MQA•Foolish New Algorithm? Vote!

 No

Yes... I like what I hear

MQA is a blessing to those of us that are heavy Tidal users and value best possible sound quality.

This is widely accepted now where streaming is concerned.  :)

I don’t give a flip about anything but sound quality and I am satisfied that MQA is a blessing to those of us that are heavy Tidal users and value best possible sound quality.

Amen brother!

@mcgal 

Last count there were approx 5000 MQA titles on Tidal, not a bad start imho

A money-grabbing scheme by THE BIG THREE (Warners - Universal - Sony) to get the innocent to buy the SAME music all over again! And a sneaky Trojan horse of DRM! 

MQA's claim of "authenticity" (the little blue light) is plainly bogus! See FredericV's posts (Feb 20) on the Computer Audio site! 

So you compared a streamed MQA track to a downloaded track, yes? I thought the point of MQA was the streaming part????

roberjerman
MQA's claim of "authenticity" (the little blue light) is plainly bogus! See FredericV's posts (Feb 20) on the Computer Audio site!

Can't find it can you post up a link to it?

Cheers George.

@roberjerman.

Have you actually listened to MQA files or are your arguments purely based on reading tech info?
2 years ago I would have said you were nuts if you thought changing a fuse and even the directionality of said fuse would have ANY sq impact. This i was gladly proved wrong over and a believer was made.
The same holds true with MQA, I have read the blurb but I know also what I hear and at the end of the day that is truly all that matters to me in,my system.

Summary so far (after listening to everything with my own ears) :-

1. Foolish new algorithm? - I vote Yes
2. MQA for better sound? - I vote No
3. MQA for music industry to milk more money? - I vote Yes
4. MQA enjoyable? - Many vote Yes as indeed it is anyone’s
prerogative to enjoy any format that is enjoyable
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.

Enjoy the music!

J. :)

I've been some A&B comparisons and I can tell the  difference approximately half the time and mqa does indeed seem to sound better to me. 

I have Tidal and Gen1 and Gen2 Bluesound Nodes.
MQA is like a free bonus to me.
I haven’t done any critical testing but I listen to the MQA version when available through the analog outputs and use Pure Direct and it sounds good to me.

I have quite a few DVD-A and SACD discs and thouroghly enjoy them as well. (5.1 surround is quite enjoyable at times)

Now, if I could just find time to unpack the Revels and get them in the mix would be great.
Enjoy

Chris

Pmotz. Thank you for pointing out the conflict. An important point. New “improved” question coming soon. Thanks to all. Very interesting re Tidal!

Yes. I think the key thing is trying to get better sound than 16/44 with the same or lower bitrate, and they might have done that.

If I understand it correctly,  MQA is higher bit rate than 16/44.

IMO, it's not a clear "yes" or "no".

To me, most of the MQA remasters DO sound better, but not all of them.

Using jon2020's list:

1. Foolish new algorithm? - I vote No
2. MQA for better sound? - I vote Yes more than No
3. MQA for music industry to milk more money? - I vote Yes
4. MQA enjoyable? - I vote 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 (especially compared to DSD).

I'm beginning to wonder if the reason my SACD/CD player sounds the best is that I have a PS Audio DirectStream DAC & transport, with the I2S interconnects...which from what I'm learning, separates the musical bits from the timing, making the timing more accurate.  I'm wondering if adding a "reclocker" to my USB path from the source to the DAC will produce the same level of sound quality that I'm enjoying with the I2S linked products.

At some point I'll probably spring for some reclocking device.

Thanks to all responders. Particular mention to pmotz indenifying the lack of clarity in the OP; also to georgehifi for highlighting the blatant disrespect of the MQA folks exhibited by attempting to ensure their filters would ‘always’ be in place - “without the consumers knowledge” thereby completely invalidating any attempted comparisons between MQA and NON MQA playback. FWIW this type of underhanded behaviour turns me off. If I go to someone with a simple question—and find they lie to me—they’ve just educated me on how to interpret anything else they say. Shameful behaviour on their part,no? I chose not to deal with people who misrepresent anything to me. And I think most reasonable feel as I do. 

+1, ptss.

Once deception is detected, why bother anymore?
Conversely, if one is true in the heart, why bother to deceive?

2 big deceptions exposed :-

1. At Stereophile by JA

2.https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/38608-truncating-mqa-files-to-16-bits-and-the-blue-l...

Only heard MQA/non MQA a/b demoed one time.  Constellation electronics driving Magico speakers. To my ears, there was a slight preference for the MQA. JMO

Here’s a couple of other revealing stats based on responses from this thread:

1) 100 percent correlation of negative responses from those that have never actually heard the product.
2) 100 percent predictability of 1) above based on the clearly derisive wording of the original post.
3) Zero impact of the positive commentary from those with actual MQA experience on the others’ preconceived negative bias derived without any personal experience.

I think this is known as a “bust”?

Dave

"Only heard MQA/non MQA a/b demoed one time. Constellation electronics driving Magico speakers. To my ears, there was a slight preference for the MQA. JMO"

No public demo has been done comparing an MQA track played through an MQA dac with a non-MQA hires version of the same track played through a non-MQA dac. 

Such a comparison if done will eliminate completely the potential of MQA code in a single dac unit to mess up non-MQA files, as pointed out by JA at Stereophile.

This messing with a non-MQA file will result in an MQA file always sounding better than a non-MQA file from the single unit MQA dac.

Summary so far (after listening to everything with my own ears) :-
1. Foolish new algorithm? - I vote Yes
2. MQA for better sound? - I vote No
3. MQA for music industry to milk more money? - I vote Yes
4. MQA enjoyable? - Many vote Yes as indeed it is anyone’s prerogative to enjoy any format that is enjoyable
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.
Enjoy the music!
J. :)

Looks like my unequivocal qualification right at the top before declaring my votes has been chosen to be overlooked. :(

Here’s the real bust :-

".....3) Zero impact of the positive commentary from those with actual MQA experience on the others’ preconceived negative bias derived without any personal experience.
I think this is known as a “bust”?........."

+1 Dave!

Been enjoying MQA on the Aurender A10 for a year now  I would not pay extra for it but free it is good

@jon2020.

I do not doubt you hear what you hear and that is fine.
But do not get angered or derisive of others who also know what they hear even if it is a polar opposite view/opinion to yours.

Uberwaltz,

Not the least bit angry.
More like people are just not listening to what I have said many, many times
- please continue to enjoy whatever format you enjoy.
No-one can deny anyone that prerogative(using this word for the umpteenth time).
Hope this finally sinks in.

Enjoy the music!
J. :)

Thanks, keithtexas, for letting us know that the dac was an Ayre. 

As the Ayre is a non-MQA dac, it is unlikely that they could demo mqa with it. It is probably some other MQA-capable dac on demo.

No worries. At an audio show, many of us including myself, get confused with what is playing in what room at what time. :)

There will never be a "winner" in this debate
Agreed that everybody should just listen and "hear" what they desire.
There are many more subjects in the audio world with science a plenty to "prove" that what some hear is not possible.
Let us just leave it at that

It is all subjective of course. No one here is looking for any winner from a handful of votes.

People will hear what they want to hear which is perfectly acceptable in this hobby.

Outside of this hobby, people also see what they want to see which is acceptable too.

What I find very interesting is people reading what they want to read. Now, that’s too funny.

Enjoy the music! :)

It’s actually not all subjective. Science is a real thing. It allows us to listen to music in the first place as we know and love.

There are facts. There are opinions.

Let us please differentiate between Fact and Feeling

Facts:
Is MQA equal to the source? No. (we can phase flip the source vs MQA and hear this)

So is it lossless, as advertised and patented? No


Feelings:
Is it better? MQA seems subjective on this question only because audiophiles like to have a say in the playback process, with your various playback gear choices. Playback is your art form. Fair enough.

Yet MQA as better is in fact not a subjective topic. It’s not better because if there was a better sound, a skilled engineer would have done that in the processing. And why can I say that? I’m a mastering engineer and my work today is being butchered with MQA

a) Harmonic distortion the we (myself and the label and the artist does not want)
b) Mid Side power and freq changes that we don’t want
c) 8 bits can be removed and replaced with noise and the LED lights up still

Is MQA being "Authenticated" my Mastering Engineers? No. It’s being BULK PROCESSED.

Future:
Is this the best codec science and invention will ever give us? Should be stop innovation now and start paying MQA royalties for DA and Per song?

Should we make all the great DA of the world obsolete based on this subjective sport Audiophiles enjoy playing?


God please, I hope we are smarter than that.


Should Bob and Co have the courage to have a debate with serious people? Yes.
Do they? No.

www.magicgardenmastering.com

No, it is going to die just like HDCD and others. Long live MP3 (ha!) as most of the public is tin eared.

No.

I've heard it on an mqa-equipped DAC in my system and compared it, and it's kind of obvious how I feel about it (given my avatar).  Is it different?  Yes. Is it better? Well...it's different.  

I think what really p#sses a lot of us high-end consumers off is how rags like Stereophile (and especially John Atkinson) have stooped to the level of gaslighting for mqa, even going so far as to insult the entire portion of the Internet who does not agree with him.  It's not that they're just *mentioning* mqa, they're hammering it at us hard and fast. And they are not the only ones.  The audiophile press are genuinely in disbelief as to why us clueless consumers don't see that mqa is the Greatest Audiophile Thing Ever.

As for the consumers? We just want to know what the press's agenda is.  Also, the failure of the mqa folks to appear at a panel at RMAF is telling.  And has anyone tried to read the technobabble nonsense in mqa's white papers?  Incomprehensible. Give us the clean, no-BS version.  And other than highly controlled tests personally hovered over by bob stuart, with masters of unknown origin, has there ever been a truly fair and honest comparison?  Not that I know of.

The industry never learned from the failure of HDCD; this is just round two. We have sufficient broadband to stream lossless at a full 24-bit, 96kHz, and with Qobuz on the horizon in the US and Tidal in continual financial distress, there really is no guarantee mqa will be around for streaming in a year or two from now.  

Short version?  It is the answer to a question nobody asked. 

You can guess my vote in this poll...

I have yamaha as 801 int amp has built in ess 32 dac 9010, also bought project pre box  S2 with MQA decode with ess 9038 to debate. With Tidal I can compare MQA files and the same non MQA . My opinion I have think MQA is just another filter option, pre box has 8 filters but MQA definitely has a tad more midrange to other filters your choice with Tidal .

 No

Yes MQA Tidal is better than any other Streaming service..
At $200 a Meridian Ex2 is the way to go .. A $5000 MQA Streamer??, Not yet in my book..

No

3 things need to be said...
1. the only reason MQA exists is for the portion of the population that wants audiophile quality that is portable.
2. laziness. there are times when I’m listening to my record collection and don’t want to get up every 10-15 min to flip and/or change record and ....
3. argue all u want about quality, sound, detail etc. All and I mean ALL of this is subjective. You could science the sh*t out of this with all the meters, graphs etc. pointing to better quality etc and it all come down to this---my ears are different than your ears...PERIOD.

It goes back to the tube/solid state argument. what sounds good to me may not sound good to you.

Argue that

No! MQA is just a clever scheme by the Big Three to get you the consumer to buy the same music all over again! NO SONIC BENEFIT!

MQA is a lossy format with at best 15 -17 bits dynamic range and leaky filters! See the discussions in Computer Audio (particularly FredericV's posts).

@roberjerman.

No sonic benefit?
To your ears possibly but you cannot make a broad damning statement like that when others here have stated they can hear a difference.
Not sure as I would go as far to state its a sonic benefit but I like what I hear in my system to my ears.
And that’s as far as you can take it.
EVERYONE will hear differently in their system, room, ears.

Yes, MQA encoded files on Tidal are fantastic.

NO - It's tied to DRM versus bandwidth.
I can get the same effect using the Loudness function in JRiver.

I'm going to go out on a 50 foot long, 1 inch thick limb here.  I'm perfectly content listening to vinyl on my Denon DP-59L w/Stanton 881S cartridge into a Pioneer SX-1250 receiver, terminating in a pair of Bose 901 Series II speakers.  There, I said it.

See FredericV's posts on the Computer Audiophile site. The best technical- oriented exposition of the pro's and con's of MQA! Mrs. Atkinson and Harley should read it! "Little blue light" indeed!