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?
emailists
@brianlucy 


+1 Brianlucey

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).
+1 shardone.

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. 

Enjoy! 
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!
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.
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?