Update your Tidal and get "Masters"

Your analogy here is irrational. To me, that’s akin to saying Sharp’s Quattron technology is a DRM scheme.

Is MQA proprietary? Sure. Universal DRM foisted upon the consumer at the behest of the content owners? Nah.
There is that word proprietary.. Usually I am heading in an opposite direction form any product that requires it at its core. Apple for instance, while admittedly a quality and perhaps even superior phone or computer, I disdain all the little restrictions placed on it, from file types to cords and plugs. Also that word always comes to mean that it is going to cost more, probably a fair bit more and then someone comes out with a different so0lution, backwards engineers it or even steels it. Whats to say that I buy a new $200 DAC and then MQA, realizing that the hardware requirement is holding back their goals of dominating the music industry and then comes out with a complete software solution to unpacking MQA? They already started down this road because before there was the manditory requirement of a MQA DAC just to make any of it work.
 
However, for that little light to illuminate, there can't be any DSP processing done with the data stream, which seems to preclude the sort of modern driver and room correction that ELAC, Kii Audio, and many other forward-looking companies are doing with their powered speakers. DSP driver/room correction can do far more to improve SQ in-room than MQA.

This may be true and is a good point. I don't have much experience with DSP.
 
Are you referring to the Master authentication part of it? Or the Tidal software that partially unpacks MQA?

The Tidal software unpack. The software decode will give you up to a 24/96 hi-res file with additional timing accuracy. This (in general) will sound better than Redbook.

I have read to the contrary, but that article was blasted by the pro MQA crowd here so I wont bother to link to it.

Are you referring to the Archimago post? Here?
Size_Compare.png


If so, what is a little misleading with this is that in the second file he's showing us a 24/96 track that has been downsampled to 24/48. But that's not a fair comparison to a 24/48 MQA because MQA isn't downsampled, it's folded. Nothing is really lost. It gets rebuilt later. So you need to compare the 24/48 MQA (file 4) to the 24/96 (file 3). You can see it's 40% smaller. Then when you're talking about a 24/48 MQA that's been taken from a 24/192 or 24/352, the MQA file could be 1/5 or 1/10 the size. And it all gets unfolded to it's full resolution at the DAC.
 
There is that word proprietary.. Usually I am heading in an opposite direction form any product that requires it at its core.
Yikes. Didn't see that left-field reaction coming. I guess it's a matter of perception/cognition on how one views "that word" as it relates to ownership. Let's broaden the scope and hopefully de-escalate your distain toward the 'P' word. I believe that there must be some form of incentive to create new works whether it be innovative products or works of art. If MQA Ltd. wanted to make MQA open source...great! But that's there choice and they didn't. I'm surely not going to carte blanche condemn their choice to protect & monetize their product.
Ergo.......How do feel about a musician or songwriter copyrighting (in other words making proprietary) their music?
Whats to say that I buy a new $200 DAC and then MQA, realizing that the hardware requirement is holding back their goals of dominating the music industry and then comes out with a complete software solution to unpacking MQA?
Your exceptionally speculative, untamed anxiety is understandable I guess. So I rekon all I can say is, well...that concern comes part and parcel these days with bleeding edge tech. Personally, I see nothing wrong with you sitting tight with your present DAC, enjoy the "free" ride with Tidal, and make a better informed future decision on this proprietary offering. :)
 
Last edited:
Post#148. Instead of refuting the Benchmark article it was instead touted as the "party line" for the MQA bashers.
Here is the link in case anyone is interested..
https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/163302855-is-mqa-doa

You've got John Siau from Benchmark's party line nailed, down to the digital volume control, digital room correction rants. I suggest you step off the high horse, quit giving MQA the high hat and sample some content. Save the misconceptions, take a breath and give a listen.
:smoke:


That's being blasted? If so I apologize, I think more like a strong suggestion to actually sample the subject in question instead of blathering on and on, anti all things MQA without having even sampled the content in question.

Opinion that damn's a process without firsthand experience? Again, where is the intellectual curiosity in that?
 
You've got John Siau from Benchmark's party line nailed, down to the digital volume control, digital room correction rants. I suggest you step off the high horse, quit giving MQA the high hat and sample some content. Save the misconceptions, take a breath and give a listen.
:smoke:


That's being blasted? If so I apologize, I think more like a strong suggestion to actually sample the subject in question instead of blathering on and on, anti all things MQA without having even sampled the content in question.

Opinion that damn's a process without firsthand experience? Again, where is the intellectual curiosity in that?
You did come across a certain way, but so be it, everyone has their own way of expressing their viewpoint. Still it would have been nice to actually refute the blog post, showing his error instead. We are all trying to figure it out here. As for first hand experience, not quite ready to pony up for that. But if Siau's point has any validity, MQA will affect everyone if it becomes the standard digital format. I think in that light we do have a right to be here asking the hard questions. Siau's opinion states that MQA's backward compatibility has serious flaws in it. That concerns me along with the confusion factor. Will it ultimately help the SQ cause? Or will its proprietary model only serve to fragment it further. In a few years will having smaller files even matter, with storage, bandwidth etc growing as fast as ever, will MQA even matter?
 
Like several other articles relating to this cutting-edge digital discipline, that Benchmark piece definitely touts some highly technical and “big brain” science. Clearly battle lines are drawn. Does it along with other notable/qualified contrary opinion make fair points? Seems so. As much as the other guy I suppose but whadda I know?

Given that most if not all of the geeky blog opinion, studies, charts, and graphs posted here to date are simply quoted and noted with AKer parroted remarks …I'm pretty sure I have a reasonably large crowd of company in camp layman. The good news is so far, it’s been good company and has remained civil.

Now then, unless I go back and enroll in an MIT graduate level course, I’m honestly not qualified/certified/competent enough to agree or dispute either side’s technical claims. I’m simply camping out in the DMZ playing devil’s advocate on both sides. Truthfully, while I find the SQ-techno debate intriguing, that’s about it. I’m not enough of an audiophile-spearhead type to be immediately alarmed or anxious with all this “day one” minutia, propaganda, and scientific second guessing sissy fighting. ---So for the record, as it strictly pertains to most of the hard-number rocket science behind the sound quality, I’m neither a fanboy nor antagonist... of either army. :smoke:

My only wheelhouse (personally/professionally) as it relates to this innovative debate resolves to the practical business/social aspects of streaming audio and it’s successes and pitfalls; all the way from the content providers to the consumer. So to me, naturally, there are more pragmatic and grand scheme ramifications to discuss as to how/what this MQA "revelation" poses for the new music biz going forward. i.e. traceable studio masters, impact on the growth of streaming services, who's gonn get paid, etc..

:idea: Maybe it'd be better for me to start another thread on what I consider more fetching concerns, implications, kudos, and consequences :blah: of MQA in a separate thread rather than clutter-muck up 4th period science class here.

film @ 11?
 
Last edited:
So long as the consumer has a choice, I think the market will ultimately decide the fate of MQA. If people think it sounds better, they will want it, and if they want it, there will be companies there to sell it to them. Hardware, software, whatever it takes. Those companies that resist the change risk losing business going forward. Whether they were "right" or not won't much matter.
 
:idea: Maybe it'd be better for me to start another thread on what I consider more fetching concerns, implications, kudos, and consequences :blah: of MQA in a separate thread rather than clutter-muck up 4th period science class here.

Yes I thought the same thing because at least for me the MQA subject is much bigger than just Tidal going "Master". That is just the first baby step. .
So long as the consumer has a choice, I think the market will ultimately decide the fate of MQA. If people think it sounds better, they will want it, and if they want it, there will be companies there to sell it to them. Hardware, software, whatever it takes. Those companies that resist the change risk losing business going forward. Whether they were "right" or not won't much matter.

