[sabloke]

Don't know about you but when I test and evaluate audio equipment, say a DAC, I always use a local FLAC file rather than an MQA, even if it gets unfolded 365 times or thereabout. I have listened back to back Tidal and Qobuz the last few days and to me the non MQA streaming service sounds better. Plus, there's no rap in my face all the time unless I chose so.

 

[gikigill]

I know very little about this subject, but in thinking about it this morning while having my coffee, I wondered if it is this :

The stuff that Tidal is saying about MQA is not true. MQA is not lossless, to start with, among other things.

But on the other hand, the sound quality from MQA is very good.

Such a situation would lead to a lot of controversy and disagreement.

The problem is it mangles the original file and introduces a DRM signal in the 1khz-3khz range.

How it can be called "Master Quality" is beyond my imagination.

 

[Deolum]

Good work. I really like that Tidal gets a bit grounded as MQA expansion really got a bit out of control especially promoted by paid hifi magazines.

On the other hand everybody should be able to see within 5-10 min of research that MQA is on paper not better than High-Res and that it's a folded signal and thus at best equally as good. Thus there is absolutely no reason to go for it for sound quality if you don't need the extra space (where i really wonder who needs this as storage and data volume increases steadily).

So not a problem with Tidal here but with people who are to lazy to look something up for themselves.

This doesn't account to the thing though that the MQA file is probably worse than non MQA. If that it true, and i wouldn't be surprised, then it's clearly Tidals fault. However sadly i'm not that into the topic that i can fully evaluate your findings with MQA's response and find the flaws in argumentation on both sides here.

I have two questions though.

1. Did you compare MQA to MQA studio? Or if anyone can point me to the OP's post if he did so but i overlooked it i would be thankful.

2. And what's with the whole timing thing? That was the only thing i could ever found about a straight adavantage of MQA in sound quality over PCM. Is there anything to that? Again if i overread it would be happy if someone would point me to the OP's post.

https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/mqa-time-domain-accuracy-digital-audio-quality

The utter lack of transparency about MQA and basically no real advantages of it over standard files always left me confused to the amount of people who built systems for it. But i don't blame MQA or Tidal for that but only the consumers. It's a profit oriented company so if they can fool the consumers by marketing why not?

 

[HiFiHawaii808]

Does MQA do anything right? Does it have any benefits? Or is it like selling pet rocks? A completely vacuous product by design. Or, was it a good idea with a terrible implementation?

 

[mammal]

Or, was it a good idea with a terrible implementation?

My original impression was that they were trying to save on internet bandwidth, allow streaming services offer "high res" files to their customers, but it feels like they in the end tried to do much more than just that. Not sure if they originally planned that, or politics got into the way, or that was the only way how to stay afloat/ become successful.

 

[HiFiHawaii808]

My original impression was that they were trying to save on internet bandwidth, allow streaming services offer "high res" files to their customers, but it feels like they in the end tried to do much more than just that. Not sure if they originally planned that, or politics got into the way, or that was the only way how to stay afloat/ become successful.

I've always wondered about that. If I downloaded my music and did direct playback, why would I need MQA if it's just a compression algorithm?

 

[A Jedi]

It started out as a mechanism to deliver hi-res through limited bandwidth. What we know now is that the MQA files are actually slightly larger (just a few percent) than PCM files. Also bandwidth is no longer the problem it was 10 years ago. Also it adds noise to the file. But more money = better so they perpetuate some myth about how it's better and more real.

 

[HiFiHawaii808]

It started out as a mechanism to deliver hi-res through limited bandwidth. What we know now is that the MQA files are actually slightly larger (just a few percent) than PCM files. Also bandwidth is no longer the problem it was 10 years ago. Also it adds noise to the file. But more money = better so they perpetuate some myth about how it's better and more real.

With Tidal, there are times when streaming just doesn't work well. I attributed it to a poor internet connection. But that doesn't always seem to be the case. So, to solve that problem, I just download the music to my smartphone and do direct playback. I really haven't A/B tested downloaded vs. streamed music on Tidal. Is either better due to the use of streaming protocols vs direct playback? What is the file format stored on my smartphone?

 

[A Jedi]

With Tidal, there are times when streaming just doesn't work well. I attributed it to a poor internet connection. But that doesn't always seem to be the case. So, to solve that problem, I just download the music to my smartphone and do direct playback. I really haven't A/B tested downloaded vs. streamed music on Tidal. Is either better due to the use of streaming protocols vs direct playback? What is the file format stored on my smartphone?

You'll be downloading the exact same file as the streamed version. It doesn't make financial sense to keep multiple versions of the same file/song.

 

[HiFiHawaii808]

You'll be downloading the exact same file as the streamed version. It doesn't make financial sense to keep multiple versions of the same file/song.

Interesting. So, MQA is more than a data transport protocol. It's also a compression format. And, it must support playback through both MQA compliant and non-compliant systems. It's trying to do more than increase throughput over limited bandwidth. I've been trying to avoid having to learn the technical details, but it appears to be unavoidable to figure out what the heck is going on here.

 

[Billyak]

Well done OP.

I jumped on the MQA bandwagon a couple of years ago but the honeymoon phase only lasted a couple of months.

Much happier with qobuz knowing what I am getting is lossless.

 

[rocko77]

It's pointless, zealot-style bashing. Nobody has been misled. People might have paid money for something and it turns out other people give them reasons not to like it. That happens all the time for people who can't think for themselves.

The "truth" about MQA has been public since Day 2. There are countless threads here about the technicalities.

If you don't like a streaming service or any other service or product, just don't use it. It's that simple.

Its a shame that MQA and Tidal have made the business decision to be anything but honest to the point of being outright deceitful. The average Audiophile and newcomer to the hobby would have no idea they were being played. People have unwittingly purchased MQA enabled equipment, often at great expense and Tidal subscriptions under the false promise of studio quality masters.

Should you prefer the sound of MQA as it stands, and I am sure many may, it still offers nothing that a bog standard filter couldn't . As proven with the IFI unit mentioned in the video.

You call people Zealots but surely the true meaning of that is precisely what you are doing. You are after all defending the indefensible

 

[DrTone]

Does MQA do anything right? Does it have any benefits? Or is it like selling pet rocks? A completely vacuous product by design. Or, was it a good idea with a terrible implementation?

What MQA is:

1) It’s an end to end licensing scheme that offers opportunity for owners to make $ if widely adapted.

2) It could offer content providers bandwidth savings over PCM 24/192 content. Lesser savings with 24/96 PCM content. This isn’t really needed at all at the client side.

3) It offers the labels an alternative to delivering the crown jewel full quality PCM to end users.

It offers end users nothing but a lack of subjective filter choice moving forward.

 

[gimmeheadroom]

And yet, many people enjoy the sound. So it really doesn't matter what the technicalities or social issues are. Some people just prefer it to Spotify, Apple music etc.

 

[Firevortex]

And yet, many people enjoy the sound. So it really doesn't matter what the technicalities or social issues are. Some people just prefer it to Spotify, Apple music etc.

by that logic we don't need consumer law. as long as one like a product its all that counts. its all about "ME" and how "I feel". doesn't matter if a company is committing fraud/scam or having a negative social impact. people here can't openly criticise it because you like the product. Narcissist much?