FYI: This is the MQA is disappointing thread not the positive thread. If you are tired of it, there must be a different thread for you someplace. I hear there is a secret facebook MQA love group that only allows MQA marketing lingo.
5 Likes
So, you work for free then?
Again, people say it’s a money maker (Hasn’t cost me a dime over and above anything yet) Or they say MQA LTD will go bust soon.
Can’t have it both ways.
That is a really cheap response. It is not that a company should not try to make money with their products. But they should not try to make money on false claims. Look at Frauenhofer and MP3. They don’t made false claims, they installed a fair licensing system and made a lot of money with their codec.
2 Likes
That’s not a cheap shot, you say it’s false claim… I and many others disagree. MQA on my system sounds sublime. Only today a friend told me how much he prefers MQA over anything else on his very fine system. Coming from someone who’s opinions I respect, that tells me a lot. If MQA was considered inferior, he would have said so.
1 Like
This is where you are making your mistake. MQA is only as good as the mastering they use. Just like a CD, SACD, or high Res file. MQA is not better, the mastering they choose is. When the MQA folks choose a bad mastering, the sound sucks…
It is odd is it not, how Bob positioned MQA vis-a-vis the digital market in general and audio in particular? On the one hand, his roots and strength is the peculiar “audiophile” market space, and his success in using/abusing its peculiarities is undeniable. On the other hand, he (and all the rest of the audiophile marketing machine) seems to have been blindsided by the more general consumer market and its more natural/effective skepticism and intelligence. Did he really believe he could pull off a “post-shannon” marketing pitch in the more general audio space?!? Perhaps he did…
Of course mastering matters, we all know this. Also, I haven’t and never will hear all the MQA releases.
My opinions on what is possible with MQA is based on what I have listened to. A great mastering on CD or MQA, I’ll choose MQA and just enjoy it. I am past the point 0f just comparing releases to prove technical points.
Does it sound real, does it sound great, does it move me? That’s what I listen for, and the best I have heard is via MQA.
1 Like
Why do you attribute the better sound to the encoding format when there are other variables at work? The only way to truly evaluate the quality of MQA would be to compare against a non-MQA version of the same file derived from the same master. The market unfortunately makes that a difficult thing to accomplish.
Life is just too short, I am enjoying what I hear as a natural realistic clear sound. Great sound stage and instrument separation. Plenty of detail too… and all this streamed down my phone line at no extra cost. That will do for me… I’m happy and just want more of it.
1 Like
The best way to get more of “it” is to understand what “it” is. How else can you seek out the thing that makes you so happy? What if it’s not MQA that’s making you happy? That means you’re not working towards your actual goal.
I know what it is, Real sounding music based on my reference of close up live music and MQA delivers in spades. So yes, I know what to expect from music and just listening to Boz Skaggs latest release 44.1/24 MQA I am getting it in spades.
1 Like
But if you mistakenly attribute that good quality audio to the encoding format rather than the quality of mastering then you’re likely to be disappointed in the future when other, poor quality MQA-encoded music doesn’t deliver the same fidelity.
I expect the music I am enjoying has it all. Great music, well recorded and mastered, then delivered in a great format. I don’t see a downside and I certainly don’t hear or perceive one.
1 Like
Ya, but your hearing is shot from too many live gigs 
Now there is a thought 
I agree with you about streaming Tidal MQA on a Meridian system doing a full unfold. It truly is sublime. But for portable listening you should try it on an Astell&Kern SP1000 with Ultimate Ears custom fitted earbuds!
2 Likes
Why not buy the original hires and MQA version of the same album/release and compare? I’ve done it for large number of albums, comparing both objectively (technically) and subjectively. And it is clear to me that the original hires wins.
3 Likes
so far, not disappointed with the MQA albums I’ve listened,
if this is Kool-Aid, can I have another one, sir?
5 Likes
No I don’t. But I rip off my customers directly.
What I do not like about MQA, there is another level of financial flow. You as consumer pay a premium for a very small advantage. Maybe it sounds a little bit better. The only real improvement is the reduced file size (and maybe it sounds a little bit better).
And now the other side of the medal. You are a musician. How much more do you get as the originator of the music? Nothing. You get a few microcents for streaming. End of the month you get a check for 0.03€
The premium the consumer pays finally goes to some clever business people, which did not create the music, did not produce it. The big winner is the person how owns the company which owns MQA ltd. They get some money for every song played, they get money for every DAC with MQA built in.
The more MQA spreads, the more influence and control the owners of MQA will get.
And that is the problem I have with MQA.
3 Likes
What is wrong with that? That’s how business works. If you have a product that customers value, you get a financial reward, as you should. If your product has no value, customers won’t buy it.
I’m sitting here right now listening to Tidal MQA using my laptop, Dragonfly Cobalt, and Sony headphones because I’m away from home. I’m thinking how great this James Taylor MQA album sounds and I’m not a huge James Taylor fan.
2 Likes