MQA - Hoisted on their own petard

[Doge]

Or some variation of the above. I think MQA may have created a problem for themselves.

I bought TIDAL. I later got a DAC that does not unfold MQA (I didn't know). Convinced by MQA marketing this is "bad", I am canceling TIDAL and just doing DSD and Qobuz.

My ignorance was bliss. Had the "importance" on MQA not been exposed to me, I would likely have remained happy using it.

 

[slipperybidness]

Or some variation of the above. I think MQA may have created a problem for themselves.

I bought TIDAL. I later got a DAC that does not unfold MQA (I didn't know). Convinced by MQA marketing this is "bad", I am canceling TIDAL and just doing DSD and Qobuz.

My ignorance was bliss. Had the "importance" on MQA not been exposed to me, I would likely have remained happy using it.

IMO, MQA is incredibly suspect for the end user, and indeed contains a lot of marketing.

I pass.

 

[John Parks]

I have yet to pick up an MQA specific DAC, but plan on getting a Bluesound Node 2i, which has one. In comparing Tidal and Qobuz for sound quality, there is not a huge difference. Some of Quboz's 24/96 or 24/192 files sound a smidgen better than the same file on Tidal, but I have to REALLY concentrate and listen hard and for me, that is really no fun. Yes, I would like to have the highest resolution that my equipment can decode, but I am not going to knock myself out over it. As it stands, I am heavier invested in the Tidal 'verse and enjoy their GUI better than the one Quboz uses, so when my trial subscription expires, I'll probably cancel the Q and stay with the T... And no, I never felt that not having an MQA DAC was "bad" (i.e., no "shaming" via their marketing).

 

[Bucknekked]

hmmmm. MQA files are supposed to unfold without hardware assistance. I believe there is an "additional" level of unfolding that can occur with the correct DACs, but, for most of us the MQA files should unfold with the stuff most of us already have.

Whether that's true or not is pretty irrelevant since IMHO the service doesn't provide a better mousetrap. Its a nice mousetrap. Just not a better mousetrap that most of us already use in Spotify or other services. The proof is in the pudding, of course.

If you like TIdal and what it provides, more power to you. If you don't, there's plenty of great choices

 

[John Parks]

An MQA file will play through a regular DAC, with no software help at 24/48 (through iTunes, for example or regular Tidal [not HiFi]). Through Tidal HiFi, files up to 24/92 can be unfolded. Through an MQA DAC, files as high as 24/192 can be unfolded. How much of a difference one can hear is another question...

 

[Doge]

... plan on getting a Bluesound Node 2i, which has one...

I started with that. I plan to move it to another room/house. Right now it is in a drawer. I was happy. Then I got on some forums and spoke with some people and got a Chord Qutest. I think it is better. I *think* because I fully believe the physiological is a big part. For me, what I think is 80% of it. And how can a DAC made from milled alloy not sound better than one made from molded plastic?

And for me, streaming form my computer works better.

 

[lovinthehd]

hmmmm. MQA files are supposed to unfold without hardware assistance. I believe there is an "additional" level of unfolding that can occur with the correct DACs, but, for most of us the MQA files should unfold with the stuff most of us already have.

Not my understanding, you must be able to decode the MQA for full reveal of the "magic". It can be done in a computer with software, tho. If not using a computer I believe you must have the hardware enabled, tho.

 

[Doge]

... How much of a difference one can hear is another question...

As I kind-of posted above - this is a head game for me. I don't like it, but it is true.
I am what these folks are targeting, and I think they screwed up. They created a perception that while beyond my hearing ability, the concept you need full MQA unfolding to get it right stuck in my head. So "they made me" go buy something else. I am a marketing guy (another industry),so I get what they attempted to do and think it is a blunder. Give it 3-5 years - MQA will be dead in my marketing, not audio opinion.

I am one that wants all the nuances covered although they are beyond my capabilities to discern. I am a *holic in many areas. I doubt I am alone.
I download 256DSDs while the 64DSDs sound just as good - to me*. Why? Because I am that kind of consumer. I am very logical, but in music, I don't use logic, mostly feeling. And I feel a DAC that does not unfold MQA makes MQA useless. They marketed that. I bought it.

*The "price" I pay for 256 bit perfect vs 64 bit perfect. I can't tell. But I feel much better.

 

[Doge]

Not my understanding, you must be able to decode the MQA for full reveal of the "magic". It can be done in a computer with software, tho. If not using a computer I believe you must have the hardware enabled, tho.

What software? I'm told - not the final unfold.

 

[lovinthehd]

What software? I'm told - not the final unfold.

Like I said, this is my understanding....I'm not familiar with the double unfold thing, afaik it just happens once....either you have the software provided by Tidal or it's hardwired into other gear to use with MQA encoded media. I did the computer trial and according to them had the MQA unfolded, but have been told by some that's not possible. I find this on their website, tho, which is pretty clear that it can either happen in your computer or via other hardware suitably licensed/enabled by MQA:

All you need is a TIDAL HiFi membership to get access to thousands of master-quality albums through the TIDAL desktop application. When you are in the TIDAL desktop app, go to What’s New and select Masters in the Albums section.

We have a large number of our TIDAL artist owners and key independent labels. We will continue to add more master-quality content over time. Visit the MQA website for all MQA-enabled devices http://www.mqa.co.uk/customer/our-partners. You can also contact MQA at info@mqa.co.uk for any MQA-specific questions.

Currently you can listen to MQA quality music via the desktop app which can be downloaded here: http://tidal.com/us/download. You can also listen via the Essential and LG V30 phone.

 

[John Parks]

Like I said, this is my understanding....I'm not familiar with the double unfold thing, afaik it just happens once....either you have the software provided by Tidal or it's hardwired into other gear to use with MQA encoded media. I did the computer trial and according to them had the MQA unfolded, but have been told by some that's not possible. I find this on their website, tho, which is pretty clear that it can either happen in your computer or via other hardware suitably licensed/enabled by MQA:

All you need is a TIDAL HiFi membership to get access to thousands of master-quality albums through the TIDAL desktop application. When you are in the TIDAL desktop app, go to What’s New and select Masters in the Albums section.

We have a large number of our TIDAL artist owners and key independent labels. We will continue to add more master-quality content over time. Visit the MQA website for all MQA-enabled devices http://www.mqa.co.uk/customer/our-partners. You can also contact MQA at info@mqa.co.uk for any MQA-specific questions.

Currently you can listen to MQA quality music via the desktop app which can be downloaded here: http://tidal.com/us/download. You can also listen via the Essential and LG V30 phone.

Here's a handy-dandy graphic:

 

[slipperybidness]

Everyone on the thread realizes that MQA is a lossy compression????

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_Quality_Authenticated

In an interview for online publication Positive Feedback, engineer Andreas Koch is critical of MQA due to its lossy algorithms and compression, along with its licensing requirements; also saying that a format such as this "does not solve any problem that the world currently has."[20] Koch was involved in the creation of the Super Audio CD, the development of the Direct Stream Digital codec, and is co-founder of audio product manufacturer Playback Designs.

An article titled Digital Done Wrong[21] on the International Audio/Video Review web site, concluded that MQA is founded on a fundamentally unsound understanding of correct digital audio processing and found that playback of a sample MQA encoding demonstrated gross distortion and reconstruction failure. It did however comment that some listeners may find the technical defects of MQA encoding subjectively pleasing.

 

[Doge]

As many (me) move to 1GB Internet and save files on TB storage - do we need to decode to get way beyond what we can discern? I maybe, kinda think I can tell 16bit vs 24bit and certainly vs 8 bit, but 44.1 vs 88.2/176.4 - not me. Still, I can stream 24/96 all day no "decoding". I understand there is always decoding. But you know what I mean.

 

[lovinthehd]

Here's a handy-dandy graphic:
View attachment 28547

So how do you know which mqa "masters" are 24/88.2 vs 24/176.4? Funny that the Tidal site indicates that the masters are typically 24/96 files.

