2. tech-talk
  3. 151126-123258

How many of you believe in MQA?

I have recently purchased a Bluesound Node 2i.  The dealer suggested I connect the Bluesound by way of digital coax to a Pro-Ject S2 DAC by way of RCA anologue to my ARCAM AVR550.  However, I found out I will not be able to control my Bluesound with an iPhone, iPad or PC notebook.  The only way to hear MQA completely unfolded is to plug in a computer USB.  This would mean I would have to get up from where I am sitting, go to the computer to change songs and albums.  I believe the Pro-Ject RS2 DAC would work, but not sure what the sales price is or if this is a good option.

The dealer asked me why I wanted to even bother listening to MQA completely unfolded when the DAC sounded better than the DAC inside the Bluesound.  He thinks MQA is way over rated and it may not be around a year from now.  If I hook things up with the Pro-Ject S2 DAC I will be able to hear one unfold which would be at 24 bit/88.2 kHz.  If I do this, I will be giving up the opportunity to hear MQA recordings recorded at 24 bit/96 kHz or 24 bit/192 kHz.  

How many of you are enbracing MQA?  
128x128larry5729
iopscrl
198 posts
 

The industry wants to push consumers to a subscription model, and wants to ensure that consumers can not copy streaming content. Pay to play. It is always about the money, never about the consumer. MQA creates additional revenue streams because of licensing rights and may encourage additional hardware purchases to ensure compatibility with MQA content. The primary motivation for MQA is DRM, claims of sonic improvement are secondary, but used to sell the concept.

 The real problem is that MQA may represent a marginal at best sonic difference vs non MQA content. Marginal is not enough to convince enough consumers to open their wallets and invest (new hardware, new MQA media) in a new technology. Consumers only respond to paradigm shifts, not incremental change.  

 78 to LP

Mono to Stereo

Tube to Transistor

LP to Cassette

LP to CD. CD was deemed good enough, and attempts to "improve" it only succeeded at the margins. The masses never embraced SACD/DVD-A.

 In other areas: B&W to Color

VHS to DVD

Tube TV to Flat Screen.

 Film to Digital Photos

 But 3D largely failed, curved screens are difficult to find, and 4K is expensive marketing hype.

 Most consumers could care less about Quad, 8 Track, El Cassette, 3D TV, Curved Screens,

DVD -A, SACD, CD-HD and so on.

Guess which category applies to MQA ?   MQA started with hype and a large bandwagon. As pushback developed, and consumers failed to respond, several adopters quietly or abruptly dropped support. Others who were “considering” adoption have stopped issuing progress updates.  

 If you can hear a positive difference, great. But is the quality of the difference worth your investment of time and money ? 

larry5729's avatar
larry5729 OP
1,008 posts
 
By adding a Pro-Ject S2 DAC to my Bluesound Node 2i, what will I loose in sound quality by breaking up the MQA chain?  Does the external DAC filter frequencies out or does it add frequencies to enhance tighter bass and more detailed highs?

Why do songs sound bassier by using the Bluesound only?

Maybe I need lessons in learning what to listen for in order to determine which is better.  Would the Bel Canto eOne streamer played by itself by way of RCA connection sounded better than the Bluesound for triple the price?  It is difficult to compare when dealers do not carry both Bluesound and Bel Canto to compare.  If I had been the Bel Canto dealer in town, I would have run out and purchased a Bluesound Node 2i to allow customers to hear the difference if I knew the Bel Canto would win hands down.  This would have made it easier for me to have made my decision.
larry5729's avatar
larry5729 OP
1,008 posts
 
No one has explained why connecting a Bluesound (MQA certified device) to a Pro-Ject S2 (also MQA certified device) by way of digital coax cable destroys the full unfolding of MQA when both devices are MQA certified.  
erik_squires
16,229 posts
 
Hi Larry,

From a digits point of view, nothing wrong with that.  MQA is just FLAC with additional data hidden in the stream.

The issue of getting MQA all the way out has to do with licensing and design choices, not always sure which.

If your streamer gets MQA and unfolds it, it will destroy the MQA envelope in the process. The DAC won't receive MQA stream, just normal high resolution.

The trick is to get your streamer to request MQA but leave it alone for the DAC to completely unfold.
cycles2
207 posts
 
@Larry
I don't think it's fair to judge the sound quality of MQA based on a BlueSound Node 2.  No offense but the old saying 'you get what you pay for' is in effect here. 

I can tell you that me and many friends who have listened to MQA on my dCS Rossini agree that the sound quality of MQA tracks using TIDAL sound noticeably better than the same TIDAL tracks in Redbook format.  Even on my 2nd system where I use a NAD M10 integrated streamer/DAC/amp, the MQA tracks sound better.  FWIW, both the dCS Rossini and NAD M10 perform full MQA decoding. 

The MQA naysayers will point to the fact that MQA is a lossy format.  I think the same could be said for most digital formats. The best way to judge is to let your ears tell you what you prefer. But it's got to be on a decent DAC or streamer so it's a fair fight.


More to discover