Is MQA in your Future?

Lots of info in this thread. I didn’t have a clue what MQA was when I started dac shopping. I’ve barely scratched the digital surface as I’m just getting started. At first I thought I would be missing out by buying a dac without mqa. However, after doing some basic research, I decided to make my dac purchase based on the features I was looking for and would use. MQA was not one. Honestly, I probably wouldn’t know I was listening to an MQA file or streaming source if it jumped up and bit me in the butt .
 
Just searched Tidal for the music I love to listen to (European Free Jazz, Avant-Garde).... what a MAJOR DISAPPOINTMENT in selection. I'll pass.
 
Lots of info in this thread. I didn’t have a clue what MQA was when I started dac shopping. I’ve barely scratched the digital surface as I’m just getting started. At first I thought I would be missing out by buying a dac without mqa. However, after doing some basic research, I decided to make my dac purchase based on the features I was looking for and would use. MQA was not one. Honestly, I probably wouldn’t know I was listening to an MQA file or streaming source if it jumped up and bit me in the butt .
You are probably better off not getting a MQA enabled DAC, especially if you are not interested in the tech as you will be limiting yourself to a few DACs instead of all the ones that came before, plus the vast majority now available.. Some DAC mfg's are having nothing to do with MQA including Schiit and it is interesting to read their reasoning..

Quote from Schiit Website here

05/26/2016

Schiit Clarifies Position on a Proposed Audio Format



May 26th, 2016, Valencia, CA. Today, Schiit Audio announced that they would not be supporting MQA, a proprietary audio format claiming “studio quality sound you can stream or download.” Schiit Audio feels that it is important to support its customers—and potential customers—by clarifying the company’s position on MQA, so that they may choose another DAC provider that backs the format, if they feel it is important to them.



“Although there are still many questions to be answered about MQA, we feel we know enough to make a decision,” said Jason Stoddard, Schiit’s Co-Founder.



Stoddard outlined the primary reasons:



1. We believe that supporting MQA means handing over the entire recording industry to an external standards organization. MQA wants:

  • Licensing fees from the recording studios
  • Licensing fees from the digital audio product manufacturers
  • Hardware or software access/insight into the DAC or player
  • Subscription fees from every listener via Tidal, and/or royalties from purchases of re-releases by the recording industry

2. Our experience with standards-driven industries is sub-par. Consider the surround market. Companies making surround processors now have to support a dizzying array of different standards, none of which is a market differentiator, and the exclusion of any single standard can mean commercial failure. The result is a market in which competition is stifled and consumers are confused.



3. We don’t believe MQA is a differentiator for high-end DACs if it is available on phones. Consider SRS, the Sound Retrieval System, as an instructive example. Before being acquired by DTS, it claimed to be on “over a billion devices.” However, there is little evidence any consumers considered SRS a must-have, differentiating technology.



4. We consider MQA to be yet another “format distraction” that makes high-end audio more confusing and insular. This is a reflection of our position in the market—nearly 1/3 of our revenue is from $99 and under products, and we have one of the youngest customer bases in the industry. It is our experience that when someone starts getting into great audio, they just want a product that will make their current music sound better, rather than one that requires additional investment in streaming subscriptions or new releases.



5. We feel that, even from a market perspective, many questions need to be answered. When will we see MQA on Tidal? At what cost? What percentage of the library will be MQA? How many releases should we expect to see from Warner in the next 12 months? What will be the cost? Again, a historic example may be cautionary. Consider Sony and DSD. DSD is a Sony technology that they promoted, and yet they released very few recordings in DSD.



Mike Moffat concurred, saying, “In addition to the market questions outlined by my partner, there are many performance questions (about MQA) that cause great concern. Actual decoded bit depth for both MQA and non-MQA DACs, claims of ‘lossless,’ the need for MQA to tweak their decode algorithm for a specific DAC (and their ability to perform this optimization on-schedule for a DAC manufacturer who might be, well, a little smaller than HTC,) the impact on the DAC manufacturer’s own proprietary technology and product development, and the impact on the DAC manufacturer’s own competitiveness.”



Moffat further opined that Schiit Audio considers the further development of in support of the primary 16/44.1 PCM format to be of the most value to its customers, citing extremely strong sales of Schiit Audio’s multibit DAC products, and the positive reception to its “DACs for the music you have, not the music you have to buy,” message.



Asked if there was any chance Schiit Audio might support MQA if it became the dominant format in the market, Moffat answered, “If it becomes the dominant audio technology, or even a very popular second-place format, we would have to evaluate it in the same way we evaluate other lossy compression standards, such as home theater surround formats, Bluetooth codecs, and MP3 variants.”
 
