Why is everyone so down on MQA?

There is no need to argue if MQA is good or bad. Like others said, make your own choices and pick what you like to listen that’s all. To me I don’t hear any difference between Tidal and Qobuz. I joined both and decided to cancel Qobuz. They have less selections compare to Tidal.

Let me give you one example, for those of you have Tidal.

Go search Grant Green, you will see the two albums called  "Idle Moments".

One is MQA , and other one is regular.
Hear it yourself, I found the MQA version has more separations. The other one is little flat.

You can compare them and easily tell the difference.

Well said zombiedad

Perhaps the definitive answer is that purists hate the theory behind MQA, while those with more open minds are willing to listen and decide for themselves.

The proposition that some information can be discarded without down grading the listening experience is considered a disgrace. Hence the purists hate MQA.

To others it is a reasonable proposition that at the very least could have merit and therefore worthy of a comparative listen.

In the end, it might or might not be possible to pick what is missing. Even if it is possible, the benefits are so amazing, the missing information becomes irrelevant.

Mqa

official answer from senior tech advisor of Mcintosh

yes Mcintosh

we do not use or recommend MQA as it sounds muddy ‘

i have it on my email from 2 years ago and they still don’t recommend it nor will they ever!

@dalims4

From the very same Web page:

"... our encoders remove the audible ‘digital blur’ that builds up in studio production."

"But a lossless file is just a digital container ..."

So, they modify the digital master first, and then losslessly pack the changed data.

The papers explaining how MQA works claim that there is no perceptual loss. However, technically there is data loss, because original signal gets compressed: they call it "folding", yet it doesn't change general nature of the process.

Moreover, it appears that a signal's digital representation can only be perceptually transparently folded into MQA format if it fits into prescribed triangle on energy vs frequency graph. The energy of higher frequency components has to be below descending line defined in MQA specification.

Correspondingly, experiments with publishing music on Tidal in MQA format uncovered two types of losses: additional noise slightly beyond what mere dithering would add, and rather significant artifacts triggered by signals not fitting into the MQA triangle.

So, like any competently designed compressed format, MQA strives to be perceptually transparent on signals falling within its domain of applicability. Which, arguably, are the most music signals. And in this sense, it appears that there shall be no meaningful losses for most signals.

However, MQA can't be technically called a lossless PCM compression format, because a lossless format has to encode and then decode any PCM file with a supported bit depth and sampling rate in a bit-perfect manner. FLAC is an example of such format. Yet its compression factor isn't high - typically around 2x.

Correspondingly yet again, subjective evaluations of MQA-encoded recordings are mixed. Most files do indeed appear to be encoded in a perceptually transparent manner while being significantly smaller than FLAC. Others reportedly do not. If MQA was consistently the home run it claims to be, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

It fascinates me that people who eschew simple tone controls go for tech that unnecessarily complicates encoding and decoding digital data. Simpler should be better. Things like DSP or EQ (yes, even vinyl RIAA) solve specific issues. With the cost of bandwidth and storage getting cheaper all the time, additional compression (and lossy compression to boot) isn’t needed. Adding in all the proprietary and licensing nonsense or the DRM discussion and it’s just not worth the bother to me. There would have to be a unanimous outcry proclaiming better SQ rather than the muddled mixed bag we have now for me to even try it.