MQA, Worse than FLAC?

Gregadd

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
8,554
806
590
Metro DC
So this video appeared on you tube. MQA false claim to be lossles?

MQA, Worse than FLAC?
I am sure this is beyond my pale. It is quite an indictment of MQA and tidal appears guilty by association. That is assuming the author's facts are true and correctly interpreted.
That is also dependent on the resultant sound. quality. I think we can agree, if you pay for something you should get it.
Reading terms like "subjective preference' indicates an objectivist who is openly hostile to anything greater than lossless.
The author may seek to add fuel to fire the argument against the necessity for anything greater than redbook
 
Last edited:

Gregadd

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
8,554
806
590
Metro DC
Paper 2 MQA Response
You tube
 

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
7,239
2,827
603
Greater Boston
It would be more useful if you would post links. Here they are:



 
  • Like
Reactions: dorch

Gregadd

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
8,554
806
590
Metro DC
Point taken about URL

Imo there is nothing unique about lossless. It does not matter to me how you get there. I see no reason to pay a premium for it. It would appear ot is less expensive for them bit more expensive for the consumer. Fobo you don't want your product left on the shelf because it does not support MQA.
Memory is progressively less expensive. That means compression plans become redundant.
 

Kal Rubinson

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2010
2,145
472
520
NYC/CT
www.stereophile.com
Imo there is nothing unique about lossless. It does not matter to me how you get there.
That is true but MQA has admitted that it is not lossless. It is said to be better than lossless. :rolleyes:
 

Gregadd

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
8,554
806
590
Metro DC
That is true but MQA has admitted that it is not lossless. It is said to be better than lossless. :rolleyes:
Did they really?
Better than lossless? You or they are going to have to elaborate on that. Who is saying that? MQA? You?
 

Kal Rubinson

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2010
2,145
472
520
NYC/CT
www.stereophile.com
Did they really?
Better than lossless? You or they are going to have to elaborate on that. Who is saying that? MQA? You?
You will have to look it up in the MQA discussions on AudiophileStyle but this is not my statement (although I relay it with tongue in cheek).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Andrew S.

Gregadd

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
8,554
806
590
Metro DC
I think they obfuscated and did not admit anything

An admission that mqa is less than lossless would mean there original claim for whatever teason is false.
My admittedly rudimentary understanding of digital suggests lossy can never be superior to lossless.
I welcome a correction should it be warranted.
 

Kal Rubinson

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2010
2,145
472
520
NYC/CT
www.stereophile.com
I think they obfuscated and did not admit anything
True to form.
An admission that mqa is less than lossless would mean there original claim for whatever teason is false.
They have said as much without being overt.
My admittedly rudimentary understanding of digital suggests lossy can never be superior to lossless.
Agreed.
I welcome a correction should it be warranted.
I don't have the time or inclination to re-visit the issue. I try to ignore MQA.
 

Gregadd

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
8,554
806
590
Metro DC
Well there are those who are deeply concerned. I guess I am late to the party.
A weak rebuttal is the same as an admission.
 
  • Like
Reactions: littlej0e

MPS

Well-Known Member
Jun 20, 2016
110
81
135
Finland
"The proof of the pudding is in the eating."

It is not very surprising if a lossy coding would not match the sound quality of the lossless original. What makes more sense is to compare the lossy HR MQA to standard CD-quality version, do we get improved sound quality with equal amount of bit stream or not.
As always there will be people's personal opinions that will never be totally in unison with that of others. There are downloads with and without MQA coding so everyone can make up opinion of their own by experimenting.
One thing to note is that the support for MQA decoding will vary from device to another.
Then there are differences between different streaming services, masters and remasters etc..
It'll never end but that's what it is to be a addict to SQ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mmeeks100

Gregadd

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
8,554
806
590
Metro DC
I almost hate to say it. "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own set of facts."
Consequently you can argue your sugarless pudding is as good as the original. But you can't deny that it is sugarless.
.
 

MPS

Well-Known Member
Jun 20, 2016
110
81
135
Finland
I almost hate to say it. "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own set of facts."
Consequently you can argue your sugarless pudding is as good as the original. But you can't deny that it is sugarless.
.
That's a good point, sometimes opinions get taken as facts which they are not.
Any opinion is a correct one but only to it's holder whereas facts are facts to each and everyone.
I'm still not too sure what's all that has to do with MQA or FLAC.
It's a fact that MQA is lossy and original (whatever that might be) is lossless as it is. FLAC is a lossless container but it might carry a lossy MQA or lossless data depending of the source material.
We could discuss about whether MQA is better or worse than something else but I see very little point in doing so as better and worse are mostly personal subjective opinions. However it's a fact that MQA will not carry information in 100% accuracy being a lossy codec. My personal opinion is that Tidal MQA "Masters" seem to sound better than their standard CD-quality versions and so I would normally opt to play the "Master" version if available. Since Tidal does not stream lossless HR material and I'm not purchasing HR downloads, I have no opinion about MQA vs HR but I would never deny that MQA is a lossy version of the original.
 

Gregadd

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
8,554
806
590
Metro DC
I think the producer aptly sidestepped the issues of sound quality. For me that is the linchpin.
So the question is should MQA charge for something they are not providing? The answer should be obvious.
In addition Imo compresion schemes are not worth a premium. For reasons I have already stated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: K3RMIT

K3RMIT

Well-Known Member
Sep 4, 2020
388
126
48
I don’t own and mqa CD players and I don’t own an mqa dac so I can’t hear the last unfold.
I will say mqa is better in sound but I feel it’s a rigged reason. first off mqa takes great stuff and
eq and then adds the mqa special sauce stuff. on tidal to me it’s very good.
regarding lossless or lossy
I think a given format matters to a given dac / server. why I dont know and I’m sure I’ll get bashed now.
my fav most times is AIFF
wav coming second but wave is complex there is two kinds I know of the holy grail one I dont think is better amd to me aiff is above wav.
even if I convert flac to aiff it’s better on air and top end
there also is lossless flac if one unchecked all the boxes. still aiff or wav win to me.
 

K3RMIT

Well-Known Member
Sep 4, 2020
388
126
48
I almost hate to say it. "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own set of facts."
Consequently you can argue your sugarless pudding is as good as the original. But you can't deny that it is sugarless.
.
Hey my facts are facts all the rest who dont agree with my facts are just fake facts
 

Daverich4

Member
May 8, 2020
50
28
23
71
If you check my signature line.
Not sure if this is of any interest to you or not but this MQA thread was started 4 years ago and as there are currently over 23K posts in it pretty much every aspect of MQA has been discussed and argued to death.

 
  • Like
Reactions: MPS

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
7,239
2,827
603
Greater Boston
Not sure if this is of any interest to you or not but this MQA thread was started 4 years ago and as there are currently over 23K posts in it pretty much every aspect of MQA has been discussed and argued to death.


Yes, that's a good thread, I have read quite a bit of it.
 

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