Exactly. Sound quality is so damn subjective and I could easily see the masses being sold on a very well marketed smoke and mirrors gimmick. What actually sounds better could well be lost sight of completely, and perhaps even needlessly due to the ever improving inverse relationship between bandwidth/storage and price.
 
Interesting insights. I, for one, hope that streaming (and MQA) stick around. I cannot overstate how much I enjoy streaming a huge collection of music as opposed to owning a small collection.

First for the ability to go on musical journeys, starting with a single album I heard referenced on NPR, then moving on to music I would never think of buying, but nonetheless falling in love with along the way. I have experienced probably 20 times more music since I've had a Spotify or Tidal account than I would've without. And I have that access anywhere I go. Vacation, work, friend's house, etc.

Then there's the simplicity of it. I like gear as much as the next guy, but there's a certain zen that's achieved when you have a single source and no physical media to sort, organize, backup or handle.

Then there's the cost. I know this is what a lot of people see as prohibitive. "$20 a month?!" There was a point where I was spending 10 times that on records and downloads. $20 a month for the rest of my life (inflation adjusted) for all the music I'll ever want to consume, not to mention not needing to buy an expensive source ever again? That's a bargain if you ask me.

So adding MQA is just icing on the cake. I could live without MQA, but I DO NOT want to go back to the bad old days of life before streaming.

If I had to make a bet, it would be that streaming is here to stay. The trends show that consumers of all levels (not just audiophiles) prefer this method of delivery for all kinds of media. Actually, if anyone is holding streaming back, it's probably audiophiles, holding on with dear life to their nostalgia and surface noise... What I'm not so certain of, is if enough people are willing to pay extra for the additional quality. 320 kbps isn't that different from Redbook. And Redbook isn't that different from MQA. Especially on the equipment that most people play it on. I'm constantly recommending Tidal Hi-Fi to my audiophile buddies. But I recommend the standard $10 subscription to my uncle. I hope there's a critical mass of music lovers that make it a decent enough value proposition for the music biz to continue to offer the highest level of sound quality through the streaming format. C'mon guys, help me out: Sign up for Tidal Hi-Fi! :)
 
I think diatribe was a good label for the Benchmark post on their site. It may be titled Is MQA DOA? But because their business model is largely build around volume control, eq, etc in the digital domain it is more an attempt to spread doubt that will help facilitate that end. Nothing wrong with that mind you, that's what anyone would do in there place.

The lossy thing some seem to dwell on is smoke & mirrors, because the words lossy compression carry such a stigma in hi-fi they bend over backward throwing the term around with regards to MQA. Sorry, this isn't your fathers or 2007's lossy compression and you only have to listen to the content to know that to be a fact.

As mentioned elsewhere streaming is the real niche for MQA and it is there where it will stand or fall, succeed or fail. We'll see what shakes out.

As far as the inboard DSP is concerned, the real world is, and always will be, analog. Because of this, any time you need to make the digital world interact with the real world, you'll always have an analog interface with the limits inherent to it.

I'm good with that.:beatnik:
 
So long as the consumer has a choice, I think the market will ultimately decide the fate of MQA. If people think it sounds better, they will want it, and if they want it, there will be companies there to sell it to them. Hardware, software, whatever it takes. Those companies that resist the change risk losing business going forward. Whether they were "right" or not won't much matter.
I don't really think whether it sounds better to be a big deal in most company's decisions to carry it or not. If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound or rather does anyone care how it sounded? In other words, with new audio technology, it has to go where people are rather than expecting people to flock to it. If Pandora, Spotify, Youtube, Apple Music, etc aren't using it, then so few people are hearing it that it is irrelevant to the market, regardless of how it sounds. MQA picked Tidal (or vice versa), which has one of the smallest user bases of all on-demand streaming options. The possibility of Tidal failing and MQA being left to rot on the vine is much more of a possibility than Apple or Spotify losing their streaming businesses over it.

