MQA is for chumps

Wow.  MQA always seemed like a scam to me, so it’s interesting to see some objective measurements that would seem to confirm it.  I was happier with Qobuz after dumping Tidal, and now I’m even more so.  I hope this message gets more traction so MQA can’t impose itself further into hi-res audio than it already has.  Thanks for posting the link!

When I was in the market to try streaming, I bought a Mytek Brooklyn Bridge because it came with MQA capability. I gave the process a fair shot and, yes, it did improve sound quality a bit over Tidal's bread-and-butter streaming. The trouble was that Qobuz, without MQA, gave me better fidelity than Tidal whether Tidal was MQA-ing or not. Long story short -- I dropped Tidal and have never given MQA another thought.

edcyn.  
Well and good except for the MQA has your money in the form of the license fee. They have mine too and I’ve never even tried it, even during a crappy Tidal trial.
Calls for a revolt.

Watching this video you’d have to conclude that MQA is a fraud!

How did the industry fall for it?  I think Stereophile's John Atkinson was in MQA's pocket.

Possibly of interest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy58d5Y4J_s&ab_channel=TheHansBeekhuyzenChannel

Didn't MQA start back when bandwidth was a bit less, and it allowed data transfer with less loss than mp3s?  It had a real reason initially.  Might even be a little valid today with many mobile and internet providers returning to limited data allowances.

I finally broke down and subscribed to Tidal last month, with a decision to set up one or two systems with streaming capability.  I'm still sorting through streamer/ DAC options.  I suspect MQA will not remain a big Tidal item for much longer, so I may get a mix of DACs with and without MQA.  I rarely listen 'critically' these days as others are always home so I cannot really turn it up to a realistic volume.  My son and my wife are enjoying the overall selections, but the music my wife is listening to does not have anything in MQA.

But is there still a place for MQA when bandwidth/ data is limited?  My view is from the US, and I know data can vary around the world.  At my mother-in-law's house in Russia she does not get a reliable enough connection for video calls.  MQA might allow places like that to get higher quality music than otherwise feasible.

I have both Tidal and Qobuz, in most cases I prefer the sound of Qobuz. MQA files on my system sound kind of muddy. 

Once I get my playlists copied over to Qobuz I don't see any reason to keep Tidal. 

How did the industry fall for it? I think Stereophile's John Atkinson was in MQA's pocket.

No he was not.

blaktalon.
True dat. MQA was originally a solution for a problem that quickly vanshed most places and it morphed into a top secret cash extractor.
In Russia they can do their own upsampling, probably better sounding.

I have heard MQA albums that sounded very, very good. Actually much better than CD. I have also heard some that sounded OK. I really don’t fuss about it. Some like it, some don’t. Of all the things I feel are forced down my throat, MQA is the least of my worries. In the digital age I can listen to an analog rig or digital rig. I can steam or listen to CDs or listen to a reel to reel deck.... a great time for audio. I remember when CD’s came to market and I bought one of the first CD players, Sony CDP-101. Analog guys said it was the devil.....hahaha.

I said it before, and I'll say it again:
MQA is just Dolby for the 21st century.
Bob

Blacktalon hit the nail on the head.

Great video Fuzztone. 
The good news is unlike other hardware and software formats, I don’t have money invested in this one, and the alternatives sound great. So, I’m not stuck or vested in it. 
When I had an NAD M51 DAC , I could hear a difference with MQA and at times, depending on the recording, it could be great. I have a tube DAC now without MQA support. FLAC sounds great —better than Redbook to me. 
I’m also hedged as I have a good chunk of vinyl abs super analog setup. 
Do folks think MQA’s future is bleak?  That’s interesting. As ISP bandwidth increases maybe none of this is necessary anyway. 

I had Tidal for 1 year and then subscribed to Qobuz as well. Both subscription at thier premier levels. Within 90 days I cancelled Tidal.

I’m very happy with Qobuz sound quality.

I never invested in any hardware supporting MQA and dumped Tidal as soon as Qobuz became available in the US. Qobuz blows away Tidal in both in SQ and content. 

Yeah watched this the other day (thanks YouTube for sticking it in my feed)
Just the fact they tried/did delete his material speaks volumes.

I have a bluesound node with mqa and when I was looking for a DAC I originally thought mqa was a must-have for the DAC. Then I decided to ignore MQA and this video makes me feel a lot better about that decision.

Does anyone have any experience with CDs encoded with MQA? I have a fair number of the Japanese MQA encoded discs and have wondered if I would get a benefit in purchasing a DAC that has the capability.

My first streamer was a Naim that did not support MQA. I was very envious at the time of those who could run Qobuz and Tidal/MQA. I upgraded to a dCS and had Tidal and Qobuz for about 6 months. I tried and tried to think MQA was an advantage, but all I got in my ears was different, but not better. Tidal was also going for a buyer with different musical preferences than I. Now I only subscribe to Qobuz  and have no concerns I am missing anything.

Second-
how do MQA-CDs sound?  Happy Listening!

All meddling with the source signal introduces sound degradation, whether in the analogue or digital domain.  Tone controls, bass & treble adjustment, speaker crossovers, Dolby, equalisers, click and pop eliminators, MQA-like processors.  All the same.

It is impossible to adjust the sound without introducing distortion.
That is the reason for the unlifelike presentation that many people hear in digital, compared to the more lifelike analogue presentation.  The main direct causes are DA converters and clock dither.  These faults can never be fully addressed, as has been shown in the 40+ years since digital recording started.

Simple is best, leave well alone.

Clear thinker:  The “faults” have been addressed.  It’s got great sound and is somewhat ‘future proofed” with two MDC slots.  I’ll take this in both the convenience of easy integration and huge selection of artists via Qobuz, and SQ that’s better than vinyl.

https://nadelectronics.com/m33/

roadwhorerecords

Just attracting you to giving up some cash IS their business model. I am amazed that they sold any Japanese CD makers on it.
Submit them for testing before enriching probable fraudsters.

clearthinker. 

The most common problem with "digital’" is the AD conversion at the originating studio in the first place.
It is very difficult to make a purse out of a porcine ear.

@fuzztone 

Thank you for the very thorough investigation and your perseverance in doing this. For me any technology that cannot be explained in scientific terms ("folding" a digital file describes more something like magic rather than science) and does not allow independent reviewers to test it, smells like a scam to me.
Now I can see from your analysis the proof why MQA never sounded that good to me...

Fuzztone -- I don't feel any anger over the fact I forked over a few bucks for an MQA license fee. I took my chances.  I paid my money with open eyes. To me it's the equivalent of tube-rolling. It can take a good deal of time to find if you really do, say, prefer  EL-34s over 6550's.

Did not watch your video but as I read MQA is for providers not consumers. If true I give it a big FU!

Thanks for posting that, fuzztone 

I can just add that Qobuz is not even available where I live, hence I use Tidal. It does sound a lot better than Spotify. When Spotify starts with high rez music I will probably switch to that.

I heard MQA when it first came out and felt back then that it was truly snake oil. It was at THE SHOW and the people presenting the introduction were akin to those who sell time shares. We were not allowed to ask specific questions they just kept trying to pour into our heads of how good it sounded, i wondered what they were hearing as i heard poop. Total rip off.

I actually have 2 time shares that I am happy with. A small minority of that product is OK. But I do agree that the majority of the sales force is blatant lying PsOS.

My impression is also that MQA was developed as a way to sell the public on the idea of compressed files as being "lossless".

@fuzztone 
 I'll take heed on your advice, thanks. If/when I get another DAC I like for it's properties alone, and by chance it includes MQA, fine. It will give me something to play with and offer hands on advice later up the road.

"Sell" is the operative word.

I quickly ended my Tidal subscription  and went to Qobuz.   I thought my DAC sounded better than my Vault's analog outs with MQA tracks.   

Radio Paradise just started streaming MQA content.   So I clicked on an MQA "station" and fed the digital stream to my DAC.   Played it fine , sound was pretty good.... the DAC identified the stream as " 88.2"....

Can anyone explain this??

Fuzz
”Well and good except for the MQA has your money in the form of the license fee. They have mine too and I’ve never even tried it, even during a crappy Tidal trial.”

Same here. Doing a Deezer trial now - so far so good. 
Should be interesting to see how Spotify responds to this, after they take a closer look at this marker. 

Finally was able to get a Qobuz subscription last night, now begins the work finding the same music that I have in my Tidal library in my new Quboz library, are there any programs/apps that can do this ?
Have been very disappointed with Tidal after they choose to incorporate MQA into all their  library ( it seams )!
The music industry must be the worst industry catering for their users! It seams they want the user to be 20 years behind in quality in respect to movie enthusiasts that seam to get better quality nearly every year!

So,happy to make the move to Qobus, hopefully it will be a easy transition, the opportunity to buy the music you really like is a big plus too.

are there any programs/apps that can do this ?

http://blogsv2.qobuz.com/qobuz-blog-en/2017/09/05/import-your-playlists-into-qobuz-with-soundiiz/

Worked good for me from Spotify.
Congrats on finally making it in.

Fuzztone - thanks, will try the link.

I was just digging a p/l that I imported. Then I checked Qobuz files. They have more releases than Spotify did.   Even better.
Jay Graydon

Looks like all the cable naysayers from ANA are on this thread. Do you know how stupid some of these threads look? You try to push so called experts docs/videos biases against your narrative, who gives a sh$t? If you can’t hear or you don’t have a decent system, you won’t hear any difference between cd and dsd/mqa, same goes for cables. These same mqa naysayers probably hated SACD, which was a huge breakthrough in digital music sound wise. If you like cd quality music, good for you, I’m not going to try and convince you otherwise, and you will be saving money by not going with the better formats. Qobuz was inferior to tidal IMO, qobuz didn’t have all the music I like nor did it sound as good.

I love SACD.  I didn’t perceive any consistent difference with MQA.  What does ANA stand for?  In my world it’s Anti Nuclear Antibody 

I have a great, MQA-enabled Esoteric K-01XD SACD/CD player.

The MQA CDs that I own, from Hilary Hahn, Joni Mitchell (Blue), and Chick Corea (Return to Forever) are UHQCD-MQA 24 bit remasters and they sound better than the same CDs in SACD and Redbook CD formats. However, all of my UHQCD disks sound better on my system, so it is hard to determine what format is responsible.

MQA is already a marketing failure for someone like me, because there are very few MQA CDs or vinyl records for sale anywhere, even in Japan. This suggests that this highly-touted format is not all that it was cracked up to be, even following those ads of the woman crying when she hears the MQA format for the first time.

Hi

I agree with Blacktalon ...MQA was a short term solution for getting around  limited bandwidth and high end listening ...  basically a compression technology ... to give better quality at a given file size..   As storage and bandwidth become cheaper and more available MQA will not be a "must have" but a nice to have for some situations...  As more providers stream higher res files and homes getting higher bandwidth service , WIFI specs increase etc... file size will not be the gating factor in music streaming and quality....   but it will have its place in portable situations .. but then again in most portable / mobile situations is there a MAJOR need hi end streaming?  Yes ,  I am thinking about value engineering ( AKA " Good Enough" ) ( not a good characteristic in a Audiophile).

Good Hunting and listening.
Bill Sohne

I did a quick ear test, from Tidal to QB and cancelled Tidal and bought a year of Sublime QB.  I can tell you from my two ears and brain, I should have done this long ago.

JT

Mr. Chump here.  Bad MQA recordings sound bad.  Bad cd recordings sound bad.  Really good MQA recordings sound better than really good cd recordings.

If you prefer another format, it doesn’t change my assessment one bit.

I stream both Tidal and Qobuzz via a Cambridge CXNv2 to a Benchmark DAC 3b,  I would say Tidal is slightly better than straight Redbook although I am using a Sony XA5400 ES which Stereophile gave an A+ to.  I think that may be because they are using newer masters with better methods than the older CDs I have.  I would also say Qobuzz in general sounds better than Tidal in general and Qobuzz high rez is better yet although some sound a bit edged...  like an over-sharpened photo.  I find Tidal easier to use and seems to have more material when I look for a particular artist.  For the price of 2 CDs a month I'll keep them both.  FWIW, there are some internet radio stations out there broadcasting in 250 and 320 kbps that sound as good as Qobuzz hi rez.

Wish I had read this thread before starting another upon first discovering, after changing streamers, that MQA sucks, which is no doubt why Tidal Masters suck. Tidal offers both original and Master versions of many classics, so I put both formats in playlist and in EVERY case preferred the original. I have used the term "dumbed-down" to describe MQA. gdnrbob put it well, "Dolby for the 21st Century." I would even say Muzak for the 21st Century. Time to try Qobuz anyhow. Thanks to all above.

Good to see people coming around to what I heard years ago, as did many people I respect. YET there are too many false ideas still being put forward. The main issues I have as a mastering engineer and an artist advocate, and a person who has done the A/B testing as part of their pitch to get me involved are: #1. There is no improving on the sample rate/bit depth of a master, ever. Not upsampling, not new filters (MQA) ... nothing. This idea is a dream for suckers, and shows they are clueless. The MASTERING SESSION sample rate and bit depth ARE the highest quality. Furthermore, more samples IS NOT MORE QUALITY. The AD converter quality matters most, not the 44.1 or the 192. #2. MQA claims their files to be both created and "authenticated" in mastering ... and that’s 99% a lie. They have been bulk processing to create a market. Why create a market? Because they need money since streaming killed Meridian DVD income. I am sorry gents but this is not the way to pay your bills, get a real job. #3. The artifact of their non-filter filtering is a touch of distortion which in SOME cases yes "sounds better" because of the distortion helping especially older and more dynamic CDs, and there is POSSIBLY also a small level bump. Yet no matter those details, in ALL cases this artifact is a distortion not authorized by the artist and the production team. They are SHITTING ON masters in the name of upgrading. Very rude. #4. This artifact is denied by them of course, they claim to be "fixing PCM", which is absurd. And they legally got a patent to say it’s "lossless" ... so they are a lying pack of con men happy to pay lawyers to sucker in the press and the gullible narcissists who say "I like it" so it’s better. This is not a new pair of speakers where subjectivity matters, this is the MASTER RECORDING. In summary, they are interested in the image of helping music more than the music itself, or the artists, or the integrity of anything. Interested in placing themselves in the middle of every stream for $$$$. It could not be more ethically reprehensible. My work and my clients suffer at their hands every time, as I put in the EXACT distortion needed.

I have friends who have said that an MQA song actually sounded worse than the CD version.  I think the MQA owners will probably see the writing on the wall here and just keep this MQA money machine rolling to make as much money possible until the whole thing eventually implodes.  They are definitely not doing stuff for the benefit of us audiophiles and listeners.

Mr. Chump.
The quality of your listening acumen is seriously impuned by the tests. You’re saying that distortion and needless upsampling sound better to your ears. At least you’re getting what you’re paying for.

brianlucey
Right on brother. 2nd generation rules apply to digital too.
You can fool unsophisticates into thinking it "sounds" better, like lipstick on a wild bore