• 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 Deep Dive - I published music on tidal to test MQA

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jimbob54

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
11,066
Likes
14,700
Somebody has to pay. Roon COO says it's them: 'We pay MQA to let you “Core Decode” in Roon. We don’t make money directly on MQA, we lose it!'

So they see it as a cost of doing business to attract customers. You wonder, though, how much it affects their profitability and whether the money could be better spent on developing other features.

I think if they didn't do mqa, they would lose those roon subs that want to stream tidal through it (which i guess far exceeds those that use qobuz through it). Unless they all have roon and mqa compatible dacs anyway. Not sure how many subs don't use either tidal or qobuz.
 

Chrispy

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 7, 2020
Messages
7,757
Likes
5,915
Location
PNW
Roon is an add-on software player not necessary to play MQA files and it also plays any other file just fine. How on earth is paying for Roon paying for MQA?

Tidal Hi-Fi tier is not just for MQA.


Roon I don't find necessary whatsoever, I can play and manage my libraries just fine without Roon. So it would be an extra cost if I wanted it's mqa capabilities via Tidal (which is pretty much the only place where this mqa nonsense exists). Tidal overall I didnt like anyways, didn't find its UI very good let alone the music ads and suggestions....and missing much content I had already elsewhere.... YMMV.
 

SKBubba

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2018
Messages
453
Likes
785
I think if they didn't do mqa, they would lose those roon subs that want to stream tidal through it (which i guess far exceeds those that use qobuz through it). Unless they all have roon and mqa compatible dacs anyway. Not sure how many subs don't use either tidal or qobuz.

Yeah, good question. Probably not many roon users who don't have one or the other or both.

One thing, though, is Qobuz users need roon to get the extra personalization, recommendation and radio features that Qobuz apps lack, and bonus, standard unmolested FLAC files. Tidal users have plenty of other ways to access those features without roon, and play MQA if the want. (And in fact roon doesn't support all the Tidal features, such as "my mixes").

Anyway, sorry, back on topic. Roon good. Qobuz good. Roon+Qobuz good. Tidal apps good. Roon+Tidal good, except MQA. MQA bad, very bad for industry.
 

mash

Active Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2020
Messages
129
Likes
270
As a Roon, Tidal user........I really like the whole house mgmt features that Tidal lacks (multiple endpoints...grouping), better hardware support for RAAT vs Tidal connect, the ability to merge my home flac library with the Tidal library (including building integrated playlists) and the Roon DSP features. I could care less about the Roon MQA support.

But if decide to move to Spotify HiRez and drop TIdal, Roon my be a bystander fatality.
 

Digital Delay

Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2021
Messages
12
Likes
5
In the beginning, I bought some music on cassettes. Then I bought some of the same music on CDs. Then I put some of the same music on Mini Disc for portability. Then I bought some of the same music on MP3 because I couldn’t find some of my old CDs. And now I stream some of the same music on Apple Music/Tidal MQA because I bought an streaming amplifier (NAD M10) at home.

I see this MQA as just one of the current formats out there, not necessarily commercially “worse” than the formats before it. Sound quality wise, I’m quite happy with it :)
 

AdamG

Proving your point makes it “Science”.
Moderator
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
4,637
Likes
14,924
Location
Reality
In the beginning, I bought some music on cassettes. Then I bought some of the same music on CDs. Then I put some of the same music on Mini Disc for portability. Then I bought some of the same music on MP3 because I couldn’t find some of my old CDs. And now I stream some of the same music on Apple Music/Tidal MQA because I bought an streaming amplifier (NAD M10) at home.

I see this MQA as just one of the current formats out there, not necessarily commercially “worse” than the formats before it. Sound quality wise, I’m quite happy with it :)
I did the exact same insane thing with Movies. Starting with BetaMax, VHS, LaserDisc, DVD, SuperBit DVD, HD-DVD, BluRay, Ultra UHD, and Cloud only Versions. I know I have bought some of the same movies 6 maybe 7 times. My god I am insane. Hope my wife never reads this post! :eek:
 

goldenears

Active Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2019
Messages
110
Likes
134
That's exactly how MQA Ltd marketed theirr technology to the labels:

Spencer Chrislu, MQA's director of content services (August 2016):

"It's important, though, to protect the interests of studios. If a studio does their archive at 24-bit/192kHz and then uses that same file as something to sell on a hi-rez site, that is basically giving away the crown jewels upon which their entire business is based."

