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?
All that matters is the quality of engineering. Daniel Lanois made a lot of great records that were mixed to 16 bit DAT. Really great records that will sound great and be great in 100 years.
Any real or imagined tech limitations of PCM, or sample rate, or what have you ... can and are compensate for in mastering. There is no perfection in recording, and perfectionism is a wild goose chase to nowhere that too many people get lost traveling. Recordings are man made illusions, it’s juice down a wire to drivers. It’s using distortion for a musical result. Musicality is ALL that matters as we connect humans to humans with the language of music.
Update :Tidal masters are once again a mixed bag just like other high resolution shops ....HD Tracks, Pono etc
It it ALL depends on the Mastering quality!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
...led zeppelin deluxe sounds great but red hot chili peppers stadium Arcadium is still the compressed Vlado Meller mastering...even though Steve Hoffman excellent master came out on vinyl years ago.
Comparing an MQA file via an MQA dac vs a non-MQA hires file via a non-MQA dac has been touched on somewhere else.....
Does an MQA file played through a supposed high end MQA dac like Merdian's Ultradac or 808v6 player sound better than a non-MQA hires pcm/dsd file played through a high end non-MQA dac like the Total, Chord DAVE, dcs Vivaldi or Esoteric Grandioso, just to name a few?
I have only done an A/B between the Esoteric N-05 dac and the Meridian 808v6 player and I find the Esoteric playing a non-MQA file more satisfying and engaging than the Meridian playing the MQA version of the same music.
Has anyone else done such an A/B for other dac's? Would be interesting to hear of others' experience.
Sonics is gone some years now and the new Allegra is by Canalis, which is Allen Perkins of Spiral Groove. Actually Canalis "was" Allen. He’s more of a designer than factory guy, so he sold the rights to the Weinstein family at Hollywood Sound in FL, and they are continuing the brand in conjunction with Joachim. I highly, highly recommend the Canalis Anima. Made of bamboo with other crossover and construction upgrades from my birch ply Allegra I have. Unless you have a room that is truly huge, these are a possible winner, and under $20k. The ATC 150 ASL is nice, yet I find it a bit stiff and less musical overall than the Allegra which manages to be technically sound and also highly musical. More dynamic drivers in the Allegra, for example, as compared to the very capable 150s. Bigger drivers are generally slower, and the Allegra drivers plus that dual component tweeter (cloth and metal) and excellent design and high quality parts, are just the start of their beauty. Try them for sure if you’re in the market. Small and amazing 3 ways.
One last thought on A/B with MQA ... someone was comparing the MQA files without a MQA DAC, and that’s a no no. Totally unfair. Sounds very bad. We need to have the source file, and the MQA file with a MQA DAC.
As a listener that is what I care most about in the work that you professionals do.
ATC 150ASL are nice and clean in the lower mids and my preferred choice. I find almost all other speaker designs sacrifice harmonic content or "timbre" in order to juice things up for the listener in some exciting way - usually over emphasis on bass and treble or some non musical resonances. I am not familiar with Sonic Allegras but a friend of mine had Audio Physics and they sounded great and imaged extremely well.
Mahler123, get the Manhattan II, 100% new thing. The one that you have is just lacking. Lifeless on the transient punch, and not linear at all. Or get the Bricasti M1 SE. Again for those who have not heard it since Feb 2016, the filtering is upgraded and it's a beauty that's also accurate.
To reply as best I can ...
Everything we do in mastering is approved by a team of people with a ton of experience, and although fear can ruin the dynamic potential resulting in super limiting, musicians, producers, label presidents etc are not deaf. They are making the choices, or picking from the options we offer, and they can hear the changes. My job is to improve on some very great mixes (usually limited as a hot ref), and so anything that goes backwards in the tone from my processing is a no no.
Someone asked about the name, and yes, "Master Quality Authenticated" is the greatest PR slogan ever invented. In a market where, no offense, there are many people who want to believe in the next big tech thing, it’s an exciting name. Yet is it really that great of a benefit to be at 16 44.1 or 16 48k? Really not that small of a file is it? Simple test for someone. Try the free dbPoweramp SRC with a file that’s 24 96k, take it down to 16 48k vs MQA 16 48k. So much more simple, so much less hype and money changing hands. Follow the money.
