Rob to answer your question - I am willing to pay for extra optionality of MQA decoding in Roon. To me the lifetime subscription is already a sunk cost – so happy to pay extra for additional options the Roon team offers including MQA.
I am hoping Devialet will come to the party at some stage with MQA. However having heard the sound via TIDAL and MQA on my friends MQA DAC - I did like the sound which brought back memories when I used to listen to my Musical Fidelity SACD player (long time back)- so to answer your question if MQA is not available to me via Roon / Devialet, I will probably invest in a new setup including a new MQA DAC, NUC/ amplifier and speakers (have another place in the city) and enjoy the MQA streaming from various sources.
I would too. But @danny has already said this is off the table. As I see it, it’s the end of the road for Roon+MQA.
Maybe Roon could rebrand itself into Roon (current base) and something else to accommodate their other endeavors - that something else would not include MQA.
But this seems like an awful lot of maneuvering and brand image steering for stupid MQA. I say let them simmer, if they keep their antics intact they will disappear in a short amount of time.
This is why I say noone needs MQA except MQA Ltd.
This is something Roon may consider if it work for them. I’m using Aries Mini as an endpoint, so I still can switch between Roon and Auralic in-house decoding if I want to playback Tidal Master.
Are we going to speculate about Roon dropping MQA or going with a cheap imitation now? Really? MQA will be part of Roon one way or another, because it isn’t hard to do. Pseudo MQA is out of the question because a court case for copyright infringement would not benefit Roon and might even finish it. Have Auralic ever officially taken their MQA ‘support’ out of beta? Let’s keep it sensible boys!
2 Likes
MQA is pushed by roon’s only streaming partner. It would be foolish not to fully support it.
3 Likes
That’s not entirely true: there are technical reasons (the precision of audio manipulation algorithms) for which high resolution is a requirement in the recording, mixing, mastering side of things. Now, if the high resolution master is already available, and CDs are no longer the only distribution avenue for digital recordings, it follows that at some point it makes sense to distribute the high resolution version; it is actually less work if the 16/44 version doesn’t have to be produced anymore.
So ‘need’ does have something to do with this, in my opinion, as ‘high res’ is born in the recording studio, from the effect processors and recording consoles, because it is a requirement for maintaining audio quality when the signal is manipulated (heavily) in the digital domain. It has long been adopted by tons of different hardware used in the long digital chain, because repeatedly recording and processing audio at 16/44 introduces noise at a rapid rate.
In short, high res is necessary for making music, and if it becomes feasible to distribute in the same format, it only makes sense to do so. QED.
On the other hand, MQA spawns from a single commercial company that makes HiFi playback equipment, aims for minute improvements that haven’t been proven in practice and has a nebulous technical story that has been heavily criticised by many of their industry peers, as well as others in the recording side of things. As it stands, a high resolution master that you own is entirely, digitally yours; an MQA one is not, as it involves a piece of licensed hardware and then you only have the analog output of that.
Necessary? Needed? Arguably, quite the opposite.
1 Like
It’s interesting to see the LG V30. A mobile phone with quad DAC and MQA built in. They seem to be betting on photo, video and audio being their differentiator vs the rest of the pack.
While I do with agree with most of what you said, now you explained what You mean with “need”.
That isn’t neccessarily what everybody else means.
And MQA is needed - to make Bob Stuart richer. 
There’ someone needs, case closed. 
Sorry, what does that mean?
If by any chance it means you do not agree with what I have said, then which part? About high resolution or MQA?
Not entirely sure from my reading of the various threads on this that I reach such a definitive conclusion.
Not a question of “need” – it is the economics behind “desire” akin to the qualitative attributes behind a purchasing fine food, motor vehicle etc. I respect the fact you think MQA is not your thing, not everyone agrees with you as it is not a matter for debate - I hope their marketing / branding works so the economics for all of us becomes more accessible.
For me I will incorporate MQA capable software/ hardware so that I can enhance my listening for streaming audio from various platforms (am sure there will be more coming online apart from TIDAL) muck like by a 4K capable TV for Netflix content. I have no issue contributing for licensing fees for the guys who have developed and patented MQA as an option for streaming.
5 Likes
It was a typo, s/not/most/g (i.e. should have said most).
1 Like
MQA full decoding has been available for years. Auralic was already doing it for CES 2016 (Jan 2016) when Bob Stuart figured out (at the beginning of CES) that it was decoding to any DAC, and pulled the license. Roon has been very clear there is no technical issue whatsoever. So when you say “it isn’t hard to do” you’re wrong: It is hard to agree on a usage/revenue agreement.
Backward engineering the decoding mechanism is not illegal. It would be illegal to profit from it. Whether Auralic or anyone else is profiting from it, I think, depends on how the software license is done. If it is fully open source, I don’t think this is an issue, but I am not a lawyer.
Let me clarify:
1- I don’t think MQA brings any technical advantage over what exists out there.
The bandwidth advantage is a complicated issue. As an example consider the case of someone streaming music to a phone: all of a sudden they will consume 2x more bandwidth without any advantages - unless you use a USB DAC, all iPhones and most Android phones will not be able to get anything above 48KHz sampling rate.
2- If MQA succeeds, it will likely have the side effect of getting us an overall better streaming experience. I am all for that. But then again, there’s basically no technical advantage over a properly produced high res file, in my opinion.
3- Point ‘2’ was one of the reasons I purchased a Rossini DAC recently.
You make three assumptions:
-
Everything will only be available in MQA format or
-
Content providers choose not use a non MQA format stream for non MQA-compatible client devices even though there’s one available.
-
iDevices and Android devices will never support anything more than 48k
Neither is particularly likely, especially not point 1 & 2 above.
Yes, I am making those assumptions.
Let me respond
- Was not discussing “technical” advantage here - was making a point on the economics of purchasing an item based on a qualitative decision criteria - MQA is a format / container that allows for Hi Res streaming via Tidal which is an opportunity for some of us to take advantage of because we value the unfolding (on some master recordings) on a MQA enabled DAC. Just a view point which you do not have agree and I respect that.
2)I want MQA to be commercially successful so that more platforms like TIDAL can stream the content and as the broader consumer population starts to purchase than the overall costs of licensing or (business model for charging for this patent like SACD) will over time mean the costs can be recouped. I don’t want it to fail like SACD or DVD-A. I have no issues with the MQA team marketing and intending to make a profit - I am not interested in technical advantages here - more interested in having access to Hi Res streaming product rather than buying albums as I have done numerous times for storing in my server. The latter is again my choice of “renting” the content than “buying” it from HD Tracks.
I am surprised how the views on MQA is so polarised and emotional - I do think that MQA is not the best “technical” streaming solution (MQA sceptics do have some good points here and I am not discounting that - I respect their position), however I do like the mastering side of MQA, in that, in some instances can correct the digital conversion errors in the original mastering (I would be happy to have that in a CD form) - at least that is an improvement in trying to achieve better quality sound in the digital domain. I am not competent in sound engineering, I presume the truth with MQA must lie between the sceptics and people like me. I like music in the streaming platform like TIDAL Masters - so for me I will be spending money to get the best delivery for a streaming solution – essentially following my kids who have been doing this for a decade on Spotify or iTunes. I hope my server is redundant in years to come.
Ok…
High res streaming could be easily done with FLAC - it is done in Qobuz for example with great success in EU - there is no particular technical advantage of doing so with MQA. I would much prefer for TIDAL to stream in FLAC frankly so that any one of my devices / DACs can use it. Simple, decodable everywhere!
However, if MQA is going to be the means of higher quality streaming - for whatever commercial reason - then so be it. I don’t like it as much as the FLAC option but clearly it is closer to reality than that. So I’m ok with that.
In my opinion the views on MQA are polarized because the claims are in many cases deceitful and with a clear purpose in mind: make money. Now don’t get me wrong, I am all for people to make money, I don’t like it when it is less than truth-based. Examples:
1- “Perfect for streaming” - We went over this above…
2- “One file to serve all purposes” - Just not really true if you need to do adaptive streaming
3- “True to the master, validated by the author” - There are ~7600 albums in MQA format right now on TIDAL. This means that if you had 10 teams fully dedicated to moving albums to MQA, and working 252 days a year, and doing 1 album a day (how do you authenticate if you don’t listen to the album?) then it would take them roughly three years to get to that count. Authenticated? Really?
Like I said many times, I am in wait and see mode. If this is the only way high res streaming is going to happen, then lets go for it. But please no preaching of MQA’s sanctity, ok?
But preaching the opposite constantly is ok?
3 Likes