Octavius Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 To me the great appeal of MQA is the possibility/ promise of getting truly good SQ in a streaming service. I'm a Tidal user and although not bad in terms of SQ IMO it's still a few notches below that of local files played via USB asynchronous. I'm hoping MQA will at least help to close the gap. I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.- Groucho Marx Link to comment
mumsoft Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 You can sell the other 16 then. ;-) Marc Link to comment
BigGuy Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 You can sell the other 16 then.;-) Marc ... and probably still not have enough $ to pay for the MQA version! ;-) Link to comment
firedog Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 What music will we be able to listen to in MQA? Some audiophile plonk? Or retreads of old analog tapes? Seems like deja vu all over again...HDCD, XRCD, K2, SACD...audio geek fodder. On the other hand, no reason for Myetk not to add to its hyper flexible product design approach...almost 900 posts here, many about the MQA mumbo jumbo. I'd think the main use would be in streaming. Certainly average Joe's aren't going to be rebuying files in MQA, and I doubt many audiophiles will either. If MQA is shown to sound better/be available through software decode then it may gain some kind of foothold in "bought" media. Again, my main fear is that we will all end up being sold MQA'd recordings without having a choice - because some albums will only be available in the MQA version, and the recordings will sound worse without playback on MQA hardware. Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protectors +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Protection>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three BXT (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three BXT Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
RJ Kamsma Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 I'd think the main use would be in streaming. Certainly average Joe's aren't going to be rebuying files in MQA, and I doubt many audiophiles will either. If MQA is shown to sound better/be available through software decode then it may gain some kind of foothold in "bought" media. Again, my main fear is that we will all end up being sold MQA'd recordings without having a choice - because some albums will only be available in the MQA version, and the recordings will sound worse without playback on MQA hardware. The two albums I have sound excellent as 24 bit 44.1 KHz flac files. Robert-Jan Link to comment
mumsoft Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 Just download some of the FREE samples that 2L offers, and judge for yourself. As Mr. Kamstra has pointed out, I expect they will sound BETTER than average. But of course, they will sound worse than with MQA enabled hardware. That's a no brainer. Marc Link to comment
Totsipaki Posted March 28, 2016 Author Share Posted March 28, 2016 Those 2L Fileshave been available for some time now.. What (rather impatiently) remains is the most crucial element, that of the BROOKLYN MQA enabling firmware so that true comparisons and listening impressions replace speculation and unexplainably vitriolic or enthusiastic comments about something no one at least in this conversation has any idea how It may sound at least through a high performance device like the Brooklyn. Last but not least. Even If MQA exceeds expectations and truly sounds better than HD Audio (which It self was many times disappointing) there is the issue of software availability through the only channel that cam make MQA take hold which is streaming. That last most crucial element is what will take the longest time to be hopefully fulfilled. In the meantime I can not wait for this thread to discuss upon fact concerning MQA for a change, not that anybody here is to blame for guessing of course.. Link to comment
John769 Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 Looks like it's great with DSD but how good is the Brooklyn with PCM? Is it competitive at its price point or is there better value to be had elsewhere for PCM only playback? Link to comment
anroj Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 Looks like it's great with DSD but how good is the Brooklyn with PCM? Is it competitive at its price point or is there better value to be had elsewhere for PCM only playback? The Brooklyn sounds great with PCM, but IMO, sounds much better at DSD256. Link to comment
John769 Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 The Brooklyn sounds great with PCM, but IMO, sounds much better at DSD256. Not surprising you would say better with DSD but I was hoping for a more concrete PCM comparison with a few other dacs. Anyhow, seems as if the only way to find out is to audition one. Sorry to drag the discussion away from the riveting subject of MQA Link to comment
firedog Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 The two albums I have sound excellent as 24 bit 44.1 KHz flac files. The question is whether playing back a MQA'd album without MQA software/hardware sounds worse than it would if the album wasn't MQA'd. Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protectors +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Protection>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three BXT (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three BXT Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
orgel Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 The question is whether playing back a MQA'd album without MQA software/hardware sounds worse than it would if the album wasn't MQA'd. And the corollary to that is if it does sound worse, will Tidal (1) provide some kind of software decoding so that it doesn't, or (2) offer an option to receive a non-MQA'd stream. Nothing whatsoever against the Brooklyn, which I'm eyeing very seriously, but not everyone is going to run out and buy an MQA-capable DAC. A lot of people aren't even going to have MQA decoding on their checklist when shopping for a new DAC. --David Listening Room: Mac mini (Roon Core) > iMac (HQP) > exaSound PlayPoint (as NAA) > exaSound e32 > W4S STP-SE > Benchmark AHB2 > Wilson Sophia Series 2 (Details) Office: Mac Pro > AudioQuest DragonFly Red > JBL LSR305 Mobile: iPhone 6S > AudioQuest DragonFly Black > JH Audio JH5 Link to comment
RJ Kamsma Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 The question is whether playing back a MQA'd album without MQA software/hardware sounds worse than it would if the album wasn't MQA'd. if you or somebody else is really interested: download and compare the files from 2L and judge for yourself ;-) Robert-Jan Link to comment
mansr Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 The question is whether playing back a MQA'd album without MQA software/hardware sounds worse than it would if the album wasn't MQA'd. All the evidence says it does. Link to comment
kennyb123 Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 All the evidence says it does. MQA is still in its infancy. The evidence is limited and may point more to early hiccups. Fair-minded people would get that. Also the "evidence" I've seen misses a key point for those of us who care about how MQA will benefit streaming. The resulting MQA file is smaller. The valid comparison is therefore to hear how a high res file that was been shrunk by MQA sounds relative to the same track in CD resolution that would normally be streamed on TIDAL. Digital: Sonore opticalModule > Uptone EtherRegen > Shunyata Sigma Ethernet > Antipodes K30 > Shunyata Omega USB > Gustard X26pro DAC < Mutec REF10 SE120 Amp & Speakers: Spectral DMA-150mk2 > Aerial 10T Foundation: Stillpoints Ultra, Shunyata Denali v1 and Typhon x1 power conditioners, Shunyata Delta v2 and QSA Lanedri Gamma Revelation and Infinity power cords, QSA Lanedri Gamma Revelation XLR interconnect, Shunyata Sigma Ethernet, MIT Matrix HD 60 speaker cables, GIK bass traps, ASC Isothermal tube traps, Stillpoints Aperture panels, Quadraspire SVT rack, PGGB 256 Link to comment
RJ Kamsma Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 All the evidence says it does. Sorry what evidence? If you compare a DXD file and listen to an MQA version of that file on a non MQA I guess the SQ will be worse. But I think that a CD quality file that is MQA'ed will not sound worse. But that is something we will find out in the future. But you already know? In the meantime I really enjoy the SQ of the piano on Mezzotints on my Brooklyn. By the way I appreciate the Sbooster LPSP more and more and it doesn't matter if the files are PCM, MQA or DSD. Robert-Jan Link to comment
orgel Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 The valid comparison is therefore to hear how a high res file that was been shrunk by MQA sounds relative to the same track in CD resolution that would normally be streamed on TIDAL. Wouldn't the valid comparison be to a non-MQA'd file of the same resolution that has been losslessly compressed using an "open" format? Doesn't Tidal stream FLAC files now? Note that I'm not saying MQA sucks or anything like that. Currently, using Roon/HQP, streamed Red Book–quality FLACs from Tidal sound great, so my concern is that if Tidal gets to the point where they're streaming only MQA'd files, will they sound less great unless I get a new, MQA-capable DAC and stop using HQP? It's hard to get excited about that. Purchased downloads are not a concern for me at all. There's nothing that forces me to buy MQA-encoded downloads; it's all about what a streaming service might push at me. --David Listening Room: Mac mini (Roon Core) > iMac (HQP) > exaSound PlayPoint (as NAA) > exaSound e32 > W4S STP-SE > Benchmark AHB2 > Wilson Sophia Series 2 (Details) Office: Mac Pro > AudioQuest DragonFly Red > JBL LSR305 Mobile: iPhone 6S > AudioQuest DragonFly Black > JH Audio JH5 Link to comment
mansr Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 MQA is still in its infancy. The evidence is limited and may point more to early hiccups. Fair-minded people would get that. Also the "evidence" I've seen misses a key point for those of us who care about how MQA will benefit streaming. The resulting MQA file is smaller. The valid comparison is therefore to hear how a high res file that was been shrunk by MQA sounds relative to the same track in CD resolution that would normally be streamed on TIDAL. Sorry what evidence? If you compare a DXD file and listen to an MQA version of that file on a non MQA I guess the SQ will be worse. But I think that a CD quality file that is MQA'ed will not sound worse. But that is something we will find out in the future. But you already know? In the meantime I really enjoy the SQ of the piano on Mezzotints on my Brooklyn.By the way I appreciate the Sbooster LPSP more and more and it doesn't matter if the files are PCM, MQA or DSD. Undecoded MQA is objectively lower than CD quality and larger than a regular CD-quality FLAC. Link to comment
RJ Kamsma Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Undecoded MQA is objectively lower than CD quality and larger than a regular CD-quality FLAC. How easy life must be with all the answers available and no investigation necessary. Congratulations! Poor me not knowing anything and in my ignorance stepping in every commercial trap. Robert-Jan Link to comment
mumsoft Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 objectivity lower... how about that? Just saying it is so doesn't make it so. From whatever I know about MQA is foremost its ability to reduce timing errors. An MQA'd file has it in it. At least that is the promise. Marc Link to comment
mansr Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 objectivity lower... how about that? Just saying it is so doesn't make it so.From whatever I know about MQA is foremost its ability to reduce timing errors. An MQA'd file has it in it. At least that is the promise. Marc Read Miska's analysis: http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/miska/some-analysis-and-comparison-mqa-encoded-flac-vs-normal-optimized-hires-flac-674/ Link to comment
kennyb123 Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Read Miska's analysis: http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/miska/some-analysis-and-comparison-mqa-encoded-flac-vs-normal-optimized-hires-flac-674/ One data point from the first available files that doesn't account for what the decoder will do with these files. A fair-minded person would want to consider more evidence before rendering final judgment on a brand new technology. Digital: Sonore opticalModule > Uptone EtherRegen > Shunyata Sigma Ethernet > Antipodes K30 > Shunyata Omega USB > Gustard X26pro DAC < Mutec REF10 SE120 Amp & Speakers: Spectral DMA-150mk2 > Aerial 10T Foundation: Stillpoints Ultra, Shunyata Denali v1 and Typhon x1 power conditioners, Shunyata Delta v2 and QSA Lanedri Gamma Revelation and Infinity power cords, QSA Lanedri Gamma Revelation XLR interconnect, Shunyata Sigma Ethernet, MIT Matrix HD 60 speaker cables, GIK bass traps, ASC Isothermal tube traps, Stillpoints Aperture panels, Quadraspire SVT rack, PGGB 256 Link to comment
mansr Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 The question is whether playing back a MQA'd album without MQA software/hardware sounds worse than it would if the album wasn't MQA'd. One data point from the first available files that doesn't account for what the decoder will do with these files. A fair-minded person would want to consider more evidence before rendering final judgment on a brand new technology. The question was what it sounds like without a decoder. Link to comment
kennyb123 Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 The question was what it sounds like without a decoder. Which tells us absolutely nothing. Why even bring it up here on a thread about the Brooklyn, which has the decoder? It's sort of like judging the Blu-ray video format on a standard definition TV. Digital: Sonore opticalModule > Uptone EtherRegen > Shunyata Sigma Ethernet > Antipodes K30 > Shunyata Omega USB > Gustard X26pro DAC < Mutec REF10 SE120 Amp & Speakers: Spectral DMA-150mk2 > Aerial 10T Foundation: Stillpoints Ultra, Shunyata Denali v1 and Typhon x1 power conditioners, Shunyata Delta v2 and QSA Lanedri Gamma Revelation and Infinity power cords, QSA Lanedri Gamma Revelation XLR interconnect, Shunyata Sigma Ethernet, MIT Matrix HD 60 speaker cables, GIK bass traps, ASC Isothermal tube traps, Stillpoints Aperture panels, Quadraspire SVT rack, PGGB 256 Link to comment
mansr Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Which tells us absolutely nothing. Why even bring it up here on a thread about the Brooklyn, which has the decoder? It's like judging the Blu-ray video format on a standard definition TV. I wasn't the one to bring it up. If you want to discuss it further, let's do that elsewhere. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now