MQA is Legit!

MQA Is Legit !!! ,....LOL  

Tidal 2L Nordic Sound MQA Sampler at 352khz/24bit, But most Tidal MQAs are in 96/24 and 88/24. Since you PC Tidal can do 1st unfold MQA to 96/24 and 88/24. You don't need a MQA DAC. The SQ might be best by using a MQA DAC.

I always seem to agree with shadorne, that must represent the lack of an original opinion on my part. 

Has anyone posted the MQA patent yet in this thread? In contrast to the title of the patent, it is a lossy compression method, although there may be some reasons why the codec may be better for listening to some music files... I agree with the prevailing sentiment that paying attention to the mastering makes sense for all file formats.

I believe this is the published patent: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/2f/bc/4b/f9595654c743bb/US9548055.pdf

Cheers - Gerry

Strange to hear any MQA bashing from a cost or sound quality issue.

But that's exactly how any new feature gets evaluated: Cost vs. value.

It my be legit but the first unfold to 24/88.2 or 96 sounds better to me. I have an MQA dac and I guess there's more detail but tone wise it sounds washed out. I'll take musical over detailed any day.

Strange to hear any MQA bashing from a cost or sound quality issue. In my case I only needed to spend $50 for the MQA license for my Aurender N10 to get full MQA. I already had Tidal CD quality, so no extra charge there and I already owned a MQA DAC, so no extra charge there. I do prefer MQA sound through Tidal over CD sound. I have never tried an MQA cd. I do like have choices.

I just took delivery of a dCS Bartok. Full MQA is very, very good. I also have HiRez downloads from HDTracks. Same cut on TIDAL MQA sounds exactly the same as HiRez FLAC file.... really good.

Jcat femto > dcs Bartok > AR Ref 6 > MC601 monos > Magnepan 20.7

not until 96/24 or even DSD streaming become available.

MQA is DEAD!! Just face it. If it were the savior of audiophilism that the stereo rags touted, all the big labels would be pumping this stuff out left and right to get in on the action. 

Man the samples at 2L are all pretty awful in my book, not sure how you can tell the difference. All of them were universally bright and hard sounding.

If you find any 2L recordings (in any format) you find great please let me know.

junzhang10143 posts01-28-2019 6:56pmI played 2L MQA samples from Tidal. It says original file size is 384Khz/24bit. Most MQA is 96Khz/24bit. Hi rate sample music definite is more involving and dynamic. I would say close to SACD disc. I am using Oppo205 MQA hardware decoding. Many android device can decode MQA use software decode.

I agree with you with the comparison either on a very goo SACD Player. Some units are definitely better than others. I would even go as far a Redbook CD’s. One of the best test is the Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band by the Beatles. I didn’t like the original recording back in 1967 played on LP’s and all CD formats. To me it was harsh and painful to listen to. I do understand that equipment and sound was completely different back then. When I revisited the album last year, I listed to it in MQA format with a Meridian 218 Controller with Roon and Tidal in 24/96. I was blown away and couldn’t believe what I was hearing. The music was smooth and warm. A very tube like sound. The harshness completely disappeared and I was able to truely enjoy the music. Let me know if anyone had that experience with the Meridian 218 controller.

I played 2L MQA samples from Tidal. It says original file size is 384Khz/24bit. Most MQA is 96Khz/24bit. Hi rate sample music definite is more involving and dynamic. I would say close to SACD disc. I am using Oppo205 MQA hardware decoding. Many android device can decode MQA use software decode.

There is a saying that goes, “If people were the same, the world would be boring.” 

geoffkait13,768 posts01-28-2019 4:12pmActually how a CD sounds depends on many factors, like how much it was compressed during mastering, whether the CD is in correct Polarity, whether the physical disc is out of round, whether it’s been treated, whether it’s been cryo’d. Things of that nature

The same holds true to the design of LP’s, tapes, microprocessor chips, etc, etc!  Ever time there is a major change, folks we’re aga it. Example SACD VS DVD Audio. The reality is every person has a different type of hearing, taste in music, an audio system, so on, and so on. I’ve been around in sales for a long time. Buy what you like and what some may be able to afford. What may sound great to you may sound not so good to others.  In sales, I always say never get caught up in hype because it may cloud your judgement in the long run. There is a saying that goes, “If people were the same, the world would be booting.” Find something that you love and enjoy it. In the end specs goes out of the window. If anyone feels negative to this comment, please don’t. It’s best to be a spunge and respect each and every comment pertaining to music.

