Soundfield
1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
I doubt it will be that successful! Looks like a solution in desperate search of a problem to me.
(UHQCD format x MQA technology). Disc's-DAC's-Streamers and Tidal
- Thread starter marpow
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
Yeah, sometimes you can see that something is just a transitory tech. Anyone remember High Def D-VHS?
And DTS CD also could lay claim to a 20 bit audio equivalent in CD's by exploiting redundant inter-channel information plugging in the additiuonal 4bit data instead. Alas as a CD medium it was quite transitory too. But at least it was discrete surround which MQA is not.
kap'n krunch
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
As I am happy for those of you who enjoy the MQA CDs, I am not convinced nor impressed from a company that is not transparent in their behaviour (UK spelling).
Mark Waldrep (Dr. Aix) states it very clearly in his book. Most of you know that he WAS part of the MQA board until he DARED question the legitimacy of the process after which he was summarily excluded from that group.
I can't say much cause I am a believer in the "trickle down theory" and that is why people here have been admitting at last that a higher resolution is crucial for recording and mixing, I will still stick to my trickle down theory just the same as a bigger photo slide will yield better results than a 35mm one, in spite of many a member here not agreeing with me; we ALL have our beliefs and I respect them as long as they respect mine...
I personally have stated that any"remastering" of material recorded more than 20 years ago, and especially 60s and 70s stuff, is never going to sound like an early pressing because of tape degradation (see Nick Drake's 5LL early pressing vs. any later "remastering" or even Hendrix'x AYE which I have a 2nd pressing which sounds so much fresher than any rerelease).
Caveat emptor!
Mark Waldrep (Dr. Aix) states it very clearly in his book. Most of you know that he WAS part of the MQA board until he DARED question the legitimacy of the process after which he was summarily excluded from that group.
I can't say much cause I am a believer in the "trickle down theory" and that is why people here have been admitting at last that a higher resolution is crucial for recording and mixing, I will still stick to my trickle down theory just the same as a bigger photo slide will yield better results than a 35mm one, in spite of many a member here not agreeing with me; we ALL have our beliefs and I respect them as long as they respect mine...
I personally have stated that any"remastering" of material recorded more than 20 years ago, and especially 60s and 70s stuff, is never going to sound like an early pressing because of tape degradation (see Nick Drake's 5LL early pressing vs. any later "remastering" or even Hendrix'x AYE which I have a 2nd pressing which sounds so much fresher than any rerelease).
Caveat emptor!
Remastering today can definitely sound
Owen Smith
1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
The point of MQA is to be a protection racket and provide Bob Stuart et al a reliable income stream using a process so poorly described and proprietary that no-one can properly test and challenge it.
cbmmm3
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
When I decide to sit down to enjoy some music I look forward to hearing music that makes me smile, amazes me and provides an eargasm. Whether that is a surround disc, a red book CD, vinyl, a cassette ( yes folks a cassette ) a shm cd, an XRCD, an HDCD, a UHQ cd or an MQA cd or stream. Doesn't matter as long as it provides that WOW factor. That memorable experience. All formats have their good and their bad. Enjoy the music, go for the WOW !
Regardless what technology is used and no matter how we get there, it’s the sound that counts and MQA definitely has a sound of its own on the discs that I have. Whether you like and buy into the hype is another story.
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2013
- Messages
- 24,462
SNOB ALERT: You all have to understand Bob Stuart is utilizing his incredibly excellent Meridian 808 v.6 Reference RBCD player and his proprietary MQA decoder for playback purposes. I have the Meridian 808.v2 for spinning RBCDs and have NOT had it upgraded as it also plays MLP DVD~A 2.0 [NOT surround] and does so in state of the art sonics. All later 808 series omit DVD~A 2.0 playback.
I, for one, would love to hear MQA decoded, unfolded 'de~blurred' through Bob's SOTA set up.
I, for one, would love to hear MQA decoded, unfolded 'de~blurred' through Bob's SOTA set up.
Last edited:
The regular CD version of my new MQA CD is being shipped from a Goodwill store in CO, should be here next week, what differences (better treble, clearer midrange etc.) do you notice when comparing the same album as a regular CD and a MQA CD?
