Is MQA Dead?

Discussion in 'Audio Hardware' started by DaleClark, Sep 1, 2017.

  1. MaxxMaxx4

    MaxxMaxx4 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Winnipeg Canada
    Don't know how you can think this is a sorry episode,I like my vinyl too but MQA is the best thing to come along in years,imo.
     
  2. jusbe

    jusbe Modern Melomaniac

    Location:
    Auckland, NZ.
    I thought the first sentiment unfair and retracted it - but, hey ho, nothing ever dies in the ether I suppose.

    My sense is that for this hobby (audiophilia) to be sustained and survive and be meaningful to younger people both as consumers or manufacturers and engineers, we might need more than MQA provides. To me, it is sorry because it's clear that a lot of energy has been expended on this project but that perhaps more use of the audience testing stage may have been made, with better outcomes all round. (Post #127 covers a lot of the shenanigans).

    Widening the group of industry stakeholders at the development stage might have helped to mitigate some of the negative press that MQA has received, and alleviated a lot of the reputation damage caused with a significant number of audiophiles, myself included.

    I'm now indifferent to it for the most part, aside from when I chance across threads like this one. It may or may not join that Great Dustbin of Discarded Formats in the sky soon. It may live on. But it appears to require a significant acceptance of tremendous false consciousness if we are to believe it is 'the best thing to come along in years' in audio consumerism.
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2018
  3. rockindownthehighway

    rockindownthehighway Not interested

    Location:
    Gone
    I think what's different about this is that it will have zero impact on anybody. I have 8 tracks, vinyl, cassettes, CDs, MDs, SACDs, APE, FLAC, etc. For all those things I need hardware and software and for some of them I need media. Media is a big problem with everything but CD and DVD nowadays.

    I look at MQA as just another media container. I only use it when I listen to Tidal Hifi. I don't collect MQA files, I don't even know if they are sold. As far as I know nobody collects MQA files like we do with all that other stuff. So if it goes, it goes. I can't see that it will make any difference.
     
  4. jusbe

    jusbe Modern Melomaniac

    Location:
    Auckland, NZ.
    Fair point.

    Now, if MQA could just massage my shoulders for me after work and mix a decent drink, well that's a whole other ball game...
     
    quicksrt likes this.
  5. Kyhl

    Kyhl On break

    Location:
    Savage
    Except you do need hardware to fully play back the MQA file. Without the hardware you will get an unfold of frequency resolution but not the matching filtering that an MQA DAC gives you.
    Kind of like buying a hybrid SACD, you get both, but can only play part of it without the hardware.
     
  6. TeflonScoundrel

    TeflonScoundrel Forum Resident

    Location:
    USA
    In my comparisons between MQA and CD files on Tidal without knowing which file was which, I couldn’t find any songs where I preferred the MQA version. There were a number of which that I couldn’t discern any significant difference and there were some where I preferred the CD files.

    Personally, based on my testing using the equipment in my profile plus a PS Audio DSJ DAC I owned at the time, I cant see any benefits to MQA for the consumer. I’m looking forward to switching to Qobuz to get true Hi Res streaming as soon as it’s available. I’ve heard it on a free trial and find it sounds noticeably better than Tidal overall in my opinion.
     
    Shiver and Kyhl like this.
  7. Brother_Rael

    Brother_Rael Senior Member

    What on earth have you been using???
     
    Agitater likes this.
  8. Stone Turntable

    Stone Turntable Independent Head

    Location:
    New Mexico USA
    Given the lack of momentum and growth around MQA in the nearly year and a half since this thread started, I'd say it's on life support or worse. I'd be amazed if anyone can produce any sign that it's spreading beyond a tiny band of plucky early enthusiasts and professional boosters.

    Given that undeniable sluggishness, it does seem that MQA is definitely dead as far as any chance of becoming a widely adopted streaming standard is concerned. The format will carry on as a marginal software and hardware option, but at this point some sort of surge toward mainstream clout or dominance seems like a pipe dream.
     
    Shiver and wgriel like this.
  9. rockindownthehighway

    rockindownthehighway Not interested

    Location:
    Gone
    No, not really. There are apps that will unfold in software as you said and it is not impossible to do any filtering in software. That itself is old technology. Anyway, nobody is buying a separate MQA-only DAC. It comes with streamers, Oppo's last disc players, etc. If MQA disappears you don't lose your investment because your DAC or streamers still work.
     
  10. Gibsonian

    Gibsonian Forum Resident

    Location:
    Iowa, USA
    Time to bury it. Never made it past the infant stage it would seem.
     
  11. Kyhl

    Kyhl On break

    Location:
    Savage
    There are two parts to MQA. A) high frequencies above 48k sampling rate that are encoded to be folded into the least significant bits; B) Aliasing slow roll off filters.
    A) can be done in software. Tidal does this.
    B) is only done in the DAC. MQA designates a number of slow roll off aliasing filters to be used for MQA. Very few DAC's use these specific filters because they are mathematically not good, leaking noise back into the audio band. Data is encoded into the least significant bits to tell the DAC which filter to use.

    To get B to work you need a specific MQA qualified DAC that can read the data hidden in the least significant bits and apply the correct filter. Without that DAC you will get A) only.

    So yes, MQA requires new hardware to be fully played back.
     
    jhm and Erik Tracy like this.
  12. rockindownthehighway

    rockindownthehighway Not interested

    Location:
    Gone
    There is no reason the filtering can't be done in software. This is very old technology- digital signal processing was some of the first stuff computers were ever used for.

    And anyway, since there is no DAC that *only* decodes MQA and nothing else, it is just not that big of a deal if MQA goes away. The DAC will still do whatever else it was designed to do (PCM, DSD, etc.) So it is not a total loss, unlike every other dead format where media and/or new hardware is not available 8 track, DAT, MD etc.
     
  13. Erik Tracy

    Erik Tracy Meet me at the Green Dragon for an ale

    Location:
    San Diego, CA, USA
    The filtering can be done in software, but not now.

    MQA licensed DAC only, so you don't get the 'secret sauce' of the claimed sonic benefits of time domain correction/deblurring or whatever it is MQA claims.
     
    jhm likes this.
  14. rockindownthehighway

    rockindownthehighway Not interested

    Location:
    Gone
    Ok, fair enough. My main point was that unlike a lot of stuff that has gone away and caused some financial loss or PITA, MQA is not in that category ;)
     
  15. Kyhl

    Kyhl On break

    Location:
    Savage
    It is if you spent money to buy a specific DAC because it had the entire MQA process. Some people do look for MQA DACs. Sure, their DACs will still work after MQA is dead.
    Unless they happen to get a DAC that defaults to the MQA filters instead of regular filters for regular hi-res or CDs. That has happened too, requiring an update to the DAC to fix them.

    The whole thing is just a mess with no benefit to the consumer.
     
    Wasabi likes this.
  16. quicksrt

    quicksrt Senior Member

    Location:
    Los Angeles
    It took me decades to get a system that plays back 4.0 and 5,1 correctly and beautifully, and it took years to get the music server to play FLAC, DSD, DD, DTS, and wav at 24/96 and 24/192.

    I don't think I have the room in my life for another format to mess with my head.

    I just can't take it anymore........ :confused: :crazy: :nyah: :chill:
     
    jusbe and StateOfTheArt like this.
  17. StateOfTheArt

    StateOfTheArt Beatle Know-it-all

    Location:
    Greenville, SC
    Jriver and foobar are your friend. If those programs can't decode it, ya don't need it
     
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2018
  18. Time Is On My Side

    Time Is On My Side Forum Resident

    Location:
    Madison, WI
    Was it ever alive?
     
  19. Gaslight

    Gaslight ⎧⚍⎫⚑

    Location:
    Northeast USA
    I don't see any issue with it as a streaming option, ie Tidal. It works partially unfolded in software (which would likely be what most people would use) and then with supported hardware it unfolds completely. If I want to purchase an album, I'll just buy the CD or hi-res file.

    Is it rubbish? Hell if I know but the software unfold sounds fine to my ears, mastering of course being the main thing. Eventually I would think the need for it would be reduced anyway, as cell technology continues to improve.
     
  20. ARCCJ

    ARCCJ Forum Resident

    Location:
    US
    When Qobuz gets going early next year it will hopefully pull many of the audiophiles away from Tidal's flawed service and put one more nail in mqa's coffin. It has been a matter of mqa answering a question nobody asked and we already have enough lossy formats in this world. Tidal cannot even get lossless right according to a thread on this very forum. Sound quality problems with Tidal Streaming Service?
     
  21. Gaslight

    Gaslight ⎧⚍⎫⚑

    Location:
    Northeast USA
    I've been happy with the service so far.

    But if Qobuz comes around and offers a comparable student discount, sure I'll take a look. I'm not chained to Tidal.
     
  22. rl1856

    rl1856 Forum Resident

    Location:
    SC
    MQA has a lot of flaws. Pay to play, stealth DRM, etc. The backers have done themselves no favors by sidestepping all requests for objective comparison tests.

    Those are side issues.

    The real problem is that MQA may represent a marginal at best difference vs non MQA content. Marginal is not enough to convince consumers to open their wallets and invest (new hardware, new MQA media) in a new technology. Consumers only respond to paradigm shifts, not incremental change.

    78-> LP -> cassette -> CD
    mono -> stereo
    VHS -> DVD
    tube TV -> flat screen
    film -> digital camera

    Consumers could care less about Quad, 8 Track, El Cassette, 3D TV, Curved Screens, DVD -A, SACD, CD-HD and so on.

    Guess which category applies to MQA ?
     
  23. quicksrt

    quicksrt Senior Member

    Location:
    Los Angeles
    The closest I can come up with is:

    CD -> MP3

    It's somewhere in the middle of those two.
     
  24. DaleClark

    DaleClark Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    Columbus, Ohio
    I subscribe to both Tidal and Qobuz (from being overseas). Hands down Qobuz outshines Tidal in both SQ and hi rez content.
     
  25. Kyhl

    Kyhl On break

    Location:
    Savage
    Here's the kicker. As a streaming option, a similarly sized 18/96 (18 because MQA is not 24 bit) FLAC is a smaller file than MQA. MQA actually uses more data to stream. The entire mess is nonsense.
     

Share This Page

molar-endocrine