[jagwap]

Sure, but CD really was revolutionary.  It was a game changer, revolutionized the whole industry.

It was objectively superior in terms of measurements and convenience.  No flipping records, instant track FFWD!  No rewinding!  No tape wearing out!

It obviously sounded different than LPs or cassettes.  No popping or ticks!  No tape hiss!

MQA doesn't tick near as many boxes.

But if it mayve ticks some, why be so boolean?

 

[watchnerd]

But if it mayve ticks some, why be so boolean?

 
What boxes does it tick for the masses who don't care about high resolution?

 

[jagwap]

What boxes did CD tick for cassette fans, or hipsters who love vinyl.
 
CD took a long time to catch on with the masses.  Saturation occurred more than ten years after launch.

 

[watchnerd]

  What boxes did CD tick for cassette fans, or hipsters who love vinyl.
 
CD took a long time to catch on with the masses.  Saturation occurred more than ten years after launch.

 
 
I guess the question about what MQA is going to bring to the masses who don't care about high resolution was too hard, eh?

 

[jagwap]

   
 
I guess the question about what MQA is going to bring to the masses who don't care about high resolution was too hard, eh?

No, I'm just showing how easily your argument can be turn back on itself when it is only bias.

 

[watchnerd]

 
No, I'm just showing how easily your argument can be turn back on itself when it is only bias.

 
No, you're avoiding the question.

 

[headfry]

it's funny to me that when a genuine advancement comes in streaming music technology in the form of SQ and compatibility with all devices brings out so much contrariness, paranoia, anger and indignation. Pity. But if you look at other readers comments and forums elsewhere on different topics....same thing.
 
as for MQA, first, the argument is that it doesn't sound any better and/or some kind of scam. Then, accusations of money grabbing and monopolization (but surely stealing music online is OK, right?). Whatever......same kind of arguments that I see against the SQ 
of high quality digital cables - such as USB - as if Siltech, Wireworld, Anticables et al are all a bunch of thieves.
.
 
It's not as if other audiophile formats are going away....and Bob Stuart is not some kind of Machiavellian character.
 
Nuanced discussion is appreciated, it's the hysteric, knee-jerk arguments from many who haven't even
given it a fair audition.
 
 
Anyway, all of this isn't going to rain on my parade.
 
 
...enjoy Tidal Masters folks!

 

[watchnerd]

 
 
Nuanced discussion is appreciated, it's the hysteric, knee-jerk arguments from many who haven't even
given it a fair audition.
 

 
I've given it an audition.  Several, actually.
 
It does not improve upon existing high resolution 24bit/96khz formats.
 
So there is no advancement in sound quality.

 

[limpidglitch]

  What boxes did CD tick for cassette fans, or hipsters who love vinyl.

 
Better sound, track selection, no generational loss, compact size?
All undeniable plusses, yet uptake took many years. How does MQA compare?
 
Vinyl hipsters are more a product of the digital age, aren't they?

 

[headfry]

   
I've given it an audition.  Several, actually.
 
It does not improve upon existing high resolution 24bit/96khz formats.
 
So there is no advancement in sound quality.

Thanks for your reasoned and good natured feedback....which I'm all for.
 
to my ears, both hi res and MQA sound great assuming the master's good...
but MQA is a much smaller package suitable for streaming to a very wide audience.

 

[sonitus mirus]

  Well, this is certainly something that's not very pretty for a hot new format:
 

 
Taken from Archimago's recent post: http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2017/01/comparison-tidal-mqa-music-high.html

 
Great analysis from Archimago.  I especially enjoyed his summation of "extreme audiophiles" towards the end and his jab at the press in his post scriptum. 

 

[watchnerd]

   
Great analysis from Archimago.  I especially enjoyed his summation of "extreme audiophiles" towards the end and his jab at the press in his post scriptum. 

 
Yeah, I loved this quote:
 
"I could care less whether the lossy "unfolding" goes out to 192kHz or 384kHz; all smoke and mirrors as far as I am concerned since it's inaudible plus lacking in decent recordings. Furthermore, even inexpensive high-resolution DACs are remarkably accurate these days so whatever tweaking is being done for individual DACs is highly dubious and more than likely perceptually meaningless. Nonsense complexity like this especially if gushingly embraced by the audiophile press will only serve to confuse the public and remind the typical music lover what they've suspected for a long time; "extreme audiophiles" are emotionally insecure obsessive-compulsives cognitively weak in performing reality testing and prone to the use of superlatives in advertising and media. Dear readers, IMO don't be an "extreme audiophile" and end up like that ."
 
I'm in 100% agreement with him on those points.

 

[watchnerd]

 
but MQA is a much smaller package suitable for streaming to a very wide audience.

 
But that's the problem: it isn't.
 
It isn't really any smaller than equivalent bit depth using SRC and dithering.
 

 
The MQA version is only 188 KB smaller than the version using standard 24-96 to 24-48 SRC with dithering!  It's less than half a percent different in size.
 
That's nothing, certainly isn't going to make a noticeable difference on consumed bandwidth, and is a lot of extra steps compared to the simpler alternative.

 

[sonitus mirus]

   
But that's the problem: it isn't.
 
It isn't really any smaller than equivalent bit depth using SRC and dithering.
 

 
The MQA version is only 188 KB smaller than the version using standard 24-96 to 24-48 SRC with dithering!  It's less than half a percent different in size.
 
That's nothing, certainly isn't going to make a noticeable difference on consumed bandwidth, and is a lot of extra steps compared to the simpler alternative.

 
From my limited understanding, the benefit with MQA file size can be found with hardware decoding of 24/192 and 24/176.4.  I believe the same MQA file being streamed is "unfolded" to be played back in the HD format it originated in with a fully certified MQA DAC as has been illustrated before in the following link:  http://www.audiostream.com/content/mqa-decoding-explained#k9gvYv4VEgzXcgkT.97
 
For me, though, this is a non-issue, as I don't see any significant audible gains in either of these HD formats.  They just waste resources, at best.

 

[watchnerd]

   
From my limited understanding, the benefit with MQA file size can be found with hardware decoding of 24/192 and 24/176.4.  I believe the same MQA file being streamed is "unfolded" to be played back in the HD format it originated in with a fully certified MQA DAC as has been illustrated before in the following link:  http://www.audiostream.com/content/mqa-decoding-explained#k9gvYv4VEgzXcgkT.97
 
For me, though, this is a non-issue, as I don't see any significant audible gains in either of these HD formats.  They just waste resources, at best.

 
This comes back to what Archimago said:
 
Do you really care about that ultrasonic content?