[NobbyChad]

Before I answer that quick question, I would ask this two-part question to you:

Part 1: In your comparisons between MQA and non-MQA, were those comparisons done double-blind with all biases accounted for?
Part 2: When making those comparisons, did you confirm that the MQA versions originated from the same masters as the non-MQA versions with no re-mastering or any other differences?

I already know the answer to part 2, because there have been no MQA releases with provenance verified by a third party that confirm this condition. And I strongly suspect I know the answer to Part 1 too.

Now, given the situation that there has been no proof that MQA does anything at all to improve the sound of any recording (and marketing is not proof), then I don't really see why I would invest in any MQA equipment. Proof is easy, and if it's that big an "improvement", it should be really, really easy. Yet, there remains none.
This issue has been addressed before. It's simply not true that there is equipment info for anything but a very tiny group of recordings. But there's a problem there too. You might generate an equipment list for a recording that might even be complete. Heck, I can do that for any recording I've ever engineered or produced. But what I can't tell you, and what nobody can tell you is how that gear was used or adjusted. Every equalizer has a temporal response, and every adjustable control of every equalizer changes it. The number of passes the signal went through A/D then D/A conversion, including a filter at each step, is unknown, especially with earlier recordings where even though digital recorders were used, mixing, mastering and effects required D/A then A/D who knows how many times and through what filters. Every A/D and D/A has a filter, and they are not all the same. Passing through multiple conversions compounds temporal responses of each. And, speaking as someone in the industry, I can tell you there are no records for this other than distant and fading memories. And we aren't even including the response, both amplitude and temporal, of the monitoring systems used on which the mixes were built in the first place. Why would you want to correct for something that was already considered in the final mix?

The entire scheme is bollox. And, as with every aspect of MQA, there has been no verified third party proof. Why? We can't get our mitts on the encoding process! So we can't test the whole MQA chain for audibility.
Sorry to inform, but temporal deblurring isn't present that way either because the degree required is unknown. In fact, "de-blurring" is a term made up by MQA that exists nowhere else in the audio industry. And it's well coined for the purpose, incorporating a strong negative connotation without any actual substantiation like a well constructed technical paper, for instance.

I recognize you think you hear a difference. I recognized there may actually be a difference. There's no way I, you, or anyone so far can prove it has anything to do with any specific MQA process. But until someone can pull of a controlled ABX/DBT and show a reliable audible difference (we can discuss later if it's an improvement or not), there's no reason to attribute any audible differences to any part of MQA.

Now to answer your question, I don't own any MQA enabled gear. The MQA enabled auditions I've heard have been inconclusive.

 

[NobbyChad]

I am reading lots of threads from people who seem to be debunking MQA, some who have never actually tried it. I have an MQA Explorer2 and the sound is, to my ears much better. Some my ask why as there is no scientific proof. There is no scientific proof that a $100 bottle of wine tastes better than a $10 bottle, it just does, some things are like that, recorded music is one of them.

 

[pinnahertz]

There is no scientific proof that a $100 bottle of wine tastes better than a $10 bottle, it just does...

But it doesn't...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_wine_tasting

See the Price section.

...some things are like that, recorded music is one of them.

Again, nope. Not recorded music, nor the method of storage and retrieval, nor the equipment it's played on. Once you remove the expectation bias, most of the "differences" vanish completely.

 

[Ray Schoepfer]

Once you remove the expectation bias, most of the "differences" vanish completely.

I have just gone through an episode that involves "expectation bias".

I visited a friend of mine, that is also interested in high end. The purpose of the visit was to test out the idea that MQA makes various digital hardware sound similar. During some emails prior to my visit, he stated a number of times that, while digital is interesting, ultimately, non of the digital sounds as good as vinyl. He absolutely know this to be true.

When I arrived with my Explorer2 in tow to compare to his Bluesound with MQA, he had a selection of same music ready in CD, SACD, Tidal (for the MQA) and Vinyl. He was going to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that vinyl still offers the best sound.

None of the tests were scientific in any way. As is usually the case, there was no way of confirming that the same masters were being used and level matching was done at an ad hoc level.

After a lot of listening to various mediums, it became clear to me that while, on the material that we used, MQA, often sounded better, although not always the case. Sometimes, some aspects of the music seemed better on vinyl, CD, or SACD. I think that, ultimately, the MQA sounded the best, most of the time but not always (this could have been due to masters but that is not what I'm trying to uncover here).

The interesting thing about this session was that my friend, that had repeatedly pronounced that vinyl is absolutely superior, said, without any prompting, that vinyl was not superior in most situations. BTW, I also used to think that nothing could beat vinyl until I put a proper digital system together.

So much for "expectation bias"!!!!!

Sure, there is expectation bias, but only when, in the case of audio, poor music is used with sloppy systems. But when you use truly. well recorded music, with natural instruments (assuming the listener knows the sound of natural instruments, of course) on a system that was carefully assembled and set up, the true sound becomes very apparent.

Oh yes, my goal of uncovering that MQA hardware sounded similar. No, there were lots of significant differences between the Explorer and the Bluesound. Guess this means I have to look really good MQA DAC

 

[pinnahertz]

The following are examples of expectation bias, numbered:

1.Sure, there is expectation bias, but only when, in the case of audio, poor music is used with sloppy systems.

2. But when you use truly. well recorded music, with natural instruments (assuming the listener knows the sound of natural instruments, of course) on a system that was carefully assembled and set up, the true sound becomes very apparent.

3. Oh yes, my goal of uncovering that MQA hardware sounded similar. No, there were lots of significant differences between the Explorer and the Bluesound.

4. Guess this means I have to look really good MQA DAC

Each could stand alone.

 

[rgs9200m]

MQA on Tidal sounds like it has bloated bass and some shout. The HiFi setting is the best for me [as it has been since I've had Tidal (for about 2 years now)]. It's more coherent and even-handed to my ears.
Just my impression (using a Chord Hugo TT and various headphones from ZMF/Audeze/Grado).

 

[Dacat]

Why can’t software or a music server decode the entire MQA file? It would seem that each DAC needs ‘certification’, but what really does that mean? There are so many variables in DAC design, I’d say there isn’t anything really clever being done by the DAC itself, or am I wrong here? Seems like a huge investment for a small green ‘authenticated’ light to illuminate. The entire thing reeks, IMO.

 

[castleofargh]

Why can’t software or a music server decode the entire MQA file? It would seem that each DAC needs ‘certification’, but what really does that mean? There are so many variables in DAC design, I’d say there isn’t anything really clever being done by the DAC itself, or am I wrong here? Seems like a huge investment for a small green ‘authenticated’ light to illuminate. The entire thing reeks, IMO.

MQA is clearly trying to get money from all possible positions in the playback chain. clever or bad, to each his opinion. now technically, one of MQA's arguments about temporal blur blablah involves a specif reconstruction filter(I don't remember the patent exactly but something like oversampling X2 and apodizing Meridian stuff, and maybe even doing some of the origami stuff in the DAC instead of the computer). if they don't have some control over the DAC, then they cannot get all the allegedly better stuff up exactly the way they want it.
there is plenty of arguable stuff elsewhere, but the DAC was an element of the MQA process from the start.

 

[saddleup]

The fact that this thread doesn't get much action gives me hope.

 

[RiseFall123]

Considering Roon as source and a non-mqa dac, its better to play the non-mqa version of the song or the mqa converted for a non-mqa dac?

 

[Left Channel]

Considering Roon as source and a non-mqa dac, its better to play the non-mqa version of the song or the mqa converted for a non-mqa dac?

You'll have to listen and decide for yourself. You may find that you like some tracks in MQA and some in non-MQA.

The 1x software decoding in Tidal should be enough to help you decide. No need for an MQA DAC yet, if ever.

 

[DarwinOSX]

MQA on Tidal sounds like it has bloated bass and some shout. The HiFi setting is the best for me [as it has been since I've had Tidal (for about 2 years now)]. It's more coherent and even-handed to my ears.
Just my impression (using a Chord Hugo TT and various headphones from ZMF/Audeze/Grado).

The Chord Hugo is not an MQA Dac so I assume you were using the first unfold in software by Tidal and did not get the 2nd and 3rd unfold.

 

[DarwinOSX]

You'll have to listen and decide for yourself. You may find that you like some tracks in MQA and some in non-MQA.

The 1x software decoding in Tidal should be enough to help you decide. No need for an MQA DAC yet, if ever.

Have you tried a full MQA Dac. It matters if you want the full MQA experience. I have listened to alot of Tidal MQA doing the full unfold on several MQA Dac's with Tidal doing none of it.

 

[Left Channel]

Have you tried a full MQA Dac. It matters if you want the full MQA experience. I have listened to alot of Tidal MQA doing the full unfold on several MQA Dac's with Tidal doing none of it.

Are you asking me? Of course I have a full MQA DAC. I would not be posting opinions on this topic if I did not (unlike perhaps some fraudiophiles here ). My DACs are listed in my profile.

I've found that if I have a strong opinion about an MQA track, pro or con, the difference originates in the choices made at the first stage of encoding into MQA. For example, when one instrument that was mostly in the background from the first vinyl pressing on now sounds more prominent in the MQA release.

That may be good or bad. Depends on the listener, and the intent of the original artists and recording engineers. But it is audible to me even in the basic undecoded 24/48 MQA file, and I believe it is certainly clear for all to hear in the software-decoded 24/96 MQA signal.

 

[captblaze]

I've found that if I have a strong opinion about an MQA track, pro or con, the difference originates in the choices made at the first stage of encoding into MQA. For example, when one instrument that was mostly in the background from the first vinyl pressing on now sounds more prominent in the MQA release.

My DAC has a light that is supposed to indicate whether or not the file has approval of the studio or artist. Blue is approved and Green not approved