Nice MQA discussion

" Im really starting to not like MQA "


nobody says you have to use or listen to it......other options out there as you have found.

You are quite right.

I wish I could get Qobuz.

@gdnrbob,

Last I heard, they do have plans to enter US market.  I am looking forward to their high resolution streaming. 

Tidal is pretty nice even without MQA. :) 

Great back catalog that does not get enough positive press. 

Best,

Erik

Tidal is pretty nice even without MQA. :)

+1...and with MQA, it's even better with certain tracks.

I see MQA as a Jekyl/Hyde type of experience and codec. On one hand, it sounds fantastic and one can be exposed to the ever expanding library as the two or three major labels add record titles. On the other hand, I keep reading about the greedy hands behind the development. As more streaming companies jump on board it’s possible MQA will die it’s own death by sheer competition.
I agree with others about Tidal, I still like it (and Spotify). Even without MQA.

Ny only issue with MQA on Tidal is identifying it. My DAC doesn't do MQA or 24/96 often those selections will result in loud static so I avoid them. However when you search for an artist the albums you see don't identify the sampling rate or being MQA. So even though I avoid them I still end up playing them on occasion accidentally leading to loud static. Frustrating.

@jond,

May I know what app you’re using to browse albums on Tidal? My Aurender app clearly identify albums with MQA logo. 

And about loud static, I wonder why is that? I do not own MQA compatible DAC either but able to play most MQA albums in 24bit/48khz resolution. 

I use the Auralic Lightning DS app great app other than that but I don't see that designation on the Tidal app either. It does identify MQA and the sampling rate after I hit play just not before. The static I've been told is the DAC going back and and forth between sampling rates, it's older and just does 48 and 44.1, and unable to lock. It doesn't happen with every MQA title just most.

@jond 

You may wanna check time delay settings in your app to allow DAC to adjust to new sampling rate. 

My app app show time delay settings of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 10 sec. 

Hope this helps with the annoying static. 

@lalitk Tried that already it didn't work and it's ok I have no issue with avoiding MQA and it doesn't happen with any other files ever.

On CA:

MQA: A Review of controversies, concerns, and cautions

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/ca/reviews/mqa-a-review-of-controversies-concerns-and-cautions-r7...

P.S.:

"Editor's Note 1: MQA ltd was sent a copy of this article several days prior to the scheduled publication date. The company requested a phone conversation, which took place earlier this week. MQA was encouraged to write a response for inclusion with the article below, but it respectfully decline to submit a formal response.

 

Editor's Note 2: The author of this article is writing under a pseudonym. While he is unknown to the readers, his identity has been verified  by Computer Audiophile. He has no vested interest in the audio business, other than being a consumer of music.

 

Editor's Note 3: The technical assertions made in this article have been thoroughly checked by independent engineers, both in and out of the audio industry. To the best of our knowledge everything technical in this article is factually correct and may be duplicated at any time by anyone with the requisite skills."

 

- Chris Connaker

CA is strong on self promotion. It pretends to be technically superior to other sites but I find the proficiency of Chris and his cohorts to be poor at best and the site has a heavy promotional orientation(sell,sell, sell). CA happens to be pretty much correct on MQA but that doesn’t make it accurate in all other aspects - so be careful - they tend to give their reviewed products high ratings (like most for profit sites) and have zero technical competence (no equivalent to Stereophile JA to test stuff).

Thanks for the link to the CA article.  Very well done and informative.

I have had MQA here in my main system for over a year.  Using Tidal only, I have done numerous comparisons between MQA and non-MQA streaming material.

Sorry, but what I hear is that almost every "Master" track sounds better than it's equivalent non-encoded MQA  track.  I've had 10-12 different people listen and give me their comments.  Most were not audiophiles, but all were music lovers.  So far, everyone who has listened, has also preferred the MQA track.

IMHO, most of the MQA nay-sayers that I have run into, have either never heard it at all or only under show type conditions.

Bottom line with me is that I hear no degradation using MQA and thoroughly enjoy the sonic "benefits"...  YMMV

@mofimadness 


I often prefer Masters versions on Tidal also.

Like SACD - the masters used on MQA tracks can be better than the heavier compressed CD equivalent alternative. This is the benefit of a better master and not related to the MQA technology itself.

This is the benefit of a better master and not related to the MQA technology itself.

Says who?  Is this just your "assumption" or an actual fact?  And if a fact, where did you get this information?

Also, isn't the "Master" tag on the Tidal/MQA track what makes it a "Master MQA" track?  I don't know how you would ever know if the track sounded "better"  because it was just a better mastered 16/44.1 track or if MQA actually makes it better.

@shadorne ...If I'm reading/understanding you right, you are adding a THIRD variable to the mix.

1.  Standard CD 16/44.1 track
2.  Standard CD 16/44.1 track (Better Master)
3.  MQA track

Not sure if this quite right, but that's just me...

@mofimadness

The MQA process also includes a filter which will slightly change the sound even on the same master (an especially bad type of filter - minimum phase - which changes the sound audibly). Perhaps the audible filter is what you prefer. There is no magic in filtering the sound. Anyone can do this now with digital pro tools. This is not special technology just more hand waving from the promoters of MQA...of course they claim their filter is “special” and an improvement...

This is not special technology just more hand waving from the promoters of MQA...of course they claim their filter is “special” and an improvement...

Well, they have spent a lot of money and time saying the opposite.

I have owned several DACs that had numerous digital "filter" settings.  Nothing I have ever come across or heard does what MQA does.  No matter the DAC filter setting.

@shadorne...do you have an MQA DAC?  Or you just saying the "master" tracks sound better than their regular CD tracks on Tidal, (which I also agree do sound better, but even better if MQA decoded).

After many, many hours of listening, IMHO, Bob and his team did what they claim.  Sounds better to me.

I guess we will just agree to disagree...

This just in....Aurender N10/N100/W20 owners now able to purchase MQA Core Decoder license from within the Aurender Conductor app for $54.99.

This will allow users to hear MQA coded files at 88.2kHz or 96kHz sample rate through a non-MQA compatiable DAC’s.

http://www.aurender.com/blog/new-software-release-note-4/post/system-sw-4-5-11-36-app-2-9-3-93-189