D90 mqa vs M400, which one should I use?

[dmac6419]

I don't recommend MQA.

Why?

I recommend MQA.

 

[robertozappala]

I recommend MQA.

thank you, but I would like to understand why John, Topping designer, does not recommend it
Ah, i have A90/D90 mqa

 

[frogmeat69]

I have a yearly Tidal subscription through Best Buy when it was on sale, ended up costing less than any other service that way, so I use my SMSL M500's MQA unfolding capabilities for it, since it's available to me.
Otherwise I would most likely still be using Qobuz, don't hear any difference.
I do have an easier time with Tidal when streaming on my iPhone than Qobuz for some reason, Qobuz would always lag behind on some tracks, and skip to the next song, no matter what settings, annoying.

 

[dmac6419]

thank you, but I would like to understand why John, Topping designer, does not recommend it
Ah, i have A90/D90 mqa

Have an A90 ,D90MQA is next on my list my streaming ecosystem is Amazon and Tidal

 

[robertozappala]

Have an A90 ,D90MQA is next on my list my streaming ecosystem is Amazon and Tidal

I get along very well with both of them

 

[Jimbob54]

thank you, but I would like to understand why John, Topping designer, does not recommend it
Ah, i have A90/D90 mqa

Seriously, search for MQA on this site and you will get a flavour. The last thing anyone needs is another thread turning into an MQA warzone

 

[BDWoody]

for 99% of anyone who streams can benefit from mqa.

So, who would be the 1% who can't?

I think I'm in that category. I can't hear ultrasonic's, and the little magenta light, while really very nice, doesn't seem to improve anything.

Funny how when I have an MQA track steaming happily, the little light is on, all is well in the world...then I adjust the volume through the computer, and the light goes off. Doesn't seem to put any veils back...since they weren't there to start with.

MQA is a money grab. It's purported space saving value has been largely made moot because the cost of storage is so cheap.

I'm not an anti-MQA zealot, but find their toenail hold on things a little annoying.

 

[win]

Dude they've been making audio and video codecs for years look it up,now if MQA survive it survive if it don't it don't,there is always gonna be something new,who's the ridiculous one now.

usually when someone touts their new codec, it's actually better, not worse.

mqa is a scam.

 

[robertozappala]

Seriously, search for MQA on this site and you will get a flavour. The last thing anyone needs is another thread turning into an MQA warzone

I didn't want to create a warzone, I wanted to know John's opinion, looking on the site I found it! ;-)

 

[dmac6419]

usually when someone touts their new codec, it's actually better, not worse.

mqa is a scam.

SO you say

 

[ElNino]

SO you say

"Scam" may be a little harsh, but MQA offers no intelligible technical benefit and mandates the use of a specific, low-quality digital filter. It just doesn't make sense on any level.

 

[JohnYang1997]

MQA version results in worse than CD quality playback. I have tested but don't ask me for test results.

 

[Charles0322]

Easy on the personal attacks.

does it make sense to be “all in” against mqa? I mean if you don’t like it fine.. but make it your purpose on a forum like this to attack it every way possible adds nothing to the discussion.. “very bad” this type of thing shouldn’t be allowed on ASR unless you qualify what you mean by “very bad”

 

[BDWoody]

qualify what you mean by “very bad”

Does nothing good.

 

[dmac6419]

Does nothing good.

I've been playing guitar and bass since i was 12 y/o,56 y/o now and since that time there has been a million codecs,and I don't understand what some of these people are trying to hear,enjoy the music.

 

[Gradius]

Why I said is bad?

Because we already have truly lossless and OPEN SOURCE (yes, totally free) codec like FLAC.

In fact, I compiled v1.3.3 since day 1 it was released (over a year now), and is working perfectly since then.

FLAC has been with us for over 19 YEARS now.

MQA is bad because:

- We don't (we really don't) need more audio codecs;
- More audio codecs confuses new (or last) consumers;
- Because is new, they think (automatically) is better;
- They do marketing telling all that nonsense "high quality beyond CD", "quality like 96kHz @ 24-bit", etc, etc. (we know isn't true);
- It's a CLOSED and PROPRIETARY codec;
- The list goes on.

I'm not alone on this (few examples):
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/mqa-bad-for-music.1378/
https://www.linn.co.uk/blog/mqa-is-bad-for-music
https://forum.psaudio.com/t/is-mqa-a-scam/6168

And finally, the logo on my profile is to make the people think (why?) and to be aware of it.

It was never made to attack anyone, except perhaps... MQA itself.

 

[Charles0322]

don't need yet another standard that doesn't add any value except for gimmicks, and requires hardware licensing fees in perpetuity to the manufacturers, driving prices up because people see a higher tier of streaming available on tidal and want to fool themselves.

who's the ridiculous one?

I have no problem paying for technology that enhances my streaming.

Is the problem the licensing fee? Would companies like Sim Audio and Mytek be into gimmicks?

I’m not falling for gimmicks, it’s called serious real world testing at high volume with mqa dac and mqa vs hi-res flac.

I only chime in when you see ppl being so dismissive or outright ignorant of the technology without doing the listening.

Every sound engineer who I know that has done the listening tests agrees that MQA is something special.

if you’re happy without it fine.. to go on some diatribe or making your asr avatar as something against the technology is hilarious..

Maybe going to a hearing specialist and checking hearing is the next step for you nay sayers or actually listening to mqa vs the same issue and release in hi-res or dsd.

mqa is for streaming and the advancements in the time domain make it very apparent to me what is happening and how it enhances the file.

Not to mention highly respected ppl in the industry like Hans Beekhuyzen who states he prefers dacs with mqa even when not using mqa because of the time domain enhancements inherent in the mqa filter

Like I said, not for you, fine.. but the ppl making their presence here largely anti mqa says more about their entrenched position that in itself is worrisome.. audio technology changes.. its almost as if the word lossy triggers some people.. and there is nothing that I hate more than compressed audio.. but as with flac where we began to do tests and saw there was no change, for me mqa has flipped the game where the terminology of “lossy” has not kept up with the technology.

bottom line I would not be here typing if it weren’t for the many attacks on a codec which those nay sayers most certainly don’t use everyday like me..

why the “very bad” why the “gimmicks” are you guys for real?

 

[JohnYang1997]

MQA is worse than CD quality. No more to say. Save yourself a few bucks and choose CD quality streaming.
How? MQA adds 14-16khz standing tone which is in the audible range. It degrades sound quality against CD quality not enhancing it.

 

[dmac6419]

MQA is worse than CD quality. No more to say. Save yourself a few bucks and choose CD quality streaming.
How? MQA adds 14-16khz standing tone which is in the audible range. It degrades sound quality against CD quality not enhancing it.

So why did topping make a MQA dac?

 

[dmac6419]

Why I said is bad?

Because we already have truly lossless and OPEN SOURCE (yes, totally free) codec like FLAC.

In fact, I compiled v1.3.3 since day 1 it was released (over a year now), and is working perfectly since then.

FLAC has been with us for over 19 YEARS now.

MQA is bad because:

- We don't (we really don't) need more audio codecs;
- More audio codecs confuses new (or last) consumers;
- Because is new, they think (automatically) is better;
- They do marketing telling all that nonsense "high quality beyond CD", "quality like 96kHz @ 24-bit", etc, etc. (we know isn't true);
- It's a CLOSED and PROPRIETARY codec;
- The list goes on.

I'm not alone on this (few examples):
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/mqa-bad-for-music.1378/
https://www.linn.co.uk/blog/mqa-is-bad-for-music
https://forum.psaudio.com/t/is-mqa-a-scam/6168

And finally, the logo on my profile is to make the people think (why?) and to be aware of it.

It was never made to attack anyone, except perhaps... MQA itself.

You do know you paying fees for that stereo reciever you have and that phone and that computer, etc.