I don’t want to rain on anyone’s parade so I’ll stop posting here. Just understand there has never been an engineer who could backup Bob’s MQA statements.
4 Likes
So all the studio engineers that like MQA are wrong? Hmmmm
2 Likes
Well if it sounds good, the engineers can do the washing up. Good luck with the campaign.
2 Likes
I haven’t paid 1 cent more for the ability to play MQA.
5 Likes
Majority of studio engineers don’t even have a opportunity (first hand listening) to MQA. They need to send their original lossless Hi-Res PCM recording to MQA Ltd for processing. They have no control to what they like on the mastering in the end. Ironically, it sounds like you still living in your dream land and thought they (studio engineers) are the ones who record MQA in the first place.
4 Likes
These videos released by MQA may help
What about the recording engineers who suddenly found MQA versions of their music, recorded years ago, on TIDAL, without notification? In other words, all but those couple of engineers in those videos?
Then, if the music is from Universal, there is a high chance it wasn’t from the original masters, as many were destroyed in a fire around 10 years ago.
1 Like
It seems that sound quality is rarely discussed in the ranting against MQA. The issue is more associated with what MQA is rather than what it sounds like. It could sound like live musicians in your living room but if it is an MQA file it will be dismissed on that fact alone by the MQA detractors. I am on the fence about MQA myself. I understand the arguments against it but I also trust my ears and have heard some great sounding MQA files.
1 Like
“Data shows that listeners were not able to significantly discriminate between MQA encoded files and the unprocessed original due to several interaction effects.”
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=19396
I think we are all left to consider what MQA is and not what it may sound like.
This post is a summary of the many cons of MQA:
https://community.roonlabs.com/t/lies-damned-lies-and-statistics-mqa
Something to think about [moderated].
4 Likes
I seldom participate in the MQA debate because, as this thread shows, it is futile. However, MQA costs me nothing, so I’m happy to have it. I have never purchased a single DAC because of its ability to handle MQA, although I have several that do. I also have gear that isn’t MQA capable. I have discovered many MQA recordings that sound better. Whether that’s down to MQA or simply the use of a different master doesn’t concern me. They sound better. I have also found MQA recordings that sound worse, so I now avoid those. I’ve just given up my Qobuz subscription because I live in a non-Qobuz country and I have to go through hoops to pay what I consider to be an exorbitant price in my home currency for an inadequate music selection. I see no value over the much cheaper Tidal hi-fi (half the price of the U.S. where I live). So I’ll enjoy MQA when it suits me and leave the ongoing argument to those who, in my opinion, might want to consider focussing a little more on sound and a little less on diatribe.
4 Likes
Talking about how MQA introduces distortion or has leaky filters or can’t be distinguished from non-MQA is so besides the point. I like MQA because it passes the”smile”test.
I play music and then sit back, relax and listen to it. Sometimes I might be reading at the same time. I’m definitely not trying to compare A and B looking for subtle differences . A track starts playing and suddenly I find myself smiling because it sounds great, so real.
With MQA tracks (in Tidal) this happens not infrequently. With non-MQA tracks; not so much. You could prove to me that MQA tracks have lost information or are loaded with distortion. But if they make me smile, I’m happy.
If you are undecided about MQA I suggest giving it a try. If it makes you smile, keep it. If it doesn’t, find something that does and listen to that.
9 Likes
Smile or not, there are folks out there with charts and graphs that will show you what it sounds like…and they are not smiling. “Smile test”, “musical enjoyment”…what quaint notions. You are behind the times in this hobby. Don’t you know that listening to music is an un-reliable way to make judgements about the sound quality of your music. ( I actually had someone on a computer audio forum tell me that). Silly me, all this time I thought it was the ONLY way to make those judgements. You’re obviously not taking this hobby seriously enough.
3 Likes
Or, if it makes you smile, you could find the non-lossy, non-distorted, non-DRMed of the same track/album/artist and smile even more!
