[dixtatorx]

My library comprises of lots of purchased and locally stored "red-books" and Tidal. I listen to Tidal Masters too but not because I genuinely want to, it's more a case of "it's been shoved down my throat" unfortunately .

For anyone familiar with a bit of signal processing and not too bored of a technical analysis here's a substantiated critique on MQA

 

[dixtatorx]

delete

 

[madmos]

My library comprises of lots of purchased and locally stored "red-books" and Tidal. I listen to Tidal Masters too but not because I genuinely want to, it's more a case of "it's been shoved down my throat" unfortunately .

For anyone familiar with a bit of signal processing and not too bored of a technical analysis here's a substantiated critique on MQA

I was trying to avoid the MQA debate in this thread. But since this has come up, to be fair, I think if people are being pointed to that video they should also see the reply from Bob Stuart about this testing. Here is the main piece of it. If you google for the post you can get a lot more detail on the technicalities.

Responses to Specific Claims

1. MQA did not delete his files; that accusation is false. MQA is not a rights holder nor distributor. We do not issue takedown notices to distributors or DSPs.
2. MQA has never made false claims about ‘losslessness’. MQA has been clear from the outset that our process operates in a wider frame of reference that includes the whole chain including A/D and D/A converters. [1]
3. Provenance: MQA files are delivered losslessly and reconstruct exactly the sound that an artist, studio or label approves.
4. The blogger’s test failed because he submitted signals that do not resemble music to an encoder that was configured only for music works. Nonsense comes out. This is like being disappointed when a F1 car struggles on an off-road race.
5. He submitted high-rate composite files containing unsafe levels of ultrasonic signals –in places 100 times higher than in music recordings – resulting in 10x encoder overload. (See Appendix 2)
6. System error messages generated by the MQA encoder were ignored. [2]
7. MQA provided detailed feedback to the blogger before publication. [3] He ignored it and later dismissed our detailed guidance as ‘marketing’.
8. MQA does not add distortion and by design, does not introduce detectable aliasing. (See Appendix 4)
9. MQA is different from regular PCM for important reasons to do with sound quality. Compared to regular PCM, MQA can deliver higher temporal resolution and lower blur while using less data in delivery.
10. An MQA encoder can encode any signal that fits in a PCM file, but it is highly optimised for files containing information that is meaningful to human listeners. (See Appendices 3 & 4)
11. Finally, the title of the video is illogical. [4]

General comment:
The blogger displayed a lack of integrity, violating agreements and Terms of Use with multiple parties within the chain. He claimed to be unbiased, yet from the outset, the narrative pursued an agenda – a libellous manifesto that was unscientific, illogical, inaccurate.
He hadn’t researched how MQA works and padded the video with a litany of alternative facts previously debunked many times by MQA and others.
This is not the first time that people have leveraged MQA to gain ‘clicks’, it won’t be the last.

There are 4 appendices attached to the main post that dig into more detail.

 

[dixtatorx]

I was trying to avoid the MQA debate in this thread. But since this has come up, to be fair, I think if people are being pointed to that video they should also see the reply from Bob Stuart about this testing. Here is the main piece of it. If you google for the post you can get a lot more detail on the technicalities.


There are 4 appendices attached to the main post that dig into more detail.

I'll have a look

 

[cel4145]

I was trying to avoid the MQA debate in this thread. But since this has come up, to be fair, I think if people are being pointed to that video they should also see the reply from Bob Stuart about this testing. Here is the main piece of it. If you google for the post you can get a lot more detail on the technicalities.

To be fair, does Bob Stuart refer to independent evaluations of MQA to support what he says? After all, it's his company that first implied MQA is lossless. Now they claim "better than lossless."

 

[madmos]

To be fair, does Bob Stuart refer to independent evaluations of MQA to support what he says? After all, it's his company that first implied MQA is lossless. Now they claim "better than lossless."

