GoldenSound MQA testing video

iFi Audio and Berkeley Audio both offer different firmware for their DACs. A firmware version with MQA support and a firmware version without the MQA stuff. If you don't want MQA filters contaminating the DAC then load the regular firmware.

That seems like a good way to go if a company wants to add MQA. That way they don't have to try to guess if they're losing sales to competitors because they don't have MQA. And customers who don't want MQA can remove it and have piece of mind that leaky MQA filters aren't messing up their regular CD and high-res listening.

 

Seems odd to target those that offer support of the format in their products, often at no additional cost to the consumer. Seems if you don't like the format you should fight it at the source.

 

Not how that works here. To fully unfold MQA and support it on your hardware, you have to pay a licensing fee, incorporate several specific design elements into your hardware, and have either special proprietary code or hardware on it.

It's not like supporting FLAC or MP3, this isn't like other format wars. There's a lot of cost that goes in it, and that adds to the cost to consumer by increasing the cost of production.

It also requires special hardware to encode and has a ton of requirements to get it to encode and compress it without it outputting garbage or adding noise to the file.

 

I'm not sure how much additional special hardware is needed to decode MQA compared to the hardware needs of a DAC that does its own special DSP upsampling already. The Berkeley Alpha DAC Series 1 and 2 are about 10 years old and Berkeley was able to add MQA support through a firmware upgrade. The hardware DSP support needed was obviously already there inside the 10 year old DACs.

 

Follow up video is out

 

Superb effort!!!

 

So, just how widely-used, consumed(?) or whatever, is this MQA thingy?

I have yet to encounter a single person who has MQA gear, or service, or whatever it is. Is it really a problem?

 

Well, in 2021, streaming music is pretty big. According to this poll on this forum, Tidal is the 2nd most used streaming service. The only one that uses MQA.

Which of the current music streaming services do you use/prefer and why?

Plus, there were some big players in the HiFi hardware magazine department that were pushing MQA pretty hard.

 

All true. It would be interesting to know the percentage of Tidal users who do not have MQA gear.

 

I'm betting less than 10% of Tidal customers have MQA. I don't use MQA and no one I know has ever heard of it.

 

I have a DragonFly Red for my iPhone (as well as an annual Tidal HiFi sub that expires next month) but haven’t used them together much lately.

 

Several major labels including Warner wanted to subject their entire catalogues to the MQA treatment.

 

Seems to me to be a format that Joe Public has shrugged at, if even heard about.

Anyway, if you subscribe to Tidal and don't have MQA hardware, you can still listen the music catalogue they have, right?

 

Yes but you would be overpaying for what you get quality wise compared to what most of the other services are offering or are soon to be offering and you would be funneling money into the existence of MQA which is not a good thing in the long run for the rest of the consumers that are against it or would probably be if they were aware of it’s detriments.

 

Well, I'm not a subscriber to ANY service (I don't have Internet.) I get free Spotify on my phone, that's it. Otherwise it's CDs or AAC files for me. But yeah, I'm not going to encourage MQA in any way.

 

Didn't they learn anything from HAECO-CSG?

 

Sure, but you're paying for LOSSLESS and what it appears you are actually getting is LOSSY MQA...

So, the consumer is getting ripped off.

Now, maybe you enjoy paying for something that you're not actually getting.

I do not...

 

I'm not paying for anything.

 

Not really lossy if played on non-MQA equipment. More like 17/48 which is a bit higher than Redbook.
It won't be 24/48 or higher that you can anywhere else.

Although I suppose there would still be the shaped dither noise included when they dither it down to 17 bits.

 

I use tidal and I've always thought the mqa thing is a dumb gimmick, I don't even own a dac that can play it. I just play everything in 44.1/16 and am perfectly happy with it. Still no reason to change to a different streaming service when I like the interface of tidal.

 

It doesn't affect me either. I have all the music that I want to listen to on CD(in process of converting entire collection to flac files), SACDs, DTS DVDs, and DVD-A. I also have many high res files. I have enough music that I wouldn't need to repeat for a few years if I listen to an hour or two every day(which I cannot do because of work).
Even though it doesn't affect me at all, I am irritated because ultimately, MQA is cheating the consumer.

 

Okay, so there ya go then. Then, OTHERS are getting ripped off...

Carry on...

 

Are you really sure about that?

Seems Tidal may be pushing lossy MQA no matter what equipment you're using. The only difference is you can't "unfold" it.

From GoldenSound:

"If you have tidal, you have NO CHOICE but to use the MQA file if it is a track marked as "master". There is no lossless option. If you choose the "hifi" tier it still gives you the MQA file just without the MQA tagging so it doesn't get unfolded. It is not the lossless file."

It's BS pure and simple...

 

Unlike some others here, you get it - and that's the main point isn't it?

 

It's lossy however you play it. Not close to 17bit either. It's 13bit usable audio with distortion added when played on non-MQA. And still lossy with distortion added to the source when "unfolded". Watch the video.