[John2e]

I have read buying an expensive DAC now, is like buying an analog surround processor right before the introduction of Dolby Digital.
 
Those who have heard MQA say its amazing!
 
I believe tidal will start streaming MQA
 
What is the current state of MQA?  What companies are getting behind it?   Will it become the norm?
 
Any opinions are appreciated!
 
Any additional information is greatly appreciated!!!

 
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_Quality_Authenticated

 

[John2e]

 From the above wiki link;
 
The Absolute Sound has referred to it as "The most significant audio technology of my lifetime".^[11] Editor John Atkinson writing in Stereophile magazine following the UK launch in December 2014 wrote "In almost 40 years of attending audio press events, only rarely have I come away feeling that I was present at the birth of a new world.

 

[John2e]

Schiit audios take on MQA
 
Schiit Clarifies Position on a Proposed Audio Format
 
May 26^th, 2016, Valencia, CA. Today, Schiit Audio announced that they would not be supporting MQA, a proprietary audio format claiming “studio quality sound you can stream or download.” Schiit Audio feels that it is important to support its customers—and potential customers—by clarifying the company’s position on MQA, so that they may choose another DAC provider that backs the format, if they feel it is important to them.
 
“Although there are still many questions to be answered about MQA, we feel we know enough to make a decision,” said Jason Stoddard, Schiit’s Co-Founder.
 
Stoddard outlined the primary reasons:
 
1.     We believe that supporting MQA means handing over the entire recording industry to an external standards organization. MQA wants:

1. Licensing fees from the recording studios
2. Licensing fees from the digital audio product manufacturers
3. Hardware or software access/insight into the DAC or player
4. Subscription fees from every listener via Tidal, and/or royalties from purchases of re-releases by the recording industry

2.     Our experience with standards-driven industries is sub-par. Consider the surround market. Companies making surround processors now have to support a dizzying array of different standards, none of which is a market differentiator, and the exclusion of any single standard can mean commercial failure. The result is a market in which competition is stifled and consumers are confused.
 
3.     We don’t believe MQA is a differentiator for high-end DACs if it is available on phones. Consider SRS, the Sound Retrieval System, as an instructive example. Before being acquired by DTS, it claimed to be on “over a billion devices.” However, there is little evidence any consumers considered SRS a must-have, differentiating technology.
 
4.     We consider MQA to be yet another “format distraction” that makes high-end audio more confusing and insular. This is a reflection of our position in the market—nearly 1/3 of our revenue is from $99 and under products, and we have one of the youngest customer bases in the industry. It is our experience that when someone starts getting into great audio, they just want a product that will make their current music sound better, rather than one that requires additional investment in streaming subscriptions or new releases.
 
5.     We feel that, even from a market perspective, many questions need to be answered. When will we see MQA on Tidal? At what cost? What percentage of the library will be MQA? How many releases should we expect to see from Warner in the next 12 months? What will be the cost? Again, a historic example may be cautionary. Consider Sony and DSD. DSD is a Sony technology that they promoted, and yet they released very few recordings in DSD.
 
Mike Moffat concurred, saying, “In addition to the market questions outlined by my partner, there are many performance questions (about MQA) that cause great concern. Actual decoded bit depth for both MQA and non-MQA DACs, claims of ‘lossless,’ the need for MQA to tweak their decode algorithm for a specific DAC (and their ability to perform this optimization on-schedule for a DAC manufacturer who might be, well, a little smaller than HTC,) the impact on the DAC manufacturer’s own proprietary technology and product development, and the impact on the DAC manufacturer’s own competitiveness.”
 
Moffat further opined that Schiit Audio considers the further development of in support of the primary 16/44.1 PCM format to be of the most value to its customers, citing extremely strong sales of Schiit Audio’s multibit DAC products, and the positive reception to its “DACs for the music you have, not the music you have to buy,” message.
 
Asked if there was any chance Schiit Audio might support MQA if it became the dominant format in the market, Moffat answered, “If it becomes the dominant audio technology, or even a very popular second-place format, we would have to evaluate it in the same way we evaluate other lossy compression standards, such as home theater surround formats, Bluetooth codecs, and MP3 variants.”
 
 
Sorry for the blurred out text .  It was not intended by me. 

 

[OldRoadToad]

I listened to music with and without MQA (and without knowing which I was hearing at any time) at T.H.E. and I could not hear a difference.  Unlike the Emperor, I don't need any new clothes.  In todays digital world, too often "audiophiles" will strain at a bit and swallow the snake oil.
 
And I am not about to buy the White Album again because some audio tailor tells me it "sounds better" this time...
 
ORT

 

[John2e]

  I listened to music with and without MQA (and without knowing which I was hearing at any time) at T.H.E. and I could not hear a difference.  Unlike the Emperor, I don't need any new clothes.  In todays digital world, too often "audiophiles" will strain at a bit and swallow the snake oil.
 
And I am not about to buy the White Album again because some audio tailor tells me it "sounds better" this time...
 
ORT

Nice the hear some real world opinions on the subject from someone who's actually heard it
 
It was mentioned that the whole audience gasped at the difference at a recent presentation but I do not know what equipment they where listening on nor what other format they were comparing too 
 
Thanks

 

[crooner]

I don't like the fact MQA is a lossy format. It appears to be a rehash of HDCD and XRCD, albeit with a more sophisticated algorithm. The main advantage here is potential better quality from streaming services. But for local files on a Hard Drive, it doesn't seem to offer anything new or better. The glossy mags will wax poetic about anything Bob Stuart/Meridian releases, as he's considered a semi-God of sorts in those circles. My experience with Meridian has not been the greatest, their first Explorer DAC being mediocre sonically and unreliable as well. 

 

[John2e]

   The main advantage here is potential better quality from streaming services.  

 
I guess it makes sense for that purpose.  I download and own my stuff so maybe it is not as important for that category.  
 
Thanks crooner

 

[crooner]

You're welcome. I am not a fan of streaming services, but I know it's a big deal for some.
I rather listen to my own collection of PCM/FLAC and DSD files. That way I am reassured of their integrity and quality.
 
I am looking for a DAC in the 2K to 3K range right now. Looked at the offerings from Mytek with MQA. But I am not really interested in replacing any of my files with MQA versions.
I find it hard to believe that a lossy MQA file at 48 kHz would sound superior to a 192 kHz or DSD version...

 

[John2e]

Thanks

 

[LajostheHun]

[COLOR=252525] From the above wiki link;[/COLOR]

The Absolute Sound
[COLOR=252525] has referred to it as "The most significant audio technology of my lifetime".[/COLOR]^[11]

[COLOR=252525] Editor John Atkinson writing in [/COLOR]Stereophile
[COLOR=252525] magazine following the UK launch in December 2014 wrote "In almost 40 years of attending audio press events, only rarely have I come away feeling that I was present at the birth of a new world.[/COLOR]

Lol the hype and nonsense from those publications just never ends.

 

[OldRoadToad]

 
Nice the hear some real world opinions on the subject from someone who's actually heard it
 
It was mentioned that the whole audience gasped at the difference at a recent presentation but I do not know what equipment they where listening on nor what other format they were comparing too 
 
Thanks

Thank you.
 
As to the folks at the presentation and their gasping in unison, it may well be the "yawning effect" minus the yawn. 
 
To be honest, I doubt anyone can hear a difference  but should they claim to be able to do so then they should keep in mind that said difference is only for them.  Unless, of course, they can do so repeatedly without knowing what (and when) they are listening to different formats, equipment, sources, wire, et al.
 
MQA sounds like a codec for equalization and there is nothing at all natural about a codec.  They're manmade.  If you must tamper that much with the sound to make someone or something "sound better" then I have a hyphenated word for you to put that to sleep.
 
Auto-Tune.  Want another?  Photoshop. 
 
And as everyone but the deaf know, Auto-Tune sounds soooooo "natural" doesn't it?  Used by the talentless to sound even less talented.  Ugh.    Just give us a well made recording minus the ad hoc ad hype from the press.  If others buy into the (ad) hype it's their money, ears and ego. 
 
