And reread MQA’s accurate response to that, which was (paraphrasing) “only according to a very small number of people”. Those people being the ones who were doing their best to attack the company and format, for example by hiring people to “test” it, then attempting to force a public confrontation (RMAF) while also failing to present the responses that MQA had already provided to them ahead of time about their tests. This kind of thing is hardly a good faith effort and attempting to call out MQA as bullying because they finally respond to the bad faith (and continuous vitriol) of the other side is unfair.
1 Like
It was great to read such a balanced thoughtful piece. What I remain interested in is that if MQA can sound good, perhaps better than the original, that is really worth serious consideration, even if it does not achieve that all of the time. But that is often the most difficult thing to raise in any discussion.
I very much hope we don’t lose whatever benefits might be embedded in the technology, but I guess it has been Bob Stuart’s lot to pioneer developments, only to have others profit from them.
That was never controversial, and if not for MQA deceitful, misleading and bullying marketing campaign, MQA would be discussed as just another solution in audio, accepted and liked but some and other would not care. Vinyl vs digital, both available, enthusiasts on both sides, but no one is trying to kill vinyl or digital.
But Bob Stuart and his shills in the audio press, made it impossible. And I am in no way suggesting that it applies to you,
Bob Stuart still refuses to discuss anything on merit with a number of competent people who challenged his marketing claims, he put it clearly in the interview. But I guess no one needs his answers anymore.
His respectable accomplishments in audio are forgotten, his reputation is now at same level as Ron Hubbard from the Church of Scientology was enjoying among scientists.
4 Likes
@john, if MQA was marketing itself as a better compression format for streaming, we would not have this discussion.
But this is Master Quality Authenticated. Technical analysis of the the quality of MQA “folding” is for everyone to see in a number of videos, blogs and articles: GoldenOne, Archimago, many others.
At the listening level it is just a question of taste, and people who like MQA should by all means use it.
And the last one, Authentication, the sound exactly like the artist and recording engineer wanted it to be, signed by them. Well in case if converting thousands of tracks into MQA in a single batch it is just a fraud.
5 Likes
His respectable accomplishments in audio are forgotten, his reputation is now at same level as Ron Hubbard from the Church of Scientology was enjoying among scientists.
Umm, right…
To me, MQA vs non-MQA is just another Beta vs VHS, tube vs solid state, CD4 vs SQ vs QS, DVD-A vs HD Audio, etc. it’s just a different choice offered to the consumer, who then decides what he/she prefers, and buys what they think is best for them. Let the market decide what wins or loses, lives or dies. It doesn’t matter which choice is technically better. The vast majority don’t care about that, and sometimes the technically better choice loses out, like Beta and HD Audio. And I’m okay with that even when my choice loses. That’s life.
Do you honestly think that hyperbole of this sort advances your viewpoint in respect of MQA?
1 Like
The original goal of MQA was the white glove mastering service and curated database of recording studio hardware top use in the appropriate mastering of all MQA content. Due to complexity and costs, that service never took off, and what remained is the pseudo benefits extolled through marketing, necessary or not. It’s been discussed plenty already. So if you’re not doing the white glove, what’s actually gained? Sound improvement is subjective, some people may like it, others don’t want the original content mucked about with.
To be clear, in Tidal, you can no longer get huge swaths of music as a 16/44 Redbook file, Tidal has magically changed entire catalogues to MQA (they’re not remastering, and they’re not white gloving anything) just turning an open standard FLAC into a proprietary MQA stream… why?
The only two reasons I can think of is watermarking and licensing revenue.
7 Likes
To be fair you could level similar concerns at getting MQA setup correctly in terms of requiring new hardware to do a full decode and the ability to afford that hardware.
Each to their own and we all have different needs, technical ability, existing hardware and home networks. But if Qobuz disappears in the near future (with no one providing lossless FLAC to replace them) the only streaming option we’re left with, if we want anything approaching 24bit/96Khz via Roon (not going to get into a discussion about how ‘audible lossless’ MQA is) is to replace all of our endpoints/audio devices with a MQA licensed device.
