P.S. Ted, I agree too many options can become a bad thing. I don’t think we are in danger of that yet at least for the “audiophile” consumer.
vhiner1 saidAs to the view that the option of using MP3 files has hurt our hobby, I have my doubts about whether that is true. IMHO, it wasn’t the option of compressed files that hurt our hobby; it was the lack of equally convenient and efficiently storable better quality music files . . .
This, and limited bandwidth, inspired the creation of MP3 but if the format had not been invented we would have continued listening to full resolution files. Perhaps this would have better for the hobby.
It is interesting to contrast audio with video. There is compressed video which still looks good, but is small. For the home, resolution and quality keeps increasing, and enjoys endless consumer demand.
I doubt the existence of MP3 increased exposure of musical types and styles. Consumer taste remains narrow and appears not to have expanded.
How about this: Options are neither good nor bad.They just are.Works for me. :)
rmueller1 said If I find myself in a strange city with a choice to make between several local restaurants and McDonalds, sometimes I will opt for McD's.I have long thought this is one of the major appeals of fast food; you always know what you are going to get. McDonald's works very hard to accomplish this. For example, when they went to Russia they grew their own potatoes so that the fries were like they are in the States. It is not as if Russia does not have potatoes.
Thank you (and everyone else!) for the thoughtful discussion.
Elk saidMaybe. But people's listening habits changed for a lot or reasons. For one, thing, there are a lot more things competing for attention, particularly for young people, such as video games, social media, texting, 500 TV channels instead of 4-5, etc. You could argue that MP3s, and portable music players, helped keep music in people's lives to a greater degree than would otherwise have been the case and perhaps, despite all the illegal downloads, helped keep the music business alive. If MQA lives up to the hype (a very, very big "if") and makes it possible for people to have small files that sound really good on devices big and small, that would be great for all of us. As with all counterfactuals, my speculation is no better than the next person's, of course.This, and limited bandwidth, inspired the creation of MP3 but if the format had not been invented we would have continued listening to full resolution files. Perhaps this would have better for the hobby.
BTW, if this discussion had been launched over at CA or some other forums I can think of, it would’ve quickly descended into name calling, the throwing down of gauntlets and ridiculous chest pounding. Here it resulted in great ideas and more food for thought. Kudos to everyone!
Yes, I have been continually impressed with this group.
Additionally interesting to me is those few past members who would engage in personal attacks and had little patience with other’s opinions left on their own. Apparently this is not fertile ground; getting along and being respectful is uncomfortable for them. 
Elk said Yes, I have been continually impressed with this group.Additionally interesting to me is those few past members who would engage in personal attacks and had little patience with other’s opinions left on their own. Apparently this is not fertile ground; getting along and being respectful is uncomfortable for them.
Elk,
Thank you for your post. I stopped looking at some forums, one’s that don’t seem to be carefully moderated. I got tired of seeing people being called “stupid” for the purchase decisions they made. One guy actually said to me that I must be going deaf, because I should know that my DirectStream DAC “has no bass”.
Elk does a terrific job as moderator. He’s managed to be informative, kind, and generous of his time and experience. We value his work highly.
The community should understand Elk and the other community leaders are volunteers - generously giving of their time to help make this a fun and informative place to go.
We are all in their debt.
And I am simply shocked that someone would tell you such a thing as “your deaf” for not hearing what this person heard. There are very few places of sanctuary and refuge from the harsh rhetoric that seems to permeate our society today - and this is one of them, thanks in large part to our volunteers who manage and maintain this forum.
I am honored to be a part of this.
Thanks.
It all starts with the tone you set Paul. We are all in your debt, and your colleagues at PSA. Elk is indeed very generous with his time and knowledge and much appreciated, even if we don’t say so often enough.
As are all the wonderful people here. Thanks!!
ejr1953 said One guy actually said to me that I must be going deaf, because I should know that my DirectStream DAC "has no bass".And I suspect he has never heard a DS. I am always surprised at how people in some forums have no hesitation at all about expressing opinions regarding gear they have not heard or concepts they don't understand.
I also want to thank Paul, Elk and others who keep this a wonderfully civil place where we all can learn.
ejr1953 said One guy actually said to me that I must be going deaf, because I should know that my DirectStream DAC "has no bass".How very sad. Even if one believes it lacks bass, what a dreadful approach. It is much more interesting to ask what someone finds compelling given the lack of bass.
Quads and flea amps also lack bass/slam, but they are both magical for other reasons.
As Magister noted, I doubt he has heard a DS or, if he did, it was on a system which has no bass. 
He’s welcome to come and listen to mine. My DS and 2 JL Fathom subs kick the bass just fine! Too much so, according to my wife. 
ejr1953 saidI’ve spent a little time comparing Tidal MQA & CD quality FLAC streaming comparing the sound of my Meridian Explorer2 DAC and my PS Audio DirectStream DAC (with Torreys), and here are my observations:
[see original post on p.12 for details]
One thing which I should also mention is that some of the MQA albums on Tidal sound like they have been "re-mixed" in addition to being prepared for MQA, i.e. some of the voices have more reverb, some of the guitar tracks sound noticeably louder than the original, etc. So, my comparison isn't exactly "apples to apples", but I am getting the sense that there is "something" to this MQA and doing all the work in hardware.I've found making direct comparisons somewhat awkward, and I don't have an MQA DAC at my disposal to audition hardware "unfolding," but in my situation, I have USUALLY ranked SQ as follows (best to worst, all sources playing through my DSD running Torreys):
-
Hi-Res (192/24 or better) AIFF files played from my Aurender N100h
-
PWT playing redbook CD - or - AIFF file (44/16) playing from Aurender N100h (I don’t hear much difference, if any, between the two)
-
Laptop running Tidal desktop app playing a Master file (software performing the “first unfolding”)
-
Tidal HI-FI file played through the Aurender using the Conductor App.