Sorry to sound so pessimistic, but Hybrid SACDs were fantastic. They arguably sounded better than CD, had the possibility of multi-channel audio, and even had a CD layer for ripping. It never really took off and mainstream artists never paid any price for not putting their music on that medium...same for DualDisc, DVD-A, Blueray, etc..

I am not even arguing whether MQA is better or not. I will leave that to others to debate. However, if people really bought into sound quality differences, then Tidal wouldn't be hanging by a thread while other services are growing. In other words, only audiophiles care and that market is too small for most mainstream companies to care about.

In short, I think the "risk" that you described is non-existent.
 
Actually, if anyone is holding streaming back, it's probably audiophiles, holding on with dear life to their nostalgia and surface noise...

I would say that audiophiles, at least the ones you are describing here are such a tiny sliver of the streaming pie that they make no difference. Tidal coupled with MQA hopes to turn more casual listeners into audiophiles by taking notice of the quality boost that is available to them for a small price. Whether they manage to pull that one off is hard to say, with stiff competition out there they may not be able to charge enough to get themselves out of the red ink they have been swimming in.

I hope there's a critical mass of music lovers that make it a decent enough value proposition for the music biz to continue to offer the highest level of sound quality through the streaming format.
There seems to be a lot of press out there saying that 320 kbps is all you need for quality, and certainly the way most people listen to music that is the truth. Audiophiles are the exception, but there is even division among those as to what difference can be heard. In the end I think that the streaming outfits will need to do 2 things, cut costs and increase subscription rates. Cutting costs might mean a reduction in what music is available to stream, so raising rates could be their only answer but not until the competition dies off. There always seems to be a shakeup on the horizon, some merger, buyout etc. Probably in the end there will be fewer options hosted by fewer streaming companies that will offer this service. Nothing a few audiophiles will do can change that.



C'mon guys, help me out: Sign up for Tidal Hi-Fi! :)
You do work for Tidal!! I thought so! :rflmao: Seriously, I have had different subscriptions over the past couple of years, from Pandora, Amazon and now just paid for a month with Tidal again ($10 plan) after a few years without. I can see the allure of having millions of tracks at one's fingertips, and for many that is the most important aspect, even more so than MQA. For me, I get overwhelmed at the enormity of it. I go on there (now Tidal) and look at all those pre generated "playlists", which have names that are almost meaningless to me (Amazon Unlimited is better I think in this regard) and I will pick something that looks curious only to find I don't like it. Even the playlists based on a particular artist quite often doesn't cut it for me. Then I'll go to something else with similar results. I think the problem for me lies in the fact that I am very picky about what I want to listen to whereas most streamers just are continually looking for something new to them. That is what they like, always new material, like reading books, once read, never needing to be reread. I listen to tracks dozens of times, usually I have 400 or 500 that get 80% of my listening time off my hard drive at any one time. Streaming would give me 30 million, but I have no time for all of that, and no patience to keep hitting the >> button waiting for something I want to hear.

Streaming does offer dinosaurs like me one thing that will keep me signed up to something though. That being an economical way to audition music before deciding to buy it. Maybe it will be something I am not quite ready to buy, I can save it online and listen a few times now and again. But if it is something I really want to have, it is going onto my music drive, to be played, integrated with all my other music on my favorite media player, JRiver. New music gets added all the time, put into all sorts of "smartlists" that are metadata driven based on genre, rating, DR, mood, etc. I have not seen anywhere near this level of playlist capability with streaming. It is how I listen, randomized playlist, with volume output adjusted automatically so as to not chase output volume from song to song. I don't know, I just continue to have a difficult time warming up to streaming, especially as a sole source of music. . Obviously your mileage does vary!
 
Last edited:
Time will tell. I do think, though, that to assume that people's listening habits and preferences can't change is being short sighted. Most of us now take for granted technology that wasn't even in existence 20 years ago. And yet someone made it, it worked well, and the people came in droves.
 
Back
Top Bottom