Kirk Bayne
cbmmm3
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
the most dramatic improvement is the soundstage. The new version seems almost discrete 4.0 in its delivery. Its got 'air' . The regular version was actually no slouch....it is pretty good overall. The MQA creates that WOW. Have fun in your comparison and please let us know what you hear
Last edited:
Regular CD (released in 1986) arrived, quick comparison - MQA CD has more treble.
I'm using DPL2 music mode, which will modify the soundstage, I'll try it later in stereo mode.
Kirk Bayne
I'm using DPL2 music mode, which will modify the soundstage, I'll try it later in stereo mode.
Kirk Bayne
Owen Smith
1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Probably it was EQ'd rather than that being anything to do with MQA. But this difference makes it very hard to do any meaningful comparisons of with and without MQA.
I used 2 Magnavox (Funai OEM) Blu-ray/DVD players because they have the same remote control codes, the digital outputs were connected to my Pioneer VSX-D514 CD and DVD coaxial digital inputs (stereo mode), Polk T15+PSW108 speakers.
I cued both the regular CD and MQA CD to song 4 on "The Best of Joe Walsh" and selected play on the remote.
The newer MQA CD wasn't "brickwalled", it had more bass and treble compared to the regular CD.
Regarding the imaging/soundstage, the regular CD had sound "images" at left, center and right, the MQA CD had sound "images" at the left, left center, center, right center, and right, I don't know why the same master tape would have noticeably different stereo imaging on the MQA CD.
Kirk Bayne
I cued both the regular CD and MQA CD to song 4 on "The Best of Joe Walsh" and selected play on the remote.
The newer MQA CD wasn't "brickwalled", it had more bass and treble compared to the regular CD.
Regarding the imaging/soundstage, the regular CD had sound "images" at left, center and right, the MQA CD had sound "images" at the left, left center, center, right center, and right, I don't know why the same master tape would have noticeably different stereo imaging on the MQA CD.
Kirk Bayne
That’s called Blurred. You have to play it back De-blurred to snap that sucker back into focus like the regular CD.
Owen Smith
1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
If the original CD is brickwalled and the MQA CD is not, that is going to make far more difference to the sound than anything the MQA process may or may not have done. All this test is revealing is that better CD mastering is important.
The original regular CD isn't brickwalled, I tried the listening test again w/DPL2 music mode, the regular CD front sound is confined to the space between LF and RF, the MQA CD front sound extends a little beyond LF and RF (still w/imaging in the locations mentioned in my previous post).
I think part of the remastering process involved converting the stereo to L+R and L-R, boosting the loudness of L-R and then converting back to stereo, the MQA CD version has more content in the DynaQuad surround channel.
More about MQA:
https://www.headphonesty.com/2021/05/tidal-mqa-golden-sound-debate/
Kirk Bayne
I think part of the remastering process involved converting the stereo to L+R and L-R, boosting the loudness of L-R and then converting back to stereo, the MQA CD version has more content in the DynaQuad surround channel.
More about MQA:
https://www.headphonesty.com/2021/05/tidal-mqa-golden-sound-debate/
Kirk Bayne
cbmmm3
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
here is another point of reference -
If there are any consistencies in the audiophile hobby it is that there are almost no unilateral agreements. Differing opinions exist on almost everything audio related. We have any number of amp and speaker technologies. We have multiple music formats and even a few not considered as meeting the basic acceptable standard of audiophile grade sonics. For about two decades, we had digital music solely in the form of a CD. Streaming changed all that, almost overnight. MQA is poised to possibly change things in a profound way, depending, that is, on the acceptance of what is, admittedly, a controversial subject.
Most audiophiles have read at length about MQA. I feel sure there are those of us who have grown weary of the debate surrounding this new format. To a certain degree, that describes my position on the matter. There are too many variables that affect streaming, and the systems on which music is played, for me to make an absolute declaration about MQA’s sonic quality. I have seen many comparisons of MQA to CD quality and Hi Rez but those comparisons were based on streaming. I have yet to see much of anything on a comparison of any resolution – SACD, to MQA, to CD in the physical format. Until now, that is.
I recently received four discs from our editor, Steven Stone. Two of the discs were mastered in MQA and two were SACD. The original purpose was a sonic comparison of MQA to SACD in the physical realm. I decided to include CD quality as well – and a couple other comparisons thrown in for good measure. As to the two selections, one is the Bob James Trio – “Espresso” and the second is chlara – “evo sessions.” While the links are for the purchase of the MQA physical disc, both are also available on Tidal in CD quality and MQA as well. For the comparison, an MQA encoded DAC was used and amplitude of all the recordings were level matched.
