Meridian Unplugged - Powered by MrTechGuy.co.uk Forums Discussion MQA - Related technology, products and music What is the point of 16/44 MQA?

When MQA was launched it offered two main promises. The first was to deliver high-resolution audio in a manner that was compact and easy to transmit. It therefore bypassed, by means of its "origami", traditional high-resolution files which used a lot of space but did not include much musical information in that space. The second promise was to do with authentication. "Artists" authenticated the MQA file as being identical to the master created and heard in the studio. I realise that much of the above is a simplification but is sufficient to make my point.

When using Tidal I am finding more and more examples of 16/44 MQA. How does this count as high resolution? It appears the same specification as red book CD and inferior to SACD. At the very least I would have expected greater bit depth. I think that a bit depth of at least 20 is required for better resolution; increased sampling is perhaps less important. So, what have I misunderstood. What is the point of 16/44 MQA?

Hi Asa,

Surely the question should be, do 44.1kHz 16Bit MQA versions sound better to you compared to the original Red Book 44.1kHz 16Bit CD versions?
Just a thought

We had a local Origami club here, unfortunately it folded.

Hector

I've wrestled with this one, and spent far too long on different Roon settings trying to make sense of it.

In the end I have just learned to trust my ears. As I have Qobuz for its better classical catalogue, I don't have to listen to the Tidal versions, and can join those PCM Purists should I choose to.

But this is where I puzzle. I think I can now detect an MQA 16bit/44.1kHz version by its improvement in 'sweetness', 'tunefulness' and improved 'pace' and 'rhythm'. This is very hard to be certain of, but I even wonder if it is more pronounced using the Roon decode with non-MQA equipment? When a Redbook version of anything follows, it sounds kind of 'sour', and I miss the musicality of the MQA version. Now according to some, it should definitely sound worse, but for me there is an improvement in musical values, though I appreciate my/your mileage etc.

It has been said by others, not least Chris, that the preoccupation with numbers clouds an appreciation of your actual experience...perhaps less theory would help us work out what is best?

At this point you can start to go down a philosophical rabbit hole, as I can, and recognise that any recording, any digitisation of an actual musical event (Kant's 'thing in itself') is always an approximation, a pale copy. But if MQA can extract the core elements that provide for a good musical experience, I remain for it, until the next and better technology comes along. No doubt, one day, we will view MQA as we might 78rpm discs today. But in 1904, to have heard Caruso via those, must have felt miraculous?

Richard

Yes your ears connected to your brain must be the final arbiter on this subject.

As old as I am, I need as much help as I can get to appreciate the music.

A very high majority of MQA releases, whatever the final resolution, are for me.

The minority is down to content that I do not value. But hey they sound better.

Hector

Where a 16/44 MQA track exists, it will have been originally recorded at 16/44.

That MQA track will retain 100% of its original recording data, compared to the MP3 equivalent that only retains 10% of the data.

MQA will also have ADC / DAC compensation and, maybe wrong, possibly still have the timing hints.

MP3 is a diversion and not part of this discussion, just a comparison of reproduced sound quality between 44.1kHz 16Bit and 41kHz 16Bit MQA is relevant.

MP3 point taken, we all know it is crap.

Hector

Given what we have been told about the amazing benefits of high resolution, you should not have to struggle to hear the superiority of MQA.

Yes you are right. I had forgotten to add that one of the benefits of MQA is its ability to correct the flaws of older ADCs. But are you suggesting that this validates 16/44 MQA?

Yes but the old adage / maxim "you can't make a silk purse from a sows ear" is relevant. If the original was awful MQA cannot make it much better.
I am very happy with the vast majority of 44.1kHz 16Bit MQA issues, which exercise my SE's every day.

Hector

This is my general impression as well. When available, I am listening to the MQA version of any track on Tidal.

Glad to hear that.

I just wish Tidal offered a dedicated search for MQA albums.

Or have I missed a trick?

Hector