Nice points! shadorne
MQA according to new Stereophile "loudness button" and "tweaking EQ in presence region"
Stereophile’s May 2017 review of the Mytek Brooklyn DAC (Herb Reichert) states that "in every comparison, MQA made the original recording sound more dynamic and transparent, but only sometimes more temporaly precise."
Seems positive, right? But the next sentence reads....
"After a while the MQA versions began to remind me of those old Loudness Contour buttons on 1960’s receivers, which used equalization to compensate for loss of treble and bass at low listening levels."
Now for the bombshell.....
"Consistently, MQA sounded as though it was tweaking the EQ in the presence region."
"I also noticed that most of the MQA versions sounded rounded off and smoother than the originals."
My opinion is that we gullible audiophiles have been fooled in the past by supposed new technologies, similar to what supposedly early mobile fidelity pressings did with EQ to make listeners think they were hearing an improvement.
In my mind, an alteration of the source is distortion.
Just as TV’S in stores set to torch mode are often preferred on first glance, and speakers that at first grab you with some spectacular aspect can become tiresome over time, as accuracy and neutrality become preferred as one's ear becomes more refined.
The frightening thing is that 2 major music entities have signed on, seemingly to make MQA the defacto standard of how music will made available.
While I haven’t been able to do this comparison myself, reading a highly regarded golden ear admit this in print is warning enough for me.
Just like the sugary drink that tastes so good on first experience, our advanced society knows that consuming it regularly leads to diabetes, heart disease and worse.
Does this revelation reveal MQA to be the parlor trick that it appears to be?
Seems positive, right? But the next sentence reads....
"After a while the MQA versions began to remind me of those old Loudness Contour buttons on 1960’s receivers, which used equalization to compensate for loss of treble and bass at low listening levels."
Now for the bombshell.....
"Consistently, MQA sounded as though it was tweaking the EQ in the presence region."
"I also noticed that most of the MQA versions sounded rounded off and smoother than the originals."
My opinion is that we gullible audiophiles have been fooled in the past by supposed new technologies, similar to what supposedly early mobile fidelity pressings did with EQ to make listeners think they were hearing an improvement.
In my mind, an alteration of the source is distortion.
Just as TV’S in stores set to torch mode are often preferred on first glance, and speakers that at first grab you with some spectacular aspect can become tiresome over time, as accuracy and neutrality become preferred as one's ear becomes more refined.
The frightening thing is that 2 major music entities have signed on, seemingly to make MQA the defacto standard of how music will made available.
While I haven’t been able to do this comparison myself, reading a highly regarded golden ear admit this in print is warning enough for me.
Just like the sugary drink that tastes so good on first experience, our advanced society knows that consuming it regularly leads to diabetes, heart disease and worse.
Does this revelation reveal MQA to be the parlor trick that it appears to be?
84 responses Add your response
+1 Jafant. I am slow to adopt new technology because of this artificial factor - no DSD or USB for me. I am using a PC optical Toslink out to a jitter resistant Benchmark DAC 2 - archaic approach but incredibly solid solid solid in performance. I don’t trust USB and PC - too many bugs in software and hardware - that is why optical is pretty safe approach as far as I am concerned (essentially I rely on hardware and firmware on a 30 year old standard. I don't care much to be at the full mercy of software and USB and other novel interfaces. recall how long it took to discover the jitter problems with CD playback) |
re the point about FPGA is that it is advertised as somewhat future proof vs implemented in H/ W which is somewhat more difficult to change.. IMO both DCS and Brinkman have been pretty transparent about plans for MQA...Aesthetix not so much. IMO Jim White is brilliant designer who offers an upgrade path - I am holding off on the next level upgrade because I want to know what the plan is...versus silent fence sitting |
its all a downhill ride from the origional acoustic event... seriously lats assume for simplicity the analog master represents what the artist wanted us to hear at that time. Plangent - the fruits of which I have heard and for most part agree does improve sound - a boon to the hyper pitch sensitive for sure. so post plangent we still have an A to D converter to deal with....they are not artifact free - this is just factual. My Wadia ( actually both of them ) and Ayre are nite and day different. Why object to cleaning up those artifacts - many temporal - and as I believe MQA requires somebody ( label, producer, artist ) sign off on those changes.. Diana Krall stops by my house every time I roll tubes in the preamp... |
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.. |
Regarding, " . . . an alteration of the source is distortion," it was my understanding that MQA supposedly offers the truest source, as it backs out subsequent alterations to the sound imposed by equipment and/or production. Am I wrong about this? This raises the question of whether or not alterations by the sound engineer or others from the original source are valid. Is the finished product the source? Or the raw version as first recorded? Or, am I talking out of my a$$, because I really don't know what I'm talking about . . . A real possibility! |
how many of you have one or more A to D converters and have listened to discern the often massive differences between them ? In my live recording work i will almost always take two converters...I would love to learn what Bob is actually doing..but then that is his intellectual property that he developed.. we live in a world where everybody wants everything for free...and yet defend the capitalist as deserving of fair rents at every turn,,, which is it ? me, I will pay of better...to my ears it is better ya everybody has an axe to grind. My DAC manufacturer for whatever reason is silent on the matter..even tho it is FPGA so change should be relatively easy..any of you flat earthers want to buy my Pandora Sig ???? Has some wicked Nos tubes in it... oh thats right not all the respected believe in tubes.. As for throwing out the many respected are against it list, there are just as many respected in the pro MQA camp including Brinkman and DCs, MSB.... enjoy the music i hope I have offended none, that was not my intent |
I have not heard MQA but it is predicated on the idea that you need all that high frequency sound above 48KHz to fully appreciate the music (even if you can’t hear it). We have had SACD and now DSD and I still find all these arguments for greater range way beyond human hearing dubious. I don’t buy it from a technical perspective - despite the hand waving "smearing" that Bob Stuart imagines. I don’t really care about all that ultra HF noise for playback. Give me well recorded and well mastered 24 bit 96KHz and I am a happy camper as that really is about as good as it needs to get. 16 bit is the biggest weakness of CD IMHO as most studio gear can achieve 22 bit. Having 96KHz means a less aggressive brick wall filter and is a nice to have. |
"MQA does not sound like an EQ circuit." From what I have read, Doing EQ IS one of the features of MQA. Mr. Stuart believes he can correct the sins of recorders past. As long as he knows the make and model of the recorder used, MQA can compensate for "well known" (my quotes) deficiencies and set things straight (a very lofty goal). "If MQA was doing EQ then all MQA titles would reflect the presence boost. They do not." This statement would be true if ALL digital recording was done on the same machine. A number of different recorders were used -each having their own sonic profile. Some need correction (remastering?) and some don't. |
Sound Science Music Vault Ultra II. Came with Lifetime Roon. Curious USB cable into my Lyngdorf 2170 dac/amp/room correction unit. Love the Lyngdorf selling off about $20,000 worth of separates and cables:) AZ Crescendo speakers. Simple system that is as musical as anything I have owner....perhaps even more so! |
Hey Folks, I have heard lots of loudness circuits. I have heard MQA through the Explorer2 and Tidal and Audirvana's software decoding. MQA does not sound like an EQ circuit. I believe it was Robert Harley who said it takes you closer. That is exactly what I experience on most of the MQA titles I have heard. The old reviewer line about a veil is lifted is what I usually hear. I have a subscription and read Herb's Followup review. I immediately found it odd and still do. If MQA was doing EQ then all MQA titles would reflect the presence boost. They do not. As for the Brooklyn, I am seriously considering buying one. NO reviewer has mentioned any EQ effect with non MQA material and Herb is the only one that mentioned it at all. However, two things bother me about the Brooklyn, the circuit appears to use op amps in the output and the DAC chip should be a newer ESS version. Perhaps it was a long gestation and the newer chips were not ready during development. Hope y'all have some fun, Robert |
That's rich: borders on audio derp. MQA has been suspect for some time now with manufacturers complaining about altering/modifying their software and the licensing fees for quite some time now. That, and an almost non-existent content to listen to. I've yet to hear it but will at the LA Audio Show next month but some very respected innovators like Benchmark, PS Audio, Linn, Schiit, and Archimago's take on it have convinced me to go in with open ears and not fall for the first pretty note I hear. Granted, some have their own axes to grind but they all seem to agree on the basic misconceptions that have been touted by the press, who have their own axes to grind, monetarily speaking. All the best, Nonoise |
Before others get all sorts of breathless -- like the OP -- I'd suggest that folk read the whole of the piece by Mr. Reichart. It was, by any reasonable measure, exceedingly positive. It contained no "bombshell." Read. Listen. Think. It's not always easy. But, in the end, it beats the hell out of ridiculous hyperbole. I've not yet heard MQA, but I'm looking forward to checking it out. With an open mind. Perhaps that's how we all should proceed. |
another worthless opinion based on selectively reading part of a review... go back to your finely etched pre ring.... i formed my opinion by actually listening .... not that difficult to do as for not being able to discern temporal changes, it might help if reviewers and listeners used speakers capable of that - there are few.... |
"
Just like the sugary drink that tastes so good on first experience, our
advanced society knows that consuming it regularly leads to diabetes,
heart disease and worse." First of all, when it comes to buying anything audio related, the most qualified person to judge products is you. As for the golden ears, next time we have a big marker correction and you're hungry, don't cut off the ears. Knock some teeth out instead. Its the only way to get precious metals out of them. |
I haven't heard a full blown MQA setup, but listening to Tidal's Masters with their version of MQA is quite seductive.Call it a parlor trick or whatever, the sound is still extremely good. Do all recordings sound good with MQA? No, not really, but the majority of those that do are quite good. The reviewer can have his opinion, but relying on just his opinion about a music medium is no better than totally relying on his opinion about an audio component. If you haven't listened to MQA, you should really give it a try before condemning it due to a reviewer's suspicions. Sometimes you have to take off your "purist cap" and just sit down and listen to the beauty of the music that MQA can bring. |
It is also possible that what is being heard is the performance of the Brooklyn dac and not MQA. So far all my experiences with MQA are very positive both with a Meridian Explorer2 with full MQA decoding or with my Master 7 using partial decoding from the Tidal player. We still need more MQA files from UMG and Sony for further evaluation. Just last week I had a conversation with Robert Harley and he likes MQA a lot.The gentleman above who comments on MQA without ever hearing it is typical of many of the negative comments. Listen to it and then comment. It will give some credibility to your comments. Alan |
Well, a parlor trick it may be but his conclusion seems to say otherwise: "For now, I’m happily addicted to MQA, Tidal Masters, and the Mytek Brooklyn. Together, this trio delivered more plaisir and jouissance than I’m used to experiencing with streamed digital music. These milestone products have, each in its own way, brought computer audio to a hip new place in which I could hunker down for years, just having fun." As with all things audio, I think you need to hear it for yourself and decide only then whether or not to move in that direction. My experience with MQA (via Bluesound Node 2) has been positive and I'm happy to have the capability in my system. Can I live without it? Yes, but I don't need to. |
I haven't heard MQA so I shouldn't comment, but of course that won't stop me. I also raised my eyebrows when I read that. I've seen some on line posts that confirmed what The review stated; it sounds different but somewhat artificial. My present setup sounds good enough to me so I won't be checking out the Emperor's New Clothes |
Interesting post. I just was researching MQA, Roon, and PS Audio. Paul from PS Audio said he was open to a partial MQA implementation in the Bridge II, the network card in their top PWD or DSD dacs, but would not be fully implementing MQA in the dac itself as it made it sound poorer and could limit PS Audio's firmware upgrade options. This is a simplification of what Paul said in his post, for the full skinning you can read more online, but this does add a little credibility to your suspicion about MQA being suspect. |
