what is mqa-cd ? im see some dacs have this functionsomebody posted a 352 KHz playlist. I don't have it saved anymore since the music was so horriblebut it worked
MQA.... Scam or not?
- Thread starter pjones5
- Start date
I am not going to target this towards anyone specifically because there are a number of anti MQA folks stating their case in this thread, other threads where questions about MQA have been asked and frankly sometimes any place they get an opportunity.
The objection the I have, and I believe others are probably the same, is that we don’t need the anti MQA folks to tell us what is right or wrong with MQA, we have all been told that 100 times before by other anti MQA folks. You are not educating anybody you are just voicing your opinion in an attempt to get others to agree with you. Unfortunately that is just human nature.
We acknowledge that you are perfectly entitled to your opinions and we understand your objections and we agree that there are technical aspects of MQA that are something less than the marketing infers.
What we get frustrated with is the seemingly endless posts and comments all saying the same thing about MQA when we already know.
You are like reformed smokers who sanctimoniously try and get everyone else to quit because you did and, based on the insight you have gained from your experience, you want to educate us all so that we embrace your enlightenment.
Using the same analogy, some people are happy to keep smoking despite that they fully understand the negative aspects of doing so. Those people get annoyed when frequently told they are doing wrong by people that openly proclaim to know better.
We get it, we understand your point, we understand the technical aspects, we just don’t react to that information with the same response of quitting using MQA. For our own reasons we are happy to use it despite the objections of others.
I guess you could make an argument that you are preaching to those that don’t know already but I think that audience is relatively small now.
The objection the I have, and I believe others are probably the same, is that we don’t need the anti MQA folks to tell us what is right or wrong with MQA, we have all been told that 100 times before by other anti MQA folks. You are not educating anybody you are just voicing your opinion in an attempt to get others to agree with you. Unfortunately that is just human nature.
We acknowledge that you are perfectly entitled to your opinions and we understand your objections and we agree that there are technical aspects of MQA that are something less than the marketing infers.
What we get frustrated with is the seemingly endless posts and comments all saying the same thing about MQA when we already know.
You are like reformed smokers who sanctimoniously try and get everyone else to quit because you did and, based on the insight you have gained from your experience, you want to educate us all so that we embrace your enlightenment.
Using the same analogy, some people are happy to keep smoking despite that they fully understand the negative aspects of doing so. Those people get annoyed when frequently told they are doing wrong by people that openly proclaim to know better.
We get it, we understand your point, we understand the technical aspects, we just don’t react to that information with the same response of quitting using MQA. For our own reasons we are happy to use it despite the objections of others.
I guess you could make an argument that you are preaching to those that don’t know already but I think that audience is relatively small now.
Look up this album by Fourplay. It is 352khz. If you like the music it sounds good but I don’t think it sounds any better than any of their other albums that are at lower spec.
gimmeheadroom
Headphoneus Supremus
It's a CD encoded in MQA. I don't know if they're double layer like SACDs but I doubt it.
It seems dumb and pointless unless a Redbook CD is not available. And I don't think many CD players can play them. I have on that can but I have not bought any of these CDs to try yet. I think it's possible to burn MQA CDs but you have to find one that's encoded as 16/44.1 since hifi CD players can't do anything else. There are some pro CD recorders that will burn BWF at 48 KHz, this could also be an option.
Last edited:
im find only 2021 remasteed them on tidal master and shows 88.2khz only . or this is first unfold?Look up this album by Fourplay. It is 352khz. If you like the music it sounds good but I don’t think it sounds any better than any of their other albums that are at lower spec.
Last edited:
gimmeheadroom
Headphoneus Supremus
One problem is Tidal has different music by region. Try this playlist https://tidal.com/browse/playlist/ed8350de-a7db-4b02-b17b-edeeeeb98b32
https://tidal.com/browse/playlist/53c9753a-4304-4e25-ba9d-9f16112cfaad
I found them by searching the net 'tidal 352 khz playlist'
Last edited:
this works,my screen shows OFS 352.8khz when playing. when paued hows PCM 88.2khz. what this means? thi is 32bit /352.8khz? or 24/352.8?
Attachments
Last edited:
gimmeheadroom
Headphoneus Supremus
If your DAC doesn't show bit depth then you will not know.
When paused it means nothing, as somebody else pointed out.
Deleeh
Headphoneus Supremus
Hello,
I have had different experiences with Mqa.
And the topic has both a good and a bad ending for me.
The good first:
As I was on the road a lot last year, I enjoyed the benefits of Mqa very much, I must say.
Especially in the mobile sector, I would say it makes sense not to do without quality.
I first had a Nuprime Dac dongel which was later upgraded with the Ify Hip Dac 2.
It was so much better in the end, I have to say.
On the upside, I use the Ipad with a playlist I use offline from Tidal.
Most of the tracks are Mqa and I think it's better there too.
My conclusion is that in a bad environment, Tidal with Mqa makes sense.
Bad environment I mean if you do not want to use your mobile data volume unnecessarily it is good, as well as if you are on the road where there are a lot of influences it makes sense.
