(15-Mar-2017, 19:18)Morten Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks for the replies, I wonder if Devialat will incorporate MQA in the 200 version...
Kind regards Morten
Many of us here believe that will never happen.....Devialet does not seem to be willing to work with companys from the outside and do we even know if it is possible to get the DAC in a Devialet MQA certified?
(15-Mar-2017, 20:00)octaviars Wrote: [ -> ] (15-Mar-2017, 19:18)Morten Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks for the replies, I wonder if Devialat will incorporate MQA in the 200 version...
Kind regards Morten
Many of us here believe that will never happen.....Devialet does not seem to be willing to work with companys from the outside and do we even know if it is possible to get the DAC in a Devialet MQA certified?
I doubt it too at least the certification part, because as much MQA may have value as a streaming protocol, the DAC certification part is just BS....
Jean-Marie
(21-Mar-2017, 11:10)GuillaumeB Wrote: [ -> ] (21-Mar-2017, 10:19)Confused Wrote: [ -> ]Some interesting reading:
https://www.xivero.com/blog/hypothesis-p...a-limited/
Yet more MQA bashing.
Guillaume
Views on MQA are getting very tribal I think. Over the last month I have read stuff stating that MQA is the best thing ever and a revolution in audio sound quality reproduction. I have also read that that MQA is nothing more that a way of extracting more cash from music lovers. I have heard MQA in a demonstration, but never in my own system, so personally I have not made up my mind. I think the reality is that the MQA bashers do have some good points, but also the mastering side of MQA and the ability to correct analogue to digital conversion errors in the original mastering do offer the potential for genuine improvements in sound quality. So I think both tribal factions are wrong, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I have to say that I am looking forward to Roon implementing software decoding of MQA so I can try for myself.
I have heard MQA in my main system and I can say for certain that it sounds wonderful. It serves a purpose and that is to stream high resolution music without taking up too much bandwidth on a slow internet connection. This can only be a good thing. But as for paying for MQA downloads I dont think I will be doing that. I would download 128 or 256 DSD files instead if available.
It's been 6 months since the last post on this thread so I felt it's time to revive it. Not because I started it and I need my ego stroked
but because I'm interested to read your thoughts about whether or not you listen to MQA now it's freely available on Tidal. And does it make a difference in your view?
I've got a sneaky suspicion that most of you don't seek out specific MQA albums on Tidal otherwise there would be much more written about it. So is MQA a red herring? (what does that mean anyway?)
(01-Oct-2017, 05:27)Pim van Vliet Wrote: [ -> ]I'm interested to read your thoughts about whether or not you listen to MQA now it's freely available on Tidal. And does it make a difference in your view?
No, I don't listen to MQA albums. I have compared them to FLACs few times and every time I ended up to a conclusion that MQA sounded worse.
(01-Oct-2017, 05:27)Pim van Vliet Wrote: [ -> ]It's been 6 months since the last post on this thread so I felt it's time to revive it. Not because I started it and I need my ego stroked but because I'm interested to read your thoughts about whether or not you listen to MQA now it's freely available on Tidal. And does it make a difference in your view?
I've got a sneaky suspicion that most of you don't seek out specific MQA albums on Tidal otherwise there would be much more written about it. So is MQA a red herring? (what does that mean anyway?)
I have an MQA dac (explorer 2) for my desktop system and also for travelling (dragonfly red) and have found myself drifting to MQA versions where available. They mostly seem to be based on good masters and I'm confident even through these less resolving systems that the end result is a step over typical tidal cd quality.
I'm using Roon so have no decoding in my main system and haven't heard anything conclusive either way.
Once the mastering is the same, CD, hi-res and MQA differences seem pretty subtle to me.
Hopefully one of Roon or Devialet will sort out decoding soon and I can make a better judgement.
Pim,
I continue to be enamoured with the sound of MQA, whether from local files or more usually streamed from Tidal - a natural, deep and wide soundstage, a tightly localised solid "body" to instruments and singers.
The 24/96 or 124/192 PCM versions do seem initially more "lively" or "busy" with lots of detail "at the front of the soundstage". No one would or could say it sounds less than very good, but the decoded MQA version consistently pushes the image of the players back into the sound stage, which I have come to believe is a much more natural and musical presentation. It also makes it easier to hear the artistry of great performances. For example I have never heard Phil Collins bring more intensity and emotion to one of his songs than on "The Roof is Leaking" Face Value (2015 Remaster MQA).
I am very open to the possibility that going back to the "best master" has something to do with the improvement I hear from MQA versions, but I note that the MQA improvement is of a similar nature in each case - the soundstage and imaging improves: instruments have more body, drums and cymbals sound more punchy and real and well localised. However the timbre and tonality of the music does not change. Sweet still sounds sweet, reedy, reedy and harsh, harsh.
I would also say that generally I do not like modern remasters - it seems that invariably the dynamic range is compressed. But MQA offers compensating benefits.
I have some local 24/192 and DSD 64 tracks which do sound superb (like Supertramp Crime of the Century remastered 24/192) - even better on my D440 / ProAcD40Rs than MQA 24/192 versions fully hardware decoded on my low cost Meridian explorer2 (albeit analogue into D440). Given the significant improvement I hear on the explorer2 between MQA and non MQA tracks I would really like to hear it "natively" decoded on the D440.
I believe there is the decoding hardware power already to do this , the main issue is Devialet having to come to terms with someone else having "sound ideas" :-)
Just my tuppence worth. Mark