2. music
  3. 126013-20253

MQA - Music Discussion

This thread is to discuss MQA music currently available, listening impressions, and how they were encoded.

Please keep tech. talk (except provenance) out of this discussion! :) This thread is about finding good music sources, listening impressions, and mastering. There is a lot to be said about the algorithms, hype, and politics but please use other threads for that in the Digital section perhaps. :) 

I'll start.  I know right now of only two big labels offering MQA:

2L.no (maybe only test tracks)

and

https://www.highresaudio.com/studio_master.php?fids=153&cr=MQA

as well as at least one indie label. Thanks to Peter Veth over in the DAR thread here:

http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2016/08/mqa-a-non-hostile-takeover/#comment-135610

I'm particularly interested in talking about works we can find to do A/B comparisons with, as well as any tracks listeners feel are exemplars and say "This is good stuff!"  because so far I've had no luck at all.

As others know, the thing that has so far affected music the most is the mastering choices made by the engineers, as opposed to actual encoding technology, so I welcome details of that along with listening impressions.

Thank you.
erik_squires

Showing 10 responses by dbtom2

dbtom2
382 posts
 
Re: HDTracks Mozart Violin Concertoes

What's an MQA remix? But not MQA encoded? Does this mean that MQA was used to mix/master the album but no "origami" is in the download?
dbtom2
382 posts
 
Thank you for starting this thread. I am open-minded about MQA yet I totally understand why many audiophiles are skeptical.

In my mind, MQA is like the "Dolby" logo that was found on certain labels of the prerecorded cassette tapes I bought back in the 70's. Those recordings sounded fine - for a cassette - in a non-Dolby player but the sound quality was better when played back in a Dolby equipped cassette player. Some labels offered Dolby, most didn't. The point being that the tape played fine regardless of whether the player was Dolby equipped or not. I vaguely recall the Dolby logo having some small influence over whether I bought the cassette or the LP - which I often would record myself.  

Two download sites offering MQA downloads isn't exactly an auspicious start but I'm hopeful that I won't be completely deaf by the time MQA is ubiquitous. 

dbtom2
382 posts
 
So...

Since this is a highly regarded recording (To Die For), I plan to purchase each version and do the comparison. My hearing isn't what it used to be and my system isn't as resolving as I would like but I have been interested in acquiring different versions of the same recording for this very purpose.

44.1/16
192/24
192/24 MQA Remix

But as you say, there's no guarantee the mix down will have te same settings. Your thoughts?

dbtom2
382 posts
 
I'm giving the 2L downloads another good listen. Though I don't have an MQA decoder, I am going to compare the hi-res versions with the MQA versions.

Will report back.
dbtom2
382 posts
 
Okay, this is something I wasn't familiar with. They used MQA to correct for the A/D error in the original. It is offered as a Hi-Res.  Interesting because I expected that recordings sould be offered as MQA but I didn't expect an MQA "remix"



dbtom2
382 posts
 
Any thoughts on the higher resolutions? 

dbtom2
382 posts
 
I am listening and re-listening to the 2L tracks. Both from the 2L testbench and purchased/downloaded from HD Tracks. With and without MQA.

These are enjoyable musical pieces that were recorded, mixed, and mastered with great care. I don't know if I will ever be able to discern the difference MQA makes. Even the standard resolution tracks (44.1/16) are not different - yet, to my ear - to the high-res versions. 

What I can discern - and this is fascinating to me - is the proximity of the recording microphone to the instrument. At certain places on some piano pieces I can hear the piano keys coming to rest after being struck. This is now a distraction and I wish it weren't apparent.

There are so many variables in this hobby. The 2L recordings make me realize that a carefully recorded piece that is well mixed and mastered can be enjoyed in standard 44.1/16 resolution. 

What I want is to hear is some of my crappy 80's cd re-mastered in MQA so I can hear an obvious difference. A not-so-subtle brick slam-dunked to my head. 

dbtom2
382 posts
 
Thanks Eric. I will keep plugging away. Working on improving my listening skills.

But the bottom line is that you're right. We need more recordings to compare. 

dbtom2
382 posts
 
Excellent idea.

Does your player allow for volume normalization? Are you able to measure the SPL of each version to see if different mixes/masters have different levels? 

I wrote earlier about there being so many variables in audio. SPL gives me the most trouble when doing an AB test. 

 
dbtom2
382 posts
 
@erik_squires 

The thing - for me - is concentration. I get lost in the music, partly because the quality of the recording is pretty good and partly because I like the music. So I am trying to improve that part of my listening skillset.

As a palate cleanser :)  I queued up Born To Run yesterday and listened to a 16/44.1 version versus an upsampled 24/88.2 version I made. The high res version was definitely a cleaner, less congested sound to my ears. Since it's an old analog recording, I would love to hear it remastered in MQA. Maybe lose some dynamic compression. Not a true high-res in the Dr Aix sense but definitely a recording that could use some new love. 



More to discover