MQA disappointing

That’s your opinion, but it’s not mine. Meanwhile I recommend supporting some of the Facebook live concerts going on with any high quality audio so these people can make up for a complete loss of income.
Right now I’m enjoying Eve Selis with Marc Intravaia and tomorrow it will be the Lockdown festival.

I would just like to add my two cents to the discussion (also in possession of a DCS DAC, one of the UK’s truly outstanding companies):

MQA is truly amazing…

… compared to MP3!

1 Like

To me, Tidal MQA is everybit as good as Qobuz high resolution, just slightly different in some cases. I perceive a little more bass and a little more punch with MQA on some tracks. Qobuz seems a little too bland in many cases.

2 Likes

Respectfully,
MQA is a lossy codec.
Qobuz: unaltered high res (as long as you don’t accidentally stream their MQA files).

MQA should just come out and say what they really represent: Marketing Quality… Altered.

1 Like

I repeat…

Note, I said to me, not to you or to someone else.

1 Like

Do you think MQA somehow removes blandness? Or do you think FLAC files from Qobuz add blandness?

Don’t know, don’t care. I have both Tidal and Qobuz and two of my three DAC’s are MQA, so I’m covered either way.

1 Like

The reason why so many audiophiles are, IMHO, rightfully upset about MQA, is not because we don’t want others to enjoy music the way they want to. If you like MQA, that’s great! - stream it, enjoy it! But rather, for two reasons:

(1) Because MQA is trying to force its lossy codec on the recording studios, thereby impeding those who actually care about unaltered high res audio from enjoying music the way We want to. Again, to each their own, or as Paul, CEO of PS Audio says: “Don’t mess with my music.”

And

(2) MQA’s marketing to the public is outright dishonest. What you are hearing is NOT the original master at all. It is their version of the master, jammed through their codec, to save bandwidth for Tidal.

This, to many, including, humbly, me, is unforgivable. For this reason, many want this format to die.

4 Likes

Most so called “audiophiles” couldn’t tell the difference in an A/B test.

4 Likes

But you “perceive a little more bass and a little more punch with MQA on some tracks”, right?

2 Likes

Yes, at times, on some tracks, not all. My point is, I have rarely heard an MQA track that I liked less than the corresponding Qobuz high res track. And, I make a point to link to the highest resolution available on both Tidal and Qobuz. I find myself listening to the MQA version more often than the Qobuz version unless the Qobuz is a 24/192 and the Tidal is a 16/48 non-MQA, etc. Some of this is probably expectation bias, I suppose.

MQA is just another compression scheme, unfortunately with a lot marketing BS to try and get it adapted mainstream for whatever reason. It’s not even really necessary anymore, as the worlds moved on. Personally, I avoid it, but I avoid lots of things given a choice.

2 Likes

Pornhub doing this would have more of an effect :sweat_smile:

3 Likes

You will find that issue covered in the quote from MQA I posted above

Now that’s funny :grin:

1 Like

I agree that’s funny, but it’s probably true, too.

I am glad I am located in Asia, mind you they may have something similar in place too…

Yeah let’s stop that Roon fellows and let’s just enjoy the :musical_note:

1 Like

This is interesting. Why don’t streaming providers use a simple solution like this to cut back on their bandwidth use? Does the standard FLAC compression always result in a more efficient file size or is this just a function of the particular track you compared?

MQA claims they do non-Nyquist sampling but even so I don’t believe they claim they would go as far out as to capture content at 56 kHz. Then again, can we actually hear (directly or indirectly) the content at these frequencies?

The folded content in MQA makes it a less efficient compress.

1 Like