I think there is an MQA thread to debate this, let's not take over this thread with it. I was just posting the other side of the argument. I like what I like and that is all that matters to me. Whatever makes you enjoy listening to music is the best thing out there. Happy listening

 

[cel4145]

I think there is an MQA thread to debate this, let's not take over this thread with it. I was just posting the other side of the argument. I like what I like and that is all that matters to me. Whatever makes you enjoy listening to music is the best thing out there. Happy listening

And I was just pointing out why Bob Stuart is an unreliable source of information regarding MQA. Others can make their own decision about it

 

[designbykai]

Hey guys. I am able to get these used at a great price ($400 Canadian). The pads look like they'd need replacing but for my preferences I think the Dekoni sheepskin or Stellia pads would be necessary anyway (plus wearing glasses). So I'll have to factor in that cost, plus a better cable.

Should I go for it? I'm after something fairly neutral, to compliment my Fostex THX00PH. I like bass and I know these won't have as much as Fostex's, but as long as these have good *quality* bass, good sub extension and some punch I'll be happy.
I'd rather not EQ excessively, but if a bit of EQ massively improves these then I don't mind. It sounds like its mostly some stuff in the mids people have some issues with?

I think I'd mostly be listening to these for recorded music (jazz, acoustic/folk, rock etc). Whereas the Fostex are perfect for electronic, bass focused music (which admittedly I do listen to the most). I'm thinking Elegia could be a good compliment though, and useful for studio monitoring applications.

The only other thing I'm wondering is do they have decent isolation? I'd imagine it would be OK with leather pads and a better seal than stock?

 

[descloud]

I'd rather not EQ excessively, but if a bit of EQ massively improves these then I don't mind. It sounds like its mostly some stuff in the mids people have some issues with?

I'm on the camp that these require EQ to sound great, cause the stock tonality is very disappointing with its midrange being too forward that timbre is way off to sound correct. Others here may not agree so take that as you will and find people who have similar findings as you for other headphones. At $400 CDN + EQ on these, they're a great closed-back option in my books. If no EQ, I don't think they're worth it and the Argons are a better choice for around the same price range.

For your last question about isolation, I find they isolate averagely for a closed-back. Depends on how loud you listen to music, they isolate well enough in my experience.

 

[dixtatorx]

Hey guys. I am able to get these used at a great price ($400 Canadian). The pads look like they'd need replacing but for my preferences I think the Dekoni sheepskin or Stellia pads would be necessary anyway (plus wearing glasses). So I'll have to factor in that cost, plus a better cable.

Should I go for it? I'm after something fairly neutral, to compliment my Fostex THX00PH. I like bass and I know these won't have as much as Fostex's, but as long as these have good *quality* bass, good sub extension and some punch I'll be happy.
I'd rather not EQ excessively, but if a bit of EQ massively improves these then I don't mind. It sounds like its mostly some stuff in the mids people have some issues with?

I think I'd mostly be listening to these for recorded music (jazz, acoustic/folk, rock etc). Whereas the Fostex are perfect for electronic, bass focused music (which admittedly I do listen to the most). I'm thinking Elegia could be a good compliment though, and useful for studio monitoring applications.

The only other thing I'm wondering is do they have decent isolation? I'd imagine it would be OK with leather pads and a better seal than stock?

Isolation is more than adequate in my opinion, with Dekoni sheepskins no person seated next to you will ever be bothered. My gf hasn't complained yet when she's doing her night reading at bed. Positions switched, I can't hear her talking to me or her Nintendo switch gameplay through the TV that is 5 feet away from us when we're seated next to each other on the couch (I listen to music at medium volume and less often at high volume). At a coffee shop with lots of chatter around seated on a long dining style table with 3 people clicking away on new clackety Mac Book keyboards I wasn't feeling disturbed to the slightest either.

Tuning/Tonality-wise it is strictly a personal preference issue in my opinion therefore the same applies to the need (and the extent) of EQ too. Having said that if you need a "neutral" closed back and enjoy forward vocals I'd be brave enough to venture a guess in saying that you'll love them especially in folk and rock music.

With Deconi sheepskins you'll actually be VERY SURPRISED with the quantity, impact, thumb and slam of the bass (the quality is top level as stock anyway); to the extent that you might even find yourself reaching sometimes for them in electronic bass tracks instead of your Fostex despite the fact that the TH X00 is comparatively superior in its bass response. I know that the above statement is contrantictory, but if/when you have the chance to audition them with the Deconi pads on electronic bass tracks you'll understand what I mean.

