It is up to each listener. That is the thing most of the anti brigade hate, and the thing they try their best to change all the time! It is easy to avoid MQA if it matters that much to you.
I tried this. But what do you get? The unconverted, unprocessed cd layer of an mqa file, or what? And if thatās what you get, how is that different from redbook? Having not been able to find a definitive explanation, I switched to Qobuz.
True, very true. But Roon remains a great product without MQA, and my DAC was chosen because it was very good for the money regardless of the fact it can process MQA. If MQA vanishes tomorrow I still have a great sounding viable setup. So where is my peril with regards to MQA?
This entire has gone off the rails, which always happens when one throws some cold water on some audiophile belief. So letās bring things back to the issue i am/was concerned about:
Namely, is Roon paying a fee for the right to use MQA (which would make sense since if MQA is anything itās a blatant money grab) and if so, is Roon passing that fee along to the Roon subscribers. And if the answer to both questions then that is something for to consider when itās time to renew my annual Roon subscription. As has been said, itās up to each listener to decide and Iāve decided that MQA is not worth the money. I donāt pay Tidal for their MQA level and I would prefer not to pay for MQA through Roon.
Come on gentlemen, if you have the right to believe that MQA is great then I have the right to disagree and to not have to pay for your belief, just as Iāve done with my Tidal subscription. To be clear I have Tidal Premium, which streams ACC files at 320 bit rate, not flac and not MQA. And hereās another splash of cold water - Tidal Premium sounds very good on my main stereo, which is pretty good, so please none of that ābut your stereo isnāt good enoughā. Iāve posted information about all my stereo set ups in other threads on the Roon Community so you can easily look up the information.
This jury of one has convicted Bob Stewart and MQA of heresy. But if you disagree, itās aok with me. I donāt listen with your ears and brain on your system in your room.
I have a $6000 DAC/streamer that has native MQA, and MQA sounds like crap on it, to me. BUT, that being said, if someone loves MQA, ALRIGHT!! To each his own. There is no right, or wrong.
Hearing, in some ways, is like eyesight. Some of us are fantastic at it, some very poor. At 69 y/o, I have great hearing. Maybe itās because my eyesight has always sucked (without glasses, I canāt see read the top letter on the eye chart. Eye chart?? WHAT eye charts??) Maybe that is why my hearing is so acute.
Nicely avoided. Iāll ask again? Where is my peril with regards to MQA?
To save you time Iāll answer for you. There is no risk, no issue, no peril. There is a degree of peril if you purchase music in the format. But that isnāt hard to avoid.
Perhaps youāre looking at the wrong jury - the jury of smart phone users under the age of 40 have voted and they love lossy compression and $20 earbuds and $60 bluetooth speakers.
Okay let me restate yet again: if MQA is offered to me at no additional cost and I can easily avoid having to use it then I donāt have any problems or perils with MQA. However if I am being charged for something I donāt use or think is in any way useful or worthwhile, then I have a problem and would like not be to charged for something I have no use for. Is that clear enough?
Now IF Roon Labs states that fees for MQA are part of the Roon package and cannot be opted out of on an individual basis then it is up to me to make my decision on what I chose to do. Right now all Iām doing is being the spokesman for those Roon users who donāt hear the need for MQA.
As for your peril with regards to using MQA, that, as has been stated before, is up to you to decide. If you find that MQA is worthwhile and are willing to pay for it thatās fine with me I just donāt want to pay for something I donāt want.
I have never heard an MQA track that sounds as good to me as even the equivalent Redbook track, even if the MQA volume is slightly higher. But, I am not saying you are wrong, just different. You listen to your system, in your room, with your ears and brain. I listen with mine. And obviously, our decoding is different somewhere along the way. SO FRIGGINā WHAT!! No right, not wrong, just different paths for different folks. I just hope that MQA survives for those who love it, even though I will never be in that group.
My point is just that. Most of America (and probably the world) does not care about getting the best in SQ. But, Bob Stewart saying that MQA is better than, or even as good as, other formats above mp3 quality, is heresy. To me, itās like saying Bose speakers sound as good as any speaker out there.
Stuart is first and foremost a marketer and he will say whatever it takes to sell his product. Itās up to us and the rest of the buying public to decide whether or not his claims are true and worth our money. So far I am underwhelmed by MQA and donāt think that MQA is worthy of my money.
I have noticed @Neil_Russell that you keep avoiding the subject of money, as in your thoughts on having to pay for MQA.
Itāll be interesting to see their next set of financials. Last set I looked at they were in dire straits with expenses many multiples of income, so entirely reliant on continued investment funding to survive.
People seem to get very stern in their criticism of MQA as if it were a religious war, and by definition never spend time really listening to the music. Then they take a knock at MQA with any chance they get.
I agree with you, listen and enjoy if you want, itās up to you but donāt keep spouting on that itās comparable to MP3 in a lossy way or it sounds bad because thatās just not true as I can demonstrate in my system, in my room, with my ears.
The amount we might (or might not) pay additional for MQA capability is totally insignificant, IMHO. It does allow me to listen carefully to it, and let me make up my own mind about it, which is negative. In virtually everything I own, there are capabilities built in that I will never use. So what?? If products had to be individually tailored to each of us, they would be prohibitively expensive for most of us. By building in these capabilities which I donāt use, it broadens the appeal of the product, and actually, in the long run, lowers my cost. So I have zero objections to having unused features built it.