[gregorio]

 
[1] So then I was of course very interested in the possibility of MQA, despite having no relevant hardware on either of my systems.
 
[2] In short then yes there is a difference and yes it is preferable to red book in the albums I have heard so far.
 
[3] So in conclusion and for today, I am pleasantly surprised with MQA right now [4] and would recommend folks to try it in their systems as an ME2 is not expensive (you can get it on Amazon at a discount!!!) and hopefully it will succeed and go on to even better things.   

 
1. Why were you "of course" very interested in MQA?
 
2. Yes, of course there is a difference. For starters, one obvious difference is that a blue light comes on with an MQA stream. No one is suggesting that switching on a blue light is the only thing that MQA does, for one thing, it's effectively a lossy compression format.  As such, it can't actually be better than the CD or another format original it's encoding/compressing, it can ONLY be worse. The two main questions we therefore have here in the science forum are: A. How much worse? Is it audibly worse or are the deficiencies only measurable rather than audible? and B. Is it actually more functional than the data compressed formats which already exist? Answering these two questions would go a long way to answering the ultimate question as far as MQA is concerned: Is it of any actual benefit to the consumer or is it effectively nothing more than a snake oil marketing exercise?
 
3. I'm not questioning your stated preference or that you're pleasantly surprised, I'm only questioning what's caused it. As MQA can't actually be better, at best only audibly indistinguishable (the same), the only possible explanation is one of the following: 1. The MQA files/streams you've heard are not the same masters as your red book albums, 2. You personally have found lower fidelity ("worse") to be "preferable" in the streams you've heard or 3. That blue light has created a bias/placebo effect which is affecting your perception.
 
4. This recommendation is indicative of either: 1. Someone who realises they've been suckered by the marketing/shills and wants others to be in the same boat, 2. Someone who doesn't yet realise they've been suckered and is therefore giving misleading advice, or 3. A shill. ... If you have any new information/evidence, info/evidence acceptable in this forum (IE. NOT sighted/anecdotal evidence), then please post it. That would be both helpful to this thread and avoid the current indication of your contribution.
 
G

 

[Dadracer]

 

 
[1] So then I was of course very interested in the possibility of MQA, despite having no relevant hardware on either of my systems.
 
[2] In short then yes there is a difference and yes it is preferable to red book in the albums I have heard so far.
 
[3] So in conclusion and for today, I am pleasantly surprised with MQA right now [4] and would recommend folks to try it in their systems as an ME2 is not expensive (you can get it on Amazon at a discount!!!) and hopefully it will succeed and go on to even better things.   

 
1. Why were you "of course" very interested in MQA?
 
2. Yes, of course there is a difference. For starters, one obvious difference is that a blue light comes on with an MQA stream. No one is suggesting that switching on a blue light is the only thing that MQA does, for one thing, it's effectively a lossy compression format.  As such, it can't actually be better than the CD or another format original it's encoding/compressing, it can ONLY be worse. The two main questions we therefore have here in the science forum are: A. How much worse? Is it audibly worse or are the deficiencies only measurable rather than audible? and B. Is it actually more functional than the data compressed formats which already exist? Answering these two questions would go a long way to answering the ultimate question as far as MQA is concerned: Is it of any actual benefit to the consumer or is it effectively nothing more than a snake oil marketing exercise?
 
3. I'm not questioning your stated preference or that you're pleasantly surprised, I'm only questioning what's caused it. As MQA can't actually be better, at best only audibly indistinguishable (the same), the only possible explanation is one of the following: 1. The MQA files/streams you've heard are not the same masters as your red book albums, 2. You personally have found lower fidelity ("worse") to be "preferable" in the streams you've heard or 3. That blue light has created a bias/placebo effect which is affecting your perception.
 
4. This recommendation is indicative of either: 1. Someone who realises they've been suckered by the marketing/shills and wants others to be in the same boat, 2. Someone who doesn't yet realise they've been suckered and is therefore giving misleading advice, or 3. A shill. ... If you have any new information/evidence, info/evidence acceptable in this forum (IE. NOT sighted/anecdotal evidence), then please post it. That would be both helpful to this thread and avoid the current indication of your contribution.
 
G

Thanks for your kind diatribe, and in answer to your questions........
 
1.Why can I not be very interested? I mentioned that I had been a Tidal user for a while so the prospect of Higher Fi for the same money seemed to me at least worth trying out.
 
2. Unlike yourself I am not an expert on how digital formats operate but it was my understanding that MQA is not merely a lossy compression format. Also can you then educate me why it is impossible for MQA to be better than red book in a simple fashion so that I will be able to understand it. I cannot answer your other questions regarding measurements and the science of MQA, but it sounds like you have all the answers already so could you share them with me?
 
3. Ok, if you are not questioning my stated preference........then why are you questioning my stated preference? It might not agree with what you have heard ( i presume here that you have made this comparison for yourself) but it does not make it any less true to my ears. Remind me again why MQA streams cannot be better than red book?
 
4. None of the above. I just honestly stated what my experience was. I have no connection with MQA or Meridian, and I apologise as it has so clearly offended you that you have been moved to such a tantrum. I thought one of the greatest strengths of Head Fi forums was for people to send in their thoughts and feedback on new kit without the need for double blind clinical trial data published in a peer reviewed journal. 

 

[435279]

@Dadracer
 
Thank you for sharing your views about MQA.
 
I'm listening to Tidal MQA too and I'm also, like you enjoying it very much. I'm not comparing it to any other format, just listening to it for what it is.
 
After all isn't that what this hobby/common interest of ours all about.

 

[Dadracer]

  @Dadracer
 
Thank you for sharing your views about MQA.
 
I'm listening to Tidal MQA too and I'm also, like you enjoying it very much. I'm not comparing it to any other format, just listening to it for what it is.
 
After all isn't that what this hobby/common interest of ours all about.

Well yes up until about an hour ago, thank you.

 

[435279]

  Well yes up until about an hour ago, thank you.

No problem, we all have different views and opinions. Don't let others alter or affect yours too much, only you really know what you like to listen to.

 

[VNandor]

 I thought one of the greatest strengths of Head Fi forums was for people to send in their thoughts and feedback on new kit without the need for double blind clinical trial data published in a peer reviewed journal. 

This is the only sub-forum of Head-Fi where if you say this sound better than that, you can be asked (in a good manner) to provide evidence. It can be a listening test where you try to eliminate as much bias as you can, links to such tests that has been already done, or at least some insight of why it could sound better etc... People usually come here because they think this is the minimum standard to have a meaningful discussion. Of course, noone can force you to try to prove the difference you heard came from the the different file formats but if you think sighted evaluation trumps it all, then please consider NOT posting in this sub-forum.
 
Maybe you can ask a moderator to move this thread out of sound science forum, or you can start a new one (not here) so people won't jump on you yelling "blind-test or didn't happen."

 

[Dadracer]

 

 I thought one of the greatest strengths of Head Fi forums was for people to send in their thoughts and feedback on new kit without the need for double blind clinical trial data published in a peer reviewed journal. 

This is the only sub-forum of Head-Fi where if you say this sound better than that, you can be asked (in a good manner) to provide evidence. It can be a listening test where you try to eliminate as much bias as you can, links to such tests that has been already done, or at least some insight of why it could sound better etc... People usually come here because they think this is the minimum standard to have a meaningful discussion. Of course, noone can force you to try to prove the difference you heard came from the the different file formats but if you think sighted evaluation trumps it all, then please consider NOT posting in this sub-forum.
 
Maybe you can ask a moderator to move this thread out of sound science forum, or you can start a new one (not here) so people won't jump on you yelling "blind-test or didn't happen."

Perhaps if I had been asked in a "good manner" rather than being called a shill I might have been less dismayed.
 
Fair enough, although in my defence I didn't appreciate this was a sub forum as I was merely looking for an active MQA discussion thread and certainly not for one devoted to confirmed scientific data only. Consequently I will withdraw from any further posting here and to avoid upsetting anyone else.
 
Kind regards

 

[gregorio]

 
1.Why can I not be very interested? I mentioned that I had been a Tidal user for a while so the prospect of Higher Fi for the same money seemed to me at least worth trying out.
 
2. ... can you then educate me why it is impossible for MQA to be better than red book in a simple fashion so that I will be able to understand it.
 
3. Remind me again why MQA streams cannot be better than red book?
 
4. None of the above. I just honestly stated what my experience was.
4a. I thought one of the greatest strengths of Head Fi forums was for people to send in their thoughts and feedback on new kit without the need for double blind [tests] ...

 
1. I did not state you could/should not be interested, I asked why you were interested. Your answer appears to be; "because the marketing indicated the prospect of higher fidelity".
 
2&3. Providing it's the same recording/master as your CD, then if MQA is losslessly compressing, then the best it can be is identical, if MQA is lossy compressing then whatever it's loosing is lost permanently, IE. It cannot be recovered (A basic tenet of Shannon's Information Theorem), although that loss maybe inaudible. Either way, MQA cannot be better.
 
4. Assuming you really are being honest (and we've no way of knowing for sure) then that narrows down the options to only one: Based on your assertion of something which is physically impossible (see 2&3 previously), your recommendation was indicative of "2. Someone who doesn't yet realise they've been suckered and is therefore giving misleading advice". As you haven't yet posted any info/evidence (acceptable to this sub-forum) then you haven't so far countered this indication.
 
4a. Really, what made you think that? The proliferation of audiophile snake oil products and the marketing BS and shills which exist here on head-fi specifically to pervert peoples' "thoughts and feedback" commonly turns that "one of the greatest strengths" into one of it's greatest weaknesses and is why there's a need for a Science Forum in the first place!
 
G

 

[Dadracer]

 

 
1.Why can I not be very interested? I mentioned that I had been a Tidal user for a while so the prospect of Higher Fi for the same money seemed to me at least worth trying out.
 
2. ... can you then educate me why it is impossible for MQA to be better than red book in a simple fashion so that I will be able to understand it.
 
3. Remind me again why MQA streams cannot be better than red book?
 
4. None of the above. I just honestly stated what my experience was.
4a. I thought one of the greatest strengths of Head Fi forums was for people to send in their thoughts and feedback on new kit without the need for double blind [tests] ...

 
1. I did not state you could/should not be interested, I asked why you were interested. Your answer appears to be; "because the marketing indicated the prospect of higher fidelity".
 
2&3. Providing it's the same recording/master as your CD, then if MQA is losslessly compressing, then the best it can be is identical, if MQA is lossy compressing then whatever it's loosing is lost permanently, IE. It cannot be recovered (A basic tenet of Shannon's Information Theorem), although that loss maybe inaudible. Either way, MQA cannot be better.
 
4. Assuming you really are being honest (and we've no way of knowing for sure) then that narrows down the options to only one: Based on your assertion of something which is physically impossible (see 2&3 previously), your recommendation was indicative of "2. Someone who doesn't yet realise they've been suckered and is therefore giving misleading advice". As you haven't yet posted any info/evidence (acceptable to this sub-forum) then you haven't so far countered this indication.
 
4a. Really, what made you think that? The proliferation of audiophile snake oil products and the marketing BS and shills which exist here on head-fi specifically to pervert peoples' "thoughts and feedback" commonly turns that "one of the greatest strengths" into one of it's greatest weaknesses and is why there's a need for a Science Forum in the first place!
 
G

Just as a final summation for the defence and before I go back to listening to some music.
 
1. It's not what my answer "appears to be". It is my factual answer.
 
2. If the master is recorded at a higher fidelity then it should sound better than a lower fidelity copy. Or am I missing something? If the master and the CD are both recorded at the same fidelity then I grant you they should sound the same.
 
3. I don't care what you believe regarding my honesty. On the other hand as you cannot provide facts to substantiate your own conclusions then your facts are not facts no matter how much italics you use.
 
4. Its a shame then you cannot be more welcoming or understanding if and when someone walks into the wrong sub forum.
 
5. Out of interest where are your facts and empirical data to support your premise that MQA cannot be better than red book?
 
Kind regards

 

[VNandor]

   
5. Out of interest where are your facts and empirical data to support your premise that MQA cannot be better than red book?
 
Kind regards

The reason why pretty much nothing (not only MQA) can be "better" than red book (16bit/44.1kHz) is because red book is practically perfect for what it is used for to begin with. It can perfectly store  bandlimited signals up to 22.05 kHz and down to -96dBFS.
 
This video explains the basics of digital audio in a comprehensible way. If you don't take his words for granted (even though the oscilloscopes confirm what he says) you can read about the math behind sampling and quantization and how it works.

 

[cjl]

  The reason why pretty much nothing (not only MQA) can be "better" than red book (16bit/44.1kHz) is because red book is practically perfect for what it is used for to begin with. It can perfectly store  bandlimited signals up to 22.05 kHz and down to -96dBFS.
 

 
I'm in a nitpicky kind of mood, so just to make sure this is perfectly accurate, redbook doesn't perfectly store signals at any level, it always adds some noise or distortion. That noise level can be well below even -96dBFS though if dither is applied intelligently, allowing encoding of signals under -100dBFS in some cases.
 
 

 

[castleofargh]

@Dadracer you don't have to leave, it's not a scientist only subsection(else I would be out ^_^).
 
why people like me don't believe in the miracle new format(whatever it is, this time it's MQA, last time it was DSD, and soon enough something else will come from another guy who will wish to be the one to make money), is that to this day there is no clear evidence that 16/44 PCM can't be audibly transparent. so when a format claims to sound better, it's an empty claim as far as objective evidence is concerned. and it's not that the money guys pushing for highres formats didn't try to get proof of audible superiority, they actually try too hard and it shows.
 
the other argument for MQA is that it will have new masters. well I didn't know people were forbidden to do new masters in PCM ^_^. it's not an argument in favor of MQA, it's more like blackmail to me. "if you want that great sounding master that we're releasing, you need to buy this format". and again it's really not new, DSD is often like that, many DVD audio are like that, even the old giant golden discs were using the different master trick to try and force people to join in. and in the process, fool some who don't know better with how different it's sounding. almost as if it was an entirely different mastering... oh wait!

 
the last point is simply practical. the vast majority of published albums are PCM, and most of the old stuff have been saved as PCM too. so when you buy your favorite stuff, statistically, they will be PCM turned to MQA. that should make it pretty obvious why MQA won't be superior, you don't pull new digital data from a hat.  and again it's nothing new, most DSD masters come from PCM files, or at least where mastered in PCM and then converted back to DSD. and it can only be the same with MQA because you can't really apply DSPs onto a MQA file, that would ruin the code for the "origami" stuff. so on one hand the marketing argument is always that XXXXX sounds better than PCM, while the vast majority of the files come directly from PCM, or at least will be mastered as PCM. that kind of nonsense doesn't sit well with everybody, and because it's been the same game over and over since digital audio exists, some of us can't even pretend to be curious anymore.
 
 
and that's just us consumers, because at a pro level there are other reasons for DAC manufacturers not to want to have the sister firm of Meridian(they make DACs too) to demand to know all about the secret sauce used in their DACs. several manufacturers have already said their piece on the matter and they're not all thrilled by the prospect. to say it nicely.
 
 
so of course it's logical to be exited about new stuff, even more so with that much marketing telling us what to think. and yes they have new masters and some must sound great, after all they're counting on it to subjectively legitimize the format so I'm sure they took some care in making the first few remasters.  but as I said before, fool me once...

 

[headfry]

the real question is whether decoded MQA sound significantly better
than Redbook and better in some ways than the same remastering
undecoded - and compared to an album remastered the same way
without MQA.
 
 
I say yes - more analogue sounding, cleaner, fresher,
more musical on a well-mastered MQA album. Blacker
background, removal of digital hash/edge/grain....
 
..more tangibility of the playing and sound of the instruments....
better soundstage/imaging/3D
 
just listening to Yours is No Disgrace from the Yes Album...
 
 
Chris Squire's bass so well coheses the song,,,,,,he was an under rated 
component of the band - MQA Master, Tidal decoded allows me to more fully appreciate
the musicianship and vision of this group  - removes a major barrie. from me more fully enjoying 
and appreciating the track or album, and more consistently.
 
 
the sound quality, so easily achieved and convenient......greatly enhances 
my enthusiasm and capacity for more musical enjoyment.
 
The SQ of MQA has convinced me and thousands of others.....
companies often fail to maintain their success long-term. 

 

[Joe Bloggs]

the real question is whether decoded MQA sound significantly better
than Redbook and better in some ways than the same remastering
undecoded - and compared to an album remastered the same way
without MQA.

The real question is whether an unattributed quote from an unknown person* simply asserting various ways in which MQA better without showing any methodology by which such conclusions are arrived at should be taken as any evidence for or against the argument...

*It wouldn't really matter WHO such unsupported assertions are attributed to, but that there isn't even a valid attribution is another nail in the coffin...

 

[watchnerd]

   
The evidence is overwhelming . . .for quality cables

 
For quality cables, yes.
 
For expensive audiophile cables, no.
 
Oh, and I've tried MQA.  Technical objections aside, it was not in any way such a transformative listening experience for me that would make me willing to part with more money compared to good Redbook.