McIntosh passes on MQA, calls it lossy and distorted..

If you can point me in the direction of where I can obtain an MQA file along with its with its correspondingly identically-mastered non-MQA version I would be more than happy to. Not trying to be snippy, I'd like to do this.

 

The only place to consume MQA is Tidal, unless you want to purchase a handful of downloads from highresauadio.com, which I am sure
you don't.

 

Nope. I was hoping the powers-that-be behind MQA would post an MQA file and then the non MQA version (with identical mastering).

 

But, that would imply you also have an MQA licensed DAC; otherwise you wouldn't be listening to the 'secret sauce' time correction/deblurring.

 

Here:
2L High Resolution Music .:. free TEST BENCH

 

I have an Oppo 205 so I think I'm covered?

 

Should be.

Doesn't Oppo claim MQA capability?

 

I was referring to the advantages of network connectivity (ethernet) over most USB installations, which tend to introduce some electronic noise. I expect that you can achieve results close to ethernet with really well-executed USB over short runs, but the trend is certainly toward ethernet and network devices.

 

Good luck with that.

 

Thanks for that detail and your observations.

 

I've been doing my listening comparisons in Roon using MQA-encoded files streamed from TIDAL. It is common for TIDAL to have the same album in redbook and MQA-encoded hi rez. I also have some non-MQA hi rez downloads (most downloaded months or years ago) from HD Tracks, Acoustic Sounds and the late lamented Pono that I use for comparison with the same title in MQA-encoded hi rez on TIDAL. In Roon, you can see all the versions at the same time so the comparisons are fairly easy to do. The results are far less clear cut for me than for Brinkman Ship, and I think it is fair to say that there is variation by title. Among other things, MQA seems to do better with acoustic content than with rock.

 

They may have the same albums but there is no way of knowing they are from the same masterings.

 

I run both an Ethernet connection for streaming from my server and a USB D/A converter to same preamp and get no noise over USB. Is electronic noise really a problem in the real world or only on paper? What are the other advantages you speak of?

 

Agree...USB and Ethernet noise is not really a factor with careful set up..and with all of the USB and Ethernet iso products it is a non factor.

 

You have no idea if they are the same masterings. Until you can directly compare identical masters in an MQA vs non-MQA test, any thing you've done to date is meaningless. MQA has not been forthcoming with meaningful samples for a real comparison.

 

The concept of firmware upgrade has always somewhat baffled McIntosh

The concept of firmware upgrade has always somewhat baffled McIntosh but in this case they are absolutely right.

I'm also not convinced that we really need any kind of firmware to enjoy the same benefits that MQA is supposed to offer. I suspect that all we need is find exactly what kind of weeds they are smoking there.

 

Actually...it IS a surprise to Stereophile, The Absolute Sound, and others.

 

It is lossy and distorted. It's so obvious. Even to hotel rooms full of people at a recent Chicago audio fest.

 

can you give details>? i ask because the reports by Stereophile about MQA demos are in stark contrast and
defy believsbility. thanks.

 

Done a lot of listening to MQA, even with a Grammy-winning engineer at his studio and his 200k home system. For a story coming in a mainstream weekly. He thought MQA was joke, of course. I was the AXPONA audio fest earlier in the year, various listening rooms and had hosts switch back and forth between MQA and the same hi-res files. Of course MQA was never as good, and it was obvious to the others in the rooms. Lots of head shaking. An Aurender rep told me that MQA is now saying their files are as good as 24/96 of the same mastering (they've stopped saying "better"). But they aren't even as good. That's the thing. Audible artifacts --- distortion masquerading as detail— were even obvious. But more so, MQA files are less 3D, and have a less inviting listening experience overall compared with the same non-MQA file. Every single time. "Journalists" extolling MQA need their ears tested -- and have the hearing test results in graphs posted alongside their stories --- these graying dudes at audio magazines who've lost a third or more of their hearing ...

 

Many thanks. Everyone should read this post..

Could not be a more different picture than painted by absurd posts like this-

MQA's Sound Convinces Hardened Showgoers

 

This is absolutely correct. Hey, I have a d1100, c1100, and 601’s...I obviously like the brand, but Mc have simply not invested in the resources to do digital like I wish they did. I have spent a crazy amount of time with them, explaining and demonstrating to them bugs that effect basic functionality on multiple products. Their software / firmware is amateur hour, and you are lucky to be taken seriously at all unless you push the issue to the right people, then keep pushing. If you have d1100 firmware v1.03, which allows the toggle of USB auto mute - You’re welcome

 

This is an article from 2016, since then other nonsensical pieces of editorial poetry were published and it only served to make me understand how strong the RDF is when someone is a true believer.

 

Oh absolutely, this was just the tip of the iceberg...many more ridiculous, nonsense filled articles have followed...