Is Roon supporting MQA? What are the pros and cons of MQA?

[Xekomi]

Thanks for taking the time to answer.

There is no “phone home, get permission”, as proven by the lack of network port from many MQA DAC.

is why I specifically asked about Roon, which, as far as I can tell, is network-connected

In many of the implementations MQA is being pushed for in the general consumer space (cellphones…), there is network connectivity embedded into the device that decodes MQA. I haven’t found much, if anything, about MQA’s use of crypto, hence the question. Given MQA Ltd’s abuse of language at every step, asking what’s going on with key management matters.

When did people start calling HDCD to be DRM?

This is a bit irrelevant: it isn’t because Pol Pot didn’t see himself as genocidal, or that more people weren’t more often calling Harvey Weinstein’s behaviour anything else than “a guy being a guy” until recently that it wasn’t something else.

I tend to agree with @Jim_Austin that DRM carries a strong emotional charge. Bob Stuart has been using verbal acrobatics to skirt around its use, and MQA supporters have been using a fairly restrictive definition (“DRM is copy protection”), but all of that doesn’t change the cold, hard, fact. One big difference between MQA and HDCD is that HDCD was more benign than MQA, because it didn’t degrade the non-decoded file in potentially audible proportions, which MQA does. Like the Dolby formats, it also didn’t come with the same level of restrictions - you didn’t need HDCD-certified headphones to enjoy a decoded file. This, of course, doesn’t change the definition, but it does change the attention given to it, as well as the severity of the issue.

[Sloop_John_B (John B)]

Wow, this is a Most Quarrelsome Argument.

But the only thing worse than being talked about is…

.sjb

[Xekomi]

Unlike Dolby MQA plays back fine in conventional machines

It doesn’t - folded, it’s less than CD quality. If I’m not mistaken, the filter implementations in some MQA dacs have also proven problematic for non-MQA content, because they’ll degrade everything else, which is another issue to keep in mind, both when purchasing and when comparing.

This whole arguement assumes that MQA is just another way of delivering the same file.

Yes. I’m assuming identical masters. I’m also assuming that the deblurring is a marginal improvement at best, bordering on inaudible, which it has been in my experience. The only meaningful comparison that can be made between MQA and non MQA files is between identical, RedBook or above, masters. Comparing folded MQA and unfolded MQA is comparing less-than-RedBook with HiDef, and, for a trained listener on a transparent system, one would assume it could be audible.

Interesting that given all the arguements about MQA extracting licensing fees at every stage and ripping us off that MQA is cheaper than hires and costs not more than cd streaming and that many DACs are being upgraded to decode MQA at no additional cost. Currently not seeing where this hits my wallet.

Just because the pricepoint a product is meant to hit hasn’t changed doesn’t mean the BOM hasn’t been affected by the cost to implement MQA. That hit might be minor, but it’s there. Either the DAC’s manufacturer is paying for it, you are, or, down the road, you will. There’s no free lunch here, Bob Stuart and those wined and dined by him put aside, of course.

However if it is an improvement ie a akin to 1080p vs 720p then just like I need an MQA decoder to get full MQA I need a 1080p capable TV not 720p one to benefit from the higher definition.

In the analogy I was using, I made the point that we mostly already have rendering devices capable of higher than first unfold (or core, however you want to call it) MQA quality, sometimes way higher. 32/384 capable dacs aren’t uncommon, and 24/192 has been commonplace for the past decade or so. MQA tops out at 17/96, and anything higher than that is interpolation, plain and simple, no matter how smart.

I like my steak rare rather than overcooked, and my files full-blooded, thank you very much, but hey… to each their own.

[HWZ]

Wow, this is a Most Quarrelsome Argument.

I also have the impression that this whole discussion has become unnecessarily heated. What’s more, some posts are a) extremely lengthy and b) definitely off topic IMO. What about the original question raised in the TITLE of this thread? Why does it say “ANSWERED” there? Just asking… @moderators

[eclectic]

Compared to MQA discussions on the other main Internet forums, this thread is polite.

Just the appearance of somebody from TAS, Stereophile or other “Industry supporting” websites is enough to get a lynch mob out.

Their (often unquestioning) stance on MQA has done more to damage the reputations of those magazines/sites than anything I can remember in 40 years of being interested in hifi.

But, as noted above, it’s said there’s no such thing as bad publicity.

[Chrislayeruk (Chris)]

The reputation is only damaged amongst the MQA opponents. The thing is, yo u have to stand for something or fall for anything. No doubt this will be flipped to me… lol

[dabassgoesboomboom]

No doubt this will be flipped to me… lol

I’ll take you up on that offer But nothing aggressive or heated of course.

We’ve heard from some mastering Engineers (both for and against MQA) on other forums/websites but very little from artists themselves.

