+48V
hi-fi or die
As a streamer, sure...why not?
Is MQA in your Future?
- Thread starter WobblySam
- Start date
+48V
hi-fi or die
More-so, as a provider, it makes perfect sense for Tidal to embrace and utilize MQA for Hi-Res content at this point in time. Saves them a great & considerable 'bit' of bandwidth expense as well as QoS for the end user.
I'd say it's a pretty good bet that streaming as a "Hi-Fi medium" will be in your future. MQA or not.
This is long and 2 parts but this guy is really good at giving the correct science of Hi Res music. Stop guessing, know the facts, enjoy the music.
Audiofreak71
Audiofreak71
I had no idea what mqa was so I googled it. Google tells me it's a high rez format??? If it's noticeably better, doesn't require specialized equipment, and the vendors don't kill me with the price then sure why not?
tubeyea
Active Member
Let’s clear up a few points here. As I said, make up your own mind but beware misinformation from both sides.
1. Is MQA a solution in search of a problem?
No, MQA is a HQ music file that delivers better than CD quality in a smaller file size than a FLAC file. That is a solution for services wanting to offer HQ streaming with the minimum bandwidth, minimal or no buffering . An example would be a 46 MB MQA file instead of a 92 MB FLAC file.
2. Does MQA require software to decode the full capabilities of MQA?
Yes, what botrytis fails to mention is that your not paying for that software and most everything in life requires software these days. The Tidal app contains the software, as does audirvana which yes, you pay for, the same as you did before it had the software.
3. Do you need a MQA capable dac?
Yes, and you can buy a great sounding one for low bucks. Of course people who frequent this site regularly never upgrade and expand the systems capabilities... Yea right.
4.Are some equipment manufacturers not on board?
Yes, of course their not, they didn’t come up with it for their own very good reasons and protection of their business model they are lobbying vigorously against it. Who could blame them.
All this said, as I posted before MQA is a streaming solution, that’s where I see its value. I’ll continue to use download hi-Rez files from HD tracks and other sources.
1. Is MQA a solution in search of a problem?
No, MQA is a HQ music file that delivers better than CD quality in a smaller file size than a FLAC file. That is a solution for services wanting to offer HQ streaming with the minimum bandwidth, minimal or no buffering . An example would be a 46 MB MQA file instead of a 92 MB FLAC file.
2. Does MQA require software to decode the full capabilities of MQA?
Yes, what botrytis fails to mention is that your not paying for that software and most everything in life requires software these days. The Tidal app contains the software, as does audirvana which yes, you pay for, the same as you did before it had the software.
3. Do you need a MQA capable dac?
Yes, and you can buy a great sounding one for low bucks. Of course people who frequent this site regularly never upgrade and expand the systems capabilities... Yea right.
4.Are some equipment manufacturers not on board?
Yes, of course their not, they didn’t come up with it for their own very good reasons and protection of their business model they are lobbying vigorously against it. Who could blame them.
All this said, as I posted before MQA is a streaming solution, that’s where I see its value. I’ll continue to use download hi-Rez files from HD tracks and other sources.
Last edited:
Agreed; this doesn't sound like anything that I need at this point in time. But who knows what the future holds. 10 years ago I didn't even own a cellphone. Now it's one of my main sources of music and entertainment.
E.Auer
Super Member
With the risk of having footwear thrown at me and my ancestry questioned I'll admit to listening to MQA thru Tidal.
I have no issues with how it sounds. Decent amount of MQA in the Tidal ECM catalog.
Granted I can only listen to it in 24/96 due to my DAC, but in general I prefer it over Hi-Fi.
Eric
I have no issues with how it sounds. Decent amount of MQA in the Tidal ECM catalog.
Granted I can only listen to it in 24/96 due to my DAC, but in general I prefer it over Hi-Fi.
Eric
KrisM
Lunatic Member
The problem with this is that the digital genie is out of the bottle, and it isn't going back in. Not only is it not going back in, it's an old man, retired, and lounging on a beach in the Caribbean.
Yeah, the music industry may be able to control music distribution when it comes to streaming, but not when it comes to sharing. You can't just erase the legacy recorded work that is out there.
Even then I don't see the industry controlling everybody with this. Who knows what the future will bring, but I just can't see Apple (Music) wanting any part of this. Unless they buy it.
I also find it interesting that on their Partners page, they list Deezer, Groovers, and Tidal as the streaming companies. No AM, no Spotify, no Amazon.
KrisM
Lunatic Member
I'm not much of a streamer at this point, but if I were I'd look into it if I was also in the market for a DAC at the same time. I may buy in, I may not.
If I was streaming, it didn't break the bank, and it improved the sound I was getting, why not?
I guess that's my answer to the OP. A solid 'maybe', lol.
+48V
hi-fi or die
Great post. 
Exactly.
Exactly.
And no. Last time I checked, 24/96 is Hi-Res and very appreciable. Many consider it the "sweet spot" for enjoying Hi-Res content and most any DAC made in the last decade is capable of rendering 24/96. MQA via Tidal does not require an MQA enabled DAC for 24/96 content. So when someone says that "specialized equipment, an MQA DAC" is required to listen to an MQA encoded stream, they are either misinformed and/or being disingenuous.
+48V
hi-fi or die
Erik Tracy
Everyone's happy when the wizard walks by
But what you describe is only "partial" MQA.Great post.
Exactly.
