MQA Listening Impressions

[semente]

3 hours ago, PeterSt said:

Yesterday I found Neil Young's latest, The Visitor. So last night I played it. It's there in Redbook and MQA (so-called 192). I decided to start out with the MQA. Not any drive to regard it better. I just did it. Didn't care.

 

This album is a feast. I mean, literally. I don't know how the guy did it, but it is a most special album and I regard it in the top 10 of Young's by now huge repertoire. Besides it being a feast it is also very sensitive unlike any of the others. I am not sure why (but see more below).

 

Halfway through, in the middle of the Carnival track (feast again) I decided to switch over to the Redbook version.

Nothing, really nothing worked any more. No feast anywhere. Cold. Just another album. Within 2 minutes I was back on the MQA. The literal (!) joy was back immediately.

 

From there on I tried to see through what it was that did this. About the "in the studio" or "in throat" or I don't know what. Backing vocals swinging - everyone happy. I couldn't and can't see it how it's done. But thye directness of voices seems to be key. They talk to YOU instead of a microphone. And all I know for sure is that this is not at all about Hires (the original will be 192K Hires indeed). Hires does not work out like that. It doesn't make the players play more happy or something. It doesn't make the instruments more genuine. It maybe makes sound more refined or instruments more real (real is not the same as genuine in my book). But with Hires the presentation is not related (IME). With MQA it is always presentation related (and usually the sound is less refined).

 

Say that this album and the way the MQA did things, unleashed something in me that otherwise would not have worked. During the last track, in retrospection, I heard the first line of the first track again, about Neil Young being Canadian (I didn't even know that). Then this last track slowly but steadily dies out for a longer time (I did not measure, but I have it in my mind as a minute). The man sings super sensitive with it. More and more and more. Until the track finishes. I didn't even listen to the lyrics. Now Young just made his very last album and he know it ...

Again in retrospection I see why throughout all is so sensitive. So fragile. So crying for help. Begging. Not protesting (huh ?!?).

 

None of this is brought across with the Redbook version. There it is just an other album (still one of his better ones, I'd say).

 

So I don't know how it works, but it seems to work. There is nothing in me which wants it to work per se. All I could gently say is that I made it to work first (with the XXHighEnd filters and such). Or to put it differently : I honestly think that MQA does not work (out) at all, unless a pile of other tweaks is brought to it. Something which can work, which does not work with Redbook alone. And most certainly not with Hires either.

 

This wasn't a commercial, as I wouldn't know why. I am also not on Facebook. 

 

 

Thanks Peter.

I'll be waiting for you comments on the MQA vs. 24/192, which to me is the comparison that really matters.

[psjug]

7 hours ago, PeterSt said:

Yesterday I found Neil Young's latest, The Visitor. So last night I played it. It's there in Redbook and MQA (so-called 192). I decided to start out with the MQA. Not any drive to regard it better. I just did it. Didn't care.

 

 

Interesting.  I might try this just for kicks before my Tidal trial runs out. Were you listening using headphones or speakers?

[d_elm]

6 hours ago, semente said:

Thanks Peter.

I'll be waiting for you comments on the MQA vs. 24/192, which to me is the comparison that really matters.

ca.7digital.com have The Visitor in 24/192 flac format.  Perhaps other 7digital servers have it also.

[PeterSt]

9 hours ago, psjug said:

Interesting.  I might try this just for kicks before my Tidal trial runs out. Were you listening using headphones or speakers?

 

Speakers.

But I think the message keeps on not coming across that this is all about the MQA matching filters I created. Say that this is the opposite of those who are so eager to create crappy or leaky or theoretical of whatever name they dedicate to filters of their own which prove that MQA is/sounds worse. But please, "of their own" may imply "what MQA intended". And THAT does not work (at all). It does not work for theory (I'd agree) and probably it does not work in practice either. This latter with the notice that I did not try and don't even want to try (because of the theories which don't suit me).

 

It is my conclusion that MQA created a base for something they wanted to work out but could not, which :

a. worked out for some single setup they thought could be general;

b. is debunked by about everyone, especially those with some knowledge about how reconstruction filters work / should work (count me in please);

c. can be proceeded on with some thoughtful further thinking which never was MQA's idea about it, but just is so (can be so !) anyway.

 

Ad c.

Mind you, this is not different from proposing the contrary which some did and still do : state that what MQA ltd did was obnoxiously wrong and nothing what the audiophile world ever wanted. IOW, it was just MQA's (Meridan's) taste which is rejected by many, especially those who are so keen in presenting that the frequency domain is the one and all be good, which again is just a taste. Or a strategy.

 

The latter translated :

Such a strategy has never been rejected as a "can not work at all" as it is a general means of filtering which just adheres the time domain more than the frequency domain. Also the "but I service both equally" isn't anything better than servicing one of each; it is just again another strategy. However, these days it seems that those who like to send MQA to hell, suddenly are allowed to adhere the frequency domain unequivocally, rejecting any counterweight from the camp normally providing such counterweight. As a matter of fact it is the same group which refuses to listen. No wait, they refuse to listen to the best of their efforts, which indeed some times is not the most easy. So they listen to (almost explicitly) what it the worst of the efforts, next testifying that MQA is indeed worth nothing. Hey, I did the very same at my first attempts, in just not knowing any better means. And it is there where the difference is : not knowing anything better or not using anything better for the purpose.

 

I am confident that I can't win this battle as such. One thing I am ahead with opposed to the others : I don't care less. OK, maybe I do, once MQA seems to improve the audiophile enjoyment, but when that is long and forgotten, I will have forgotten about it just the same.

Or not : I preserved the whole situation for once and for all. So for those albums where it worked out for me and my simple mind, it will work for the next decade just the same, no matter whether Tidal disappears and MQA with it. Read : that important I regard it at this moment.

 

My main concern is that no Bob Stuart and also no et al should be able to improve on any existing recording. Yet IMO they did for at least many recordings (but use my filters and not their's). Although to me it is logic what they did to let this happen, there is no proof at all that this happened for real. This is my stance and I hope it is the most genuine out here or there or everywhere.

I am just listening (with the bias of : let's make something out of this !).

 

Not meant to be a rant,

Peter

 

[manisandher]

6 hours ago, PeterSt said:

But I think the message keeps on not coming across...

 

How could it, when only a handful of people here can hear what we hear (due to the particular playback system we use)? I knew my efforts to share were probably in vain, but tried anyway. Why? Because IMO (and it's all thanks to Peter's work that I can hear this) there is a baby in that bathwater.

 

6 hours ago, PeterSt said:

I am confident that I can't win this battle as such.

 

Yep, probably lost. Which is a shame... IMHO.

 

 

Mani.

 

[semente]

7 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

Speakers.

But I think the message keeps on not coming across that this is all about the MQA matching filters I created. Say that this is the opposite of those who are so eager to create crappy or leaky or theoretical of whatever name they dedicate to filters of their own which prove that MQA is/sounds worse. But please, "of their own" may imply "what MQA intended". And THAT does not work (at all). It does not work for theory (I'd agree) and probably it does not work in practice either. This latter with the notice that I did not try and don't even want to try (because of the theories which don't suit me).

 

It is my conclusion that MQA created a base for something they wanted to work out but could not, which :

a. worked out for some single setup they thought could be general;

b. is debunked by about everyone, especially those with some knowledge about how reconstruction filters work / should work (count me in please);

c. can be proceeded on with some thoughtful further thinking which never was MQA's idea about it, but just is so (can be so !) anyway.

 

Ad c.

Mind you, this is not different from proposing the contrary which some did and still do : state that what MQA ltd did was obnoxiously wrong and nothing what the audiophile world ever wanted. IOW, it was just MQA's (Meridan's) taste which is rejected by many, especially those who are so keen in presenting that the frequency domain is the one and all be good, which again is just a taste. Or a strategy.

 

The latter translated :

Such a strategy has never been rejected as a "can not work at all" as it is a general means of filtering which just adheres the time domain more than the frequency domain. Also the "but I service both equally" isn't anything better than servicing one of each; it is just again another strategy. However, these days it seems that those who like to send MQA to hell, suddenly are allowed to adhere the frequency domain unequivocally, rejecting any counterweight from the camp normally providing such counterweight. As a matter of fact it is the same group which refuses to listen. No wait, they refuse to listen to the best of their efforts, which indeed some times is not the most easy. So they listen to (almost explicitly) what it the worst of the efforts, next testifying that MQA is indeed worth nothing. Hey, I did the very same at my first attempts, in just not knowing any better means. And it is there where the difference is : not knowing anything better or not using anything better for the purpose.

 

I am confident that I can't win this battle as such. One thing I am ahead with opposed to the others : I don't care less. OK, maybe I do, once MQA seems to improve the audiophile enjoyment, but when that is long and forgotten, I will have forgotten about it just the same.

Or not : I preserved the whole situation for once and for all. So for those albums where it worked out for me and my simple mind, it will work for the next decade just the same, no matter whether Tidal disappears and MQA with it. Read : that important I regard it at this moment.

 

My main concern is that no Bob Stuart and also no et al should be able to improve on any existing recording. Yet IMO they did for at least many recordings (but use my filters and not their's). Although to me it is logic what they did to let this happen, there is no proof at all that this happened for real. This is my stance and I hope it is the most genuine out here or there or everywhere.

I am just listening (with the bias of : let's make something out of this !).

 

Not meant to be a rant,

Peter

 

 

Let's leave the "better master" variable out of the equation for the moment...

If MQA is a lossy offspring of the original high-res master (when there is one) it's only advantage over the full-res is, I believe, the DSP/filtering.

 

What does MQA's DSP/filtering do that can't be done equally well in a music file player/processor such as your own XXHighEnd?

[PeterSt]

9 minutes ago, semente said:

If MQA is a lossy offspring of the original high-res master (when there is one) it's only advantage [...]

 

Hmm ... this is where mistake #1 occurs. It *is not* about Hires. I can scream this in each and every post, but I would hope so much that this becomes clear once and for all. And might Bob et al somewhere claim that it is (which I never saw - at least not explicitly) then I make a "not so" of it myself. Remember, as some sort of general consensus "half of all is just 44.1". I'd say it is less than that, but anyway there is a sufficient amount to make you sit back and think "what the heck for then". And so it is. In many of these occasions there is not any official Hires around anywhere, MQA never ever fakes one on its own that I see (and take it I check them all) and still they present themselves vastly different.

 

15 minutes ago, semente said:

Let's leave the "better master" variable out of the equation for the moment...

 

And indeed, we should do that too; by now there is just too much evidence that whatever what exists already is thrown at that "DSP engine" and what comes out of it is something which is different. Here too, I check them all, and too many exist which are from the same master but still compress differently and sound as it is something else. So true, other masters are used just the same, but it is not that what we hear for it being different. It is

 

18 minutes ago, semente said:

 

What does MQA's DSP/filtering do that can't be done equally well

 

that. But to answer this question :

 

19 minutes ago, semente said:

What does MQA's DSP/filtering do that can't be done equally well in a music file player/processor such as your own XXHighEnd?

 

Now I remain silent. I mean, over time I proposed a couple of things, maybe half of it is true, but time tells that viewpoints about it change.

So mind you, I don't know more than you about what is done, BUT I quite explicitly follow the theories, stories, marketing and even all what is regarded explicit BS. This leads to a product with the remark that it does not follow the rules (like avoiding the hardware) but which a kind of re-engineers the theories into that product as a whole and which seems to work out.

 

If you are still there, I will tell you this on a maybe not unimportant side note :

My job is ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning), which means the automation of the most various factories of almost any kind you can try to imagine. It could be the era, but by now I dare say that ALL of these customers (which means buildings with 1000s of people in them) do not really know what they make and especially how they do that and more specifically how they should do that. But me and my company do. The message : about all a company does these days is contracted out because of a lack of time (it REALLY is super-booming these days) which means that up to I.P. all is to be sorted out by the ICT supplier (me). Maybe someone can confirm my blathering.

Obviously these are words from a sheer snob, but the data I provide is that it is my work to not only understand what a customer is trying to achieve, but that by now we as individuals in my company supersede that with "knowing better".

 

So, this kind of re-engineering happened with MQA just the same. But mind you, this is starting at the end (mimic the result) and needs driving backwards to the source. Again, I think I know what is happening (as said, 50% of that being the truth) and maybe when we are a year further I could do it myself from the start.

 

So in an attempt to answer the question in short : we'd first need to know what is actually happening and I know nothing of that except for what we all know. The difference between me and most of you : I (try to) work with that data instead of debunking it all beforehand. Also, I (as a company) never follow guidelines because it will lead to the same sh*t. And I have to say it again, when MQA is played like proposed, I would be the loudest shouter of it all being a failure and hoax and what not.

The major data point is the improvement of the impulse response. And maybe I must remind people : my filters don't ring a single sample to begin with. So for theories a perfect match. Theories and nothing more than that. But from there / that base I work. Now think again about the "weird filters" MQA applies in the rendering part ... I don't use those weird filters. I use filters because they are a necessity but they are my own as always and are liked by the XXHighEnd users as always. The difference : the impulse response in the "DSP'd" file as delivered to the player. Now we can all be in the usual loop and call them leaky and everything what would be wrong for the frequency domain, but it is a strategy which won't change after 10 years.

 

Key should be that whatever short ringing MQA implies, is again made shorter by "me". At least it should be clear that I loved the idea right from the start. And it seems that it starts to work out (but I am still not 100% confident about it).
 

Sorry for the long-winded text.

[semente]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

And might Bob et al somewhere claim that it is (which I never saw - at least not explicitly)

 

I've just visit the MQA site for the first time.

Here's what they say:

 

MQA captures 100% of the original studio performance. It then cleverly adapts to deliver the highest quality playback your product can support.

 

 

[GUTB]

I just listened to Carnival track mentioned in Neil Young's album The Visitor.

 

The qualitative difference between the MQA version and the non-MQA version is so severe that I have to question weather or not there is some funny business going on, like Warner Bros. using a low-quality mp3 as the non-MQA album. I'm used to there being a significant improvement between MQA and non-MQA on Tidal, but this is too much. The MQA version, besides sounding clearly high-resolution, has good soundstage and imaging, textures and the various studio effects come through clearly. The non-MQA version sounds compressed, lo-res, colorless and basically like crap, like it's sub-Redbook quality. Can someone else give it a listen and provide your thoughts?

 

Non-audio PC -> Pro-Ject S2 -> TH900.

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

It *is not* about Hires. I can scream this in each and every post, but I would hope so much that this becomes clear once and for all. And might Bob et al somewhere claim that it is (which I never saw - at least not explicitly)

 

Uhm ...

 

3 minutes ago, semente said:

Here's what they say:

 

MQA captures 100% of the original studio performance. It then cleverly adapts to deliver the highest quality playback your product can support.

 

I saw you left out the "Hires" from my text (quote), but I don't see Hires in their text, right ? Of course, if one wants to read that in it, it is there. But if you don't want to read it (like I do), it is not there. At least not in that text. Agree ? 

[Shadders]

2 hours ago, semente said:

 

Let's leave the "better master" variable out of the equation for the moment...

If MQA is a lossy offspring of the original high-res master (when there is one) it's only advantage over the full-res is, I believe, the DSP/filtering.

 

What does MQA's DSP/filtering do that can't be done equally well in a music file player/processor such as your own XXHighEnd?

Hi,

I agree.

 

Given the multitude of studio equipment differences, and the combination that they can be connected together, then the studio master is a conglomeration of tracks that have a near infinite different dispersion characteristics.

 

MQA cannot correct every dispersion aspect on every track making a song, since they are mixed. So it has to be an approximation.

 

This approximation may correct one aspect of the song, but will offer some benefit and be detrimental to others.

 

In addition, i have not seen any scientific paper (i have searched) on how dispersion can be corrected to obtain the non-dispersed original waveform. If MQA presented this proof,then maybe people would be less sceptical.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[PeterSt]

5 minutes ago, GUTB said:

The qualitative difference between the MQA version and the non-MQA version is so severe that I have to question weather or not there is some funny business going on, like Warner Bros. using a low-quality mp3 as the non-MQA album. I'm used to there being a significant improvement between MQA and non-MQA on Tidal, but this is too much.

 

Haha. Nah ...

With Neil Young something else is going on (I think) and this is "his" superb recording technique. On my own forum I wrote (3 years or so ago) about me for the first time being able to "see" how he gets closer to and more distant from the microphone. Somehow he is quite alone in that, or others just don't move an inch. But it would be true that MQA emphasizes these kind of things, although it merely will be about where your focus goes to (at least that could be my perception of what happens).

 

You can be right just the same - see my next post.

 

[semente]

15 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Uhm ...

 

 

I saw you left out the "Hires" from my text (quote), but I don't see Hires in their text, right ? Of course, if one wants to read that in it, it is there. But if you don't want to read it (like I do), it is not there. At least not in that text. Agree ? 

 

They claim to captures 100% of the original studio performance and to me that means whatever the studio master was. Then they say that MQA cleverly adapts to deliver the highest quality playback your product can support and here they are assuming that my/our playback will not play higher than whatever their lossy format can provide.

Strange.

[PeterSt]

12 minutes ago, GUTB said:

The non-MQA version sounds compressed, lo-res, colorless and basically like crap

 

This was not really my perception of it BUT I had in mind that all was relative to the MQA version which I played first. Anyway, I don't recall that it was suddenly that bad - only that I did not want to listen to it at all and that I was driven back to the MQA version quickly. But there is also this to maybe consider :

 

I was the most surprised that this Neil Young album was there, because all his MQA albums previously there were pulled from Tidal, recently. Additionally, even more recently his streaming service started to work, with for now his own albums only. Now why is this MQA one there suddenly ? did it slip through and is "pulling" something different from "preventing (new)" ? Or would it indeed be a super ad he even got payed for largely. I could combine my conspiracy thinking even with him putting up (allowing for it) his latest in poorer quality, showcasing his new streaming service with the way better quality (which will be genuine Hires anyway).

Plus I think that I know  that he can use some money. But ... nah ...

[PeterSt]

Just now, semente said:

They claim to captures 100% of the original studio performance and to me that means whatever the studio master was.

 

That is BS already because there is no "capturing" event as such. This invalidates the second part too.

Of course this could partly be figurative speech. So I think it would be allowed if I'd tell you : look, this captures (picks up) just how it ever back was for real. Also :

 

Once you learned what the difference is between a ringing filter and a non-ringing filter, you already get a feeling or idea like that. For me myself this is long ago by now, but you could try to re-read the 6moons review of XXHighEnd + NOS1 DAC. OK, better don't, but you can see in there how a new world was born for the reviewers with even some dare-devil (for a reviewer) "Lonely at the very top" verdict. And as far as I know, that still holds (5 years or so later).

MQA just adds to it, and the what is crucial : the even less ringing. That is ... this is what I must take for granted because that too is "only what they claim" and can't be proven for real. Unless you are able to hear it through my gear.

 

32 minutes ago, GUTB said:

The MQA version, besides sounding clearly high-resolution

 

But that not. So for me, and through that "my gear" again, exclusively leads to a less refined presentation. The opposite of silk. It should also be the opposite of high-resolution.

Regarding this it so many times has slipped through my mind that it is added noise which makes it more "sharp" (as in pin-pointed), same like it happens (or can happen) with photos ...

Anyway, for me all but Hires (which I not even care about - maybe that helps me in being objective about it).

[PeterSt]

14 minutes ago, semente said:

Then they say that MQA cleverly adapts to deliver the highest quality playback your product can support and here they are assuming that my/our playback will not play higher than whatever their lossy format can provide.

 

That too can easily be read differently; This plainly tells about how one of the 32 or whatever "weird" filters will be matched with your (the manufacturer's) DAC. Some say this works on a "per album" basis, but this is not what I see. The "per DAC" thing is explicitly there though, including the manufacturer needing to send in his DAC to MQA for this "tuning" (and that that is about these 32 filters is just my conclusion - not a known fact).

 

Next up is the implied "highest sampling rate" - and which is a thing of my own again : use a Phasure NOS1a/G3 DAC and try to let it not play at the highest input sampling rate. So of course you will. It is theoretically better for many reasons (but use a filter which matches that explicitly). So this is not an MQA thing really - it is a general thing that has to come along with the MQA implementation. It sits in the rendering part (with present MQA hardware) and how the filtering should match a. the incoming signal (regarded always the same) and b. the DAC (kill its ringing, according MQA ideas). Really no different approach than what I do myself, regardless the DAC with a set of filters for people to try. But as said, with even less ringing.

 

Want to be confused a little ? ... read back on Mani and him telling about playing MQA through his DAC not at the highest input rate at all. He uses (or used) 352.8/384, but why ? because the filters for 352.8 are not the same as the filters for 705.6. They tend to match MQA better (while overal SQ degrades somewhat).

[Miska]

7 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

That too can easily be read differently; This plainly tells about how one of the 32 or whatever "weird" filters will be matched with your (the manufacturer's) DAC. Some say this works on a "per album" basis, but this is not what I see. The "per DAC" thing is explicitly there though, including the manufacturer needing to send in his DAC to MQA for this "tuning" (and that that is about these 32 filters is just my conclusion - not a known fact).

 

Id of the filter to be used is included in the MQA stream. Typically it is per album, but could vary from track to track, like other things. For example I have one album where MQA resolution varies between 14- and 15-bit from track to track, obviously depending on how much higher octave content there is to be folded.

 

[PeterSt]

11 minutes ago, Miska said:

Id of the filter to be used is included in the MQA stream.

 

Miska, can you tell me where I can find this ID ? (take it that I must have missed the posts about this). I mean, if someone / something at the other end thinks that the rendering should be done differently per album / track, then I should be obeying that to some sort of degree. And the least I would like is observe while listening, which filter is proposed (and empirically learn from there).

We could also say that I can't have anything optimal when filters need to change, while I never change a thing, obviously. Just stupid theory, but ...

 

Edit : So I suppose it sits at some offset. Or is it encoded (encrypted) ?

[mansr]

49 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Miska, can you tell me where I can find this ID ?

https://code.videolan.org/mansr/mqa

[FredericV]

I have two versions of Supertramp's School in 24/192:

1. first line is the fake 24/192 MQA version on Tidal with < 1 mbit according to my iptraf-ng meter, so this is 24/96 upsampled to 24/192, as MQA is never any better than 24/96 as second unfold is upsampling.

(LMS did not show the bitrate of this one)

2. second is the real 24/192 version at ~ 5.5 mbit

So guess which one is the best sounding.

 

Hint: I can state I will never buy any MQA file.
It's obvious Tidal customers are being duped believing this is real 24/192.

[GUTB]

3 hours ago, FredericV said:

I have two versions of Supertramp's School in 24/192:

1. first line is the fake 24/192 MQA version on Tidal with < 1 mbit according to my iptraf-ng meter, so this is 24/96 upsampled to 24/192, as MQA is never any better than 24/96 as second unfold is upsampling.

(LMS did not show the bitrate of this one)

2. second is the real 24/192 version at ~ 5.5 mbit

So guess which one is the best sounding.

 

Hint: I can state I will never buy any MQA file.
It's obvious Tidal customers are being duped believing this is real 24/192.

 

It’s claimed that most of the quality gains in MQA comes at the mastering stage. It’s assumed then in order to realize those gains the mastering engineer has to work with MQA parameters for the best sound — which would then create a different master. Clearly, though, given the size of the MQA library, most albums were probably converted to MQA through some automation method with little or no benefit.

 

Also, your claim is hard to test subjectively. What’s your MQA chain?

[mav52]

2 hours ago, GUTB said:

 

It’s claimed that most of the quality gains in MQA comes at the mastering stage. It’s assumed then in order to realize those gains the mastering engineer has to work with MQA parameters for the best sound — which would then create a different master. Clearly, though, given the size of the MQA library, most albums were probably converted to MQA through some automation method with little or no benefit.

 

Also, your claim is hard to test subjectively. What’s your MQA chain?

Shame we don't know what masters they are using to start with. Was it one from tape, LP, CD, Hi-Rez etc.. Wish MQA would provide that information

[Norton]

On 18 December 2017 at 7:02 AM, manisandher said:

 

How could it, when only a handful of people here can hear what we hear (due to the particular playback system we use)? I knew my efforts to share were probably in vain, but tried anyway. Why? Because IMO (and it's all thanks to Peter's work that I can hear this) there is a baby in that bathwater.

 

 

Yep, probably lost. Which is a shame... IMHO.

 

 

Mani.

 

 

Thankyou  for  your efforts nonetheless.  Currently playing MQA via XXHighEnd (to my Esoteric DAC with upsampling  and filtering disabled) and it does sound very, very  good indeed. Maybe a cliched comparison, but (to this vinyl fan) rather  similar to good analogue replay.  

 

[catastrofe]

On 1/9/2018 at 9:32 AM, Norton said:

 

Thankyou  for  your efforts nonetheless.  Currently playing MQA via XXHighEnd (to my Esoteric DAC with upsampling  and filtering disabled) and it does sound very, very  good indeed. Maybe a cliched comparison, but (to this vinyl fan) rather  similar to good analogue replay.  

 

So MQA adds clicks, pops, wow, and rumble?!

 

Sorry, couldn’t resist! ?

[semente]

26 minutes ago, catastrofe said:

So MQA adds clicks, pops, wow, and rumble?!

 

Sorry, couldn’t resist! ?

 

Judging from the various positive feedback reports that I have read I am leaning towards signal-correlated harmonic distortion.

 

That and a tremendous amount of elegance.