I’d be curious to hear what any of the Indie artists that pass through your joint, think about the SQ Chris, as time goes on.

If this is supposed to be what the artist intended in the studio (not a live gig - that’s a different experience of course), I’d love to hear from artists themselves. It may take some time for Indie artists to encounter the MQA process though, I guess?

It wouldn’t surprise me if they didn’t care either lol

[erich6]

I often find the MQA debates interesting but this one has gone down a rabbit hole. I think folks are missing the larger picture (there’s more to debate about actually ).

I’ll start with saying I like MQA so far. That said, I don’t think it’s worth debating the fact that it introduces an inconvenience in that you need MQA certified hardware to fully decode. We can debate whether this inconvenience is worth it (is there really a quality benefit? is this a DRM scheme that will shackle music in the future? if so, what’s the impact?) but there is a price to pay in convenience.

There are other aspects of MQA which are not being discussed which are claims made by MQA Ltd supported by some testimonies (and questioned by others). Right now we are seeing MQA releases that are primarily re-issues from label catalogs. But, the idea is that MQA is also a new, simplified mastering workflow and set of tools that encourages more consistent releases of better masters across multiple media. I see obvious benefits of widespread adoption of this approach (much more than any improvements that could come from “deblurring”). In theory, this should reduce the cost of mastering and publishing which might lower the price and increase access to “high-resolution” recording (albeit compressed in digitally lossy format–again we can debate ad nauseaum whether this really matters from an analog reproduction perspective). This lower cost could offset the increased cost of incorporating decoding in playback devices to no effective economic impact to the consumer.

[Chrislayeruk (Chris)]

I expect they are too busy surviving as to have an opinion but would embrace it if it was offered as an option and the sound was great.
I can tell you that artists are generally very particular about their sound.
We have a live EP coming soon if things pan out, (fingers crossed) and the artist spent hours in the Mastering studio going through the files line by line until she was happy with the sound. The level of detail required was astonishing to get something she is happy with.

We have other artists who don’t allow us to put some material up, not because of our work but they are just not happy with their performance. We always respect this.
We have had an artist ask us not to post a video featuring a band member who they fell out with as they don’t want the associations perpetuated.
We have had to temporarily take down a performance due to the record company wanting to protect the material prior to an album launch. This would be the title track and was 2 years before release. It’s up again now.
Ward Thomas ‘Cartwheels’ those girls have great raw talent.

So, to answer your question, the artists do really care about sound quality but some are so young , they just don’t know what’s available to the public for playback. It’s always great to watch them listen to a good system, they seem to go into a trance and know instinctively what to listen for. Surprised to hear this outside of a studio environment.
Thoughts

[Richard_Graham (rdg)]

Their (often unquestioning) stance on MQA has done more to damage the reputations of those magazines/sites than anything I can remember in 40 years of being interested in hifi.

Having lived through many similar developments, I remember the Linn hegemony of the late '70s, driven by their ‘phase loop locked’ explanation (laws of physics - bye bye). Linn’s resistance to CDs (‘Is this a lemon?’) may be the best affirmation yet that MQA is a good development.
I have lived through Sony’s cynical assault on DVD - Audio, with the introduction of SACD, which scuppered the very developments that Bob Stuart introduced that are now championed as superior to MQA.
I commend Atkinson, Austin, Serinus and Harley et al for recognising that MQA is a breath of fresh air in a fossilised industry.
I personally have had terrific, best-ever experiences with MQA, because I value my ears and experience more than the polemics of people on a day out from Computer Audiophile.
Still, at least I can still enjoy the latest releases of MQA titles today, whilst hoping the Roon developments, and those from Astell & Kern broaden accessibility.
Hopefully, many users of Roon will make their own minds up, and not be swayed by the patronising, barely verifiable utterances of a few who a have a religious zeal to stop MQA.
If MQA goes, what really is left?

[dabassgoesboomboom]

I expect they are too busy surviving as to have an opinion

Good point. There’s that too.

All other points noted. Interesting angle/viewpoint.

[DrTone (Jeff)]

If MQA goes, what really is left?

Everything and we get the choice of how to listen to it.

[Chrislayeruk (Chris)]

Like the choice of MQA. That’s my choice anyways.

[Grump]

Exactly, @DrTone. I think (DRM, compressed) MQA will bring nobody anything, except the big corporates (what’s new )? I think that for both the consumer and the artist — especially the “smaller” (not so commercial) ones — there’s as little to be gained as with the current way streaming services are organised. Disruptive businesses everywhere, but still not in the music “industry”. I would love to see them all go bankrupt in favour of a new, more ethical, way of distributing music. No idea how, but it should be possible.

[eclectic]

Like the choice of MQA. That’s my choice anyways.

How do you listen to MQA? Have you bought tracks or are you using the Tidal desktop?

If it’s the latter then you’re getting the MQA as a free add on to your subscription and might as well take advantage of it. If you’re buying them why don’t you just buy regular hi-res tracks without the restrictions on playback?

[DrTone (Jeff)]

DRM in the traditional sense isn’t as much of an issue for me.

The lesser quality and being pidgin holed into the MQA sound for no other reason than to make Bob money just isn’t good for anyone outside the people that like the sound. MQA have publically said there goal is to become the mainstream digital delivery method. That possible outcome concerns me and IMO stifles innovation outiside of Bob and the studios.

MQA doesn’t solve any problems in digital audio, nor does it improve streamability of digital music.

[James_I (The truth is out there but not necessarily here)]

I love how these debates seem to bloom in semi-random threads and everyone flocks to them for a while and then they die down. And how everyone seems to be able to refine their argument from the last time they participated at some other point.

So…my turn:

I am sitting here listening to a few MQA albums via my Pro-Ject S2 Digital. With some titles, I have the corresponding Hi-Res master. While it varies by title, I think MQA sounds pretty terrific. With the best MQA titles there is a sense of crispness, better channel separation and image.

With some titles, it seems only louder. That little tweak probably gives MQA an unfair advantage over non-MQA in amateur A/B tests.

I had a kind of epiphany this morning in that MQA reminds me a little bit of the sound that I used to get out of my DBX Dynamic Range Expander. Well no, that sounded like crap unless the recording was very bland…but the effect of MQA seems a little bit like that, but done better, not real-time, to bring in additional dynamic range. That could just be an illusion, but I’ve noticed it a few times, and in fact, I blew a tweeter with an MQA recording and the last time I had blown a tweeter like that was… with the Dynamic Range Expander. All of this means I suspect there is a little euphonic-tweaking going on with MQA between the increase in volume and the apparent pump-up of dynamic range in some of the MQA recordings. But it’s enjoyable.

But I am concerned that MQA could be used as a form of DRM. HDCD isn’t a good analogy because at the time, CD players were generally not network connected devices. MQA is primarily a USB DAC or network concept and the software that runs these devices can be updated. I would bet that the patent license for MQA includes an obligation for the licensed software or device to allow for upgrades if connected or through other means (USB key). This means that DRM could be implemented through MQA. Then playback at certain quality levels, or playback at all, could be regulated externally.

Even MQA used as DRM alone wouldn’t bother me, as long as there is a complete non-MQA alternative. If MQA becomes the dominant or only form of decent quality audio distribution, then it bothers me.

Before y’all get your “what is wrong with the enforcement of Intellectual Property rights by the holders” undies in a bundle, I am an IP lawyer. I do this daily. It’s not about that. One recent DRM wave was the implementation of HDCP within HDMI. There was no corresponding improvement of quality with the implementation of HDCP: those formats were already available; just a distribution on a new medium (Blu-Ray/HD-DVD). I had to toss out thousands of dollars of perfectly format-capable equipment just to get back to the same video capabilities in my home theater. DRM has unintended side-effects for those of us who love to tinker or vary from the standard user case, and many of us buy tons of content from the IP owners. HDCP degrades the performance of the gear; there are delays from “handshakes” and sometimes the gear just won’t connect. HDCP creates issues that have nothing to do with content protection.

DRM has an anti-user feel to it in many respects. There are plenty of historic examples. A concern that MQA becomes the dominant music distribution format and then rams in any forms of DRM are legitimate. It’s not there now. There may not even be a conspiracy to bring it there. But the possibility appears to be there. I wouldn’t want to see that.

Doesn’t mean MQA should be eradicated. But it does mean that those concerned about MQA being another HDCP at some point in the future, have a legitimate thought.

[Chrislayeruk (Chris)]

I have an Meridian Explorer 2 which decodes MQA via my IPad and Roon. I also have two Bluesound units that play MQA currently via BluOS and Tidal.

[Jim_Austin]

With some titles, it seems only louder. That little tweak probably gives MQA an unfair advantage over non-MQA in amateur A/B tests.

James, could you give me an example? I’ve listened to a lot of MQA, and I’ve measured quite a few. I’ve seen many cases (comparing MQA to CD-res versions) where the CD was much louder. I don’t think I’ve ever encountered a case where MQA is louder–which doesn’t mean they don’t exist! If you can give me one or more examples of tracks where MQA seems louder, I’d like to check it out.

Edit: BTW, good post!

Thanks.

[philr]

Perhaps I can jump in and make a suggestion. Check out Fleetwood Mac Rumours. If I remember right the MQA version is about 4 or 5 dBA louder than the CD version I have. After correcting for level I still prefer the MQA version. The drums in particular are much better, just listen to The Chain for example.