This thread reads like a political argument. It's clear people have chosen their "camps" and are digging in. I for one just got back into this hobby fairly recently and barely knew what MQA even was. I purchased a PS Audio DSJr to facilitate streaming music and have been loving the instant selection at hand with my new Tidal subscription. I listened to a few albums that really made my ears perk up and say "damn that sounds better than I ever remember." Turns out, they were MQA files. So while the naysayers love to scream "placebo" and "confirmation bias" I wonder if you aren't suffering from the opposite version of the same biases. I mean, if you want to say MQA is garbage technology, please explain to me how any digital music isn't inherently garbage since it all has to be converted back to analog anyway. I have no dog in this fight, all I know is the MQA albums I listened to sounded better to me *before I even knew they were MQA*

Actually how a CD sounds depends on many factors, like how much it was compressed during mastering, whether the CD is in correct Polarity, whether the physical disc is out of round, whether it’s been treated, whether it’s been cryo’d. Things of that nature.

-AAD- analog recording, analog mixing, digital transfer
-ADD- analog recording, digital mixing, digital transfer
-DDD- Digital recording, digital mixing, digital transfer
All things being equal, the more D’s the better the recording and sound.

You could start World War 3 with this kinda statement in an audiophile forum....  ;^)

Every person has a different taste of sound. Put aside reading about technology in a brochure and think about how we enjoy music as a whole and sounds best to us in the purest form we desire and listen to.
Hale to the music

When it comes to CD quality, it is really based on how the CD was recorded. For example;
-AAD- analog recording, analog mixing, digital transfer
-ADD- analog recording, digital mixing, digital transfer
-DDD- Digital recording, digital mixing, digital transfer
All things being equal, the more D’s the better the recording and sound. 
MQA takes it another step further in the digital form to produce the best Web base sound. Nothing compares in my opinion. Now when you talk about the purest recordings, I feel that Albums and DAT’s sound the best.

And let's not forget MQA's biggest fail: It is a pretty lossy compression scheme.

https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/163302855-is-mqa-doa

Just thought you should all know when I write stuff I usually have the receipts to back it. :-)

Best,

E

I'm not opting for MQA.  I know, I have 7,000 78s, 7,000 CDs and 25,000 LPs.  However, I agree with the comment a well remastered CD beats a bad LP of the same.  Often they are neck and neck.  LPs can have a more ethereal, open quality but CDs can be just as musically viable.  Electrical 78s often have a visceral, dynamic, tonally rich quality with one take performances that astound.  Well, in my high end system (for decades I suffered from a lack of dynamic contrast with electrostat speakers or some other deficiency).  I skipped cassettes and 8 track and haven't ventured into SACD although I have heard some fantastic remasterings lately in Blu-ray.  I'll skip MQA.  Especially if there is a built-in filter which negatively impacts CD playback.

Ha ha, "good" one paullyrockets! ;^)

And I fully agree with you sns concerning the proprietary nature, and potential monopoly, of those owning and licensing MQA. Quite scary...

All the best - Michael

First off, you need MQA dac to hear full MQA unfolding.  I've only heard MQA streaming Tidal through Roon on non-MQA dac, sometimes sounds better than non-MQA. I've always suspected different masters responsible for qualitative difference. Whether it is better or not is moot for me. The proprietary nature of MQA makes it a no go, control of music catalogs by one entity is not healthy. I will soon try Qobuz, much prefer their method of high res.

I think MQA sounds pretty good..

erik_squires

I heard it more as a softening of transients and removing of space.

I agree with Erik. I more recently have my Bluesound Vault 2 (with HiFi Tidal subscription) connected to an external, non-MQA, DAC. However, prior to that I had been using the MQA compatible internal DAC for some time. I compared quite a few of the same tunes in CD vs MQA quality. Consistently I found that the MQA versions deflated the soundstage. Less air and less space between images. I also found that the dynamics suffered as well. Less "pop" with MQA. The music kinda lost its moxie.

Occasionally I preferred the MQA version of a song if the recording was especially hard/harsh. MQA seemed to be more forgiving with these recordings and "smoothed" them out somewhat.

However, of course, much of this is dependent upon individual systems. Synergy is king. And also, the sound that one person finds "good" may not be exactly the same as the next listener. I’m a bit disappointed that many posters are using generic terms like "good", "better", "worse", etc. to make their points without being more specific about the actual sonic differences that they are hearing between MQA and other formats....

Happy listening all!

+1 @jbhiller & @mofimadness

One perspective, uniquely my own, is that MQA is very very late to the Audio world.

Two things are true now that were not true before 2000:
1 - Network bandwidth is MUCH cheaper.
2 - A lot of DAC's are much better at playing Redbook than they were before, significantly closing the gap between it and high resolution playback.

If we were still in that era, MQA would probably seem like a divine gift, and would be better in all respects.

Almost 20 years into the 21st century however, MQA seems like a solution for the wrong era.
Best,
E

After 50 years of listening and owning many different systems IMO the most important variable is the quality of the recording. For the past ten years I have focussed on music that is well recorded and in the process have significantly expanded my tastes there are great recordings in all playback options along with aweful stuff. I listen mostly to vinyl however I will take a well recorded Redbook CD all day long over a poorly recorded LP. After all this hobby is a about enjoying listening to music.

My vote is  for MQA as I hear an improvement over redbook on some but not all recordings. My MQA source is exclusively Tidal thru PSA DSD and bridge II. I wouldn't give up Tidal or Roon for anything. I've discovered so much music with these services, I can't go back, and MQA is just the icing on the cake.

My only MQA source is Tidal, through a PS Audio PWD (although I plan to upgrade to the DSD soon) via their Bridge, ethernet connection.  From Tidal, on my system, the SQ of MQA vs standard 16/44 is usually, but not always, significantly better, enough so that I seek out new MQA releases from Tidal.  In fact, I am concerned I am becoming a MQA junkie.  It is also consistently better than the same redbook cd spun on my Oppo, linked to the DAC by USB, but this is no longer a straightforward apples to apples comparison.  Not only do you have the cabling and source differences, the mastering/data preservation might also be different.  Prior to this thread, I have not thought about trying to upgrade digital source etc with the goal of making my personal cds sound as good as Tidal MQA files, I don't think I have changed my mind, but very interesting discussion, thanks OP! 

Buy a Rega TT...forget about the "Next Big Thing " digital format. 
Listen to music.
Relax, knowing your format of choice will not become out of date in your lifetime.
Buy more LPs...

I think the discussion has gone a bit off the rails... thanks for the PS Audio link as I am in that same camp. My point was that I am getting this quality over a wifi connection to Tidal. I am not going to replace my hi-res files or SACD or even my redbook cd's--im just very impressed with what I am hearing vs pandora or spotify. I also wouldn't choose MQA over DSD for download either.

I too agree with what Paul wrote.  My .02$ is this, initially, I was very skeptical of MQA for all the reasons discussed, but, sometimes MQA does sound significantly better, than the 44.1 CD RIP.  I own a PS Audio Direct Stream DAC, so the first unfold is done on my Roon ROCK Server, that sits in another room.  Case in point is Natalie Merchants Tigerlilly, the CD is well recorded / engineered.   The first unfold for MQA is at 24/96.  The MQA edition is spectacular!   But here is the thing, it sounds like a different / better mix, or likely a different master.  So I think the improvements  I am hearing on this recording may not be solely due to the MQA process and likely a different source.  Since we have no way of knowing the provenance we will never know.   There are other recordings, where the differences are not really distinguishable from the redbook - i.e - TwentyOne pilots Trench, I am not sure I can detect a difference between 24/88.2 and my redbook rip.    IMHO, MQA delivers in its ability to deliver high-res content without consuming a commensurate amount of bandwidth.   Is is transparent to the source?  Who knows... Not sure, but it isn't mp3, and it doesn't make the music sound terrible - so for me, having the option in Tidal via Roon to listen to various formats is very cool, and gives us audiophiles some options.
 

Let's see. First I bought my music on 78's.  Then I bought the same music again on LP's.  Then I bought it again on cassette.  Then I bought it again on 8 track.  Then I bought it again on CD.  Then I bought it again on SACD.  Then I bought it again on Tidal.  New equipment every time.  Now I have to buy it again in MQA?

There’s a reason why MQA is not adopted by many high-end DAC manufactures. By making a DAC able to handle MQA it affects all non-MQA encoded music the DAC plays negativity. The filters required for MQA have to be built into the basic infrastructure of the DAC. Hence many DAC manufacturers will not compromise for the sake of MQA. Quite right too.

The potential royalty steam for the owners of MQA (Meridian originally though now it has been spun off) is so huge given they earn on every stream and every DAC built, that it is best to be somewhat sceptical of what you read from the pro-MQA lobby. There is a lot of potential revenue at stake here and that can lead to untrustworthy sources of info and PR.

I actually use it and really like it. Tidal via Bluesound Node 2 to Mytek Brooklyn+ MQA DAC/Pre. 90% of the time I prefer it to 16/44, even from SSD to Bryston BDP-2 to Mytek. Don't over think it, don't be political, just listen and see what you like.

Or not. It's your dime...

MQA = Another "smart guy'" who thinks he is smarter than you and won't be caught trying to make you believe MQA sounds better than Redbook.  Is he smarter than you? 

MQA might be the biggest snake oil feature broadcast by paid reviewers.

I think the discussion has gone a bit off the rails... thanks for the PS Audio link as I am in that same camp.  My point was that I am getting this quality over a wifi connection to Tidal.  I am not going to replace my hi-res files or SACD or even my redbook cd's--im just very impressed with what I am hearing vs pandora or spotify.  I also wouldn't choose MQA over DSD for download either.

The third easiest way to hear the difference is that MQA is slightly hotter or louder. The MQA apodizing filter tends to compress transients.

