• Welcome to ASR. 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 Update

pjug said:
Not that this is important news, but if Lenbrook's streaming service does ever launch it looks like they quietly changed plans about being exclusively MQA:

Jan 2025 in https://www.soundstagesimplifi.com/index.php/feature-articles/275-mqas-second-chapter
That’s a big reason why Lenbrook opted not to offer both FLAC and MQA content. “If we were going to replicate the industry’s catalog in both MQA and PCM, that was going to be a lot more expensive for us, and we’d have to pass that cost along,” Jbara explained.

Oct 2025 in https://www.afdigitale.it/mqa-labs-la-nuova-frontiera-del-suono-digitale/
As Mike clarified, the platform will not be limited exclusively to the MQA format:
"The service will accept whatever version the label or rights holder deems best. It won't be exclusively MQA content, but will also integrate PCM audio from any label that prefers to submit that."
Click to expand...
They probably realized that otherwise it would be a stillbirth and too many users would no longer want this MQA nonsense.
 
I really enjoy MQA at 24/192, I couldn't really notice any difference at the standard 44.1. If I didn't already own the roon nucleus I'd buy the blue node 2 for it's ability to see the MQA files on tidal.
 
steve59 said:
I really enjoy MQA at 24/192, I couldn't really notice any difference at the standard 44.1. If I didn't already own the roon nucleus I'd buy the blue node 2 for it's ability to see the MQA files on tidal.
Click to expand...
I really enjoy a lot of music at 320kpbs MP3 encoding. What's your point?
 
kyuu said:
I really enjoy a lot of music at 320kpbs MP3 encoding. What's your point?
Click to expand...
There is a big difference in enjoying MP3 (a known to be quit a bit less SOTA that the average human can hear.) (there is a lot that I enjoy that is not SOTA).
But claiming that one can hear MQA files better than other formats, without scientific proof of that, well, lets just say that is just not going to fly as beleavable among most folks here.
Of course, there can be eceptions, but proof is a necesary attribute.

EDIT: If he just said that he enjoys it or that he prefers it, I'm good with that.
As to Championing the format, is that a paid endevor or is he Championing the format becacuse he prefers it??
There is a difference there.
But most that have heard it disagree & the scientific proof that it is better does not seem to be there.
In fact, there is a lot of proof of the oposite.
So, unless he has something new to add about it...it is basicaly dead.
Unlike vinyl, which people (me included) like (despite/because???) of it's well known & admitted flaws.
 
Last edited:
EJ3 said:
There is a big difference in enjoying MP3 (a known to be quit a bit less SOTA that the average human can hear.) (there is a lot that I enjoy that is not SOTA).
Click to expand...
My point is that enjoying it doesn't mean it's superior (to, y'know, FLAC for example, which is lossless and I don't get why people seem to think you can do better than lossless), and that enjoyment typically comes from the music and not the encoding.
 
kyuu said:
My point is that enjoying it doesn't mean it's superior (to, y'know, FLAC for example, which is lossless and I don't get why people seem to think you can do better than lossless), and that enjoyment typically comes from the music and not the encoding.
Click to expand...
His claim is that he can hear something that is proportedly better than lossless.
I'm with you on: enjoying it 'doesn't mean it's superior' and 'How can it be better than lossless' to his perception'.
And the burden of proof sit's with whom makes the unproven claim:
I'll think that I will wait, now.
 
Last edited:
I don't need to convince anyone here and I'm championing the format, but I wont deny what I hear. Perhaps Hi rez mqa covers up a flaw in my system?
EJ3, said i said it's better, but music and sound systems are subjective so the fact that I prefer 24/192 mqa to flac shouldn't matter to anyone.
kyuu, my point is I don't understand the hate for a format that can easily be ignored.
 
steve59 said:
kyuu, my point is I don't understand the hate for a format that can easily be ignored.
Click to expand...
It cannot simply be ignored. Besides folks like yourself "championing" it, it exists to funnel money to its creators while actively taking the audio world backward. No, it deserves all the hate it gets.
 
kyuu said:
It cannot simply be ignored. Besides folks like yourself "championing" it, it exists to funnel money to its creators while actively taking the audio world backward. No, it deserves all the hate it gets.
Click to expand...
MQA isn't dead yet? I guess it'll be like vinyl.
 
VMAT4 said:
MQA isn't dead yet? I guess it'll be like vinyl.
Click to expand...
It's been dead and buried for a year and a half (R.I.P.), and no money is being made from it anymore. But some people cling to dead things.
As the saying goes, when your horse is dead, dismount.
 
steve59 said:
but music and sound systems are subjective so the fact that I prefer 24/192 mqa to flac shouldn't matter to anyone.
Click to expand...
Except for the fact you are perpetuating the myth that it can sound better— or even different.

If you are hearing a difference that is real— it can only come because of different mastering in the MQA version. A different mastering that could equally accurately be encoded in PCM.

If it is not mastering, then you are not hearing a real difference at all— and your perceptions are being influenced by perceptive bias.
 
steve59 said:
I wont deny what I hear. Perhaps Hi rez mqa covers up a flaw in my system?
Click to expand...
Unless it's blind under controlled conditions, you can't even be sure it's about "what you hear" and not some other factor. If nothing else, that's the one big takeaway ASR has to offer us all.
 
Sometimes I forget how fun this forum can be. Honestly I figured the #1 difference came from the mastering technique which to be fair is the biggest difference in recording studios that creates the variations in recordings. That said I have much respect in the Meridian brand when it comes to all things digital as the company has always been at the cutting edge and when they say some bits cancel each other out [or however it was explained] I give them a chance. I'll try to keep my appreciation for their mastering process to myself in the future. later gents
 
steve59 said:
Sometimes I forget how fun this forum can be. Honestly I figured the #1 difference came from the mastering technique which to be fair is the biggest difference in recording studios that creates the variations in recordings. That said I have much respect in the Meridian brand when it comes to all things digital as the company has always been at the cutting edge and when they say some bits cancel each other out [or however it was explained] I give them a chance. I'll try to keep my appreciation for their mastering process to myself in the future. later gents
Click to expand...
I, too, had high respect for Meridian (a friend worked on many albums at Abbey Road studios [who now lives in the USA]), which is how I became more familiar with Meridian than just in the abstract.
But I lost that respect due to the MQA incident.
 
steve59 said:
they say some bits cancel each other out [or however it was explained]
Click to expand...
they say what?

Do you have a reference? - then I can go look and see if it is really the nonsense it sounds like.
 
I wouldn't know where to find the information, but MQA did have an answer to the reduced data being streamed. The explanation was good enough for me, but I'm just a consumer.
 
steve59 said:
Sometimes I forget how fun this forum can be. Honestly I figured the #1 difference came from the mastering technique which to be fair is the biggest difference in recording studios that creates the variations in recordings. That said I have much respect in the Meridian brand when it comes to all things digital as the company has always been at the cutting edge and when they say some bits cancel each other out [or however it was explained] I give them a chance. I'll try to keep my appreciation for their mastering process to myself in the future. later gents
Click to expand...
MQA was never about the actual mastering process. I don't know of any studio that used MQA and changed its mastering process or replaced its equipment.
How else could they have brought all those old recordings up to the highest MQA standard?

In fact, the original plan was to sell overpriced studio hardware, but that met with considerable resistance.

steve59 said:
I wouldn't know where to find the information, but MQA did have an answer to the reduced data being streamed. The explanation was good enough for me, but I'm just a consumer.
Click to expand...
That's precisely why they were successful with this approach at the beginning, as most people didn't even question it.
This included not only end users but also manufacturers, studios/music production companies, and musicians/bands. Most were completely convinced of its advantages and benefits.

The two studios we were friends with, who accompanied us during the tests and provided us with genuine, comparable material, were completely taken aback. We couldn't detect any audible advantage at the time, sometimes even a disadvantage, and the tests were completely blinded and repeated multiple times.
 
steve59 said:
I wouldn't know where to find the information, but MQA did have an answer to the reduced data being streamed. The explanation was good enough for me, but I'm just a consumer.
Click to expand...
audiophilestyle.com

A Comprehensive Q&A With MQA's Bob Stuart

Shortly after attending CES 2016, where MQA was a very hot topic, I realized that there was more speculation about MQA than available facts. Nonetheless, it seemed like everyone had an opinion about MQA. Most people had never heard the final output of the MQA process, an actual song or two, but...
audiophilestyle.com audiophilestyle.com

Editor's Note: Most of Bob Stuart's answers have been debunked and the MQA technology is now seen as lacking any benefit for anyone other than record labels and MQA Ltd.
Click to expand...
MQA is pure snake oil and those who pushed it were brazenly lying to the public
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom