I really thought MQA would be brilliant but I’m a bit disappointed. I played MQA titles through Tidal and then compared them to the CD’s I have. For instance, Eurythmics, “Touch” on CD sounds clearer, cleaner; and more engaging than the MQA version on Tidal. I thought Roon supported streaming for the highest resolution music possible. If so, Roon’s partnership with Tidal doesn’t seem to be it.
I am with Chris here. Without MQA I would not have bought Roon, Nucleus+ nor my Meridian Ultra Dac (btw the only Meridian piece I have so I am not a fanboy with $$$$ tied into a Meridian only system). MQA brings the best sound to my system, to my ears, in my room. I am comparing this the the highest level hi res using a Naim Streamer. The MQA is better.
As far as who signs off, its the owner of the music. That may be the artist, the record label, the holding company etc. They have to authenticate it. I suspect that in new releases, its more likely to be the artists who care about their fans. Obviously, for deceased artists, someone owns the music. It would be up to them or their designee.
3 Likes
Hello danny2
Most folks get fixated on the lossy label. MQA is the most lossless from the analog microphone/master tape feed to the DAC output. It does not have many artifacts that the so called “Lossless” formats have. One can hear this in a good system. Folks like Rob Watts, and M. Schitt as well as many others have been trying to come up with solutions. However, MQA goes from the source/microphone to the analog output of the DAC and makes the two lossless—that is what I want. Its closer to the real music for me.
2 Likes
Gary-
I suggest you read about how MQA encoding and unfolding actually works, instead of reading the marketing speak of MQA, which is full of deliberate distortions (to put it mildly).
What you said simply isn’t true. It’s non-factual.
And to be clear, I’m not challenging what you hear: if you like the sound of it, that’s great. Just don’t spread the MQA generated falsehoods.
2 Likes
I hope this thread does not go the way of all other MQA threads
1 Like
Agreed, but we all know it will 
As an aside the use of ‘pure PCM’ in this thread to differentiate 16/44 from what you get out of an MQA encoded file is making my inner geek twitchy.
Hello danny2
I have actually read several papers on MQA. The latest; A Hierarchical Approach for Audio Capture,
Archive, and Distribution. Quoting from that paper, "The aim is to ensure that degradations introduced by the analog–digital–analog signal path are comparable to those of sound passing a short distance
through air. This is an explanation of the ideas behind MQA. Its based on the research of over 150 peer reviewed papers by many in the industry. So its not just marketing speak that I am basing my statement on. Perhaps you are aware of published papers that document why this is not true. I would be glad to read them. I am not aware of any.
Perhaps my ears deceive me, but the sound is better. My ears, my system, my room. Lots of hours. The music is just more relaxed, clearer and more like real music. Its a better experience.
5 Likes
Gary-
Sorry, that is marketing speak dressed up as some sort of “research”. “The ideas behind MQA”? What specific ideas are you referring to? What techniques? Again, you are just quoting and it sounds like you don’t actually understand what you are reading. MQA talks about lots of ideas - some of them aren’t actually used by MQA. They sound good in those “papers”, though.
There is nothing radical or especially innovative about MQA other than the marketing.
It’s a compression scheme that’s somewhat lossy. The much ballyhooed "unfolding’ stages are nothing more than a type of decompression in the “first unfold” and then a proprietary form of upsampling in the so called “second unfold”. They call it the “second unfold” because they don’t want you to know that it actually is just a type of upsampling. There actually is no such thing as a 4X rate or 8X rate MQA file. The max possible resolution of an MQA file (even from a 24/192 or 24/384 source) is 17/96. Anything else you “see” displayed when the MQA light comes on is from upsampling.
The filters involved aren’t unique or particularly different from lots of other filters that can be used. Or particularly accurate. It’s been shown that the MQA unfolding actually introduces aliasing aritifacts to the result that don’t have to be there (just like some other filtering can) and that other schemes don’t.
Again, if you like the sound of the compression scheme and the subsequent upsampling, that’s fine.
Just drop the BS about what a technical marvel it is. There’s absolutely nothing truly different or innovative. You can take a 24/96 master and convert it with proper dithering to an 18/96 file and it will be “lossless” in terms of all the existing musical information and be smaller or at least no larger than an MQA file made from the same source - but the MQA file will actually have less of the original bits of the master included. Can you refute that?
There’s lots of technical criticism of MQA out there. It’s been shown that several of their claims are either false or misleading. MQA has been specifically and publicly challenged to refute some of them and hasn’t - and they wont’t - because MQA knows they can’t. They actually never attempt to directly refute them and just keep spouting additional claims like your quote above, which sorry, is meaningless marketing speak.
I’m actually tired of all the MQA backers who only know how to quote gerneralized claims made by MQA. The technical criticism isn’t hard to find if you look for it. You won’t find it if everything you read about MQA is based on quotes or language borrowed from MQA publicity. Bob Stuart and other MQA spokesmen are masters of obfuscation.
“Bob” by the way, has admitted on tape (when asked directly) that it is true that the max resolution of an MQA file is 17/96. When not asked directly, he implies that there are 24/176, 192, 354, and 384 MQA files, even though he knows there aren’t.
6 Likes
Hello danny2
Thanks for your reply. Sorry I did not include a link the the recent paper. Its open source here: http://www.aes.org/journal/…
Go to browse past issues, May 2019, Volume 67, Number 5. Its pretty interesting and describes lots about the MQA background.
You mentioned “There’s lots of technical criticism of MQA out there”. Could you provide me with one or two links to any peer reviewed papers that might provide insight. I would love to read them. Googling found several articles from folks and manufacturers who have lots invested in their dacs, so change would be hard for them.
