Is this MQA news a big deal?

There will be announcements coming out of the Munich Show. Stay tuned.

Check out the other MQA threads.
It sometimes gets a bit contentious.
B

"Is this MQA news a big deal?"

Yes. Listen, compare, and judge for yourself.

+1, Kalali. 

Yes it's very important. It's taking hold. And I can't seem to find any information that shows we really need it. What I do know: Record companies and equipment manufacturers have to pay a license fee to incorporate MQA. That gets passed on to you in the music content you buy and the equipment you purchase to play that music. I'm sure that means the company behind MQA will receive massive profits from this. You get the added expense. Unless I'm missing something substantial I don't see a consumer benift. It seems record companies are pushing it hard. I think that's because MQA incorporates copy protection. They industry mags tell you that you want it because the files are smaller and stream or download faster. That's true. Everyone agrees on that. But I don't want to pay extra for it. If MQA gets adopted will we have a choice? I don't buy the idea that the MQA process gives you a better playback sound then files that were never compressed. I guess I can't say it's impossible. Different in a way that's pleasing? That I would accept. Again, I don't want to pay extra for that. Maybe I'm a sceptic because I'm old enough to remember all the music formats that have come and gone and caused me to buy the same music many times over. Maybe one of you can tell me why I need to have it. 

All these DACs that sound better with these ridiculously high sample rates and the HF noise included in a 192 KHz file are all likely suffering from linearity issues and poor implementation of brick wall anti-aliasing filters. I don’t think MQA will fix anything on a well made DAC.

 A couple years ago I came across an informative analysis of MQA and I see current commentary on this site Real-HDAudio.com 

MQA is as controversial as religion at this point. I like it having it, but would stop short of calling it must have. At the very least there are stories like this to its credit;

http://https//www.stereophile.com/content/recording-april-2018-fairytales-original-master-edition-mqa

Interesting. The MQA version of Fairytales doesn’t sound right to my ears. I don’t have the vinyl to compare. Her vocals sound like she is singing slightly diminished intervals. Very fragile slightly dissonant harmonically thin voice. Piano sounds a bit off too.

Apart from that I totally don’t understand all the hooopla?

@elizabeth,+1
I believe MQA is the 21st century version of Dolby. Just another way to get people to believe audio manipulation is supposed to result in 'better sound'.

B

Walkmans will ruin music!! Not even close. CD’s will replace record albums!!!.... panic! It did not. Mp3 files will destroy the music industry! Did’nt happen. Not even Napster ruined music, although it did allow music sharing and musical artists and record companies scrambled a bit. Streaming music will kill audiophile sound. Nope.
MQA will ruin Hi-Fi.... really???

Here's a summary of issues surrounding MQA that agrees with both of you and makes an essential point: there was no need for MQA in the first place. The author has spent serious time with the issue.

www.computeraudiophile.com/ca/reviews/mqa-a-review-of-controversies-concerns-and-cautions-r701/

Find that 4k, streaming, and MQA all share a single purpose: copyright control.

I bought a Bluesound Node 2. I wanted to be able to access my digital music without using a computer. Even though the Node 2 enabled me to control my stereo with my phone or Ipad and play decent sounding music simply and at a budget I could afford it was not until I streamed MQA files that I heard a remarkable and better sound. Is it better than a quality vinyl rig or CD player or even hi-rez digital downloads? Maybe not? But to say we do not need it? My experience is that it made streamed music sound better and I am not the only one who thinks this. I dont think MQA or DRM is going to be the end of music playback. It is one option for music playback, among many.

@craigl59

Good article. MQA is a lossy format which injects a ton of up imaging noise into the high frequencies. If it sounds better then

1) The master audio file used to create the MQA file is better than the other master you are comparing to
2) Your DAC is suffering from poor linearity (very common especially with R-2R) and the inaudible ultra high frequency noise added to an MQA file is helping to randomize your DAC non-linearity.

Find that 4k, streaming, and MQA all share a single purpose: copyright control.

I'm no fan of MQA, in that I cannot tell it does anything better, but copyright control (aka Digital Rights Management or DRM) is not one of the problems.

MQA recordings can be encoded to any common format like FLAC or ALAC, and copied like any other computer file. There is no DRM in MQA. None.

Best,
E

I heard the MQA it’s really good, I preferred it over DSD. It’s the one that came close to vynil, in the system we were listening...

Not a big fan of MQA. I prefer DSD128 and 192/24PCM. MQA is a lossey 192/24. 5G and Wifi bandwidth is more than enough to stream DSD and 192/24PCM. 

@jayctoy 

  I heard the MQA it’s really good, I preferred it over DSD. It’s the one that came close to vynil, in the system we were listening...

Curious, what DAC were you using? 

Best,

E

Corporate greed is insatiable. Profit is the only driver of this product-as usual. The market for phony products (in this case ‘pretending’ to provide ultimate quality) is endless. No matter how sophisticated this is just another way of selling cheap copies of the original music. I don’t think the musicians and recording professional will bite. But the masses are all about cheap. Most female housekeepers and check out clerks are sporting GUCCI purses...   disposable when the next copy come out. Sadly I think much of the dreck played on commercial radio deserves no better. This product is a continuation of a pernicious race for cheap and disposable. Thank goodness for artists and craftsman  persuing ideals. 

Craigl59 1+ ,

 I ment to return to this topic and post Computer Audio Member  Archimagos article on MQA , Best artical I’ve read so far on this subject.

I wouldn't spend more than $500 on a dac without MQA. $7000 on a dac without MQA is foolish IMO. You might not like MQA right now (with the right equipment, it can sound fantastic), but if they make future improvements and then you want it, your $7000 is wasted. If you bought a dac that supports it now, its your choice to use MQA or not.

LOL,.

+1 ptss! MQA is the GREAT AUDIO SWINDLE of today! And you are right about today's pop music - most of it is just DRECK!

@erik_squires .  How do you intend to playback without the decoding??

I don’t think MQA is going to be the end for music...For those who think the recording industry is not buying into MQA I posted this a few months back.
I am pretty sure the following audio companies have agreements in place to implement MQA into their current or upcoming hardware.

Audioquest (Dragonfly)
Aurender (A10)
Auralic (maybe???)
Bel Canto
Bluesound (Node, Vault series and Soundbar)
NAD (M12, M50, M32, C 390DD, M502...)
Brinkmann
CanEVER
Cocktail Audio (X35)
dCS
Esoteric
IAG
Krell (Vanguard)
Mark Levinson ( No519)
LG (LG.V30 smartphone)
Lumin
Meridian (many products)
MOON by Simaudio
MSB
Mytek
Onkyo
Pioneer (XDP-100R)
PS Audio ( PS Audio DirectStream)
Pro-Ject ( now owner of Musical Fidelity)
Sony (NW ZX300 and NW-A40)
Teac
Technics ( SU-G30)
Wapax

Nevertheless, so many more companies are not going the MQA route.

There are so many formats to choose from and vinyl has made such a come back, I don’t see the problem. Artists will contine to find ways to use computers and the internet to create and distribute their music and with the ever increasing wide bandwidth for streaming hi-res files, I don’t see MQA causing the sky to fall.

OK, put those rotten tomatoes down........

When I first heard MQA streaming on Tidal, I was smitten, so smitten that I purchased a Mytek Brooklyn DAC just for MQA (I also have a PS Audio DirectStream DAC).

I find that many of the MQA remasters to me do sound better than the prior masters, but certainly not all of them.  I would not attribute the improved sound quality only to being MQA, as comparing some albums to their "traditional" FLAC versions, it seems that some of them have the bass or midrange accentuated, in some cases I find more compression of the dynamic range, sometimes less compression, etc.  But I must say, some albums like the first four Led Zeppelin albums, the Crime of the Century, Excitable Boy, and several others (to me) do sound better.

But when I compare some of my classical favorites which are also available on either CD or SACD, I'm finding those older masters to sound better on my DirectStream setup, especially those on SACD.

Having said all of that, I think that the news that ESS will incorporate MQA rendering to their hardware is good news for the industry, especially since so many of our manufacturers are not large companies with lots of cash for R&D, ones which might use the ESS chipset in their future designs without having to provide their DACs to the MQA company for their review.

I think competition is a good thing!  And just about every DAC you will see advertised will decode DSD, which is another "esoteric" file type, but one that doesn't ruffle as many feathers.

@ptss -

1 - MQA plays back on anything. You just don't get the extra ffeatures. 

2 - DRM prevents copying. MQA does not do this. I can make copies and send them to others. If they have an MQA capable player, it will play at full resolution. 

So, this is NOT like HDMI, which prevents copying. 

Best,

E

MQA is a solution to what?

Can someone explain this ?

MQA is not a solution, it is an option, a choice. I do not download hi-rez files, I like to stream music. I had used Spotify, but I find MQA on Tidal sounds better because of the hi-rez. I did worry or at least wonder around the years after 2000 how record companies and recording artists would continue to make money when Napster, Gnutella, Freenet, Kazaa, Limewire and other free music sharing music online companies were allowing artists music to be shared and CD sales, along with other music sales (such as albums) were declining year by year. Tidal is one of the most generous companies as artists make about $0.0003 per play. That was info from 2017. Amazing, Napster had top payouts at $0.0167 to $0.0190 and Tidal was 2nd. I guess after Napster was sued from the major record labels and users could not steal music any longer, some balance was brought make into music making by artists and music enjoyment by consumers.
Therefore Tidal allows me the option to stream hi-rez files, which sound great to me, they add albums all the times and I know musical artists are getting paid for their part. Paying for Tidal is not different from buying an album, buying a CD or paying HD Tracks for a download.
I will admit that I do not like all the licensing fees that MQA has built into their technology. But I do not think MQA will last long. Once the bandwidth opens up past 5g I think? hi-res files will be passed without any MQA needed.

Craigl59,

I find that my SACDs typically play a little "quieter" than "regular" CDs, though I usually don't have the same music on both formats (only when I have previously purchased an SACD and get one of the multi-CD boxed sets).

I presume it's the choices that the mastering engineer made, determining the volume, compression, equalization, etc. and possibly the quality of the hardware they used when mastering both versions.

I am not sure I'd say that either DSD or PCM versions per se "sound better".  If I were to make a "generalization", in my setup it seems that the SACDs sound a little less "digital".  But I must say that some CDs I have (to me) sound better than the SACD versions, when I have both.

"I am not sure I'd say that either DSD or PCM versions per se "sound better". If I were to make a "generalization", in my setup it seems that the SACDs sound a little less "digital". But I must say that some CDs I have (to me) sound better than the SACD versions, when I have both."

Add this to the fact that it also depends on when the CD was mastered and produced. I have early 80's CDs that sound much better (when ripped to FLAC) than re-masters issued within the last few years. I think that is because early 80's CDs used late 70's master tapes which are now almost 40 years old and have degraded. When these are hauled out of the vaults for a remaster or re-issue, no amount of modern day digital magic can recover the loss of the aged medium.
  

Besides bankrupt TIDAL, where are all the MQA sources? I’ve been hearing about HDTracks streaming for the last year....nothing yet. I keep hearing its coming...its now taking hold......WHERE IS IT?

@erik_squires . Hello again. Don’t wish to argue but I believe your statement “will playback at full resolution is in error. I think the MQA process simply will not play back “bit perfect” due to the nature of the algorithms. Are you sure of your comment. Could you educate me? Thanks

@ptss

My statement:

2 - DRM prevents copying. MQA does not do this. I can make copies and send them to others. If they have an MQA capable player, it will play at full resolution.

Was specifically about Digital Rights Management, which MQA has nothing to do with. Any MQA file may be copied by any file copy method. Those copies all retain the same qualities of the original MQA file and therefore it is not DRM.

It is closer to "Dolby Surround" in that any stereo can pay back "Dolby Surround" but only Dolby branded decoders will enable the full 4 channel playback. But Dolby Surround does not in anyway prevent copying.

Best,
Erik

I am listening to MQA Master albums at several resolutions from 24/44 up to 24/385 and am very impressed what the new format achieves and how it improves the sound quality. One of the better articles out there explaining MQA is this one https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/mqa-time-domain-accuracy-digital-audio-quality