MQA according to new Stereophile "loudness button" and "tweaking EQ in presence region"

This also reminds me of so many signal processor boxes that were touted as improving ones system.  How many of those are still being used today.  

Personally I like the relaxed and analog type sound of DSD.   Some people think it sounds soft but on my system, it's sounds right and some PCM sounds like it has a bit of an edge. 

Tomic, from what I’ve read as far as another DAC with fpga, getting compatible with MQA is not exactly easy, and have to make sure they don’t compromise the sound of other codecs, and requires back and forth with Mqa including code so they approve it.

i read early reports of mastering engineers saying running signal through mqa  sounds "better" than the master.

In my mind this is highly suspect. Just like the DBX expander I used to use on my system in high school.  Sure it was supposed to expand the dynamics Osee back to reality, but like countless boxes over time promising to enhance the original, they eventually sit collecting dust. 

However, Something like the Plangent process, on the other hand looks at carrier tone of analog masters and digitally slows or speeds to account for tape wow and flutter. The results are excellent, but they are not changing or enhancing the sound in any way other than timing fixing. IMHO this is the process that major labels should have considered, for their analog sourced releases.

The springsteen remasters used this (grateful dead were early adopters) and I can hear the solidity in general and steadiness of piano sustains, etc..

No one’s debating music streaming vs. Owning.

The issue for me is that MQA Maybe doing something other than just providing hires music in a smaller file and correcting d/a Flaws, but playing a sonic trick on us by basterdizing the master files, not being a better delivery system.

Anyone can goose the bass and treble of a file and have people prefer it over the original. That’s not the objective for me. I prefer raw food to junk food and my palette has adapted to crave that. I often like the sound of unmastered (uncompressed) recordings, rough mixes, etc because I find they sound better than the homogenized version. But that’s just my taste.

Personally the idea of a ubiquitous file delivery system that changes the sound and could be the only way every one eventually gets their music digitally (because that the only way it’s being offered) to be abhorrent and the very antithesis of the audiophile experience.

And it seems indeed like the audiophile press is responsible for the adoption of this new format before it went mainstream, by giving mqa it’s blessing.
If Stereophile noticed right away and wrote that MQA wasn’t the master it was proported to be, but a fructose enhanced version of it, i think things might have played out differently. 

MQA has waffled back and forth saying it can be unpackeed outside the dac, then no it can’t, then yes It can but only partially, etc.
It may have well indeed been public outcry in forums like these, that forced their hand to have a more open architecture.

So you can imagine why I'm skeptical of  the powers behind this new format and their motivations for the future of music.  

Brian,

Thank you for chiming in on this extremely important topic. Your perspective is clearly the most enlightening of all those I’ve read, even statements of various hardware companies who have worked with MQA but found deficiencies.

To answer another poster, I’ve only heard 1 MQA track with no comparison, but hearing the same Dylan track back in my system (PCM or SACD), revealed MQA similarly to what is being described.

Are there any lawyers here who’d like to chime in. I’m just daydreaming, but with an expert opinion like the one Brian provided above, hypothetically could a case be made that MQA being marketed as "Master Quality" represents a false claim and deceptive marketing?

And if so, could a group of music consumers present a letter to the legal departments of record labels promoting MQA releases that indicates they must re-brand a potentially highly flawed format without the claim  of delivering the master to the consumer?

Though far fetched, what about a class action against entities engaged in distributing and promoting this material, for customers who have already bought hardware and software that may in fact not deliver what was promised, and that it’s creators might have actually been advised of this by industry professionals, as indicated in Brian’s post.

This is the future of recorded music we’re debating here, in a paradigm that may in fact completely envelope the entire industry.

While some may find this absurd, I feel it’s worth fighting to get it right, not only for we who dedicate tremendous resources to the reproduction of recorded music, but for future generations who may only experience music of a certain era through a potentially compromised and flawed medium.

I'd like to forward Brian's opinion to Stereophile and TAS, and have them weigh in on this alternative viewpoint from someone with deep experience of master vs. MQA.

Tim, thanks for your opinions.  I sent you a PM but it would be interesting to make a NYC comparison.   Have Audiogon'ers even done a NYC meet up?   

What was schite's view on DSD?  I've only heard it decoded at length on a native DSD DAC,(the DS)  so pehaps any negative experiences with DSD material is because of hearing it on PCM based decoders.  

Even on the Ds I've read people describe  (with previous firmwear) DSD as sounding soft.  I actually find it to be very analog sounding.