Vote please. Simply yes or no. Let’s get a handle on our collective thinking. The discussions are getting nauseating. Intelligent(?) People are claiming that they can remove part of the music (digits), encode the result for transport over the net, then decode (reassemble) the digits remaining after transportation (reduced bits-only the unnecessary ones removed) to provide “Better” sound than the original recording. If you feel this is truly about “better sound” - vote Yes. If you feel this is just another effort by those involved to make money by helping the music industry milk it’s collection of music - vote no. Lets know what we ‘goners’ think. P.S. imho The “bandwidth” problem this is supposed to ‘help’ with will soon be nonexistent. Then this “process” will be a ‘solution’ to a non existing problem. I think it is truly a tempest in a teacup which a desperate industry would like to milk for all its worth, and forget once they can find a new way to dress the Emporer. Just my .02
The industry never learned from the failure of HDCD
HDCD didn’t fail, it was a great success, and worked far better than MQA and you didn’t pay for it, until Microsoft bought it from PMD ( Pacific Microsonic Devices) and then did nothing with it and let it die.
But thank god now Professor Kieth Johnson the inventor of it I believe has bought it back of Microsoft, I and is using once again in his incredible sounding 24/96 pcm "Reference Recordings", that MQA can’t come close to in sound quality.
BTW: there are thousands upon thousands of HDCD recording out there, many of which are not labelled the the HDCD logo.
Many people have complained that record companies are making $$$ from MQA. I don’t know how this is a bad thing? For many years around 2000, companies were allowing music sharing, think Napster, Gnutella, Kazaa and Limewire. The big deal was artists (musicians) were not making money, record comspanies were not making money. The downloaded music was causing a huge hit because music was not paid for. As far as I can tell, Tidal pays artists more $$$ than youtube, Deezer, Spotify, Rhapsody and others. I don’t mind paying for music to help artists get paid. How many people out in audio land have music they pay for, rather than downloaded and not paid? At least with Tidal and ( MQA) artists are getting money again? Another angle to the story...
Oh oh , I wanna play too . But I’m stuck in a world of SCHIIT ! I’m so butthurt that I’m going back to my Layfayette 8 Track recorder . Don’t get mad at each other guys . People on the sidelines that are limited to a couple G’s for a DAC need to learn too . If I can use some sort of MQA software on my Windows laptop before it hits my Yiggy , would somebody shoot me a note and School my dumb butt . Thanks , much love , Mike B.
I vote NO. MQA does not improve anything. MQA is nothing more than the latest marketing tool for generating income for companies with degrading master tapes.
How about YES and NO. Yes it's about better sound vs. Redbook CDs. And No... of course it's about making money for content and software owners. There's no free lunch. The question for all and each of us is this free sound improvement worth the price and a good trade off.
The question for all and each of us is this free sound improvement worth the price and a good trade off.
Bumping my post from another thread :-
1. MQA is a boon for streaming, at least for now until streaming of native hires becomes more accessible (Qobuz which streams native hires is currently not available in US and many other countries) 2. If you have a Tidal subscription and listen mostly to Tidal, Tidal MQA generally sounds better than non-MQA Tidal - better to get an MQA dac to fully enjoy Tidal MQA 3. If you don’t subscribe to Tidal, and listen mostly to your own collection of non-MQA redbook or native hires pcm/dsd files, MQA may not be an important consideration
Comparing MQA with non-MQA hires pcm/dsd files gains importance when considering a new dac - should it be MQA-capable or not? This decision will rest on points 2. and 3.
Right now I am not paying anything extra for MQA. It comes with Tidal which I would subscribe to whether it carried MQA titles or not. My Bluesound vault2 decodes MQA but that was not what I originally purchased it for so just another bonus. So imho I am getting MQA for nothing so why the heck would I not listen to it. Just a huge bonus that it happens to sound better to me in my system.
To whatever degree MQA does good things to the sound for some, it is unquestionably trying to take over the entire, digital audio ecosystem (& may succeed). John Iverson & Atkinson both warn in their full page As We See It columns in the last 2 Stereophile issues that could both easily modify all recordings in ways, not of our choosing as well as prevent and/or corrupt all future digital formats & improvements. This kind of "format monopoly" Iverson refers to in the current 2018 April issue on the first page will in no way, shape or form drive quality improvements either within MQA & certainly W/O.
The engine that drives capitalism is removing any and all obstacles to generating ever more capital. To what degree will a monopoly allow quality for its own sake to emerge as any kind of priority? Think about it. Before you don the shining, seductive (at this moment in time only) restraints MQA appears to be. Cries of, "Who knew?" will then be factually answered with, "You knew." Think about it. Now & not in the future - after the fact.
Jon Iverson's even stronger condemnation in the new Stereophile won't be officially online likely for another month or so (other than to digital subscribers) >
I find Brian Lucy’s comment very readable and valuable. He operates Magic Garden Mastering. As a professional his livelihood depends on attention to detail. His comment that the MQA file is not equal to the original is undeniable : reversing the phase of the original and comparing with the MQA version should provide a null and he states it doesn’t. For the MQA version to be truncated(shortened) by 8 bits - and still have the light come on confirming you are listening to an MQA certified file is simply a scam. Having pros weigh in on this is very welcome.
I've listened to MQA files and like what I hear. To me, it is instantly distinct that there is information there which does not exist in a non MQA file. I also think that some master files weren't recorded with as much care so those do not benefit from the MQA process. As for the bandwidth issue, I listened to the same file directly off of a CD (44/16k) and 24/96k files and definitely heard the MQA file sounding much more pleasing. So, to my ears, I vote YES..
Jon Iverson’s even stronger condemnation in the new Stereophile won’t be officially online likely for another month or so (other than to digital subscribers)
I have read Iverson’s latest editorial and it comes across as the strongest condemnation yet of MQA by Stereophile or by anyone in the audio press for that matter.
This appears to run counter to the fawning over MQA at Stereophile’s sister online publication Audiostream.
Be that as it may, as has been oft repeated, no criticism of MQA will have any bearing on anyone’s prerogative to enjoy listening to it.
People will continue to enjoy whatever they enjoy. And this last may just carve the path to MQA’s total and complete success in its own right, to the exclusion of all other considerations - ?technical, ?drm, ?monopoly, etc, etc.
It's a big no from me, I don't see why we need another algorithm promising audio gold and just filling the coffers of the big record companies. If the big companies would give us access to first generation copies then we could all see how much we are missing from all the formats that we have been told was the next true audio form. I have been buying recordings in one format or another for 55 years and I am still not happy with the junk we have to buy. Once you have heard and produced Master copies in reel to reel and hi rez digital formats you are spoilt for life.
You are really not buying recordings you are renting them. MQA is a streaming format, don’t know anyone who is downloading the music, although I suppose some are. Also when artists were losing money and recording companies were losing money (see my previous post) because of shared music back during the Napster years, I did not see people complaining. Now that the record companies are making a buck and that money passed on to artists.... well then the complaints???? And why would peole complain about a streaming format, when most of the music they listen to is downloaded music??? Just don’t buy the service, case closed. There are other places better for downloading music.
“Trouble is you can’t tell if it works by switching it off“
Who cares if it works or not, all I care is whether MQA files sounds better than the other competing streaming resolution or not. To my ears and in my system, they do.
If MQA is so bad then why in earth, HDTRACKS, Acoustic Sounds and others are still on fence to offer high resolution streaming? Thanks to MQA, I have a choice not to pay $16-24 for high resolution downloads.
In the absence of any real competition, MQA should prevail and hope it becomes the standard of high resolution streaming.
1. Foolish new algorithm? - I vote Yes 2. MQA for better sound? - I vote Yes 3. MQA for music industry to milk more money? - I vote Yes 4. MQA enjoyable? - Yes 5. Is MQA Tidal better than non-MQA Tidal? - I vote Yes 6. Is MQA better than non-MQA native hires PCM and DSD? - I vote No.
7. The Best: It's free with Tidal HiFi. Even I don't have a MQA hardware. But my PC can still send MQA to 88.2 Khz, 96 Khz /24bit. My DAC can still decode. Sound better than 44.1Khz/16bit FLAC
"It's all subjective" is what MQA is selling now, because the idea that it's equal to the source, lossless, has failed.
What is more important is that mastering engineers like myself are playing NO PART in the bulk processing of catalogs with MQA, so the whole idea of "Authenticated" is a lie.
And on my current work, four Billboard #1s last year, it's not better it's worse. There are artifacts I don't want and the artist and label did not want at decision time.
