Two patents do not mean anything. 700 MQA Q&A answers of alleged marketing snake oil in a Stereophile forum do not prove anything. We are talking about MQA lying about their marketing to make it out to be Lossless, not how popular they are on the internet due to their great public relations / sales department.
One established monopoly wins over one hopeful monopoly.
Monopolies are not good but at least Dolby Atmos creates a true night and day different listening experience - immersive vs stereo. Iāll say itās a ādifferentā experience, not ābetterā but I enjoy a lot of Atmos stuff.
I canāt say MQA creates a night and day different listening experience, in my own experience.
Potentially gloomy days ahead for MQA Ltd.
Even with the deep pockets of Jack D, I canāt imagine heād be pleased if Tidalās subscriber numbers trend downwardsā¦ and that directly affects MQA Ltd
1 Like
There is no āweā, and I donāt think we need to have the flawed videos constantly resurrected, as many of us have come to our own conclusions, can think for ourselves, and are not swayed by marketing materials from anyone. It often seems to me that this type of anti-MQA propaganda is profoundly insulting to the intelligence of many.
4 Likes
Good post. Also many of the most fervent anti-MQA propagandists are those who are applying massive amounts of DSP and other bastardizations to their āpureā files - laughable really.
4 Likes
There is nothing against people liking MQA for its SQ or not.
What is the fundamental problem and why i am against MQA is what it pretends to be and solve.
That issue is not in focus at all and could be the biggest problem in the future.
MQA is a patent, licensing, propriatary and potentially a DRM enforcer with a product that is shady.
Bulk conversion to MQA has nothing to do with the M, the Q, and the A in MQA.
It is to enable and enforce a money stream without choice within a streaming platform.
You can only switch to another streaming provider and hope they do not go for this debatable format.
Some recordings intended to be used with MQA (2L eg.) sound great, but i will not send money to MQA so that was once and no more.
Bottom line is that MQA is not open about its product and what it does.
Afaik, it is a blackbox filter implemented in a DAC without verifiable parameters and purpose.
We have no way of knowing that a file is from an M that is A for the delivered Q, and is that not what MQA was all about?
My 2 Ćøre (Norwegian currency)
MMQA (My Master Quality Authentication) i call it FLAC+ (!c) (!r)
We can have lights switched on on a DAC by having information in the streamed file
The master is the original, authenticated by the owner of the music, the musician, the recording engineer, the mastering engineer. etc.
Flac+ , with one additional byte of information.
No licencing, hassle or SQ issues, but we know what we want know.
Transparent, easy and honest.
10 Likes
And how do you know this?
I use absolutely zero DSP and prefer the sound of non-MQA from Tidal, but even more so from Qobuz. Tidal overall sounds a bit compressed to make it more exciting! sounding but becomes fatiguing over the long run for me. MQA as well seems to lose some timbre and detail for me, esp in violins and piano.
1 Like
What do you consider to be āmassive amounts of DSPā in your notion? Just curious 
Sounds like a conspiracy theory or an alternate truth to meā¦
2 Likes
Tidal does not compress their lossless content. When I had both Tidal an Qobuz the tracks of the same mastering and resolution sounded identical.
Iām surprised so many people are defending MQA. IMO itās completely useless format which gives nothing but still costs something. Itās made for profit, nothing else. Thereās simply no need for MQA, never was and never will be. And as we now know, itās not even lossless. Luckily we have many lossless (and hi-res) streaming options these days so thereās no need to use Tidal and MQA anymore.
EDIT: I forgot to mention that I use zero dsp. Just bit-perfect signal to the system.
4 Likes
how many is many? do you have data?
many as in millions or maybe 5, 6 7 or 20?
For you itās no use but others are really enjoying it, gotta respect their choice, informed or not.
1 Like
I love mqa and I stream frequently via cellular while running, at the office and on the go. My T-Mobile unlimited plan can barely handle MQA, Iād hate to see it try to handle uncompressed high res formats.
But alas, Iām cheating on Tidal for a month to see if Apple can compete at half the cost.
From what I here read, a ton on anti-MQAers use very little if ant DSP. I donāt use DSP for a similar reason I donāt listen to MQAā¦better sound!
2 Likes
What DAC model are you using? A NOS DAC?
Are you against any kind of DSP at all?
A use a Cocktail Audio X45PRO, and on anything, turn any DSP processing off. To my ears, the music sounds more natural that way.
1 Like
What are you wearing while running that would warrant hi-res? Nevermind being busy running and outside noise blead and being able to pick up the difference between high bit-rate mp3, cd or high res
A high end pair of IEMs. They help me get lost in the music and making running more enjoyable. I had cheaper headphones and have used lower quality streams and they just donāt provide as much pleasure.
1 Like
Facepalm 
Lets not go there where we discuss Hi-Fi music let alone MQA while doing workout outside using wireless streamingā¦
No matter what you use while running it wont ever be valid to compare serious Hi-Fi differences when we talk about sound system components that may decode MQA vs not
Since Square is a publicly traded company, will Tidal have to open their books?
I would think so.