MQA puzzlement.

Besides the point.

I have plenty of physical and digital music (over 4,000+ CDs and 1300+ LPs plus over 1,000 DL purchases) as well but still buy new CDs and downloads all the time. Happy to see MQA die off so I don't have to specifically check to avoid their B.S.

 

The biggest problem I have is the fake lossy described as lossless which is what MQA is. Then they charge more for it than the true lossless hi-rez or redbook physical we already have. All the new Doors reissues coming out now are MQA crap. I refuse to spend a penny on those. I'd probably get them if they weren't MQA.

 

MQA is trying to become the RealAudio of hi-def audio.

 

I'm paying for them as part of my subscription, and they do sound pretty good.
I completely agree with you about misleading people, though. If they are not lossless, they should not be marketed as lossless.

 

I have no real skin in the game, and quite honestly don’t care. All I know is that for $11.99 /mo tidal with MQA sounds absolutely awesome on my system.

 

I don’t think “he” is trolling, but many other posters here are!

 

The op is simply trying to understand MQA... I have been in the same position where I did not understand an audio issue because they are frequently discussed in very technical terms which not all of us are versed in. To me, op is basically saying describe MQA in terms my grandmother can understand (that is what I usually need)...
I made an attempt to answer the op.

Personally I have never heard MQA, but I am opposed because of the data loss and giving a single group more authority over format... I happened to notice Paul's video by accident a few days ago while on YouTube and I thought he described MQA in terms grandma could understand... If there are other videos or written explanations that plainly explain MQA, I would encourage anybody to post them.

In the video, Paul states that he personally thinks that MQA degrades the quality of the sound and that MQA proponents are trying to solve a problem that does not exist; lack of bandwidth on the internet.... He goes on to state that because he builds audio equipment for a living and that 70-80% of his customers that he has spoken to like MQA, they include it in the streamer PS Audio sells. He further goes on to say that PS Audio does not include MQA capability in the dacs they make because he believes it down-grades the performance of one of his premier products.... I find this refreshingly honest and wish there was more of it in the industry.

 

Same here, but I'm just listening to the CD quality / PCM stream - same experience. Can you hear the difference between the MQA stuff and the normal PCM? Genuinely curious.

 

May it succeed identically as RealAudio. Are we to RealAudio Year 2010 yet?

 

It's optional, really? So if I resubscribe to TIDAL I can now get 24/192 lossless PCM (e.g. FLAC) instead of MQA (which I can't fully infold)?

MQA is a DRM money grab, thinly veiled by market-speak.

 

Don't know much about the other things, but MQA CD does exist.

MQA unfolds through Tidal and a couple other software players to 24/96 without a special DAC, I'm pretty sure.

 

That's besides the point I made. The claim was MQA is "entirely optional." It most certainly is not. If something that was originally DSD or 24/192 is encoded in MQA, I do not have the option of getting the original lossless audio without MQA decoding. I can only get it in a lossy 24/96 first unfold at best (I use Roon which will do that part), and then I still have used MQA; i.e. not optional.

The one and only benefit I see to MQA is for the stakeholders who get licensing fees at multiple points of the process. It's a land grab! It's a big part of why I cancelled TIDAL. I use Qobuz.

 

I’d say yes. But just about everything sounds great so it’s hard to say. Bowie’s Low MQA is phenomenal, but I haven’t actually compared to thePCM

 

Or maybe it’s just my Cambridge CNX making tidal sound awesome period, idk

 

It is optional. Don’t subscribe to the Hi-Fi Master Audio Tier. Even better, don’t subscribe to Tidal at all!!!

 

"optional" is a really poor term for that. If you can't use MQA on TIDAL, then your choice is to not use TIDAL and find something else if you want the full resolution audio. TIDAL has not made MQA optional. They made it required to take advantage of their high res package. So if TIDAL happens to be the only service that has the 24/192 album and it's MQA, there's no "optional." There's just the MQA DRM money grab. MQA isn't optional. MQA is "my way or the highway" with no real benefit to consumers from what I can tell.

And if a label or artist says they only want to distribute music as MQA, then that's really not "entirely optional." It's DRM all over again.

 

Subscribing to Tidal is optional!
Don’t subscribe. It’s kinda like everything else in life. If you don’t like the product, don’t buy it. It’s that simple. But the vinyl, buy the CD. But to keep whining & moaning about something that is unlikely to change is rather childish. Move on...

 

Maybe I don’t care as much because I have a relatively large collection to fall back on (took many many years). All I can say is for Tidal, with military vet discount, is $11.88 USD per month for a limitless amount of music. Most of it sounds amazing - probably a little better than all of my files on hard drive, which is why I got the Cambridge in the first place. I pretty much exclusively stream tidal now instead of playing those files. I’ve found so much great music, and the sq is excellent, that I don’t care what happens to get the end result. It could be partially unfolded, not unfolded, whatever.

 

MQA violates our standards based on the past.
Lossy has always been a loss of sound quality.
But maybe, just maybe, because MQA uses a, supposedly different algorithm, it's potentially worth opening up to and checking out.
Like most here, I've never heard it.

Until someone actually compares an MQA file, decoded on an MQA device, to a lossless cd, hi-res file or original vinyl pressing and sports an opinion, I'll shut up.

All of this numbers and political stuff is valid speculation, but until you actually hear it, it's just speculation.
Maybe MQA's new decoding is a game changer.
I'm skeptical, like most of us. SACD and DVD-A, with their greater resolution don't always result in better sound.

Look at vinyl compared to "lossless" cd's.
Sometimes the vinyl is better in all respects.

 

There have actually been innumerable listening comparisons. Mine was fairly extensive and involved the members of my music listening group. The results were posted in an older SHF MQA thread, and subsequently on the @Archimago blog here:

Archimago's Musings: "MQA-CD x UHQCD" Listening Test by Agitater.

Read it when you have the time, then buy some MQA CD/UHQ CD versions of Redbook CDs you already own and do your own comparison. Invite some friends. Don’t tell them about the different versions. If you get nothing else out of an evening of comparison listening, you’ll at least be able to say you got into the MQA fray directly.

 

I see you are virtually brand new here. It’s always a good idea to do a search on a topic and read up what has been written previously to get up to speed on any subject unless you know it’s a very recently developed piece of hardware or software. I think you will get more out of one or two older threads than this already contentious one.

Good Welcome to you, and enjoy reading up, looks like you have a lot to do.

 

Check out this video if you want to learn about MQA from its creator, Bob Stuart. In this video he explains what he considers the problem to be, and how MQA is attempting to address that problem:

Part 1:


Part 2:
Bob Stuart talks MQA [2/2] @ Munich High End 2018

I don't think this forum gives Bob Stuart enough credit for his contributions to audio codecs/formats in general. Bob Stuart is also responsible for the lossless PCM encoding that is used today by Dolby for lossless TrueHD and Atmos as well as previous things like DVD-Audio. I'm not saying that I unquestionably trust everything he says, but many very smart people also consider him to be a genius and just generally passionate about getting the best audio production/playback possible.

Regarding Paul McGowan's (PS Audio) video opposing MQA... If I understand PS Audio's DACs correctly... It makes sense for PS Audio to have a bias against MQA given that their DACs natively convert everything to Analog from DSD rather than from PCM... this means that PS Audio DACs have to convert all MQA to PCM first, then to DSD, and then to analog, which means that they're incapable of performing a final MQA render on their products... meaning that their DACs are incompatible with getting the most out of MQA, which means they'd be at a disadvantage if MQA were successful. I'm not very familiar with PS Audio's products so someone may want to correct me if I misunderstood.

Just want to say though, I love PS Audio's daily videos. They're awesome and I watch almost every single one.

 

Very important that ALL versions for comparison are from SAME Master though!!!!!

E.g...........
You CAN compare this........
Love Over Gold [Hi-Res CD (MQA x UHQCD)] [Limited Release] Dire Straits CD Album

with this.........
Love Over Gold [Cardboard Sleeve (mini LP)] [SHM-CD] [Limited Release] Dire Straits CD Album

Take note though that any perceived differences may also be attributed in some part to the "UHQ" and "SHM" tech incorporated with these two actual CD's.
And also not a fair comparison if your gear cannot fully unfold MQA.

FWIW.......My friends and I did the above comparison a few months back on my OPPO 205 and we all preferred the MQA UHQCD.

Ironically my "go to" version is the SHM SACD!!!!!.......from a different (non "flat transferred") master.
Love Over Gold [SHM-SACD] [Limited Release] [SACD] Dire Straits SACD

Anyway.....Good Luck

 

Of course, and we talked about that, specifically, in the article. Again though, the secretive Bob Stuart MQA black box reality kicks in because MQA Ltd provides no information about mastering. In the case of the MQA CDs we had to compare them to several different Redbook masterings.

After doing a few comparisons even more recently, we got frustrated trying to guess at MQA’s source material. It’s yet another example of the inscrutable and unsatisfactory nature of everything related to MQA.

Your extra exclamation marks and emphatic bold text are interesting, but don’t direct them at MQA detractors in this thread. Direct them at the secretive MQA gang who refuse to provide such information in the first place. MQA thereby tries to deliberately prevent the establishment of a strictly level field for comparison. That means MQA has to take its lumps however they come.

In most cases when comparing the best available Redbook CD or the most popular CD version (by sales) to the MQA version, the listening groups and sessions I’ve organized have found the MQA versions to be either the same or inferior. In about half the comparisons, the MQA version is slightly louder (a well known way of tricking people into a perception of better quality). In many MQA versions there’s an upper midrange or lower midrange bump not present in the Redbook version, indicative of some EQ tweaking by the MQA processing but nothing whatsoever to do with Stuart’s self-touted temporal de-blurring or anything of the kind. Just a little over half the listeners whom I’ve empaneled found that an uninterrupted half-hour of MQA listening becomes unpleasant. There’s some sort of high-treble lift or distortion or dead air added in many MQA releases that often becomes becomes very fatiguing.

It’s all MQA founder/developer nonsense, the value of which has wilted under the questioning and comparison listening by a wide variety of amateurs and music listeners like me and gone near-silent under the questioning and analytical onslaught of fellow engineers and expert technicians who’ve repeatedly called out Stuart to defend what in my opinion has turned out to be the indefensible.

First unfold, second unfold, processing origami, temporal deurring, carefully structured MQA show demos in which listeners are fully set up and primed to hear certain things prior to the playing of anything, audio mag reviewers who are moderately feted in demos and primed to hear MQA amazingness, learned sounding technical language and technical presentations by Stuart et al (all now widely analyzed and largely debunked), all amount to a massive skein of nonsense the only purpose for which is the business profit of MQA Ltd.

 

Spectral comparison mentioned has been done not so long ago, actually:

My new article series on MQA.
My new article series on MQA.
My new article series on MQA.
My new article series on MQA.

Note my slight misuse of the term "aliasing" for upsampling during MQA Rendering stage (I should have used the term "imaging" instead)...