Ah ok. I thought one needs a new CD Player, MQA Proof…
Nope, just a DAC. MQA can be in any lossless wrapper, Flac, Wav Apple, lossless etc.
I just received my Explorer² USB DAC today and I’m now able to make full use of the MQA tracks on Tidal. And while I do wonder whether MQA will become a mainstream format (with the need to buy an MQA capable DAC. to get full benefits), all I can say after listening to some of my favourite tracks via the Explorer² is wow… it really sounds great. There is a sense of space and detail that I haven’t experienced before (listening to these tracks from my CDs, or via the Tidal app with my Naim DAC-V1 which doesn’t support MQA).
I’m very impressed and have spent the evening listening for longer than I intended, just enjoying the music 
Hopefully it will become easier to track MQA versions through Roon soon since a lot of them don’t appear in the Tidal ‘What’s New’ Masters list.
5 Likes
This quote from the latest MQA email:
Chris
There is very limited risk in jumping on the MQA bandwagon. $300 for a Explorer, $400 for the Bluesound Node, $500 for the node 2. You can go up from there with many DAC’s of high end quality. Many of you will find your DAC may be compliant soon. It is a software adaptation for the DAC, if MQA goes the way of the Dodo, or something better comes along, they will do a update. All those who have a large HiRez library and listen through a good DAC, should not put any dogs into this argument. If you have been streaming Bluetooth to a AirPlay, Sonos, through most online providers, MQA/Tidal is a noticable step up in sound from older analogue CD’s. However Most modern digital Flac files sound great as well, but if you compare them to the MQA version, there is a slight increase in soundstage, and depth. I sold my Sonos Connect and bought a Node, $50 upgrade for me. Hopefully Roon will on the bandwagon soon. cheers.
1 Like
@MusicEar @Cemil
Andreas never mentions his own conclusions about the sound of MQA or even mentions that he has listened to it. It seems all theoretical. I posted this on Posituve Feedback:
The claimed sound quality improvement through “deblurring” is obviously a part of the marketing pitch for MQA. What has been your judgement of the sound quality of MQA, fully decoded and partially decoded in software and undecoded? And what equipment (software and DAC) did you use for this evaluation?
No answer.
I find theoretical criticism tiresome.
None the less it still has a legitimate place in the discussions. You just need to see past the criticism to the reasons why. And there is a lot of theoretical and procedural wrangling going on between all of the players who have an interest in MQA. To date I have never seen any debate won by changing its terms so the mantra “yes but how does it sound” doesn’t satisfy anyone who may have very legitimate concerns about aspects other than sound.
Theoretical observations are not without value, sure.
But given how often we have been surprised, not even bothering to listen with software ($20) or hardware ($300) decoding is either lazy or a sign of a closed mind.
I would not opine on Beyoncé without listening, or compare digital and film photography without looking, or poor-pooh Merlot without tasting. And if I did, you should ignore me.
2 Likes
Agreed but the purpose of music is to listen. But the purpose of MQA is more. Evaluation of its impact on the industry, of the control this gives MQA and of the technical claims and merits are legitimate to an extent. And only the final category would involve listening as part of any assesment in my view.
1 Like
I would consider listening is the first consideration. If it doesn’t pass this hurdle the rest of the debate is mute.
If after listening it is deemed MQA has a positive effect or at worst neutral that’s one thing. If MQA detracts from the quality it’s DOA anyway.
Further benefits of MQA and how it allows (argueably) lossless high resolution streaming over a low bandwidth, or perceived harm by how it may negatively effect existing business models and the ways they may need to adapt or die are certainly up for discussion.
Thoughts, Chris
He takes a strong position on the sound quality of MQA. And his credentials, listed at length at the end, are entirely about engineering of audio technology. This portion of the paper demands an actual evaluation.
If he wants to speak instead about the business impact and market effect, sure that doesn’t require listening, but he doesn’t claim any such credentials.
Merlot doesn’t meet any customer demand, and it would harm the credibility of the industry, and it tastes bad. My credentials: I have done a lot of drinking but I’ve never tasted Merlot. Wine industry sales and marketing experience? No.
4 Likes
Clearly, he’s not too impressed with MQA. However, I think it is unfair to assume that he hasn’t listened to it and is only talking from a theoretical perspective. The fact that he did not reply to your comment does not necessarily point to that.
