Which is? Quad erat demonstrandum.
I understand you are in the “MQA sounds good to me and that is all that matters camp” and I agree with you to the extent it relates to just listening to MQA while it is available from Tidal without additional charge and just to enjoy the music.
However, as someone who, pre-MQA and to this day, regularly works to find the best sounding copy of every recording I love, and that is a lot of titles, I will say that provenance is critical. It’s analogous (pun intended) to vinyl lovers looking for the best copy of an LP, whether that means less scratched or from the best master/pressing (“Get the UK release!”… “no, get the German one!”). You can waste a lot of money buying random versions if you don’t have any indication of provenance, just hoping they sound better than the one you have.
For example, the Steven Wilson remix/remasters of prog catalogs like King Crimson and Jethro Tull are revelations. They’re not just a tad better. Knowing where a hi res or MQA version originates would be critical in making a purchase decision. Not so critical to streaming Tidal, but if you are going to part with ~$20 per title, you are going to have a much better chance at cost-effectively upgrading your library if that provenance is available.
This is not limited to MQA given that provenance is also often not available at HDTracks, etc. But it is a darned shame relative to the process MQA describes in their marketing materials for involvement of content owners They chose not to lift a finger to track provenance as well as process the files into MQA – they’re already digging out the masters – it’s just one more metadata field to actually include provenance.
It’s a big shame they don’t, and I suspect it’s because with some, the provenance would not be very attractive, and also possibly may expose that a lot of this is being done on an assembly line basis without much work to seek the best masters, creating a hit or miss experience that could have been better.
3 Likes
Clearly you are enjoying the search and that’s a part of this hobby. MQA may also be doing exactly as they say and seeking the original masters and best versions available. From what I hear so far (no, I haven’t listened to everything in MQA) they are doing a fine job.
1 Like
For those that care.
www.prostudiomasters.com provide some provenance information in their technical notes section under each album. I know it’s not a blue light but it’s something.
2 Likes
Actually it’s a blue link! 
You know, that’s a really interesting idea. How about a format where the tracks are digitally signed by everyone involved – the artists and the recording engineer? Give the guys who actually do the mixing and mastering some face time, too. Now that would be a format with a clear advantage.
Maybe this is because your reference is mostly Meridian equipment. My understanding is Meridian have long been pioneers Apodizing and Minimum Phase filters …both add time domain errors (phase distortion) and do not preserve the amplitude of the original waveform and apodizing often introduces image fold back noise. Ayre is the only other company I know of that actively pushes minimum phase. Others seem content to offer various filters and let users decide. Now of course MQA is telling everyone that these filters which modify the audio are better than the original when really it is just a form of DSP flavouring/processing that does NOT preserve the original high resolution waveform.
1 Like
I agreed with you, the distortion created by minimum phase slow roll-off filters have a tendency to sound good especially when come to vocals. This type of filter is not linear and distortion will creep in as the frequency goes up. I would rather have a selectable filters tailor to my taste of music genres rather to have a non changeable filters in the case of MQA.
Now I’m wondering if I am misinterpreting what it says on the Web page. Does describing the MQA version as “FLAC 24-bit 192kHz MQA” mean that the MQA is from a 24/192 source, or that the MQA is packaged as 24/192 FLAC? That is, with reference to the terminology defined in the FLAC spec, are we talking about blocks or frames?
It from a 24/192 source. It’s downsampled to 24/96 and then folded into 24/48 MQA.
1 Like
Yes - it would be cool if that would be displayed somewhere!
I can’t think of better advice.
I’ve been burned too many times buying the high resolution version of an album only to discover it also suffered from remastering/brick-walling. I now place emphasis on having a really great DAC which can make standard lossless extremely enjoyable.
MQA decoding stop at 88.2/96k if the source is 176.4/192k and above, it needs to downsampled to 88.2/96k then folded into 44.1/48k. MQA decoding works great for 88.2/96k recordings.
MQA files carries an authentically embedded data that identify the OFS (Orginal Frequency Sample) as well rendering data presumably used to select different types of de-blurring filters when an renderer is used.
But “standard lossless” can also have the same problem, right? So how do you know about the mastering?
Especially with these consarned downloads! No liner notes, little metadata. I’m tempted to just keep buying CDs, but clearly they are going away. Not sure downloads aren’t, as well – everyone wants you to keep streaming from their particular little silo.
I generally avoid these discussions because they inevitably turn into MQA bitch sessions. However, I’m adding my vote for Tidal. It’s a great, relatively inexpensive way to become acquainted with MQA and to decide whether it’s for you. I’m still on the fence, although I have a couple of MQA-capable DACs and I’ve been quite impressed with some MQA albums, not so much with others. But I avoid ranting. To each his/her own. However, I have enjoyed the fact that this discussion contains more references to “provenance” than any discussion I’ve read since the dawn of the internet.
4 Likes
For sure and I guess I should have been more specific. If a downloads seller provides provenance and DR data, then the risk decreases.
I admit I have some high resolution purchases that sounds great.
Dynamic Range doesn’t paint the whole picture with a good master but it’s good place to start your search.
The Album Dynamic Range Database:
After that the Hoffman forums has a wealth of information on albums, specifically the subjective opinions on various masters. Like or hate the site owner, the members are very knowledgable.
3 Likes
At least with CDs there is a decent chance to use the SKU to determine what release it is and then what master. With downloads, HDTracks often says nothing other than give me your money to see what you get. And with CDs you can at least sell them back (at a fraction of what you paid) if it isn’t better sounding.
While I do think that standard high resolution makes more sense as a purchase (mostly because until MQA is permanent, you might just be left with something that won’t play beyond 13 bits redbook compatible), I have never understood why HDTracks doesn’t make more effort to tell us where the files come from. I mean, they have to know the market they are appealing to and that many of us want this information. It just doesn’t make sense that they don’t do a better job of letting us know what we are paying for.
1 Like
I would always go FLAC as it will play on anything forever. MQA is, firstly a lossy format, and also depends on a hardware lock in. Who’s to say that 10-15 years down the line you’ll still be able to buy MQA-capable hardware. FLAC is a free, open, and royalty free format. Unless you own a streaming business and you need to save on high-res streaming bandwidth costs, there’s literally no reason to buy MQA.
1 Like
Unless it sounds better that is.
Note that MQA plays on any non MQA DAC and in fact MQA is delivered in FLAC that as you note will play on anything.
Perhaps given that you should buy as many MQA files as you can while you can. 
2 Likes