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.
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
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) > https://www.stereophile.com/content/more-mqa |
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. |
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. |
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) Enjoy the Music! :) |
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. |
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... |
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. Cheers George |
| Post removed |
@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. |
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 |
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 . |
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... |
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 |
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! :) |
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. :) |
Summary so far (after listening to everything with my own ears) :- 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”?........." |
"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. |
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 |
| Post removed |
+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... |
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. |
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. |
