MQA is Vaporware

[Rt66indierock]

1 hour ago, darkmass said:

 

In the length of this thread I may have missed something, but did you ever choose a winner for the Arby's coupon?  If so, it'd be nice to see the winning text.

 

All of the winners asked their winnings be donated so I did. A foster children’s charity received the donations and I matched them. A local foundation then matched both contributions. Every article by Jim Austin had a winner.

[Rexp]

13 hours ago, manisandher said:

 

Perhaps that MQA doesn't sound as good as its proponents suggest, nor as bad as its opponents suggest?

 

I tried to keep an open mind when Tidal first introduced MQA streaming, but wanted to explore things further. This led to the three 'apples-to-apples' threads, where I managed to find MQA and hires tracks from the same master. My own subjective preference was MQA 1, hires 2. Listening to a whole bunch of MQA vs. redbook tracks on Tidal (not necessarily from the same master), my interest in MQA has waned over time - redbook (done well) really does sound fine to my ears.

 

(Edit: apologies if my opinions offend anyone.)

I much prefer the MQA provided the album release date is 2018 onwards. Not sure if that indicates it's been remastered, anyone know?

Example:

Listen to "Coltrane '58: The Prestige Recordings" on TIDAL
Check out this album on TIDAL: "Coltrane '58: The Prestige Recordings" by John Coltrane https://tidal.com/album/106434653

 

This is the HiFi (mqa 16/44) version which I prefer as I don' t have an MQA dac. 

[FredericV]

17 hours ago, andifor said:

 

Well, no conclusion possible I guess.

• 50% MQA lovers, 49% indifferent, and 1% in favour of FLAC
• 50% MQA lovers, 50% in favour of FLAC

What conclusion should I draw based on your information?

If the distribution was 80 plus percent for MQA, then we are talking.

50/50 is more like flipping a coin and getting random results
it's the same like guessing

[Rt66indierock]

3 hours ago, Rexp said:

I much prefer the MQA provided the album release date is 2018 onwards. Not sure if that indicates it's been remastered, anyone know?

Example:

Listen to "Coltrane '58: The Prestige Recordings" on TIDAL
Check out this album on TIDAL: "Coltrane '58: The Prestige Recordings" by John Coltrane https://tidal.com/album/106434653

 

This is the HiFi (mqa 16/44) version which I prefer as I don' t have an MQA dac. 

 

Remastered but the question is was this recording subject to a “white glove” treatment in the MQA version?

[Cebolla]

4 hours ago, Rexp said:

I much prefer the MQA provided the album release date is 2018 onwards. Not sure if that indicates it's been remastered, anyone know?

Example:

Listen to "Coltrane '58: The Prestige Recordings" on TIDAL
Check out this album on TIDAL: "Coltrane '58: The Prestige Recordings" by John Coltrane https://tidal.com/album/106434653

 

4 hours ago, Rexp said:

This is the HiFi (mqa 16/44) version which I prefer as I don' t have an MQA dac. 

 

Unless you are on the odd occasion streaming an actual MQA-CD track, your streaming device is actually receiving a doctored version of the MQA tracks from TIDAL's online server, at 16/44.1kHz, rather than the original undecoded/distribution MQA tracks themselves, which should be at either 24/44.1kHz or 24/48kHz. This is due to your streaming device deliberately requesting non-MQA access to TIDAL's online server via your TIDAL HiFi account and has nothing to do with having an MQA DAC or not.

 

May be even the TIDAL server's 'doctoring' has contributed to your positive experience -  who knows?

[Rexp]

38 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Remastered but the question is was this recording subject to a “white glove” treatment in the MQA version?

You mean did MQA do the remaster? I dont know, wouldn't they announce it? 

[Rexp]

10 minutes ago, Cebolla said:

 

Unless you are on the odd occasion streaming an actual MQA-CD track, your streaming device is actually receiving a doctored version of the MQA tracks from TIDAL's online server, at 16/44.1kHz, rather than the original undecoded/distribution MQA tracks themselves, which should be at either 24/44.1kHz or 24/48Hz. This is due to your streaming device deliberately requesting non-MQA access to TIDAL's online server via your TIDAL HiFi account and has nothing to do with having an MQA DAC or not.

 

May be even the TIDAL server's 'doctoring' has contributed to your positive experience -  who knows?

