hissinkl

I never said Chris said it, it is and remains my personal comment, not Chris'

Which is what I have done using the Explorer with MQA and and an Accuphase DC-37 using an Aurender X100 playing back hi-res files of the same music. As I said, it's a game changer.

I ended up listening to the MQA versus the original at optimum playback and the differences are subtle with an edge to MQA eliminating the brick-wall filter effect. Which means that I am also admitting that I'm having difficulty hearing the difference between a $20K DAC and a MQA enabled $500 DAC; it's that close.

Chris, Your assessment matches mine - superb sound etc etc but clearly the principle of diminishing returns also applies and while I also recall the sound of CD when it first came out in 1982, (I had to sell this new product), it seems the technical improvements are such that today it's becoming a choice between, say, a Ferrari versus a Maserati or Aston Martin situation for the audiophile. If the differences are subtle but MQA can reproduce the original in a fraction of the size and wallops any MP3 version, then it's a success. And audiophiles are, when all said and done, fringe dwellers of the music world. Given that young people are discovering LP sound and preferring it to the compressed MP3 etc etc mass produced music, MQA thus delivers the LP sound in a useful digital package that a DSD file equivalent could never match, ever without all the physical hassles associated with replaying vinyl. MQA will also wallop vinyl I venture to guess, (says he with a high end vinyl front end). MQA actually has sounded the death knell of the High End for who would have thought that a portable MQA enabled DAC costing say $500 could produce music essentially indistinguishable from a high end DAC costing $20,000? Add a pair of the latest headphones, and if I were a Hi Fi salesman, I would be feeling a little uncertain at the moment. No need to sell state of the art music servers or front ends anymore once the MQA tide gains momentum. MQA has overnight changed the game; again.

Unfortunately file sizes are not a solution since 24/96, MQA and CD are all different sizes. I listened to 2L-48_14 versions, CD @ 18.8Mb, MQA @ 51.9 Mb and 24/96 @ 85.8 Mb through the main system. Extremely difficult to tell any difference between all 3 versions, especially the MQA-Hires comparison. (2L-48-14 has a weird metadata issue in that Roon can't seem to recognise the MQA file. Aurender notes all caps in the album title for one of the files).

quite different encoding system.

Because if you can't hear any difference between MQA and CD quality, then it's no point listening to higher-res versions. CD is the benchmark. One reason for hi res versions is to put the brick-wall filters further out into the high-frequency area, so the audible effect is minimised. MQA, on the other hand, uses a q

You mean compare MQA with original or higher res-versions? Only up to 24/192 as that is the limit of the Explorer2 output. (I use the line out on the Meridian btw). I'll download some of the higher res files and listen. One caveat - seems audiophile sound tends to be highly etched and focussed, sort of extreme enhancement of sound sources. This acoustic etching is absent with the Larsen 8's and probably the reason I concluded that the MQA version was 'subtle'. It wasn't as subtle via the Stax earphones but equally I had to pay close attention to the music and only after many repeats did I hear the difference. It means that the various versions 2L have placed in the testing area are top quality from the start, irrespective of which version you listen to, so trying to hear a jaw-dropping difference is not to be expected. I distinctly remember when CD first came out in 1982 when I was selling Hi Fi and the improvement since is astonishing. Meridian dealers do have MQA demo files for customers to listen to, so it might be possible for Meridian (hint hint) to make these available for testing ? :-)

Listening to Spes' Kyrie track (2L) and the Mozart Violin concerto's (Marianne Thorsen) via the Stax 009s. MQA is different - slightly crisper starts to music with deeper soundstage and more focus of voice compared to CD quality. Difference is similar to inserting the QOL into the signal path re the sound stage and the crisper starts to the notes etc is the difference between analog (LP) vs digital, with digital sounding more 'rounded' or blurred. Do note I use Larsen 8 speakers so the differences may not be that obvious if listening to near field situations. Preliminary conclusion is that MQA removes the digital glare and blurring, plus improves the acoustic sound staging. As for comparing more modern music in MQA format to cd quality, I suspect we have to wait for Tidal to turn the tap on. MQA thus sounds like analog minus the hoo haa involved with playing LP's. I suspect compare to MP3 it's gob-smacking. Compared to classical genre CD's - subtle. Modern music? No idea.

I've managed to update the Explorer2 ok and using a Mac Pro, Roon it functions ok. (feeding Lehmann Black Cube/HD800 Sennheisers. However I have not heard a difference, if any between the 2L MQA and CD version files. So I tested it on the main system using a Windows 10 notebook, Roon and same files this time using JPlay. No blue light but if Meridian speaker is enabled and Jplay deactivated, the Explorer recognises MQA files again. And if there is a difference between MQA and CD quality, it's not jumping out and biting me. However I used 2L files exclusively, which means classical, and perhaps there is a palpable difference with other genres. Or my hearing is shot, and that is unlikely as I recently replaced the AMG Viella arm with the Axiom arm and that change was jaw dropping different; Then I have not heard a similar quantum difference between MQA and CD16/44 versions of the music tracks. It would be nice to have other music in MQA vs CD resolution to compare. Next step is to listen to the Stax SR009/Woo amp combo and see if that is able to result in any difference.

Could not listen to the Horus 258, but the rest OK. Main difference between the Grimm 64x and the Horus128x was the Grimms lack of 'air' or hall ambience. The sound was slightly more congested and slightly less dynamic. The 128 track sounded as if one were there, while the 64 x tracks for both versions lacked that air of the hi res track. Equipment: Aurender X100 --> Accuphase DC-37 etc -- Larsen 8.