 

[Doge]

Everyone on the thread realizes that MQA is a lossy compression????
....

I would guess so. I would also guess the statistical results of blind tests would be mostly nominal MQA vs anything 16bit and above. In a non-blind test - well - we want the cool logo and the unfolding. And the MQA logos are neat. As are the colored lights on players when unfolding MQA.
MQA created that. And...they then totally missed the point technology gains in increased bandwidth and service/s that do not need "decoding" .
MQA creators assumed a more serious compression technology was needed. In many areas - it is not.

Bandwidth is available. Would you rather have a compress/decompress and use XMbps, or a "no-decoding" and 2Xbandwidth? For me, it is just easier to pay Comcast another $20-$20 and double bandwidth, or download a few DSD albums.

 

[slipperybidness]

I would guess so. I would also guess the statistical results of blind tests would be mostly nominal MQA vs anything 16bit and above. In a non-blind test - well - we want the cool logo and the unfolding. And the MQA logos are neat. As are the colored lights on players when unfolding MQA.
MQA created that. And...they then totally missed the point technology gains in increased bandwidth and service/s that do not need "decoding" .
MQA creators assumed a more serious compression technology was needed. In many areas - it is not.

Bandwidth is available. Would you rather have a compress/decompress and use XMbps, or a "no-decoding" and 2Xbandwidth? For me, it is just easier to pay Comcast another $20-$20 and double bandwidth, or download a few DSD albums.

LOL!

Actually, I prefer a physical disc so that I actually OWN the media, then I rip it to FLAC for convenience. It may make rotation into my 100 disc changer from time to time. Oh yeah, sometimes liner notes are nice too!

On that note, I do have some vinyl that actually sounds better than the equivalent CD. The media may or may not be critical for the final audio quality (the mastering is definitely critical).

 

[John Parks]

So how do you know which mqa "masters" are 24/88.2 vs 24/176.4? Funny that the Tidal site indicates that the masters are typically 24/96 files.

Well, I run Tidal through Roon and Roon tells me. Also, my integrated amp tells me through the series of lights on the fascia:

I am sure there are other ways. I see a lot of AVR have readouts reflecting what's being processed through them.

 

[lovinthehd]

Well, I run Tidal through Roon and Roon tells me. Also, my integrated amp tells me through the series of lights on the fascia:
View attachment 28550
I am sure there are other ways. I see a lot of AVR have readouts reflecting what's being processed through them.

Interesting that the 24/88.2 or 24/176.4 aren't mentioned on the Tidal site, tho.

pcm x1 thru 8? Haven't run into that before, will have to go look that up. What integrated amp is it?

 

[John Parks]

LOL!

Actually, I prefer a physical disc so that I actually OWN the media, then I rip it to FLAC for convenience. It may make rotation into my 100 disc changer from time to time. Oh yeah, sometimes liner notes are nice too!

On that note, I do have some vinyl that actually sounds better than the equivalent CD. The media may or may not be critical for the final audio quality (the mastering is definitely critical).

I agree wholeheartedly! I would much rather own a CD, SACD, DVD-Audio, computer file (WAV, FLAC, DSD) BluRay audio or vinyl LP. At the same time, I enjoy as may options as I can for musical enjoyment. Roon/Tidal (and Roon/Qobuz) are completely awesome ways to listen and discover new music. Bring it up on an iPad and all the liner notes are there (and readable!). One advantage (and something we did not have while reading the liner notes of our LPs and the hazy pot smoke filled rooms of our youth - well at least my youth) is the ability to bring up a vast knowledge base of the artist one is listening to or skip on over to similar artists, etc.

 

[John Parks]

Interesting that the 24/88.2 or 24/176.4 aren't mentioned on the Tidal site, tho.

pcm x1 thru 8? Haven't run into that before, will have to go look that up. What integrated amp is it?

Yamaha A-S801

It's a simplified readout based on multiples of 48 kHz, with the 'x8' being 384 kHz, 32 bit.