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

(Johnnie Pearson) #21

I have both Tidal and Qobuz (beta). I hear little difference between Tidal and Qobuz music of the same bit/sampling rate. They both sound excellent on my system.

I listen to old school R&B/soul, contemporary jazz, and some soft rock. I do not listen to new R&B artists, old school jazz, classical, or hard rock. IMHO, Tidal has a better selection of the music I like.

I get a 50% military discount with Tidal and I like MQA. Qobuz doesn’t have enough HiRes music that I like for me to keep it long term. That may change, but, for the price difference, I’ll stick with Tidal. I only hope they stay in business :face_with_raised_eyebrow:.

(rick stehno) #22

Why would I want to go backwards? Tidal sounds superior

(Music and Shawarma Lover) #23

Money isn’t a substitute for judgment, knowledge, or discretion.

Ironic you say this, though, because it was back when I first heard the audio system in a 5 series that I realized my home systems needed dramatic upgrades!

(Steven Hansen) #24

The average 5 Series is much more than the average 3 Series. You must have more judgment, knowledge, and discretion than me!

Still, I’m glad it was the impetus for your home system upgrades. Enjoy!

(Michael Fanning) #25

This won’t happen unless the MQA execs change their technology. Unless I am mistaken, the final unfold must be done by an MQA-enabled DAC.

(crenca) #26

There is nothing more to “unfold” - no data. So from 48>96 you have a lossy facsimile of the actual PCM content. After 96 you have…nothing. Instead, MQA upsamples in the “MQA-enabled DAC”, using their weak (read high IM distortion) filters, to whatever the reported original sample rate is (e.g. “192” or “384”).

It’s all a smoke and mirrors language game…

(rick stehno) #27

Flashman- keep thinking your reasoning is true while the people who can actually hear an increase in SQ with MQA will continue to enjoy it.

(Scott Winders) #28

What did you compare MQA to? 16/44.1? 24/96?

Also, when you compared MQA to “regular” PCM, are you sure that the MQA and regular PCM files were the same exact masterings? If they were not, your comparisons don’t mean what you think they mean…

(Chris ) #29

That’s correct, they cant change the technology, MQA needs a DAC that is MQA award. That’s how it works.

(Steven Hansen) #30

I play MQA vs. non MQA from Tidal going through Roon. The MQA always sounds better about 90 percent of the time. I have run across an occasional album where I feel the non-MQA sound better. I’m not looking closely to compare file formats. Just want to enjoy the music as much as I can.

(Gerald Richardson) #31

So far when comparing head-to-head Tidal/MQA vs. the equivalent Qobuz/Hi-Res I always prefer the Tidal/MQA. I will keep Qobuz after the free trial at least for a while because they have some labels in Hi-Res (like Chandos) that Tidal does not have in MQA.

(rick stehno) #32

Why would I care if the masters where the same or if the master was created on a Wednesday vs on Thursday? If I’m presented a MQA album and a non-MQA album on tidal, I don’t compare the masters, I compare the sound between them. Same goes for comparing MQA to vinyl. I could care less about which master is used, IMO, that’s up to the engineer to decide. If it’s a crap master then the outcome should sound like crap.

(Christoph Longree) #33

Just 4 my understanding… when u play MQA via Roon but use a non MQA DAC - do u get any advantage over regular 44.1/16? I remember reading something about a first unfold?

Anyhow - I even believe I hear a positiv change in SQ when playing MQA via non MQA DAC by Roon… on the other Hand my DAC can handle true high res… not really sure I understand the “heavyness” of the discussion… all sound pretty great, a lot comes down to personal taste and the differences are often really really subtle…

(Peter Lie) #34

Yes. MQA software including Roon, Tidal desktop app and Audirvana can perform the first unfold to decode MQA to MQA Core in 24/88.2 or 24/96. This is true even for a non-MQA DAC.

(crenca) #35

This! This is one of the reasons MQA is a failure with consumers. Why would 99.9% of music lovers wade through the technical mumbo jumbo (because we know that there is no technical reason MQA should sound any better - in fact it is a little bit worse then unmolested 16/44) and increased $costs$ (i.e. new DAC, new music, new licensing to be paid to MQA) for a super MP3 format?

(Christoph Longree) #36

True - I personally don`t need the millions of formats anyways - to me, when the mastering is good, Vinyl and 44.1/16 digital works perfectly fine.

(Chris ) #37

That’s nonsense. MQA sounds far better than a standard CD file. First unfold is also a great improvement.
You dont actually need any knowledge to enjoy MQA, just an MQA aware system, be it Hi Fi, phone, in car system. Just hit play.

(crenca) #38

Nonsense? It’s fact-sense. What is the reason a lossy unfold would necessarily add anything SQ wise (other than the 15k hump known to be a result thereof)? Knowledge can be a dangerous thing…to folks trying to $sell$ you something.

(Chris ) #39

No musical information is lost in MQA this is not MP3.

(Scott Winders) #40

But MQA does not sound better than a standard CD. The only time I have liked MQA better than a CD is when MQA uses a better mastering.

MQA is a money making ploy that offers no benefit to the consumer. The only benefit is to MQA creators and the Record Labels.