Why is everyone so down on MQA?

It is superfluous. It was worthwhile when bandwidth was very limited and I think that was the approach MQA was taking. I do not want to stream lossy  files

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. 

One nice feature Tidal recently added was the option to view the scrolling lyrics as the song plays. This is nice for my girlfriend/daughters/friends who want to sing along on the PA system.

When listening to a random playlist, it’s easy to hear when a "non-master" song gets thrown in the mix, it’s very flat.

Also not a fan of all the hip-hop I have to filter through since Jay-Z bought it.

I wish I understood MQA better.  The way I understand it is it was designed to fold the files 7 times in order to pass the data through slower internet speeds.  Now with internet speeds being 1 gig this is no longer necessary.  I have a BlueSound Node 2i.  The guy from The Cable Company convinced me to hook up my BlueSound to my ARCAM via an expensive digital cable.  I told him this would reduce MQA from 7 unfolds to 1 and reduce sound quality.  He told me by using a digital cable, I would be able to use the DAC inside my ARCAM which was better than the BlueSound.  Maybe QObuz sounds better because you don't have to fold files and because of faster internet speeds this helps QObuz to sound better.  The rep from ARCAM cane to my house and conducted a blind test and I picked QObuz every time.  I am a afraid to change because I do like the layout of Tidal and don't know how QObuz would look in comparison.  It would help if QObuz showed how their graphics look in comparison.  I feel kind of stupid about this.  This group is far more knowledgeable.

I prefer non MQA. Sounds more natural 

@bobdg2000 Square has had majority (80%) ownership since March of 2021…

Why is everyone so down on MQA?

There's no definitive answer. You might as well ask why do people claim technology they don't prefer is DOA?

Just because it doesn't meet their levels of popularity is no excuse. They might emphatically claim that SACD is DOA, but if it's true, why then is Mofi still releasing them? Same thing with other statements in this thread. If it's still being manufactured, it's not DOA. No matter how much they insist.

The only sane thing to do is ignore their biased ramblings and unjustifiable statements. Try not to let them frustrate you or influence you. Sometimes they are so cunning it's hard to know what to believe, especially when they are technophiles rather than audiophiles.
 

I'm MQA indifferent - it won't affect my purchasing decision. 

I do not like or use MQA because it is a proprietary, licensed format that is far more complex than the alternatives, like FLAC.  The sound differences have nothing to do with my decision especially since the differences that I have heard have been  subtle. I prefer to use music formats that allow me to get the highest quality sound from any gear that I use in the house. 

 

@walkenfan2013 It's likely going to die because it doesn't sound as good as true lossless hi-res. My dCS Rossini DAC/Streamer supports hi-res and fully renders MQA Studio Quality. I used to subscribe to TIDAL and found that MQA tracks generally sounded better than the same tracks in Redbook CD format. Once Qobuz came to the US, game over. Qobuz hi-res tracks generally sound better than the same song in MQA format.

Well Dolby is licenced and complex. Who in their right mind would ... 

Forget it, this is getting silly.

As I recall Tidal upsampled some redbook with mqa and that was not always well received ( google Neil Young and Tidal..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the other hand I did bought some excellent mqa cds like the Hoff Ensemble, Polarity!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To conclude, it is as always down to implementation!

 

 

 

In my opinion 😁

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Personally, I do not really care if the MQA concept is good or not, I just want to have the best listening experience possible. 

Therefore, here's my thoughts on MQA (I have a non-MQA Border Patrol Se-i Dac and my Zen Stream / S Booster combo is doing the first unfolding) as I compare both for the last month : 

MQA Tidal files seems more 'dense', details are a bit more 'in your face'.

Red Book Tidal : More air between instruments and perhaps more natural.

At first glance / for the first few minutes, the MQA sound is more attractive, more spectacular but after some time, I think I prefer the Red book files (more realistic / natural to my years). 

I do not know if I would conclude the same with a MQA Dac but I think I will drop HI-Fi+ as most of the time, I prefer Red book files. Of course, YMMV.

PS : Qobuz is not available in Canada

 

 

 

Reasons for me:

1. Even Spotify Premium sounds better to my ears.

2. Qobuz definitely sounds better.

3. MQA is a proprietary format that would be a tax on the music industry if its creators had managed to get it established as a standard.