So long as the recoding industry doesn't  force me to wear their particular brand of shoes I can live without MQA and hope to outlive it. I think of it as I did Quadraphonic recordings.  Here ("hear"?)  today but probably not for long.
 
 
And yeah... 40 years ago I wanted a Quad setup bad...LOL!
ORT

 

[Berdine]

I spent some time during CanJam London listening to a prototype Mytek DAC switching between having the MQA decoder active and inactive.  This was using my HD650 headphones, and a few tracks that I am very familiar with.  All the usual caveats about meet conditions being noisy, unfamiliar amp and dac, etc. apply.  I could certainly notice a difference between when the decoder was enabled or not, but it was subtle.  With the decoder, transients were sharper, e.g. cymbal hits were more abrupt, making them sound more realistic to me.  I don't think I could have noticed changes in staging, etc. in those conditions.  To me, enabling the encoder improved the sound slightly.  But realistically, the improvement was less than I have heard when comparing a low versus a high dynamic range master of the same recording.  Also, I could not quickly compare playing the 24/48 MQA file with the decoder disabled to a standard Redbook file, or playing the MQA file with the decoder enabled to a standard 24/96 file.  For people who want streaming, the second comparison is probably irrelevant, but the first is still relevant and open I think.

 

[obobskivich]

If you have a lot of time (or read really fast): http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/694-comprehensive-q-mqa-s-bob-stuart/

I think, even after reading that, that crooner and OldRoadToad nailed it - "a rehash of HDCD" probably being the most concise (I was thinking of Pono (has this already been passed over and forgotten?) and Creative's "Crystalizer 24-bit" too). And I think Stuart's answers are, in general, too vague and inspecific to really assuage fears of it being yet another DRM scheme, or as Schiit argues, just a worthless label to throw at devices like SRS became ("buzzword compliance"). And, perhaps I'm a luddite, but what is actually so bad about CD (or vinyl for that matter)? I mean, assuming whoever made the CD actually did a good job, what is so bad? Of course bad recordings, bad mastering, tons of compression, etc will lead to bad sound, but it wouldn't matter how you recorded/distributed that it will be "bad" and it isn't the container's fault - the container is just encapsulating the garbage. I think Pono at least (and I may be somewhat mistaken on this as I haven't "kept up" with Pono) tried to encourage better mastering/recording (wasn't Pono the one that sponsored "dynamic range day"?) - Stuart is quite open that all MQA intends to do is make sure whatever the data is, it exists elsewhere the same way, but how is that any different from FLAC, WMA-L, ALAC, etc? (oh right, its only "near lossless" :rolleyes


Found the original Schiit text on their site too (if you want to read it in its original white-on-black glory; text is identical to whats pasted above):
http://schiit.com/news/news/why-we-wont-be-supporting-mqa

 

[John2e]

Crooner also nailed it in that the MQA was designed because of the problems streaming Hi Def music.  From an article in hometheater.com they discuss the compressions designed to enable streaming of hI def via MQA and how it solves the issues in streaming 192/24.  So if you don't stream audio via tidal or the music services, MQA is irrelevant. 

 

[OldRoadToad]

  Crooner also nailed it in that the MQA was designed because of the problems streaming Hi Def music.  From an article in hometheater.com they discuss the compressions designed to enable streaming of hI def via MQA and how it solves the issues in streaming 192/24.  So if you don't stream audio via tidal or the music services, MQA is irrelevant. 

​Cool, but what if you don't have a problem (real vs imagined) with streaming music?  I am listening to my Pandora One Sinatra based channel right now through my new Pioneer Elite SX-N30 and I hear nothing but music.  Not an out of place Bit to be heard...Dammit!
 
I have read some thoughts on streamed music needs to be gapless.  Okay.  If that's what someone wants, fine.  It doesn't matter to me but I can see how it matters to others.  Of course it doesn't cause me any pain if its not gapless. 
 
ORT