Has anyone analyzed this demo?
MQA Masters Tested Can you Hear the Difference?? PS Audio DirectStream Perfect Bridge II
Wondering if any Bridge II owners have tried playing files ripped from one of the few MQA CD’s available and, if so, what were the results?
Michael - Denmark saidI was curious to try this YouTube audio on my Sammy tab earphone, I know the trial wouldn't make much sense.Has anyone analyzed this demo?
MQA Masters Tested Can you Hear the Difference??
I was curious enough to try Micheal Bubli 16bit with full on volume, then MQA 24bit one scale level down…
I have to say that I still feel, as I have since his early raves, that RH either is party to information he’s not sharing, or I would like a prescription for whatever he’s on:
http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/let-the-revolution-begin/
If he’s purely talking about timing issues informing the development of codecs and products, I agree. I bought a DMP, and it demonstrated to my satisfaction that the whole micro-timing thing is key. There’s a lot we still don’t know, and MQA hopefully will not be the only game in town, unless we let them have it.
Not my DAC but I’ve recently incorporated PCM->DSD128 thru Audirvana on my SGCD. IMO PCM-> DSD is pure magic. On the SGCD I do NOT prefer MQA. There is a sound quality difference… it is very apparent… but impacts sound in the same way to me that min phase filters make things jump at you but don’t sound natural. My point here is that on my DAC MQA for PCM is small fish… making minor SQ changes. PCM-DSD is a transformative change… the kind of change when you hear it… you don’t want to live without it. So far MQA + PCM —>DSD is not better to my ears than plain PCM—>DSD. IMO PCM—>DSD is the game changer… it just doesn’t have a huge marketing department behind it.
@badbeef said I have to say that I still feel, as I have since his early raves, that RH either is party to information he's not sharing, or I would like a prescription for whatever he's on...RH suggests that MQA represents a paradigm shift. In his article, he notes that the British mathematician working with Bob Stuart has applied the same digital sampling disciplines as used in astronomy and medical imaging…with insights into psychoacoustics and neuroscientific advances… The article plainly surmises that MQA is a new, and superior, method/ process for dealing with the all important issue of timing.
Hum . . . here I thought MQA was just a digital EQ process – something that’s not really desirable from a purist’s perspective. What are the ‘other’ experts smoking . . . I mean, what are the other experts saying about this?
timequest - yes, if ALL it were doing was “fixing” the time smear inherent in “old paradigm” digital, that would be great. Many, including some mastering engineers, have noted that it is doing other stuff we don’t want, which seem to be some of the same things that people are wetting themselves over, sonically. As Elk has pointed out for a while now, he, or I, or any competent engineer, could make most things “sound better” to most people with some judicious use of EQ and compression (which seems to be what MQA is doing, at least with their current algorithm settings).
Could be that when people start actually Recording with it, rather than Remastering, we might hear what it has to offer - or not.
1 Like
I’ve had the Bridge II for a number weeks now, and I’m ready to add my impressions to the stack here. Since I got the bridge and MControl HD (iPad), I’ve listened to a lot of standard Tidal tracks and also Masters. I keep coming back to the Masters, and it now comprises probably 70 or 80% of my listening time because the sound is just so clear, liquid, detailed, and with more coherent bass and midrange. It’s a significant improvement; DirectStream/Tidal MQA provides me with audio quality beyond any of my other music formats or sources.
We know that, what do you think is up there above 48,000hz?
Remember when they said it all had to be done inside the DAC? Well, now the first unfold is magically done with software. I still think if enough DAC manufacturers hold their ground, we will either see a little box that will go between your source, and DAC, or they will eventually offer the full unfolding with software.
Look at the Bridge II, that will do the full unfolding just as an input. If Meridian can sell a complete MQA DAC for $199, why not a digital to digital MQA box for $149?
It is the only way I could afford to hear the second unfolding. Paul is adding it to the Bridge II, only because his customers wanted it. Ayre, Schitt, and I think Benchmark refuse to add it to their carefully designed DACs.
I am fine with the first unfold using Tidal’s bug loaded player, but would have to think very hard, if they raise their price to access it. The MQA files usually sound better, but we now know it is partially due to being a different version.
Elk, you may want to move these two posts to the other MQA topic, as this is supposed to be good sounding files.
Last night I was doing some Coke/Pepsi tests with my wife (who has no idea what MQA is). I was using mConnect on an Android phone with Tidal streams.
The basic summary was this:
-
There were some where you couldn’t tell any difference.
-
There were some where MQA sounded better, but by a small margin.
-
There were some (like James Taylor - Sweet Baby James album for instance) where MQA sounded obviously worse - not even close. It was the only ones where my wife made a face and wondered if I was deaf.
