18 posts were split to a new topic: What MQA DAC are you using?
Mike,
Great blog. Well thought out and written. Thanks for the link!
Rob
Interesting article , thanks . Reading this part āIf you play back a 24-bit/192kHz MQA-encoded file through an MQA software decoder like Tidal HiFi, Audirvana, or (soon) Roon, and you are using a regular DAC (i.e. a non-MQA DAC), you will get a 24/96 fileā makes me think that if your endpoint canāt handle over 24/96 ie. my Meridian F80 which I really like and donāt want to change , then there is no need to buy a new MQA Dac . Thoughts ?
Listening to this album via Tidal App - sounds really good on my Devialet. Roon software will be asleep for now - just checking out the Masters section on Tidal, SQ is awesome on some these recordings.
1 Like
Linnās perspective
Good read. Thanks for sharing. Now Iāll go crawl into my hole and cry.
2 Likes
Love the āmuteā option on threads 
Russ
1 Like
Given that Linn charges $24 for 192/24 downloads who is extracting the more $$$ from the supply chain $$$ MQA or Linn?
2 Likes
Unlike some, I am not enormously impressed by MQA.
I donāt hear improvements over straight high res.
And I have concerns with buying MQA content that I can decode at home but not on the road.
But those are personal views.
Do I hear differences? If do, do I like the differences? Those are subjective.
But engineering discussions are not.
They should be correct.
1 Like
[Moderated]
No, not all of the MQA discussion is technical. Some are in above their pay grade when it comes to information theory. And some seem to have a vested interest in MQA, if not financial, then personal.
Like several others, I am not out to get MQA. I am out to get to the bottom of MQA. But some people will not have that. They seem to prefer ignorance as their bliss.
[Moderated]
AJ
Love that mute button!
1 Like
Iāve moderated this thread by deleting some posts and excerpts in others. Please keep the discussion about the ideas rather than each other.
The few comparisons Iāve done between MQA and high resolution files of the same master show very little (if any) difference. That said, I think MQA provides two things that you donāt get with a āblindā high resolution distribution model:
- A scheme that provides low communication bandwidth streaming of high resolution music;
- An approach that emphasizes good mastering and good ADC/DAC processing to maximize analog audio reproduction.
I donāt think you would get the above if we stuck to the current high resolution file distribution model. Could there be other equivalent (even better) ways of doing this? Possibly, but thatās the nature of business and innovationā¦itās not always about the best solution but finding one that works and getting to market sooner than your competitors with a good product.
1 Like
I think MQA is dangerous.
It leads, if successfull, to a way I dissaprove. It will be like Dolby and DTS on the HomeCinema side of life.
The whole chain will be controlled by one company and all will and have to sound the same.
What an ugly vision of the future.
Absolutely unnecessary for me as music buyer.
I will avoid MQA.
2 Likes
This post on the official LINN website is sooooo unprofessional. It is unbelievable that the management allows an emloyee to publish this kind of content on a personal titleā¦: Right or wrong: This is not the way to critisice a competitor.
Probably LINN management (and thus LINN as a whole) is asleep.
Wake up LINN!
Of course their competetion like MQA, Roon and Tidal should make some money whilst delivering good sounding music. As long this is not backfiring on the artists, and as long I have to pay an acceptable price for the content and hardware I have no problem with that.
3 Likes
Interesting article. The author from Linn stated the business reasons he felt it was bad, specifically - Meridian and Warnerās depth of involvement. I call it rewards for innovation. So far, and I know its new, the delivery of MQA music is working fine for me. I donāt see buying a lot of the new MQA titles since streaming MQA works well at a reasonable monthly cost.
3 Likes
I think that Picasso should have more pink. And as for those charlatans that sell faithful reproductions, they are the utter limit. The world is coming to the endā¦ Lol
It is what it is. They can control stereo music the same way as Dolby controls manufacturers now on the homecinema side.
LOL
As a Schiit user you donāt have a choice! 
To everyone.
I can fully understand why people who have spent a decent amount of money on good DACs choosing to stick with what they have, I am pretty much the same using a small volume DAC with FPGA internals that is way down the list in terms of MQA approval if they ever request it. I just donāt understand why you would then come out against MQA with such vehemence. I am curious, that is all. Ultimately it all shifts the focus away from good hardware and towards a fledgling format that has yet to prove its worth. Wouldnāt time be better spent promoting good hardware than simply denigrating MQA
2 Likes
I am not against MQA with vehemence.
I am simply against it. I thought it over what they can do with that technology.
And thats my conclusion.
If you talk to small companies and the implementation process with Dolby you might understand the troubles smaller companies might face with MQA in future. All the licencing fees they have to pay upfront.
I say might, because MQA is far from beeing a success and many producers know what MQA can mean to their products.
So, resistance is not futile.
I am on the consumer side and want to be able to choose from a variety of different products with different sound.
With Dolby you lost that. Its all the same standardized sound. No more variety.