Meridian Unplugged - Powered by MrTechGuy.co.uk Forums Thread Like Summary - 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'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.

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

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 is a paradigm shift in what we once experienced and expected from audio reproduction.

I totally agree with that point.