I elected to jump straight to the presumed top of the food chain and immediately chose Bob James’ MQA disc. When I pushed play, I immediately heard an expansiveness in the overall presentation. It simply sounded big. I’ve been to several of James’ live performances and to a certain degree, this large-scale presentation reminded me of those concerts. Reminded me of, please note, NOT identical to. There was also a perceptible ferocity in how he sometimes struck the keys. It actually sounded quite surprising. I also noticed that on piano solos, and especially on more robust passages, there was a “reverberation” in the sound as his fingers struck the keys. I also felt the notes were better sustained, that is they hung in the air longer than what I would think CD quality would represent. This level of detail is what I would expect to hear when a piano was played live. As you might expect from such a high resolution recording, the clarity was magnificent. Frequency range was also spot on – that is, the bass line could be easily followed and the mids and highs sounded very accurate.
As to the SACD disc, I must admit, it was a very close second, but indeed a second to the MQA format. The overall width of the presentation was not quite as wide and the perceptible ferocity of James striking the piano keys at times was not as distinct. Make no mistake, the differences I noticed were very slight and were I not looking for any differences, with the exception of the sonic width, I might not have noticed much of a difference at all. From a frequency range, clarity, definition and accuracy standpoint, the SACD disc was almost on par with the MQA disc.
In regard to chlara – “evo sessions,” the MQA version was much the same as the Bob James selection. The music almost “exploded” from the speakers. There was a power and authority in the guitar playing that was easily noticeable. The sometimes transient percussion that is oftentimes difficult to hear, and makes music more interesting, was readily noticeable. There was excellent separation of the instruments and a lot of air around them as well. I also thought that at times, the presentation was a little bright but that was in all probability the recording itself and not the audio system. In all honesty, the attributes of the MQA recordings were very similar in both discs. This makes sense as both were released by the same production team.
Compared to the “chlara” SACD version, the results were much the same as what I experienced on the Bob James disc. I noticed the presentation was not quite as “large” and the impact, especially on guitar, was not as powerful as the MQA version. It was almost as if the strings, when played with authority, were not struck as hard. Also, the separation of instruments was not as profound as with MQA but really, not by all that much. In fact, the SACD versions of both sounded very, very good. I would be happy listening to them anytime I played music.
The above comparison was my original goal, but I wanted to compare things in a few different ways. Streaming of both in MQA through Tidal compared to the physical MQA CD’s was certainly surprising. I immediately felt the physical disc was better than the streamed version, again, in MQA. I know that streaming, depending on the system, can introduce profound amounts of jitter and consequently devastate a digital signal. This condition is greatly reduced when playing a physical CD. So perhaps jitter had something to do with the fact that physical MQA sounded slightly better than streamed MQA. It could also have been the streaming setup of my system compared to the CD player. Really, though, the streamed version in MQA had all the earmarks of the physical version, just not taken to quite the same level.
Finally, I compared all the various formats, physical and streamed, to CD quality. This was not a surprising conclusion. MQA and SACD sounded better, regardless of physical format or streamed, than Red Book CD. Not a huge difference but again, it would be noticeable. I should also mention that I thought all of them, regardless of the format, sounded very good. In summary, I thought both physical CD’s in MQA sounded better than their streamed counterparts. The SACD physical format was a very close second to the physical MQA and quite possibly equal to, and depending on the system, better than streamed MQA. Any of the MQA and SACD version were better than CD quality, or 44.1 / 16.
Does any of this change my mind about MQA? No, not really. I have always maintained I have heard MQA sound profoundly excellent but also sound not so different than CD quality. That has absolutely as much to do with the system as with the recording. I will admit, however, I was very impressed with what I heard with an MQA formatted physical CD. On the right system, a physical MQA disc could conceivably be the pinnacle of digital music. But this would be very system dependent. Availability of MQA discs likely negates building a substantial library with them. If, however, this is a format that could catch on, and availability increases, hey, maybe so. Given the ever-increasing popularity of Internet based music at a minimum of CD quality, I question if the MQA format will ever take a firm hold in the physical realm. If it does, I feel sure it will be one more of a growing list of contentiously debatable subjects.