In digital audio there is no free lunch. That’s just hope in science, hope in mankind, misplaced.
The direction MQA folks are headed is actually playing on that hope for their global domination of the 32 bit AD and DA and mastering markets, where we would be auditioning through the MQA plug in and DA and then making adjustments to the work to compensate. I find this beyond troubling on many fronts.
1. They demand serious license money from DA makers and eventually AD companies, and then turn around and make money on every sale and stream. What a monopoly they are going for! I’m all for an honest living, but it’s not honest, it’s manipulative and exploiting human weakness in the audiophile. They create nothing, so they should be respectful, don’t exploit things.
2. As a ME we make one digital master (sample rate not the issue, don’t get me started!) and one analog with the vinyl ...the digital is then compressed in various ways for sale. This is still the right way to see it. Tech will only change for the better in time, and diluting the artistry and confusing the market with 5 versions of a master on day one is long term stupidity. (MFiT, for example, could upgrade that codec at any time, and get things closer to the source. Yet they asked people to tweak for the codec so they’re stuck (P. S. It’s impossible to compensate for the codec, cold, and thin and shortens the groove). Some MEs like MQA and MFiT as it’s more money for them. My interest is music, artists, and clients. I serve. I don’t exploit.
3. The proper and right job for those making these compressed audio formats, is to make what we create marketable and sounding as close to the source as possible, not pretend it’s better than the source and sell that to people who cant hear the source or are excited by the exciter effect, and then invent a market. Fear of missing out, and that blue light! Fear based market creation. Cynical brilliance. It’s oligarchy, and I’m 100% opposed. Anti creative, anti democratic, etc, etc, etc. Really just backwards.
4. We are in a nether land where the mp3 sucks and a corporate mechanism is not set up for proper master file streaming and sales. MQA is jumping in to seize a moment that is passing by. QOBUS is about there with full file streaming. End of story if that works. Or someone like them if they are quashed by a big $ player. Asia has killer transfer speeds and soon the world will all be able to stream. It’s coming, just a matter of time. If you care to hear the master files today, download the full files, doesn’t take long. Or Qobus, (which I can’t pronounce and am not affiliated with in any way, nor do I endorse) coming soon with others I would imagine. SO this is a short term reality and they are making everyone jump through hoops to pay them and implement based on exploiting you all, and your lack of objective listening or source material.
The labels are lining up as they have relations with the team from Meridian and it’s a $$$ maker with no risk to them. They all want to bolster Q3 reports, ok. Musical quality is not really important. Sad but true. Universal for years left their pre release watermark used to catch leakers on digital music, post release. It’s an audible watermark. Classical, jazz, pop of course. Recently they stopped. Years of that, no one cared.
Hope that covers it
Everyone hears differently and some people, like the Apple guy who designed MFiT, don’t value harmonic content and low end as much as they look at the screen for the best null test figures and say "print it!"
P.S. As far as those folks commenting on auditioning vinyl vs digital vs MQA ... the vinyl pass it more dynamic by physical necessity and often choice, so it’s not a fair comparison. The only fair comparison is the master file vs. X Y or Z compression scheme. MQA has this tech registered as a lossless scheme, but it’s compressed. More marketing.
P.P.S. MQA is like a new amp, or new DA, it’s a chance for the listener to be part of the creative process. That’s what being an audiophile is all about, creating with gear. It’s that, and not as claimed. Yet the momentum for people who want to be fooled and want to feel creative through gear, is a strong force to resist with little ol’ common sense. There is no free lunch. There is no better.
If the mastering is bad, and that’s the MOST LIKELY fact, well ok. Mess with it, filter it, use an amp, speakers DA, what have you. But you are not making my work better with MQA. Feel free to forward my comments in partial or whole to anyone you like.
Looking at your comment "As a professional musician and conductor, I am exposed to the sound of top notch New York musicians playing their instruments on an everyday basis. I listen to MQA on the top of the line Meridian DSP- 8000/ 818V3 DAC. I also use the same source in my serious all analog tube setups. Without trying to insult anyone, if you know what you’re hearing, there is no doubt about the quality of MQA. If you play a well recorded, high quality track such as on the 2L label, and then repeat the same selection with MQA, the improvements are easily heard. There is no EQ change! Only more air, separation, dynamics, and transparency."
