Any one with experience of MQA CD

If I understand the technology correctly, playing back an MQA CD undecoded is basically 13-bit audio, so he wasn't even really comparing MQA to CD quality anyway.

 

People who are interested in valid comparisons rather than industry hype.

 

So in the absence of any available information about mastering sources, if an MQA-CD sounds worse in some important respects than its non-MQA predecessor should we just ignore the differences and say nothing? If the same MQA-CD sounds better in some important respects, should we also still say nothing?

Your comment about industry hype is interesting. The problem is, your comment isn’t applicable because I’m not part of the audio industry. In situations in which the industry has itself hyped certain technologies or formats or engineering architectures and so on, and which things don’t seem to be working as hyped to me, I tend to speak in ways that can upset some parts of the industry rather than support it. I do not buy into hype.

Your premise is laudable, but inappropriately applied here. I test and/or compare using the best information that is reasonably possible to obtain. After that, other audiophiles can use the resulting information as they see fit. Or not. It’s up to them.

 

That was my thought as well watching that video.

 

In the absence of information about mastering sources, we should say, "That's not a valid comparison."

As I originally commented.

 

When one format refuses to reveal its sources, it makes your comment a complete cop-out. So stop standing on formality in a situation in which formality is unenforceable. Instead suggest a viable alternative, unless you’re an MQA supporter who is intolerant of challenge and comparison of any kind.

 

When they refuse to reveal their source, THEY are the ones copping out.

I don't favor MQA in any way. Quite the opposite, I'm becoming more convinced with every article I read that it's snake-oil.

If the two formats cannot be confirmed as coming from the same mastering, there is no way to do a valid comparison.

It's like, SCIENCE.

 

Oh my goodness, we all know that and nobody is debating it.

I am interested in making only the best possible comparisons available to me. The MQA group insists its format or process or mastering method is muscally superior for end users. “End Users” that’s us, at home not in the lab or at the test bench. Makes sense to just sit and listen now, because others have already done the bench tests.

It has taken a couple of weeks longer than expected to get the listening sessions done. People - friends in my music listening gang - sometimes aren’t available when I need them. But it’s done now. Little science; lots of listening. When I post the results, don't read them.

 

The only way MQA can prove that claim is by comparing the same mastering on MQA and Redbook standard. Anything less is "smoke and mirrors."

I think we are on the same side of this argument.

 

The eloquence of your past posts makes me think this is going to be very interesting. Looking forward to your results.

 

Purchased the Raven album without difficulty to Scotland. So you can, though I'm not so sure it was worth the wait. All very emperor's new clothes I feel...

 

I for one really value reading your insights. So please do not let people like this stop you from posting your observations. The insistence on absolutely perfect science when it is not even possible to determine what the original masters were is both unreasonable and ridiculous.

 

So is comparing apples and oranges.

 

I think, as you'd said earlier, that you and @Agitater are on the same side of the fence.

I've bought three MQA titles; two downloads and one MQA CD. So, that's my experience with the format, oh and a Meridian Explorer 2 DAC just so I could get the full flavour of that MQA special sauce. And blue lights.

MQA makes huge claims about the sound. Even without an MQA capable DAC you'll supposedly get sound that surpasses bog standard Redbook (and that's a load of old cobblers).

However, MQA has no control, not one scintilla of sway over the provinence of its titles. So they get what the labels give them. Personally, I'm looking forward to the MQA of the remixed 2007 Trick of the Tail. Won't hold my breath, but there you have it.

MQA is a con, except for those of us on a 500MB data plan in which case, it has some wriggle room. Otherwise, it's another format screwing the consumer. Best avoided, nothing to see here. IMO.

PS The audiophile press, or some if it anyway, needs lambasting for the wholesale belly-up it gave this. Shocking how some journalists gave this thing a pass without any critical input.

 

But you would have us compare nothing with nothing, since the Masterings are unknown. And that is even less informative. So please just leave Agitator alone to provide us with his observations, no matter how invalid you may think that his comparisons are. OK?

 

I'm curious about the "A" part of the MQA acronym. I know it's supposed to stand for Authenticated but our resident MQA employee never explained how it's actually working. In the beginning I naively thought that there is some expert listening to the source and the MQA end result and he is authorized to give his stamp of approval. It turns out that it's probably an automated process.

So if this automated process is supposedly able to confirm that the MQA is identical to the master, why not (a) simply rip it losslessly and save the authentication time and effort and (b) how can an automated process support the claim that MQA will sound "better"? Have we already reached the technological singularity and AI are now able to make qualitative decisions better than humans?

 

Maybe so, but nearly all comments from anything music related on this site comes from not controlled listening. The same goes with hardware. So if we should only be allowed to have an opinion if we compare apples with apples; not much will be written here.

 

The thing is, if he compares five albums of versions that are currently available, with the MQA versions, and likes the MQA versions better, people may be inclined to buy them. If they are as much better as claimed, people won't care what the mastering is.

 

According to the patent application, the only purpose of the MQA encoding is to provide lossy compression of "audio" frequencies above 24 kHz. Therefore if there are any audible differences between undecoded audio and MQA-decoded audio in a 44.1 kHz recording (such as a YouTube video), what you're hearing is definitely not because of the MQA encoding/decoding process.

Also, even with MQA decoding, you'll still only be hearing 13-bit audio in the entire audible range (0-24 kHz). A downgrade from regular 16-bit Red Book CD audio!

Much more info here: MQA: A Review of controversies, concerns, and cautions

 

Correct. I'd rather have no information than false or faulty information, or disinformation, if you prefer to call it that.

 

They usually don't.

 

. . . but what little is written will actually be valid and useful.

 

But the site will cease to exist.

 

Well, maybe 1 or 2% of it . . .

 

No, 1-2% will remain, possibly.