[iFi audio]

MQA is just for making money, not for sound quality

Although I get that many people here dislike MQA, probably even more in general actually like it because of how it sounds

 

[Deolum]

Just made Tidal Hifi abo for the 10th time or so but now i have a fully MQA compatible chain (just coincidence). I'll compare some tracks to Qobuz.

 

[ballard3]

Just made Tidal Hifi abo for the 10th time or so but now i have a fully MQA compatible chain (just coincidence). I'll compare some tracks to Qobuz.

Let us know, please

 

[Hooster]

Although I get that many people here dislike MQA, probably even more in general actually like it because of how it sounds

MQA is a lossy compression scheme. What does it sound like? Violins? Trumpets? Drums? I find it hard to see how it can actually "sound" like anything apart from whatever changes may happen due to the compression.

https://alpha-audio.net/review/mult...otify-vs-master-files-vs-vinyl-vs-cassette/2/

 

[boxster233]

Although I get that many people here dislike MQA, probably even more in general actually like it because of how it sounds

I am in the same boat. I know it changes the sound and I love how it sounds more than dsd, flac, or other formats. The mqa filter is so just smooth and pleasing.

 

[ClieOS]

The problem is not how MQA sounds (*as in subjective term) or whether individual likes it or not - but the problem of deceptive marketing and its effect of biasing uninformed consumers into believing it offers something (*as in objective term) that it clearly doesn't. If MQA admits it is a lossy codec, which really isn't that much off from a marketing scheme that ultimately is aimed to make money out of nothing - and people accept that while still choose to like it, I would have no problem with MQA. An informed decision, even if it is not technical the best decision, is still better than an uninformed decision based on lies that seems to only benefit one particular party monetarily

 

[boxster233]

The problem is not how MQA sounds (*as in subjective term) or whether individual likes it or not - but the problem of deceptive marketing and its effect of biasing uninformed consumers into believing it offers something (*as in objective term) that it clearly doesn't. If MQA admits it is a lossy codec, which really isn't that much off from a marketing scheme that ultimately is aimed to make money out of nothing - and people accept that while still choose to like it, I would have no problem with MQA. An informed decision, even if it is not technical the best decision, is still better than an uninformed decision based on lies that seems to only benefit one particular party monetarily

I’ve moved on from how they marketed it and am sick of this continued discussion in mqa forums. It’s exhausting.

 

[littlej0e]

I’ve moved on from how they marketed it and am sick of this continued discussion in mqa forums. It’s exhausting.

This is the most important point in my opinion. You love how it sounds, so nothing else should matter. It’s the exact same thing with measurements versus listening or sound differences in cables -it’s all subjective. This hobby is all about preference and I don’t think anyone has the right to tell people what they should or should not be listening to.

I’ve personally been beating this anti-MQA horse for a while now. But I guess I never stopped to think about some of the unintended consequences of beating it until I read the simple truth of your statement:

I know it changes the sound and I love how it sounds more than dsd, flac, or other formats. The mqa filter is so just smooth and pleasing.

The bulk of the arrows should be aimed at MQA themselves, not the user’s of their technology. Raising awareness then letting people make their own decision(s) should be the way. Not badgering people into giving up something they truly enjoy.

Enjoy your MQA, sir, and ignore all of the anti-MQA crusaders like me.

 

[ClieOS]

I’ve moved on from how they marketed it and am sick of this continued discussion in mqa forums. It’s exhausting.

If you already understand the merit / downside of MQA and make your decision about it, then all the power to you! There is no real need for you to continue to pay attention to what we are discussing here (*at least not till some other major discovery or disclosure is made).

However, the continue discussion here in the forum does serve the purpose of educating the uninformed about what MQA really is so they can make the same kind of informed decision that you have made for yourself - perhaps also pressure MQA to change how it is marketing itself to be more fact / evidence based in the future.

 

[boxster233]

This is the most important point in my opinion. You love how it sounds, so nothing else should matter. It’s the exact same thing with measurements versus listening or sound differences in cables -it’s all subjective. This hobby is all about preference and I don’t think anyone has the right to tell people what they should or should not be listening to.

I’ve personally been beating this anti-MQA horse for a while now. But I guess I never stopped to think about some of the unintended consequences of beating it until I read the simple truth of your statement:


The bulk of the arrows should be aimed at MQA themselves, not the user’s of their technology. Raising awareness then letting people make their own decision(s) should be the way. Not badgering people into giving up something they truly enjoy.

