Devialet Chat

In my bedroom I have meridian 7200se system the mqa sounds fantastic . Unbelievable good.

(01-Oct-2017, 19:03)no32 Wrote: [ -> ]In my bedroom I have meridian 7200se system the mqa  sounds fantastic . Unbelievable good.

Do you ever compare MQA with standard on the 7200SE's?

Yes , i can play from Roon , HD , Cd and turntable so pretty much every standard

And? Any difference?

MQA is very good , outstanding. The only issue is the music ,I don’t choose my music based on. Sound quality

There are some very interesting blind testing results on Archimago's blog:
http://archimago.blogspot.fi/2017/09/mqa...rt-ii.html

I find that synopsis of various articles quite interesting http://www.soundstagehifi.com/index.php/...-different. I thought from MQA's statements that preserving time coherence was the major aspect of that format to yield a more realistic music reproduction but is that really verifiable?
Initially I was buying MQA's blurbs but now I am quite skeptical. But if MQA is just not better than PCM (i.e. no technological advance) but promotes better mastering it could yield in the end better sound quality.

(03-Oct-2017, 06:41)Music or sound Wrote: [ -> ]I find that synopsis of various articles quite interesting http://www.soundstagehifi.com/index.php/...-different.  I thought from MQA's statements that preserving time coherence was the major aspect of that format to yield a more realistic music reproduction but is that really verifiable?  
Initially I was buying MQA's blurbs but now I am quite skeptical. But if MQA is just not better than PCM (i.e. no technological advance) but promotes better mastering it could yield in the end better sound quality.

Archimago takes software decoded 24/48 MQA tracks (which "unfolds to" 24/96) and then  upsamples them to 24/192 using a filter "typical of MQA rendering".  His test compares those upsampled files to the original 24/192 tracks. 

The test results show that there is no audible difference between the two files, for the people who took the test (we may assume that was people interested in music reproduction quality).  

He concluded  "There's just no consistent evidence of a significant difference."

1) The result is a win for MQA since a 24/48 source tracks were judged blind to sound AS GOOD AS  original 24/196 tracks. Good news for people who want to listen to streamed music.

2) The test is flawed since the software decoded stream is being UPSAMPLED with his "typical of MQA rendering" filter, not actually ones actually provided by MQA in a licensed "Rendering" DAC. So the test is really just measuring the ability of the MQA software to compress 24/192 files down to 24/48 and decode them successfully. Not a test of the de-blurring aspect of MQA (except for any source ADC de-blurring and perhaps a "generic DAC" de-blurr profile which may be used for a software decode.)

To my ears MQA tracks sound lovely,  whether software decoded in Tidal or fully decoded & rendered on my low cost explorer2 DAC. 

As Tommy Lee Jones said memorably in The Fugitive  "I don't Care"  if MQA has hidden DRM  or makes lots of money or becomes a widely adopted standard. Musicians are impoverished and if MQA helps the music industry make more money then some will percolate down, which will be a good thing IMO. So far MQA is costing me little or nothing.

Agree with Music or Sound. MQA won't benefit anyone, but MQA Ltd.

(04-Oct-2017, 18:03)maxijazz Wrote: [ -> ]Agree with Music or Sound. MQA won't benefit anyone, but MQA Ltd.

Seconded.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk