[JDFlood]

I am not trying to win a senseless argument here. I know that there are people who enjoy MQA and that is fine. I don't feel comfortable using it and just expressed my feelings towards it. Can't see any aggression or even conspiracy theories here. I think MQA is hurting the industry... I was not even talking about sound quality at all. That's not for me to decide. Either you like it or not which is fine for me.

i wasn’t responding to anything specifically you said. It was the first few pages of this thread... and where I dropped down here and there...

 

[Deolum]

Just to be clear, what you're saying is that without a verified MQA decoder in your dac, then SQ is compromised, to say qobuz (or other hi res sources)?

Yes

 

[gimmeheadroom]

Yes

Not necessarily. The Tidal app does the first unfold. You should at least get a 16/44.1 level of quality.

The question is whether all the bits are there or whether the MQA mastering changes the recording. I think MQA sounds very good even without hardware unfold but I'm not sure if it's because they're mostly using really good masters or for some technical reason(s).

Look fellas, you can always buy used CDs. They're cheap and there's a huge market. I'd like to see streaming services offer 24/192 FLAC but until that's common, MQA is as good as it gets as far as I can tell.

 

[Deolum]

Not necessarily. The Tidal app does the first unfold. You should at least get a 16/44.1 level of quality.
The question is whether all the bits are there or whether the MQA mastering changes the recording. I think MQA sounds very good even without hardware unfold but I'm not sure if it's because they're mostly using really good masters or for some technical reason(s).

Look fellas, you can always by used CDs. They're cheap and there's a huge market. I'd like to see streaming services offer 24/192 FLAC but until that's common, MQA is as good as it gets as far as I can tell.

Quobuz offers a lot of 24/192 Flac.

Maybe i've not read enough into the advantages of MQA because i only see disadvantages.

I always thought the only advantage of MQA is to save storage which really was a thing years ago. Now that both SD cards and mobile data can handle so much more bits this advantage gets quite redundant and it will get less important.

On the other hand MQA has the big disadvantage that all components need to be MQA certified. If you use a streamer + a dac you need both pieces to be MQA certified.

When you have both pieces MQA certified you will get at best ! the same quality as a standard 24 bit high-res flac and at worst it's still a bit worse because it was compromised but i don't want to discuss that.

So MQA is the big weekness of Tidal imo but it's marketed as the big strength which is kinda odd. I'm pretty sure many consumers think that MQA even sounds better than a normal 24 bit highres file. They see the shiny logo, hear the word master, see a lots of advertisement in shops and then buy MQA stuff. That's how marketing and a lot of consumers work.

So is there apart from the advantage of saving space - which is imo not an advantage anymore - anything else which is good about MQA? Am i missing something? Because if that's the only advantage i can't understand why it's still discussed controvers and not clearly stated that its bulls..t.

 

[iliketohideincloset]

So when streaming 24/96 MQA are you using less bandwidth as when using 24/96 PCM? I am no mobile user and never got into the space/bandwidth aspect of streaming hi-res.

 

[gimmeheadroom]

Quobuz offers a lot of 24/192 Flac.

Maybe i've not read enough into the advantages of MQA because i only see disadvantages.

I always thought the only advantage of MQA is to save storage which really was a thing years ago. Now that both SD cards and mobile data can handle so much more bits this advantage gets quite redundant and it will get less important.

On the other hand MQA has the big disadvantage that all components need to be MQA certified. If you use a streamer + a dac you need both pieces to be MQA certified.

When you have both pieces MQA certified you will get at best ! the same quality as a standard 24 bit high-res flac and at worst it's still a bit worse because it was compromised but i don't want to discuss that.

So MQA is the big weekness of Tidal imo but it's marketed as the big strength which is kinda odd. I'm pretty sure many consumers think that MQA even sounds better than a normal 24 bit highres file. They see the shiny logo, hear the word master, see a lots of advertisement in shops and then buy MQA stuff. That's how marketing and a lot of consumers work.

So is there apart from the advantage of saving space - which is imo not an advantage anymore - anything else which is good about MQA? Am i missing something? Because if that's the only advantage i can't understand why it's still discussed controvers and not clearly stated that its bulls..t.

Qobuz is not available everywhere. As far as I know, much less places than Tidal.

I agree, the idea of compressing audio streams would have been awesome in 1985. In 2020 it seems dumb and pointless.

I find the sound of many MQA albums very analog. I don't know why that is, but it is. I'm not advocating for MQA. I'm saying in the absence of a better streaming option (and there is an absence where I live and where a lot of other people live) I'm fine with it.

 

[rkw]

So when streaming 24/96 MQA are you using less bandwidth as when using 24/96 PCM?

Yes, that is one of the main objectives of MQA. The MQA file streamed would be (typically) a 24/48 FLAC file. The file can also be played as a normal FLAC file with no decoding. MQA information is encoded into low bits of the PCM data.

 

[PortableMusic]

i don't even understand why so many people hate MQA.

like so many things available to us, if we don't like it, don't use it.

most of us don't run around saying how much we dislike or hate purple shirts with lime green and shocking pink flowers!

 

[gimmeheadroom]

i don't even understand why so many people hate MQA.

like so many things available to us, if we don't like it, don't use it.

most of us don't run around saying how much we dislike or hate purple shirts with lime green and shocking pink flowers!

This should be obvious but somehow it's not. Let's hope things will improve in the future

 

[Deolum]

i don't even understand why so many people hate MQA.

like so many things available to us, if we don't like it, don't use it.

most of us don't run around saying how much we dislike or hate purple shirts with lime green and shocking pink flowers!

For me it's because it's not transparent stated that MQA is only for saving space and not sounding better while it's heavily marketed as superior sound. Like i said in my previous post i think MQA really needs to be categorized by vendors for what it is and not used as a marketing gag because of a shiny logo.