Bob Stuart (May, 2017):

"MQA provides the opportunity to deliver the exact sound heard from the real master without actually putting the crown jewels out there to be stolen."

Protecting the "crown jewels" (i.e, maintaining control) was the whole pitch to the labels.

I did the exact same insane thing with Movies. Starting with BetaMax, VHS, LaserDisc, DVD, SuperBit DVD, HD-DVD, BluRay, Ultra UHD, and Cloud only Versions. I know I have bought some of the same movies 6 maybe 7 times. My god I am insane. Hope my wife never reads this post! :eek:

That's crazy.

Reading what you wrote and putting it in the context of samsa's post about the "Crown Jewels", it just feels like MQA is yet another attempt to get a foot in the door to try to prevent people like yourself from actually buying the best copy of a recording, so they won't need to buy it over and over and over again.

I feel that morally you should only have to buy a recording once. This DRM stuff is for the birds.

It just doesn't sit right for me that you can buy it at the highest quality MQA, and then you're locked into only being able to play it on MQA players for ever more. If I buy it at the highest quality I'd like to be able to convert it later to whatever format I like, which I can do with FLAC. I get FLACs or make my own FLACs from CD and convert them to 320k MP3 for the car and phone. I believe that you can't do that with MQA?
 

bobbooo

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 30, 2019
Messages
1,479
Likes
2,079
I did the exact same insane thing with Movies. Starting with BetaMax, VHS, LaserDisc, DVD, SuperBit DVD, HD-DVD, BluRay, Ultra UHD, and Cloud only Versions. I know I have bought some of the same movies 6 maybe 7 times. My god I am insane. Hope my wife never reads this post! :eek:

From UHD Blu-rays to lossy compressed cloud-only versions? :oops: That's almost as insane as owning CDs and then, say, paying for a streaming service to give you lossy versions fraudulently marketed as superior master quality authenticated audio. Oh wait...
 

Digital Delay

Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2021
Messages
12
Likes
5
For me, file format and resolution is just one part of the equation. Music should be about the feelings and emotions it evokes. For example, the bestest version of Nirvana’s Nevermind to me was the one I dubbed in my TDK metal cassette from the original back when I was 17. I know I could never get this version back now no matter how the formats evolve and how high-res the file gets. So just listen to what’s available and hope it brings back some memories of that teenage angst :)

I also think no format will be prevalent forever. If anyone is against MQA, I would say they are just a “current thing”. Even if MQA disappears today, there will be “another thing” down the road. Peace :)
 

Chrispy

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 7, 2020
Messages
7,757
Likes
5,915
Location
PNW
For me, file format and resolution is just one part of the equation. Music should be about the feelings and emotions it evokes. For example, the bestest version of Nirvana’s Nevermind to me was the one I dubbed in my TDK metal cassette from the original back when I was 17. I know I could never get this version back now no matter how the formats evolve and how high-res the file gets. So just listen to what’s available and hope it brings back some memories of that teenage angst :)

I also think no format will be prevalent forever. If anyone is against MQA, I would say they are just a “current thing”. Even if MQA disappears today, there will be “another thing” down the road. Peace :)

But who else could combine that emotional experience tied up in a bundle like that ever again on the other hand? The feelings and emotions are from you, not the format. Personal involvement in the recording is a huge factor (made many such mix tapes myself)....but not often as heartfelt to the recipient as the creator :) Then again the very time period when that was happening has a huge influence, the available media at the moment of course has an effect.....having gone thru vinyl/cassette/digital changes over time.....but most of the memories are from the music of the time, not particularly being on vinyl in my case as that's all we had back then really.
 

goldenears

Active Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2019
Messages
110
Likes
134
I also think no format will be prevalent forever. If anyone is against MQA, I would say they are just a “current thing”. Even if MQA disappears today, there will be “another thing” down the road.

That's just the thing though. We're at the point where a FLAC is the same quality as the master. That's the endgame, the "Crown Jewels", as good as it can get.

FLAC is open so you'll always be able to convert it to whatever you want. If you get an MQA then you're forever stuck with MQA, so when MQA is long gone and your MQA DAC dies, you're SOL and have to buy everything again.

