Don’t listen to the naysayers about how MQA is crap


(rick stehno) #1

Don’t listen to the naysayers about how MQA is crap. It’s not. Don’t screw up how Roon handles MQA because some people either can’t hear the difference or don’t want to update/spend the money to support MQA.


Prefer Tidal FLAC over MQA option
(crenca) #2

Naysayers? You mean fact_sayers :sunglasses:


(Robert Coppersmith) #3

Also… Don’t like MQA? No worries.

Drop Tidal and subscribe to Qobuz for “real” HiRez.


(Steven Hansen) #4

As someone who has enough audio equipment to trade it all in for a new BMW 3 Series, and who listened to many formats over the past 35 years, MQA sounds better to me. I’ve listened to MQA compared to other formats to put this to bed. People can say what they want. I trust my ears.


(crenca) #5

Except that does not work. See the split off thread about “MQA, 2L and Qobuz”.

To summarize for you: Qobuz employees explicitly have admitted (on https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/) that they are unwilling to stop even a small, insignificant label like 2L from uploading MQA (in this specific case, MQA CD) to their service, even though this is a contradiction to their whole hi res market position/strategy. They do promise to in the future get the tagging right, so that the consumer can use their app and apps such as Roon to see what is and is not MQA.


(Robert Coppersmith) #6

Much ado about very little. Two million tracks and you are excited about how many?

Generously, it sounds like a bit of an over reaction. Why care if a few tracks are MQA? So much good Hi Res and 16/44 to listen to on Qobuz.


(crenca) #7

Excited? Your the one making political comparisons. I and others just want the ability to focus in the streaming services for the kind of music we want, in the format we want it in. Why is something so little an issue at all?


#8

I believe the MQA vs FLAC conversation is a little off topic here. All that @Larry_Post is asking is for a setting option for users to mark one format as preferred over the other.

I would say giving more freedom to the user is generally a good idea, as long as Roon can find a way to do it without worsening the experience for users who will not use such a feature (and I don’t see how this could be problematic here).

I think the real question here is, are there enough users that would value this feature enough to justify its development?


(Chris ) #9

MQA comes in a FLAC wrapper on Tidal I believe.


(Jeff) #10

Yah, the conversation needs to be MQA vs regular PCM. FLAC is just the container.


(crenca) #11

Right, but like I said upstream, when I search for an artist it shows me lossy/compressed MQA ahead of everything else, including the same album in real 24/96 hi res & real non-lossy 16/44! So to get to the hi res, or just a non-lossy version, I have to click version, scroll, observe, and click on the correct album. Roon privileges lossy MQA over 16/44 and real hi res.


(W. Anders) #12

I agree with the initial post. Please continue to support MQA in Roon for those of us who can hear the difference and want to listen to MQA files. On my highly resolving system (worth more than a BMW 3-Series) I can readily hear the improvement that MQA offers. I have played hi-rez files in comparison to streamed MQA files for my audiophile friends and family and they can easily hear the difference. I trust my ears.

For those who have a political or philosophical objection to MQA, or who cannot hear the difference, give them the option to hide MQA files from within Roon thereby satisfying their insular need. Problem solved.


(Martin Kelly) #13

What is it about BMW’s on this thread? Bizzare… Maybe I should sell all of my gear and buy a 5-Series? lol
Anyways, IMO MQA is good. Better than true Hi-res files? No. But probably no worse. Pretty good for a lossy format.
I think MQA has its place. Streaming for one, especially in applications/networks with low bandwidth. And it probably has a future too. But so does High-res audio too.
At least Roon can cater for all preferences.


#14

https://audiophilereview.com/cd-dac-digital/a-comparison-of-sacd-vs-mqa-in-physical-format.html


#15

Define real hires :grinning:

Also Qobuz has upsampling material named hires. To their defense it’s what has been delivered to them.


(Martin Webster) #16

I don’t believe anyone has suggested that Roon should cease supporting MQA. Indeed choice is a good thing. But, to imply that those who hear a difference only have a positive experience is incorrect. What’s more, presenting philosophical objection and listening preference as if they were the same is also wrong.

People disagree for different reasons. That doesn’t mean they are narrow minded.

When playing music with friends and family we talk about the artists and the music. Now that is strange.


(James) #17

I agree with the OP in that I find MQA to be superior to other formats in terms of sound quality.

Personally I’d like a way to have Roon always prefer and display MQA over other formats, if such is available.

Equally, I don’t see why this shouldn’t be something you could toggle on and off if you have cloth ears or prejudice. If anyone wants to deny themselves a superior audio experience that should be their prerogative.


(Ali Fatemi) #18

I wish it was technically posdible for Roon to also unfold the whole MQA files and not just the first step! Maybe in future…


(Jeff) #19

Roon kind of can already. Just apply minimum phase smooth upsampling. It’s very similar to the upsampling filter MQA uses and calls the second unfold.


(James) #20

Isn’t the reason it can’t because it is unable to apply compensation for the specific DAC it’s feeding?