Like I said before, we should be thankful we live in a time that we can choose from so many different formats of music whether it be basic Quality streaming or the highest quality streaming, we can choose and that's a freedom and right that we have. I don't know about everyone else but im very thankful that I'm alive in these times to see all of these new changes in technology, it makes me even more thankful that I lived in the times when we were so limited. Enjoy the music and happy listening :thumbsup:

Audiofreak71
Additionally the amount of MQA DACS to enjoy these changes in technology will greatly expand as more manufacturers get on board, the dragonfly’s are or will be getting free firmware updates, as will the Oppo players. I can’t see a reason why nearly all relatively modern dac’s would be capable of a similar firmware update offered at no cost. Roon’s On board, as is iRiver. A host of others have committed also.
 
Just searched Tidal for the music I love to listen to (European Free Jazz, Avant-Garde).... what a MAJOR DISAPPOINTMENT in selection. I'll pass.
Something to note, Tidals search engine is not like Google, alot of the times you really have to look for selections and spell exactly as it says, it won't guess for you like Google. They have gotten alot better but still lacking, the good thing is they are steadily progressing. Maybe try searching for what your looking for a different way, I have done that and have found what I'm looking for. Just a thought.

Audiofreak71
 
Last edited:
Early to mid 70's Danish, German, and Dutch free jazz? Believe me, there is not much there. I'll stick with Soulseek. (Can I type "soulseek" here??)
 
Early to mid 70's Danish, German, and Dutch free jazz? Believe me, there is not much there. I'll stick with Soulseek. (Can I type "soulseek" here??)
Sure you can type and search what you wish, but was just trying to give you some help, because many people give up to fast on on Tidal because it's not easy like a Google search. But then again we live in an age of no patience and not having to really work to find things anymore.

Audiofreak71
 
Currently
Tidal $240/yr.

Qobuz $480/yr.


2/3 more bandwidth per user. Surely the CDN fees can't be that much differential!?..... :idea:
 
Problem 1: MQA is lossy. Problem 2: There are open formats for lossless files which work great, and serve our needs. And 3: The MQA hardware needed to render properly this dumbed down lossy format. All MQA does is line the pockets of MQA, Ltd. It does nothing useful or better. Therefore it needs to wither away.
Well put Kent . :thumbsup:
 
MQA in my future? :dunno:

Probably the only thing that would temp me to go beyond 320k MP3 or AAC subscription streaming. Otherwise I'll just stick w/ lossy ... which is fine for most modern pop recordings anyway .... like My Morning Jacket ... The Waterfall.

61rXF6V-S5L._AC_US218_.jpg


Actually streamed Horace Silver ... Blowin' the Blues Away last night on
Tidal (320k AAC) and it sounded really good to my ears ... I'm guessing CD quality
stream would sound better on that album ... but I'm in no hurry. Like stated earlier ... MQA might push me to go to the higher Tidal tier.

R-1186962-1352239412-4638.jpeg.jpg
 
Last edited:
I've been streaming (up tp) 24/192 WAV and FLAC files from the cloud (and my hard disc via wifi) since mid 2014 with my Kromecaster, which I demoed in the Harman room at RMAF 2014. I don't need no stinkin' MQA (yet). Isn't it just a new form of copy protection?
 
However, network degradation does not cause subtle effects; a sufficiently degraded network is sonically obvious: the sound goes away for a while. There are no subtle effects, like roll-off of high frequencies, unless the software receiving the stream is specifically designed to gracefully degrade and allow for lowered bandwidth.

I agree that network degradation is not the cause of "subtle" effects. That's why I mentioned dropout events reflecting receipt of enough bad packets that the player software could not recover. What I proffered was that no one seems to know what the software does when confronted with lost packets - is there an attempt to substitute based on previous data, since FEC isn't in the cards, does the software implement its own form of correction? The player software reaction to missing data is an open question and I think brings back the question of bit-accurate data. As I said, it may be a bit anal-retentive, but making offhand assumptions about what does happen offers little in the way of a comprehensive evaluation.

I'll have to take a look at one of my books, as I am still under the impression, for whatever reason, that TCP does not guarantee packet delivery, at least from an isochronous perspective. I may be wrong, but I'll have to satisfy myself. It's neither here nor there, but I could be confused on the subject and hate it when my aging faculties betray me.

Cheers

Ok - Update
You're right Dave - I managed to get elements of TCP balled up with UDP as far as guaranteed packet delivery goes. Sheesh, I really thought the worst of it was me not being able to remember what I had for dinner two nights ago. It's spreading.
 
Last edited:
That is the MQA version of the DAC. That is the one people were complaining about on Computer audiophile's forums.

The Brooklyn DAC+ was just released in October of 2017. It will decode MQA, but the earlier version did that as well. I haven't really read any reports lately, so I don't know who is complaining about what. Anyway, anyone buying one can always buy from a place that has a 30 day return policy, like Music Direct. Also, there are other was to fully decode MQA, so the Mytek isn't the only choice.
 
Early to mid 70's Danish, German, and Dutch free jazz? Believe me, there is not much there. I'll stick with Soulseek. (Can I type "soulseek" here??)

Understood, you may be absolutely correct, but I can’t emphasize enough Tidal’s search requirements, search for artists and it won’t give you alternatives if a letter is out of place, you will just come up empty.
 
Also I have to thank you, after doing some digging after your post I’m delighted to have discovered new to me music! While you couldn’t find what you where looking for the Albert Mangelsdorff, Pierre Favre, Arild Anderson collaboration on “Triplicity” I ran across are delightful. Thank you:beerchug:

Looking forward to more digging!
 
I've not "heard" full MQA so I probably shouldn't comment. But .... I have read some pretty credible reviews of MQA by mastering engineers that give it a "meh" response at best. From what I can gather, if you hear a "demo" by the MQA folks your likely hearing an MQA mastered file vs. a totally different file of the same music (not fair). One would only resort to such trickery if what you have isn't all that great. The mastering engineers who use the various formats don't seem impressed by MQA at all, so ... why should we be? One interview that I read (posted on AK I believe) of a mastering engineer quoted the engineer as saying he only uses MQA if it is requested by the client as he finds it to be lower quality than the standard HiRez digital file. Like I said I shouldn't be commenting .... but unless we all get to hear the exact same file mastered at the same time by the same person (one MQA'd and one not MQA'd) side by side ... how can we draw any meaningful conclusion? It seems to me that those who actually have had that opportunity (and there seem to be very few that actually have) are not very impressed. So, it smacks of "marketing hype" and copy protection to me.

That being said .... If I get a chance to hear MQA'd and non MQA'd identical files side by side and find the MQA to be better - I'll be the first to say so and will jump on the bandwagon if it truly is an advancement in sonic quality.
 
I’ve been fooling around doing comparisons this morning between artists on Audirvana, very easy to do with it’s Tidal capability.

I think the worst thing I can say about the MQA offerings are they at worst indistinguishable from actual HD tracks in my library. Nothing scientific mind you, I can’t do a rapid A/B but repeated listening to tracks or sections of tracks back to back to back (sound level double checked with a radio shack digital sound level meter, cat #3300099)

Nora Jones: Come Away with me: Don’t Know Why: DSD64 24/176.4 vs Tidal MQA Studio 24/96 vs MQA Studio 24/192. Opinion? It’s a wash, very impressive that we can stream at this quality.

Led Zep II: Ramble On : HD Track ALAC 24/96 vs Tidal MQA Studio 24/94. Opinion? Again a wash, admittedly Led Zep was always poorly produced and the HD tracks are not major steps up but still, an impressive tie in my opinion for Tidal MQA.

James Taylor: Before This World: Today Today Today: HD Tracks ALAC 24/96 vs Tidal MQA Studio 24/96 :Opinion? I’ll give a slight edge to the HD track, hard to put my finger on it but it’s there. Still very impressive.

Ottmar Libert HD Track ALAC 24/94 blew away Tidal’s lossless non MQA offering.

Doing many others and I’ll report back if interested. Bottom line? that if MQA is lossy, much like the new Buick isn’t your grandfathers Buick, the MQA lossy is not the lossy of old.

All selections were coordinated through Audirvana with actual payback bit rates taken from its data.
 
I agree that network degradation is not the cause of "subtle" effects. That's why I mentioned dropout events reflecting receipt of enough bad packets that the player software could not recover. What I proffered was that no one seems to know what the software does when confronted with lost packets - is there an attempt to substitute based on previous data, since FEC isn't in the cards, does the software implement its own form of correction?
If it's software built on top of a reliable transport protocol like TCP or RTP, if there is enough packet loss that the recovery time exceeds the buffer length, the playback stops. A good way to simulate this is to unplug your network cable whilst the sound is playing.
 
Back
Top Bottom