That might be fine if your DAC already supports MQA or you only have one audio setup/device which you were planning to replace anyway. But for anyone with multiple 24bit/96Khz endpoints. Replacing them all with MQA devices could get expensive. Certainly more expensive than a (now basic/standard) router or access point that supports a 802.11 standard that can comfortable stream a 24bit/96Khz FLAC file. At least by upgrading your router or access point you may see additional benefits re. your network speed elsewhere.
A decade ago I might have seen MQA as a (possibly) clever way to provide high (yet lossy) compression for HiRes audio content over bandwidth constrained networks. Nowadays it feels like that ship has sailed or at least is getting ready to leave port. Replacing all my audio endpoints with MQA licensed hardware feels like using a sledgehammer to solve the issue of limited throughput on a home network.
If Tidal provided both (both MQA and lossless 24bit/96Khz FLAC) there would be no issue, those on limited bandwidth could use MQA and everyone else could use lossless 24bit/96Khz FLAC with their existing kit. Unfortunately they don’t — which makes me feel like this is more to do with extracting licensing fees that offering users a valid choice.
3 Likes
I want to avoid participating in MQA flame war while trying to help users with their MQA setup, but since you quoted me, I’ll respond. Before posting my comment I actually read all four parts, completely. Some parts for the second time.
1 Like
This seems like a contrived argument. In the situation with multiple endpoints using Roon, just do the unfold in Roon and don’t worry about the final unfold. For a simple MQA DAC that won’t blow anyone’s budget, use one of the portable USB MQA DACs.
As far as streaming services, if you want Roon, wait to see what else Roon integrates. Simultaneously, there is an active price war going on between Apple, Amazon and Spotify trying to offer high res PCM, redbook PCM, and Atmos. Beyond that, there are services like HighResAudio, Bandcamp, Deezer, Primephonic and several other small ones streaming in either high res PCM or redbook. Or you can buy high res downloads, store them locally, and play them back using Roon. Really, there are so many options that worrying about nothing more than Qobuz disappearing so being left with “only” Tidal seems a little shortsighted.
1 Like
MQA’s marketing materials refer to the file size savings often, usually in tandem with the audio quality and authentication features. On the MQA homepage they’re all mentioned together in the FAQ
The purpose of authentication is to signal that the file has not been modified in transit between the output of the MQA encoder to the user’s MQA authenticator.
If you subscribe to a service that provides MQA content it will usually include the MQA Core Decoder as well. This allows users to play the 24-bit/96kHz core decoded audio without purchasing any new hardware, with bandwidth requirements only slightly greater than 24-bit/48kHz FLAC. One can then purchase an MQA renderer starting from $99 if they wish to recover more HF audio content and utilize the complementary filtering.
1 Like
This may seem a little off topic, but we may not be at the finale, and this does seem to be quite an exciting development in terms of MQA.
Tidal is quietly rolling out a bit-perfect Android app
The Norwegian-based streaming service has begun rolling out an update that allows its Android app to talk bit-perfectly to any USB DAC, thus sidestepping the host OS’s resampling code.
“Allow Tidal to access HELM MQA?” reads the pop-up on this commentator’s LG V40. Clicking OK and punching in an MQA stream has the HELM Bolt DAC’s LED turn purple (where previously it remained blue) for visual confirmation that the 48kHz (or 44.1kHz) stream has travelled from Tidal app to Bolt without the Android OS running interference so that the DAC can unfold at will.
1 Like
Why would I want to settle for that when there are perfectly good ways of streaming a lossless 24bit/96Khz stream on my network? What is MQA bringing to the table that I can’t already achieve with a standard 24bit/96Khz FLAC stream?
Your suggesting (given the context of my post / reply) that because some users can’t handle the bandwidth to transport a lossless 24bit/96Khz FLAC stream over their local network, all users should either accept a lower quality stream (first unfold only; and even that has indirect licensing costs in the chain) or replace their existing kit with MQA licensed hardware.
As I said above, if Tidal gave the option of a lossless 24bit/96Khz FLAC stream alongside a MQA stream then I’d have no argument. Everyone would be free to choose. MQA when you had limited bandwidth (and were willing to pay for a hardware decoder to fully decode) and the full untouched lossless 24bit/96Khz FLAC stream (that works with your existing hardware) when you didn’t (have bandwidth limitations).
