I get it's probably the most contentious audiophile discussion of recent times but I've added a streamer to my system and I'm enjoying the experience . I'm interested in members using an MQA DAC and what they are hearing. I have a reasonably high end DAC with the Bryston BDA-3 and the partially unfolded MQA tracks are indistinguishable from the odd album (CD,Blue Ray) I am certain uses the same source. I know what source is used for MQA is a debate in itself. Just interested to see if opinions have changed with experience and the fact the format is a bit older now.
I have an Audioquest Dragonfly Black. Keep in mind that it's 24/96, so I'm not even certain if hardware unfolding is used with it. So far no differences to my ears between that DAC and other DAC's I've used, via Tidal / my PC desktop. I do like it just for the ability to connect to an OTG cable with my phone. Might be even more useful when I eventually move to a LG V30 or similar but not necessarily for the added SQ. If in fact there is added SQ, of course.
I have a Qobuz account because I downloaded a few albums I will probably try a month's free streaming to see how it compares to Tidal.
Didnt you answer your question when you stated "the partially unfolded mqa"? I am not an expert at all, but to compare lets open the mqa files fully.
hey. i've been using it via Tidal for a while thru an Aurilec streamer/DAC. plan and simple, the MQA files - by and large, but not exclusively, sound better than both the non-MQA version within Tidal or a physical CD version. and more times than not, it's not even close. now, i have a patchwork high end system but even as a skeptic, it works.
It's kind of like 4K video for me. My current TV is working fine and doesn't have 4K capability. If it dies, my next one probably will, but I'm in no hurry. Same with MQA. I'm not currently using a streaming source, nor an outside DA converter. If I head down that road, however, I may include MQA so long as it doesn't affect the premium.
You beat me to the question I was going to ask, since I have a Dragonfly, too. But I don't have any MQA files, and I'm really not sure my ears could tell the difference, either. Anyone else use a DAC, with and w/o MQA, that can chime in?
I am just doing The first unfold with Roon software and comparing Tidal mqa to Qobuz I compared Van Halen I. Both seem to have more crunching guitar and punch vs my japan for USA cd. They are louder and I think I in a good way. Either would be my preferred digital version. Qobuz seemed to have a tad more high end energy...louder? They seemed close. I played some Tom Petty albums with similar results. I am not sure which one I prefer at the moment. Some other Hi Rez titles seemed too loud vs mfsl sacd but that isn’t an mqa vs not topic Most of the mqa bashers seem to focus on the technical but many of the just listening comparisons seem to think they are close with preferences that vary by Album. There are some high end reviewers that prefer qobuz / non mqa hi Rez.
Except 4K is clear about what it is, what it is doing, and how it creates an improvement over 1080p. MQA obfuscates what exactly it does and how exactly it does it, relying on marketing buzzwords and intimidating anyone who questions the results. And by all accounts, including some of the MQA materials, the process creates lossy files. Why any audiophile would want that is beyond me. My 1080p TV is great. My 1080p capable receiver is great. I’m in no rush to replace either, but when I do it will be for a 4K TV and a 4K receiver. My current DAC is also great and if and when I should ever replace it I will be shopping specifically for a DAC without MQA compatibility. I don’t want to pay extra for a feature I do not want, and I don’t want MQA to make any money from me whatsoever. I also left Tidal when they began using MQA and let them know that was the reason why.
I feel essentially the same with the caveat that, if I want a particular DAC and it happens to have MQA, then I will have an MQA DAC. At that point, I imagine it will only kick in if I am streaming something MQA, as I have no plan to purchase MQA software.
The world would be a better place without MQA. Don't need it, don't want it. If my opinion about MQA has ever changed, it's only to be more and more opposed to MQA.
Don’t quote me on this, but I seem to recall some question as to whether some of the first crop of MQA DACs, I recall the Mytek being mentioned, applied some kind of filter on non-MQA content. I could have misheard that or be remembering wrong, but if true it makes me even more wary of having an MQA DAC.
My opinion hasn't changed: And: Archimago's Musings: MUSINGS/MEASUREMENTS: On "blurring" and why MQA probably worsens transient smearing.
MQA lost me with all of the “unfolding” business. I play the Master versions off of Tidal on my laptop all of the time, is there something better to those files than the neighboring CD quality files: maybe. But, MQA’s biggest mistake - in my opinion - has been requiring users to purchase something to fully “unfold” it. Since Qobuz has begun streaming hi-res files without the need for hardware, then what’s the benefit of MQA? Wasn’t it supposed to simplify the technical process of streaming a huge audio file?
It does. It decodes at the resolution your system is capable of playing. Qobuz streams at the resolution the original file is, which is great if you already have a DAC capable of playing that resolution, for lower end systems you need to convert it on the fly which may produce worse results — and takes up more buffer/bandwidth
If it’s possible could someone explain MQA to me? I have read through a lot of threads here as well as read things elsewhere about it but I still don’t understand. I don’t understand a lot of the terms used in the description of it. What am I suppose to benefit from MQA? Does it sound better then any other lossless format? I would really love a simple explanation of exactly what benefits I would gain from MQA. If it is snake oil as many have accused it of being then why? Thank you.