If you go in a shop now and ask for a Dac the vendor will most likely say "and it can even play MQA". So what is MQA? I don't think he'll say it if he even knows it. So many of the average customers will just say "wow master quality i take that". If he says if you use this you will only need to stream 250 mbits per track instead of 300 mbits he most likely wouldn't.

I don't hate it and i don't think many people hate it but it's important to talk openly about it and don't let it exist somehow and make people buy MQA stuff for reasons they usually wouldn't.

 

[gimmeheadroom]

Regular 16/44.1 streaming is available for every MQA album. People who don't pay for the hifi tier get all the same albums, just not the MQA versions.

 

[Dannemand]

Regular 16/44.1 streaming is available for every MQA album. People who don't pay for the hifi tier get all the same albums, just not the MQA versions.

That used to be the case, but is unfortunately no longer so: The slate of Warner MQA albums added earlier this year come ONLY as MQA, not as regular 16/44. And what's worse, they are all 16/44 MQA.

I've always been a "moderate defender" of MQA, mostly because I think there IS a need for lower bandwidth and lower disk space HiRes options: Even to this day in USA, most mobile plans have limited data allotments. Economical ones absolutely do. And even Unlimited postpaid plans (which generally run $60/month) often have data caps. As pointed out, 24/96 FLAC files really are quite big, not to mention 24/192 ones.

Add to this that Qobuz and Amazon HD (the main HiRes alternatives to Tidal) send everything through the Mixer on LG Quad DAC phones. At least Tidal used to play MQA files (24-bit ones) in full quality on these phones. And on MQA USB DACs too, as long as volume is set to max. (Until Tidal has fixed the current bug, version 2.21.0 can be installed from apkmirror.)

As far as quality / size ratio goes, I don't believe anything comes even close to MQA. And well recorded, well mastered MQA releases really do sound great. Anybody who claims that MQA sounds horrible and that the MQA filter completely destroys the music (and some people really do hate MQA and really do claim that) are not being honest. Just check some of the free 2L and David Elias downloads and tell me they sound horrible.

That said, I also believe that the argument of MQA being a marketing gimmick is absolutely true. The media industry always loved new formats that let them sell old wine on new bottles to the same customers one more time. Among the MQA releases on Tidal only few reach the SQ level of those 2L and David Elias tracks. And many are just bad re-released of poor recordings.

And these Warner 16/44 MQAs make me seriously consider changing my stance on MQA, particularly considering they don't have non-MQA alternatives: I used to be able to say that most MQA tracks were 24-bit, so the loss of resolution wasn't a big issue (MQA uses the lowest order bits to store its origami). But with 16-bit that loss of resolution is significant, and I would expect it to affect SQ in some cases. I assume when using HiFi mode (as opposed to Master mode) the MQA is simply stripped, but the lost bits are still lost.

So the dire picture that MQA haters have been painting all along suddenly comes a little closer to reality.

(Oh, and BTW I don't like the MQA filter either when applied to plain RedBook tracks, as UAPP does.)

That said, there are some great MQA experiences in Tidal. In the classical genre I have previously mentioned the catalog of Everest Records 3-channel recordings on 35mm film tape from the 1950s and 60s, such as this recording of Copland's 3rd Symphony, directed by the composer himself. These albums are $40 a pop on HDtracks. And among the Warner albums, some are great for other reasons than audio quality, such as this classic recording of Dvorak's cello concerto (arguably history's greatest) with cellist Jacqueline du Pre (arguably history's greatest) conducted by her husband Daniel Barenboim (pretty great too).

 

[iliketohideincloset]

And these Warner 16/44 MQAs make me seriously consider changing my stance on MQA, particularly considering they don't have non-MQA alternatives

That's what made me switch to Qobuz. To me the MQA alternatives sound worse on my hardware even using Audirvana. They might sound great on MQA certified equipment but for me they sounded lifeless and kinda flat with less detail. Again, this is just my personal experience. Others might enjoy them.

 

[Deolum]

Regular 16/44.1 streaming is available for every MQA album. People who don't pay for the hifi tier get all the same albums, just not the MQA versions.

In my country people who don't pay for the Hifi Tier get only 320 kbits. Which is marketed as "premium sound quality" on Tidal.

And i only found out about that on third party sites. Not on Tidal itself.

 

[hmscott]

In my country people who don't pay for the Hifi Tier get only 320 kbits. Which is marketed as "premium sound quality" on Tidal.

And i only found out about that on third party sites. Not on Tidal itself.

It's the same in the US, Premium Quality and Hifi Quality levels of service, pay more get more quality.

Even outside of the US you can sign up with Bestbuy and get the Tidal annual subscription, first year $89 with $119/yr renewal fee:

TIDAL - HiFi Music, 12-Month Subscription starting at purchase, Auto-renews at $119.99 per year [Digital]
Model:TIDAL HIFI DIG 1 YR SKU:6407163 $89.99 Your price for this item is $89.99 Save $30 Was $119.99
https://www.bestbuy.com/site/tidal-...9-99-per-year-digital/6407163.p?skuId=6407163

Note that it was saying for new subscribers for a while, before that it was as is now, a voucher you use through Tidal login that sends you to Bestbuy to enter the voucher number, at least that's how it was for me back in April of this year.

To be safe maybe create a new account with a new email address, or chat with Bestbuy to make sure you can extend your current account. I wanted to preserve the work I put into making playlists so I let my monthly subscription expire and use the BestBuy voucher to add another year of subscription for $99 - the cost varies during Bestbuy sales, right now it's $89.99, then it will soon go back to $119.99

I wouldn't get the Premium tier, only the Hifi tier to get access to full CD quality + MQA Masters at up to 192khz (more is possible).