Labels sometimes send MQA files (and nothing else) to Qobuz, without marking them as such.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
MQA Sounds Really Good!
- Thread starter watchnerd
- Start date
- Status
How do you know that? If Qobuz make changes then why are the hi-res albums not all the same resolution?
Also, how come you can buy hi-res albums on highresaudio.com that correspond exactly to the resolution size of the same album on Qobuz? Either this is a massive coincidence or Qobuz, along with highresaudio.com and everybody else, receives their files from the labels at the same resolution that they stream them.
MQA is, in almost all ways, inventing solutions to problems that don't exit.
What makes you think that?
NONE of the files I see on Qobuz are less than CD resolution, which covers everything audible anyway, with some bigger files which one can use if one wishes. Some recordings are available at larger file sizes, depending on what the record label has available.
I am quite sure the 44/16 file will be the same as any CD the label supplies, why on earth wouldn't it be?????
I actually chose Qobuz because of their music catalogue but any idea that it has any way inferior files available to other streaming services is absurd, given their raison d'etre!
MQA=DRM ..... that is it's reason to exist. It is being "sold" to consumers as better quality but claiming a lossy format can some how "improve" anything is as pure of a "snake oil" claim as I have ever seen. DRM has no advantages to consumers but it does for content providers and streaming services and of course Meridian Audio. I guess if you are not a pirate it does not make a lot of difference but for a consumer MQA is only worse than non MQA.
It will when, inevitably, MQA decoders stop being sold and you're stuck with unplayable files.
Consumers possessing/ owning their own music is not part of "the plan". The future of music is about streaming .... old people that cling to the strange and old fashioned concept of "owning music" or "owning physical media" will be dead soon enough and all will be well.
Yeah already both my (younger) brother and sister look at my collection and you can just see 'em thinking how will I get rid of all this stuff when he's gone?
The point is to receive the music in "as the artist intended" condition, what you do with it after that is your business. But if that Abby Road file has been MQA'd, all hope is lost from the git-go. This site is largely populated by audiophiles who attempt "as closely as they can" to build a HiFi that is as accurate as possible. They buy accurate speakers, use REW and all sort of other room measurement software and DRC to get a reproduction of the source as closely as they can. That's why, since the early 1950's it's been called a "High Fidelity" system.
YMMV
All this worry over the streaming bandwidth for audio, while the rest of the world is rapidly switching to streaming for their video needs. The size of our files is like a flea on the ass of an elephant. LOL
OP
watchnerd
Grand Contributor
- Thread Starter
- #732
Exactly.
I can stream 4K video over my home network connection.
Audio, of any resolution currently available from the streaming services, is mouse nuts compared to this -- saving bandwidth for audio streaming is a rounding error compared to the size of the pipes to my home.
And this test is over a wifi mesh network....
Drm is a great way for big content owners to collaborate with major hardware manufacturers to dictate to consumers which hardware they should buy.
The point is to receive the music in "as the artist intended" condition, what you do with it after that is your business. But if that Abby Road file has been MQA'd, all hope is lost from the git-go. This site is largely populated by audiophiles who attempt "as closely as they can" to build a HiFi that is as accurate as possible. They buy accurate speakers, use REW and all sort of other room measurement software and DRC to get a reproduction of the source as closely as they can. That's why, since the early 1950's it's been called a "High Fidelity" system.
YMMV
I don't know if this make sense but my basis in reproducing the original sound/recording closely as possible (under the assumption that most master rooms measures quite flat) is trying to gather gear that measures as flat as possible and has it's distortion rate as low as possible. So my DAC, amplifier an VDS speakers (every VDS is measured in an anechoic room an is a time-alignment an phase coherent design) is flat with minimum distortion. Now my acoustics is another (horrible) problem but treated with absorption panels (mostly for first reflections) an Room correction software i manage to get a quite flat frequency response.
IMO above creates a level playing field in reproducing a honest sound. The sound that i get out of this combination of gear an RC treatment is excellent.
vavan
Senior Member
quoting S.Olive:
"Another significant source of variation in the recording process stems from acoustical interactions between the loudspeaker and the listening room [1]-[3] Below 300-500 Hz, the placement of the loudspeaker-listener can cause >18 dB variations in the in-room response due to room resonances and placing the loudspeaker in proximity to a room boundary.
Evidence of acoustical interactions has been well documented survey of 164 professional recording studios where the same high-quality, factory calibrated monitored was installed [4]. Figure 2 shows the distribution of in-room responses measured at the primary listening location where the recordings are monitored and mixed. The 1/3-octave smoothed curves show a reasonably tight ± 2.5 dB variation above 1 kHz. However, below 1 kHz, variation in the in-room response gets progressively much worse at lower frequencies. Below 100 Hz, the in-room bass response can vary as much 25 dB among the different control rooms! You needn’t look any further than here to understand why the quality and quantity of bass is so variable among the recordings in your music library"
I am just reading on another forum that "HD-Tracks" has just replaced thousands of tracks with new MQA versions. The old versions are no longer available for purchase. The MQA=DRM plan is coming together. The other part of the MQA plan of using sound quality as a "trojan horse" for consumer acceptance is also working well as even on this scientific / objectivist forum people are discussing the "sound quality" of MQA even though the idea of "lossy is better" and "lets go back in time and read the artists mind when in a 50 year old sound studio" makes as much scientific sense as a perpetual motion machine.
The point is to receive the music in "as the artist intended" condition, what you do with it after that is your business. But if that Abby Road file has been MQA'd, all hope is lost from the git-go. This site is largely populated by audiophiles who attempt "as closely as they can" to build a HiFi that is as accurate as possible. They buy accurate speakers, use REW and all sort of other room measurement software and DRC to get a reproduction of the source as closely as they can. That's why, since the early 1950's it's been called a "High Fidelity" system.
YMMV
There's no way the artists or the main producer are hanging around for MQA encoding. A lot of these are old recordings and are being done without anybody from the original recording in the building. Some of the people involved are going to be dead by now. Even for new recordings, the artists and main producer have better things to do than be there for niche encodings. In the 60's they weren't even there for the stereo masterings!
It makes no sense for the consumer but since MQA=DRM it does for everyone else making money off of the consumer. Apparently WMG is replacing it's current downloadable content with MQA content under the guise of "new master/ better sound quality". The problem of course is that you no longer have the choice of the "old" non MQA/ DRM content.
MakeMineVinyl
Major Contributor
You'll be 'old and dead' at som
If that is indeed the case, I'm not purchasing from HD Tracks again.
- Status
Similar threads
