They are quite strong in installs. Actually have a good product range, second hand value is excellent. Digital active speakers work well.
HQ Player certainly offers slow roll off minimum phase filters. The shorter time domain filters like poly-sinc-shrt-mp would be an example.
However I don’t think either Jussi or Bob Stuart would agree that such filters correlate to MQA filters, probably for different reasons. Apart from anything else Bob would note that MQA filters are dynamic and different filters are applied at different times according to the content of the signal.
Jussi’s MQA filter, on the other hand, has a higher band stop rejection than MQA because one of his concerns is that MQA filters could be leaky and he thinks it better to avoid that possibility. So he is not trying to emulate an MQA filter, he is trying to correct for problems he perceives arising from MQA encoding. The HQ Player MQA filters are there, I believe, for users who may only have access to an MQA file but share Jussi’s concerns about MQA; the disappointed in the context of this thread.
I’m finding the HQ Player ext2 filter (late sharp roll off, high band stop rejection, longer time domain, linear phase) equally good to my ear with MQA files decoded by Roon and native hi res through Qobuz, so I don’t bother leaping up to change to the specific MQA filter when MQA content is played.
I accept that this is not listening to MQA, but where the original fs is greater than CD I think it is better than CD quality.
1 Like
I understood that the filter could be different for each track, but different through out a track?
I can’t now find confirmation of this after 15 min googling, so I may have grasped the wrong end of the stick. If I find some confirmation one way or the other I’ll post it back here.
The data rate is not irrelevant. You may have a high data rate offered to you, but not everyone does. Even more to the point, even if you have a high internet data rate offered to you, it does not necessarily follow that you can stream that high data rate wirelessly around your home. I have a very high internet data rate delivered to me. However, I live in a dense urban environment and I cannot stream hi-res audio wirelessly around my home without audio dropouts (due to congestion on the channels). However, I have not experienced any dropouts streaming MQA wirelessly.
1 Like
I live in London. Lots of internet traffic. My data comes down a BT line, not Virgin fibre. If found wireless difficult at 24/192, but actually there are very few files at 24/192. Most Wifi repeaters result in a lot of loss of signal power. Classical and jazz seem to favour 24/96 and others 24/44. For hifi listening an ethernet connection is the only way. When I had this problem my provider Sky came and put in a 30m ethernet cable from my modem to my audio system, for no charge. 5G is being rolled out in 2019, which will speed things up a lot.
Depending which system you use, many streaming services provide offline storage. Certainly Spotify and Qobuz do,.
Agreed; I solved my problem by installing an ethernet connection. My point was not everyone is able to do this so bandwidth (or data rate) can sometimes be an issue.
Roon can downsample for those with internal wifi issues. That’s what MQA does with 176.4 and greater content before folding anyway.
1 Like
I agree and part of the problem is that some people don’t realise that the repeaters that they get given often result in a lot of signal power loss. They can be replaced by better units.
None of this is a reason for MQA being better than native files.
My ethernet cabling is not easy - Sky had to put it over the roof - not a problem as they are used to it and were perfectly happy to so do, including drilling though two external walls, and it took then about 90 minutes.
MQA’s are better than regular hi-res 24 bit 88/96/174/192 downloads? No. The same? No. Worse? Yes.
End of topic.
1 Like
In your opinion… 
Of course IMO. You pushing it for mistery reason, its yours choose. Loosy, not 16 bit, not bitperfect… better for someone? No problemo. MP3 and AAC for many people is perfectly match. So?
2 Likes
I think my position is very straightforward, and I believe it isn’t overtly influenced by hyperbole or prejudice.
- Whenever I purchase downloads of albums, I generally purchase them from Qobuz and often choose to purchase a hi-res version (if available) of the album because on my systems I find that the hi-res versions can sound to my ears subtly ‘better’ than the standard CD quality version.
- I choose not to purchase MQA encoded downloads, because to my ears and on my systems, the very few that I have listened to do not sound any better than standard ‘hi-res’ equivalents.
- I subscribe to Tidal Hi-Fi rather than Qobuz because Tidal’s music library is more aligned to my musical tastes than that of Qobuz.
- I subscribe to Tidal Hi-Fi rather than Spotify, because although I find Spotify’s music library slightly better for my musical tastes than that of Tidal, I find the difference in sound quality on my audio systems is sufficient to tilt my choice in favour of Tidal.
- When I listen to albums on Tidal that are available in both standard CD (16bit, 44.1kHz) and MQA (hi-res), I invariably choose to listen to the MQA version because I find that on my system they tend to sound better (to my ears and musical taste) than the standard CD quality version. I have no connection whatsoever to MQA nor to those who promote MQA.
- Were Tidal to move away from the use of MQA to deliver ‘hi-res’ music and offer ‘standard hi-res’ quality music files on their Tidal Hi-Fi streaming service without an accompanying tariff increase, I would be perfectly happy to continue to use their service and continue to access hi-res music.
- Lastly, I subscribe to Roon because I love music, and I love the way that Roon presents my music libraries to me
In my opinion, whatever the merits of some of the technical arguments against MQA, the anti-MQA vitriol and prejudice is way over the top, and borders on (or in some cases completely bulldozes through the borders of) obsession.
I am very happy to accept that some people find MQA on their systems to be disappointing or even ‘plain bad’, and that their opinions are every bit as important as my own. Some others don’t appear to be quite so pragmatic.
7 Likes
Just because you say so doesn’t make it correct or the end of topic. Just another opinion with a keyboard.
1 Like
Oh yes please! If only it were. MQA is fab, end of.
Sampling rate, filters, downloads, uploads.
Yes lets close the topic.
1 Like
We are not prejudiced against MQA, we have given it a fair hearing and found it wanting based on the facts. We are not naysayers, we are fact_sayers. 
3 Likes
Apparently, MQA “distorts” in more than one way.
Indeed I was so excited to try MQA. I selected all the MQA albums in Tidal and began auditioning. Imagine my disappointment when I realized it was all fake hype and that MQA files sound worse than the original high resolution files and even worse than an ordinary CD!!!
What technical progress NOT!
Now this matches my findings 100%… I personally still collect a lot of Vinyl but all else is exactly spot on.
A long thread! If you like what you hear, you like what you hear, so that is OK. If you don’t like what you hear and remain unconvinced by a technology, don’t buy it and you will be happy. Everything is personal it is what we as individuals actually hear that counts. I’ve heard poor vinyl, crap CDs and very un-convincing hi-res downloads but by the same token, great vinyl recordings, brilliant CDs and amazing 5:1 hi-res recordings. I generally stick to CDs and save them to my Nucleus for convenience. I am generally happy and I know my hearing is not what it was. Conclusion - BE HAPPY 
2 Likes