Exactly.
And no. Last time I checked, 24/96 is Hi-Res and very appreciable. Many consider it the "sweet spot" for enjoying Hi-Res content and most any DAC made in the last decade is capable of rendering 24/96. MQA via Tidal does not require an MQA enabled DAC for 24/96 content. So when someone says that "specialized equipment, an MQA DAC" is required to listen to an MQA encoded stream, they are either misinformed and/or being disingenuous.
This is what adds to the confusion over MQA discussions when people say they are listening to MQA content and then passing judgement (good or ill).
Currently, you MUST have an MQA licensed/enabled DAC to get the full MQA effect (full 'origami unfolding' of the data rate, and the 'deblurring' filtering).
olderroust
AK Member
No interest in MQA streams, MQA files or MQA DACs - and an interest in avoiding DACs with the software.
The implementation of MQA is incredibly inconsistent - from what source material is picked for MQA, to how the decoding is performed from product to product.
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2017/06/measurements-audioquest-dragonfly-black_24.html
Meridian will not simply sell a license for the software. They demand per-unit royalties and they want to review their competitors' entire product lines and pressure them to include the software and the per-unit fee on every component they sell. "rather than focus on the one or two products you may have in mind immediately, we prefer to have a dialogue with you about all your product-lines" http://www.mqa.co.uk/professional/for-playback-providers
At this point, I am puzzled that there isn't MQA certified cable available, but if the format wins acceptance, MQA certified interconnects and speaker cables will surely hit the market.
I'm glad that measurements and listening tests are being discussed widely and early.
The implementation of MQA is incredibly inconsistent - from what source material is picked for MQA, to how the decoding is performed from product to product.
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2017/06/measurements-audioquest-dragonfly-black_24.html
Meridian will not simply sell a license for the software. They demand per-unit royalties and they want to review their competitors' entire product lines and pressure them to include the software and the per-unit fee on every component they sell. "rather than focus on the one or two products you may have in mind immediately, we prefer to have a dialogue with you about all your product-lines" http://www.mqa.co.uk/professional/for-playback-providers
At this point, I am puzzled that there isn't MQA certified cable available, but if the format wins acceptance, MQA certified interconnects and speaker cables will surely hit the market.
I'm glad that measurements and listening tests are being discussed widely and early.
+48V
hi-fi or die
Yep.
In my context, on the contrary. I was actually clarifying a sweeping statement made in post #31 where it was implied that an MQA blessed DAC was required to decode MQA content.
No argument here. My point was that 24/96 is a very suitable resolution for a great many Hi-Res enthusiasts.
As for the "full effect", I'll venture to say that most people (including Hi-Res fans) consider the difference in SQ between 24/96 and 24/192 fairly negligible. To each their own and not unlike any other audiophile "upgrade", I'll just say that there's most always a price to pay for being a purist.
WobblySam
Well-Known Member
Perhaps you're right. Experience has taught me to never say never. I do stream some, but only as background - much the same as FM. One of my systems is "on" everyday for around 12 hours and if the radio gets boring, I'll switch to streaming for a while.
I am still rooted somewhat in the past when it comes to digital audio. Having spent a good deal of time (and money) in the 90s on high-stability disc transports, a few reclockers here and there and DACs with high-stability clocks, retrieving bit-accurate data from discs was sort of an obsession. So the idea of bit-accurate data from network streaming eludes me. Given the asynch nature of data transmission, lost packets and other variables, I guess I just don't have any real trust in what's being delivered. If it exists, I've never seen a reference to any documentation from Tidal or Spotify on how they handle the vagaries of data loss/corruption in their respective multicast systems. Streaming isn't the same as a file transfer or executable download, so the opportunity for "resend" is limited. I know there have been numerous schemes for data substitution/repair proffered for streaming applications, but what the various streaming systems use is still an unknown - at least to me. I know it's a bit anal, but you go with what you know. So, I'll continue to reside in the dark ages and play my discs and LPs.
Cheers
Erik Tracy
Everyone's happy when the wizard walks by
No argument and I have none in the MQA discussions.Yep.
In my context, on the contrary. I was actually clarifying a sweeping statement made in post #31 where it was implied that an MQA blessed DAC was required to decode MQA content.
No argument here. My point was that 24/96 is a very suitable resolution for a great many Hi-Res enthusiasts.
As for the "full effect", I'll venture to say that most people (including Hi-Res fans) consider the difference in SQ between 24/96 and 24/192 fairly negligible. To each their own and not unlike any other audiophile "upgrade", I'll just say that there's most always a price to pay for being a purist.
I've only gotten to hear MQA via Tidal and software MQA only with no comparison context.
Sounded good.
I'm only pointing out that people need to be very specific/explicit when describing what level of MQA they have or have heard.
The data rate MQA is still only part of what it claims to offer (whether partial or full origami unfolding). The deblurring/filtering aspect of MQA is yet another claimed benefit - it can't be ignored in discussing any claimed discernible differences.
It's like eating Chex Party Mix where someone only picks out the wheat Chex bits to try and said they didn't like "it".
At least say that is what you did, otherwise, you gotta grab a whole handful to get the full effect.
A Comercial? You didn't watch the two videos, but hey I'm not here to convince anyone I was only providing information from someone more qualified than many on this site to give a proper definition of what MQA is. Some people get way to caught up in the politics and science rather than just enjoying something and living.
Audiofreak71