This part I heard, but since I was able to switch it off with non MQA I attributed it to the filter and not to MQA itself.

I heard it more as a softening of transients and removing of space.

Whatever difference I heard with MQA, none of it was worth money. I would not pay a premium for it. My feelings are pretty close to what I later would read from PS Audio:

https://www.psaudio.com/pauls-posts/mqa-thoughts/


Best,


E

MQA is one of the largest, most extensive, and elaborate "hustles" ever to be foisted upon the high-end community and those interested in quality music reproduction systems and it is a trojan horse for DRM!

Well, in my case I tried it, and can’t hear a difference. What’s more, the consensus of the SF Audiophile society that I talked to was the same. No one could hear anything.

I find this astonishing. I wonder if most setups do not preserve phase accuracy? Certainly passive crossovers usually have serious phase issues.

On my setup, the difference is quite audible when doing A to B. Pick a random track and ask me if it is MQA or not and I would not be able to say. However A and B comparisons are quite easy once you know what to listen for.

The third easiest way to hear the difference is that MQA is slightly hotter or louder. The MQA apodizing filter tends to compress transients. Basically MQA is a mild form of CD loudness wars. This loudness compression trick is what gives the impression that MQA extracts more transient detail. Smoke and mirrors is what MQA is all about. If there were real benefits (rather than hand waving) then the technical details would not be so carefully hidden from public scrutiny. 

Compare MQA lack of transparency to the transparency regarding SACD and the CD formats. The differenc is Sony did not need to hide technical details because SACD and CD weren’t all “smoke and mirrors”.

The MQA ney-sayers sound exactly like the cable ney-sayers. If you compare these groups, they put down the people that can hear a difference. They state so-called facts, charts, expert comments, and whatever else they can find to support their cause. I don’t give a sh$# about so called experts opinions, charts, etc..., listen with your own 2 ears! If you don’t have good ears or a good quality system, then you probably won’t hear a difference.

Well, in my case I tried it, and can't hear a difference. What's more, the consensus of the SF Audiophile society that I talked to was the same. No one could hear anything.

The glowing positive press aside, it didn't make things better in such a way I'd shell out a single dollar for.

Further, at least with the Mytek Brooklyn DAC I used, the apodizing filter removed a lot of air and sparkle from the music, so I switched to a different one which forced me to disable MQA. Never regretted it.

Best,
E

@seigen   wow...  this was a very cocky and bitter article: 
https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/reviews/mqa-a-review-of-controversies-concerns-and-cautions-r701/

In fact, the only reason I have Tidal and Roon is exactly because "I wanted to stream high fidelity recordings over the internet" --it seems the author clearly didn't consider me when he made the claim that no one wants that.

He can just go back to his MP3s and winamp blasting his altec lansings in the dorm room--i will in the meantime enjoy discovering new tracks on my evolving digital rig with great sounding MQA...

I think it sounds pretty good considering it's streaming through my Vault 2i.   Will Tidal replace my CDs, SACDs, DvD-A, and BluRay Audio, 24/96 material ? No way , but as a convenient hifi digital source it's pretty decent.

From a technical pov MQA is quite some junk, but people like all kinds of distortions so why not make a buck on selling this junk.

https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/reviews/mqa-a-review-of-controversies-concerns-and-cautions-r701/

There is most definitely an audible difference with MQA.

Phase distortion causes the imaging to be less accurate.

Apodizing changes the timbre of transients.

Easiest thing to listen for is the hole in the middle of the soundstage. Second easiest thing to hear is the pluck of acoustic guitar strings. MQA has an unnatural sound. The pitch of the initial pluck of a stringed instrument sounds slightly lower. It is not as easy to hear unless you are trained. Some people can’t hear it - for example if you able to enjoy Michael Buble’s singing then you probably aren’t able to hear autotune pitch altering effects. Pitch sensitivity varies a lot among people but some can easily pick up as little as 5 cents....

Placido was crowned, ’King of the Opera’, by Newsweek, in 1982. I vote PLACEBO be crowned, ’King of the Copout’, on these pages.

PLACEBO DOMINGO!

"PLACEBO" has to be #1, among Audiogon’s Greatest Hits! "SNAKE OIL" is probably #2.

@rbstehno

If you don’t have good ears or a good quality system, then you probably won’t hear a difference.

The most common and cop-out response in this area of discussion. So you are totally dismissing any fault on your end? If you hear a difference, there has to be one? Maybe you’d also recommend essential oils and ginger root over chemotherapy.

16Bit vs 8Bit test, if you can get >70% confidence with 25+ trials (I can random guess and get >70% if only say 10 trials), I’d love if you could screenshot it and link to it.

Even if you can get >70%, now imagine 16Bit vs 24Bit. 
 
Lots of claims which can be attributed simply to placebo.