encoding process", but which would play back on an ordinary PCM DAC. (You might reasonably refer to it as "an ordinary PCM file, which could play on an ordinary PCM DAC, but which had been re-mastered using the MQA re-mastering process".) (It would be equivalent to decoding a surround sound audio file, then storing the result as a multi-channel PCM file, so you could play it back without the decoder being involved....) You could then tell if the improvements delivered by the MQA re-mastering process were lost when delivering the content in PCM format - or not. At first, I was skeptical that the MQA format would be beneficial, but I'm a Tidal subscriber and I had a stereo DAC that supported MQA, so I tried it using files from the same master. I found the MQA encodings to closer to the sound of real instruments. The difference isn't large, but small improvements are what I'm striving for in this hobby. I don't think I would buy a stereo DAC that didn't have MQA support. Likewise, if a pre-pro had MQA support, I would strongly consider it. |
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Sept 26, 2017 11:58:10 GMT -5
So...... Are you talking about actual new MQA masters created from the analog master tapes? (I didn't think they'd made any yet.) Or are you talking about MQA re-masters of existing digital masters - which were created some time in the past from those analog master tapes? It kinds of sounds like you're talking about restoration of already-existing digital copies of old analog recordings. If so, then how can you tell what to credit to MQA encoding, what to credit simply to "good restoration", and what to credit to "the special abilities of restoration by the MQA encoder"? And, for that matter, how can you compare it to what a new digital version, made from that same analog master using the latest ADCs and editing equipment, would sound like? And, no, playing a file that's been MQA encoded with and without the recommended MQA decoding enabled really doesn't count. What you would need to compare would be two copies of the new version, after all the re-mastering: - one as an MQA encoded file, played back on an MQA decoder and DAC - the other as a regular 24/96k or 24/192k PCM file, played back on a regular DAC As I've said before, if they've figured out a new way to do a better job of re-mastering existing recordings, then I'm all for it. I just wish they'd issue the results as ordinary files that can be played properly without special equipment - rather than insisting on all the current "decoder baggage" that comes with MQA. (Use that MQA encoder to correct all the time domain problems from those old conversions, give me the new version as an MQA file and a 24/192k PCM file, and let me hear the difference for myself.) As far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out on the technology itself... But the business model is a nightmare (which is what Dr Aix and some others consider to be "a deal breaker")... (it would be really nice if we could separate the two - and judge the technology solely on its own merits - but they've apparently done their best to make that impossible.) I think MQA does an amazing job on the old standards that will never again be recorded by the crooners of the 40's, 50's and 60's who mostly have now passsed. They sound like they have been recorded today. Dr. AIX is jealous he didn't think of something like MQA. Geniuses battle amongst themselves the hardest (think Edison vs Tesla)! I don't know, Keith! All I am making is a subjective statement that it really sounds good, and I have playback systems that source high bit rate recordings through very good equipment. I will continue to dig for more info, but availability is limited. I am not conducive to extreme testing as you suggest, mainly because I just don't have the energy or desire to do so. It seems to me that if MQA is going back to the original master and making sure that the best possible transfers are made is only a good thing. Unforturnately, Tidal doesn't give us those details. If some knows of a site that will give us the mastering, remastering, production details of a MQA process for a particular piece of music, I would like to know. |
|
|
|
Post by Loop 7 on Sept 26, 2017 12:19:08 GMT -5
MQA and DSD. Keep them both away from me. If memory serves, you have a killer DAC (Yggdrasil) that makes 14/44 sound just remarkable. I recently heard PS Audio's flagship DAC which made a CD sound like high resolution. It's about the DAC. |
|
|
|
Post by qdtjni on Sept 26, 2017 12:35:07 GMT -5
MQA and DSD. Keep them both away from me. If memory serves, you have a killer DAC (Yggdrasil) that makes 14/44 sound just remarkable. I recently heard PS Audio's flagship DAC which made a CD sound like high resolution. It's about the DAC. Funny, you mention PS Audio since they convert all input to DSD and from DSD to analogue. All written in-house. As for Schiit, there Multibit DACs they also use in-house written code. Is it just a coincidence that both of them oppose MQA or did they think it’s too much work needed to implement MQA to be worth the effort? |
|
|
|
Post by Loop 7 on Sept 26, 2017 13:25:53 GMT -5
Is it just a coincidence that both of them oppose MQA or did they think it’s too much work needed to implement MQA to be worth the effort? PS Audio has implemented MQA but in a network bridge component (versus a DAC) if I am correct. From reading the CEO's blog posts about MQA, he was very vocal about how MQA wanted too much access to the DAC's inner workings which was a deal breaker for PS Audio. It's a nice compromise and sends a message that working with MQA is an intrusive affair. |
|
|
|
Post by qdtjni on Sept 26, 2017 14:34:25 GMT -5
Is it just a coincidence that both of them oppose MQA or did they think it’s too much work needed to implement MQA to be worth the effort? PS Audio has implemented MQA but in a network bridge component (versus a DAC) if I am correct. From reading the CEO's blog posts about MQA, he was very vocal about how MQA wanted too much access to the DAC's inner workings which was a deal breaker for PS Audio. It's a nice compromise and sends a message that working with MQA is an intrusive affair. Very nice compromise, indeed! 👍 A bit surprised given their earlier MQA standpoint. |
|
|
|
Post by Loop 7 on Sept 26, 2017 14:48:49 GMT -5
PS Audio has implemented MQA but in a network bridge... Very nice compromise, indeed! 👍 A bit surprised given their earlier MQA standpoint. Here's the network card they use for MQA and streaming services: PS Audio Bridge II |
|
|
|
Post by bigscreen100 on Sept 27, 2017 0:14:23 GMT -5
I'm curious..... and I'm being serious here. Where did you find actual copies of the exact same content, made from the exact same master, in both MQA and non-MQA formats?(Ones where you could reasonably say "those are two different copies of the exact same content in different file formats" rather than "those are two different re-masters from the same original master".) I'm sort of waiting for someone to do a digital capture of the output from Tidal when playing an MQA file. If you captured the 24/96k output after the first unfold had been done, you would then have a file that had all the benefits of "the MQA encoding process", but which would play back on an ordinary PCM DAC. (You might reasonably refer to it as "an ordinary PCM file, which could play on an ordinary PCM DAC, but which had been re-mastered using the MQA re-mastering process".) (It would be equivalent to decoding a surround sound audio file, then storing the result as a multi-channel PCM file, so you could play it back without the decoder being involved....) You could then tell if the improvements delivered by the MQA re-mastering process were lost when delivering the content in PCM format - or not. At first, I was skeptical that the MQA format would be beneficial, but I'm a Tidal subscriber and I had a stereo DAC that supported MQA, so I tried it using files from the same master. I found the MQA encodings to closer to the sound of real instruments. The difference isn't large, but small improvements are what I'm striving for in this hobby. I don't think I would buy a stereo DAC that didn't have MQA support. Likewise, if a pre-pro had MQA support, I would strongly consider it. Just to answer your first question, I listened to 2L recordings in both MQA and non-MQA encodings. You can find them at www.2l.no/hires/. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,255
|
Post by KeithL on Sept 27, 2017 9:15:48 GMT -5
VERY nice resource there..... and I see they now have a very wide selection of different formats - including lots of high-res PCM formats. (I remember looking to their site for samples of high-res formats some time ago.) I did note two interesting things: 1) Much like the last time I looked, while their recordings are really excellent quality, they simply don't have much music that I'm familiar with - or especially eager to listen to. For me, this puts them firmly in the category of "stuff you pull out to see how your system sounds - but you don't actually hang around and listen to". Clearly classical music buffs will feel differently there... since I did recognize a lot of relatively "standard" classical fare (along with the "Norwegian stuff"). 2) Virtually all of their music seems to have been recorded in DXD (and I applaud them for telling us the original format). The only reason I mention this is that the encoding and decoding process for DXD is somewhat different than for normal PCM. (So how well the "MQA deblur feature" works on their DXD music may be somewhat different than how it acts on normal PCM masters.) Of course, I would encourage anyone who decides to compare the sound of their MQA files to ALSO try the other formats. I'm curious..... and I'm being serious here. Where did you find actual copies of the exact same content, made from the exact same master, in both MQA and non-MQA formats?(Ones where you could reasonably say "those are two different copies of the exact same content in different file formats" rather than "those are two different re-masters from the same original master".) I'm sort of waiting for someone to do a digital capture of the output from Tidal when playing an MQA file. If you captured the 24/96k output after the first unfold had been done, you would then have a file that had all the benefits of "the MQA encoding process", but which would play back on an ordinary PCM DAC. (You might reasonably refer to it as "an ordinary PCM file, which could play on an ordinary PCM DAC, but which had been re-mastered using the MQA re-mastering process".) (It would be equivalent to decoding a surround sound audio file, then storing the result as a multi-channel PCM file, so you could play it back without the decoder being involved....) You could then tell if the improvements delivered by the MQA re-mastering process were lost when delivering the content in PCM format - or not. Just to answer your first question, I listened to 2L recordings in both MQA and non-MQA encodings. You can find them at www.2l.no/hires/.
|
|
|
|
Post by woofy98102 on Apr 10, 2018 18:43:08 GMT -5
My only desire for MQA centers around the likelihood that it will become a dominant format for audio streaming and perhaps internet radio stations. As a streaming format, MQA seems to be a promising development. For everything else, just give me DSD/DXD and PCM. In fact, I've heard the two top Schiit Multibit DACS and their audio performance with simple PCM-based files is almost revelatory and seems FAR more buzzworthy than MQA should be as a high end audio wonder product.
|
|