(you know, the actual “master” recording that is not part of a consumer fraud 
)
3 Likes
Well, this WAS a polite and relatively benign discussion about MQA but now we’ve gone from smiles and make your own decision themes to consumer fraud and a list of MQA’s supposed shortcomings [Moderated] in a thread that was shut down. Do we really need to go through this again? No, we don’t.
2 Likes
How do justify that the removal/adding of data is inaudible? Adding a leaky filter change the characteristics of the sound signature. The word ‘Master’ is no longer valid since its no longer ‘sound’ the same to the original recorded version. This is what happened when people is so blindfolded regardless they were presented with technical and listening proofs. I feel so sorry and unfortunate to those who choose to believe that; but the truth is always the truth.
4 Likes
Here’s something I find fascinating. With digital audio, we are obsessed with lossless. We need to be certain every bit is preserved.
With digital photography, the exact opposite is true. Not only is lossless not a concern, a key part of the hobby is manipulating the image to make it better. No one cares if you’ve photoshopped the image to add contrast, changed the color of the sky to be more dramatic, etc. The only thing people care about is the final image. No one cares how it got that way.
3 Likes
I disagree as far as professional editing is concerned. Any high quality editing process must be started with a ‘raw’ or ‘lossless’ file, it may be audio, video or still image. After editing process is done then the final distribution can be either lossless or lossy.
1 Like
Most folks are fine with low bit rate (very very lossy) mp3/AAC - that’s what 99% of the population listens to. Audiophiledom however is a maximalist hobby. Bob Stuart has been successful however in selling the idea of a minimalist, lossy, DRMed format to some of us however. Too bad much of what he says simply is not true.
Random audiophile testimonials are not very useful. Most of those who report this or that would not pass a blind test between mid/high rate mp3 vs. 16/44 vs Hi Res.
MQA is pretty clever lossy format and depending on the recording indistinguishable SQ wise from the equivalent (not that the master is very often the same in practice) 16/44.
But MQA is not about any of that - that is all smoke and mirrors for the audiophile. MQA begins and ends with DRM…
2 Likes
I originally was totally onboard with MQA. I thought, wow, Tidal is giving us hires upgrade for free. I even bought the Meridian Explorer 2 when Tidal somehow gave me early access to the Master setting. When the dac arrived my account no longer had access to MQA so I only got try with regular cd quality. I was very unimpressed with it with my headphones.
In the meantime I end up getting the ifi idsd micro and using hq player and really enjoyed that. After some time Tidal officially released MQA, roon got unfolding, and ifi got MQA rendering. I found that MQA sounded better rendered vs roon unfolding and having HQPlayer do the unsampling. So I was still onboard with MQA.
One of things that came out that bothered me though was finding out that it didn’t really do a final unfold that brought the rest of the sample above 96k back in. Whether it matter to the sound or not, that’s how it was sold. In truth there was not really data above that. Just different filters and upsampling. None the less, I couldn’t get HQPlayer to sound better with MQA files than the ifi doing the rendering.
It wasn’t until I did the free trial with Qobuz and started to compare the hires files against the MQA that I realized at least with my setup that MQA was lacking. For me, I could hear deeper bass, clearer vocals and more soundstage with Qobuz hires. This was especially true when I compared MQA unfolded by roon with HQPlayer upsampling vs hires with HQPlayer.
Comparing MQA fully rendered vs Qobuz hires without upsampling in the ifi had mixed results. Ifi isn’t the greatest dac so MQA had a smoothness to it and changes the sound a bit. Hires thru the ifi could be a bit harsh without further upsampling. So in this case I could see how someone could still choose MQA.
I finally moved over to Chord dacs and the hires file is much better than using MQA either folded or unfolded by roon.
So for me it’s about having the choice. You can argue that MQA is not a true reference file but more enjoyable to some. That’s the same at least as how people buy headphones. Some want reference and some want fun. I combined and went with reference quality files and a fun headphone.
1 Like