• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). There are daily reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

MQA: A Review of controversies, concerns, and cautions

Status
Not open for further replies.

Thomas savage

Grand Contributor
The Watchman
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
10,224
Likes
16,083
Location
uk, taunton
there’s been some whinging about closing this thread ( there’s also be some ‘ well done’) , it’s not permanently closed.
Think of it as a reprieve, a chance to explore other areas and come back to this a bit later , hopefully with new information and renewed purpose. Members are just endlessly repeating themselves, I get it we all like a moan but you all have set higher standards than that and I’d be doing you a disservice by not honouring those values in this instance .


Cheers and thanks.
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
40,003
Likes
185,860
Location
Seattle Area
The "world domination" is a campaign talking point against MQA proving what I said. There is no basis for that in fact. Companies like Apple, Google, Amazon, etc. would never, ever give MQA a chance whatsoever to dominate the world. To say nothing of labels not wanting to put MQA in that place whatsoever.
Opening this thread now that we see my prediction above coming through. :) Amazon did NOT adopt MQA in their high-res streaming service. And if Apple goes in this direct, they will not either.
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
40,003
Likes
185,860
Location
Seattle Area
And our audio TV personality, Paul McGowan also opines on MQA:


As I had mentioned, if you are selling a DAC for thousands of dollars, you better put MQA in there because your customers want it and you can't complain about cost. He says the same thing.
 

watchnerd

Grand Contributor
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
12,427
Likes
10,312
Location
Seattle Area, USA
Opening this thread now that we see my prediction above coming through. :) Amazon did NOT adopt MQA in their high-res streaming service. And if Apple goes in this direct, they will not either.

Yeah, but Harman just announced they joined the MQA alliance with the Levinson and JBL Synthesis brands.

So apparently people who are putting cash on the line are reading the tea leaves differently.
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
40,003
Likes
185,860
Location
Seattle Area
Yeah, but Harman just announced they joined the MQA alliance with the Levinson and JBL Synthesis brands.

So apparently people who are putting cash on the line are reading the tea leaves differently.
As I said, if you are a high-end brand, you have to do MQA because customers are asking for it. You just can't hide behind, "oh it costs too much." No one cares about that argument when they are buying a $10,000 piece of audio gear. I post that video of Paul saying PS Audio is doing MQA because of the same reason even though Paul says he doesn't like it.

What might change that is if Tidal goes out of business due to Amazon.
 

solderdude

Grand Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
13,059
Likes
29,422
Location
The Neitherlands
I think MQA is clever in the sense that they went public promising what audiophiles want.
Convince dealers and consumers.
Create the 'desire' to be able to listen to it by advertorials, interviews, articles and most folks (not ASR members obviously) and you get consumers asking for this 'incredible technology' that promises 'perfect sound forever' from data limited providers and people who buy the 'blurring' thing because they 'heard' this effect themselves.

When you sell this to manufacturers that also want a piece of that market and want to show their DAC supports this incredible new tech (logo) then you have a steady income that will increase as demand grows higher and 'serious manufacturers' won't like to be behind others and want that market too.

There is the brilliance of MQA.... marketing

(ah writing at the same time as Amir)
 

digicidal

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 6, 2019
Messages
1,882
Likes
4,429
Location
Sin City, NV
What might change that is if Tidal goes out of business due to Amazon.

Here's to hoping that comes true sooner rather than later. Although the "Evil Empire of Direct Sales" scares me for other reasons... I certainly wouldn't lament Tidal's passing.
 

watchnerd

Grand Contributor
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
12,427
Likes
10,312
Location
Seattle Area, USA
As I said, if you are a high-end brand, you have to do MQA because customers are asking for it. You just can't hide behind, "oh it costs too much." No one cares about that argument when they are buying a $10,000 piece of audio gear. I post that video of Paul saying PS Audio is doing MQA because of the same reason even though Paul says he doesn't like it.

What might change that is if Tidal goes out of business due to Amazon.

I understand your point, but it implies buyers of $10,000 DACs aren't aware that some of the bigger streamers aren't getting behind MQA.

I would hope buyers in that price bracket would be more clued-in.

Otherwise, this will become just another HDCD for the hardware makers....you'd think they would learn their lesson by now.
 

digicidal

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 6, 2019
Messages
1,882
Likes
4,429
Location
Sin City, NV
As long as there are possibilities for dispute with proprietary standards there will always be more bodies for the obsolescence graveyard. That's what's so great about open standards... you can't price people out of participation. There should be enough areas for milking (and bilking) the consumer out of their cash already.
 

watchnerd

Grand Contributor
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
12,427
Likes
10,312
Location
Seattle Area, USA
As long as there are possibilities for dispute with proprietary standards there will always be more bodies for the obsolescence graveyard. That's what's so great about open standards... you can't price people out of participation. There should be enough areas for milking (and bilking) the consumer out of their cash already.

MQA-Ready cables?
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
40,003
Likes
185,860
Location
Seattle Area
Hmmm. I don't understand him sometimes. He is not a high-end audiophile. Nor is his data points correct with respect to that. For example:

1569742918272.png


I have gone to ton of audio shows and they most definitely talk about and use high-res audio.

1569742966694.png


I bought literally thousands of dollars of high-res audio files before I signed up for Tidal. Here is an example:

1569743348723.png


In this case, horrors of horrors, it is actually massive DSD files!

I think he is focused on mainstream labels where the action is in independendent and small labels. May are vertically integrated, recording their own content and releasing it online. This is behind the come back of DSD. And high-res PCM.

He needs to live the high-end audio to know the high-end audio.
 

solderdude

Grand Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
13,059
Likes
29,422
Location
The Neitherlands
Re-encode the DSD files in MQA and you can free space on your HD and at the same time can enjoy all the miraculous benefits of MQA sound :).
Ohh.. there's a snag... encoders are not freely available.
 

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,158
Location
UK
Has there ever been an example in history where a commercial company effectively monopolized a hitherto free and open market?

If so, the MQA enthusiasts (who are interested in defending it in a discussion) have to show that MQA is fundamentally different. I think that arguments such as "High res audio is such a niche market that world domination is not on anyone's radar" fall short because they are merely using a value judgement to dismiss the argument. Clearly the people who produce and consume high res audio think that it is a sufficiently large market to bother with!

On the other hand if no commercial company has ever effectively monopolized a free and open market this would support the idea that MQA is not a threat (but there can always be a first time :)).
 

Wombat

Master Contributor
Joined
Nov 5, 2017
Messages
6,726
Likes
6,372
Location
Australia
Has there ever been an example in history where a commercial company effectively monopolized a hitherto free and open market?

If so, the MQA enthusiasts (who are interested in defending it in a discussion) have to show that MQA is fundamentally different. I think that arguments such as "High res audio is such a niche market that world domination is not on anyone's radar" fall short because they are merely using a value judgement to dismiss the argument. Clearly the people who produce and consume high res audio think that it is a sufficiently large market to bother with!

On the other hand if no commercial company has ever effectively monopolized a free and open market this would support the idea that MQA is not a threat (but there can always be a first time :)).

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/04/east-india-company-original-corporate-raiders

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-11-26/tech-monopolies-strangle-economic-growth
 
Last edited:

Juhazi

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 15, 2018
Messages
1,695
Likes
2,819
Location
Finland
Isn't that a TEAC dac/dap and a Behringer deq - far from high end! (at archimago's)
 

Soniclife

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,213
Likes
4,951
Location
UK
He is not a high-end audiophile.
Really? I'd of thought you of all people would be sick of hearing that accusation.

On the point of him being out of touch or in his own clique I kind of agree, but every audiophile probably is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom