2. digital
  3. 129747-231

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
lalitk's avatar
lalitk
5,591 posts
 
+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! 
timstella's avatar
timstella
16 posts
 
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!
mr_m
1,900 posts
 
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.
emailists OP
923 posts
 
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?   
shadorne's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
shadorne
7,477 posts
 
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!

More to discover