• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Is MQA in your Future?

I’m not missing anything, the majority of my steaming listening is MQA (not my overall listening) I’ve been comparing many more titles than those I posted previously and the MQA stacks up well, never better, sometimes not my preferred but darned good.

MQA is absolutely not a replacement for downloaded hi-Rez content, but as others along with myself have pointed out, it’s a great format for streaming.

That thread your referring to on another forum was started when MQA was indeed vaporware. That’s not been the case for a long time, MQA is and has been realized.

“Vaporware - "software or hardware that has been advertised but is not yet available to buy, either because it is only a concept or because it is still being written or designed."
 
DaveVoorhis said:
None (yet), but the question isn't why MQA has been adopted by Tidal -- the answer is obvious; it's a commercial partnership to benefit MQA Ltd and Tidal. The question is what we consumers get out of it, and why alternatives -- like lossless FLAC, which also saves significant space/bandwidth over raw PCM encoding but is lossless, unlike MQA -- aren't being adopted. But, it's easy to speculate why: it's because releasing lossless high-res into the world allows too much opportunity for uncontrolled redistribution. MQA presumably restricts that, but then the advantage is wholly to MQA Ltd and its commercial adopters; the consumer eventually gets to pay for it.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's like a tax on music. Except that the money is going to the MQA LTD stockholders to fund their extravagant lifestyles. We as audiophiles do not get any sonic benefit from this - although the MQA stakeholders would like for us to believe it.

The sonic benefits that MQA claims begins during the sampling process of the initial recording in the studio. This is to eliminate the "ringing" caused by brickwall filters. This is not an issue with Hi-Res bit depth sampling frequencies (one of the main reasons Hi-Res exists). So once again more marketing hype. However, once the signal is encoded using MQA, you must use the MQA codec to properly decode it. This will eliminate the possibility of any other versions of the digital formats, such as FLAC or ALAC with MQA digital masters. Whereas we are seeing MQA "converted" versions of existing digital masters now, the ultimate goal is get this into the mainstream recording studio processes to implement control from the very beginnings of the recorded masters.

I might could get behind a compression algorithm to "help" with the streaming process and reduce bandwidth. That in itself would potentially have benefits. But that is not what MQA is all about and the very reason there is so much controversy surrounding the issue. (in my opinion of course)
 
botrytis said:
Only in the US. in Europe Quobuz is doing well and they are streaming high-res FLACs. It is not hard to stream DSD files either as even with a 10 MBs connection, there is enough bandwidth there. It is disingenuous to say we don't have the bandwidth for streaming high-res FLAC's, we do. It is a non-issue that MQA is targeting. As connection speeds go even higher, this will even be a more non-issue than it is now (I have a 250 MB internet connection and I know people that have 1 GB connections). That you don’t understand the reduced bandwidth advantages from a company’s perspective doesn’t negate them

Well, MQA was announced on Dec 2014 and up until Tidal announced using it, it was hard to find ANY content with it, as such it could have been called vaporware.
Click to expand...

Fixed for Accuracy

Quobuz, but for a rescue probably wouldn’t exist, doing well translated? “ allowing is to continue losing someone else’s money for a longer period of time” (it’s not alone in that regard)
 
You can stream it yes, many users away from certain areas struggle. You still don’t get the economics of it from a company’s perspective, margins aren’t thin, they are nonexistent. Spotify can’t turn a profit. The company that finally succeeds and actually finds a way to turn a profit will have to use all the tools in the toolbox. It will be that company or companies that are able to figure that out that can also throw listeners like you and I our hi-Rez bone. They will accomplish that by streaming the maximum amount of data in the smallest container.
 
Possibly, but it’s here presently and its pretty awesome. No amount of the flawed testing posted here can alter that. It’s apparent that opinions were formed pre-release just as testing opinions were formed pre-test. Yet through all that MQA continues to impress those who have an open mind.
 
lizard84 said:
You can stream it yes, many users away from certain areas struggle. You still don’t get the economics of it from a company’s perspective, margins aren’t thin, they are nonexistent. Spotify can’t turn a profit. The company that finally succeeds and actually finds a way to turn a profit will have to use all the tools in the toolbox. It will be that company or companies that are able to figure that out that can also throw listeners like you and I our hi-Rez bone. They will accomplish that by streaming the maximum amount of data in the smallest container.
Click to expand...
I remember when that was an issue over dial-up lines in the early days of mass Internet access, and issues like balancing JPEG compression against image size against number of images were all-important. Briefly. Then bandwidth increased dramatically -- for all but a few rural customers -- and it became no longer a key concern, or even a concern at all.

