This is the most useful comment of this thread.
2 Likes
It’s not about convincing, it’s about comparing PCM and MQA.
For me PCM is still the best format, because
- it offers the most freedom (volume control, filter selection, equalizing, room correction);
with mqa this is all one hell because the mqa signal gets completely lost if a single bit is changed. - sounds natural; as it IS what the artist intended it to be (ask Neil Young)
- you can have digital outputs on your dac (not a single mqa dac has digital outputs!)
- it is supported by millions of software players, even freeware ones like foobar2000
- it is free; you only pay for the subscription to a streaming service,
- it’s 100% DRM free. Something that is not guaranteed with mqa.
With mqa, you pay extra for
- the streaming service (the artist doesn’t, but you do)
- the software decoding mqa (license)
- the hardware decoding mqa (license)
It’s all about money… and for what,
For decompressing a file that was lossy compressed?
For obtaining a sound effect that can be achieved with any pcm by just selecting the right filter?
I rest my case. I left Tidal, I don’t need a possible DRM format that’s lossy compressed, that you pay extra for, that offers no audible improvement, (on the contrary!) and where the real “master” is actually the PCM it was created from.
Here’s a good summary:
So long !
You know, with your intelligence and research you could be so helpful to others on lots of threads here. Sometimes it’s good to share the love.
Just because you keep repeating yourself doesn’t make it true.
Many of us have not paid one penny additional to get MQA. MQA costs the same as CD quality via Tidal. DCS is one company that updated our gear for free once they finished development of their MQA solution. So no extra costs for MQA.
There are other artists who do not agree with Neil Young.
DRM is not used with MQA.
The all testing statement is pure BS.
2 Likes
Let’s also not forget that the people producing this music, and carefully mixing and mastering this music, were listening to PCM, more often than not at 24/44. The idea that somehow it’s going to sound “better” than the original is nonsensical to me. The best possible fidelity is by listening to a bit-perfect representation of the master PCM files.
5 Likes
I would still love to know how many people would bet their house on recognising what the next track is ten times in a row if there is so much difference.
2 Likes
Hi Wim,
in principle, I agree with your arguments about original PCM vs. MQA, but I have to disagree on one point.
In your opinion Minimum Phase Filters seem to be generally worse than linear phase filters, maybe impressed by some well-known influencers without having personal listening experience with many different decent DACs.
This impression may be correct for > 95% of all DACs (also many "HighEnd DACs >3000 $) because they use the simple filters supplied by DAC chip producers like ESS, Brown-Burr or AKM for cost reasons. These then often sound much the same unless followed by an elaborate analog stage.
I would be wary of a DAC manufacturer offering me more than three different filters, because designing individual filters to fit the system requires considerable effort and costs a lot of time and money. For many high-end DACs, which are sold in very small numbers, this is usually not economically feasible or they cost $15,000 or more.
But some, also usually more expensive manufacturers, develop their own FPGA based digital-to-analog converters with their own filters or those that use standard Dac chips but bypass the chips’ functions after the actual conversion with their own FPGA based functions and filters.
Some of them deliberately rely on minimum phase filters and offer only this one because they are often sonically superior to linear phase filters if well programmed and adapted.
Whether the MQA filters are adapted for the individual systems in the same way may well be questioned.
Anyway, with such a DAC that is using an individual minimum phase filter, PCM or a MQA “master” track with the first software based unfolding by Roon, Audirvana, Tidal App or whatever can usually sound better compared even with a “state of the art” MQA certified DAC in my subjective listening experience.
Is it even fair to compare lossless format (PCM) to a lossy one (MQA)? Shouldn’t we be talking about MQA vs. AAC, Ogg and other up and coming competitors? 
2 Likes
I attended frequently several events from the mp3 inventor Fraunhofer Institute usually represented by Prof. Brandenburg as well as Bob Stuart from Meridian/MQA at the HighEnd Show in Munich since 2017. In my impression there are some marked similarities how they argument why their compressed format is equal to or in case of MQA better than the original PCM version. Both argued primarily with psychoacoustic effects and comparative studies, in case of Fraunhofer with a scientific basis but nevertheless insufficient sources and equipment as well as in audio comparison completely unexperienced subjects. In case of MQA, we don’t know anything about the formation of their underlying basis for their psychoacoustic adoption.
Today I suppose that anyone who is a little bit trained how and what to listen about is able to notice the difference between mp3/aac/Ogg, even in 320 kbps, and the lossless pcm original with a decent equipment.
In the case of MQA “Studio Masters” with a specified resolution of at least 24/88.2, it is somewhat more difficult to detect differences.
Many don’t recognize differences between 16/44.1 and 24/44.1 even in PCM. In fact, they are rather subtle and the higher the resolution gets, the smaller the differences become. In the end, it’s the quality of the recording and mastering that matters most, not the format and resolution.
If MQA with its special filters in the “second unfolding” or original PCM sounds better is often a matter of taste and of course, as already described in my previous post, also depends on the possibilities offered by the DAC used.
My main concerns about MQA beside the obvious lies about provenence are not about the sound qualities but rather the dominant efforts of MQA and the major labels directly involved and their efforts to limit our choices to maximize their profits.
5 Likes
You need to educate yourself at lossless compression.
MQA is both lossless and lossy.
you forgot CD is lossless even if it is derived from 24/96kHz
.
The provenance part is ambiguous.
There are some albums before that are MQA Studio that are now turned to just MQA
and there are MQA ones that are turned to MQA Studio.
Humorous, how people claim that and then rage about MQA.
1 Like
Lossy versus lossless isn’t applicable to a CD itself. A CD is not a compressed version of a 24/96 (or whatever) source. It has undergone bit depth and sample rate conversion to suit a spec, and therefore becomes a new “source”.
1 Like
Qobuz costs $15 a month for High Rez. Tidal is $20 a month for the MQA “version” of High Rez. Not only are you paying extra for MQA but as you pointed out, you’re also paying extra for 16/44.
1 Like
Tried Qobuz. Didn’t like it much,
Liking it or not isn’t point I was trying to make. You said you weren’t paying any extra for MQA. I pointed out that you actually are through the higher monthly charges for Tidal.
1 Like
We should all be paying much more for streaming even at CD quality and monies being paid to artists and writers in a more equitable manner. So a service being cheap (one presumes to pick up customers) is nothing to brag about…
2 Likes
Except by every count I’ve seen Qobuz manage to charge less and pay the artist 4x more per stream. Where’s that extra revenue going
This is old but there’s little to suggest it’s changed much:
2 Likes
That’s great news then
Before believing those per stream rates, read this as a better description of streaming payouts. In fact, the whole series of related articles on streaming from this blog are a worthwhile reading project:
https://soundcharts.com/blog/music-streaming-rates-payouts
1 Like