Is MQA in your Future?

All I can give you definitively is my sound level matched results as above. Remember, I’m comparing a stream to a hirez download, it’s impressive.

I’ll continue to purchase Hi-Rez downloads of course. But it’s good stuff this streaming, yes!
 
Were they from the same masters? For many LP's there are multiple masters around and if they are not the same master it is not a great comparison. For example Donald Fagen's Nightfly in MQA format is a different one than what is done at CD quality (the MQA songs are all longer than the CD - MQA has not said where this master is from - they said it was the same as the CD but how can that be?). Also since the LP was recorded in early digital, it is only a 20 bit master, so anything above that has been resampled higher. Until there is a head to head, from the same masters and same bit depth, etc. there will ALWAYS be questions.

This has been the issue with MQA, getting real definitive honest answers - all we get is 'Trust us'!!

You seem very passionate about this subject. Have you taken the time to listen and compare the FREE files that I linked way back in post #92. They are all from the same exact high quality master so they meet your criteria.

Listen and compare them on your non-MQA DAC and let us know what you hear.

http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html?
 
Having done some reading on MQA, I still don't get it: What is the supposed benefit, beyond consuming a bit less space and bandwidth compared to existing lossless compression formats?

Given that space and bandwidth costs are ever-decreasing, taking up a bit less space and bandwidth seems like not much of a gain, and MQA is a proprietary format that demands payment from content developers (or at least the makers of some of their digital audio gear), content providers and device (e.g., DAC) manufacturers. Surely that cost will inevitably be absorbed by consumers -- you and me -- by eventually paying more for streamed/downloaded music?

If so, what benefit do we get in return, that we wouldn't get from industry adoption of existing free audio compression formats?
 
You can't really stream high quality files, so MQA might be an improvement for streaming.
There's nothing that technically prevents streaming high-resolution content, and bandwidth and storage costs are continuing to plummet -- largely driven by video content providers like Netflix and Amazon Video that have bandwidth demands that far exceed the requirements of high-resolution audio.

And, again, why MQA instead of free formats?
 
There's nothing that technically prevents streaming high-resolution content, and bandwidth and storage costs are continuing to plummet -- largely driven by video content providers like Netflix and Amazon Video that have bandwidth demands that far exceed the requirements of high-resolution audio.

And, again, why MQA instead of free formats?

Well, if all the streaming services started streaming higher than CD quality content, then that would be nice. But right now, most of them don't.
 
The draw for me is that if I stream music, which I do a lot, the Tidal site has hundreds of titles available in MQA.
OK, hundreds is it? I would have expected by this time that number to have grown to hundreds of thousands. Looks like another failed format in the making!
 
You can't really stream high quality files, so MQA might be an improvement for streaming.
Of course you can. Video streaming services like Netflix consume more bandwidth. With music, it's currently done in Europe with Quobuz and will be coming to the states soon.

Like other providers, they offer different tiers with the Sublime+ service streaming 192/24.
 
OK, hundreds is it? I would have expected by this time that number to have grown to hundreds of thousands. Looks like another failed format in the making!

Actually it’s many many many times higher then that. There is a Tidal masters spreadsheet floating around on the net, do a search for the most current tally.
 
Of course you can. Video streaming services like Netflix consume more bandwidth. With music, it's currently done in Europe with Quobuz and will be coming to the states soon.

Like other providers, they offer different tiers with the Sublime+ service streaming 192/24.

Currently done in Europe and coming soon to the states means no you can’t. Tidal’s been expanding the offerings for over a year.

That said I’ll welcome Quobuz with open arms when it happens. Their pricing will face some push back considering the gripes here about Tidal’s costs.
 
If so, what benefit do we get in return, that we wouldn't get from industry adoption of existing free audio compression formats?

Magical stardust that bring out real tears whenever one listens to it for long!

I do wish Meridian had kept their initial MQA site up. It was downright comical when they were showing people (actors and models really) actually crying real tears while listening to MQA!

When a company is announcing a new format, always best to look like it is going to be a real game changer! Swing the bat like you are aiming for the moon, and when it falls into the infield, hope there is enough momentum left over to carry it on to home plate..
 
I have and I have even went to an MQA (unofficial) listening test. I was underwhelmed by MQA. The reason being was the ringing of the MQA and the extra-fuzziness in the midrange of the MQA. The host mentioned the filtering of MQA actually adds ultrasonic noise to the file while playing which can add sympathetic noise in the midrange. This was a blind test also. I picked theMQA files out 75% of the time and also found them the worst or equal to the other files - FLAC High res.

Based on my experience, i felt why are they pushing MQA - MONEY is the only reason.

I'd like to try that at home. What recordings and sample rates did they play at your "unofficial" MQA listening test and were they all from the same masters?
 
I didn't set it up. But the gent who did said they were from the same master. Most were 44.1/24 since that is what most of the MQA's he could get were.

Can you give me the names of a few artist/tracks that you auditioned at his place that day?

Also, when you played the 2L samples I linked through your DAC what differences did you hear and on what songs & sample rates were they most prevalent? I'd like to see if I can hear it too.
 
Last edited:
Interesting, everything I used so far on my Tidal MQA/HD Tracks comparisons from MQA was 24/96 or 24/192. I think you need to get a better sampling of actual Tidal offerings. You were comparing standard resolution to hi Rez based on your post.
 
Interesting, everything I used so far on my Tidal MQA/HD Tracks comparisons from MQA was 24/96 or 24/192. I think you need to get a better sampling of actual Tidal offerings.
Same here all mine are 24/192 or 24/96, maybe there using Tidal standard and thinking there listening to Master Quality? Interesting.

Audiofreak71
 
Last edited:
Same here all mine are 24/192 or 24/96, maybe there using Tidal standard and thinking there listening to Mater Quality? Interesting.

Audiofreak71
Agreed, sounds like a rush to condemn based on flawed testing methods on the face of it. At the very least I’d say somebody needs to revisit their testing using valid samples comparing apples to apples.
 
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.”

Schiit doesn't want to pay license fees but still have strong sales so naturally they would love for MQA to fail miserably.

Eric
 
Looks like ifi is on board. “ We are committed to working with MQA to bring MQA support (be it as Renderer or joint Decoder and Renderer where appropriate) to as many iFi products, including existing products, as possible to our customers.“
 
Back
Top Bottom