Blind listening tests on MQA by CA


http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/681-my-first-24-hours-mqa/

Sounds promising and looking forward to more reports from others.....


Convert?fit=crop&h=128&rotate=exif&w=128jon2020
Maybe I missed something...From what I read, he was struggling to hear a difference and gave a very nebulous "conclusion".

That initial report doesn't seem promising enough for people to pay licensing to Meridian and consumer demand to be high enough for it to succeed.
One key will be since the white glove process eliminates pre and post ring..is the listening done with a time and phase accurate speaker ? Think this thru a bit.....

Well, the initial part of the report was promising......

For the first part of the test ;-

"The main differences between the two versions of this track are 1) The MQA version has an uncanny clarity and sense of space around each individual note that is just not present in the standard 24/192 version. This space is specifically around each note, not necessarily presented as a larger or more airy soundstage as a whole. 2) The 24/192 version sounded like the microphone was closer to the strings and the sound was more narrow as if each note was compartmentalized its own silo. 3) On the MQA version, the tone of the decay of each note has a purity to it or an appropriate color to it that isn’t present in the standard version. I really noticed this sense of hearing the entire note, from the initial hammer strike to the last decibel of the decay, in all its glory.

....,...Readers should keep in mind that just because I immediately picked the correct version of the track, doesn’t mean the differences are night and day. These things are subtle. But, once heard it’s hard not to hear the differences."

For the second part of the test :-

"I noticed two subtle differences between the original and MQA versions of this album. 1) The original non-MQA version contained what I’ll call a plastic edge to the sound of some instruments. There was something synthetic about the sound that likely can’t be heard unless one has the MQA version for comparison. 2) The non-MQA version has a darkness or dullness to it that isn’t present in the MQA version. This isn’t darkness associated with the blackest of backgrounds or a low noise floor, rather its a deadness that’s heard with the sounds of the instruments. As with the previous album, the differences are not equivalent to bumping the volume by a few dB. They are subtle and may not be apparent all listeners, especially when listening to unfamiliar music."

So, let's look forward to more reports from others......

J. :)
I was excited to read the articles in TAS about this new technology, it sounds very promising.

It sounds like the real benefit to MQA is when it is "end-to-end", that is, the input file is an MQA file and the DAC is able to convert MQA files to analog, not so much if the DAC doesn’t handle MQA natively, from what I read in the various forums, in some cases the MQA files being converted by a DAC that doesn’t do MQA sound worse.

I think the best strategy is to "wait and see" if the industry adopts MQA. It’s very encouraging to see Tidal is planning to distribute MQA on their site. That might be a nice "shot in the arm" to get this promising technology off the launch pad.
I have just come to realise that talking about new tech here is not what this forum is suited for. People come here to buy and sell stuff and new tech, especially with digital and its short half-life, does not sit well with those trying to sell their gear to those waiting to buy....
JMHO.