Why would you want to take that risk when there's a free option, and the free option even has better sound quality than MQA?

the bestest version of Nirvana’s Nevermind to me was the one I dubbed in my TDK metal cassette from the original back when I was 17.

About this... personally I've been blown away many times hearing the music from my youth on a good system/headphones from lossless. Some of those songs just sound better than I ever imagined.

I'm so happy to have the equipment we've got now for affordable prices, and even amazing quality from headphones attached to your phone with thousands of songs on it, not to mention an always-on internet connection wherever you go to hear whatever you want!

We've never been luckier as music lovers!!

It's lovely to have such first-world problems as arguing about a couple of dB of noise on a digital file, although it is irritating the way companies always try to ruin the fun in order to extract maximum money from old music. If they would be creative and foster new artists, the money will never run out!
 
Last edited:

Chrispy

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 7, 2020
Messages
7,757
Likes
5,915
Location
PNW
How long before bandwidth is so accessible as to make even any lossless compression routine just something not needed?
 

Digital Delay

Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2021
Messages
12
Likes
5
...FLAC is open so you'll always be able to convert it to whatever you want. If you get an MQA then you're forever stuck with MQA, so when MQA is long gone and your MQA DAC dies, you're SOL and have to buy everything again.

Why would you want to take that risk when there's a free option, and the free option even has better sound quality than MQA?

About this... personally I've been blown away many times hearing the music from my youth on a good system/headphones from lossless. Some of those songs just sound better than I ever imagined.

...If they would be creative and foster new artists, the money will never run out!

Since I do not have “real” hi-res streaming services (Qobuz/Amazon HD) where I live, Tidal Hifi tier comes closest. I’m fine with it because it’s sounds good to me and integrates well with my NAD M10, which I do not expect to last “forever”. I reckon it will be like changing a TV set a few years down the road. Lol

On Tidal, I’m still impressed by the details of old songs that I did not hear 20+ years ago and it makes it interesting to listen back. But the feeling of hearing those old songs for the first time (albeit in poorer format) can never replicated. Actually with streaming I’m exploring much more new music recently. I hope I’m supporting these “new” artistes everytime I press “play” in whatever format that is available :)
 

samsa

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Mar 31, 2020
Messages
506
Likes
589
How long before bandwidth is so accessible as to make even any lossless compression routine just something not needed?

Even the lowliest ARM CPUs are so fast that the overhead of decompressing the data is negligible compared to the latency in transmitting it. Hence compressed filesystems have become increasingly ubiquitous on computers. If compression is advantageous for local filesystems, that will (continue to) hold double for networks.
 

JSmith

Master Contributor
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Messages
5,153
Likes
13,219
Location
Algol Perseus
How long before bandwidth is so accessible as to make even any lossless compression routine just something not needed?
They were probably hoping to capture the smartphone streaming market... you know where people listen to "high-res" audio on Bluetooth earbuds. ;)

Fortunately it's not "all locked up and thrown away the key" just yet,



JSmith
 

KeithPhantom

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
May 8, 2020
Messages
641
Likes
658
Even the lowliest ARM CPUs are so fast that the overhead of decompressing the data is negligible compared to the latency in transmitting it. Hence compressed filesystems have become increasingly ubiquitous on computers. If compression is advantageous for local filesystems, that will (continue to) hold double for networks.
Exactly, just give us FLAC configuration #8 and there you go with the bandwidth concerns.
 

goldenears

Active Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2019
Messages
110
Likes
134
How long before bandwidth is so accessible as to make even any lossless compression routine just something not needed?

Barring any sci-fi type advances, bandwidth will never be unlimited.

So in 20 years a compressed file will still take 1/2 the time as an uncompressed file to send.

There's no negatives to lossless compression, so why not use it?

edit: MQA is not lossless, by definition.
 

Raindog123

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 23, 2020
Messages
1,599
Likes
3,554
Location
Melbourne, FL, USA
Barring any sci-fi type advances, bandwidth will never be unlimited.

Have you heard of 5G? What about WiFi6? Starlink? :)

There's no negatives to lossless compression, so why not use it?

I am guessing you’re talking about FLAC’s nearly 100% (compressed file is 1/2 [50%] of the original) lossless compression? Of course we use it, all the time!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom