Will MQA drive hdtracks, acoustic sounds, and other hirez sites out of business?

rbbert

Well-Known Member
Dec 12, 2010
3,820
239
1,000
Reno, NV
From my listening to MQA, you are better off with the WAV and FLAC editions of the music than what happens to the music after MQA processing.

Clearly something each listener will have to decide for him/herself. So far, the opinions of internet posters (and especialy audio reviewers) who have spent time listening to both MQA and hi-res PCM have been overwhelmingly in favor of MQA.
 

bmoura

Well-Known Member
Sep 6, 2013
417
3
248
Clearly something each listener will have to decide for him/herself. So far, the opinions of internet posters (and especialy audio reviewers) who have spent time listening to both MQA and hi-res PCM have been overwhelmingly in favor of MQA.

Depends on who you talk to.
One well known producer and recording engineer, after hearing MQA, told me "I don't want MQA mucking around with my audio."
 

Mike Lavigne

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 25, 2010
12,471
11,366
4,410
Depends on who you talk to.
One well known producer and recording engineer, after hearing MQA, told me "I don't want MQA mucking around with my audio."

what I will watch for is the contrast between what MQA does when optimized, and what HQ Player does when optimized. since HQ Player improves all digital formats and resolutions, and is helpful to dsd, I see it as being potentially more helpful to the highest performance listeners. maybe if you are a streaming fan mostly focused on redbook level music streaming listening, MQA might be more relevant.

these are just my views based on a limited understanding of MQA, but enjoying the lift of the SGM music server with a hot rodded HQ Player. I have more high rez PCM and dsd than redbook and streaming Tidal is not currently a main focus. and currently produced music is a small part of my daily listening. and I don't need an easy delivery system with 15 terabytes of music already on my server.
 
Last edited:

rbbert

Well-Known Member
Dec 12, 2010
3,820
239
1,000
Reno, NV
Depends on who you talk to.
One well known producer and recording engineer, after hearing MQA, told me "I don't want MQA mucking around with my audio."
No it doesn't. I wasn't expressing my opinion, merely an undeniable fact. Compare the number of people posting positively about MQA with those who post negatively. Especially among audio reviewers, it's remarkably one-sided. That doesn't mean that MQA sounds better.
 

Legolas

VIP/Donor
Dec 27, 2015
1,042
387
455
France
what I will watch for is the contrast between what MQA does when optimized, and what HQ Player does when optimized. since HQ Player improves all digital formats and resolutions, and is helpful to dsd, I see it as being potentially more helpful to the highest performance listeners. maybe if you are a streaming fan mostly focused on redbook level music streaming listening, MQA might be more relevant.

these are just my views based on a limited understanding of MQA, but enjoying the lift of the SGM music server with a hot rodded HQ Player. I have more high rez PCM and dsd than redbook and streaming Tidal is not currently a main focus. and currently produced music is a small part of my daily listening. and I don't need an easy delivery system with 15 terabytes of music already on my server.

I can see your point, as yes, guess it won't fit everyones situation. My situation i to extract the maximum I can from NOS on a non filtered DAC that can take 'only' 96K. I was interested in a DSD DAC but am now coming to the conclusion (for my situation) MQA is a win win. No extra costs, no CD or high res purchases (most HD purchases where too expensive anyway), and I can also provide the same service (albeit as Redbook) to her in doors on the bluetooth speaker system, and on an iPhone with IEMs with network access. I don't see what there is not to like to be honest.

Also MQA with it's promise of going back to the source masters and a studio guarantee of quality integrity is also key. How many 'remastered' files have we heard that are frankly no better, bit of crude EQ.

