bhunter
The Spherical Cow
Just because a large subgroup supports something doesn't mean it's necessarily good.
Is MQA in your Future?
- Thread starter WobblySam
- Start date
Just because a large subgroup supports something doesn't mean it's necessarily good.
lizard84
Abider
Just because a small subgroup of audio forum dwellers continually express irrational conspiracy theory’s about motives toward another audio format doesn’t mean it’s bad either.
That damn codec on the grassy knoll...
The point is you have the choice to go with MQA or not. But like I said some people just like to fuss about something they don't like or doesn't conform to what they want. Take it or leave it it's your choice to adopt MQA or not. That's your choice and I highly doubt that MQA will take over the whole internet streaming as the norm, there will always be more than one and MQA will not be tagged on all of them.
Audiofreak71
triode17
Super Member
Vinyl! Nothing but vinyl! Much better than any digital source, I don't care what letters they give it.
Yes agreed, for now anyway. In another 10 years, when consumer bandwidth and storage capacity price has taken another order of magnitude increase, completely eliminating the need for this type of data compression, will MQA still be trying to get inside our machines, still be making lossy out of lossless? Or will they succeed by then in their plan to have control and collect royalties from everyone for all music? After all, why stop at only the ones who want this when you can just as easily have everyone? Backwards compatibility can be screwed with down the road forcing the stragglers to the table. What choice will we have then?
Well if we all worried about would if then it would just drive us crazy. Until and if that time comes I'll just enjoy the choice that I have.
Audiofreak71
Yes, it's in the decoding. FLAC decodes to exactly what the uncompressed music state was, nothing more or less. That is what the DAC receives and plays. MQA cannot say the same. The only argument can be to what degree is the change from original detectable.
I remember when MQA was first being introduced, how it was going to make music sound better? Better than what? I thought at the time.. At the time it was going to require a special DAC to function at all to its promise, but then (and I can only presume it was due to lackluster MQA DAC sales) that they announced the "first unfolding" was to be for everyone, a freebie of sorts. This I don't recall was ever in the original plan.
I may have not been clear. I didn't want anyone to experience MQA but simply to listen to an MQA file on the DAC they currently own. Point is that even if MQA's diabolical plot came to fruition- nobody would be forced to buy anything. No new DACs at all. Use what you like. At the very least, it will sound the same as your 16/44.
Thank you for taking the time with this detailed post. I agree and that was my point, I'd say there's a 50/50 chance a listener would to be able to distinguish one from another when listening through a non-MQA DAC.That's why I don't get what the big deal is? I guess until the end of time audiophiles will form tribes and bicker to the end.
At this point, the only place I've had access to and heard MQA selections is on Tidal (and there are not that many!) and I can say that I have never heard anything remotely similar to what Botrytis is describing that he hears when listening to an MQA file. All I know is that the MQA streams I have heard all sound excellent. Actually, beyond excellent. Especially when compared to other versions that are available for streaming at the moment (and even some of the best CD versions I own). I also don't hear any loudness compression at all on any of them as he suggests. In fact, it's exactly the opposite. Not one of the tracks I've listened to had more dynamic compression. The master they seem to routinely go back to is the "pre-loudness" version (if available). Most I've listened to sound at the very least are equivalent to and sometimes better than the best master CD version of that recording (that I've heard or own). Never worse.
As far as the file being larger than 16/44 it doesn't matter, it's still small enough and doesn't sound any different on a non-MQA DAC. But comes with an added benefit for us streamers, it is still much smaller than the hi-res sample alternative it is encapsulating. Not a must but it's nice to have that option on some of the recordings I've heard.
I have both an MQA DAC and non-MQA DAC so it's not like I'm gong to fight the MQA battle but I do love streaming so at the moment, this is a plus for me. It just gives me another option. Nobody is ramming it down my throat. With Tidal I've added over 1,500 albums to my library in just one year and that's not counting all the new (to me) music I've listened to that never made it to my library. I have NEVER EVER in my entire "audiophile" life added that much music in a year. I've even gone to live concerts to listen to artists and music that I never in a million years thought I'd like. High quality music reproduction can do that to you. So to me Hi-Fi streaming is fantastic, a godsend even. Of course I have my CDs which I have converted to FLAC but at the end of the day...this is the future and the future is here.
I don't see MQA as a threat but a temporary advantage for us streamers to get the best possible sound. From day one I've been a big proponent and supporter of Tidal. I was always hoping that we, collectively would show these providers that there is a viable market for high fidelity streaming. Competition is good. I hope Qubuz comes to the US and streams, I think I have enough bandwidth. But until then there's only one choice and many here seem intent on it dying (whether it's MQA or Tidal)... I'll never understand that.
One last point, MQA claims they go back to the original recording master notes to determine the exact ADC used to then "deblur" the recording. Couldn't that claimed deblurring and the time domain thing that MQA supposedly does possibly make all MQA capable DACs sound the same? Could this be why some DAC manufactures are resistant to include MQA on their DACs?
Last edited:
That's just crazy talk.
DaveVoorhis
Addicted Member
I'm a big proponent of streaming in general, but I'm a big opponent of proprietary, closed data formats, particularly if MQA's growing adoption leads to (as it hints) a world where genuine lossless high-resolution files are retained by copyright holders; consumers are limited to receiving lossy compression and possibly DRM restrictions and price increases; and instead of increasing the revenues to artists, the increased revenues go to the streaming providers (a little) and MQA Ltd (a lot).
Looks like a big win for MQA Ltd; a small temporary short-term win for bandwidth-limited consumers but potentially a big permanent long-term loss for consumers and artists compared to using open and lossless data formats.
It sounds more like blatant marketese than a valuable technical process, and something that -- at best -- I'd rather not have done to the tracks I'm hearing. If the original ADC "blurred in the time domain" or whatever, that's part of the mastering process I want to hear (because it was part of the mastering process) and not have "removed".
In short, we don't need a new digital middle-man absorbing revenues and degrading sound via some pointless interposition between artists/providers and consumers.
Last edited:
Yeah, like I said earlier I'll stay out of that part of the discussion. Personally, I don't think it will ever get there so I'm not going to lose sleep over it.
I'm a purist too but actually, the way I understand it, the "blurring" was NOT part of the original analog master. It was unintentionally added at the time the analog recording was converted to digital.
This part does interest me, let's see if Jim Austin and John Atkinson dig deeper into this with their upcoming series of tests.
DaveVoorhis
Addicted Member
Maybe that's a concern if there was an analog master -- digital mastering has been pretty much standard since the 90s, which means digital artifacts, if any, are part of the process -- but I'm not convinced "time domain blurring" (is that a new name for jitter?) is an audible problem.
True but I still find that part interesting nonetheless. After all there is a vast amount of very, very well recorded analog material that precedes Nightfly. I must say of those that I have heard on MQA, they do sound very, very good.
We'll see how this all plays out, but I'm definitely not getting all worked up about it. Formats, etc. have come and gone and I'm still here listening. Now force me back into streaming Spotify 320kb or iTunes downloads and I'm going to get my pitchfork and take to the streets!!!
Last edited:
Todd Dodds
Super Member
Short, sweet and to the point. Sure your mind is made up?
He recently set-up an open online blind listening A/B test where the results were ~ 50/50 when comparing 24/96 to MQA samples. That was with only 3 of the 31 DACs used being MQA capable (so no full decoding).
I wonder if the results would have been different if all 31 DACs were MQA capable.
Yeah I get all that and the too little to late stuff... As for elegant, John Atkinson was highly respected in many circles until he said MQA was "elegant". Now some think he's a hack right?
So to your point, I wonder what the results would have been if they had used two DACs in the blind test. A regular one to play the 24/96 and an MQA capable DAC to play the MQA files. Both on a highly resolving system...