This only works if you have two streaming services.
Tidal is gives you no choice, they convert everything they can to MQA.
1 Like
I just enjoyed listening to Bob Stuart interview-on the What Hi Fi virtual show where they discussed all things MQA. You can see why manufacturers are interested in MQA, itâs just obvious really.
Too many people seem to get hung up on the digital data when whatâs important is the musical information stored within that data.
That information is what is delivered, clean of unwanted distortion via MQA and I think we can expect to hear more of it via TV, Radio and streaming in the future. Feel free to diss agree, but donât beat me up about it.
Video has improved exponentially over time and consumers like it and want the quality, they wonât go back. Audio however, has stayed effectively static in that space except perhaps via Blu Ray disc. But we all know spinning discs is so last century now and like it or not, streaming is the future.
MQA seem to have plans here to overcome the bottle neck of Chromecast, Airplay, Bluetooth and the like. TeaserâŠ
Spotify are being forced to consider CD quality as everyone else can deliver it and consumers want it. Even Amazon are at 30 year old CD technology. Who wants to be left behind, So a rising tide raises all ships. The future looks brightâŠ
5 Likes
There are apps which do require an additional payment to use MQA. I would be curious as to the ratio of users of Tidal Master level with that app who do vs do not choose to buy the ability to use MQA.
They also own large percentages of streaming companies. Itâs all a corporate design to milk money manufacturers and consumers, and limit payments to artists for the benefit of record labels.
2 Likes
My planned obsolescence theory comes with the prediction of MQA++ or MQA 2.0 within the next twelve months. Or whenever it is sales ramp down again.
5 Likes
This view is expressed well by the boys at Schiit audio:
3 Likes
Youâd think that the vocally anti MQA crowd are in a majority the way it is told. They arenât though. They are a minority, the majority being silent and simply voting with their wallets. That âangryâ vocal minority donât win hearts and minds. I doubt theyâve moved anyone from the other side of the barricade to theirs. And part of the problem is people simply donât hear the issues laid out in that quote. My view is that while MQA havenât done a great job at selling MQA to the masses (âmehâ as Danny put it) the anti MQA crowd havenât been any better at proving a lot of the counter claims. My feeling is that ultimately this goes around in circles and adoption in devices like mobile phones and portable players will be a much bigger factor in the success of MQA than anything said by either side here.
7 Likes
Thereâs no data to support any of these assertions on either side, though, All weâve got is our feelings or impressions based on whatever prism you view this through.
I personally couldnât give two shiny pennies if someone prefers the sound of MQA. All power to their elbow. My own system is full of valves and produces distortions which are pleasing to me. Iâm sure it measures objectively poorly.
What I am concerned about is:
a) technical claims that are untestable, or have been demonstrably shown to be false
and more importantly
b) Restriction of choice, which isnât a factor yet in the wider streaming world, but is now when looked at through the lens of Roon because they only have two partners, one of whom is all-in on MQA.
4 Likes
This is slightly off the topic of WHY manufacturers support MQA, but it does demonstrate that they do and they arenât slowing down in that support.
We have some data:
First, we do know that after adding MQA support in Roon, the number of users using Roon continued to grow, not drop. In fact, they grew faster. While correlation is not causation, there was no exodus in protest of MQA.
Second, we know that in circumstances of having MQA capable DACs, rarely defeated MQAâs encoding so the DAC couldnât decode it. I guess this makes sense as these people paid for an MQA capable DAC.
Third, we know that the vast majority of people using Roon that donât have MQA DACs do indeed Core Decode instead of just passing MQA files to their DAC.
Fourth, weâve seen no major trends in leaving TIDAL.
Fifth, the number of MQA DACs being used by Roon users continues to grow. Nearly all of the new Roon Ready and Roon Tested DACs are MQA capable. There are a few that canât for some reason or not, but the number that have taken a stance to be anti-MQA can be counted on one hand (versus the hundreds who arenât).
MQA is being successful in getting audio device manufacturer support. They need more content partners, but with the labels backing them, it may just be a matter of time.
To deny that the anti-MQA folks are a small minority is just fooling oneâs self.
If MQA succeeds in getting more streaming services, this will happen. Maybe even just one big one.
Being anti-MQA vocally does help prevent this to some degree (bad marketing), but the audiophile needs and SQ related issues are not why the streaming services will choose to not use MQA. To prevent MQA from having a Dolby like monopoly, the other reasons must be understood. Remember, TIDAL doesnât support redbook to cater to us. We are a small blip in their user count. âŠand Qobuz and others are too small to matter.
10 Likes
I agree, much of the âantiâ has been noise and chest-thumping. It was only because I bookmarked a bunch of useful posts on AS that I could recall a lot of useful information. I was considering how to assemble it into a video when GoldenOne basically said that he had already.
It has become something of a moot point regardless. Even if there is anything worthwhile to discuss about the concepts behind MQA, it has been lost by the actions of the company, desperate to get a return on their investment.
I do wonder how big the supposed âsilent majorityâ are in reality. Most people donât know about, nor would give two hoots about MQA.
1 Like
But the same can be said for the âPro MQA crowdâ, couldnât it? I suppose most people couldnât care less as long as their Taylor Swift album plays back just fine through their Bluetooth speakersâŠ
(Not dismissing Ms Swifts latest efforts, just an example of mass consumption)
1 Like
There is also this datapoint from Paul at PS Audio where he estimates that 70-80% of PS Audio customers like MQA. Itâs anecdotal, but it supports the notion that many people like MQA despite what you might think from reading forums such as this one.
He makes the point around 8:29:
1 Like
So there are two things to note hereâŠ
First, the âTaylor Swift and bluetoothâ person is a logical fallacy. You say they donât care, but if you ask them in a survey if they would prefer the best Taylor Swift experience, that person would absolutely say yes. They donât care about the brand of MQA. The marketing is all that matters. TIDAL gets to offer the Swiftie âthe bestâ with MQA which others donât. In fact, TIDAL doesnât market it as MQA, but instead as âmastersâ. MQA helps sell.
Second, a vocal âpro-MQAâ person tends to be rare. The rest vote with their dollars. Those people are âpro-MQAâ as well. Thatâs how you win the war.
1 Like
There is one place I am pretty sure there are lots of eyes on. Topping have produced their D90 DAC in MQA and none MQA forms and Iâd love to see the sales split between the two. We know that given options some will buy the more expensive of the two on the not unfamiliar HiFi assumption that costing more makes it better. But it would be interesting to see who is opting to pay an extra $100 just to have MQA decoding on board. Or maybe more accurately the people choosing not to have MQA.
3 Likes
Some observations on this:
I would consider this a null data point. As long as MQA is not force fed, an exodus is unlikely. Since Roon was (and still is) gathering visibility the growth is not necessarily linked.
I donât really know what to make of your first sentence. Assuming it means that users with MQA capable DACs effectively use MQA decoding, well, no surprise there. If youâve got it, you might as well try it.
This might be because they donât realize you actually have to turn off the decoding. It took me a few days until the bulb lit up.
Erm⊠Itâs not as if we have objective usage data.
Again, correlation does not equal causality. Most new DACs in the mid-to-high-priced product range offer MQA. This is where most Roon users shop if this forum reflects the user base. Itâs not because a DAC/streamer offers MQA that this feature was a deciding factor in acquisition.
On the other hand, some the major players in music reproduction equipment (see how I cleverly avoided the use of hifi?), ignore MQA. I donât see Denon/Marantz and Yamaha putting the MQA logo on their stuff.
As for the thread title: manufacturers support MQA because they feel they have no choice. If they donât they lose sales to competitors. This does not however reflect a success factor for MQA. AFAIK, Spotify still rules the roost.
No MQA there.
3 Likes
You misunderstood me⊠Iâm saying that the DACs with MQA support grow, not the sales of units. The number of MQA supporting DAC models continues to rise in count.
And why would this not apply to the services? If Square/TIDAL can make an argument against others, whatâs to stop the same arms race in the streaming side?
Itâs naive to think about the future with your eyes on the present. It can change at any time.
2 Likes
âWeâ (users) - no, but Roon core and the associated cloud Roon services most likely do and I expect that such metrics are probably collected and aggregated in an anonymized manner, so I expect Roon staff have very precise and up to date data from all Roon subscribers. I would expect they know far more about my listening habits than I do 
3 Likes
Seems like this has just become another MQA thread.
Seem pretty obvious that the manufacturers support MQA to give buyers as much choice as they can. For software companies, Iâm still shocked HQPlayer doesnât support ALAC. Thatâs the reason I got roon in the first place.
The few companies that donât offer MQA like Chord, are not willing to with not sacrificing their custom processing just to get more customers. MQA goes against their design philosophy. Iâm sure there other companies that donât offer it as well due to licensing cost.
1 Like
Itâs always a good idea to look to the past, especially when it comes to audio. Many proprietary formats have come. Almost all are gone. Those that were mainstream from the start survive. Iâll leave out the lossy formats. Flat records were brand independent, all cylinder recordings were brand specific and died out. Flat records as we know them evolved and still exist. Reel-to-reel tape was brand independent and still exists. Philips was smart not to close the cassette format and what do you know⊠itâs making a comeback. Sony and Philips were smart enough to agree on the music CD format and to not make it a closed format. It still exists.
Philips and Sony agreed on the SACD format and were stupid enough to make it a closed format. It is as good as extinct.
Redbook is still the main encoding format for lossless music. High resolution is stiÄșl a niche market.
Iâm not convinced there is an arms race in the streaming market with regard to formats. The largest part of consumers doesnât give a fig about sound quality. They happily stream lossy stuff.
I surely donât expect to see Apple, Google, Youtube and Amazon being willing to pay for MQA licencing. Spotify has announced a lossless tier and seeing as how they chose the free ogg vorbis for streaming lossily, I highly doubt theyâll pay for MQA.
As for MQA CD, well I think a comparison to SACD is reasonable: itâs useless without extra ultra expensive (for the average consumer) hardware. Referring to what the past has shown, I wouldnât recommend betting on that horse.
If there is an arms race, itâs fought in the smallest nested niche of audio.
Itâs all speculation anyway, though as long as consumers can walk away from closed formats they will as history proves.
10 Likes