Meridian MQA Poll

Discussion in 'Audio Hardware' started by Brother_Rael, May 9, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ServingTheMusic

    ServingTheMusic Forum Resident

    Location:
    SoCal
    It will need a Yellow light to flush out vaporware. :D
     
  2. testikoff

    testikoff Seasoned n00b

    Decoded 24/44 MQA Studio-encoded samples from 2L test bench I heard using Meridian Explorer2 sounded fine, but not better than the original DXD tracks (downsampled to 24/176 on the fly), IMO. In fact, it was too difficult for me to tell which one's was playing without looking at the DAC lights and/or Meridian USB control panel window... ;)
     
  3. berklon

    berklon Forum Resident

    Yup, as I thought - simply nonsense.

    MQA... more like DOA.
     
  4. Rolltide

    Rolltide Forum Resident

    Location:
    Vallejo, CA
    One conclusion of Lavorgna's I agree with (without having ever heard MQA, mind you) is that the Tidal integration is interesting. I'm not going to re-buy music in new formats any more, but lately I'm really able to visualize a scenario in which I own records but get all my digitial via lossless streaming, there's at least potential for special sauce like MQA to have a place in my world.
     
  5. ServingTheMusic

    ServingTheMusic Forum Resident

    Location:
    SoCal
    Wait, i am curious what in the review makes you come to that conclusion.
     
  6. ServingTheMusic

    ServingTheMusic Forum Resident

    Location:
    SoCal
    Here is one question i have very serious concerns about.:

    Where did that Doors track come from?

    Was it MQA'd from an original analog source? Or just reprocessed from the commercially
    available 24/96 file?
     
    High Fly and Dino like this.
  7. Rolltide

    Rolltide Forum Resident

    Location:
    Vallejo, CA
    This is the question I ask about everything about 44/16. I think if the powers that be understood that people are really interested in the answer to this, they'd sell more. Especially in this case, as so much of the negative response to MQA (from people who haven't heard it yet) is some form of "Fool me once..."
     
    High Fly and Robert C like this.
  8. wgriel

    wgriel Forum Resident

    Location:
    bc, canada
    I do think this is one of the more interesting angles to this: I admit that I'm not all that interested in MQA at this point in time and I'm absolutely not rebuying any digital releases of stuff I own. But IF this can make a significant difference to the streaming experience I might be interested.

    Although even there, I might not. I do like streaming, but thus far I use streaming as either "background" music or use it as an exploratory tool, and I'm honestly very happy with Apple Music's AAC for that. If streaming became more of a predominant form of listening for me, then yes, I might be interested in upping the sound quality and MQA could factor into that.
     
    Rolltide likes this.
  9. Ham Sandwich

    Ham Sandwich Senior Member

    Location:
    Sherwood, OR, USA
    True to form, Schiit has published their news release about MQA support. It's in the news section of their web site.
    Why We Won't Be Supporting MQA
    The last paragraph is a zinger. Ouch.
     
    oneway23, Rolltide and Dino like this.
  10. Dino

    Dino Forum Resident

    Location:
    Kansas City - USA
    I'm a little confused by the use of the term "lossy" when it involves MQA.

    I am used to lossy meaning containing less data than Redbook.

    In the case of MQA, is it used to simply mean less data when it is played back folded compared to when it is played back unfolded?
     
  11. ServingTheMusic

    ServingTheMusic Forum Resident

    Location:
    SoCal
    Ouch indeed!!

    To be fair..who,hs determined without question that MQA is lossy?
     
  12. ServingTheMusic

    ServingTheMusic Forum Resident

    Location:
    SoCal
    Yes..to the last question...
     
    Dino likes this.
  13. gd0

    gd0 Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies

    Location:
    Golden Gate
    Damn, I'm buyin' me one o' them Schiit DACs! :agree:
     
    wgriel likes this.
  14. Erik Tracy

    Erik Tracy Meet me at the Green Dragon for an ale

    Location:
    San Diego, CA, USA
    From my understanding, 'lossy' means that there is a loss of quality relative to the original.

    There can be 'lossless' compression schemes, which is what MQA is claiming - meaning that the audible quality is 'as good' (or as they infer, even better because of the removal of time smearing effects of the A/D during recording), but with a smaller data set size.

    The debate now centers around whether the claim is true: no 'loss' of audible quality and with compression for reduced bandwidth or storage capacity needs.
     
    Dino likes this.
  15. Dino

    Dino Forum Resident

    Location:
    Kansas City - USA
    So when someone refers to MQA as lossy, would that mean that they don't believe that MQA is lossless when unfolded?
     
  16. Erik Tracy

    Erik Tracy Meet me at the Green Dragon for an ale

    Location:
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Yes, in regards to audio quality compared to the original.

    So, for comparison, MP3 is considered a 'lossy' format because it is regarded as being lower in audible quality, but the file size is much smaller because of data compression.

    However, MQA is claiming their scheme is like having your cake and eating it too: as good in audio quality(or better!) as the original, i.e. 'lossless', but smaller in size due to its proprietary compression scheme.

    That seems to be where the debate is.
     
    Dino likes this.
  17. brimuchmuze

    brimuchmuze Forum Resident

    Lossless is not a subjective term. If the MQA codec cannot 100% reconstruct the original digital file it is lossy. Doesn't matter how it sounds.
     
  18. BSC

    BSC Forum Resident

    Location:
    Glasgow, Scotland
    Out of pure interest I downloaded via HighResAudio the only MQA processed album I had on another format which was Fernando Sor Guitar Sonatas performed by Ricardo Gallen which I have on SACD.

    It's not a recording I know particularly well and in any other comparisons I've done on my Oppo which was mainly the first three Led Zeppelin album downloads of the recent remasters-the downloads did sound better than the CD's of the same version. Maybe the Oppo 105 performs better with files rather than CD's I don't know I haven't done or care to do exhaustive comparisons.

    With that in mind it's maybe no surprise that the download does actually sound better than the SACD-cleaner, more alive, more detailed -switching back and forward the SACD sounds muddier. This doesn't mean much in itself especially when the recording is a single guitar I would like to hear a wider range of music and indeed quite obviously I could try just a normal Flac of this recording and possibly find the same thing.

    I get the impression about MQA that internal costs/monopoly fears has set up automatic barriers and in the internet "expert" world it is guaranteed anything new will be met with similar barriers......ultimately we would need to hear a lot more MQA before we can really decide whether this format has the promise that some are claiming.
     
  19. ServingTheMusic

    ServingTheMusic Forum Resident

    Location:
    SoCal
    If the album you are evaluating is a different mastering, all bets are off. And if it was a native DSD recording, even worse.

    FYI, when I did a search for "MQA" on highresaudio, the only thing that came up was a Mozart violin concerto. It raised my eyebrows
    when it was labelled "MQA Remixed".
     
    High Fly likes this.
  20. Erik Tracy

    Erik Tracy Meet me at the Green Dragon for an ale

    Location:
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Don't you need an MQA enabled DAC to get the full origami unfolding of the encoded file to get the full benefit?
     
  21. BSC

    BSC Forum Resident

    Location:
    Glasgow, Scotland
    Yes but part of the hype is that a MQA file on a non-MQA DAC or player will sound better than CD quality.

    The complications of audio comparisons are close to never ending unless you have the same source material in different formats.

    I've asked it before but for example next to nobody when playing a SACD hybrid (myself included) ever bothers with the CD layer or comparing it with the SACD one.

    For me if and it is a big if MQA can give an improvement over existing formats then that's its appeal. But you can get burned out with the comparison itch ultimately there's a time for listening and enjoying........it's always a trade off for nutcases like us whether we sit back and enjoy or we chase the dream of better.....
     
  22. BSC

    BSC Forum Resident

    Location:
    Glasgow, Scotland
    It would appear to be the same source material...This release has been recorded using DSD256 (11.289MHz), which delivers probably an stunning and realistic capture of these brilliant performances. Which matches the SACD notes.

    I've already explained I'm not saying there is anything special in a single comparison especially that what Flacs I have tested versus discs on my Oppo tend to sound better anyway.

    HRA have three screens/pages of MQA material but this was the only recording I had in an existing format.
     
  23. ServingTheMusic

    ServingTheMusic Forum Resident

    Location:
    SoCal
    How are you finding the the MQA albums on HRA?

    FYI, there is a problem here: MQA is not compatible with DSD.

    So how are they able to prepare an MQA version of the album that was natively recorded in DSD256?

    This was obviously downsapled to DSD64 for the SACD.
     
  24. Bubbamike

    Bubbamike Forum Resident

    DRM in another guise. Not to mention another opportunity to resell you new equipment and music you already own. Again. Is there any woner that the industry loves it?
     
  25. BSC

    BSC Forum Resident

    Location:
    Glasgow, Scotland
    That's the only one I have tried.

    How they prepared this album I have no idea, sorry.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine