Tidal is moving away from MQA and Pink Floyd 'The division bell has a version with mixed formats and with my dac and roon streamer MQA clearly sounded better in 24/88.1 compared to flac 24/192. the flac was 2 dimensional or boring and it's obvious when format changes because the whole experience becomes more involving thru the mqa process. Once Tidal no longer supports MQA i'll drop tidal.
MQA•Foolish New Algorithm? Vote!
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 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
166 responses Add your response
INHO MQA sounds better than Red Hat CD quality, and so it should. The BIG question is how much is this new algorithm going to cost the consumer and who gets the prospective profits? I have no problem with the introduction of new technology and software as long as it improves the quality of the product and does not impose itself and extra cost on to the consumer. |
MQA is the Cubic Zirconia of hi-res audio. To many it sounds as good as the real thing, so what’s the big deal? To others it will never matter how good it sounds, it’s still not the "real" thing. There is a lot written about MQA in the audio forums. Most of the discussion revolves around what MQA is and very little is written about how it sounds. I listen to it on TIDAL and for the most part enjoy the MQA albums. I’m glad I have a system that can take advantage of MQA and that I have the choices of MQA or non-MQA versions of many albums. |
MQA sounds incredibly good. With that said, you need to have the proper equipment and setup for it, or you will not hear what it can do for you.+1 That's been my experience. I have heard demonstrations of some very good systems lately, and MQA when properly implemented is absolutely superb. (the difference is not subtle)+1 again. On my system, this is the case also. I knew someday I would eventually sell off my LPs as digital got better and better. That day has finally come for me. - sold them all last month. Sorry, that's just sad. I have a massive LP collection that I will never get rid of. IMHO, on my system, LPs still sound better. |
MQA sounds incredibly good. With that said, you need to have the proper equipment and setup for it, or you will not hear what it can do for you. I have heard demonstrations of some very good systems lately, and MQA when properly implemented is absolutely superb. (the difference is not subtle) I knew someday I would eventually sell off my LPs as digital got better and better. That day has finally come for me. - sold them all last month. |
MQA is a compressed format of 96k/24 88.2k/24. Just like Netflix HD streaming no match of Blue-Ray HD but much better the SD. the 44.1k/16bit is the SD audio. I won't buy MQA files. But Tidal MQA streaming is "free" with Tidal HiFi. 5G, nah, I am using Comcast ISP which will be fast and more reliable than proposed 5G in the future. |
I like I like MQA as an option for some recordings and for a better way to stream stereo using less bandwidth. I do not like it as a standard for ALL music media or distribution. It imposes DRM standards which are unacceptable. It is also not applicable, today, to multi-channel (MCH), which IMHO is the future. That makes me a NO. |
Yes! True MQA is so good that the best turntable and LP would have a hard time beating. If your system and speakers are cable of truly reproducing MQA quality you will seriously be hard pressed to find something better. I thought I was listening to MQA until I got a true MQA decoder DAC and now I’m in music bliss. Cheers |
Hi @lalitk , 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. |
I think MQA will succeed only for streaming. 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. |
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.... |
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. |
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”?? |
@jon2020, 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. |
Proper research is coming: https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/ebriefs/?ID=685 |
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”. |
Non-MQA native hires streaming is here, courtesy of HighResAudio.com. Yay! https://darko.audio/2018/03/highresaudio-com-announce-hra-streaming-service/ |
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. |
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. |
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. |
@jon1 - 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... Arvin |
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. |
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. ??????? Cheers George |
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... Arvin |
brianlucey https://sjdpacvictoria.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/clapping-hands-emoji.jpg Cheers George |
"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. |
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 |
“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. |
Now MQA is trying to suck in the "anti compression" audiophiles like myself, by adding this. " If you’re an audiophile who dislikes anything that smells of compression, MQA has added a "deblurring" feature. Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-benefits-and-costs#dbScRpdWEbkRZD17.99 Trouble is you can’t tell if it works by switching it off. " There’s one problem: We have no way of separating MQA’s deblurring sweetener from its compression medicine, and thus no way to critically listen to and test each process in isolation from the other. Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-benefits-and-costs#dbScRpdWEbkRZD17.99 Cheers George |
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. |
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. |
| Post removed |
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. Are we not afraid yet? Or, why be afraid at all when it is so enjoyable? Enjoy the Music! :) |
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.. |