I’m really not interested in getting into a MQA war — personally I struggle to hear a difference between MQA and 24bit/96Khz FLAC. As I said above it seems like it would have been a good solution a decade ago when bandwidth was more limited and hence the interest in lossy codecs and the need for higher compression was greater.
Nowadays with affordable 802.11n routers and access points (able to support 600Mbps) it feels like a technology that has missed the boat in terms of compression being a key selling point.
And if compression is not it’s key selling point and most MQA files are simply batch conversions of 24bit/96Khz FLAC files, then what does it bring to the table — especially given the additional cost of licensing and hardware it entails (to decode fully).
In short it seems like a solution in search of a problem (limited bandwidth) that no longer exists (or at least is on it’s way out for most users).
1 Like
what does it bring to the table
Better sound quality than PCM in most situations.
But that ignores the bandwidth issues. I commented earlier that most of the world accesses streamed audio through cell phones and portables. Available bandwidth and cost of data plans is a serious concern in many countries. I also agree with the arguments put forth in pro circles, namely that limiting data footprints is both cost effective (to streaming providers for example who have to pay for storage and transmission) and in terms of lower energy footprints in a greener world.
MQA also point out that there are ranges of audio transmission not yet open to high res and restricted by mandated broadcast standards to data rates not above 48 kHz. MQA can enter those but high res cannot. They include live streaming, broadcast, tv, gaming, and virtual reality. They are development areas possible for MQA.
1 Like
That’s assuming that MQA is being encoded from a higher bit/sample rate source. Circumstantial evidence would suggest that outside of a handful of ‘white glove’ albums most major streaming services are being delivered the same FLAC or WAV files to start with.
Personally I can’t hear any difference once you go above 24bit/96Khz FLAC so for me that makes no odds.
As I have said twice now, I would have no issue with Tidal offering MQA versions for that purpose (limited bandwidth) alongside the original 24bit/96Khz FLAC streams. But Tidal no longer offers that as an option.
- I can see what is in it for MQA (licensing fees)
- I can see what is in it for Tidal (a marketing edge, retention of users who have bought MQA kit and a saving on bandwidth and storage costs)
- I can see what is in it for Studios (a future avenue to DRM)
- I can see what is in it for Hardware manufactures (ability to sell new kit)
- I can see what is in it for Software manufactures (ability to sell new software)
- I can see what is in it for Audio magazines, blogs and YouTube channels (advertising, clicks and something to write about)
What I can’t see, is what benefits it really offer the end user (assuming they aren’t bandwidth constrained).
But at least we’re getting somewhere, so it seems behind all the marketing talk, we’re finally got to the crux of it. The key benefit to MQA is a saving on bandwidth. Fair enough I guess for those users who need it that’s great. In which case it would be useful for Tidal to simply offer it as an option alongside the lossless FLAC streams. Rather than forcing it wholesale (along with additional licensing costs) onto all their users.
Anyway, I’m a happy Qobuz user for now, so this is all academic to me as long as they are still around in a few years time.
I agree and I expect MQA may eventually find a niche here. Although most major broadcasters will want to rigorously test any claims before investing so if MQA want to succeed in that space they may need to open up their encoders/decoders for more rigorous evaluation than they have up till now.
1 Like
Hey, maybe he deserved it way before MQA. And MQA would not be an impediment to his credibility either. I would think that MQA, from the technical and SQ point of view, would be met with justified interest and some folks would love it.
. But because his creepy attempts to silence the critics, scamming with the labels, and most importantly deceiving and dishonest responses to the critique of MQA, Bob Stuart will not be remembered for his unquestionable technical accomplishments.
4 Likes
That would end my Roon subscription. That is the most blatant attempt to push MQA on everyone. And finally I know the real reason for your “balanced and objective” approach to MQA.
If FLAC streaming goes away, I simply will stop streaming. I dislike the sound and business plan of MQA, and will never knowingly again listen to an MQA file.
6 Likes
If we all went off principles of being lied to, not getting a fair deal, musicians being screwed etc etc the managers and record labels would have gone bankrupt years ago. I don’t know why we are suddenly bothered now?