The industry buy-in is, of course, the ability to sell the same music yet again in a different format. Even better, MQA is by definition a protected format, keeping the actual high definition file out of our pesky little paws.
I suspect audiophiles fell for it (including the press) as we love new and shiny, and the exemplar files are cherry picked.
I can easily accept it is an excellent format for streaming when, just like MP3, there is limited bandwidth. (I think MP3 is a brilliant format, allowing one to store and play back files with remarkable fidelity while consuming only a minute amount of bandwidth. MQA appears to be able to do the same for high definition files at Redbook bandwidth.)
I have read the CA MQA article as well as Jim Austin’s with great interest. It brings to mind a question and I don’t recall if this has been discussed here before as it pertains to the Directstream DAC and Bridge II. That question being how does the Directstream handle the “MQA Rendering” if at all? It’s my understanding that the Bridge just unfolds the MQA file at which point it’s sent to the Directstream as a high resolution PCM file. The Directstream then treats that no different than any other PCM file and that no “MQA” specific reconstruction filter is applied. Am I understanding this correctly or does the Bridge do more than just the unfold?
MQA is designed to “precorrect” for the digital filters that follow it. That’s one reason they need to have a copy of the device with MQA incorporated - so they can measure what the system does and customize their output to compensate for what the rest of the DAC will do.
Put another way: MQA is comfortable with high enough rate PCM being able to represent their output faithfully enough.
There are some fascinating assertions about MQA in Steve Stone’s review of Digital and Personal Electronics from Axpona 2018:
"Since MQA was announced I’ve attended more than a half-dozen public demos in addition to the many hours I’ve spent listening at home on my own systems. At AXPONA I had a chance to partake of another demo, courtesy of Peter McGrath in the Paragon Audio room, with the Wilson Audio Alexandria XLF loudspeakers. Actually, I attended the demo twice. The first time I sat in the prime listening seat while during the second session I sat in the seat directly next to the prime listening seat. McGrath’s demo, using his own stunningly good recordings, codified for me two vital details about MQA demos and MQA listening in general: My first truth, which I have found universal, is that if you really want to hear what MQA can do, you must begin with a well-recorded phase-correct recording of instruments in a real acoustic space. MQA can’t make a badly mixed studio recording sound good. My own live concert recordings with the purist sonic characteristics have sounded better when encoded into MQA. Peter McGrath’s magnificent recordings were also improved by allowing an easier listen into the mix and more readily identifiable soundstaging. Peter called it “more human.” To hear MQA’s subtle but powerful differences you must listen to a good recording of Mahler or Mozart, not Metallica.
The second and equally important detail about MQA A/B listening comparison tests is if you are not in the prime listening position, which is the one that triangulates most precisely with the transducers used during the listening session, you are not in a position to judge MQA sound quality properly. When I was even one seat to the side of the central listening position the effects of MQA were vastly reduced to the point where they were almost nonexistent. I have been in sessions where even professional recording engineers (and audio reviewers) have made dubious (and IMHO downright wrong) assessments of MQA’s sonic effects based on a group session where almost everyone in the room is in a bad seat (which is any seat that is not properly triangulated with the transducers). In all the other seats you might as well be listening through a Dixie cup and a string—really.
So, if you have an opportunity to participate in a group listening session evaluating MQA, unless you have THE SEAT, i.e. the sweet spot, your opinions are not going to be correct and you won’t be hearing any of what I have come to believe are fundamentally profound (but subtle) sonic improvements that MQA-encoded files can have over the original WAV (or even DSD) masters. Let the flames begin…"
Seems to me, if you accept his observations - nay, “codified” “truths” - it makes MQA a nearly useless codec, IMO.
I was in both of Paragon’s Wilson rooms, and did not necessarily sit in “THE seat” in either case - but not, however, in a seat I would consider bad under ordinary circs…so I have nothing to contribute ; )
Having lived through the quadraphonic era replete with CD-4 and SQ decoders, it seems to me like the MQA system is best used for the folks who want a better level of sound than they can get from the Best-Buy class systems. Anyone who’s spent $50k on a DS, BHK pre, BHK monoblocks & IRS-class speakers won’t hear any benefit. The mind boggling thing was the graph on the group delay vs. frequency–We’re spending megabucks to reduce that delay with speaker and interconnect cables, and these guys throw in a non-linear curve like that??? WTF?!
Best of luck, no thanks, MQA, as I see no need to replace my library (Besides, the music I listen to won’t even become available on MQA for decades yet, if at all. Some of it’s out of print already and they sure won’t release it again, much less on MQA)
But I will hand it to 'em to get folks to break down and buy more gear, I guess there’s always a positive spin one can put on it.
Initially I was a believer. I bought a Mytek Brooklyn and I used it exclusively with Woo Amps and Utopia headphones. I was comparing Tidal MQA and Tidal streaming of the same tracks. I felt that MQA offered more detail and impact. As time went on MQA became harsher for lack of a better word and almost unpleasant. I didn’t hear much if any advantage.
Fast forward to my current rig with DSD and BHK 300’s and I’m not impressed. I no longer seek out MQA and I hope that it doesn’t become a default standard for streaming and recording.
At the local audio club a while back a guest was presenting a vinyl DSP processor which treated pops, clicks, surface noise, etc. Some (many?) of the audience thought that the unprocessed sound was clearly better, e.g. that the processing took the life out of the music, but the presenter was so sure that the processed sound was better that he kept misunderstanding the feedback that the unprocessed was better (at least to some of us who were listening.)
It’s pretty easy to make things clearer (tilting the spectrum up, etc.), but doing it without somehow negatively affecting the music is much harder, IMO.
I can see where someone would like MQA if their system isn’t handling the midbass or low mids very well. To me MQA tends to thin out this area while increasing attack. This could clean up incorrectly set up systems or inferior equipment.
This is the area though where acoustic guitar body comes through and vocals gain a lifelike quality. Without this area everything loses its intrinsic character and sound more like a recording than real.
Unless you are exceedingly cautious and thoughtful, it is easy to remove portions of the musical signal with noise reduction. There are many parameters to adjust - all of which can easily do damage.
High-end noise reduction programs/plug-ins allow one to output only that which is being removed from the original signal. By carefully listening to that which is being removed, one can avoid deleterious artifacts. But it takes work.
The easiest to remove is steady-state noise, such as the sound of an HVAC system.