The same pattern is now replaying with streaming video and audio formats, but it seems obvious MQA is trying to quickly take advantage of current bandwidth limits (which unquestionably won't last) to interpose itself before generally-available bandwidth -- pushed up by the popularity of Netflix, Amazon Video and YouTube, and other video providers -- becomes high enough to allow high-resolution, lossless audio to be almost universally deliverable at negligible cost. Even if MQA grows in popularity now, it's hard to see how it will survive the inevitable bandwidth improvements that will make it unnecessary. When that happens, its only hope for survival is to have already irremovably inserted itself into the production chain -- and to encourage naive listeners to continue to demand it -- even though it will no longer have any practical reason to exist.
 
botrytis said:
I thought we didn't want loudness wars?
Click to expand...

Speaking of loudness wars, I recently bought the original 1987 master version of Michael Jackson's Bad CD just to do a listening comparison against the 2012 remaster. I wanted to see if I could hear what Michael Fremer was demonstrating to the jury in the QJ vs. Estate of MJ trial. I love doing these audio comparisons. Yeah, I could hear clear differences in the two versions and I'm not talking volume.

So, are you going to give us some examples of the tracks provided below where you heard MQA differences or not? I care less about the business model than how it sounds. I just want to see if I can detect the alleged degraded sound MQA files have on a non-MQA DACs like you do. Also, do you hear any MQA samples provided below that have a compressed Dynamic Range? Please point them out too.

http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html?

There are 15 tracks to choose from that are in both 16/44 & MQA. Please tell me which ones to focus on to hear the differences you're pointing out.
 
Last edited:
botrytis said:
The other issue, is that MQA really wants to only have streaming as our only source of digital high-res music. They do not want people to own copies and neither do the record labels, just think of the money they can make over and over if you do not have a copy of this music of your own.
Click to expand...
This is a great point, and my main gripe with mqa. I really don't care what others want to pay for. If mqa is good, what's the problem, right? My concern is that once this format gets into the music, what is going to happen when the labels all sign onto it, and it becomes impossible to buy non mqa music? Will we even be able to rip to our hard drives or what other restrictions will they be able to add to the code, further limiting the way we keep, store, and play music? Will music in the future only be able to be streamed to us?

The CD has been a great boon for us music lovers, and with its durability and with 200 billion CDs out there, will continue, but they are not hi rez. In a way, CDs were great for us, but not so great for the labels who profit from repeat sales. How will they use mqa encoded files in the future to limit those "choices" everyone in the pro mqa gushes over now?
 
DaveVoorhis said:
Even if MQA grows in popularity now, it's hard to see how it will survive the inevitable bandwidth improvements that will make it unnecessary. When that happens, its only hope for survival is to have already irremovably inserted itself into the production chain -- and to encourage naive listeners to continue to demand it -- even though it will no longer have any practical reason to exist.
Click to expand...
Well stated. MQA is in the race of its life for its very survival now as bandwidth, even in my very remote Alaskan town of 2500 residents has seen in the last couple years a ten fold bump in data speeds, and now can stream movies in HD. Fiber optic is able to bring this to us, and is upgradable without replacement as the technology improves. MQA is not needed even here, and while I'm sure there are people still using dial up, those pockets are becoming rarer as the costs if high speed Internet continues to plummet.
 
botrytis said:
I would love to do a double blind comparison but I have no interest in setting one up myself as I do not have the coin for 2 equivalent DACs (one non- MQA and one MQA). A setup like that will cover whether or not MQA DACs mess with regular high res files or not. Then getting the equivalent MQA and high res files would be a pain.

I was involved in a higher FLAC or APE comparison to high res MQA, not to CD quality MQA. That is what MQA does, frequently - uses high re MQA and compared to CD quality FLACs or CD's.

This image was from a Computer Audiophile forum Thread called MQA is Vaporware - Post is by Frederick V on the forum and shows a comparison of a DSD file compared to an MQA made from the DSD master. NOT GOOD AT ALL. The DAC is showing 352 KHz when decoding the resulting MQA file is actually 88.2 - the file is upsampled to the 352 KHz resolution. This corresponds in case of 2L.no to the DXD format they use to master.
This is the heart of what MQA opponents are complaining about, one could state it is fraud plain and simple.

