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.
The best part about MQA bankruptcy..
Is going to be that we will see many fewer discussions on Audiogon about it! 🤣
Now we can all focus on hating on ASR and professional reviewers.
https://www.whathifi.com/news/mqa-is-going-into-administration
66 responses Add your response
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.
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.
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.
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. |
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 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. |
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? 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... |
@cycles2 True credit here goes to @onhwy61 , I just borrowed his idea. |
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. |
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 |
@onhwy61 Sorry about that. I now see you were the one that used the 'unfolding' line. Very clever. |
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'.
|
Thanks for the sarcasm and the laugh.😀 |
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....
|
I'm guessing that response is a change of position on it (TIC)? Or do people just want faster downloads of cat pictures?
One point is that 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? Greater adoption would be great (in the long run) for everyone. |
Well, that link shows (if you read further down on that page) that there are far more countries experiencing lower data rates (vs. higher) than the US. But the US also bilks customers at every opportunity - is it, then, time to change the system? |
MQA is an extra chip to make your gear do what it could already do. If mqa works as well as possible, it will sound exactly the same as if they had just trickled double the data. Netflix streams 42 times as much data as a 44.1 audio stream. Oh wait, that's if the stream is uncompressed, I forgot to flac it to roughly 60% at the end. There's nothing a server can do, besides doing nothing, that is easier on it than streaming audio files. Especially if they're compressed at all. People who compress never want you to find out about it, though. People who charge double for streaming audio must want someone else to do it. Then there's mqa, who wants to compress on top of it, with a name they think will sound better than higher resolution. Then Tidal charges double and hires them. |
The US lags behind the rest of the world due to it's insistence on capitalism uber alles. Performance per community and cost per connection varies a great deal here, but MQA is an elite product. It's not for your average buyer of ear buds, so I think I'm safe saying that if I can stream Netflix 4k I don't need compression for music, and therefore, for the target audience, MQA's compression is a non-value. |
According to this reasonably recent Netflix Tech Blog post, the highest they stream at is 11.8 Mbps: https://netflixtechblog.com/optimized-shot-based-encodes-for-4k-now-streaming-47b516b10bbb. For 192/24 uncompressed stereo audio streaming, we have 192,000 * 2 * 24 = 9.216 Mbps. Which is lower, yet surprisingly close to the max Netflix data rate. There is a neuro-physiological reason behind this: human brain devotes on average roughly about as much neural processing volume to visual as to audio information. In blind people, audio processing takes over part of the brain volume that otherwise would be dedicated to visual processing, and they can "see" better with their hearing. So, while it is true that those who can stream 4K Netflix movies can stream uncompressed 192/24 audio too, audio compression still has its place, especially in the areas of the world where bandwidth isn't as plentiful. |
I have a Meridian system, and the MQA from Tidal sounds a bit thin, although the ones with Studio rating tend to sound fine; the MQA from Qobuz sounds much better, but the recordings are so rare that when I asked them about it the respondent seemed stunned that there was any MQA at all. As for Tidal being in trouble, I hope someone will explain this to me; would they definitely lose all ability to to stream everything they have, now, or is this just speculation about what a new MQA licensor would do (who pays the MQA fees; the record label or Tidal?)? |
@erik_squires Re: worldwide internet speeds, I don’t know where [everyone writing about this] gets their information. Here’s a source from which I’d argue that compression is still very useful (are we really that elite?): https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/internet-speeds-by-country |
Yeah, TIdal shouldn’t have to go bankrupt also, they’re just losing credibility for letting mqa spoof so many people. But it’s true, streaming higher res audio is a trickle compared to Netflix, which streams 42 times as much with their 4k plan as Tidal does with any plan, for notable less money. (Tidal streams the same amount no matter which plan you get) If you bought a dac that has an mqa chip, remember that mqa's only hope is to sound like it wasn't even there, and it could actually really equal what it would sound like if Tidal had just trickled more, like everyone else does. Ha, if mqa wants to be the best thing ever, it has to sound like it doesn't even exist, anyways. |
FTR: I have an early MQA capable DAC and I ended up turning it off early on. I couldn’t hear a benefit and my DAC forced me to stick to apodizing filters which I didn’t like as much as other choices. From a pure sound quality perspective I’ve just never heard a reason to use it, and from a bandwidth savings perspective it’s the 21st Century and even in the US we don’t need it. |
4afsanakhan: Have you tried to equal cd with uncompressed files on another source? It's not easy, because sources probably only get noisier and more complex after a cd reader. If you can get it going, more confidence about the reading than scratchable disks, better playlists, and then higher res await. But good luck keeping it that quiet. |
Pulled out a treasure trove of CD-Rs that were recordings of live concerts in peoples homes. Pioneer BDP-09fd playing into Devialet Expert Pro 220 (this time as preamp (not DAC) then out to tube amp. I love Qobuz, and for certain music Apple Music. Great sound quality, BUT, not on the level of what i heard on the CD-R. The sense of palpability, music and soundstage extending all over, was just greater and more easily produced with the CD. There is also another level of resolution, even though Qobuz generally sounds great. My feeling is that streaming services equals xcllnt sound and super convenience. CD equals even better sound with a bit less convenience because the library is limited.. Vinyl equals the possibility of the state of the art sound, but with a good deal of inconvenience, primarily because it can be a bit of a pain in the arse to keep the deck, tonearm, cartidge and LPs in optimal playing condition. Feel free to correct me if I am off base. |
I'm struggling to comprehend how hickamore claims it is "Unlistenable".
|
Nobody is going to sell their 10k dac they’re impressed with to try mqa. MQA is the wrong format to care about. It says it folds sample data into fewer samples to take less space, then the secret way unfolds them back, and won’t let you encode it, only decode it, or else you might just find out Tidal actually doesn’t have any original higher than 44.1 res files. They didn’t think people would be able to know the difference true higher res streaming would make that way. And you still don’t. If you are using Tidal right now, and the track is supposed to be higher res, you don’t know what it should sound like if it were not mqa 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. |
Decades ago when CD sales took over albums and vinyl sales went down and down, as CD players and CD sales went up and up. Digital got better and haters of albums and turntables were saying you were a fool to keep albums. Manufacturers of quality turntables stopped making them, companies went out of business. Companies stopped making record albums. I always welcomed both formats and kinda ignored the haters. I couldn’t understand why people jumped over to the CD format and kept saying albums were sooooo bad. Now albums have come back, sales have gone way up.... past CDs. Even with HQ digital, albums are touted as better sounding??? So what is it really? Are we fools for luving analog? Are we fools for luving digital.... even MQA? Who is trying to make mega bucks from audiophiles? The turntable, cartridge and record album manufactures? Alongside the sleazy MQA developers? Even to this day... the debate rages on... digital is better than analog, analog is better than digital??? I say welcome any new format and buy what you want, nobody bends your arm. And please don’t try to convince me one format sounds better than another or one developer is trying to make money off the average guy...that debate has been going on for years. |
I was really angry at TAS for going whole hog on MQA. I remember Steven Stone saying that everyone now had an obsolete DAC. Canceled my subscription and never renewed. Still…I continue mourning the slow death of SACD, and the stillborn DVD-A. BluRay also seems headed the way of the Dodo. MQA may not actually be dead, just reorganizing financially. I don’t care for MQA but hate to see another format in trouble, even if this one seemed rapacious |
Chapter 11 or 13 are not good, and some people will lose their livelihood. Not an adapter of MQA but I think there is a market and options are good. I feel for the folks that lose their job and lost their investments. Some here are very narrow minded and self-centered. Bankruptcy is never good. Maybe PE will bail them out. |
mqa does not introduce the type of option I would like to see introduced. Folding and hiding data, so that it gets unfolded back, with a chip you have to buy in a new dac? So that an audio streamer saves bandwidth money, and still charges double anyways? Netflix streams 21 times more data than 192khz audio files, for less money than Tidal, who only streams at 44.1 either way. |
anotherbob: I'll always be with you that mqa sucks, but it ain't past tense, the buggers are still streaming it full tilt at Tidal. You're probably smart, and at qobuz. We have to wait till next month in my country. I could be at amazon, but Tidal's player sounds less bad, and is more important than higher res. Fortunately, it (and qobuz) play in Audirvana, the player I find sounds the best. |
erik_squires:Thank you for admitting that 'Authenticated' was the part that sounded good, since they were talking about Master Quality. After that, using this technique, it actually turns out that mqa actually keeps the users from being able to authenticate that Tidal actually even has the original higher res versions on their drives. |
I wonder about the Absolute Sound’s absolute schilling for MQA some years ago. It seemed religious…or financial. It also caused me to realize that this magazine had strayed a long ways from that I subscribed to back in 1974! In any event, I almost never listen to Tidal anymore as the Quboz offerings have expanded so much. |
At first, for me, the best part of MQA was the A part: Authenticated. It meant that the streaming service did not alter the data from what had been originally released. The bit compression, etc. seemed useless in the face of modern internet and phone speeds. What I didn't appreciate so much then until I read the Benchmark white paper on it was how much you lose. |
This all reminds me of the cell phone and IP services in the US. The US is close to last in the world for cell and internet bandwidth. But as companies in the US have done for ever they charge a premium for a service that is 10 years old in other countries. Then they go full court press marketing that they are providing the “best tech”. I travel around the world and can attest to this. I can travel on subway underground in another country and have fabulous cell service but at home in the US I can’t get coverage in my home. Is the issue with Mqa mqa? Or is it that they are they sabotaged by the infrastructure that they rely on? In todays world bandwidth should be cheap snd unlimited but we continue to be spoon feed limited amounts snd intentionally slowed down service but our monthly bills continue to rise. |
