You are mistaken on both points.
The prioritization threshold is 50 GB and after that: "you still get unlimited LTE data but may at times notice reduced speeds in areas with network congestion."
Is MQA in your Future?
- Thread starter WobblySam
- Start date
The prioritization threshold is 50 GB and after that: "you still get unlimited LTE data but may at times notice reduced speeds in areas with network congestion."
tubeyea
Active Member
Exactly
NO,
NO,
...and NO.
Because reasons.
What I find highly suspicious is how hard the high-end press is pushing this. I mean, abnormally hard. At every turn, we're being told what a revelation it is, and (in a not so veiled fashion) that we need to stop rejecting it. We're talking "publisher of Stereophile" pushing hard here, monthly, taking great pains to gush over it, and to remind us of how its critics (meaning, most consumers reading the magazine or the site) are the ones who are misguided. It's no secret they are pushing an agenda. I've never seen such a hard, prolonged push to shove a technology down our collective throats.
And mqa backing out of attending the mqa panel at the Rocky Mountain Audio Fest is kind of telling also. They buckle any time their feet are held over the fire.
Yep, just like HDCD--make it sound compromised for just about everyone who can't/won't decode it. I read on one forum post elsewhere that even Tidal's standard lossless files sound compromised (guessing that DRM was interfering with the streaming), yet that was only in one place and I never read any more about it. I've heard some strangeness, but, not having the original CD on hand to compare, it could have been the CD itself that sounded off.
Come to think of it, if Tidal did go under from their ongoing financial woes, mqa would suffer a severe setback. Only Qobuz offers lossless (and even hi-res) streaming, and since they offer the untouched hi-res versions, I don't see them downgrading their sound to accommodate mqa. It seems mqa answers a question nobody has asked.
Same setup here, so I can relate. What burns my bunions is that there has never been a direct comparison between treated and untreated. In other words, it would have to be the exact same mastering for any comparison to be valid. A lot of Warner titles are up as mqa-encoded that are also available from HDTracks, but I have no idea if the mastering is the same. So I could easily queue up, say, the Christopher Cross album on both to compare. Once I get the house and listening room in order, I'm seriously considering hosting one of our monthly audio club meets, where I'd run a comparison between the two. I would first make sure I had high quality USB and 3.5mm-to-RCA cables in place. Could do it with headphones (I have some planars) but that is not exactly a group experience. Of course, we'll have to cleanse the ears with some vinyl afterwards.
Decibel_116
AK Subscriber
There is a reason the MQA developers stay away from panels at show such as RMAF. The cat is out of the bag and they can't stuff it back in at this point.
IPADave
Turning a whiter shade of pale.
I'm also suspicious of this. It's not just Stereophile. The Absolute Sound is also pushing MQA really hard. Someone posted earlier that MQA's target audience is not the audiophile, but that's not what the HiFi magazines are saying. Even Mr Anti-Digital Fremer is pushing it as the greatest thing since sliced bread.
-Dave
Decibel_116
AK Subscriber
tubeyea
Active Member
I’m simply advocating it because it sounds pleasing, much like my tube preamp. I couldn’t care less about the measurements or a few bits were dropped. I like it.
To quote a review “The immediate and face-slappingly-obvious benefit of MQA to Tidal is the ability to stream hi-res content in Redbook-sized containers.“
[Mod Edit]
To quote a review “The immediate and face-slappingly-obvious benefit of MQA to Tidal is the ability to stream hi-res content in Redbook-sized containers.“
[Mod Edit]
Last edited by a moderator:
WobblySam
Well-Known Member
OK, it seems our understanding of TCP, as it relates to multicast streaming differs. I'm certainly no expert on network infrastructure. I don't share your confidence in TCP. While it is generally considered reliable, there is no intrinsic guarantee of packet delivery.
Your reference to Netflix is a case in point. With Netflix, YouTube, Hulu, et al consuming more than 50% of all internet bandwidth during peak times (in North America), congestion dictates that packets will be routinely dropped or damaged. The subsequent throughput reduction along with the time to trellis speeds will most likely exceed normal buffering. Maybe there are cases where some one has never experienced an interruption while streaming. I use a wired gigabit network and dropouts occur from time to time. This indicates a condition where the data flow was so bad, the program could not substitute or correct fast enough. You, of course, may be privy to how the programs from Tidal, Spotify, et al were coded and understand how they handle whatever form of correction or substitution used. I don't have access to that information nor have I seen any references to it.
As I said, my knowledge is limited and your confidence in zero packet loss must stem from an active participation in internet infrastructure management on your part. The only source of my information is a friend who is a management specialist with AT&T. He often regales me with traffic management horror stories. So, I guess we can agree to disagree on the reliability, not of the overall network, but of the arrival of bit-accurate data when streaming.
Cheers
DaveVoorhis
Addicted Member
I think you may be confusing the TCP protocol with the underlying IP protocol. IP provides no guarantees of packet delivery; TCP provides guarantees of packet delivery and ordering but under degraded network conditions may cause indefinite delays. There are alternative protocols designed to reduce such delays (e.g. RTP, which is designed for audio and video), but there is no protocol that provides absolute guarantees of timely packet delivery (proof: unplug your network cable).
However, network degradation does not cause subtle effects; a sufficiently degraded network is sonically obvious: the sound goes away for a while. There are no subtle effects, like roll-off of high frequencies, unless the software receiving the stream is specifically designed to gracefully degrade and allow for lowered bandwidth. Some video systems do this, and it's dramatically noticeable when your 4K show drops down to NTSC/PAL resolutions because the network is flaky. Audio systems might do this, but the bandwidth demands of audio are relatively low, even for lossless audio, so it's unlikely to happen until the network is essentially completely screwed.
I wholeheartedly agree.
tubeyea
Active Member
I confess it is kind of silly, I’m sitting here listening to a Tidal Master from Samuel Beam’s Iron & Wine incarnation on my system simply aghast at how damn good streaming can sound in our time as the sound wondrously envelopes around me.
Is it better? I don’t know, at this point I don’t care, it’s simply beautiful...
Is it better? I don’t know, at this point I don’t care, it’s simply beautiful...
[Mod Edit]
I have stayed clear of this topic because I have not actually experienced mqa for myself. I haven't been ready to either pay for yet another DAC, or even pay the $20 per month for the first unfolding of it.
As someone who usees streaming little and always in the background, mp3 levels are okay for that.
I don't know where mqa is going, whether it will fail alongside Tidal itself, or the other extreme, that it will worm its way into all music for both rent and ownership, but I do think that as data limits are ever expanding and storage is getting very cheap that it is simply not needed.
Sure, if they really are looking to use the" original masters" recorded as the artists originally intended, and that's really what's happening, then that aspect is intriguing, at least on the surface, but how in the world would they really pull this off? A lot of the artists probably wouldn't know the original master from a hole in the ground after all those years. Itself it is this part of mqa that really spikes my BS meters, and I would rather not support them from this reasoning alone. I simply don't believe they are paying armies of audiophiles to hunt down what, millions of tracks from thousands of artists, (many of whom are dead or in such decline) in order to make certain (by obtaining the artists signatures) that the very best master has been obtained and is being used!
I have stayed clear of this topic because I have not actually experienced mqa for myself. I haven't been ready to either pay for yet another DAC, or even pay the $20 per month for the first unfolding of it.
As someone who usees streaming little and always in the background, mp3 levels are okay for that.
I don't know where mqa is going, whether it will fail alongside Tidal itself, or the other extreme, that it will worm its way into all music for both rent and ownership, but I do think that as data limits are ever expanding and storage is getting very cheap that it is simply not needed.
Sure, if they really are looking to use the" original masters" recorded as the artists originally intended, and that's really what's happening, then that aspect is intriguing, at least on the surface, but how in the world would they really pull this off? A lot of the artists probably wouldn't know the original master from a hole in the ground after all those years. Itself it is this part of mqa that really spikes my BS meters, and I would rather not support them from this reasoning alone. I simply don't believe they are paying armies of audiophiles to hunt down what, millions of tracks from thousands of artists, (many of whom are dead or in such decline) in order to make certain (by obtaining the artists signatures) that the very best master has been obtained and is being used!
Last edited by a moderator:
MurrayLives
Born to lose, live to win
I think the only time most artists even listen to their old albums is if they need to relearn a song they want to play on tour.
Todd Dodds
Super Member
Are you MQA compliant with settings and DAC, or are you just happy with the Masters in general? I'm good with straight Master's quality.
I have found it very difficult to actually compare MQA to CD. For example, today I played the Masters version of R.E.M.'s Automatic for the People. I first thought, "wow, here's the one that convinces me" and decided to do a comparison. It turned out that the Masters version played through my setup was at least 12 dB louder than the CD. Once I roughly equated the volume, it was much harder to hear a difference, though I think the Masters version might have been a little better. I need to repeat the comparison with a meter to actually equalize volume.
BTW, speaking as a moderator, I haven't yet seen anything in this thread worse than just annoying, but anyone who does is welcome to use the "report" button and the mod team will look at it. And, please keep in mind that public comments on moderation are against the rules.
BTW, speaking as a moderator, I haven't yet seen anything in this thread worse than just annoying, but anyone who does is welcome to use the "report" button and the mod team will look at it. And, please keep in mind that public comments on moderation are against the rules.
saggy
These go to 11
I could not agree more with this statement. It's all over the map. Sometimes I prefer the MQA, sometimes the FLAC, sometimes the Tidal stream. Just goes to show you need to trust YOUR ears.
Here are several high quality recordings in various sample rates as well as MQA that you can download for free and compare courtesy of 2L:
http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html?