Stereophile and the Absolute Sound hardly mentioned MQA in the April issues

I've owned plenty over the years. But the ones for sale now? Too expensive for what they are.

 

Mmm... QuAds aren't expensive now?

 

It was the best sound I have ever heard compared to any other system in my near 35+ years of this hobby including at dealers, friend's homes or audio shows.
Previous benchmark was from about a month ago in upstate New York hearing a top of the line McIntosh transport, DAC tube preamp and 1KW mono blocks driving Magico speakers.
When you hear sound this amazing you have to credit the complete chain. You want to duplicate everything from recording to speaker because you have solid evidence that it can deliver- MQA included. Miles Davis' trumpet sounded ethereal- you could pick out the tones, harmonics, and spatial nuances all hovering and moving together in a magical ultra high definition aural hologram.

 

To be explicit, what did you compare it to?
Fully decoded MQA vs. undecoded MQA vs. same recordings without MQA?
Or were you just impressed with the sound of the whole thing and judged from memory?

 

My feelings?

If you like the way it sounds: GREAT!
If you don't like the way it sounds: GREAT!

Win-win...

 

I see this is as an eventual possibility for hi-res audio, specifically digital files.

Not so much redbook / vinyl / lossy digital files / lossy streaming. I don't see MQA injecting itself into Spotify, as an example, since their target demographic isn't a high-res audience to begin with.

 

Let's assume an extreme scenario here, which is that MQA does eventually take over all formats, including analog ones like vinyl (not sure how that's even possible, but again for the sake of argument).

It may not affect you, since it sounds like you are content with what's already in existence today. I, on the other hand, enjoy the idea of new content. Same as I enjoy it for other entertainment channels like TV/movies/books. [EDIT: I'm not saying that an all-MQA world will stop the creation of new content btw. Only that it may hinder new content playback usage on older hardware potentially]

 

No direct comparisons between formats or trying to be an MQA advocate. Just saying that it is fully capable of delivering an extreme high fidelity sound.
I did listen to another system at the same dealer and played a local DSD file and the sound was horrible by comparison. Definitely not a valid comparison to say that MQA in and of itself is a superior format.

 

Thanks. That is what I wanted to know about the context.

 

C

Possibly not, agreed. Sorry for the off topic but I recall being able to tell a distinct difference in your site's blind test MQA vs. Hi Res. Was it ever made clear which were files were MQA and were the participants able to see which format they selected?

 

Sort of like bitcoin, right? :-D

 

It's probably very possible. Most new music is digitally recorded, so MQA-encoded files could be delivered for vinyl mastering.

 

MQA is lossy, right?

 

Yes.

...But some pretend it isn't

 

Does your home theater have immersive sound? Yeah, I've got Atmos decoding.

Do own a hi-fidelity stereo? Yeah, I've got MQA decoding.

See. It's easy now. Hobby. Solved.

 

I guess we can shut down the equipment and mastering sections of the forum now. Hey, who likes beer?

 

What is latest consensus?
a. MQA doesn’t work, and anyone who thinks it might is a fool
b. MQA=DRM=pure evil
c. MQA is the latest SACD/HDCD/Minidisc/DCC-like failed product
d. other

 

Can I choose both ‘b’ and ‘c’?

 

And like bitcoin MQA is also a scam where a small number of people (licensors and manufacturers in the case of MQA, early-adopters and exchanges in the case bitcoin) will profit at the expense of everyone else while peddling something with no value whatsoever. I don't understand why Merdian doesn't double-down and somehow append a blockchain to the whole thing. Investors will lose their minds! Similarly, both have their fair share of shills who spout nonsense that denies reality. It's pretty much just bitcoin. However, MQA is worse because it has widespread industry support.

 

Luckily for us, neither TAS nor Stereophile are as important today as they were two decades ago. IMHO today their only use is to introduce us to products that we would not be aware of their existence otherwise.

But to trust these any of these publication for any kind of technical authority is (again, IMHO), foolish.

 

The problem is that people place no stock in technical details. Measurements, specifications, and other forms of technical details are seemingly an anathema to audiophiles. Again, it is just like bitcoin: it doesn't matter that the blockchain is hugely inefficient, and generally terrible data structure, nor does it matter that the Lightning Network is basically a technical impossibility. All that matter is the faith in concepts themselves. The fact that TAS, Stereophile, and the like aren't technical authorities is irrelevant. People will still listen to them. A certain segment of population believes them to be more credible if they stand in opposition to what should be the "objective" truth. People fall back on aphorisms like "trust your ears", and those sorts of publications are based on such platitudes.

It seems like a lot of audiophiles either ignore technical details, or take delight in standing in opposition to them.

 

Oh please, let's at least cut down on the BS.

 

I don't contest your claim because I think there is some truth there. However nobody would die or even catch the common cold if a reviewer will open the case of an amplifier and take a picture to show us the internal layout of the components. At least this will enable us to see if the internal workmanship is equal to the external bling.

 

You are lying to yourself if you believe this. None of the most successful, revered audiophile electronics or speaker manufacturers dismiss science. Consumers of audiophile gear generally have very high expectations. Further, audiophiles are among the loudest voices expressing skepticism of MQA.

 

Many audiphiles don't have a high technical education. That they can form a relevant technical understanding is placing far too much demands. They will go for what they think they can believe, from their points of view. This is no different from any other field people encounter.