These are the bits I am interested in at A1 and A10:
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/694-comprehensive-q-mqa-s-bob-stuart/#anchor20
 

asiufy

Industry Expert/VIP Donor
Jul 8, 2011
3,711
723
1,200
San Diego, CA
almaaudio.com
astrostar59,

Your Audio Note DAC won't take full advantage of MQA unless it gets a hardware upgrade. Tidal/software decoding will give you about 40% of the full MQA performance. The remainded is only obtainable with a proper hardware-decoding MQA DAC. And that requires a trip back to the factory, or a whole new DAC.

Also, MQA file purchases will run you about the same as a hi-res PCM download or DSD. So no benefit there either.
 

Legolas

VIP/Donor
Dec 27, 2015
1,042
387
455
France
astrostar59,

Your Audio Note DAC won't take full advantage of MQA unless it gets a hardware upgrade. Tidal/software decoding will give you about 40% of the full MQA performance. The remainded is only obtainable with a proper hardware-decoding MQA DAC. And that requires a trip back to the factory, or a whole new DAC.

Also, MQA file purchases will run you about the same as a hi-res PCM download or DSD. So no benefit there either.

There is a benefit to the first stage of MQA i.e playing 96K cleaned up time smeared masters. I know that. I have also found for some bizarre reason I prefer NOS with Redbook, and have tried many DACs. The no filtering design to me sits with my audio preference. Like Zanden, Aqua La Scala and others. So I am excited about MQA based on my system.

I agree, there are 2 more processes that can be gained in an MQA compliant DAC. I may get to hear one at some point. But as the Darko review, just because a DAC is all MQA compliant does not mean it will beat all others, as he in that car preferred his Aqua DAC.

I imagine Lampizator will jump to support it, and I will try and get a demo to see how it sounds in full compliance.

I will never buy any high res or MQA material, as happy going 100% streaming from now on.
But TBH the sound I am getting now is blowing me away, so I see this MQA thing as a win win for everyone TBH.
 

asiufy

Industry Expert/VIP Donor
Jul 8, 2011
3,711
723
1,200
San Diego, CA
almaaudio.com
We don't know exactly what we're getting with software decoding, so you can't say for sure that you're getting "cleaned up time smeared masters". MQA decoding/unfolding is apparently a 3-step process, and software only handles 1 of them.

Of course it's not because a DAC is MQA compliant that it's going to be a better DAC overall. That's a given. I just wanted to correct you since you made it seem you were "all set for MQA" with your Audio Note, and people wouldn't need to upgrade their "legacy DACs" for MQA, and that's just false.

And yeah, I do think that some of the improvements I heard on MQA can be attributed to better masters or better transfers. One of the songs had noticeably more tape hiss, but also a lot more ambience/room information. That tells me a different source was used for that particular file than the regular 16/44 stream also available on Tidal... So, the benefit here is not technological, just better provenance and care when it comes to the tapes used.
 

wisnon

Well-Known Member
Dec 12, 2011
3,525
635
1,200
There is a benefit to the first stage of MQA i.e playing 96K cleaned up time smeared masters. I know that. I have also found for some bizarre reason I prefer NOS with Redbook, and have tried many DACs. The no filtering design to me sits with my audio preference. Like Zanden, Aqua La Scala and others. So I am excited about MQA based on my system.

I agree, there are 2 more processes that can be gained in an MQA compliant DAC. I may get to hear one at some point. But as the Darko review, just because a DAC is all MQA compliant does not mean it will beat all others, as he in that car preferred his Aqua DAC.

I imagine Lampizator will jump to support it, and I will try and get a demo to see how it sounds in full compliance.

I will never buy any high res or MQA material, as happy going 100% streaming from now on.
But TBH the sound I am getting now is blowing me away, so I see this MQA thing as a win win for everyone TBH.

Lukasz said he hs no plans to support MQA...but that could change. Like most high end Dac makers that don't want to give over their filter tech for Meridian to mess with.
Secondly there are 3 stages of MQA. First is to unfold a redbook like file into a near PCM HiRez file of 24/176-92. Next is to mod the Dac's filter to reverse an imperfection given to the recording by a "flawed" ADC in the pas when the music was recorded. As they have a database of which ADC was used in most cases, they know how to negate the flaw with a filter mod. Lastly they embed a code that authenticates that its a legit copy and the Artist approved the work...a blue button lights up on a suitable Dac.

