[shwnwllms]

This thread was finally the last push for me to cancel my Tidal subscription (I’ve been putting it off for far too long anyway). Thank you @GoldenOne

 

[]eep]

As usual this is degenerating into a MQA bash and hate fest. There is no point in your vitriol. If you don't like it, don't pay for it. Just stop whining about something that has nothing to do with you and doesn't affect you at all.

I don't think you are addressing me, but a short reaction anyway. I'm not bashing you or anyone who makes a solid argument. If someone makes a good case that means I have to think over the arguments and that again means there is a chance to learn.

So, I have 2 devices that I bought for totally different reasons. I bought them for their streaming capabilities and interface, and so I can finally listen to my external 2TB HD filled with flacs again. Both are capable of full MQA bla bla. That means I had to buy 2 times an expensive MQA license which I will never use. I took a subscription to Qobuz because I don't want to pay a third time with Tidal for something I don't like but I do want high res.

That's twice €100 license fee down the drain. Stolen. There is no way around paying for it. It's either pay up or you won't get the hardware that I use for other purposes. So I think I have a reason to disapprove of MQA's fraudulent licensing scheme.

 

[gregorio]

As usual this is degenerating into a MQA bash and hate fest.

The title of this thread is a deep dive test of MQA. It’s an objective test and has effectively degenerated into an “MQA bash and hate fest” for good reason, because it performs so poorly, despite marketing claims of the opposite.

There is no point in your vitriol. If you don't like it, don't pay for it.

And how do you suggest we “don’t pay for it”? MQA doesn’t just charge a licence fee to the streaming service, it charges a fee to the studio for equipment to encode/record MQA and another fee to the producer/musicians. So one way or another we would be paying for it even if we didn’t subscribe to the streaming service!

Just stop whining about something that has nothing to do with you and doesn't affect you at all.

But it does affect us all or it would have affected us all if MQA had succeeded rather than bombed. It’s a bit rich to post a falsehood and if that’s not enough, to then tell people to stop whining about something that does/could affect them!

G

 

[]eep]

What you said is technically hard to argue with but these terms already have an agreed meaning. You comment does not really line up with that.

Bitperfect means that the same bitstream which is sent, is received.

Lossless means for a bitstream which is compressed, when expanded, the output equals the original input.

Something can be lossy and bitperfect. It can be not bitperfect and lossless.

Maybe you would like to translate that to something less convoluted and confusing.

As usual, the factor time us not taken in consideration. When you talk 'bitstream' you are referring to a transfer, where clock timing and dither can disturb a signal so errors can occur. That has nothing to do with lossy or lossless. To prevent that there are protocols and redundancies. A parity is a mechanism so you can ask for a resend in case of checksum error.

Lossless means for a bitstream which is compressed, when expanded, the output equals the original input.

No, no, no. These are different dimensions. Like comparing letters to words. Strings to meaning. I'll give you an example:
Lossless: You can understand me can't you?
Lossy: /Y cn stl ndrsd /m cnt /y?
It takes time to decipher and it gives you a headache if that goes on. But the information is 'roughly' the same. What I left out is open to interpretation.
(it's not quite a perfect example because I didn't throw away info)

In the case of FLAC vs MP3 we are talking about a codec producing a static file. This is about the information stored in the file, no matter what you want to do with that file later, store or send. The term 'bitstream' does not have any bearing on the information stored in a static file (hence 'stream'), unless you mean the confusingly named DSD protocol (direct stream digital) which is a codec meant for archival purposes (storing of masters).

When we are speaking of lossless vs lossy it means we are talking about a mathematical codec (totally objective) versus a codec based on a smart algorithm that leaves out (deletes!) data, based on the perceived, subjective behaviour of the human brain. This is educated guesswork, but not the truth, nothing but the truth and the whole truth.

Subjective means: someone else is deciding for you what quality of information you get. You choose MQA... Who knows what you get?

Objective means: you decide what quality of information you get. Not a restoration. You choose 24-96, you know what you get!

 

[jsmiller58]

I don't think you are addressing me, but a short reaction anyway. I'm not bashing you or anyone who makes a solid argument. If someone makes a good case that means I have to think over the arguments and that again means there is a chance to learn.

So, I have 2 devices that I bought for totally different reasons. I bought them for their streaming capabilities and interface, and so I can finally listen to my external 2TB HD filled with flacs again. Both are capable of full MQA bla bla. That means I had to buy 2 times an expensive MQA license which I will never use. I took a subscription to Qobuz because I don't want to pay a third time with Tidal for something I don't like but I do want high res.

That's twice €100 license fee down the drain. Stolen. There is no way around paying for it. It's either pay up or you won't get the hardware that I use for other purposes. So I think I have a reason to disapprove of MQA's fraudulent licensing scheme.

Sorry, coming in late to the thread… isn’t there hardware available that doesn’t support MQA and thus no MQA license fee associated? I know that my Topping D30 Pro and Topping D50s don’t support MQA, so I am not paying for it… As far as I know my Amazon Music subscription does not support MQA, so I am not paying there either… Am I missing something? No arguments from me, I am just trying to understand.

 

[]eep]

Sorry, coming in late to the thread… isn’t there hardware available that doesn’t support MQA and thus no MQA license fee associated? I know that my Topping D30 Pro and Topping D50s don’t support MQA, so I am not paying for it… As far as I know my Amazon Music subscription does not support MQA, so I am not paying there either… Am I missing something? No arguments from me, I am just trying to understand.

Yes, there are hardware manufacturers that read here too. Just to pick one example... And please do your due diligence... Is the smsl SU9N
https://soundnews.net/sources/dacs/smsl-su-9n-dac-review-no-mqa-no-problem/

Also, MQA seems restricted to sigma delta dacs. You won't find an r2r ladder dac with MQA. People who prefer 'Ye olde' R2R method often are purists and minimalists who have come to appreciate the 'less is more' and 'KISS' method. Unfortunately the entry point is a bit more costly than what you mentioned.

 

[gregorio]

As far as I know my Amazon Music subscription does not support MQA, so I am not paying there either… Am I missing something?

Yes, you’re missing the post (#168) just a couple posts before yours.

G

 

[m-i-c-k-e-y]

Just a heads up that newer generation R2R DACs have now MQA as Gustard's R26, Sonnet Audio's Morpheus and Pasithea DACs.

 

[jsmiller58]

Yes, there are hardware manufacturers that read here too. Just to pick one example... And please do your due diligence... Is the smsl SU9N
https://soundnews.net/sources/dacs/smsl-su-9n-dac-review-no-mqa-no-problem/

Also, MQA seems restricted to sigma delta dacs. You won't find an r2r ladder dac with MQA. People who prefer 'Ye olde' R2R method often are purists and minimalists who have come to appreciate the 'less is more' and 'KISS' method. Unfortunately the entry point is a bit more costly than what you mentioned.

I should know better than to walk into the middle of a religious war…

 

[]eep]

I should know better than to walk into the middle of a religious war…

How was that Bruce Springsteen song again?
"Born in the USA". That's where it all starts.

It seems people can't peacefullly debate or discuss anymore since everything now seems to revolve around 'identity politics'. So it's more about policy than religion. Even when it should be about what you do for fun and relaxation. When games have become war simulators for recruitment. Too bad 70% is to erm... 'cheerful' for the service (that used to say 'fat' but now even children's books are being altered for uninclusive language).

Just MQA is more about money than quality. So it's more in the 'complex but easy to mass-produce' sigma delta part of the market than the 'simple but high precision' R2R part.

 

[Audiophiliac]

Some people get into making money on the internet to try to find ways not to have to send the whole thing.