4. I think its original reason for existence of being able to compress files so they can be send with less internet bandwidth is generally not a viable pain point anymore.

My observations on MQA:

1. I’ve heard it thru a couple of different DACs.  Until I heard it thru a dCS Bartok, I didn’t think MQA amounted to much.  I generally preferred high bit rate PCM on Qobuz.  But the Bartok changed my mind.  I now generally prefer the MQA versions on Tidal. I asked my dealer about this, and he said that dCS got the source code to the MQA encoders and analyzed it to produce their implementation.  They even sent fixes back to MQA for bugs they found.  Whatever they did, it works for my ears.  I’m sure there are other excellent MQA implementations out there, but dCS is the one I know.

2.  I had the chance to ask Peter McGrath, a well regarded recoding engineer who now works for Wilson Audio, what he thought about MQA.  He response was unequivocally positive, a definite improvement over PCM, not to mention analog.  
 

3. Reading the responses on Audiogon, I’m guessing that I am in the minority.  The technical aspects of MQA are beyond me, but I’m going to trust my ears.

Speaking of a solution in search of a problem, one oddball thing that has gotten much better over the past 15 years is Redbook playback.  The truly great DACs have narrowed the field a great deal between Redbook and 96/24 or better.   If yo have a DAC that only plays hi rez well switch.

This also means, again, MQA isn't that great if your DAC is already really good at low res.

Personally, I love MQA. My system is about as revealing as any out there, and there is such a clear and obvious difference between MQA and standard 44.1 that I’m surprised by the debate. No debate in this house. I use the Aurender W20Se and Berkeley Ref Alpha 3. Sure, most of the time my high res files may be a little more nuanced but compared to standard, MQA is preferred 8/10 times.

@jhconnor 

+1 Like many of these discussions, it depends on the equipment you own.

 

 

Is MQA still a thing? Have not heard much about it in several years. Like most, bandwidth for streaming is not an issue and if one downloads "hi-res" tracks then transmission is not an issue either. 

Agree it tries to sole a problem than does not exist. MQA did seem to be a stealth form of copy protection and this whole concept of being "tuned" to individual DACs where manufactures had to submit their products to be "officially" MQA compatible was pure silliness. In some ways, similar to HDCD and to some extent SACD. I will l say the original Pacific Microsonics HDCD encoder / ADC/ DAC used in mastering studios was a very nice sounding bit of kit in it's day.

MQA is a not something I would ever consider for my music playback. 

Is MQA still a thing? 

Absolutely.

MQA-CDs are still being released and Radio Paradise has MQA, so I'm not at all sure where that statement came from or if it is something that should even be taken seriously.

The beauty is any CD player will do and all you need is a DAC that does MQA.

 

I think MQA is better for older people like me that have some hearing loss and appreciate the extra omph that MQA provides. To me, it does not matter if it sounds exactly as the artist intended as I am the one paying for my Tidal streaming service. When listening to tracks on Tidal, music sounds more dynamic and detailed using MQA vs CD quality tracks alternative. If you don't like MQA, don't subscribe to Tidal. It's all about personal enjoyment in the end.

I don't know about Tidal. When I'm not listening to my own sources, I listen to MQA Radio Paradise with a Bluesound NODE N130 and a Topping D90SE DAC. The Bluesound has a DC power card so that there's no AC interference, and the combo sounds terrific.

It's probably the purists who detest MQA, as the idea of removing superfluous information is considered sacrosanct, even if listening proves otherwise.
 

What that dude!!

ebm

What the hell are you referring to? I can't even begin to imagine!

Wait a minute, do you mean the method MQA uses to squeeze its information on to a standard CD. Its proprietary compression method that everyone detests.

 

When the MQA guys | Wilson (Peter McGrath) | ROON guys gave a demo of MQA on a $100K system, Wilson and T+A gear. I could not tell a difference. Now my ears were ringing bit from a blast of music from another demo, but I think my ears were still in good enough shape to be able hear a difference.

This given me an idea. I have a MQA supporting Lumin X1 DAC and a RAAL SR1a earphones. If there is any difference with MQA I will hear it on the SR1a via Tidal. It is hard to get more revealing than the SR1a. Something to do this Saturday evening.

MQA CD's? How many bits are lost to make space for the MQA carrier? 

Ditto

Also

Is there any difference between an MQA CD and MQA streaming?