Te first step is the unfolding outlined above so it should not be better than a true hires, unless its a remasteredcopy that is better than what was already released.

Finally, to me this will never touch genuine high rate DSD and Dxd...it will just make quality more pervasive. I don't have 15 tera like Mike,,,but I have tons nonetheless. Don't need Tidal...dont need MQA...but I am happy its there for those who need it.
 

wisnon

Well-Known Member
Dec 12, 2011
3,525
635
1,200
We don't know exactly what we're getting with software decoding, so you can't say for sure that you're getting "cleaned up time smeared masters". MQA decoding/unfolding is apparently a 3-step process, and software only handles 1 of them.

Of course it's not because a DAC is MQA compliant that it's going to be a better DAC overall. That's a given. I just wanted to correct you since you made it seem you were "all set for MQA" with your Audio Note, and people wouldn't need to upgrade their "legacy DACs" for MQA, and that's just false.

And yeah, I do think that some of the improvements I heard on MQA can be attributed to better masters or better transfers. One of the songs had noticeably more tape hiss, but also a lot more ambience/room information. That tells me a different source was used for that particular file than the regular 16/44 stream also available on Tidal... So, the benefit here is not technological, just better provenance and care when it comes to the tapes used.

In full agreement Alex. The SQ advantages would come from possibly better provenance and the reversal/cancellation of the ADC "notch" artifact.
 

Legolas

VIP/Donor
Dec 27, 2015
1,042
387
455
France
I just wanted to correct you since you made it seem you were "all set for MQA" with your Audio Note, and people wouldn't need to upgrade their "legacy DACs" for MQA, and that's just false.

I said, anyone can benefit from MQA even with a legacy DAC or non MQA compliant DAC simply by getting to play a cleaned up master that is fed at 96K (or more) as opposed to 44.1. Getting beyond that first benefit you need a compliant DAC.

It gets more complicated if you are a believer of non oversampling, as the vast majority of DACs do the opposite. But again, those DACs should sound better as well. It should be system independent.

It will all become clear as folk start feeding back their impressions, then we get off the theory and confrontation, move into a real world listening environment.

My hope is the MQA system digs right back to the best masters they can, and the artist / studio have a control of that. Not some add on HD company peddling high res from an unknown origin. Some HD is probably great, but I have so far been disappointed in both the cost and the quality in some of them. No way I would pay those prices. And those inflated prices, how much goes back to the artist?

Regardless, itunes is history IMO, it is too expensive for poor quality. Apple had it easy for too long.....
 

caesar

Well-Known Member
May 30, 2010
4,290
767
1,698
Gentlemen, what is the value of Roon if one has Tidal and MQA? Do ripped CDs that Roon would interface to on the hard drive sound better than MQA?
 

dsnyder0cnn

Well-Known Member
Mar 6, 2017
19
2
85
San Jose, CA
blog.dsnyder.ws-e.com
Gentlemen, what is the value of Roon if one has Tidal and MQA? Do ripped CDs that Roon would interface to on the hard drive sound better than MQA?

Those are two very different questions. :)

For the time being, if those don't have an MQA DAC and care about some level of MQA unfolding have to use the Tidal desktop player. MQA software unfolding is coming to Roon though, so this situation is just temporary for Roon enthusiasts.

Of course, depending on your use, Roon has many advantages over Tidal desktop player, including:

  • Remote control via Roon Remote
  • Enriched Metadata
  • DSP and Convolution (for digital room correction)
  • Distributed architecture - Roon Server does the heavy lifting while Roon Bridge streams to your DAC
  • Streaming to Roon Ready and SONOS network players
I'm sure that I've left some out, but you get the idea.

