Meridian Unplugged - Powered by MrTechGuy.co.uk Forums Discussion MQA - Related technology, products and music MQA listening impressions (with a MQA decoder)

Ronnie,

Thanks for your clarification. The sonic difference is clear between toggling HS on and then off while listening to MQA analog into my 861 from my 818. So what accounts for that?

Sorry MW, but I don't have an answer to that question.

All I can say is that in every Meridian Processor from the 568 forwards to the 861v8 will Upsample and RE all Analog Inputs to 24/96 at the Input card stage... and then maintain that 2x Rate stream thru the DSP Engine of the Processor.

The HS Option only kicks in at the Digital Output, where the user can choose to output 1x material if that's what the downstream equipment requires

The Processors DAC's are always fed by the 2x rate stream.

The above point has been discussed on here many times in the past and confirmed by Meridian on several occasions.

I'm pretty sure that the same would apply to the 818, given its "similarity" to the 861 range... but I can't be certain about that.

The other Sooloos Endpoints [MS200, MS600] have always had to ability to Not Upsample / Apodize and allow the stream to simply "pass thru" the device.

I have an upgraded 818v3 + 7200SE speakers, and own a 192k FLAC versions of 2L's Trondheim Mozart album. I've had the 192k files for a while and although not normally a huge classical listener, I love this recording.. listened to it many times..

After I upgraded my firmware last Friday and played the MQA sample, all I can say is that I immediately went and bought the rest of this album in MQA (and several others). I also have an upgraded Prime headphone amp at work and have been listening to various recordings over the past week with great delight.

With my 818/7200's I ran a few A/B comparisons of a particular solo on the first tune that starts at about 1:20 and goes to 1:50. I was playing the 192k file via async USB ("MHR 192k"), and my MQA file via Roon/ID41 ("MQA 352k").

I have to admit that I was completely smitten on first listen (and over and over about a dozen times . The violin sounded so much more realistic to me with the MQA recording. The notes were cleaner, better defined. It was like I could hear the unique characteristics of the particular instrument -- not just the tune/sound itself.

The next day I sat down and compared again the MQA versus 192k versions of this solo with the intention of writing about it here, but had to admit to myself that I wasn't blown away by it. In fact I had a hard time really telling the difference, so I decided maybe I just tricked myself. So, I decided not to post my impression here.

Reading VirusKiller's post changed my mind, because I realized that my first listening experience was at a louder "realistic" volume while my second listening was quite muted (with kids running around the room). Perhaps it's just me getting old and losing my hearing, but I tend to agree that for me the differences seem much more discernible at higher volume.

For those who may also enjoy this recording, today I bought the Grieg/Mozart piano sonatas (vol 1 and 2) and am really liking these as well! Guess I'm just a Mozart nut =)

Hi Joel
FWIW, I've always found that the same rationale holds true, even when say comparing MP3 320 to Lossless..........or 24/192 to CD.......i.e. that the music needs to be at "life like" volume in order for the resolution differences to be [more] apparent

And I agree with your Piano analogy........if someone was playing an actual Steinway Grand in your room, you can rest assured that it would be at a relatively high volume level, even without any amplification..........same with an Acoustic Guitar, Violin, Chello........and the same with a powerful singer

If any of the above were truly present in our rooms, then we can be quite certain that they would not be "in the background" volume wise.......and instead would likely dominate all other ambient noise etc

So, if we are looking for our systems to simulate "live" recordings, then I think it's wise to elevate our system volume levels, where possible.......not to "ear bleed" levels......but to volume levels that we may have heard at small scale Piano Recitals etc., that don't involve amplification

I would also add that the "hot" recordings that have dominated the last 15 years have all caused us to reduce the Startup volumes of our systems from what they were 15 years ago.........and we are then quite loath to turn them back up again

And as it happens, for the well recorded stuff from 2L et al, which isn't "hot", it needs the extra volume to "breathe" properly.........and I find the same for properly recorded and mastered high res material, even before the advent of MQA

So I think your pointer to "Turn the Music Up" is a very good one.......most especially when it comes to non-"hot" recordings

+1
Very good point Ronnie!

This is what my mastering friend have told me to. The "Hot" recordings messes things up and they are not very studio/live like.

I have also wondered sitting in consent halls how loud the music (not amplified for acoustic instruments) is compared to how loud I play the same at home.

One interesting thing would be to get or actually record the sound level for a e.g. a live grand piano, a violin, etc. in a normal room, small consent hall, etc. like situation so we know how loud it would be I reality!

I wonder if Ludwig might oblige us with a spl reading of his piano under attack from some progressive piece. That would be quite helpful to put some numbers to the discussion. Many folks will recognise the spl readings from their own calibrations.

Just a thought....

Lots of variables here such as how far you sit from the source.

I've always found when making A\B comparisons, that it's critical to normalise the volumes before hand. If one sample is only a few dB louder it can sound so much better.

This also applies to live music. It is surprising, for example, how different the same piano in the same auditorium can sound from a different seating position.

MQA consistently seems to produce such a large scale of sound that I think I may have to move my listening position slightly further back (this is not a complaint).

Definitely, but as I have discovered, absolute volume appears to be critical too.

I suppose if some of the ‘MQA additions’ to the music are in the lower dB ranges then a minimum listening level may be required just to make them audible. Perhaps MQA tracks need to come with minimum recommended listening level.

I agree that the recorded "hot" yes/no question is a big one. I noticed that, in the Roon audio trace, the 2L recordings are, on average, incredibly low... but the dynamic range is immense. You can be listening to the quiet bits (at a sensible volume) and then be blown out of your seat. It's a difficult problem to solve.

I have found that when listening to MQA I need to sit at least a half metre further back and at a lower volume setting (though still at "real world" sound levels). This is via an 808v6 and 8kSEs. I think that the enlarged scale has something to do with this and the need for better focus. However, I must introduce a word of caution. This may not all be down to playing MQA. In may in part be due to differences in presentation between the 808v5 and 808v6.