MQA Sounds Really Good!

[Wombat]

Is it me or you guys are completely missing the point of MQA?

it is to reduce the bandwidth and server storage required to host albums at 192khz +

did you guys really not ask yourselves why Tidal has a bigger library, a better user interface and on many occasions better masters than Qobuz?

it is a compromise, no one in their right mind would say otherwise. But i would very much rather take Tidal’s compromise over Youtube’s 192kbps mp3 ...

Even iTunes SELLS AAC lossy music. It’s ridiculous.

I think this was said way way back in the thread and similar replies made.

Maybe threads could be time limited or reply number capped to avoid mind-numbing repetition. It is obvious that newer arrivals do not always read the whole threads prior to posting - I can't blame them considering how mindlessly long some of them are.

 

[Frank Dernie]

infact i would still consider Tidal Master quality a step above every other streaming service because at worst case scenario you’re getting 24 bit audio.

Does the whole of your, or anybody's, hifi system need 24-bit dydnamic range?
The best analogue electronics, including the analogue stage of the DAC is at around 20-bit, so that is 1/6 of the 24-bit bandwidth unnecessary right there, and your power amp probably at best 90dB, so even 16-bit is more than needed there, then there is the room, even a super quiet rural house will have a background level of 30dB. If you actually had a recording with 20-bit dynamic range (tip: you haven't ) and you set it so you could just hear the quiet bit the peak would be 150dB - instant permanent deafness, though your speakers won't be able to get that loud, thankfully.
So fret thee not, you don't need 24-bit audio so all the rest of your concerns are moot.

 

[Wombat]

Does the whole of your, or anybody's, hifi system need 24-bit dydnamic range?
The best analogue electronics, including the analogue stage of the DAC is at around 20-bit, so that is 1/6 of the 24-bit bandwidth unnecessary right there, and your power amp probably at best 90dB, so even 16-bit is more than needed there, then there is the room, even a super quiet rural house will have a background level of 30dB. If you actually had a recording with 20-bit dynamic range (tip: you haven't ) and you set it so you could just hear the quiet bit the peak would be 150dB - instant permanent deafness, though your speakers won't be able to get that loud, thankfully.
So fret thee not, you don't need 24-bit audio so all the rest of your concerns are moot.

A succinct post worthy of a 'sticky'.

 

[dmac6419]

AMEN! MQA a product in need of a problem to solve. 96k flac is smaller than 192 MQA. 192k along with 96k is just wasteful of bandwidth in any case. I won't argue that Redbook is all we need, but 24/48 is certainly totally transparent to the master no matter it's recorded resolution.
Bottom line, we don't need these huge files and we don't need MQA. Lets let some common sense come into play here friends.

I'm pro MQA I respect your opinion, now respect ours., be safe out there.

 

[mansr]

“One example provided by MQA is Madonna’s Like A Virgin. When encoded into a hi-res FLAC file at 192kHz/24-bit, it ends up as 135.3 MB. The MQA version, which theoretically contains the same level of resolution, comes in at a relatively tiny 46.2 MB. Even when compared to a slightly lesser quality 96kHz/24-bit FLAC, the MQA version comes in at half the size.”

Source: https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/mqa-best-high-resolution-file-format-htc/

The flaw in that argument is that MQA doesn't even try to preserve spectral content above 48 kHz. Best case, you get something roughly equivalent to 18 bits at 96 kHz sample rate.

 

[digicidal]

To me it's exactly the same as exotic, megabuck audiophile cables. There's nothing inherently wrong with buying them or selling them - it's the manner in which it's undertaken that becomes problematic.

I'll admit that there is a fair bit of conspiracy theory crafting that goes on in this regard, but like the cable analogy - if a company simply states without objective proof that their megabuck cable "sounds better" it's fine... the consumer is left to make the decision. On the other hand if that company was actively working with other companies to artificially guarantee that their product was required in order to get good sound... that's a different matter entirely.

I think it's clear from the marketing and implementation, that the ultimate goal of MQA is to deny those (that don't capitulate) access to as many titles as they can. That's what I and many others have a problem with. Open source software isn't without it's problems either, but it is easier to dispel doubts regarding security, privacy, and profit motivations when the source is available for everyone to examine. The same applies to formats and protocols in media.

 

[mansr]

I think it's clear from the marketing and implementation, that the ultimate goal of MQA is to deny those (that don't capitulate) access to as many titles as they can.

Someone high up in the company has been quoted, IIRC in Stereophile, saying exactly that.

 

[dmac6419]

Someone high up in the company has been quoted, IIRC in Stereophile, saying exactly that.

Another Quote...MQA aims to “fundamentally change the way we all enjoy music”. It’s a method of digitally capturing and storing original master recordings as files that are small and convenient enough to download or stream, without the sonic sacrifices traditionally associated with compressed files.

 

[dmac6419]

 

[mansr]

I'm guessing that video doesn't feature Brian Lucey.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Yep, copy protection will be good for the artist and distributors profitability.
It may well make sure only the approved master is distributed but has nothing to do with the inherent SQ at all.
"Thank you Bob"

 

[BDWoody]

Archimago did a pretty thorough write-up a couple years ago.

https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/reviews/mqa-a-review-of-controversies-concerns-and-cautions-r701/

 

[dmac6419]

What makes Archimago the authority?

 

[dmac6419]

I'm guessing that video doesn't feature Brian Lucey.

You like Brian Lucey me too.

 

[scott wurcer]

without the sonic sacrifices traditionally associated with compressed files.

Could you point out the "sonic sacrifices" of lossless compression?

 

[mansr]

Could you point out the "sonic sacrifices" of lossless compression?

There's no "ka-ching" sound from Bob Stuart's coffers.

 

[dmac6419]

Could you point out the "sonic sacrifices" of lossless compression?

I like lossless and lossy as well as MQA,I'm not anal about it, enjoy the music and be safe.

 

[scott wurcer]

Another quote...

Is MQA Lossless? A. Yes. MQA comes in a lossless (FLAC) file from the music label, so you get exactly what the creators intended.Jul 1, 2020

Is MQA Lossless?
www.mqa.co.uk › newsroom › is-mqa-lossless

 

[BDWoody]

What makes Archimago the authority?

I'd say he's a generally respected voice, more than 'the authority.'

Did you have anything specific to take issue with about what he said and/or the citations referenced?

 

[cjm2077]

In the end it doesn't matter much. MQA will be yet another higher rez format talked about by audiophiles, raved about by a few, with some hardware support, and in the end incredibly limited use by the overall audio market. I'm sure some jazz, classical, and 30+ year old rock music (loved by old people who happen to be audiophiles) will be available and not much else, just like all the higher rez formats of the past. These formats make for great debates in forums, but they're really irrelevant in the big scheme of selling, buying, and listening to music.