MQA at CES

[francisleung]

After reading the posts here, I was slightly prejudiced to think the MQA was another format to fleece audiophiles.

I was mindful that subscribers posting here previously basically made their views on reading rather than on listening. Thus I set out to acquire MQA tracks for comparison listening. I bought two tracks from the 2L catalogue, namely, 2L-049, track 1 and 2L-106 track 4. I bought the 049 piano album previously and downloaded the 106 track recently, both in DXD. I said I was slightly prejudiced because I thought, prior to listening comparisons, the DXD tracks would beat the MQA tracks hand down. Not so!

The comparisons I made were imperfect. Please Note this. First the MQA tracks came in FLAC format which my MacBook Pro was not able to play directly. So I had to resample them to 24/192 WAV. Second, my DAC only goes up to 24/192 and apparently when the DXD tracks were played, the Mac/DAC somehow pressed them down to 24/192. Third, the MQA tracks were played via a traditional delta-sigma DAC and not a dedicated MQA one.

The 049 piano track first. I put both the resampled MQA and the DXD tracks to a new album to have them switchable easily and also on repeat play one after another.

The MQA track had the notes rendered more prominently and crisply than the DXD. On the other hand, vibration of the piano strings struck by the hammer and the resulting resonances were less than those coming from the DXD. Those who do not like so much string resonances may even prefer the MQA version. Having spotted the major difference between the two formats, I was able to spot which is which after going away for a while and coming back to the listening room again.

For now, based on short term listening only, I would say the MQA emphasises the midrange, not overdoing it though. And not changing the timbre of the piano.

If you ask me which one to buy, MQA or Mario’s PlayClassics, I would choose Mario’s.

My listening comparisons of the other track, 2L-106 Magnificat will be forthcoming.

[francisleung]

The 2L-106 track, Magnificat

A quickie on salient points only because subscribers here may not be interested in the listening details.

* Had this track resampled and set up in manner as the piano track in post earlier.

* The whole soundstage is moved forward. So the “listening perspective” is like moving some 6 to 10 ft closer to the performers.

* The soundstage size is more expansive than the DXD. The listening room is filled with sound more akin to a cathedral. No apparent loss of details in the larger soundstage, the choir, the string ensemble, the singer etc.

+ I am aware the MQA file size is much smaller than the DXD. Well, the larger soundstage should be attributable to the DXD and not the other way round to the MQA. I do think there is something special in the MQA.

+ Just to make clear. In the piano and the magnificat comparisons, I also had the DXD tracks gone through the same resample logarithm. So at least the difference had nothing to do with the resample log.

+ I have removed the DXD tracks and put the MQA in their place.

+ Will buy other 2L MQA tracks after listening more to the present two tracks to reaffirm what I have found initially.

[francisleung]

Hi elude:

You are always quick to post replies!

By the way, your room correction software. Do you have trial versions for people to play around?

To be honest, I always shy away from EQ, room correction etc because I think it's give and take somewhere in frequencies. And it would be tedious to mark and adjust every track with appropriate settings.

I used to have a passive gear for switching between sources as well as volume adjustment. Even so it degrades the sound, let alone an active pre-amp in my view. I did have active pre-amps in earlier days, one per channel to obtain better separation.

[francisleung]

Thanks esldude for clarifying the software issue.

I find that adjusting the volume (gain and at the same time channel balance) in the digital domain is less detrimental than in the analogue one

[francisleung]

When I set out for the listening comparisons, there was no offer of MQA tracks in the test bench. I went into the two albums and paid for downloading the 049 and 106 MQA tracks.

Now there are 11 MQA tracks in the test bench. After getting them I compared 038 (Mozart Violin Concerto) with the DXD I bought previously.

This time, the MQA pushes the soundstage slightly backwards and expands it discernibly to two sides. So the soundstage becomes too wide for an ensemble of 22. The DXD has it better, with proper layering front to back and the violin forwardly separated from the ensemble. Well I know this may not be the actual setting during the recording but conforms more to the usual perspective in a live concert. Also the "cathedral" acoustics I mentioned in an earlier post regarding the 106 track, is not provided by the MQA this time; neither the DXD has it.

The MQA processed 038 track is worst than the original DXD in my view. The score now is 2:1 in MQA favour.

[francisleung]

Honestly, virtually all of this extended discussion is pointless. Since it clearly appears that MQA will require new DAC's that support it, this format is dead in the water. There was a "chance" when it appeared that it could be handled with software but that chance is null and void. As someone mentioned earlier, it would take a miracle for MQA to succeed and there aren't many of those in existence. And, even in the beginning, far too many people were far less impressed with it anyway.

 

Not quite.

It is said that MQA encoded tracks would still bring about sonic improvements even when played via traditional DACs. And MQA dedicated DACs will give even better results.

It was based of this that I set out to make comparisons. Otherwise if a dedicated DAC is a prerequisite, I would have dismissed it altogether.