View attachment 1088756

The green line is the MQA rendered output - look at the noise MQA put into that file. It is no where near IDENTICAL.

The same individual that posted above, then put this out.

"There is no "full" 24/192 data. MQA does not contain 24/192 resolution. 24/192 is degraded to something like 17/96 after the first unfold, and then upsampled back to 24/192, fooling the user into believing this is actual 24/192 resolution when he looks at the display on his dac, which is quack.

MQA does not allow the output to be captured easily at this upsampled resolution.
But why would you want to capture fake upsampled highres which what the MQA renderer is all about? It is a waste of diskspace."

He has an axe to grind, yes, but what he is saying is absolutely what is going on with MQA. This gent is an Audio retailer and also a developer of a music server. He knows what he is talking about.
Click to expand...

index.php

What are the two axes in that plot?
I cannot interpret what I am seeing without knowing what I am seeing.

I am guessing that the y-axis is decibels (dB) but I have no idea what the x-axis represents.
If indeed the y-axis is dB, and we're talking about stuff 120 to 140 db "down"... I am not sure there's really anything to talk about.
 
Last edited:
botrytis said:
As I stated earlier, I was just a person invited to the listening. It has been a while and I can't find my notes, my office is a mess right now. I know what I heard and that is all that maters to me.

I already pointed to one issue in a previous post. That is a huge issue to me (see the post with the graph).
Click to expand...

What I'm asking is for you to download some of the free 2L samples I linked and listen to them on your system and non-MQA DAC at home. Then tell us which MQA files sound worse than the 16/44 version on your non-MQA DAC? (as mentioned all are all from the same master)

This should be easy since you already have a DAC and I provided the same master tracks in various sample rates including MQA, all you have to do is listen and tell us what you hear. Please include track/section specifics.

Anyone on this thread can play along.

Here are the free downloads again:
http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html?
 
Last edited:
Apparently some here are deaf to the plight of net neutrality in the current climate, All this puppy’s and rainbows optimism about the future of cheap un-throttled internet bandwidth is unrealistic at best.
 
lizard84 said:
That's business, that's successful capitalism, provide a product and get fairly compensated for it. I'm getting my moneys worth.
Click to expand...
I'm all in favour of free-market, competitive enterprise, as long as it leads to a better deal for the consumer, i.e., us. MQA looks more like an attempt to create a monopoly over streaming content, which is the antithesis of successful capitalism and unlikely to lead to a better deal for the consumer.

As noted before, proprietary data formats are never good.
 
DaveVoorhis said:
I'm all in favour of free-market, competitive enterprise, as long as it leads to a better deal for the consumer, i.e., us. MQA looks more like an attempt to create a monopoly over streaming content, which is the antithesis of successful capitalism and unlikely to lead to a better deal for the consumer.

As noted before, proprietary data formats are never good.
Click to expand...

I’m also ex military and i’d be hard pressed to find a better deal than Tidal’s lossless and MQA Masters streaming for $11.99 per month.
 
lizard84 said:
Do you know it won’t?
Click to expand...
Do you know it will remain a great deal? What motivation would there be for it to remain a good deal if it's the only game in town?

But, yes -- speculation.

What we do know is that proprietary data formats are bad: they ultimately put control of the data -- musical content, in this case -- solely in the hands of the organisation that owns the rights to the format.
 
DaveVoorhis said:
Do you know it will remain a great deal? What motivation would there be for it to remain a good deal if it's the only game in town?

But, yes -- speculation.

What we do know is that proprietary data formats are bad: they ultimately put control of the data -- musical content, in this case -- solely in the hands of the organisation that owns the rights to the format.
Click to expand...

Exactly, speculation, I'm enjoying a smoking deal, that is known, everything else is that vapor we were posting about.
 
botrytis said:
People on this forum complain about MS and/or Apple with their closed software systems. What is different about MQA, It is also a closed system. You cannot take a CD or a SACD ISO file and encode to MQA, they will not allow it. They only want to stream and or buy THEIR product. Hence it is starting to make MS and Apple look like bloody saints.
Click to expand...
I'm fully vested in the apple ecosystem, never once have I complained about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom