MQA is Bad For Music. Here's Why.

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,684
4,473
963
Greater Boston

ack

VIP/Donor & WBF Founding Member
May 6, 2010
6,774
1,198
580
Boston, MA
+1 Al. As usual, it's not really always about the sound.
 

Mike Lavigne

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 25, 2010
12,471
11,367
4,410
I'm no MQA proponent, I'm on the sidelines watching it. and I'm quite skeptical.

however; looking at these links for anti-MQA info....they are all 6 months to a year old. so the recent activity and feedback from end users is not considered by these articles. not to dismiss their concerns, only that it's just part of the picture.

I'd like to see industry feedback including actual up to date experience with it for the whole picture.
 

rbbert

Well-Known Member
Dec 12, 2010
3,820
239
1,000
Reno, NV
I'm no MQA proponent, I'm on the sidelines watching it. and I'm quite skeptical.

however; looking at these links for anti-MQA info....they are all 6 months to a year old. so the recent activity and feedback from end users is not considered by these articles. not to dismiss their concerns, only that it's just part of the picture.

I'd like to see industry feedback including actual up to date experience with it for the whole picture.

No, highresaudio.com made their initial announcement only yesterday, then revised it slightly today. Apparently Meridian made some complaints to them yesterday (about the bluntness of their reasons for this action?)
 

Folsom

VIP/Donor
Oct 25, 2015
6,024
1,490
520
Eastern WA
Sounds sleazy.

While I think the recording industry might be in need of some help in some ways, some digital tweaking isn't it so the tech isn't even coming close to compensating the monopoly nature.
 

Yuri Korzunov

Member
Jul 30, 2015
138
0
16
By all previous years experience, proprietary closed formats in audio don't got big popularity.

Except mp3. But mp3 become popular because in past time communication channels was slow and HDDs have small size, comparing modern ones.
It was technical reasons, that was obvious and suitable for consumers.
Currently I don't see such reasons, that give some advantages for end-users.

MQA give traffic economy comparing FLAC. But it is need now or don't?
 

Legolas

VIP/Donor
Dec 27, 2015
1,042
387
455
France
By all previous years experience, proprietary closed formats in audio don't got big popularity.

Except mp3. But mp3 become popular because in past time communication channels was slow and HDDs have small size, comparing modern ones.
It was technical reasons, that was obvious and suitable for consumers.
Currently I don't see such reasons, that give some advantages for end-users.

MQA give traffic economy comparing FLAC. But it is need now or don't?

Read the QA thread on computeraudiphile. MQA is not a closed format. In fact it is the most open yet. It can benefit legacy DACs and also play on an iPhone, bluetooth budget system etc.
It can present the DAC with 24/96k of a cleaner and correctly sourced master (studio accredited). Or it can feed 44.1 with some of those advantages. Or it can do all 3 processes in an MQA compliant DAC to 96K and beyond. I have to hear a DAC complaint device to know how good the second and third stage make it. But having only the first stage is incredible.

Remember it is not just high res, it is a return to the master, and an attempt to correct time smearing in the creation of the files that became a CD or HD release. The Flac component is a wrapper only. Getting it down to the same file size as Redbook for streaming is a big deal.

After 20 years of buying CDs and then some HD downloads, I am coming to the realisation the goal posts have moved. For £20 pm I can have it all. Obviously it will take some time to get most of the titles into Tidal, but TBH how many were available as HD or DSD anyway. Another thing, I like pick and mix for some types of music (dance for example). I got fed up with 2 CD albums with 4 good track on, the rest fillers.

I can now add a play list and grab the ones I actually like. I don't see what is not to like about it.

It seems to me to be a heroic leap of faith and huge amount of courage to launch MQA. The power and domination of the big labels and price hikes of selected releases, even stuff going back years like Led Zepp 'remasters'. Then we had Apple who raped the audio industry by selling garbage MP3s for top money. It was a big step back TBH. And no doubt led to so many downloading stuff for free in Napster and others as a negative reaction to that.

I think MQA has honourable intensions IMO. All music is profit based as we know, but this seems to be the best we have ever seen to date. And Meridian is a UK company, like it.
 
Last edited:

Yuri Korzunov

Member
Jul 30, 2015
138
0
16
MQA is not a closed format. In fact it is the most open yet.

As far as I know, MQA algorithm is not opened in full details. In computeraudiophile it discussed and learned as "black box".

Also this algorithm may be used after purchasing the license.

Open format is FLAC, as example. There coding/encoding algorithm is available in programming source codes and description.

It can benefit legacy DACs and also play on an iPhone, bluetooth budget system etc.

Yes. For mobile phones 2 times lesser space may have sense. For bluetooth too. Though there unclear lossy matter (can't be checked practically without available encoder).
 

asiufy

Industry Expert/VIP Donor
Jul 8, 2011
3,711
723
1,200
San Diego, CA
almaaudio.com
It is indeed a closed format. You must pay fees to use it, and to properly implement it. But that's beside the point, as even MQA doesn't claim to be an open format.

MQA can't benefit "legacy DACs", as they'll need to be physically upgraded to support MQA, as there's an authentication "chip" involved. The kicker, as the Linn post puts it, is that MQA collects from *everybody*, content producers and content consumers, ans everyone in between.

I like what I heard of MQA, but I don't fool myself into thinking they're doing it because they're nice, or that they have a nice, open system. They don't. It's a closed, pay-to-play, end-to-end system all the way. But as I said, they don't paint themselves as open...
 

Believe High Fidelity

[Industry Expert]
Nov 19, 2015
1,665
318
355
Hutto TX
ibelieveinhifi.com
Considering that Linn pioneered the streaming movement and offered their own Linn Records streaming as a part of the ownership of a DS was a HUGE value add.

When MQA launched and didn't offer direct comparisons to the CD equivalent of their improved MQA package I knew this was not going to be about SQ, but the ecosystem. I am very open minded about such things and often will want to believe than be critical, but as the Linn articulated all of the relevant points it is not about the music.

Too bad...
 

Legolas

VIP/Donor
Dec 27, 2015
1,042
387
455
France
As far as I know, MQA algorithm is not opened in full details. In computeraudiophile it discussed and learned as "black box".

Also this algorithm may be used after purchasing the license.

Open format is FLAC, as example. There coding/encoding algorithm is available in programming source codes and description.

Yes. For mobile phones 2 times lesser space may have sense. For bluetooth too. Though there unclear lossy matter (can't be checked practically without available encoder).

My 'open' comment is referring to the support for legacy DACs. Those will still get access to the 24/96K master. if Tidal provide MQA for the same monthly fees as on a 'hifi' account at 44.1, what is not to like?
 

Yuri Korzunov

Member
Jul 30, 2015
138
0
16
My 'open' comment is referring to the support for legacy DACs.

As programmer, I'd prefer full processing in PC: DAC as NOS system without decoding too.

Except analog low frequency filter and electrical converting circuits, it give more full control under sound. These tasks may not be solved program way.

It's desirably, that decoding must be also in program part, because any additional DSP (room correction, adjusting resolution for DAC, etc.) must be done under fully decoded signal for better result.
 

stehno

Well-Known Member
Jul 5, 2014
1,585
456
405
Salem, OR

Boy am I glad to see some pushback on what I perceive to quite possibly be the greatest wholesale "performance" hoax yet attempted on the entire audio industry.

Having never heard MQA, nearly 2 years ago I tried to explain here (see below link) and elsewhere why the performance claims Stuart, Harley, Atkinson, et al. were impossible to achieve. Nor could MQA's performance come even remotely close to the outlandish and nonsensical claims these industry "leaders" were trying to convince us of.

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...-s-new-project-called-MQA&p=322743#post322743

Hmmmm, a bit pre-mature to tell for sure but maybe I am psychic after all.
 

rbbert

Well-Known Member
Dec 12, 2010
3,820
239
1,000
Reno, NV
Boy am I glad to see some pushback on what I perceive to quite possibly be the greatest wholesale "performance" hoax yet attempted on the entire audio industry.

Unfortunately, as already noted, the only thing approaching "pushback" against MQA in the last 6 months is highresaudio.com's announcement that they will no longer sell MQA titles. Otherwise, everything occurring seems to be "pro-MQA", i.e. Tidal's actions, Universal's announcement, new MQA DAC's, streamers, etc. :(
 

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