If there are any consistencies in the audiophile hobby it is that there are almost no unilateral agreements. Differing opinions exist on almost everything audio related. We have any number of amp and speaker technologies. We have multiple music formats and even a few not considered as meeting the basic acceptable standard of audiophile grade sonics. For about two decades, we had digital music solely in the form of a CD. Streaming changed all that, almost overnight. MQA is poised to possibly change things in a profound way, depending, that is, on the acceptance of what is, admittedly, a controversial subject.
I recently received four discs from our editor, Steven Stone. Two of the discs were mastered in MQA and two were SACD. The original purpose was a sonic comparison of MQA to SACD in the physical realm. I decided to include CD quality as well – and a couple other comparisons thrown in for good measure. As to the two selections, one is the Bob James Trio – “Espresso” and the second is chlara – “evo sessions.” While the links are for the purchase of the MQA physical disc, both are also available on Tidal in CD quality and MQA as well. For the comparison, an MQA encoded DAC was used and amplitude of all the recordings were level matched.
I elected to jump straight to the presumed top of the food chain and immediately chose Bob James’ MQA disc. When I pushed play, I immediately heard an expansiveness in the overall presentation. It simply sounded big. I’ve been to several of James’ live performances and to a certain degree, this large-scale presentation reminded me of those concerts. Reminded me of, please note, NOT identical to. There was also a perceptible ferocity in how he sometimes struck the keys. It actually sounded quite surprising. I also noticed that on piano solos, and especially on more robust passages, there was a “reverberation” in the sound as his fingers struck the keys. I also felt the notes were better sustained, that is they hung in the air longer than what I would think CD quality would represent. This level of detail is what I would expect to hear when a piano was played live. As you might expect from such a high resolution recording, the clarity was magnificent. Frequency range was also spot on – that is, the bass line could be easily followed and the mids and highs sounded very accurate.
As to the SACD disc, I must admit, it was a very close second, but indeed a second to the MQA format. The overall width of the presentation was not quite as wide and the perceptible ferocity of James striking the piano keys at times was not as distinct. Make no mistake, the differences I noticed were very slight and were I not looking for any differences, with the exception of the sonic width, I might not have noticed much of a difference at all. From a frequency range, clarity, definition and accuracy standpoint, the SACD disc was almost on par with the MQA disc.
Compared to the “chlara” SACD version, the results were much the same as what I experienced on the Bob James disc. I noticed the presentation was not quite as “large” and the impact, especially on guitar, was not as powerful as the MQA version. It was almost as if the strings, when played with authority, were not struck as hard. Also, the separation of instruments was not as profound as with MQA but really, not by all that much. In fact, the SACD versions of both sounded very, very good. I would be happy listening to them anytime I played music.
Finally, I compared all the various formats, physical and streamed, to CD quality. This was not a surprising conclusion. MQA and SACD sounded better, regardless of physical format or streamed, than Red Book CD. Not a huge difference but again, it would be noticeable. I should also mention that I thought all of them, regardless of the format, sounded very good. In summary, I thought both physical CD’s in MQA sounded better than their streamed counterparts. The SACD physical format was a very close second to the physical MQA and quite possibly equal to, and depending on the system, better than streamed MQA. Any of the MQA and SACD version were better than CD quality, or 44.1 / 16.
Anyone else A/B ed the regular CD and the MQA CD re-release of the same album (did you notice sound slightly beyond [farther left and farther right than the LF and RF speakers] on the MQA CD remaster?
(edit: above listening test w/Dolby Pro-Logic 2 music mode surround sound synthesizing of both the regular CD and the MQA CD.)
Kirk Bayne
(edit: above listening test w/Dolby Pro-Logic 2 music mode surround sound synthesizing of both the regular CD and the MQA CD.)
Kirk Bayne
Last edited:
Goona
800 Club - QQ All-Star
Played The Police: Every Breath You Take (Singles) Full MQA 352.8KHZ this morning. This disc sounded a close second to the SHM SACDs even without MQA, turn MQA on and it takes the listen to another level. Smooth analog sound for the first time. Had always had doubts about the SHM Sacds needless to say they are now on discogs for sale.
Owen Smith
1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
"Smooth analog sound for the first time." ie. enough distortion added by the MQA process to reduce the fidelity to the point that it sounds analog.
Similar threads