[francisleung]

Another comparison: 2L 050 simple symphony

This was recorded with the ensemble sitting at a round table of sorts with microphones placed in the centre of the table. Some of the players were seated with their backs facing the audience.

When playing just now the DXD track from the album that I bought previously, I was able to figure out the back facing players somewhere in front of the plane of my speakers during loud passages.

The MQA blew these phantom images away.

Removed the MQA and the score is 2:2.

Up to now it becomes dicy as to whether MQA is to go for or not.

To popularize MQA, I think instead of charging a royalty, Bob Stuart should urge Morten Lindberg to give away MQA as a bonus when customers buy DXD or DSD albums.

With MQA being charged on its own, I would take DXD instead.

[francisleung]

MQA lost out to DXD again.

2L-064 Come away death, mezzo soprano singing with accompaniment by piano.

The DXD track was one of my favourites some time ago.

Now a chance to compare with its MQA processed offspring.

The MQA did not screw up anything, for example, the size of the mouth and smoothness of the voice with no trace of compression or distortion, but did not improve anything either.

The DXD has the voice and piano in more 3D, hence better perceived separation, and a deeper front to back soundstage.

So the MQA goes to archive and the score is now 3:2 in DXD's favour.

[francisleung]

Posts pile up fast in this thread and I am much behind in a day already.

Re post 380 by R1200CL and 383 by crenca:

I compared the MQA tracks without a MQA decoder and that might not have revealed the true benefits of MQA. Conducted the listening comparisons solely because it was said MQA's improvements could still be heard via non MQA DACs. On the other hand I don't have a DXD capable DAC either. Is that even hand? I don't know. I have been waiting for the completion of an extremely good value R2R 24/384 DAC and given the lower res version I tested at home two years ago I am quite sure the DXD tracks would sound better than they are now in my system.

For streaming, and that's where money is, I think MQA is likely to bring about discernible sound improvement. It is a matter of at what price MQA tracks will be charged and how much more consumers are willing to pay for the improvement.

I have listened to more MQA tracks from 2L and they lose out to DXD.

Whether MQA with dedicated decoder will excel or not, I don't know and it is very likely that I will NOT be able to find out given the way importers handle their business in my area.

By the way I went into the 2L test bench several times this morning via different routes. No more MQA files there.

[francisleung]

2L High Resolution Music .:. free TEST BENCH Files is present.

R1200CL

Strange! I clicked the link you provided. Went through the captions 3 times. No MQA files.

Perhaps the provision is area/country related. Just like Linn as regards the 2015 Christmas offer. Not for me even though I received notices as a customer with account.

[francisleung]

computer.pdfcomputer.pdf

 

This was what I got just now clicking your link again.

Anyway 2L and Linn must have valid reasons for excluding certain areas.

I used the same computer all along and somehow slipped into the link with MQA tracks the other day.

[francisleung]

Yes, very strange.

I was able to download the 111 MQA track via the direct link you provided but unable to see caption of MQA file in the test bench page.

[francisleung]

2L High Resolution Music .:. free TEST BENCH

 

This was the link of the page after I clicked into the link you kindly provided.

[francisleung]

I used the iPhone just now instead of the computer to get into the 2L site test bench. Alas, the MQA files are there.

But guidance in this web page is different to the one into which I entered with the computer. The latter requires the viewer to enter the 2L user name and 2L password. The page with MQA files does not have such requirement and one is able to download straight away.

I am puzzled.

[francisleung]

Used both an iPad and an iMac to go into the 2L site test bench and got the page showing MQA files on both occasions.

Don't know why 2L once recognising the cookie of my MacBook Pro directs me to its old test bench.

[francisleung]

2L High Resolution Music .:. free TEST BENCH

 

This was the link of the page after I clicked into the link you kindly provided.

 

I tried again just now.

When I clicked this link with the registered MacBook Pro I was directed to the test bench without MQA.

When I used the iPad to visit computer audiophile and click this same link above I was directed to the test bench with MQA tracks!

[francisleung]

Filtering the 44/16 stream would destroy the bit patterns required by the MQA decoder. Those low bits look like noise, but they actually follow a strict format. If they didn't there's no way the MQA decoder could know when to perform its magic.

 

They'll probably tell you to buy an MQA-enabled DAC with integrated digital room correction. Or to buy a better room.

 

Would you or some experts here enlighten me why subsequent equalisation and room correction processing will defeat the MQA encoding whereas turning the MQA tracks to FLAC will not? I assume FLAC does not affect MQA encoded tracks because all the 2L albums in the catalogue and the test bench as "authenticated" by Meridian are all being offered in FLAC.

Also it now appears to me changing the FLAC MQA encoded tracks to WAV and other common formats will also defeat the MQA coding, right?

It surprises me that Meridian and MQA backers do not care to clarify the controversies and questions raised in these pages?