No they weren’t, you just prepaid extra.
So far they have absorbed all costs associated with already purchased units. You want to look at it as “we prepaid”. I look at it that you got zip, nada, zilch for your purchase.
1 Like
I could actually argue that you paid a premium for DCS’s level of support and future upgrades. But it manages to miss the original point I made, which was that there was a suggestion someone pay even more to emulate MQA for none MQA files which, to me was a bizarre suggestion.
1 Like
The bit about “The authentication is so often overlooked. With an MQA file, you get what was intended at all levels of playback. No upsampled MP3 or CD to call it High Res.” is a bit rich when it’s easily subverted.
Maybe this is part of your argument that audio resolution doesn’t matter somehow?
The more I read about MQA the more sceptical I become. But from what I have actually heard of the format I can’t tell it from flac. Or mp3. Or dsd. So there’s that I guess…?
If you can’t hear a difference between MQA and MP3 then your system is letting you down I would think.
Or perhaps, sound quality it isn’t important to you or is imperceptible to you.
What would you like me to say?
I am not alone in appreciating the quality that MQA brings to me on my systems and I cannot deny the evidence of my own ears…
We must agree to differ.
1 Like
I’m 46. My best “hearing days” are behind me. Maybe my system is letting me down (Archimago tells me it isn’t), Maybe i’m just not a believer?
I see you carefully avoided the “authenticated” argument. Good call.
It’s not easily subverted. It’s not easy at all. The reason truncating to 16-bit works because this is a feature of MQA to survive 16-bit AirPlay or other common means of digital transmission.
1 Like
I don’t avoid the authentication argument as it has been covered In full. For once we get an authenticated music stream or download. If this wast the case, you need to explain how Roon had to go to so much trouble to keep the flag after DSP processing. A world first I think. This shows how important authentication is and also how it is not a restriction on consumer DSP done correctly.
Ref your best hearing days… Iam 60… I know, I can’t believe it myself 
But my best hearing days are far from behind me. Yes we lose some frequency response but it turns out this is not as important as you may imagine. Timing response is so much more important and is one of the reasons Hi Res music sounds better and MQA better still (IMHO )
It’s a pretty bad feature when you keep authenticating a file that’s been changed.
Sort of defeats the purpose of authentication. But I digress.
If you want to believe and you think you can hear a difference, that’s fine.
1 Like
So, I revisited the video clips … but still lost the will to live halfway through the second. And I have to say that rather than sell the idea of MQA I can now say that I am firmly off the fence and think it is a totally pointless and flawed exercise.
That’s not to say some people (myself included) may enjoy or prefer an album released in MQA.
To argue that the digital domain is lossy and then propose to cure this using digital signal processing is unconvincing. At best MQA is attempting to emulate the original recording and this seems futile when many people apply adjustments to the signal anyway. It also assumes (or choses to ignore) that the analogue domain has no impact on what we hear. There is no way MQA can control the end-to-end process; this is marketing hype … are the Meridian Explorer 2 and Berkeley Alpha DAC Reference Series 2 equivalent with the same MQA source?
And what of the blue light? It certainly doesn’t assert or confirm that what you hear is what the artist or recording engineer signed off. The great quantity of MQA releases suggests that this mastering is done en mass by the copyright holders. Indeed it is interesting to note that where copyright remains with artists there seems to be fewer MQA releases.
Moreover, the most disappointing aspect of MQA is the fact that they have reneged on the promise to provide provenance. If they were serious about this we would have richer metadata with each MQA release, e.g. http://www.bobtalks.co.uk/blog/provenance/provenance-series-1-madonna/#. Looks like a gravy train to me.
Finally, I have done some critical listening and also bought some hi-res files to make comparison between releases. Not something I particularly enjoyed as it takes the pleasure out of music. As a general rule, for my equipment and listening preferences I thought the high-res files were slightly ahead of Red Book, then MQA and then some TIDAL remasters of the late 1990s and early 2000s. But the difference wasn’t great; MQA tended to be louder with some unnatural detail. In contrast, the hi-res files and Red Book (16/ 44.1) were on a par … although I think I have a greater awareness of detail when listening to some 24 bit recordings.
What I have learned though is that format does not dictate the choice of music I play.
6 Likes
That’s that then, clearly MQA is dead…
Sounds magic here…
I didn’t say that. But maybe the question should be is MQA widely available now and is their market share growing? I don’t have the answers, but we do know that for streaming there’s Deezer and TIDAL, and for download: 2L, nugs.net, HIGHRESAUDIO and onkyo-music.
I think you’ve mentioned that once or twice! 
I acknowledged this too.
This is my assumption. I find it very hard to believe that many bands or original recording engineers have been involved in any rigorous approval process. Too many MQA titles have come out so quickly, it has to be an assembly line job.
That’s not an indictment of the sound - although the assembly line aspect implies that a better job could be done with more attention and less race to release. I just don’t like the marketing hyperbole.
This is my pet peeve with any streaming or downloadable music. This information is rare and when it is given it seem ambiguous or misleading, much of the time. With CDs or vinyl you can determine the release, then the engineer, etc.
Most people don’t care. It’s true the audiophile crowd is niche and has no leverage. If it sounds good, I’m happy for people that enjoy it (I have heard some great titles - items not otherwise available in hi res). But I don’t want it to get anywhere near dominating music distribution. The term “end to end solution” just sounds a little too Orwellian to me.
2 Likes
If it’s not end to end, how else do you deliver the studio sound as all DACs sound different.
CD will always be there, but you get the sound you get which is just as Orwellian. You don’t get to choose, the artist does that and you can tweak your Hi Fi sound as much as you like. This is also true for an MQA file. You don’t have to decode it, that is a choice. Use any DAC you like.
This discussion goes round in circles, and I suppose it always will.
But all DACs sound different anyway, on the analog half. So there really is no way to authenticate studio sound beyond that threshold. That is not to say that MQA doesn’t get you farther than without authentication, however as far as I can see all they are authenticating is the assembly line process of MQA conversions.
I’d prefer honest and accurate provenance information combined with the good old chaos of open standards and formats.
I’m not dissing the sound you are hearing. I think it’s great that it has made you fall in love with your system and/or music again. I have that experience sometimes too. Different people are suspicious of MQA for different reason.
I don’t like its DRM potential, and I find the marketing hype to be over the top. If they just said “it sounds good” then OK, sometimes it does.
2 Likes
There is no DRM in MQA and that’s official.
The MQA DACs are tuned so the resultant sound is the studio sound, this is why they have to be certified. This also makes it end to end. There is no other way if you want an End to end system. I know some people don’t want this, that’s OK.
We are not used to this as it has never been possible before. Personally, I want this surety of knowing I have the studio sound as much as my equipment will allow.
You have good ears. This is exactly what everyone with good ears hears with MQA. The Loudness is from some compression of transients (apodizing filter) and the unnatural sound is most likely due to this as well as the minimum phase filter which causes phase distortion.
The difference between you and the MQA fanatics is that you seem to have listened with an open mind and without bias. The success of MQA (if any) is that they have marketed this distorted processing so well that many folks simply are predisposed to believe the distortion is an improvement.
The emperor has no clothes.
4 Likes
Not now. The technology clearly carries that capability. And even if it is not DRM per se, I don’t want to have to have end-to-end capability to enjoy the full sound of what I paid for. Now this conversation has definitely gone full circle!
You can’t! Amplifiers and speakers, and our listening rooms make a significant contribution to the sound. I think it a rather foolish endeavour to [attempt to] replicate the studio sound since that doesn’t really exist. Take for example, Morning Phase by Beck, that was recorded over many years and at different studios with many collaborators. No doubt the final sound evolved over time and only existed with the final mix and first master.
Now I’m no expert, but I doubt that artists are always present during mastering, but probably sign-off the finished goods. Whether they listen to this with the mastering engineer or receive a file, I have no idea. MQA is one man’s useless quest thrust upon an audiophile world.
I’m not here to change your opinion–that would be futile–, I’m sharing my thoughts and experience of listening to MQA. If you’re thrilled by MQA that’s brilliant. But for me, it’s not my first choice. However, if a release is only available on MQA I’ll gladly listen to that … but the same could be said of MP3. 
Note: I don’t have an MQA-capable DAC, so only benefit from the first unfold. This is clear from my bio.