Enjoy your MQA, sir, and ignore all the anti-MQA crusaders like me.

That post was so good it almost made me cry. Just liking your post isn’t enough. Amen is all I can say. Thank you for saying that.

If you already understand the merit of MQA and make your decision about, then all the power to you! There is no real need for you to continue to pay attention to what we are discussing here (*at least not till some other major discovery or disclosure is made).

However, the continue discussion here in the forum does serve the purpose of educating the uninformed about what MQA really is so they can make the same kind of informed decision that you have made for yourself - perhaps also pressure MQA to change how it is marketing itself to be more fact / evidence based in the future.

I come here to see others that enjoy MQA and Tidal. It’s not fun going to a place where people complain all the time.

 

[ClieOS]

I come here to see others that enjoy MQA and Tidal. It’s not fun going to a place where people complain all the time.

I think people tend to post more about complaint and question they face on a particular product then how joyful they are enjoying it. Of course, if MQA doesn't have these issues to begin with and be transparent about the technology and it's marketing, people won't need to complain about it afterward.

 

[Currawong]

I am in the same boat. I know it changes the sound and I love how it sounds more than dsd, flac, or other formats. The mqa filter is so just smooth and pleasing.

The problem is, MQA is not a "format". FLAC is a container for audio that uses lossless compression. MQA is a method of lossy audio compression.

Saying "I love how it sounds" doesn't have any meaning. You're not "hearing MQA" but hearing the music after it has been processed by MQA. The problem here is: What music? How it has been applied to old and new music, and even some particular albums where the process was done carefully by an individual using their tools, is often quite different. I found it butchered old music, for example, and wrecks classical. The 3D-plug-in-like effect on modern music is arguably nicer in some ways, but sounds weirdly mutated through some DACs.

I think that for certain people who like certain types of recently recorded music with MQA-compatible set-ups it will be enjoyable, so keeping the focus on discussing what music and set-ups work optimally with it is a better idea.

 

[boxster233]

The problem is, MQA is not a "format". FLAC is a container for audio that uses lossless compression. MQA is a method of lossy audio compression.

Saying "I love how it sounds" doesn't have any meaning. You're not "hearing MQA" but hearing the music after it has been processed by MQA. The problem here is: What music? How it has been applied to old and new music, and even some particular albums where the process was done carefully by an individual using their tools, is often quite different. I found it butchered old music, for example, and wrecks classical. The 3D-plug-in-like effect on modern music is arguably nicer in some ways, but sounds weirdly mutated through some DACs.

I think that for certain people who like certain types of recently recorded music with MQA-compatible set-ups it will be enjoyable, so keeping the focus on discussing what music and set-ups work optimally with it is a better idea.

Sorry my terminology was wrong. I enjoy it when I listen to my indie and indie pop recorded in the last 10 years.

I made my original comment to respond to another person that enjoys MQA.

 

[Taz777]

I just want to mention that reading negative, angry posts on audio forums has an effect on people’s mental health that they may not be aware of. Please just take a moment to see the wider impact of your posts. It also reduces participation on forums due to the anxiety of being 'jumped on'! Subscribing to TIDAL doesn’t make anyone a bad person. Many of us are literally trying to survive lockdown and music is an important factor in keeping us hanging on, whether that be music streamed from TIDAL or any other music streaming service.

 

[Deolum]

I just want to mention that reading negative, angry posts on audio forums has an effect on people’s mental health that they may not be aware of. Please just take a moment to see the wider impact of your posts. It also reduces participation on forums due to the anxiety of being 'jumped on'! Subscribing to TIDAL doesn’t make anyone a bad person. Many of us are literally trying to survive lockdown and music is an important factor in keeping us hanging on, whether that be music streamed from TIDAL or any other music streaming service.

When it's about spending money on audio stuff i personally prefer honest statements over we're all unicorns living on rainbows and everything is great. Doesn't apply for Tidal more than for headphones though. Can't stand seeing these headphones hanging on trees and decorated with flowers in headphone reviews anymore.

So after some time comparing Tidal to Qobuz again i came to the same conclusion as i always got: Tidal sounds some sort of smoother and more organic maybe because the high frequencys are party smoothed out. Qobuz sounds cleaner, sharper, maybe a bit more detailed with better imaging. Hard to say what i prefer.