My main disagreement with his position is that he assumes that nearly everyone on the planet can stream high res. I can barely manage Tidal on a good day, though my ISP charges me for a 20 MBps fiber optic line. I get about 12-15 Mbps to the closest node to my house, but after that, good luck. I could probably get the 20 Mbps if everyone else shuts their system off 
Judging from the complaints ISPs are getting all over Europe for mis-selling, I would think my experience is pretty typical.
Currently, MQA over Tidal (using Explorer 2) sounds better than the standard CD title over Tidal. Whether this is due to MQA or to a better source/mastering/whatever is mostly irrelevant to me. However, I can’t see the point of buying MQA CDs to be honest. I’ll either download a high res file or buy the normal CD.
The thing with buying MQA CD’s is that you can not only play them but also RIP them and own the music as opposed to rely on streaming.
Another reason to encode MQA CD’s, especially for emerging artists is that the most important place at a gig is the ‘Merch Table’. (Bob Harris recently said this on an in depth interview (not the MQA bit)).
Artists no longer get record deals and have to build a fan base the hard way, touring and playing. To survive they have to sell merch and most importantly CD’s. They cannot survive on streaming.
Recently I was having breakfast with an artist we hosted and my first words were “You’ll be pleased to know you earned tuppence this morning as I streamed your EP on Tidal”. This stimulated the conversation on the importance of Merchandise.
I digress but MQA CD’s here would be brilliant at getting great recordings out and awareness at the grass roots.
Easter ramblings… Chris
Playing is the first consideration only for the end user. There are a lot of other considerations for other players in the industry. Take the insistence by MQA Ltd that they do the work on clients DAC’s. This pretty much means that they get an extended look at some of the competitors hardware and players like Schiit, PS Audio, Chord and others with FPGA software decoding rather than dedicated chip decoding are essentially handing the keys to their success to the competition, or more accurately a company owned by a competitor. This has the potential to exclude some of the most talented minds effectively neutering Meridians competition if MQA takes off! Is that fair? The concerns are very legitimate and I wonder what access Roon have to give MQA to their product in return for accreditation.
Andreas Kock was involved in SACD you can’t expect him to have an impartial view. He has developed proprietary technology for DSD to PCM no more market for them if MQA takes over. As a developer of proprietary technology I wonder why he he is anti the proprietary nature of MQA?
His technical arguments largely repeat misminformation about MQA that have already been answerred in the public domain and have been linked to in this thread.
Why do you think Sony is the last of the major labels to sign up for MQA?
2 Likes
To get the best from MQA the resolving DAC parameters need to be known as I understand it. If companies want to keep secrets with all the appropriate legal IP protections in place, then so be it.
I also think that if MQA wasn’t on to something the backlash I sense on forums would not exist
It doesn’t matter what is said on any forum, blog or web page any where near as much as you might think. If you allowed some of what you saw to sway you, we would never buy anything because there will always be naysayers. There are Roon naysayers out there who’s mantra is “why do you need such a high spec computer to play music, other programmes don’t need that” etc etc. But the thing to remember is this. They choose to ignore the reasons why, just like many who disagree with MQA ignore the reasons why it may have merit. Their view isn’t balanced and that isn’t hard to spot.
1 Like
The automatic rejection of new or paradigm changing information is known as the Semmelweis Reflex. It is said to have come from the advent of hand washing as a way to prevent the spread of infection. People rejected this to start with!
We all know how important this is now… I hope MQA and Roon (in the way we browse music collections) and the changes they are making in my consumption of music continue. I would rather see development of new ideas that change people’s thinking, hopefully for the better!
3 Likes
plus filtering, according to this description of the Auralic pseudo MQA
http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2017/04/auralic-firmware-v5-0-adds-dsp-engine-web-browser-control/
So there is no worry about intellectual property issues, as some have feared.
This sounds similar to the approach of HQPlayer regarding MQA.
A lot of hype in January about TIDAL streaming MQA. SO far it looks like the only way to take advantage of that is to hook your Mac or PC directly to an MQA DAC. And that is about the worst thing one can do for digital noise right? Lots of problems hooking a computer up to a DAC.
Couple that with no other service streaming TIDAL yet, and not third party software streaming integration like Roon, and DACs such as the DragonFly still not MQA ready and it begs the question, is MQA dead already?