MQA disappointing

(Jeff) #1740

Nothing. But trying to hide it to the public under other questionable audio claims is what has some up in arms.

Regular encryption always gets broken so a destructive process is probably an easier sell to the studios but not desired by many consumers as this thread has revealed.


It’s a roughly comparable bitrate to 4k Netflix if I’m not mistaken, so about 17 Mbps. Technically completely feasible, but obviously not a great idea if there isn’t a specific “entertain your neighbourhood bat” tier.

My home hookup is a gigabit, up/down.

That’s enough for a different full DXD stereo stream to each of the 58 rooms in my house. :stuck_out_tongue:

(Martin Kelly) #1742

I also have a fast 200mbps fibre connection to my home, so streaming DSD or 24/352 shouldn’t pose a problem for me either.
But, as we know, internet access can be sporadic, traffic-managed and just damn slow, depending on where you live/how much you pay.

And I really think that’s where MQA will find it’s leverage in the market - selling ‘quasi Hi-Res’ streams to consumers with limited internet speeds/reliability, and also to labels/distributors who want to ‘protect’ their wares.

I’d never purchase an MQA download, but I think that streaming MQA will almost become essential in the next few years, as more labels/distributors jump on board with it.

(Chris ) #1743

And MQA have stated there is no DRM in MQA. That is the case today certainly…

(Chris ) #1744

Lucky you, I get 30mbs down and 8 up. Welcome to the real world.

(crenca) #1745

Yes, but it does not hold up to scrutiny. They define DRM on their terms, then of course deny it. MQA is DRM, by its very design.

(Chris ) #1746

How, I can copy an MQA file any way I like. It’s still MQA as long as it’s not corrupted. That’s all I could conceivably wish to do.

(Martin Kelly) #1747

Ummm… MQA and DRM? That all depends on your perspective! lol

(Chris ) #1748

I would worry more about Pro Tools in the studio harming music by making music for the program for the ease of the engineer.
This was discussed in the book How Music Works by David Byrne.

(Jeff) #1749

It’s more the operator not the tool. We are in a world of self produced.

(Martin Kelly) #1750

But Chris, to how many of us is that particular issue relevant? Probably very few. Do we have many musicians here…?

But we all listen here. And that’s why the issues surrounding MQA are relevant to US.

(Chris ) #1751

Well we listen to what is recorded and if the engineer is forcing the artist to confine to a program, that’s not good for music. 4/4 easy 5/4 awkward…

(Martin Kelly) #1752

Shouldn’t your critique of Pro-Tools belong in the, err, ‘Pro-Tools’ thread?
Does that thread exist…? :thinking:

(crenca) #1753

I don’t know about “hundreds”, but even most studio genres (Jazz and Classical can {but not always} the exception) go through several A/D and D/A conversions during recording, mixing, and then mastering.

I wonder if some self produced music, particularly in the electronica genre, does not actually have a better/purer/simplified production path, given that much of it stays in the digital domain until the end…


Of course !

Where we disagree is part of the rest of your read - bandwidth (and interconnection, and storage) costs are going down. Regarding mobile, 5G is getting rolled out in some European countries, and 4G is often good enough for quite a bit. So while I would’ve wholeheartedly agreed with your “leverage in the market” ten or fifteen years ago, I tend to think that ship has sailed already, and that all that’s left is the quasi-hi-res, not-the-crown-jewels-but-let’s-sell-it-to-suckers angle.

So you can do only two simultaneous DXD streams ? The outrage ! The disgrace ! The shame on Her Majesty’s services for being so backward ! TOTALLY JUSTIFIES SUPPORTING SUPER MP3+ !!! :wink:

(No worries there - I did say European countries, but 5g will happen sooner rather than later for you as well, unless of course one of your PMs decides to organise a vote on 5G, that is :stuck_out_tongue: )

(Martin Kelly) #1755

I don’t know what sort-of ‘bubble’ you live in, but internet download speeds are still very variable in different countries, and in some countries the average speed is less than 10mbps.
And as for 5G, it’s probably years away from gaining decent market penetration.
So please do your research before posting such tosh :angry:

Which means that MQA, especially in a system with limited internet capability, still has leverage with respect to its application in streaming.


I spend most of my time around megabit connections on a good day, sometimes with > 500ms pings to continental Europe and forced VPN use, the not-for-Netflix-or-the-RIAA-kind, so no bubble there, much the contrary.

I kinda agree with you, but this probably depends on where. It’s cheaper to deploy 5g than it is to pull FTTB/H, at least AFAIK in continental Europe which was what I understood we were talking about. Of course it’s going to be years, but current infrastructure in the developed world isn’t horribly bad - it’s completely anecdotal, but I recently TGV’d through France, comfortably streaming Redbook over cellular from a Plex server, so that’s doable, yesterday, in a giant faraday cage moving at 200MPH…

As far as MQA is concerned, it’s really a question of use scenario, and there isn’t one that makes actual sense that I’ve found, yet. I’m unconvinced streaming HiRes from a train or car is useful, and at home, 10Mbps should still get you a pretty stable 24/192 FLAC stream (though no simultaneous Netflix for little Timmy). Yes, more bandwidth is always better, and so is order of magnitude better compression, but MQA brings neither, as we both know.

(crenca) #1757

As someone who lives in a semi-rural area in the USA with “only” 9mbps (and not even this at peak evening use) this is true what you say about the variability of download speeds, but this still is not an argument for MQA. IF a significant consumer base wanted Hi Res (not - only a small small niche is not happy with 320kbs MP3/AAC), and IF streaming companies really wanted to provide Hi Res to them, then they could with free/open 18/96 FLAC compression. This however is not a real problem - no one was solving it with the free/open tool set before MQA came along and tried to convince anyone it was a problem. MQA is about other things…well, one thing: DRM


Compared to major music labels like Sony Music, Universal and Warner Music, Qobuz offer all of them in true lossless resolution up to 24/192k. If getting DRM implemented, the above mentioned labels will be the first to jump aboard.

2L is a small label and if it insists streaming on MQA due to DRM alone, then it is questionable. I believe there’s an agreement between 2L and MQA on some exclusive rights when it comes to streaming. Smaller labels like Erato streams MQA on Tidal Master and 24/96kHz lossless in Qobuz Hi-Res.

You can always down-sampled to 176.4k and stream in Qobuz as Hi-Res, there’s virtually no different when it comes to ultrasonic frequency response at 88.2kHz (176.4k sample) vs 176.4kHz (352.8k sample) unless your ears are as sensitive compared to bats!

(fedocable) #1759

Haha I just got two comments flagged and erased just for saying MQA is a lossy codec. What a sensitive crew. MQA is the new cable!
Now I get what Zeos meant here (minute 25:20):

Do I really need an MQA-compatible DAC for MQA tracks?