-
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). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.
MQA Deep Dive - I published music on tidal to test MQA
- Thread starter GoldenOne
- Start date
- Tags compression dac digital filter lossless mqa streaming tidal
- Status
these formats serve a valuable function or they provide advantages otherwise they wouldn't be widely adopted.
MQA has no real valuable advatnage to the user and has barely any adoption.
Qobuz offers 0.04$ per stream to the artist, Tidal offers 0.01$. You're paying for MQA, whether you like it or not.
MQA has no real valuable advatnage to the user and has barely any adoption.
Qobuz offers 0.04$ per stream to the artist, Tidal offers 0.01$. You're paying for MQA, whether you like it or not.
Roon is paying MQA for their service. So you are actually paying MQA with a Roon subscription.
https://community.roonlabs.com/t/why-do-manufacturers-support-mqa/155965/21
https://community.roonlabs.com/t/why-do-manufacturers-support-mqa/155965/21
So, we have fake hi res MQA, >20kHz high frequencies synthesized from the <20Khz in band audio.
They then started changing "lossless" files by stealing the 3 bottom bits to fill with aliasing noise of these fake high frequencies.
Given how good the AAC coder is, it's possible Tidal's Premium tier 320 AAC may now be perceptibly as good or better than Tidal's "lossless" for files with a "Master" version.
But perhaps even that is naïve. Is their next step to build the 320 AAC files from the 13 bit + alias noise "lossless master"? It's seems the logical thing to do from their position. How far down the rabbit hole will this contagion go?
The record labels are investing in MQA. If anyone thinks this demolition of the audio isn't to just add watermarking, swampland in Florida awaits your signature on the deed.
They then started changing "lossless" files by stealing the 3 bottom bits to fill with aliasing noise of these fake high frequencies.
Given how good the AAC coder is, it's possible Tidal's Premium tier 320 AAC may now be perceptibly as good or better than Tidal's "lossless" for files with a "Master" version.
But perhaps even that is naïve. Is their next step to build the 320 AAC files from the 13 bit + alias noise "lossless master"? It's seems the logical thing to do from their position. How far down the rabbit hole will this contagion go?
The record labels are investing in MQA. If anyone thinks this demolition of the audio isn't to just add watermarking, swampland in Florida awaits your signature on the deed.
Last edited:
"adding in things" actually made me laugh. Maybe first time I laughed on an MQA thread. [And I haven't had a smoke break.]How much further does it go, all this? MQA claims lossy-compression "masters", now someone claims their encoding adds things in - is that something to do with "what the artist intended."
So Tidal costs more than QOBUZ, good to know.
I actually think that a format that was truly lossless that added Dolby Atmos is intriguing if people could get it stuffed up the DACs snoot.
Dolby has the technology to offer lossless base with lossy surround metadata, this format is actually interesting.
Folks with multi-channel Atmos decoding in the AVR/AVP get more use out of their systems.
- Rich
I actually think that a format that was truly lossless that added Dolby Atmos is intriguing if people could get it stuffed up the DACs snoot.
Dolby has the technology to offer lossless base with lossy surround metadata, this format is actually interesting.
Folks with multi-channel Atmos decoding in the AVR/AVP get more use out of their systems.
- Rich
A list of MQA albums can be found here: https://www.meridianunplugged.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=268318
About 78000 of 104000 plus albums are the 16-bit MQACD variety. If MQA gains acceptance, it seems that we are going to have to live with the inferior 16-bit type.
About 78000 of 104000 plus albums are the 16-bit MQACD variety. If MQA gains acceptance, it seems that we are going to have to live with the inferior 16-bit type.
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. It also means that if you pay for roon you are paying MQA Ltd. indirectly, whether you use their technology or not.
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. It also means that if you pay for roon you are paying MQA Ltd. indirectly, whether you use their technology or not.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
-
Am I deaf??? Troubleshooting deep/distant sound- Started by supernova
- Replies: 15
-
Deep dive: Questions after reading Toole and Geddes for stereo setup.
- Started by johnp98
- Replies: 10
-
