I don’t have a problem with anyone making a few quid, but I just despair when the industry feels it needs to come up with another niche format which will never go mainstream (because it answers a question nobody asked) all the while ignoring the elephant in the room which is poor mastering and post-production values - loudness wars et al.
If Bob Stuart really wanted to improve the state of digitial audio, he would spend his time lobbying recording studios to increase dynamic range and certify their recordings as such. That would truly, measurably help to enhance audio quality. But you can’t license this and make any money off the back of it so…
Of course Bob Stuart does what he does, he can’t do everything, that’s for sure. But why don’t those who criticise (Which is ok with me) do something, create something, move the industry, solve the loudness wars even? Why leave it up to Bob Stuart and then kick him for it? Just a thought.
@Rik_Carter agree with your comment completely, the thing is if MQA will bring “actual” better quality the story would be different but why going through the trouble when you can have better quality with hires? it is just another technology created to control the consumer in this modern world and not really providing an advantage.
2 Likes
James_I
(The truth is out there but not necessarily here)
52
I think whether MQA is better quality is both subjective and should be determined on a work by work basis. What I strongly disagree with is that the parts of MQA that get most of the promotion (fixing this time blur thing, etc.) can be done without having to have it as an end-to-end system that brings about the potential for DRM. If you want to “remaster” a work yet again with the MQA process, go ahead and do it, and release it on a regular CD or Hi Res or download etc. Screw the blue light. Don’t need the rest that will some day work like HDCP and that is problematically.
I do my part. I criticize “solutions” such as MQA which move the industry in the wrong direction, thereby informing some (but certainly not all) music lovers of something which is against their interest. I also purchase recordings from Bandcamp, and niche labels that do not take part in “the loudness wars” (or do so less), etc.
Nobody “left it up to Bob”, and he did not step in on his own accord with our interests at heart - on the contrary…
Leaving aside the arguments against copy protection and licensing, I can’t help but wonder whether the critics of the sound quality of MQA have actually spent much time listening to it on a HiFi that does it justice.
All I can say is there is a significant improvement on my system, which is obvious when the Tidal falls back to non-MQA.
I’ve listened to other high-res formats without noticing as much difference as RedBook compared with MQA, but, in the interests of science, I’ll continue the test with more listening
For the avoidance of doubt, when you say “non-MQA” do you mean you’re listening to the same MQA release without unfolding, i.e. playing through a DAC with no MQA capability. Or you are listening to a completely different release of the same album?
This is an important point because I think some TIDAL Masters are better than earlier releases without the extra definition from unfolding. And some not so good.
Finally, to be completely transparent, I prefer some TIDAL Masters over my CD (flac) releases but I would not invest in an MQA-equipped DAC.
James_I
(The truth is out there but not necessarily here)
61
I would also wonder what DAC he uses. For example, the Pro-Ject S2D has a bug in the firmware that keeps the MQA filters engaged after an MQA track has been played and then followed by non-MQA. So that will make the non-MQA track sound worse.
That said, some MQA releases do sound really good. But on the S2D, which is a middle-DAC, still not as good as non-MQA through my W4S DAC2.
Yes, I can see that a different version of the same album would sound different and that the masters would likely sound better. My tests have been comparing MQA switched on vs MQA (forcibly) switched off through Roon (setting the eq in Roon to boost by 0dB across the board seems sufficient to do this).
While I admit this is potentially flawed as a test, it should be pretty close unless there is a bug in Roon that distorts the music appreciably when the eq boost is set to zero. It’s also the best way I could think of to compare the difference.
If the Tidal HiFi and Masters albums respectively are different versions or masterings, why assume that the MQA “would likely sound better”? That could be indication of preconceived notion, of expectation bias.
But of potentially greater concern – for multiple reasons – is a 0 dB change in Roon DSP that eliminates bit perfect integrity.
No, I’m not assuming MQA automatically sounds better, I am saying that there are albums that to me sound substantially better in MQA. There are other recordings where there is little in it. There is no expectation bias, the change isn’t small on albums such as ColdPlay HFOD.
I agree that a 0db change eliminating perfect bit integrity is a potential concern.
