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

Agreed - if there is a trick, I'd like to know too.

John

As a Meridian owner, you know the drill...genius and excellence in spades, but also annoying oversights that can really frustrate.

I am starting to think of Bob Stuart as I do Christopher Nolan... I cannot deny that 'Tenet' is a work of genius, but given the complexity of the plot, just being able to hear the dialogue could have made for perfection. Yet genius it remains.

Richard

Yes, if I get your drift, MQA is the work of a genius or two.

With the recent proliferation of MQA releases it may be moving to request time to the majors or even minors of labels to reinvest further in their artists and goldmine of recordings.

Streaming is now and deserves even more input from all in the industry. However the artists new or old must have an equitable return for their creative content.

They are and always have been bound IMHO to so called standard contracts that are imbalanced in favour of the big three.

In todays circumstances talented young musicians are denied the opportunity to make a few pounds from live performances and are struggling to survive.

I pay 20 pounds a month for Hi Res streaming which pre streaming represents approximately 24 albums per year.

I can now access millions of recordings

I cringe at those who are not prepared to see this as amazing value.

However the other side of the coin is how do I know that the artists I listen to are fairly remunerated.

There is little or no transparency in this business.

Apologies for my ramblings, I hope they have some value, but unfortunately freeloaders will never change.

Hector

Are you suggesting that 16/44 MQA is better than 16/44 CD or FLAC; and, if so, what is the technical reason for the improved sound quality?

First we were told that for optimum sound quality we needed 24/96, and some may remember upgrading their DSP speakers to accommodate this ideal. Then, with the launch of MQA, we learned that tonal fidelity was much less important than timing. We are, it seems, peculiarly sensitive to timing, hence the stories about walking through forests and listening out for snapping twigs. We therefore needed a resolution of 24/192 or 24/384 or even 24/768 if we are to fully enjoy the possibilities of high resolution. So what is the point of 16/44 MQA? Is this really what we were led to expect and that had required further expensive upgrades to our systems?

Perhaps 16/44 MQA is partly justified in comparison to 16/44 FLAC/CD by superior mastering? But anyone who is familiar with the many re-mastered versions of classic recordings will know that this can be a very subjective area indeed.

What I want to say is this.
Yes the majority of 44.1kHz 16Bit MQA releases are different and to my ears and brain better than, the original 44.1kHz 16bit releases (but this is personal).
The MQA version is mostly more dynamic.

I can say no more than that, but do the comparison yourself.
Try Al Stewart Year Of The Cat. This album highlights the differences I hear and appreciate.

In answer to your second point, I would not be so presumptuous as to give an opinion on how this is achieved by MQA. Bob Stuart is your man for this question.

Best Wishes Hector

I'm beginning to think that the original sample rate is somewhat irrelevant. Many of the 16/44.1 MQA releases, encoded from CD masters, are up there with the best HiRes that I've heard on SE loudspeakers.

There are so many variables, but consider an early AAD (analogue recorded, analogue mixed, digitally mastered) release: the MQA encoding will essentially be undoing the (considerable) imperfections of the ADC that was used to digitize the mix tapes. THAT is the main reason why MQA encodes sound better than their CD masters. (Plus there is the correction at the DAC end as well.)

Some red book CD sounds great, but much of it doesn't, whilst a lot of numbers game "HiRes" digital sounds great, but certainly not all of it. Ultimately, a great recording at 44k will sound great and a lousy recording at 192k will sound lousy. The MQA encoding process seems to be very effective at extracting the very best from the master, and from what I've heard, it's possible that the benefits are more significant for 44k masters.

In the light of my earlier comments on mastering and correction of ADC flaws, we seem to be in broad agreement here.

Very well put, although I am less confident about what you say about MQA mastering extracting the very best. I certainly have some CDs that sound better than MQA files. But most MQA files sound better than most CDs.

Here you seem to diverge significantly from what Bob said at the launch of MQA, which was all about delivering the exciting benefits of high resolution. And on the MQA website the heads of Warner and Universal both enthuse about MQA enabling them to stream high resolution music. [As a sidenote meanwhile, Meridian continue to call themselves the pioneers of high resolution, whatever that means.] As we know, 16/44 is not high resolution.

I'm not prepared to make that assertion any more. My ears tell me that, when MQA-encoded, it absolutely can be.