Most-Read Feedback Articles (Last 365 Days)
- 2016-09-24 - Amphion's New 3LS Loudspeaker
- 2016-11-01 - Hegel H360 vs. Devialet 120 or 200?
- 2016-09-10 - KEF Reference 201/2 -- Still Recommended?
- 2016-10-27 - Vivid Giya G3 vs. Vivid B1 Decade vs. KEF Blade Two
- 2016-08-26 - Is MQA Going to Go the Way of HDCD?
- 2017-01-15 - Luxman L-550AX -- the Little Amp that Probably Can
- 2016-10-26 - B&O BeoLab 90 Video and Review
- 2017-05-01 - A Paradigm Active/40 Owner on Active Speakers
- 2017-01-24 - Sonus Faber Olympica III vs. PSB Imagine T3
- 2016-11-02 - Bryston Mini A and Mini T
- Category: Reader Feedback Reader Feedback
- Created: 03 April 2016 03 April 2016
To Doug Schneider,
I just finished reading your article on MQA and I think all the points you made are valid. There’s a set of tracks you can download for free from 2L (http://www.2l.no/hires) that includes MQA-encoded files as well as PCM and DSD copies at various sampling rates/bit depths, as well as the original digital “master.” Now you know the provenance of each file and can compare to the original. The Meridian Explorer2 I had on hand could only unfold up to 192kHz, whereas most (if not all) the digital masters are at DXD bitrates. I ended up using the 24/192 PCM transfers for comparison purposes. I found that MQA sounded decent, but it certainly wasn’t the same as the PCM version. Vocals had a thinned-out quality and there seemed to be less bass and midrange warmth present. I put down my thoughts on my blog, if you’d like to read them.
I’m glad there's somebody in the audio press that’s doing some critical thinking about MQA.
I checked out your article and found your comparisons and conclusions interesting. A couple days before the article was published, I talked to Bob Stuart about my article and MQA. He thought that they should send me an Explorer2 to hear MQA for myself. I hope they do send one so I can do some comparisons of my own. From what you wrote, the Explorer2 seems limited, but at least it is a start.
By the way, I am also surprised that more writers aren’t asking questions about how MQA works or demanding proper comparisons. Perhaps some meaningful discussions can finally get started. . . . Doug Schneider