Thoughts?
David
What you both heard all makes perfect sense, and is consistent with what many/most hear. Often it’s difficult to know if you are comparing the same versions of the songs though, which makes it impossible to judge MQA’s qualities on its own. I’m more curious/suspect if someone says that they are sure that all MQA files are better.
Of course, you have to remember to mentally add “in my system” to every opinion you read. Or, “in the system we were using”, or, “compared to the other sources I have/we had on hand”, etc. We all have a tendency to make statements like, “X is the best sound there is” when we mean “the best I’ve heard IMS” - an acronym I hope will catch on like IMO : )
May be old news to some: An interesting article, and a thread on AA linked in that article. Sums up some of the issues and problems with the whole “Controversy”. Mmmm…makes me want to just put on that old Prince song and forget about the Whole Thing : )
Soundstage article on MQA:
The above has some good links including:
Ayre’s Charles Hansen posts on MQA and trades responses (in a friendly way) with Michael Lavorgna:
https://www.audioasylum.com/forums/critics/messages/8/87573.html
Mark Waldrep of AIX Records has expressed his opinions of MQA on his site RealHD-Audio.com you may find informative.
Hoping to revive this dormant topic long enough to ask a question.
I have a DSJr recently updated to 3.4.5 of the Bridge II software and Redcloud. I’ve been streaming MQA through Tidal for a few months now, and have been pleased and in some cases astonished at the sound quality. My question, perhaps for Paul and/or Ted is about the MQA decoding.
I understand that the “unfolding” of the MQA compressed file is done in the Bridge. On MConnect, when I select an MQA file as indicated by a [M] in the Tidal brower, it shows the unfolded bit-depth and sample rate on the App, and corresponding on the DSJr display. I trust that the unfolded file is streaming to the FPGA.
My question is about the MQA decoding in the FPGA. Even if the unfolded file is sent to the DAC correctly, doesn’t it still require MQA specific/proprietary decoding? Previously, Paul stated that PS Audio would not compromise the DAC’s sound quality just to accommodate MQA, and Ted said that all of the MQA stuff happens in the Bridge.
Can someone clarify?
Thank you.
The “specific” bit you’re referring to in MQA where they tune the unfold to the DAC turns out to be pretty simple (at least in our case). They only needed to know what our filter system looked like in the DAC and then the unfold (taking place in the Bridge) is tweaked for the filter characteristics of the DAC. Not the other way around. Thus, our DAC remains unchanged.
The MQA processing in the DS is done in the Bridge - that seemed the logical place since MQA is designed for streaming. Perhaps it’s not obvious but the Bridge module is identical in the DS Jr and on the Bridge card for the DS Sr. In the DS Jr the FPGA provides the clock support that the hardware on the DS Sr Bridge card provides but otherwise the FPGA knows diddly about Bridge processing.
[Edit - Paul beat me 
]
Thanks for the quick and reassuring responses, gentlemen!
Chris - beware that your Astonishment is not related to not having any effing idea whatsoever (as ALL of us don’t) what the SOURCE files are for the MQA vs. non-MQA stuff. I (and Elk, Acuvox, and others) can take any given file you have in your current library, and which you are comparing MQA to, and make it More Magical. Also note that some MQA files sound Amazingly Worse than other existing TIDAL files.
The deal is that One Way or Another (Debbie said: “I’m gonna getchagetchagetchagetcha”) we have NO IDEA about the files we are “comparing”…that is, the MQA and non-MQA files on Tidal, for example? Do you know the provenance of both? No? Neither does anyone else.
No one, to my knowledge has said, “THE MQA FILES WERE MADE FROM THE IDENTICAL MASTER AS THE EXISTING TIDAL FILE”. And as such, one can make NO meaningful comparisons, or attribute the “improvements”…or for that matter, the Negative Effects…to MQA. EVEN IF they had been made from the same master - the MQA’s are Remasters. Regardless, people keep telling me, “But the MQA sounds Better/Magical!”. Better and Magical-er than What?
2 Likes
badbeef saidChris - beware that your Astonishment is not related to not having any effing idea whatsoever (as ALL of us don’t) what the SOURCE files are for the MQA vs. non-MQA stuff.
Yes, I understand and have previously prefaced my statements about MQA with something to the effect of, “subjective, totally non-scientific and with no idea if the recordings were from the same master”. I simply forgot to cover my ass this particular time.
So when you say you are astonished - by what, and compared to what? Know what I’m sayin’?
As Les McCann said:
”Looks like we always end up in a rut (everybody now!)
Tryin’ to make it real, compared to what? C’mon baby!”