Value-wise at 400 + Dekoni elite sheepskin pads + a 2.5mm Meze balanced cable, the value/cost ratio is VERY high in my humble opinion.

 

[designbykai]

I'm on the camp that these require EQ to sound great, cause the stock tonality is very disappointing with its midrange being too forward that timbre is way off to sound correct. Others here may not agree so take that as you will and find people who have similar findings as you for other headphones. At $400 CDN + EQ on these, they're a great closed-back option in my books. If no EQ, I don't think they're worth it and the Argons are a better choice for around the same price range.

For your last question about isolation, I find they isolate averagely for a closed-back. Depends on how loud you listen to music, they isolate well enough in my experience.

Thanks for the input! Its very tempting to try them out and see if I like various characteristics of the Focal sound. Having to EQ is annoying but a lot of people say headphones like LCDX need EQ to sound great too. I guess its all subjective and whatever makes them more pleasing. I've always thought it best to find headphones that sound best in their stock form, for my preferences, but its very hard to find 'perfect' headphones, even subjectivly.

Value-wise at 400 + Deconi elite sheepskin pads + a 2.5mm Meze balanced cable, the value/cost ratio is VERY high in my humble opinion.

That's what I'm thinkin'! Thanks for your input. The comment about bass makes me want to try them more now

 

[dixtatorx]

Thanks for the input! Its very tempting to try them out and see if I like various characteristics of the Focal sound. Having to EQ is annoying but a lot of people say headphones like LCDX need EQ to sound great too. I guess its all subjective and whatever makes them more pleasing. I've always thought it best to find headphones that sound best in their stock form, for my preferences, but its very hard to find 'perfect' headphones, even subjectivly.

That's what I'm thinkin'! Thanks for your input. The comment about bass makes me want to try them more now

I hate EQ myself as well, so I definitely understand you, I don't EQ my Elegia pair, I just swapped the stock pads to the Dekoni elite sheepskin ones and I have to admit merely out of curiosity at first because I kept reading and hearing by everyone exactly the same or almost the same impressions, that the sheepskins take nothing away from their individual character and just make the bass response sound a lot more "impactful"; they were correct and I was very surprised myself, as initially I was weary of such suggestions because I had auditioned the Celestee and I did not like them so thinking that the Celestee had leather pads + more bass quantity I was afraid that the Dekoni would make them sound "claustrophobic".

Regarding my contrantictory statement about "sometimes preferring them over the TH X00 in electronic bass tracks", I can't put it in words, maybe I lack the appropriate vocabulary or it's an assortment of MANY subtle and minute details that sum up into the feeling that you get a VERY VERY enjoyable listening experience in electronic bass music and mind you I have the Sony MDR Z1R that I thought would ALWAYS be my 1st choice for such tracks (I too listen to A LOT of electronic music). I just can't put it in words unfortunately, I know it sounds strange and of course the Z1R is towering over the Elegia in terms of bass response, but somehow the Elegia give me a different experience in such tracks while STILL BEING ABLE TO THOROUGHLY ENJOY AND FEEL THE BASS.

 

[Pimsilveira]

I just ordered the dekoni elite sheepskin leather pads. I usually use my focal elegias with my chord mojo. Does anyone use the elegias with dekoni pads and chord mojo? Do you think it will be an improvement in therms of sound? And if yes, what kind of improvement?
Thanks

 

[dixtatorx]

I just ordered the dekoni elite sheepskin leather pads. I usually use my focal elegias with my chord mojo. Does anyone use the elegias with dekoni pads and chord mojo? Do you think it will be an improvement in therms of sound? And if yes, what kind of improvement?
Thanks

I have the Mojo and Dekonis on my Elegia. I haven't used the Mojo with the Elegia though, not because the Mojo is a bad pairing but mainly due to convenience reasons I rarely daisy-chain recently. What exactly are you interested to know?

 

[Pimsilveira]

I have the Mojo and Dekonis on my Elegia. I haven't used the Mojo with the Elegia though, not because the Mojo is a bad pairing but mainly due to convenience reasons I rarely daisy-chain recently. What exactly are you interested to know?

If the dekoni pads will improve sound (elegia+mojo+dekoni pads) over what I have now (elegia+mojo+stock pads).