The sound quality was the best for me.
Now for the bad:
I think it's bad that Tidal is putting Mqa in front of us.
I would like to be able to decide for myself what I want with my subscription, without having to sacrifice anything for it.
This also includes restricted music just because I choose the cheap subscription model, which is then only available if I have booked Hifi plus.
The other providers are better and offer more transparency.
In terms of sound, I have also tested Mqa on Mqa-capable devices.
I am honest about that.
I don't need it. Why? When my dac and amplifier are this good, whether with headphones or speakers, it's perfectly adequate.
The resolution and the whole experience is so much better anyway.
Mqa also annoys me with time on a well dosed system.
It's a nice to have for a short time but it's annoying, it's also annoying because it's more exhausting for me to enjoy music.
So my conclusion is that Mqa has no place on a good solid listening chain.
It's absolutely unnecessary and you could save yourself the trouble.
It only makes sense if you are limited in your surroundings or have a less good setup.
Otherwise not.
That's why Mqa is a tiresome topic for me where I have to agree with certain people.
It only generates money for people who want to sell you something.
If I didn't have an endlessly long playlist and wasn't a Tidal customer for so long, I would have left long ago.
I have had different experiences with Mqa.
And the topic has both a good and a bad ending for me.
The good first:
As I was on the road a lot last year, I enjoyed the benefits of Mqa very much, I must say.
Especially in the mobile sector, I would say it makes sense not to do without quality.
I first had a Nuprime Dac dongel which was later upgraded with the Ify Hip Dac 2.
It was so much better in the end, I have to say.
On the upside, I use the Ipad with a playlist I use offline from Tidal.
Most of the tracks are Mqa and I think it's better there too.
My conclusion is that in a bad environment, Tidal with Mqa makes sense.
Bad environment I mean if you do not want to use your mobile data volume unnecessarily it is good, as well as if you are on the road where there are a lot of influences it makes sense.
The sound quality was the best for me.
Now for the bad:
I think it's bad that Tidal is putting Mqa in front of us.
I would like to be able to decide for myself what I want with my subscription, without having to sacrifice anything for it.
This also includes restricted music just because I choose the cheap subscription model, which is then only available if I have booked Hifi plus.
The other providers are better and offer more transparency.
In terms of sound, I have also tested Mqa on Mqa-capable devices.
I am honest about that.
I don't need it. Why? When my dac and amplifier are this good, whether with headphones or speakers, it's perfectly adequate.
The resolution and the whole experience is so much better anyway.
Mqa also annoys me with time on a well dosed system.
It's a nice to have for a short time but it's annoying, it's also annoying because it's more exhausting for me to enjoy music.
So my conclusion is that Mqa has no place on a good solid listening chain.
It's absolutely unnecessary and you could save yourself the trouble.
It only makes sense if you are limited in your surroundings or have a less good setup.
Otherwise not.
That's why Mqa is a tiresome topic for me where I have to agree with certain people.
It only generates money for people who want to sell you something.
If I didn't have an endlessly long playlist and wasn't a Tidal customer for so long, I would have left long ago.
how sounds ifi hip dac2 ? im read that it have foggy highs . im see at ifi too.
Unfortunately that is the very nature of business.
Everything we use in this hobby is created to make money for somebody else, that money comes out of our pocket and into theirs. We choose what we spend the money on and Tidal and MQA are just one option, some people choose it and some don't.
I said it before, if there is any problem at all with Tidal and MQA it is very much a first world problem argued over by people that probably spend a pile more money on this hobby than most of the worlds population would think was absolutely nuts.
A lot probably spend money on things that others like me think is far more of a scam than MQA. I previously used the example of a $2,000 IEM cable but there are a raft of them, a near $500 adapter for a Chord Mojo to 4.4mm with a 1960's sound quality apparently is another good one, $30,000 Nordost power cable anybody ?
Can we have a show of hands from the folks who argue that MQA is a scam but at the same time line the pockets of the companies that are totally cashing in on the market that mostly consists of rich men that like cool toys to show off to their friends and brag about on Head Fi ?
Last edited:
gimmeheadroom
Headphoneus Supremus
The comment about MQA being for people with crappy systems earned another place on my ignore list 
Andrew_WOT
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2004
- Posts
- 8,231
- Likes
- 2,556
This is flat earther argument, sorry.
Andrew_WOT
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2004
- Posts
- 8,231
- Likes
- 2,556
It's 24/192 on Qobuz, must be the same master.Look up this album by Fourplay. It is 352khz. If you like the music it sounds good but I don’t think it sounds any better than any of their other albums that are at lower spec.
It is simply a statement that as Tidal users we get sick of hearing the outcries from the MQA antis, nothing more or less.
We understand and acknowledge your point we just don't need to keep having it repeated ad nauseam.
If you take the flat earth analogy, we are saying we acknowledge that the earth isn't flat but we are not stopping our subscription to Flat Earth Monthly because we like certain other aspects of the magazine.
Users who are viewing this thread
