Go into any MQA thread and you will find it very much it cuts both ways. We all see things through the prism of our prejudices.
I firmly believe MQA is a fraud on the music listener, but I’m more than happy for consumers, or lack of consumers, to decide its fate. Its basic business model failed several years ago and if it were not for third party investors giving it more money the company would have failed years ago. Some may mourn its passing, I suspect most will not. If the giant Sony could not pull off a result with SACD because of its hardware and software DRM, what chance a speck of a company like MQA? At least SACD offered something, in multi-channel and 2-channel HD via DSD.
9 Likes
Thanks, I’ve been waiting for Qobuz to be available New Zealand for a while.
I must have been asleep and missed the details as to when it was available. But reading your post, I’ve just signed up. Well pleased and also with your Yussef Dayes recommendation.
6 Likes
A large segment of both sides miserable derides and ridicules the other side. Personally, I hope both sides learn to just chill out and enjoy the music. I find MQA to be full of distortion and artifacts, and Chris and millions of others love MQA. And I’m perfectly fine with that. If MQA puts a smile on their faces, and makes them tap their feet, that’s a good thing, no matter whether you and I believe in the technology and marketing or not. And I have no fear that it will replace non-MQA. Us non-MQA folks are too passionate about FLAC and other lossless formats to ever let that happen.
4 Likes
I would recommend watching the video. MQA’s response is discussed at length in it…
6 Likes
Not sure what your angle is with regard to my previous comment. My DAC/amp is a full MQA decoder, and I am subscribed to both Tidal and Qobuz (plus my local library). And I DO acknowledge that Qobuz still has some catalog gaps that others do not.
My point was simply meant to summarize what MQA ultimately represents, and why its original premise is flawed in the sense that it is nothing more than a glorified DSP applied to a lossy file. As I said, it may sound “great” for some and “terrible” for others.
Just like you, I prefer to enjoy music in whatever format - but I must also say that, as far as I am concerned, all this original MQA hype is barely justifiable, since SQ is, for the most part, either worse than lossless sources or on a par with them. Moreover, in most countries of the world bandwidth is no longer a real concern - heck, even my parents living in the Brazilian countryside have access to high-speed fiber (and no download limitations) these days.
3 Likes
Hi Neil. I am just curious, when you state you find MQA to be full of distortion; Is that based on your listening experience, or are you referring to something else?
1 Like
How Tidal is fooling it’s users with their mqa:
1st column is what the label delivers,
2nd is what Tidal offers its subscribers before the mqa is released,
3rd and 4th colums what Tidal offers when an mqa is released,
5th is what a real lossless platform like Qobuz delivers (which is = 1st btw)
As you can see, they did a real effort to make sure that IF users find a PCM AND and MQA version of a track, it will always be a 16/44 PCM and a 24/XXX MQA which is 2.5x bigger in size !
(they would have done a very bad job if a 2.5x bigger file sounded worse)
This was certainly intended, and users streaming Tidal only, might actually start to think that every mqa is better than pcm. However when you look at the scheme, you’ll see that in all cases, the orginal masters from the label, (and so also those offered by Qobuz) are still superior quality.
Tidal should change its name in Hide-All. 
REMARK : This scheme shows what happens if a label offers a 16/44 PCM OR a 24/xxx PCM of a track. When the label offers both versions, then there is no down sampled version of the 24/xxx of course. And after conversion to mqa there’s only the 16/44 mqa and 24/xxx mqa to be found. No PCMs!
6 Likes
Hopefully this doesn’t have naughty upsampled RBCD… Are people still checking 
1 Like
I did Cameron and it was interesting and passionately made - my compliments!
I have read some interesting comments on Audio Science Review regarding the validity of your test. All this taught me a lot more about how MQA actually works and that is for me the most intriguing aspect of their invention. I am glad you discussed 2nd and 3rd folds of MQA.
The most important part, however, is how it sounds and that has not changed a bit.
I still prefer MQA when I have the choice but am also happy with other formats. I hope this is OK.
3 Likes
1.- Ah - that is the matter isn’t it? specially because I believe this is more than about any sound quality or lack thereof. It is of course, OK that you prefer MQA - not one of us has the right to call you out, harass or otherwise take you to task for preferring it.
Just wish I could convince you to reject it.
Because more than anything MQA is an attack on consumer rights. I need to remind everyone that DRM is more than about the ability to copy anything. Yes, MQA files are currently not copy protected. Sure. But, even that can change any moment - it is the control kept on the content that allows it. That is the scary part.
2.- The cleverest thing about the video is that it has forced EVEN MQA proponents to admit that it is a lossy scheme. One of their main arguments against the video, that it uses a test signal? Well, guess what other schemes also do badly on test signals ? Lossy schemes! 
Brilliant.
3.- Respectfully requesting that the one comment per day limit is removed. If it wasn’t for that, it would be one of the most active subjects on the community. Artificially keeping it form becoming that, amounts to limiting our freedom to discuss it - and also minimizes the impact of the video, using an editorial decision. And, yes, I know, Roon is a private company and this forum its property, sure… ( so I need no lectures on the exact nature of freedom of speech in the USA, I know it and understand it), but as a gesture of goodwill towards consumer rights, it would be fantastic.
v
18 Likes
Hi Terry, sounds like you’re from Down Under too.
Qobuz in Australia? Why wasn’t I told? lol
Have you ditched Tidal? I will certainly consider doing so if Qobuz ticks most of my boxes.
Some “mastered” albums sound horrible to me. I start listening to what was previously a Redbook file and think “wtf?”. Turns out that it has been “mastered” to death.
It is the removal of the non-MQA album and thus the removal of any choice and/or comparison that really annoys me.
5 Likes
Hi Ian,
Originally South London but now after 20 odd years of working all over the world, I’ve settled in rural Victoria (Macedon Ranges).
I ditched Tidal the day of the Square announcement that they had bought into Tidal. It also coincided with my discovery that the entire Led Zeppelin catalogue was mqa only and that all PCM had been removed.
The erosion of choice accelerated my decision. There were plenty of questionable examples of mqa that I experienced and I was waiting for Qobuz so I could do some testing, but a combination of testing Qobuz over VPN against Tidal through a friend’s system and the Square announcement led me to ditch Tidal early. Better to go without for a couple of months than fund the scam (or fund Dorsey) any further. I had plenty of local files and vinyl to see me through.
The rate of conversions cannot be supported by the number of experienced audio engineers in existence; it’s going too fast for that to be possible. It’s just a careless “she’ll be alright, mate” batch process seemingly without much QA. Vote with your wallet.
Cheers,
Tel
5 Likes
Hey mate, a fellow Macedon Ranges listener here too. Great part of the world.
All I want in my streaming is as close to what the mastering engineer spat out as is possible. This is usually going to be 24/96 or 24/192. I can handle any DAC and DSP from that point onwards.
Qobuz ticks the box for me aptly. Add on a few TB of my own FLACs and there’s no shortage of quality, un-interfered with music to play with.
9 Likes
Most Tidal customers just play tracks at whatever default highest setting they’re offered and don’t pay attention to anything else. They just accept the MQA because they’re told it’s better quality.
It’s the true audiophiles (a minority) that actually look in to it, care about, and pay attention to audio quality.
1 Like
Here is a reply I got when I posted about eliminating the limit.
As I sit here enjoying Talking Reality Blues on Tom Jones Latest album in MQA on a bluesound pulse 2 when SWMBO says, Wow, it’s just like he is in the room with us…
She has no idea of MQA or could care less about such details. (That’s Blue Collar Stuff) 
It wasn’t terrible distortions and lossy audio that caused her sudden statement there…
2 Likes
My wife has formats totally sorted. If she can’t see a record spinning it’s probably digital.
p.s. She loves using Roon.
3 Likes
Is that another way of saying true audiophiles have better taste, ears and systems?
So I don’t have to join your club I’m off to listen to cassettes.
2 Likes
Please define audiophile.
In different zones I use Devialet Expert Pro 1000 amps, a Meridian Ultra Dac, Mytek Manhattan II, Meridian DSPs, Hifiman, DAN Clark and Sennheiser cans, a Hugo 2 and Astell & Kern SP1000 and despite the videos and graphs still tend to prefer MQA when available, and Tidal over Qobuz when not. I have also heard great artists in the great halls…from Salzburg to the O2.
Question…am I an audiophile?