Meridian MQA Poll

I took that to mean there are a limited number of albums that have the MQA encoding, but - you would need MQA decoding at your end to hear the file 'unfold' (as RH put it) by detecting the flag in the metadata to know what filter to apply which removes the A/D 'noise' that was used during recording/mastering.

 

Ok, understood.

Just the his use of the term "limited availability" is more vagueness (on his part). It could be 5 albums, and 5 albums you have never heard of.
And 5 albums you can't hear MQA correctly on unless...you purchase new hardware. Do you see the reason for some of the cynical thoughts that some are feeling?

 

I'm a cy....skeptic myself.

I would need to hear the difference - and even then, if there is a difference to me, there is the extreme reluctance to re-buy my collection...yet again. I am weary of formats and masterings.

 

Ok, thanks. Sorry if I misinterpreted your position. It just sounded like you were swayed a bit by a so called "voice of authority".

So maybe we have a new term...for many of us here..a Cyneptic?

 

What made me softly groan to myself in skepticism was that this MQA 'thang' was being portrayed like MSG on food - it makes all food taste better, but not bad for you.

I dunno - maybe it is.

I need to taste for myself.

 

Yes, and many are having the same queasy reaction.

Let me state yet again, if this has unlocked the Gordian's Knot of digital audio, who in their right mind would not be on board?!!

I am just going on the history empty promises. If I did not have a huge number of SACD rips I would literally have ten DSD albums to play
and I would never have ditched my SACD player.

 

Maybe the DSD demo he heard in a studio was using a very very complimentary AD DA conversion. If the AD and DA converters used were by the same company. And if that company designed the AD and DA converts to sound very very good when used together. Maybe even designing them so that timing errors get deblurred similar to what MQA does. It could be a case where the AD DA conversion he heard in the studio was really good, and good in ways that you don't experience with even high-end home DA conversion because the DAC you have at home doesn't pair so perfectly with the AD converter. Maybe.

 

Maybe. But probably not. It is called hype.

 

That's the more likely explanation.

 

The analogy might best be completed by disclaiming: "... except the Vegetable Smoothie must be poured into a Special Glass to benefit from the full effect."

 

The "better than sliced bread" marketing approach is what turned me off from MQA about two years ago. I now just ignore the hype because my curiousity has been piqued as more technical details about the process (although not nearly enough) are trickling out. I now find it the idea of MQA intriguing, rather than annoying. I have not heard it yet myself, yet other (ie, not RH or TAS-related) members of the press who have heard demos seem to be impressed or, at worse, sort of nonplussed because they were not able to hear a difference in spite of all the grandiose claims. No one has stated that the MQA'ed files sound worse than the unprocessed files, which was what I originally would have thought because of MQA's higher noise floor.

Have not heard that before, but from reading Harley over many years, he has claimed many products/technologies are transformative and the best he has ever heard, so I take his opinions with a grain of salt. I'm not suggesting he is biased but rather that he lets his enthusiasm get the best of him.

 

I also find MQA intriguing. Trust me on that. I do not want to stop progress.

Harley and TAS accept advertising from Meridian/MQA. If MQA succeeds, the magazine profits. Period.

And yes, you can only yell fire in a movie theater so many times before nobody gives a damn.

 

Even after reading the Q&A multiple times, I am confused too. I understand how the "unfolding" of the hi-res data buried in the PCM noise floor happens, I at least in part understand that the compressed hi-res data preserves time domain information as the MQA folks believe that is perceptually more important than frequency domain information, I understand that the "authentication" and provenance technologies are not DRM, I understand that non-MQA decoded files are approximately Redbook quality, but I do not understand what exactly the "de-blurring" concept is, or what supposed deficiencies in the A/D process MQA is supposed to correct, and I do not understand how this additional layer of processing makes music sound better. Evidently, it does, or at least does not make the files sound worse than their non-MQA'ed hi-res counterparts. That's progress, in my book--a 24/192 file reduced to the size of a 16/44.1 file with no loss in sound quality would be a real triumph. Still, I am confused.

 

I hear you, completely.

May to fill in the blanks with my personal perceive.

They are saying that every A/D D/A conversion adds timing and jitter errors and distortion, and they "correct" for this.

But we have some very good solutions already for timing and jitter errors, one is reclocking and as well as upsampling.

Secondly, I believe, and let me stress, this is just my belief, it is glorified DSP, which can absolutely
subjectively sound "better", but it is not accurate to the original recording.

Case in point, my iFI Micro iDSD DAC has a "3D" function, which engages, makes the music sound more lush, a bit richer,
and smoother. Without the music sounds a bit "flatter". After a while the 3D DSP starts to sound artificial.

So in the end, is MQA a DSP scheme that makes things subjectively sound "better" but actually is not accurate to the original master?

We don't know.

 

My take on the skepticism on the part of many, for any new technology or "format" is that they have been burned in the past by promises that didn't materialize or deliver satisfactorily. That may be stating the obvious. However, is it the fault of new tech manufacturers or audio publications that the technology doesn't catch on, or that someone may prematurely sell their collections in anticipation of success for the new process or product? I would say no. Through one period of time, I sold a number of LPs in favor of CDs with remastering and bonus tracks, only to discover after a longer period that I was experiencing listening fatigue with the CDs. Then I wished I had kept my LPs of the same titles longer, rather than selling them. It's the same thing with hardware in my opinion. Keep your old hardware until the dust really settles. If you live to regret your actions, I maintain it is immature to blame the industry and its promotional vehicles, such as the magazines and their reviewers. They have to generate new revenue streams to survive, and they have to promote and advertise products. Of course, caveat emptor always applies, but resentment over personal losses typically clouds judgment.

 

I believe that MQA should team up with Pono because they have VERY similar goals. Pono, MQA, Roon, and Tidal all have the makings of different parts of a hi-res streaming ecosystem. If they would work together (I know that MQA and Tidal, and Roon and Tidal are already), something transformative could happen.

 

Not sure how many places you have put this same message, but I'll play...

Not likely, given this quote from Neil Young (dated 04/10/16) and posted on the PonoMusic website:

-------
Neil Young (PonoMusic)
PONO is not MQA. It could have been. We elected to go with the original sound, the sound the record makers chose to create. MQA and all music formats that are owned by a new entity now that they have been 'improved' are not PONO. I prefer to think of those as GMO music. I want the apple that was picked from the tree, just as it was created, without help from anyone else. Especially those who now claim ownership of the new apple.
PONO's mission is to provide you with the choice of authentic quality, allowing you to choose it over all other versions. In my view, all of the solutions to large files have harmed the musical experience and deprived the listener from hearing what the artist created. I want to feel the music. Pono does that for me and along with vinyl that is derived from the highest quality sources, (not derived from CD files).
Thanks for listening
--------

Of course he has seemed to change his mind regarding music streaming, so who knows what may happen down the line?

 

No, he won't change his mind. He lays it out right there, and ownership of a format by a private entity is a NON STARTER. There is a reason
FLAC is the only format you can buy from Pono.

 

I cross-posted similar posts to similar threads because not all people are subscribed to the same threads, and I wanted different people's perspective. Makes sense, right? Anyway, thanks for your post--good info.

So, Pono "could have been MQA." That confirms my earlier thoughts.

 

And comfirms my post that he dumped Meridian BECAUSE of MQA.

 

Sounds like it.

 

I started this thread as I'd been blocked from the other one for my criticism of MQA. Supposedly threadcraps, as one of the Gorts said at the time. My views haven't changed over iota, I'm delighted to say. I'm still blocked from that, so I'm grateful for comments on here too. As it is, a poll seemed like a good idea in any case and others clearly feel similarly.

Thanks for posting this, it confirms my thoughts and although I've no interest in owning another DAP and am suspicious of the claims made by Young, I think he's on the money over this as well. Presumably, he's now blocked from that other thread as well...

 

Word back from both Cambridge Audio and Onkyo Europe via their Twitter feeds are no plans and under investigation/looking into it and that's it. This is as of now.

 

I don't think you were blocked merely for criticism of MQA. Lots of people are criticizing it in the various MQA-related threads here. I see no evidence the Gorts are censoring anti-MQA sentiment and would be very surprised if they were.

 

This was in the early days of the thread and seeing as I have a PM to this effect from one of the Gorts, two or three in conversation in fact, then I think I can state that with some certainty!