so can I - listen, and drink wine
1 Like
It’s kind of the nature of audio forums: point, counter-point, counter-counter-point, rinse-repeat…
1 Like
Try a double mike set up close to the groups in question. If you are micing the sound from your position at the concert’s PA system you are not getting the live sound as accurately as is posible. But I am sure as I go to many live show and have seen some of the best acts in the world often time Many times.
With respect, you’ve missed the point of this thread.
The goal you state, of enjoying the emotional appeal of music and listening to what you want to hear, in the format you want, is shared by everyone.
The issue with MQA, as discussed exhaustively, is that they are trying to convince the studios to publish music in their lossy format at the expense of true high res lossless formats. That in turn, interferes with the shared goal above.
Said more simply: I have no problem if you want to enjoy MQA recordings all day long. Do it! However, you shouldn’t have the right to mess with my ability to get and enjoy lossless 384/24 files.
That, dear Sir, is why so many people are passionately against MQA. Best video on MQA is below.
2 Likes
Why is MQA always so polarizing? But then, it was created to solve a problem that doesn’t really exist anymore: namely, streaming high res over the internet (in the days of 300 baud modems).
3 Likes
Perhaps like HiRes for sound quality.
1 Like
Mobile listeners have data limits and MQA is aimed squarely at them too. Data efficiency is only part of the story.
2 Likes
Following MQA published papers, signal processing (filtering and noise shaping) are optimized for time resolution and exceed the performance of standard PCM filters. So one answer is better sq.
There are possible uses in environments beyond 2-ch internet streaming like multichannel, audio plus video for TV, gaming, and broadcast that are more sensitive to audio bandwidth. Even with internet streaming, data plans and storage are impacted by constant high bandwidth PCM.
1 Like
I think most people that don’t like MQA see it as an unnecessary proprietary format that it’s developers want us to pay for. WAV, FLAC, MP3, AAC are all free. Why do we need the same music we already own in another format that we have to pay for? On top of that, it is perceived by audiophiles as inferior because it is lossy.
My understanding is MQA is not being promoted because it is a superior file format, but is being promoted because of the Master Quality Authenticated aspect. The claim is the music quality is superior because the files are built from authenticated masters of the original recordings. Is that a good thing? Probably. Should we be required to buy new software and hardware to play a new proprietary format to get access to these authenticated master recordings? I would say absolutely not since FLAC is perfectly capable of bit perfect reproduction and is the accepted industry standard.
Bottom line is most audiophiles resent MQA because it appears to be a blatant money grab.
I pay Tidal for MQA and I pay Qobuz for high resolution. I don’t expect anything for free. If I didn’t want to listen to either of these, I would not be using Tidal, Qobuz, or Roon. Why are so many people here against companies making a profit? I have no problem paying for things I want to purchase, including MQA music. Nobody is required to buy new software and hardware to play MQA music. MQA is a choice not a requirement.
1 Like
I’d like to know how you say it’s a money grab, as the only people who pay are equipment manufacturers. They pay license fee like anyone other format.
Personally I have never paid a penny more to enjoy full MQA on the equipment I have. I would have bought it anyway and MQA is a desirable free extra.
3 Likes
The people who complain a company has to make money would be the very first to complain if their companies decided to reduce or remove their wages…
3 Likes
Whenever I post in these threads and I get these kind of responses, I’m reminded why I shouldn’t post in these threads. At the risk of dragging this out even further, nobody begrudges an honest profit. But MQA is attempting to create a market where none is needed. I pay for Qobuz and I appreciate the service it provides. I would be willing to pay MQA for their master quality authenticated content if it is actually superior to other content. What I won’t pay for is their proprietary file format that they license to the music companies and the equipment manufacturers. Roon and by extension we are paying MQA for the first unfold. I have to live with that to use Roon. I don’t need it or want it. So be it. But why continue to pay for technology that provides no return on investment?
1 Like
Address your response concerning the merits of the discussion and don’t attack me. You don’t know me.
That’s exactly what I have done, replied to your comment. That’s not an attack on you, you are right, I don’t know you. Re read perhaps.
I don’t know if MQA is needed or not, but if there is a market for it, then so be it. As long as Tidal uses MQA and people use Tidal, I guess that means there is a market for it. If Tidal were to drop MQA and go with non-MQA high resolution, as Qobuz, then maybe it would die, IDK. Since I have two MQA DAC’s and one non-MQA DAC, I find value in both Tidal and Qobuz. As I have posted previously, some Tidal masters sound better and some Qobuz masters sound better.
The kind of responses we all get are usually determined by the statements we all make, but not always.
Nope. I didn’t. But you did!
Don’t know how many times this needs to be said, but not everyone has access to high speed fibre internet with 1GB up and down. Take your blinkers off. Many people living in rural areas (and even not so rural areas) rely on satellite or cell phone networks or rotten to the core copper DSL many km away for their internet. When you have 2-5 MBPs Qobuz isn’t gonna fly. Not to mention that it’s not even available in most countries in the world.
So, Tidal with MQA works fantastically well (most of the time) to deliver a highly satisfying hi-res music service to areas where bandwidth is limited and non-Tidal streaming is not available.
Jeez, sometimes people need to look outside their own back yards.
2 Likes
I live in the country, and employ carrier pigeons for my internet packets, which is why I BUY music, and don’t stream it - which in fact, makes me even less qualified to comment. Thanks.
1 Like