MQA according to new Stereophile "loudness button" and "tweaking EQ in presence region"


Stereophile’s May 2017 review of the Mytek Brooklyn DAC (Herb Reichert) states that "in every comparison, MQA made the original recording sound more dynamic and transparent, but only sometimes more temporaly precise."

Seems positive, right? But the next sentence reads....

"After a while the MQA versions began to remind me of those old Loudness Contour buttons on 1960’s receivers, which used equalization to compensate for loss of treble and bass at low listening levels."

Now for the bombshell.....


"Consistently, MQA sounded as though it was tweaking the EQ in the presence region."

"I also noticed that most of the MQA versions sounded rounded off and smoother than the originals."

My opinion is that we gullible audiophiles have been fooled in the past by supposed new technologies, similar to what supposedly early mobile fidelity pressings did with EQ to make listeners think they were hearing an improvement.

In my mind, an alteration of the source is distortion.

Just as TV’S in stores set to torch mode are often preferred on first glance, and speakers that at first grab you with some spectacular aspect can become tiresome over time, as accuracy and neutrality become preferred as one's ear becomes more refined.

The frightening thing is that 2 major music entities have signed on, seemingly to make MQA the defacto standard of how music will made available.


While I haven’t been able to do this comparison myself, reading a highly regarded golden ear admit this in print is warning enough for me.


Just like the sugary drink that tastes so good on first experience, our advanced society knows that consuming it regularly leads to diabetes, heart disease and worse.

Does this revelation reveal MQA to be the parlor trick that it appears to be?
emailists
Tomic, from what I’ve read as far as another DAC with fpga, getting compatible with MQA is not exactly easy, and have to make sure they don’t compromise the sound of other codecs, and requires back and forth with Mqa including code so they approve it.

i read early reports of mastering engineers saying running signal through mqa  sounds "better" than the master.

In my mind this is highly suspect. Just like the DBX expander I used to use on my system in high school.  Sure it was supposed to expand the dynamics Osee back to reality, but like countless boxes over time promising to enhance the original, they eventually sit collecting dust. 

However, Something like the Plangent process, on the other hand looks at carrier tone of analog masters and digitally slows or speeds to account for tape wow and flutter. The results are excellent, but they are not changing or enhancing the sound in any way other than timing fixing. IMHO this is the process that major labels should have considered, for their analog sourced releases.

The springsteen remasters used this (grateful dead were early adopters) and I can hear the solidity in general and steadiness of piano sustains, etc..


IME, the whole dac/server/streamer has an artificial factor to it.
For now, this is where developers are on this technology. Remember when the (gulp) mp3 originated?  Many felt it was the greatest thing in Audio.

Excellent points- emailists
its all a downhill ride from the origional acoustic event...

seriously lats assume for simplicity the analog master represents what the artist wanted us to hear at that time.

Plangent - the fruits of which I have heard and for most part agree does improve sound - a boon to the hyper pitch sensitive for sure.

so post plangent we still have an A to D converter to deal with....they are not artifact free - this is just factual. My Wadia ( actually both of them ) and Ayre are nite and day different. Why object to cleaning up those artifacts - many temporal - and as I believe MQA requires somebody ( label, producer, artist  ) sign off on those changes..

Diana Krall stops by my house every time I roll tubes in the preamp...


re the point about FPGA is that it is advertised as somewhat future proof vs implemented in H/ W which is somewhat more difficult to change..

IMO both DCS and Brinkman have been pretty transparent about plans for MQA...Aesthetix not so much. IMO Jim White is brilliant designer who offers an upgrade path - I am holding off on the next level upgrade because I want to know what the plan is...versus silent fence sitting