2. misc-audio
  3. 181571-179096

Why is everyone so down on MQA?

Ok. MQA is a little bit complicated to understand without doing a little research. First of all: MQA is not technically a lossy format. The way it works is very unique. The original master tape (Holy grail of SQ) is folded or compressed into a smaller format. It is later unfolded through a process I don’t claim to understand. The fully processed final version is lossless! It is the song version from the original master tape. FYI, original master tapes are usually the best sounding, they are also the truest version of any song- they are painstakingly produced along with the artist in the studio during the recording process. Ask anyone, they are the real deal. For some reason most people hate the sound quality! One caveat, the folding/unfolding process is usually carried out at one time by a dac. But some dacs only compress and do not unfold….I think Meridian should explain dac/ streamer compatibility issue. When your hardware supports the single step the sound quality is pretty amazing. They should have explained in more detail what the format is all about.

128x128walkenfan2013
petaluman
140 posts
 

My understanding is that MQA is a successor to HDCD.  HDCD was originally developed as attempt to add resolution above 44.1k on CDs.  Higher frequency information is encoded (hopefully inaudibly on non-HDCD compliant devices) into the CD data, and removed, decoded & added back to the 44.1k data in the DAC.

It made some sense then, but we're not limited to CD Redbook anymore and often have access to even higher rez files.  Now it just seems like marketing to the gullible.

deadhead1000's avatar
deadhead1000
707 posts
 

I agree with the Dolby comparison, unless you have a ‘decoder’ MQA sounds about as good as MP3’s, if you can even play them at all ‘folded’. The MQA fees are just profit for the MQA ‘group’ and does not go to nor help musicians. I also agree that there is no longer a need for it. In some ways, it’s just another failed attempt at copy protection.  

kota1
2,706 posts
 

I like that MQA burns the files from the master tape, if that was the only step they took I would be happy. I loaded two of the same albums into a playlist (one HIFI, one MQA) and hit shuffle, closed my eyes, I can pick the MQA track every time, works for me. 

fuzztone's avatar
fuzztone
5,499 posts
 

Because it has been proven to be a fraud that introduces distortion. 

You are forgiven for asking a forward question. Check You Tube for in depth answers. Anyone that likes it is most welcome to it. I have no money for the licensers.

I'm pretty much glad that I don't have hearing that prefers it.

sameyers1
126 posts
 

The biggest beneficiary of MQA besides its owners is Tidal. Because MQA files are much smaller, they require far less hard drive storage. I agree with those who’ve noted the technology is at least ten years too late.
 

Having compared Tidal MQA files and Qobuz high res files of some of my favorite albums, I canceled Tidal and kept Qobuz. I have had no trouble streaming the far larger Qobuz files even when my Internet service was only at 150 mps. 

More to discover