Another part of the label, the catalog division, is all about the money. But as audiophiles, you all are supposed to want to hear that the "artist intended" and MQA is not that in 99.9% of the cases on the market today.
brianlucey "It’s all subjective" is what MQA is selling now, because the idea that it’s equal to the source, lossless, has failed. What is more important is that mastering engineers like myself are playing NO PART in the bulk processing of catalogs with MQA, so the whole idea of "Authenticated" is a lie.
I vote "Yes" for MQA: on Tidal, I find that most of the MQA versions of albums/titles sound better than the non-MQA versions to my ears. And, Yes again, that I view MQA as a way to get better sound from streaming, but not as a end-all format that replaces lossless files & SACD's that I have/will purchase/download.
In my view, there are simply no downsides to MQA as a streaming format. It is part of my Tidal subscription and a built-in MQA-capable DAC is a feature on my (recently acquired) Bluesound Vault 2. Put together with Tidal, this has greatly increased my enjoyment in listening. And, AFAIK, none of the doomsday scenarios have come to pass yet. It is still very much your option on whether or not to MQA. I suspect, if it ever does appear that the powers that be try to "force" it...it will be met with great indifference in terms of purchasers.
I get that MQA is not lossless. I get that it can be scientifically proven to be inferior bit-for-bit and measurement-wise to FLAC, DSD, DXD, etc. And, I completely understand from a recording pro's POV that MQA is not what they/the artist intended. But, I am not an engineer or scientist. I am a consumer of content, the end-user...I am the customer. And what I hear from MQA, for the most part...I like.
As others have said, cannot we just get back to enjoying the music, no matter how we do it? I really do hope so...
As others have said, cannot we just get back to enjoying the music, no matter how we do it? I really do hope so...
That’s the best thing you said.
Why can’t we have our music as it was played, as close as possible to live, least untouched by all this processing.
No sounds in real life are compressed, birds singing, jets flying over head, cars doing burnouts, why then do we want to stuff-up our music with compression and other forms of processing. ???????
As others have said, cannot we just get back to enjoying the music, no matter how we do it? I really do hope so...
That's the argument for cigarette smoking. Forget about the future, enjoy it now. That it's guaranteed much or most of the time to be not what the artist intended leading to we know not what (that has the incredibly polite John Atkinson passionately exclaiming publically for the first time in his long career) combined with its substantial potential for killing all more advanced improvements for digital, stone cold dead, is dismissed because the transitory pleasure of the moment is all & who cares how unstable the foundation it is built on is?
If MQA is as radically successful as it hopes to be & many (& not that much fewer disagreeing) in this thread are nonchalant about - they will have plenty to bitterly complain about. Just not their own culpability.
MQA is NOT improving. Other formats are, that they will kill if successful. Be careful about picking the winning (in terms of Quality) side. Surrendering to monopolies so cheaply says a great deal about you & us, encourages lack of integrity in audio & everywhere else in our lives. In VERY unsubtle ways. "I just don't care & like to sell out cheaply" is an easy response just now. You'll have to live with what that means & says about you - in addition to what it does to Audio.
Uh, ok. First off, you don’t know me...so, please don’t assume any “lack of integrity” in my being simply because I like the Masters section in my Tidal subscription.
Second, you assume that I have given in to some monopoly, but how? Again, because I use Tidal? Because I like the way a song sounds?
You do do not know me, sir & you certainly have no right to tell me that my choices in how I listen to music have some implications that reach further than this particular hobby or activity.
The choices are there for all of us...I could care less about yours. Hope you enjoy your music as much as I’m enjoying mine...
I have not made up my mind on MQA yet (vs DSD and HiRez PCM). But any attempt to corner the market by MQA (the company) is something with which I strongly disapprove. I believe MQA is seeking, and to an extent succeeding, in convincing makers of recording equipment, studio owners, major labels and streaming purveyors to license MQA which, in turn, will then compel the end user (listener) to purchase the license in their home systems or suffer the fate of a "blurred" product. If true, I will not join the party which the record companies and MQA would like to force me to attend and will not purchase my music for the third time from a "new master equivalent" format that is not as good as vinyl and may not be much better, if at all, than DSD or HiRez PCM. I certainly have my suspicions.