What is so surprising, actually not so based on how we hear, is that MQA does not boast about bit rates or sample frequencies to the extent that they are not needed. I do find hi rez files improve as the sample rate increases, but its a subtle effect. While I find that many cd quality tracks sound very good, the best are always mqa encoded/decoded. Hi Rez alone does not seem to be the answer. For me, it looks like MQA had done the fundamental research to understand why digital sounds off, and has proposed solutions for the process—analog to analog. What got me was that they even correct for phase errors in the A to D process in the master recordings. Surprisingly, the recording industry has kept very good records of what equipment was used.
With one million tracks out there, I guess a lot of artists, record engineers, record label who have authenticated the sound, agree with my findings on my system.
5 Likes
Are you the same Gary Walker that is currently the CEO of music label Great Escape Records?
It would be nice to know if your opinion about MQA is influenced by your professional obligations.
1 Like
Sorry, you just don’t get it.
What problem is MQA solving? Do you realize they never specifically say what the concept of “blurring” is? Or how to measure it? Is it “ringing”? Is it transient smearing? Who knows, because MQA never actually defines it. Bob Stuart says it’s an “intuitive” definition. But FYI, if it has something to do with transient smearing-MQA filters make it worse!
Who cares about peer reviewed papers? MQA and what it actually does in a DAC has been analyzed, and shown not to match their description and what the say in their “papers”. MQA hasn’t been able to factually counter the criticism.
Bit rates? They make a big deal about it and label their files being
192, 176, 384, etc. -when they aren’t. Anybody can upsample a file to those rates. Saying the file is that rate is a lie when it gets there by upsampling in the MQA DAC.
“Authentication” is a joke. Who is authenticating? The artists and producers of lots of those legacy albums are all dead. On modern albums we already have testimony of mastering engineers, artists, and producers who’ve said they’ve had no connection to, or knowledge of, the MQA versions of albums they were originally involved with.
The truth is that the record labels are invested in MQA and in most cases are simply “batch converting” albums after the master is “authenticated” by a record company employee who often has had zip to do with the “sound” of the master and wouldn’t know what’s authentic and what’s isn’t.
Just another example of the gap between MQA marketing speak and reality.
You’ve totally misunderstood what even MQA means by authentication if you think the artists involved in the original productions have “authenticated” the sound of the MQA files. That isn’t really what is claimed and certainly isn’t what is happening in reality.
BTW, it’s also been shown that an MQA file can be altered by cutting off bits- and the “authentic” light on the MQA DAC will still light up. Doesn’t say much for the value of the “authentication”, does it?
‘
2 Likes
MQA is divisive. It’s as simple as that.
1 Like
and give thanks for the thread mute button…
1 Like
Hello EclecticallyDistinct
No my affiliation with the audio industry ended in 1984. I founded Apogee Acoustics along with 2 colleagues. I designed the Full Range Ribbon Loudspeaker and the Apogee Scintillas–both to critical acclaim.
I followed that with a career in Aerospace Engineering and Retired as Director of Engineering for Navigation Products for a major Aerospace Company.
3 Likes
Has anyone checked with Tidal why they only supply the MQA version and not include the cd version as well?
I’ll make a guess. The same reason Qobuz only has the hires version of those same albums. It’s all that the labels are providing.
And as far as MQA vs hires, for most part MQA is starting with the same hires file, except for a few white glove albums. So they are not starting with anything better. It’s just file manipulation and compression. I do believe these will sound better than cd since it’s from the hires master and it’s 18/96 after unfold. With MQA dac then you get additional minimum phase upsampling filter.
Since we really don’t need compression anymore with most home internet connections, having the original hires file would allow you to upsample to your choosing. If like min phase, get that type of dac. I prefer Chord’s upsampling. But if stuck with only MQA, it’s already altered and won’t sound as good. So it limits customers choice.
1 Like
Hello danny2
So no peer reviewed papers criticising mqa, and no technical papers. Lots of vested interests seem to be interested in the status quo. Until I see a real paper with valid technical criticisms, the paper I referred to is valid.
What problem are they trying to solve? Digital has never sounded completely right. Its been good, but it does not make me think that I am hearing the original music. Its a goal and a path I have been interested in for many years. MQA also solves the problem of streaming mqa audio which to my ears, and to the ears of many, is clearly superior to the alternatives.
As for record labels batch converting and having a recprd company employee mentioned in the perjorative, that seems to be working better than the process that preceeded it. How do you know so much about the authentication process. You must work in a studio? Just curious.
I am just a consumer, and I find it refreshing to bring this new process/technology into my home and my system. Thanks all. It beats everything I have done for nearly 60 years in audio. “Enjoy the Music”–HB.
6 Likes
My concern is that Qobuz is not available in all territories (not in mine, at least).
Its pricing also seems higher than Tidal.
So if one to escape Spotify or Apple Music sound quality, there are no other alternatives.
I did try Deezer, but as it is not available via Roon, I ditched it.
Its HiFi tier sounded similar to Tidal at the time.
I’m listening to Annie Keating’s new release on Tidal in CD quality and it’s sounding fine…
Annie is an Artist we know well having hosted her more than one and its great seeing new music out there. I’ll buy the CD from her next time I get a chance. Sadly, not in MQA… so( I think we have a very long wait for MQA rules the world. (For me, that would be a good thing)
2 Likes
Thanks for the recommendation.
Listening as I post. 
1 Like
Well, if you really want to buy the CD from here you definitely can, see https://www.anniekeating.com/merch
But of course, it is not ‘authenticated’ as Master Quality by her, so you cannot.
Although you seem deeply involved in promoting/supporting artists, your constant push for MQA is exactly achieving the opposite.
1 Like