Is MQA in your Future?

[Rex81]

-Tidal Hi-fi off my Bluesound Powernode 2 is my only source. (full MQA capability)
-I would be running this exact same setup with or without the existence of MQA.
-Tidal doesn't charge any more for MQA.
-To me, most MQA tracks sound marginally better than their Redbook cousins.

So, yes.

I don't need MQA in my life. But I don't mind having it there either.

 

[+48V]

I'm only pointing out that people need to be very specific/explicit when describing what level of MQA they have or have heard.

Ditto. #metoo

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.

I'm gonna read this as a general/rhetorical "you"; not a counter to my remarks.

 

[Erik Tracy]

Ditto. #metoo

I'm gonna read this as a general/rhetorical "you"; not a counter to my remarks.

Correct.

No finger poking intended.

 

[Bob]

there is a case, right here, for MQA

streaming, tidal, tidal MQA app. just your monthly charge

no hardware that will be obsolete or NLA (DBX, Dolby S, JVC ANRS, HDCD, Dolby DTS variants,...)

no need to repurchase (if you can) the equivalent of all your cassettes, LPs, hires d/ls, that are unique

no need to upgrade when all streaming is 32/384 and 13-channel 16K videos.

I think all the posters are correct and even the supporters are correct also. just depends on
where you stand near the elephant (in the room). there are still MP3 listeners out there.

enjoy the music even the MQA versions.

 

[E-Stat]

That is a solution for services wanting to offer HQ streaming with the minimum bandwidth, minimal or no buffering .

Bandwidth is inexpensive today and will continue to drop in price. Recently, my ISP allowed me to double my bandwidth at the same cost or reduce cost for the same speed. Phone bandwidth is the same story. Replacing the music library and purchasing a new DAC to meet the quality of my current one unnecessary.

The Tidal app contains the software, as does audirvana which yes, you pay for, the same as you did before it had the software.

That reveals only half the full MQA unfolding. Which is why there are MQA compatible DACs in the first place. Must replace hardware as well. Note that maximum MQA resolution is 96/17.

I have Tidal HIFI and can play their MASTER level. What I hear most often is different masters as identified by differing times and loudness levels.

 

[MurrayLives]

To address the OP’s question: the difference between MQA and FLAC is so thin as to be irrelevant IME. There was a time I was rigid in my upgrade plan regards MQA, but I got better.

I do have Tidal hi-fi; full unfolding doesn’t seem to help or hurt, which is why I upgraded to a non-MQA DAC.

 

[+48V]

Some people get way to caught up in the politics and science rather than just enjoying something and living.

Indeed.

Further. While I am certainly not discouraging anyone here or experts elsewhere from debating, vivisecting, and disputing MQA's merits & methodology in excruciating detail, argueably it's a fun and healthy exercise. But I can't help but see here that the "end of the day" benefit and primary thrust of MQA's mission is completely missed or glossed over.

One of the biggest gripes from naysayers is that MQA is a proprietary money grab. Sure it is! So what. Nothing new there; MP3 license revenues from Technicolor's administration generated about $120,000,000 for the Fraunhofer Society in 2005. Oh the horror of someone trying to monetize a significant engineering investment. And yes, Tidal also has a significant interest in "grabbing" money to offset their bottom line by saving gobs in bandwidth.

Speaking of gripes, many here (including audiophiles) complain that Tidal's $20/mo. Hi-Fi/Masters tier is too expensive. Hmmm. Can't see many here or elsewhere being very receptive and go racing to the subscribe button for Hi-Res streaming when it would cost the user at least double that amount sans MQA.

Personally, now with allot the hubbub in the rear view mirror, I think the MQA/Meridian folks did a pretty poor job by getting too far into technical the weeds regarding their product's intrinsic worth. Much to much focus on the nuclear details . But hey, engineers are well...engineers not marketeers. <--no flame intended.

Let's get back to the said "glossed over" elephant in the room. MQA, at it's core, is first and foremost a wholesale product primarily designed for retailers of streaming content. i.e. Tidal, et.al. As for Hi-Res permanent downloads, MQA is obviously of little benefit to the end user frankly. That is a very remote secondary if not a tertiary concern and collateral "bonus". Thereby, critiquing, analyzing, and analogizing it's advantages against a "full fledged" fat Hi-Res download from say, HD Tracks, etc. is misdirected. That's plainly not the market nor principle customer of MQA.

End of the day, it's about offering higher quality streaming today more affordably than the other guy.

 

[Audiofreak71]

Indeed.

Further. While I am certainly not discouraging anyone here or experts elsewhere from debating, vivisecting, and disputing MQA's merits & methodology in excruciating detail, argueably it's a fun and healthy exercise. But I can't help but see here that the "end of the day" benefit and primary thrust of MQA's mission is completely missed or glossed over.

One of the biggest gripes from naysayers is that MQA is a proprietary money grab. Sure it is! So what. Nothing new there; MP3 license revenues from Technicolor's administration generated about $120,000,000 for the Fraunhofer Society in 2005. Oh the horror of someone trying to monetize a significant engineering investment. And yes, Tidal also has a significant interest in "grabbing" money to offset their bottom line by saving gobs in bandwidth.

Speaking of gripes, many here (including audiophiles) complain that Tidal's $20/mo. Hi-Fi/Masters tier is too expensive. Hmmm. Can't see many here or elsewhere being very receptive and go racing to the subscribe button for Hi-Res streaming when it would cost the user at least double that amount sans MQA.

Personally, now with allot the hubbub in the rear view mirror, I think the MQA/Meridian folks did a pretty poor job by getting too far into the weeds regarding their product's intrinsic worth. Much to much focus on the nuclear details . But hey, engineers are well...engineers not marketeers. <--no flame intended.

Let's get back to the said "glossed over" elephant in the room. MQA, at it's core, is first and foremost a wholesale product primarily designed for retailers of streaming content. i.e. Tidal, et.al. As for Hi-Res permanent downloads, MQA is obviously of little benefit to the end user frankly. That is a very remote secondary if not a tertiary concern and collateral "bonus". Thereby, critiquing, analyzing, and analogizing it's advantages against a "full fledged" fat Hi-Res download from say, HD Tracks, etc. is misdirected. That's plainly not the market nor principle customer of MQA.

End of the day, it's about offering higher quality streaming today more affordably than the other guy.

Well said

Audiofreak71

 

[E-Stat]

I think the MQA/Meridian folks did a pretty poor job by getting too far into the weeds regarding their product's intrinsic worth. Much to much focus on the nuclear details .

What they've completely failed to do is demonstrate the intrinsic value of the encoding by providing examples of the very same recording in both 192/24 and MQA.

 

[tubeyea]

Bandwidth is inexpensive today and will continue to drop in price. Recently, my ISP allowed me to double my bandwidth at the same cost or reduce cost for the same speed. Phone bandwidth is the same story.

A significant sample study if there ever was one, Lol. You completely miss the point, what your provider has or has not done is applicable to you. Bandwidth availability varies widely and all is not well outside your sugar coated abode.

Answer this, if your a streaming provider what makes more since from a file standpoint. Pushing out thousands upon thousands of 96 mb files or the same number of 46 mb files?

The problem is apparent, that you refuse to acknowledge MQA is a viable solution doesn’t invalidate it. You simply are digging in your heels.

 

[E-Stat]

Bandwidth availability varies widely and all is not well outside your sugar coated abode.

Like Moore's law, bandwidth cost across the country continues to plummet. Unlimited cellular bandwidth is quite common most everywhere.

Answer this, if your (sic) a streaming provider what makes more since from a file standpoint. Pushing out thousands upon thousands of 96 mb files or the same number of 46 mb files?

More since? The servers couldn't care less.

The problem is apparent, that you refuse to acknowledge MQA is a viable solution doesn’t invalidate it. You simply are digging in your heels.

The market will ultimately decide. Yes, I have no need to support Bob Stuart's new revenue model. Nor do engineers either.

"It’s definitely a lossy codec... MQA brightens the high-mids in the Mid section while thinning the low-mids on the Sides. There’s also some harmonic distortion which some people could find pleasing, If I want that distortion in the master I would’ve put it there in the first place. The results of MQA I would call fatal to the source material even as they are very subtle."

 

[tubeyea]

Like Moore's law, bandwidth cost across the country continues to plummet. Unlimited cellular bandwidth is quite common most everywhere.

Wrong


More since? The servers couldn't care less.


The market will ultimately decide. Yes, I have no need to support Bob Stuart's new revenue model. Nor do engineers either.

"It’s definitely a lossy codec... MQA brightens the high-mids in the Mid section while thinning the low-mids on the Sides. There’s also some harmonic distortion which some people could find pleasing, If I want that distortion in the master I would’ve put it there in the first place. The results of MQA I would call fatal to the source material even as they are very subtle."

Ramble, ramble...

 

[E-Stat]

Like Moore's law, bandwidth cost across the country continues to plummet. Unlimited cellular bandwidth is quite common most everywhere.

Wrong

Perhaps you've never heard of T-Mobile.

 

[tubeyea]

Perhaps you've never heard of T-Mobile.

You’re having a hard time determining the difference between someone having unlimited data and providers having the capacity to deliver that data en mass to millions of users with seamless operation. Anything they can do within an given set of infrastructure to reduce the level of mb’s needed to be sent out is just smart.

[Mod Edit]

 

[E-Stat]

You’re having a hard time determining the difference between someone having unlimited data and providers having the capacity to deliver that data en mass to millions of users with seamless operation.

Not at all. As an IT professional, I understand the costs involved with network infrastructure. With today's technology, it is nil.

[Mod Edit]

 

[ben_]

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

Well, you should not worry about data packets lost while streaming music be it FLAC or any other format.
Thats what TCP protocol is for, and buffering will ensure your music is uninterupted even if data rate sporadically drops below the music bitrate.
On top of that, network these days have become very reliable and packets loss are usually due to the home wifi not the internet.

I was wondering, why so many arguments abouts Flac streaming network bandwidth usage, Netflix in 1080p video uses something in the arera of 10 times whats needed for a 16bit 44.1KHz stereo stream in FLAC. For 4K video it would get the ratio around 25 time more...not a valid reason to discard lossless streaming in 2018 to me.

 

[E-Stat]

I was wondering, why so many arguments abouts Flac streaming network bandwidth usage, Netflix in 1080p video uses something in the arera of 10 times whats needed for a 16bit 44.1KHz stereo stream in FLAC.

Let's not confuse the issue with facts.

 

[tubeyea]

Lets, Against MQA Unfolded https://www.audiostream.com/content/against-mqa-unfolded

 

[tubeyea]

Perhaps you've never heard of T-Mobile.

Unlimited data doesn't mean its not data limited at some point, over 30 gigs in T mobile's case. But hats off to LG, their V30 is MQA capable

 

[tubeyea]

Tidal MQA Spreadsheet. May not be latest

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet..._uzxfBqhXrPuXh3USOjvuztYg/edit#gid=1176054952