What you call argument, somone else calls an opposing point of view. Some people express their positions with civiility and cogent argument. Others, not so much. There’s a middle ground too, and very populous it is. You’re not in any of those groups. It seems as though you’re just sniping from the sidelines. So far, at this point in the thread you’ve expressed an opinion about the people expressing opinions, and commented that if someone doesn’t like MQA they should just live and let live. Then you dismissed the energetic discussion taking place in this thread, attempting to defocus it by stating that there are more important things in the world to discuss and put our energy into. But because this is an audio forum, you’re wrong. MQA is one of the more important issues ever to arise in home audio and this is the absolute best place to discuss it.. The problem with your position is that it doesn’t address the fact that a lot of audiophiles are apprehensive about the idea that MQA will be forced down their throats. That’s something they neither like nor want. The reason they don’t like MQA or want it is that it is measurably and audibly inferior. Some others don’t like MQA because they’re rightly suspicious of any technology or format that is pushed into a market for no apparent reason. Still others are suspicious of a processing method and resulting format that is a black box at its core. There’s actually quite a lot to be concerned about.
I highly doubt that's going to happen, on a mass scale. A potential SACD replacement, on the other hand, I could potentially see given the demographics there.
Good grief. Did you just paraphrase a line from a Monty Python sketch? You seem to be trying to derail the thread. It won’t work. Instead of arguing about argument, why not offer your firsthand impressions of MQA instead? Get back on-topic about whether MQA has a future.
...by using something substantially less than SACD/DSD? Why do you think that many in the hobby and in they industry are reacting as they are about MQA several years into its life?
In the tests that I did in my system, they were inferior even to regular redbook IMO. In what sense? Not that the MQA exhibited less resolution or that it had a less expansive soundstage in comparison to the redbook file but rather on account of a sonic signature that I perceived on all MQA files that made them sound recessed like there is some form of compression being applied. That being said, I also noticed that some MQA files sounded better than others, go figure! Still this lack of energy or lack of life (the blanket over the speakers effect, if I may call it so) was apparent to all when I compared them to regular redbook and/or high resolution files.
In some cases, absolutely. Here’s a link to the results of group listening test comparisons conducted a couple of months ago: Archimago's Musings: "MQA-CD x UHQCD" Listening Test by Agitater.
Never said I agreed with it. Only that I could see that happening since that market is niche to begin with. They'd need a hook of some kind though, so perhaps a hybrid SACD that one could also download MQA tracks from, host in the cloud and then stream from that using compatible hardware. And btw, SACD is no panacea either. That has its own copy protection scheme and requires licensed hardware, you can't just "create your own". But at least there's no lossy compression tmk.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Somewhat extreme, but still.
I actually already have offered my impressions of MQA. Had you bothered to read the thread rather than hiding behind insults you may have noticed.
I almost feel bad for asking that original question. Apologies for that, just wanted some opinions on Tidal + MQA hardware listening impressions. Wasn't aware there was a war going on at this level, like...... .....picketing in the streets needed? #downwithmqa movement?
Thanks for the link. I had read that a while back and just re-read. It’s a great comparison which seems to identify preferences in mastering not format. Would these differences be apparent comparing MQA/RBCD/Hi-res versions of the same master? Tidal has MQA and RBCD versions of what I assume would be the same master (I.e., 2018 White Album remaster). In casual listens I do not detect a difference but I’m not sure I could reliably distinguish between RBCD and normal hi-res either mastering being equal.
Not just mastering comparisons, though finding the exact same master as the one used to make the Redbook CD was exceedingly difficult (or impossible) because the black box processing by MQA Limited produces MQA-CD releases that aren’t accompanied by mastering information. Because MQA processing is a black box. So as with all things MQA, the listening group selections were estimates of the same source masterings. But MQA Limited has declared that it re-does everything using the the best available master it can get it hands on. At least, MQA Limited used to say that. The company doesn’t seem to have that front & center in its marketing as before. It’s important to get this right - MQA is fiddling with mastering, not not the format. It uses a superset of PCM FLAC, not a new file format. Distinguishing between one format and another vs. one mastering and another is a dead-end discussion when the ‘format’ in question is really just PCM FLAC (just like the PCM FLAC we already know and like). MQA reps have repeatedly said that there’s no new format here - that MQA files/streams are PCM FLAC. So when audiophiles talk about MQA as a new format, they’re incorrect. Incorrect, at least according to MQA Limited. Archimago and many, many others have checked - MQA files are PCM FLAC. No new format. MQA is a processing method that, by definition, results in a new file that is lower resolution than the source master, lossy-compressed, is frequently slightly louder than competing releases of the same album, contains code that may in future be used to implement DRM, and is sometimes detectably noisier than the best other competing releases of the same album. But it’s still PCM FLAC, which is why standard DACs and existing software players can read and play MQA files (albeit at poorer quality than the non-MQA version). No new format here.
I'm just glad to see any 'next big thing' and its protagonists held to scrutiny and accountability. Lest, without active challenge, any unsubstantiated/underhand marketing claims/positoning can become eventually accepted and normalized. MQA has failed this challenge.
Understood. But I wouldn't equate any of this to being "evil", even if their claims are completely and 100% debunked. Btw, I've been trying out my Dragonfly Black, and I am aware that it's only 24/96 but so far I can't hear any of this de-blurring / magic pixie dust / whatever this is supposed to be. Hard of course to match up masterings, but I've also been trying to flip between Master and Hifi on Tidal samples.
So ....2 years later. ( since when this thread started)...is MQA dead? HD Tracks was to start streaming MQA ... now a no go Qobuz has traditional ( non MQA) hi Rez streaming Tidal still in the red Novelties like MQA cds are not making a dent ( at least in the US) Major manufacturers are not even messing with MQA to begin with ( Benchmark, Mcintosh, etc). I say the last ditch will come ( maybe already happening) with reduced fees or even free licensing for component makers. At least DSD is owned by an actual music provider ( Sony). Pretty much most major dacs ( some exceptions ) support DSD. One would think that the NASCAR like A/V receivers would at least offer MQA. However, I’m not seeing much with this as well. I can now open the major stereo rags and avoid seeing the letters MQA on most pages. Beforehand, the MQA love fest was sickening.
I must be one of the few here who actually enjoys the current state of MQA even though I wish it were more widely adopted and prevalent. I appreciate the sound quality and am glad it exists on Tidal. A significant portion the of music I listen to on Tidal is MQA and Roon seamlessly handles the first unfold while my NAD & Bluesound processors/receivers/streamers all handle the second unfold and render. If MQA disappeared tomorrow from Tidal and if Qobuz hi-res FLAC we’re the only alternative then I don’t think that would be good for any of us. With that said, I’d have no problem if Tidal switched to hi-res FLAC but I can’t see them doing that given their current investment in infrastructure and the increased bandwidth that would require.
High-res downloads are a potential (or real?) SACD replacement. MQA came from record companies, who hated DRM free downloads. BUT something weird happened. The public did not want that. Streaming companies with their already encrypted files with no consumer access to them made the point moot. v
Isn't it possible to strip DRM by recording the stream to a digital recorder which has digital XLR output copying to another recorder via digital XLR connection?