The question about ripped CDs vs. streaming MQA from TIDAL is more difficult to answer in general. I've discovered that more often than not, mastering quality trumps distribution format. So, the fact that an album is available in MQA does not guarantee that it's the best sounding master. I know that we all wish that it did, and there are many excellent sounding MQA albums on TIDAL. However, MQA stands for "Master Quality Authenticated" not "Mastering Quality guarAnteed." We know that the bits have not been tampered with since they left the studio, but we don't know if they were any good to begin with!

For example, I have a number of XRCD, DCC, and MoFi CD rips that do sound better than MQA or high-rez downloads from HDtracks, etc. in spite of the fact that they are only 16bits, 44.1kHz. I imagine they could sound slightly better with higher resolution encoding from the source, but the sound quality comes from the excellent mastering (or re-mastering) work rather than the delivery format.

Don't forget that Roon does a beautiful job of integrating your local FLAC library with what's available on TIDAL. When there are duplicates, it does a fairly good job of selecting the best version, but you can always override its choices.
 

caesar

Well-Known Member
May 30, 2010
4,290
767
1,698
A brutal and vicious attack on MQA by a guy who manufactures Playback Designs DSD gear. His claim is that MQA is a well-marketed, compressed format.

http://positive-feedback.com/audio-discourse/questions-answers-mqa-interview-andreas-koch/

But now that the streaming services have adopted MQA and some people are actually enjoying it, his writing is a bit too late... Why didn't this guy, and others with "digital gravitas", say this 12-24 months ago?
 

caesar

Well-Known Member
May 30, 2010
4,290
767
1,698
Those are two very different questions. :)

For the time being, if those don't have an MQA DAC and care about some level of MQA unfolding have to use the Tidal desktop player. MQA software unfolding is coming to Roon though, so this situation is just temporary for Roon enthusiasts.

Of course, depending on your use, Roon has many advantages over Tidal desktop player, including:

  • Remote control via Roon Remote
  • Enriched Metadata
  • DSP and Convolution (for digital room correction)
  • Distributed architecture - Roon Server does the heavy lifting while Roon Bridge streams to your DAC
  • Streaming to Roon Ready and SONOS network players
I'm sure that I've left some out, but you get the idea.

The question about ripped CDs vs. streaming MQA from TIDAL is more difficult to answer in general. I've discovered that more often than not, mastering quality trumps distribution format. So, the fact that an album is available in MQA does not guarantee that it's the best sounding master. I know that we all wish that it did, and there are many excellent sounding MQA albums on TIDAL. However, MQA stands for "Master Quality Authenticated" not "Mastering Quality guarAnteed." We know that the bits have not been tampered with since they left the studio, but we don't know if they were any good to begin with!

For example, I have a number of XRCD, DCC, and MoFi CD rips that do sound better than MQA or high-rez downloads from HDtracks, etc. in spite of the fact that they are only 16bits, 44.1kHz. I imagine they could sound slightly better with higher resolution encoding from the source, but the sound quality comes from the excellent mastering (or re-mastering) work rather than the delivery format.

Don't forget that Roon does a beautiful job of integrating your local FLAC library with what's available on TIDAL. When there are duplicates, it does a fairly good job of selecting the best version, but you can always override its choices.

Thank you for explaining this!
 

Mike Lavigne

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 25, 2010
12,471
11,366
4,410
A brutal and vicious attack on MQA by a guy who manufactures Playback Designs DSD gear. His claim is that MQA is a well-marketed, compressed format.

http://positive-feedback.com/audio-discourse/questions-answers-mqa-interview-andreas-koch/

But now that the streaming services have adopted MQA and some people are actually enjoying it, his writing is a bit too late... Why didn't this guy, and others with "digital gravitas", say this 12-24 months ago?

well. I no longer own Playback Designs digital. so I have no dog in the fight.

but likely Andreas has had his hands full in the last few years re-launching his whole product line-up to pay much attention to MQA.....until now when his customers likely are asking him about it......which causes him to investigate and comment (or put the damn MQA circuit in his gear and pay the fee) whether he wants to or not.

it's the end user questions and feedback to manufacturers and media sellers that are causing the timing here. MQA is now out there.

of all the various people (I've seen) that have weighed in on MQA........Andreas Koch certainly has as much knowledge of what might be a compressed digital format as anyone, including Bob Stewart......and more cred than Stewart in my eyes too.

and no doubt I'd rate MQA's marketing, and music industry politicking as more impressive than the tech of it.

so my money would be on Andreas to be right on. those of you more accomplished digital designers than Andreas should step up and refute him.

YMMV.
 

caesar

Well-Known Member
May 30, 2010
4,290
767
1,698
well. I no longer own Playback Designs digital. so I have no dog in the fight.

but likely Andreas has had his hands full in the last few years re-launching his whole product line-up to pay much attention to MQA.....until now when his customers likely are asking him about it......which causes him to investigate and comment (or put the damn MQA circuit in his gear and pay the fee) whether he wants to or not.

of all the various people (I've seen) that have weighed in on MQA........Andreas Koch certainly has as much knowledge of what might be a compressed digital format as anyone, including Bob Stewart......and more cred than Stewart in my eyes too.

and no doubt I'd rate MQA's marketing, and music industry politicking as more impressive than the tech of it.

so my money would be on Andreas to be right on. those of you more accomplished digital designers than Andreas should step up and refute him.

YMMV.


He may be right. Yet at the same time, so many people claim MQA sounds great. Furthermore, it seems like MQA has not reached a critical mass - anyone who has Tidal will be asking their DAC manufacturer if their DAC can support it.

Personally, I don't like DSD on rock, blues, and jazz because it lacks dynamic, rhythmic drive that PCM has. Maybe it's great on classical - or not??? And I have never heard MQA properly done in a DAC. Nor am I really yearning to hear MQA, like I crave to hear professionally-digitized vinyl in PCM 192/24.

Yet it seems like Koch is acting like a sore loser here, because his beloved DSD format has lost out in the marketplace.
 

Mike Lavigne

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 25, 2010
12,471
11,366
4,410
He may be right. Yet at the same time, so many people claim MQA sounds great. Furthermore, it seems like MQA has not reached a critical mass - anyone who has Tidal will be asking their DAC manufacturer if their DAC can support it.

Personally, I don't like DSD on rock, blues, and jazz because it lacks dynamic, rhythmic drive that PCM has. Maybe it's great on classical - or not??? And I have never heard MQA properly done in a DAC. Nor am I really yearning to hear MQA, like I crave to hear professionally-digitized vinyl in PCM 192/24.

Yet it seems like Koch is acting like a sore loser here, because his beloved DSD format has lost out in the marketplace.

I would not anoint any winners or losers at this point.....including MQA.

i'm not for or against Andreas Koch; but we need some leading true digital experts independent of the MQA entity to bring light on the full-court-press MQA inertia.

only time and the marketplace will tell whether MQA ever becomes any more than a streamer's delivery tool. for those with large file collections (like me) will it make their listening experience better....where file size does not matter? I've not yet seen one case of that. and until that happens then MQA's got a narrow area of value.......at best.
 

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
37
0
Seattle, WA
of all the various people (I've seen) that have weighed in on MQA........Andreas Koch certainly has as much knowledge of what might be a compressed digital format as anyone, including Bob Stewart......and more cred than Stewart in my eyes too.
You are quite mistaken. Bob has superb knowledge of signal processing and psychoacoustics. He is an AES Life Fellow, a title that is not easily given. Andreas doesn't have any of that.

I also read his article and it was hard to make much sense of what he is saying as he obviously has no inside knowledge. What is there is just sour grapes as I explain here.
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing