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
gregm
3,409 posts
 
@erik_squires 
192 is not inherently superior to 96 is not superior to 44.1. This is a marketing myth....

Mathematically, this is correct,
How so?
One has 24 bit word length, the other 16; one goes up to 192kHz, or 96kHz  (i.e. 2-4 octaves higher) whereas the redbook up to 44.1kHz. They cannot be mathematically identical; you are thinking of something else, no?

erik_squires
16,348 posts
 
Hi @Gregm,
I meant that in theory, humans should not be able to hear better than 44/16.


fleschler
2,028 posts
 
@Brianlucey @bkepke and @iopscprl  I agree with you three the most of this forum's posters.  I've heard MQA at audio shows and cannot remember the equipment.  Overall, I wasn't impressed.  The rooms had a spacious, wide sound but nothing wanted me to opt for that sound.   When the differences are marginally better, I'll stick to the easier to use technologies such as the CD (ha ha my LPs and 78s are not easier to use but I have 32,000 of them).   I have a SOTA listening room which is a good place to begin serious listening.  I thought the ayon/lumenwhite room using my LPs and CDs sounded great, second best sound at the LA audio show for two years running in 2016 and 2017.    
kray's avatar
kray
229 posts
 
@brianlucey


+1 thanks for that great explanation as it’s what I’ve thought was the case thru my research

not sure why anyone would want to pay (licensing fees) a proprietary format that turns a lossless file into a lossy one so that only “special” hardware can decode it. 
Money grab pure and simple. 
atdavid
736 posts
 
Brian, your post is music to my eyes :-)

What MQA promotes as "restoring" the impulse response, is not much more than forcing a minimum phase filter on the DAC, which creates a potentially "nice" looking step response .... at least nice to those that are unaware of what a step-response should look like in digital system.  To your point, the distortions that creates may float some boats, which is totally okay, but a DAC with a switchable filter response also can do that, no licensing fee required.

I thought the "master authenticated" would have brought more quality recordings to the forefront, but personally have not noticed any significant difference.


brianlucey67 posts09-20-2019 12:09pm... .  If it “sounds better” to you that’s fine.  But that’s because the subtle harmonic distortions of the codec float your subjective boat. A cable or speaker alter sound subjectively and so does MQA.  To me however, it’s ruining my work, the client approved work.  It’s a travesty built on greed and lies.  ...
...Most audiophiles have playback rooms rooms that are by far the weakest link in their chain.  By far.

More to discover