-
Tidal HI-FI file played via the Laptop/Tidal desktop app
I am not using an AQ Jitterbug or similar device on the laptop’s USB port, which might change things.
The differences between 2-4 are not huge. And I’ve found that my rankings can change depending on the recording. To ejr1953’s point, it seems that all of the MQA files present greater detail in the upper registers to a greater or lesser extent (ambience, harmonics of plucked strings, decay, cymbal shimmer, etc) but at the expense of some coherence in the lower registers (a bit less bass, tightness, and “slam”).
Interestingly, I was also reminded when revisiting some MQA releases of albums from the days of my youth in the 60’s and 70’s, that the biggest determinant of SQ was how carefully the original recording was made. A hi-res delivery of a bad recording is still bad. Fundamentals still rule.
At some point, I suppose I will pick up a Meridian Explorer2 or AQ DragonFly DAC to upgrade my desktop system, and which will allow me to fool around further. Has anyone been able to compare the two? Advice welcome.
Howard saidThank you for a very interesting post! I was particularly struck by the section that I quoted above. I wonder whether this was a choice on MQA's part. In other words, maybe they came up with the folding technique which inherently tilted the tonal balance as you describe; then they decided it was something they could live with for the sake of reduced file size. Or maybe they couldn't get both ends of the spectrum and decided to go with more treble because many listeners find it more interesting/exciting/whatever (unlike others who find it fatiguing).. . . it seems that all of the MQA files present greater detail in the upper registers to a greater or lesser extent (ambience, harmonics of plucked strings, decay, cymbal shimmer, etc) but at the expense of some coherence in the lower registers (a bit less bass, tightness, and "slam").
It would be informative to hear how your impressions change if you ever have the chance to use an MQA-enabled DAC so you get the full unfolding as opposed to the software-only treatment. Maybe the hardware-based decoding gets the full spectrum better.
Kudos to the good old PWT for coming out so well when playing Redbook CDs. You should listen to them with the new DMP!
And you are 100% right about the original recording being the most important factor.
Thanks, magister
Bob Stuart himself says: “MQA draws on recent research in auditory neuroscience, digital coding and in the perception of high-quality sound.” [emphasis mine]
So, I suppose one could assume that MQA might be designed to present information in a certain way. MQA’s take is that timing errors are more damaging than frequency errors, which may imply a trade-off somewhere.
More from Mr. Stuart: “Recent hearing research provides support for the long-standing notion that the time-domain performance of anti-alias and reconstruction filters – most especially steep digital linear-phase filters – is responsible for perceptible degradation of sound quality.” [readers can see his entire article here, if interested: http://bobtalks.co.uk/uncategorized/what-is-mqa/]
Now, my understanding of the DSD is that the upsampling to direct stream eliminates the need for such filters in the reconstruction of the analog signal, so I attribute that to how my rankings came out.
And, yes, I’m saving up for a DMP
I bought the Meridian Explorer2 just to listen to the unfolded version of MQA files on TIDAL via Roon (1.3). I also have the Directstream Dac to compare with.
Switching between Meridian Explorer2 and my Directstream Dac on my preamplifier with the same recording I sadly prefer MQA on the Meridian Explorer2. It even gives me better bass. But as always it is about taste. What you appreciate in music and in sound is personal.
In my ears the sound with MQA and the Meridian Explorer2 is more analouge. Whatever that means.
Many thanks, Stig
I completely agree with your comment that the unfolded MQA files sound more “analog-like.” I’ve noticed the same thing, in spite of the drawbacks of not having the benefits of a full hardware decode, but am at a loss of how to accurately describe it. To me, it’s not the same thing as “resolution,” which is what I was more or less describing in my first post. As noted, I don’t always prefer it depending on the recording, but I do notice it.
Have you (or any other reader) had any opportunity to compare the sound of the MQA/Explorer 2 combination with a 96/24 or better uncompressed high-res file played from a hard drive through the DSD? Since the end-to-end goal of MQA is to deliver an unfolded 96/24 file free of anti-aliasing and reconstruction filter timing errors, and since the DSD is designed to avoid or minimize these issues, the comparison begs to be made (of course, MQA claims to also correct the timing errors that occurred during the initial A-D conversion). Hoping someone out there (maybe Ted and the PS Audio crew?) has done this and can weigh in.
BTW, hats off to the Tidal folks in Malmo. The Hi-Fi SQ is quite listenable overall, and it’s the most fun I’ve had in this hobby in quite some time. I’m still inclined to archive favorite works in lossless files on a hard drive, but Tidal has allowed me to listen to and enjoy a much wider range of content than I could have in the past.
Stig B saidYou've listened to tracks encoded in MQA through an MQA decoder therefore you shouldn't be surprised that it sounds better on the MQA decoder than the DS. Although MQA encoded files are also meant to be played on non-MQA decoders in 16/44 resolution, they're ultimately still primarily made for MQA unfolding. The better test would be to compare the MQA version to 24/96 or better resolution. Even this is difficult because there is no guarantee both are from the same source.I bought the Meridian Explorer2 just to listen to the unfolded version of MQA files on TIDAL via Roon (1.3). I also have the Directstream Dac to compare with.
I would expect MQA encoded files to sound better thru a MQA decoder, just as I would expect a DSD encoded file to sound better thru the DS than the Meridian Ex2.
Looks like Universal Music will be joining Warner and Tidal to offer MQA:
http://www.stereophile.com/content/universal-music-group-goes-mqa#VZ1PV5xCTUmqyWO7.97