MQA discussion

asiufy

Industry Expert/VIP Donor
Jul 8, 2011
3,711
723
1,200
San Diego, CA
almaaudio.com
How about we do a main MQA thread, non-DAC specific?

I've posted this Forbes link elsewhere, as it reflects exactly my understanding of MQA wants to be and who they want to reach...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/meliss...-sound-in-the-digital-audio-era/#7f4e89bc14fe

Also, I've noticed a LOT of new albums added today! I haven't been able to listen to any yet, but these are some that caught my eye:

Lord "Pure Heroine" https://tidal.com/album/77632177
Ben Webster "Soulville" https://tidal.com/album/77647117
Serge Gainsbourg "Melody Nelson" https://tidal.com/album/77643435 (this one was quite shocking to see on Tidal at all, let alone in MQA!)
Rush "Moving Pictures" https://tidal.com/album/77623600
Stevie Wonder "Innervisions" https://tidal.com/album/77666298
The Who "Who's Next" https://tidal.com/album/77616121

I'll do some A x Bing tomorrow on those, as I know most of these albums pretty well, and I actually have them in multiple formats!


cheers,
alex
 

opus112

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2016
462
4
148
Zhejiang
a typical MP3 delivers just 10% of the original recording, while MQA captures 100% of the performance

If this is an example of MQA's marketing then they most certainly don't want to reach people interested in the truth.
 

DaveyF

Well-Known Member
Jul 31, 2010
6,129
181
458
La Jolla, Calif USA
Alex, this thread is a good idea...except for one possible problem...

The same naysayers will come trolling on here with their postulations and skepticism with nary any experience with the format whatsoever.
Reminds me of a thread I started on another forum about the Shakti Hallograph's and how beneficial they were in my system; only to be told that these devices cannot work and are pure voodoo. Not one of those naysayers had heard that product either.
 

rbbert

Well-Known Member
Dec 12, 2010
3,820
239
1,000
Reno, NV
I must be missing something reading that article. From it I read that MQA is focusing on streaming devices, including mobile, which have inherent limitations on sound quality, and where dynamically compressed mastering is often advantageous? And again mentioning the "advantage" of MQA's small packet size?
 

FrantzM

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
6,455
29
405
Alex, this thread is a good idea...except for one possible problem...

The same naysayers will come trolling on here with their postulations and skepticism with nary any experience with the format whatsoever.
Reminds me of a thread I started on another forum about the Shakti Hallograph's and how beneficial they were in my system; only to be told that these devices cannot work and are pure voodoo. Not one of those naysayers had heard that product either.

Davey

If it is a "discussion" you should expect , welcome and even wish for dissenting opinions. Here comes one :D

MQA is NOT lossless. it is a lossy method of encoding, (see Wikipedia Article HERE) IOW regardless of the claims , it loses something. Given the same EXACT original recording and mastering on both a CD/file and an MQA file, compared to a Redbook things will go missing: The nature of a lossy compression/encoding.
Now I will grant someone that what they heard on MQA is impressive to them. Why is an interesting discussion. Mastering seems to be the most probable reason... There may be others, I, however cannot fathom how a lossy copy can be "better" than an original. Some may prefer the copy ... A not debatable notion.. Preferences.

BTW I am not adverse to MQA. The fact that it reduces the bandwidth needed for very high quality sound reproduction is welcome. Where I live, my Internet access does not consistently allow me CD quality on Tidal except at very odd time ( from11:30 PM to 4 AM for example)...and perhaps cost: I need to find the best ways to simultaneously use two different providers. There are ways to do that, some I use as a solution for my customers in my IT business. I haven't checked how it works for Multimedia files, music in particular. So yes MQA with its promise and anecdotal reports of incredible sound l=would be a bonus to me. I will check if my DACs plan on supporting it...
 
Last edited:

still-one

VIP/Donor
Aug 6, 2012
1,632
150
1,220
Milford, Michigan
How about we do a main MQA thread, non-DAC specific?

I've posted this Forbes link elsewhere, as it reflects exactly my understanding of MQA wants to be and who they want to reach...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/meliss...-sound-in-the-digital-audio-era/#7f4e89bc14fe

Also, I've noticed a LOT of new albums added today! I haven't been able to listen to any yet, but these are some that caught my eye:

Lord "Pure Heroine" https://tidal.com/album/77632177
Ben Webster "Soulville" https://tidal.com/album/77647117
Serge Gainsbourg "Melody Nelson" https://tidal.com/album/77643435 (this one was quite shocking to see on Tidal at all, let alone in MQA!)
Rush "Moving Pictures" https://tidal.com/album/77623600
Stevie Wonder "Innervisions" https://tidal.com/album/77666298
The Who "Who's Next" https://tidal.com/album/77616121

I'll do some A x Bing tomorrow on those, as I know most of these albums pretty well, and I actually have them in multiple formats!


cheers,
alex

Here is a list that is close to be updated. Over 3300 titles.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet..._uzxfBqhXrPuXh3USOjvuztYg/edit#gid=1599853719
 

spiritofmusic

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2013
14,601
5,411
1,278
E. England
Alex, I'd love some feedback on Rush/Moving Pictures MQA
It's always been album that is super dense and textured in the mids/upper bass, but harsh at freq extremes
Does the treble really lilt now, and the bass truly breathe?
 

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,679
4,467
963
Greater Boston
Alex, this thread is a good idea...except for one possible problem...

The same naysayers will come trolling on here with their postulations and skepticism with nary any experience with the format whatsoever.

Speaking just for myself, I have never claimed anything about MQA sound quality since I haven't heard it. I have only been skeptical of the business model on that other thread, and none of the MQA fanboys have been able to answer my concerns and come up with convincing scenarios how MQA could have success (streaming and all...), rather than it being another one of those stillborn fringe formats that do not go anywhere, following in the footsteps of SACD, HDCD, DSD et al. Another audiophile day, another format distraction.
 

bonzo75

Member Sponsor
Feb 26, 2014
22,434
13,467
2,710
London

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,679
4,467
963
Greater Boston

KeithR

VIP/Donor
May 7, 2010
5,144
2,812
1,898
Encino, CA
I must be missing something reading that article. From it I read that MQA is focusing on streaming devices, including mobile, which have inherent limitations on sound quality, and where dynamically compressed mastering is often advantageous? And again mentioning the "advantage" of MQA's small packet size?

The headphone market is gargantuan. Of course they want it on mobile devices.
 

rbbert

Well-Known Member
Dec 12, 2010
3,820
239
1,000
Reno, NV
The headphone market is gargantuan. Of course they want it on mobile devices.

I would think that the audiophile headphone "market" isn't primarily geared to mobile listening, but I don't know. My point was that the Forbes' article seemd to gloss over today's (stereo)typical audiophile as a significant (much less primary) market. From a long-term business perspective, that may be wise, but it doesn't seem to speak to most posters here. I only mention this because Alex chose to post that link in his opening.
 

KeithR

VIP/Donor
May 7, 2010
5,144
2,812
1,898
Encino, CA
Speaking just for myself, I have never claimed anything about MQA sound quality since I haven't heard it. I have only been skeptical of the business model on that other thread, and none of the MQA fanboys have been able to answer my concerns and come up with convincing scenarios how MQA could have success (streaming and all...), rather than it being another one of those stillborn fringe formats that do not go anywhere, following in the footsteps of SACD, HDCD, DSD et al. Another audiophile day, another format distraction.

because you don't understand consumer streaming or streaming economics. but this probably isn't the thread for that.
 

KeithR

VIP/Donor
May 7, 2010
5,144
2,812
1,898
Encino, CA
I would think that the audiophile headphone "market" isn't primarily geared to mobile listening, but I don't know. My point was that the Forbes' article seemd to gloss over today's (stereo)typical audiophile as a significant (much less primary) market. From a long-term business perspective, that may be wise, but it doesn't seem to speak to most posters here. I only mention this because Alex chose to post that link in his opening.

iirc, the audiophile market is a $250 million market. peanuts.

the fact there is a ton of current music on that MQA list says a lot to me
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
Davey

If it is a "discussion" you should expect , welcome and even wish for dissenting opinions. Here comes one :D

MQA is NOT lossless. it is a lossy method of encoding, (see Wikipedia Article HERE) IOW regardless of the claims , it loses something. Given the same EXACT original recording and mastering on both a CD/file and an MQA file, compared to a Redbook things will go missing: The nature of a lossy compression/encoding.
Now I will grant someone that what they heard on MQA is impressive to them. Why is an interesting discussion. Mastering seems to be the most probable reason... There may be others, I, however cannot fathom how a lossy copy can be "better" than an original. Some may prefer the copy ... A not debatable notion.. Preferences.

Good points. But considering redbook is intrinsically a lossy format - the original recordings are most of the time at less 96/24, the debate should also be which is less lossy. :) Surely I hope tha MQA recordings process the original digital files, not the mastered CD files ...

Technically, where speculation and imagination is of little value, the MQA area is still very nebulous, particularly on the encoding process. All my previous technical questions in WBF never got firm answers, just suppositions.

BTW, excuse my ignorance :eek:, Tidal MQA software decoding is to equivalent hardware decoding in the DAC?
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
I must be missing something reading that article. From it I read that MQA is focusing on streaming devices, including mobile, which have inherent limitations on sound quality, and where dynamically compressed mastering is often advantageous? And again mentioning the "advantage" of MQA's small packet size?

Triggered by Frantz post I re-looked at Wikpipedia - they clearly say that MQA is intended for high fidelity digital audio internet streaming and file download.
 

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,679
4,467
963
Greater Boston
because you don't understand consumer streaming or streaming economics.

...says someone who had no answers to my objections and concerns about the MQA streaming business model. Great.
 

KeithR

VIP/Donor
May 7, 2010
5,144
2,812
1,898
Encino, CA
...says someone who had no answers to my objections and concerns about the MQA streaming business model. Great.

Al - quite frankly you've ignored all the answers given to you by myself and others. anyways, enjoy spinning your silver discs - i'm not sure why you are on this thread. I'm not engaging you further.

And ironically this is coming from someone who agreed with you on SACD and DSD - and I don't own a single hi res file.
 

rbbert

Well-Known Member
Dec 12, 2010
3,820
239
1,000
Reno, NV
...says someone who had no answers to my objections and concerns about the MQA streaming business model. Great.
Far from your concern that MQA is another "fringe format" that will die from consumer disinterest or confusion, my worry is the opposite; that MQA will become the de facto standard for commercial availability of hi-res audio. The fact that it can sound good ignores the fact that it doesn't always, and if music is poorly mastered to begin with (as is true of nearly all the music offered in MQA by nugs.net) all MQA does is prevent availability of a hi-res file set for further DSP.

In fact I still don't understand how any of the advanced digital music players, such as Roon, can do room correction or any other DSP on MQA without an additional A>D and subsequent D>A conversion, which would seem to defeat the whole purpose of MQA for,the computer audiophile.
 

asiufy

Industry Expert/VIP Donor
Jul 8, 2011
3,711
723
1,200
San Diego, CA
almaaudio.com
MQA is still PCM. Basically, once all the MQA "magic" is applied, you're left with a hi-res PCM stream, that can, then, be DSPed to your desire.
 

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