You said: "The improvements are easily heard. There is no EQ change! Only more air, separation, dynamics, and transparency." This is where you lose cred. So many people here post "sounds great", or something similar. What matters is how it sounds, with less data, versus the master file. Full Stop. If it sounds better to you, that’s fine, yet if it’s not super close to the source, it’s not better. There is no "better" possible, there is the source, with less data. To say it’s better is to say that it fails and has a subjective appeal to some people.
Understand?
Factually, there cannot be anything "better" than the master. If I want to put more air and separation and dynamics and transparency into a master, then I would have done that in the first place. A master has many cooks and we are happy with it in every way when you get it. (Hard as that is to believe in some cases, which just proves that people hear things differently and from a different frame of reference. We focus on different elements)
What you are hearing is the Aphex Aural Exciter effect from the 80s, also used by AfterMaster in it’s robot mastering, also called here "loudness", or the presence peak of a SM57, it’s older brother the 545SD or a Telefunken 251. There is more in the high mids, and that to 99% of the population sounds "better", like air and separation. People also choose mp3s over 24 bits, for the distortion they think is "better".
What you are missing is the forward MID, and the recessed SIDE with the thinner low mids and the overall change to the harmonic distortion. I don’t want a cleaner harmonic distortion or a more dirty change, I want the same thing harmonically. This is very hard to reproduce with less data, maybe impossible. No one has done it yet.
What matters in music to me, is the humanity, which lives majorly in the low mids, and the way the low end moves drivers, the Africa, the groove. High mids is easy. Many amps etc sound good up there. More "air and separation" is also easy with distortion (see: those mp3 vs 24 bit tests). I use NOS tubes in a Fairman TMEQ and a class A A to D for that purpose. More dynamics is also easy, I use a Mytek DA that’s punchy to feed my desk. More "transparency" is not happening with MQA however, you are confused there by the other elements. Less data = more transparent would make a rational person pause, a long pause.
MQA fails on low mids, low end and keeping the MID/SIDE in tact EXACTLY BECAUSE of the effect you are enamored by. No offense yet your listening skill could be better, which is good news if you can see it. The excitement that comes when people are wowed by these sonic tricks is evident in the style of posts I often read.
A mastering engineer could do that with PCM, and then he/she//they/I would be upset with MQA for taking it too far.
The only way to test this is an A/B on material you personally have engineered. The rest is subjective, and very subject to marketing and concept sales from the team trying to feed their family, or those looking to get on board with the new corporate tech chuck wagon.
If a label, artist or consumer want this, no problem for me. But it’s not better or equal to the source files. Full stop. Facts matter.
And they are looking to control the conversation, which I find rude given the sales pitch. If they said "here’s an interesting alternative" I would have no problem with it. They say it’s better. On it’s face not possible in principle, or in practice. Buyer beware.
Interesting, @Brianlucey.My MQA experience was limited to a free week of Tidal, using my Bluesound. I have the Mytek Manhatten I but haven't shelled out for the MQA upgrade. I only listen to Classical. I streamed a few albums in my collection that were available in MQA and burned those 2 albums into Bluesound so that I was using the same DAC. I did hear a slight difference but I wasn't really bowled over. It wasn't anything like the purple prose that Robert Harley uses to describe his perceptions. I definitely prefered the sound of the Mytek vs either the MQA or the red book via the Bluesound DAC.
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.
I heard MQA at the recent Bristol hifi show. I liked it but it didnt wipe the floor with vinyl and only a little better than cd. Therefore I could only recommend it if you are starting new or only a very small physical format collection.
With all due respect, anyone that doesn't hear the difference in MQA, just do a simple A-B listening test using TIDAL Masters. Even if your DAC doesn't support MQA, listen to Beyonce's song called 'Daddy Lessons' from the Lemonade album. Cue up the MQA & non-MQA versions and listen to both. If you don't hear a difference within 5 minutes then you need to strongly consider upgrading your system.
I have a Lumin S1 Network Player/DAC and MQA isn't supported yet, so it only unfolds to 44.1KHz, 24-bits. Still the SQ is much less compressed on the MQA version and the bass is noticeably better on the MQA version. I can't wait for my Lumin to support MQA to get the complete unfold and the Studio Authentication. That should provide another SQ improvement.
I would add that most of what Tidal offer in their Masters section sound absolutely excellent. I especially enjoy the Led Zeppelin deluxe edition remaster from around 2015. These are boosted in the presence region quite significantly compared to other masters and this is certainly the effect of the mastering (cymbals sound really good) and absolutely not an MQA artifact. This is the best sounding Led Zeppelin I have ever heard.
I also enjoy the Smaal Faces collection! Great stuff and never has it sounded better.
If MQA has a boost it is subtle to my ears and I still find the music highly enjoyable.
Regardless of what MQA does, the music in their library sounds really great and is CD quality or better! I think $20 a month for this wonderful library of streamed music is a steal!
About a year ago, a dealer of mine drew a graph on a chalkboard that was in his main demo room. It was a graph of frequency vs. the amount of sampling or bit rate that was needed for any particular frequency. I think he said more sampling or bit rate was needed at higher frequencies than lower ones as he tried to explain to me how MQA works. There were other factors he mentioned also, but my eyes started to glaze over as he got further and further into his explanation. To him, this all made total sense as to the way MQA works. Take this explanation with a grain of salt. I am no expert, and he really lost me on most of this. If MQA is indeed a parlor trick, misleading, then it probably won't survive over time. I know that many audiophiles strive for faithfulness of the signal in regards to the source, but MQA, for ME still sounds pretty darn good.
As a professional musician and conductor, I am exposed to the sound of top notch New York musicians playing their instruments on an everyday basis. I listen to MQA on the top of the line Meridian DSP- 8000/ 818V3 DAC. I also use the same source in my serious all analog tube setups. Without trying to insult anyone, if you know what you're hearing, there is no doubt about the quality of MQA. If you play a well recorded, high quality track such as on the 2L label, and then repeat the same selection with MQA, the improvements are easily heard. There is no EQ change! Only more air, separation, dynamics, and transparency. The improvements are also heard through non MQA equipped gear. I feel MQA is a brilliant innovation, and it's no wonder more and more MUSICIANS and labels are jumping on board. The TIDAL feature works flawlessly, and there is a lot of content coming out quickly, both new material and classic rock, etc. For classical music, acoustic instruments, etc., the quality is gorgeous! Good bye memory wasting High Res!
I have been listening to Tidal Masters on a non-MQA compatible DAC. IMO, the increased resolution is more apparent on newer recordings than older recordings. As pointed out in previous thread, not all Master are the same so I am willing to wait before I impart any judgements until I obtain a MQA compatible DAC in my system.
We should welcome forward progress with open arms. I mean look how far we have come from having crappy MP3 to Tidal HiFi. I am ecstatic to see more and more MQA content in my Tidal library and looking forward to owing a MQA compatible DAC.
I have been playing and comparing Tidal Master to the closest thing I have in my collection. Not all masters are the same so the comparison was not easy but I found a couple quite quickly as I have a large collection.
I hear a prescence boost (4 to 6 KHz) - subtle but it is there. On busy tracks it can sound tiring (over emphasized) but on vocal acoustics (guitar + vocal) it can sound really impressive (and easily mislead people to thinking this is a better audio file)
Not sure about the noise and other details that Brian is referring to but I confirm that I hear the presence boost.
I am listening using the software decoder and sending the 24/96KHz file to a Benchmark DAC2 via active ATC EL150ASL (in case the audio chain has something to do with it).
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.
I have have the Resonessence Mirus Pro. I put it up against any DAC out here and I heard MQA on the Brooklyn Dac and I wasn't that impressed with it. I will keep my non MQA Dac and keep listening!
Hello fellow music lovers. So here’s the deal: The Brooklyn is a nice DA, very punchy. However, it has a low bump and a high mid bump to it, and that’s what he heard as the "loudness" curve. I would highly recommend the Manhattan II if you can afford it. I helped them to design it and it’s very nice, punchy like the Brooklyn yet also linear, no hype to the curve. Not as elegant as the Bricasti M1 SE (since the Feb 2016 upgrade to the filtering, when I also helped them to tweak the presentation.)
MQA: I’ve heard my work from 24 bits to MQA ... it has a high mids push, and is thinner on the bottom, with some added distortion of course, and most painfully, mid forward so a loss of width and shape. The High Mid comes forward with the MID section vs the SIDE, and it’s lean and of course narrow. This is based on my work using Pacific Microsonics AD at 24 44.1 and reduced to MQA 16 44.1 I would hate to know what it does with higher rates, but my peers tell me it’s no better.
I’m sorry to tell you that this is not the future of great audio. The labels all see money, so they are on board, and because you all are hip to see that LED and can’t hear the source to compare, many of you are suckered in. This review is the first I have seen to admit the truth, the bias, etc.
There is no free lunch in digital audio, and nothing with less data is more. Similarly, more data is not always better, and one should not be suckered in to the idea that 96k or higher is some kind of gold standard. What matters is the hardware and the engineering skill. Great hardware at 44.1 is not less than 96k, although weak hardware can sound better at higher rates and higher rates are good for mixers (plug ins).
This idea of deblurring is total hype. There is no perfection in audio, it’s all about musical approximations and everything in the way of distortion in an approved master has been adjusted to deal with the inherent artifacts in that record, and gone over by a dozen people. The margin for error is small with changing this highly compressed and limited (non classical in my world) music master and MQA is not respectful in the way it needs to be to satisfy their sales pitch. More of an Aphex Aural Exciter in digital garb, or like one of the automated mastering services with huge backing. The high mid bump is seductive, as in the classic SM57 and the Telefunken 251 mics. Or 15 ips 2" tape. MQA has the bump, is thin, and Mid forward. The overall harmonic distortion is audible, not less than, worse than.
If it was a 320 mp3 size file I would say well done. Yet even then it’s not a mile better than MFiT, which is harmonically cold and shortens the groove by losing the low volume low end info.
If you want the source, listen to the master, no matter the rate, it’s the real deal. Nothing else compares.
I have told them all of this, and nothing here is from privileged info. Yes I signed their NDA, then stopped communicating with them once I heard it. My opinion has not changed with their tech sales pitch and my opinion is not for sale.
MQA founders likely need an income stream since their video business has dried up and this is a way to get a few endorsements and corporations on board and tell everyone that a rock is still a diamond, only smaller, because there is a blue light, and a mid forward presence push.
Room: I use Mytek 8x192 to feed my analog chain which has Fairman TMEQ, Elysia Alpha Ser #001, Etc ... router is Crane Song Avocet, and I use Bricasti M1 SE DA x 2 for monitoring pre and post processing. Birch ply (older) Sonics Allegras by Joahim Gerhardt powered by highly modified Cary Audio 211 FE fed by Sequoia software. the room is fantastic, come by next time in LA to hear it.
Thanks for truly listening and spending money on the system of your dreams. The system is your art form, and we appreciate you.
Back when I was in high school and college, I was a drummer in some very busy rock & roll bands. I remember the sound and visceral experience of the "timbre" from playing that 22" Zildjan ride cymbal. I've only experienced that same visceral experience from some of the MQA albums on Tidal, never experienced that same feeling from even hi-res "traditional" digital files. Also, there is something really "pure" about the sound of a well-recorded acoustic piano, something that sounds better to me on MQA. I wouldn't say it's a "blanket improvement", as not all MQA albums on Tidal (to me) sound "better", "different" yes, "better" not so sure.
emailists, You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see anywhere in this thread that says you have actually listened to MQA. Most people will tell you if you have not listened to it, you don't have an opinion. Try listening to MQA with your own ears..... instead of your taste buds....
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.
All the gnashing of teeth over MQA seems much ado about nothing for those of us who have moved past music acquisition and into streaming. For folks who still want to acquire a library of music beyond what they already own, yes, it may be a concern. Maybe. No doubt most music labels couldn't care less about audiophile wants/needs and see their future in streaming. MQA allows for them to produce 1 file for distribution (streaming, downloading, and MQA CDs) for all types of music lovers from audiophiles to casual listeners. Seems to be a good business decision for them and plenty of audiophiles seem to like what they hear. Like it or not I think it's here to stay.
OK, I have a PS Audio DirectStream DAC...and a Mytek Brooklyn DAC as well, the latter just for MQA streaming from Tidal, the former for everything else. To Erik's point, I think that the MQA I enjoy more is likely the result of the remastering, not just the MQA, but I must say, some albums (to me) sound much better...and the DirectStream DAC is no "slouch".
My unpopular opinion: Most older DAC’s sounded significantly better with high resolution files.
There are a lot of DAC’s introduced in the last 5 years which sound great regardless of sourse, from Redbook to DSD.
My need for high resolution files is just not there anymore with the Mytek. All resolutions sound really good, and if I can save the hard disk space, that is a good thing.
The Mytek plays MQA as well and I simply don’t hear a benefit. Everything I hear that is allegedly better with MQA is also attributable to better mastering.
And some heavy hitters are not (yet?) offering MQA: Ayre Acoustics, Benchmark Media Systems, Boulder Amplifiers, Bryston, Chord Electronics, dCS, EMM Labs, Hegel Music Systems, Marantz, Meitner, PS Audio, Schiit Audio, Simaudio, and Soulution, for example.
In fact, many, if not most, DAC manufacturers on the MQA partner list do not YET offer MQA in their devices. That includes the heavier hitters among them. My guess is that they have signed on, but have their fingers to the wind before they commit to hardware.
IMO MQA may have some limited positive application where the deficiencies of an original recording ADC are known and can be compensated for. But general application across the board is a crap shoot. What MQA does is take the original digital file, changes it, and charges a royalty,
.That cannot generally be good.
When comparing MQA files to a non-MQA file, it must first be known that the original files were identical. Often, what has happened is that the MQA file has been prepared from a high res file and is being compared to red book. Also MQA compression is not lossless, though it does, of course speed up downloads. That's why Tidal loves it.
@melm - If there is nothing wrong with the recording, MQA won't fix it. It will, however reduce a monster size Hi-Rez file into something you can stream in a heartbeat. Any value there?
The editor of Stereophile sent a recording he had made to MQA to be MQAd. When he got it back he couldn’t readily distinguish this recording, very familiar to him, from the MQA version. He tried, under very carefully controlled conditions.
Many MQA recordings are being compared
It’s a hoax IMO, one that is all about $$$ and not about audio--with very limited exceptions. And most of the leading DAC manufacturers are staying away.
Hey, a lot of people, in the day, raved about Dynagroove.
As Yoda of Star Wars proclaimed, "You do, or you do not." The same analogy can be said of listening to MQA. Why do all the nay sayers treat MQA as it were some sort of disease? Give it a listen. Have an open mind. It's not just about resolution. Listen to the width and depth of the soundstage. The natural dynamics that, until now, only a master tape could produce. Distortion artifacts will not reveal these things. Remastering of recordings for vinyl or Cd's is no different. The recording engineer is making changes in frequency and dynamics to suit his taste in sound. So why isn't that considered distortion by the people against or at least suspicious of MQA. If I were forced to listen to the "what goes in, must come out camp" I think I would probably give up the hobby. Fortunately, I have a choice......
"Back in the 1960s, I bought every Dylan record . . but all his records sound opaque, annoyingly hard, and overly compressed. Every time I listen to Dylan, I ask myself, Why must they sound like this? I felt this way until I heard Zimmy in MQA via the Mytek Brooklyn: The clarity, suppleness, and transparency were so unbelievable . . "
In fact, as can be observed in the dynamic range database, almost all of Bob Dylan’s recordings - but especially the early ones - are surprising high in dynamic range, I.e., high in the GREEN numbers, with few exceptions. And if I may be so bold his early recordings were the model of naturalness and clarity. So I have no idea what the author of the statement above was smoking.
"Back in the 1960s, I bought every Dylan record . . but all his records sound opaque, annoyingly hard, and overly compressed. Every time I listen to Dylan, I ask myself, Why must they sound like this? I felt this way until I heard Zimmy in MQA via the Mytek Brooklyn: The clarity, suppleness, and transparency were so unbelievable . . "
Distortion, pure and simple. MQA is the 21st Century’s answer to Dynagroove! As RCA said at the time, "adding brilliance and clarity, realistic presence, full-bodied tone , yadda yadda . . ."
Stereo Review loved it then; Stereophile loves it now.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
