??? Many of us dote on this.
That is certainly not the only way to do it. I use Roon networked to a Meridian 818v3 that decodes MQA. The 818 has a built-in network connection. But I can also connect through a MicroRendu or SOSE that talk USB to the Meridian, or to any other MQA DAC.
There are other problems with MQA, but this is not one of them.
Too early to tell. Certainly Tidal and Warner are probably happy right now in the surge of interest and others frustrated at the slow speed of progress. However I remember it being a while before CD caught on to the extent that there was a worthwhile back catalogue. For me we wait to see sales and streaming stats for all of the early adopters after a year.
And we will see if Auralic prosper with their āBetaā firmware, see this topic AURALiCās Inhouse Approach to Handling of MQA files.
Maybe. Only the unfolding of time will tell.
9 Likes
Chesky releasing new and old music, on CD too is a sign that MQA is not DOA. Then consider the Roon decoding we see in the pipeline.
The dogs bark but the caravan moves onā¦
1 Like
@fritzg MQA have signed up Universal on top of Warner and assuming they open up the vastness of their catalogue to this (big assumption currently) there will be a real critical mass with 2 of the big 3 on board.
Theyāve surely bought into being able to to stream āhigh defā in CD sized streams i donāt really believe their involvement extends much more than that.
I do not have an MQA DAC i am really waiting to see and its too soon after my last DAC acquisition. Also i tend to go for established and if possible superbly reviewed mid range item that i donāt see available at the moment in the MQA DAC space. Explorer 2 low end that i would not base my whole rig around and the Mytek Brooklyn twice the price of my pretty good Chord 2Qute etc.
Who knows how long it will last maybe something better will come along but in short time this has grown from nothing into a sizeable collection with presumably more to come there seems a more momentum to this than youāve acknowledged. Got us talking though! Again 
I also believe MQA is of a standard excepted as suitable standard for an archive. There is so much material that must be archived as itās current storage is either under threat in the case of tapes etc and unplayable in the case of dead digital technology.
The MQA reverse fingerprinting of the original encoders is critical here.
Good point as you say storage with all the resilience required in this case for probably petabytes worth must cost an absolute fortune! Even a 10% reduction in file size would have a major impact.
No. Archiving material in a proprietary format, in general, is a bad idea. With MQA, in particular, the idea might be even worse ā as long as full MQA decoding is restricted to a hardware solution. The requisite hardware could come and go with the passage of time. Decades from now, archived MQA might be only partially decodable, limited to just a soft decode. It even could be limited to just the PCM core ā because PCM will persist far longer as something of a universal mathematical language for digital communications.
AJ
2 Likes
I expect they have contingencies
1 Like
Iām not sure it is DOA. However, is it just another proprietary system to lock us in and to charge us more for the music weāve already bought? It would seem MQA Limited and the publishers are the ones that will largely benefit. Thatās not wrong in itself, but it is if this is just marketing nonsense.
Has anyone heard an A/B between a 24bit studio master FLAC file and an MQA file yet? Say from Qobuz as a stream or download? I have only heard demos comparing MP3, 16bit CD and MQA and yes it does sound better.
Other than file size and data transmission (which I canāt imagine is a big issue for most audiophiles) I donāt see the advantage. Do we need a lossless format that we have to pay for when FLAC is open ubiquitous and free?
If a studio master file is what it is, then how can MQA sound better than a FLAC file? Is MQA manipulating the file in some way? Can someone with more knowledge, enlighten me?
I would rather see the music industry come together and create a gold standard for production quality, but it is unlikely because thereās no real long term gain for the publisher in doing that!
1 Like
[quote=āPhilip_Paterson, post:22, topic:24335ā]
Has anyone heard an A/B between a 24bit studio master FLAC file and an MQA file yet? Say from Qobuz as a stream or download?
[/quote]Yup. See May Stereophile.
Since January of 2016, everyone has had an opportunity to perform the comparison you describe aboveā¦indeed, a user has had the opportunity compare the MQA files against the SAME Mastering in 24/352, 24/192, 24/96, Redbook 16/44 as well as DSD64, DSD128, DSD256ā¦see the 2L Test Bench here
And since January of 2017, everyone has been able to compare their own 24/192[/96] downloads from Qobuzz / HDtracks et al against the equivalent track in MQA, by opening a 60-90 day trial with Tidal streamingā¦[in some cases, they may be different masteringsā¦but at least the user can still judge which version he likes betterā¦and can choose to point the attribution towards the mastering or MQAā¦or a combination of the two]
So, unlike when DVD-A and SACD were first released, you donāt need to rely on the opinion(s) of a magazine reviewerā¦you can make your own mind up based on listening to these files in your own home and on your own system
1 Like
Some of this ādead on arrivalā nonsense is just that you young hipsters are too impatient.
And some of you are nuts when it comes to all things digital.
I am an expert interpreter. But language is fuzzy.
I also have a world-renowned collection of slide rules, and even know how to use some of them.
One of the above is not like the other. Think about it, youngsters.
1 Like
Actually this old fart has slide rules, too. Iām suspicious of new fangled digital hoaxās designed to make me purchase unnecessary hardware and software.
I actually think the hipsters are on to this ruse as well as many audio companies. This the slow or halt d implementation and rollout.
Happy to be proved wrong, but for this geezer MQA is a bust.
I am enjoying streaming the MQA Masters via Tidal to my non-MQA DAC and I havenāt spent a nickel on MQA.
If MQA is just pseudo Hi-Res sized to fit a smaller FLAC container, so be it. There are many Masters albums on Tidal that sound great on my non-MQA equipment. I donāt care if itās from a different master or itās ālossyā or upsampled or whatever the guardians of my unspent dollars want to call it. Iām enjoying listening to it and my investment in it is zero $.
So far, I like having the MQA option and yes, it has me looking/shopping for a DAC with MQA capabilities but that isnāt even urgent for this listener.
3 Likes