The best part about MQA bankruptcy..

@philosurfer there are billions of people in the world (and many millions in the US) who technically or financially couldn’t access these speeds - so if MQA can be a vehicle that helps in these situations (even though it would rank very low on a priority list in these circumstances), what’s the problem?

I understand where you’re coming from and I agree that there’s nothing wrong with helping people out with compressed -- i.e. easier to download -- files.

We already have MP3 for that -- and it’s free...

...Unlike MQA, with its misleading name, which is exclusive and costly.

And was, annoyingly IMO, promoted and financed under what seems like false pretences (of lossless, master tape sonic quality) which claims were later on retracted....

The best part about MQA bankruptcy is that maybe people who don't like it or don't use it will stop bashing it. Or maybe they will keeping bitching about it for the next 20 years. Probably the latter...

2psyop

Thanks for the sarcasm and the laugh.😀

Yep.  People on 56K ADSL modems are absolutely the target market for MQA standalone DACs. 

The best part about MQA bankruptcy is that maybe people who don't like it or don't use it will stop bashing it. Or maybe they will keeping bitching about it for the next 20 years.

so so true...

@erik_squires 

Thanks for bringing the MQA bankruptcy news to our attention.  I have to think the sunsetting of MQA is largely based on whether TIDAL is gaining or losing subscribers to Qobuz or other hi-res music subscription services. As we all know, MQA is associated with TIDAL.

I was an early adopter of TIDAL, chiefly due to the perceived SQ advantage that MQA formatted tracks represent.  I was also an early adopter of Qobuz once it made it's way to the US and IMO there was and still is no doubt that Qobuz is a better service largely due to the high percentage of hi-res tracks Qobuz offers.

Erik, love the play on words you used on 'unfolding'.

@onhwy61 Sorry about that.  I now see you were the one that used the 'unfolding' line.  Very clever.

@audioisnobiggie SACD is not dead, it prospers as even higher bitrate dsd files.  They're up to dsd256, up from the original 64, so far.  There's probably higher already, my dac can do 512.

yes but there is a huge disadvantage to dsd 512 the file sizes are very large and still to this day hard drives are not big enough to fit many albums at dsd 512 size even dsd 256 will also take up way too much space with not that much of a difference in sound from 44.1 kHz and 16 bits, it’s quite sad how much we get ripped off and never taught the truth 

MQA is very good from my experience with a MSB DAC.

I have a dCS Bartok (now being upgraded to Apex) and I have the same experience when playing MQA files on Tidal. These DACs, and perhaps some other high end DACs, have been able to deliver excellent SQ from MQA. If you heard MQA over these DACs you might change your mind about its quality.

Erik, love the play on words you used on ’unfolding’.

@cycles2

True credit here goes to @onhwy61 , I just borrowed his idea.

These DACs, and perhaps some other high end DACs, have been able to deliver excellent SQ from MQA. If you heard MQA over these DACs you might change your mind about its quality.

Isn't 95% of the perceived sound quality a result of convincing engineering in the recording - meaning mics, placement room, preamps, conversion and convincing artistic choices in mastering?
The medium or resolution itself is IMO only a limiting factor if you go below cd quality. A better recording "on cd" sounds better than a lesser recording on high-rez.

Regarding MQA: Its point is not compression per se (and/or the unfolding of your pocket) but the integrated view on the whole chain of AD anti-aliasing and DA oversampling filters and the touted control of an optimal resulting impulse response.

The first problem is the black box, the secrecy, intransparency and lack of control around the process.

A second possible problem is the promised phase- & impulse-perfect stitching together of a 22kHz lowpass signal with a 22kHz high pass signal.

I'd like to see also "neutral" comparisons of impulse measurements AD/DA of a complete recording chain, including measurements of dynamically more complex signals. Usually one only sees "filter ringing" provoked by incorrect artificial digital signals on DA. 

The somehow speculative audibility of filter ringing will disappear the higher the sampling rate.

I still find the idea of MQA intriguing and promising - except the ripp-off aspect...

Most of these ignorant replies sound exactly like the audiophool cable naysayers on ANA. How can a $50 cable sound better than my .02 cent cable, must be snake oil. That’s exactly how most of these posts sound. So many wrong posts. The post about having to spend $$$ to get mqa. BS, with a firmware upgrade my last 2 DACs got mqa support. Get a good dac in the beginning that’s fpga based and you won’t be left with old technology. The post about mqa unlistenable. My reply, get new ears or get a good system. I’m sure most of you were also sacd naysayers, just hated to buy sacd discs or have to get a sacd player. Mqa is less invasive than sacd was/is. 

MQA is very good from my experience with a MSB DAC.

this comment came up in a different but related thread

i would concur, mqa content sounds simply lovely on my msb analog dac... but as i said there as well, i would only add that i think this speaks much more about the quality of the msb than about the benefit of mqa...

Most of these ignorant replies

@p05129

Point out one. Point out any reply you feel is actually ignorant. Personal experience is not ignorance. It’s the opposite. It’s sharing of knowledge gained one person at a time.

How can a $50 cable sound better than my .02 cent cable, must be snake oil.

Well, this is a straw man argument that’s actually the opposite. In this case we are not going from theory and declaring the process bogus, we are going from personal experience, and some analysis by folks such as Benchmark Media to make our points.

BTW: I was personally very excited about MQA at first. It was my own listening tests which failed to find value. Even members of the SF audio society with systems much more expensive than mine were having a really difficult time finding a reason for it.

The post about having to spend $$$ to get mqa. BS, with a firmware upgrade my last 2 DACs got mqa support.

That didn’t happen for free, and the point is that MQA is a brand that is licensed and therefore adds to the cost per unit. It’s not something they are giving away.

Are you aware that MQA is a lossy format? See the Benchmark white paper on it.

If I was a rude, self righteous person I’d point out that you haven’t read it and you are probably therefore ignorant, but I’m not like that.

My reply, get new ears or get a good system. I’m sure most of you were also sacd naysayers, just hated to buy sacd discs or have to get a sacd player.

You are setting up a tautology: If you can’t hear how good MQA is you must have a bad system or bad ears.

All in all a very pleasant way to address others on this board.

These are all practically ad hominen attacks on other posters.  I strongly suggest that if you want to refute the thread, post personal experience, including equipment and examples that would let others follow along with your reasoning.

@erik_squires 

+1

Don’t worry, only 1 company charges double for high res audio-only, and then doesn’t actually give you more bandwidth.  Which you need to trade in your 10k dac for the same thing but with a cheap chip first to be able to hear any difference.