Quobuz and Deezer have offered hi resolution downloads for a while, which isn’t what I would class as ‘streaming’ particularly in the context of a discussion about Tidal/MQA? Also, bear in mind that for years (before MQA) streaming companies used to define ‘Hi-Res’ as CD quality, as it was ‘hi-res’ compared to the other, MP3, streaming out there.
In fact, in order to be able to actually stream Hi-Res, (which in my mind most people would class as listening to in real-time over the internet, rather than purchase-download-and-then-listen), Deezer has recently partnered with… wait for it… MQA!
I therefore vote that Deezer be added to Roon as a hi-res alternative to Tidal, albeit still using MQA.
I’m not averse to other streaming platforms being added to Roon, for the record, just wanted to clarify that I don’t believe they will currently be able to supply anyone with beyond-CD quality streaming if it’s not MQA.
I have nothing to thank MQA. Thats a lossy format. Read the papers.
I use a Qobuz high res streaming sub, up to 24/192. I get huge discounts on ECM downloads and all others when buying.
Streaming is done via Audirvana atm. Local Files are streamed via Roon.
For me the best solution atm.
That is quite OK miklats. I know enough of the path you have chosen to know it’ll never include MQA! But the answer isn’t to talk MQA down, that doesn’t work. The idea is to talk the alternatives up. MQA have monopolised the discussion and the competition is being ignored, no matter how valid they are.
Hello Henry_McLeod
If you have the impression that I try to talk MQA down, I need to correct you.
In my view their marketing is the real problem.
Instead of stating very clearly what MQA is and what not, they try to hied it in a marketing Nebula.
MQA is clearly a lossy Codec. Thats written in the MQA papers. If that is of importance… well I think so.
They say MQA is how music is recorded in the Studio. What a BS.
I happen to own quite some analog master tape copies.
I just compared in the last hour the Tape of Deep Purple: Made in Japan on a Studer A80 and the latest remastered MQA version.
For my ears its very clear. MQA is no winner. It is a marketing fake.
I don’t think you need to correct me. What you do is clear to see. The point I try to make is that your approach doesn’t work. They measure their impact as how much they are talked about. It doesn’t matter if what is being said is good or bad because these discussions never change people’s opinions drastically. But in trying to correct me you mentioned their name 8 times! That is a win for them, and while you talk about them your preferred choices are not being discussed! Another win for them. You are doing their job for them.
Lossless and highres are two different entities and while there is a union that is both lossless and highres,
not all lossless is highres nor is all lossy formats not highres.
I don’t agree with this statement. You have a very strict view of what is and is not high res. If you were to look at a 100 mega pixel jpeg file, would you call that “low res”. Surely not. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Would that be a stitched file from low res jpg images or a compression of a 11600 × 8700 pixels camera RAW file?
A big difference ! But a jpg remains the mp3 of photography.
There are some rather interesting statements in that interview like:
“It’s definitely a lossy codec”
“There’s also some harmonic distortion which some people could find pleasing, If I want that distortion in the master I would’ve put it there in the first place. The results of MQA I would call fatal to the source material even as they are very subtle.”
“MQA has been targeting the weakest players in our world, the audiophiles. And they’re targeting those most dependent on pimping new tech, the audiophile press.”
“A cynical marketing scheme to be kind about it.”
“I’m most concerned about the bogus claims that MQA is fixing approved masters. Not possible, and a rude assertion to trillions of hours of hard work by teams of people making records for decades. Pure marketing hyperbole.”
“MQA has no future in the world of serious engineers in my view, it’s a corporate money scheme at this point.”
That sums up what I think about MQA rather precisely.
Some of his observations are interesting. But it seems he is used to mastering for differing sources such as Apple Music (which will make it uniquely identifiable) and it seems to me that his objections to the audible impact of MQA can also be mitigated in the mastering process. Also his objections are in part commercial in that he thinks he would need to invest in new hardware. That is valid because he would need to be able to listen in real time as opposed to sending a master off and getting the finished product back. In other words it is about control for him. I have and enjoy a couple of his babies so I can’t knock his abilities. But I do think he may need to learn to be more receptive to change because he isn’t the boss. The artists are and they may like the idea of MQA.
Since the ECM catalog surprisingly joined the streaming services a few days ago (with a good part available in MQA), I have had ample time to sample some music-I-actually-listen-to.
In my system (first unfold only, followed by RC), there’s no contest between MQA and Redbook: MQA is markedly better – blind, sighted and with or without a generous dollop of single malt. The jury’s still out on 96/24 vs MQA, which probably means no difference of any statistical significance.