Why are so many running around screaming, "The world is ending!!!" so much lately? Right now there are 7.5 million cds available on ebay and there will be many more millions on there as the baby boomers die off or go deaf from listening to loud music. Vinyl is going to be bigger than cds anyway, right? Calm down people. There will always be alternatives to MQA.
John Atkinson of Stereophile begs to differ (for the first time in well over 3 decades going this public, this passionately). Alternatives could be very seriously sabotaged & take a VERY long time to emerge if MQA has its way. Time is the irreplaceable commodity & encouraging conditions that allow your children & not you to appreciate the progress materializing in real time, is somewhat problematic.
gpgr4blu above has a superlatively reasoned & reasonable response that if it spreads will indisputably help remedy the ills that too many are being complacent concerning.
Someone please identify the huge record companys that are already “Shareholders” in this MQA effort to turn the quality of “all” music into that which will “work” for the ubiquitous cellphone users. And, thanks again to the Professional,Brian Lucy, for creating hope that it will be ARTISTS who will hold out to archive their precious works in the manner that sounds best under quality conditions-during the recording and mastering of their “babies”.
Artists can unite by having their work streamed as intended in non-MQA format by going to Qobuz or HighResAudio.com. It’s good to know there are alternative avenues.
Thanks for sharing the news on HRA hi-res streaming. It’s would be very interesting to read reports on how hi-res streaming stacks up against MQA. I have been anxiously waiting on Qobuz to enter US territory for a while.
HDTracks announced their plans to introduce hi-res streaming late last year but since then we have heard nothing.
I believe the young generations demand for high quality “video” will make bandwidth and speed of the net- and the quality of cellphones- such that compression of/for -audio- will become irrelevant. I’m sure the big players are well aware of this. Therefore this attempt to capture the market will shortly reveal itself for the simple attempt at a “money grab” by the tech company and the industry “investors”/- or should they better be called “co-owners”??
No. It's just another way to add more processing to music and add artifacts. I've read some of the test results on MQA and it doesn't seem to quantitatively provide much benefit over standard methods but does add unnecessary artifacts, especially in the higher frequencies. Given modern day technology, we should be striving to have less processing and more precision ( 24 bit or higher ) to get closer to the vinyl sound.
Yes, for me it's most noticeable improvement is in the albums of the 60's 70's 80's. It seems to reduce the nose floor, and the extraneous sounds of some of the recording gear or recording enviroment. Some of the MQA files I'd listened to barely sound different or improved. I've given up comparing MQA to non MQA files, and generally select the MQA when given an option.
I prefer SACD and DSD for SQ. MQA is not the be all and end all, I imagine it to be a stepping stone in the eventual realization of the digital format.
I didn't realize that master tapes would be batch processed in MQA. And I had imagined that with new releases, the album engineer would have been involved in the MQA process. And I'm surprised to read here that there is less data being steamed. But being said, it could be a cost/bandwidth saving for the streaming company.
I also think that given time we will be able to stream DSD quality. MQA might evolve, but digital files, streaming and down-loading are the winners here. Although vynal is fantastic, I haven't spun a disc in 18 months....
As for downloads, it will be tough for MQA to compete. It all depends on how they price their downloads against 16/44 cd quality. It will be difficult to price it above cd quality simply because redbook as is actually sounds fabulous with the much improved tech of today. For the mass market, mp3 looks to be sufficient.
If MQA prices their downloads below redbook, it would look like a product that is a step down in quality and that would be a PR nightmare for the marketing department.
I have not heard MQA on my system. I don't think that is very relevant in the big scheme of things. There are so many variations in the recording and mastering of music that I highly doubt that MQA can "improve" how music sounds with an algorithmic approach. Testers also found this to be true when trying different recordings. You have to change the algorithm, blah blah blah, but that works on one recording but not another. The reality is that the quality of music is mostly determined by the recording and mastering process. I have heard CDs from the 90s that sound fantastic as-is. My opinion is that music producers need to focus on the recording and mastering of music and that the representation of that music should try to stay true to the original recording. Any post processing will be an interpretation of the original, which will work for some cases but not others, and will also add artifacts to the music. All of the arguments I've seen so far seem similar to cases where the measured results show an early roll off in frequency response yet testers claim that equipment sounds great. I don't buy into such claims. I feel that good test results are a necessary but not sufficient condition for equipment to sound good. This has to be supplemented by listening to confirm that it does indeed sound good. This is my opinion and I am sure others feel differently. To each his own.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