Maybe just a coincidence that I prefer the recent remasters that are also available in MQA. Here is another goodun:

 "The Song Remains The Same (2018 Remaster)" by Led Zeppelin https://tidal.com/album/94079380

 

[firedog]

1 hour ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Remastered but the question is was this recording subject to a “white glove” treatment in the MQA version?

As far as the Coltrane lost album: What we do know is that the hires version has significant volume compression added that the CD version doesn’t have.

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, Rexp said:

Maybe just a coincidence that I prefer the recent remasters that are also available in MQA. Here is another goodun:

 "The Song Remains The Same (2018 Remaster)" by Led Zeppelin https://tidal.com/album/94079380

 

 

Well, it is known that the remasters of Led Zepplin are highly compressed. That and with most MQA being 1.4 -6 db higher in playback, that explains a lot.

[Rt66indierock]

3 hours ago, Rexp said:

You mean did MQA do the remaster? I dont know, wouldn't they announce it? 

 

Not always

[daverich4]

11 hours ago, Cebolla said:

 

 

Unless you are on the odd occasion streaming an actual MQA-CD track, your streaming device is actually receiving a doctored version of the MQA tracks from TIDAL's online server, at 16/44.1kHz, rather than the original undecoded/distribution MQA tracks themselves, which should be at either 24/44.1kHz or 24/48kHz. This is due to your streaming device deliberately requesting non-MQA access to TIDAL's online server via your TIDAL HiFi account and has nothing to do with having an MQA DAC or not.

 

May be even the TIDAL server's 'doctoring' has contributed to your positive experience -  who knows?

 

Roon and my DAC think Tidal’s MQA files are 24/whatever. Are you saying they’re not?

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, daverich4 said:

 

Roon and my DAC think Tidal’s MQA files are 24/whatever. Are you saying they’re not?

They are not but, that is what MQA WANTS you to think. They are more than likely 17-18 bit at the most. Anything over 96KHz is all done by oversampling, not actual recording at that level.

[Rt66indierock]

1 hour ago, daverich4 said:

 

Roon and my DAC think Tidal’s MQA files are 24/whatever. Are you saying they’re not?

 

I’m sorry Dave I can’t let you think that. I have a bunch of files converted to MQA that were never anything but 16/44.1. 

[Sal1950]

On 7/22/2019 at 5:36 PM, The Computer Audiophile said:

Given the lies told by MQA Ltd and it’s complete control over everything, many people don’t care how it sounds. They just don’t like it. 

 

On the other hand, making claims about how a format sounds is ridiculous. A dynamically compressed anything sounds like hell. A white gloved MQA album can sound spectacular. However, I’ll take a white glove pure PCM album so I can play it using the filter of my choice and use any DSP I want. 

+1

Lord no matter how long I don't check in, it doesn't matter.  I hear the same crap being repeated by MQA supporters over and over.

Who cares how it sounds?  If it sounds different than the original digital master tape that the engineers and producers approved, there is something WRONG with it!  If in the end it takes away our access to bit perfect copies of the original master (which IS the big picture plan) we're letting Meridian and it's partners sell us down the river.  Fight MQA anywhere and everywhere you can.

[jabbr]

On 7/22/2019 at 6:24 PM, KeenObserver said:

 

I guess the main thing I missed not being here for several months is that Paul took over for Lee.

 

I don’t see it this way at all. Paul has his own opinions. Not everyone needs to be rabidly anti-MQA. Some people may even like the sound. I personally don’t even care about the sound — Ive stated my objections. People are entitled to have a rational discussion without being labeled a shill. If we can’t we mind as we’ll end this thread because everything relevant has been said.

[jabbr]

11 hours ago, botrytis said:

 

Well, it is known that the remasters of Led Zepplin are highly compressed. That and with most MQA being 1.4 -6 db higher in playback, that explains a lot.

 

I prefer Barry Diament’s 16/44 Zep remasters over high-res precisely because they sound less compressed.

[lucretius]

58 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

I’m sorry Dave I can’t let you think that. I have a bunch of files converted to MQA that were never anything but 16/44.1.  

 

MQA CDs are 16/44.1. However, the only MQA files that I ever streamed from Tidal were either 24/44.1 or 24/48 (usually the latter) before the "unfold".  Maybe, some of the 24/44.1 files were really 16/44.1 with padding?

[Rexp]

2 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

MQA CDs are 16/44.1. However, the only MQA files that I ever streamed from Tidal were either 24/44.1 or 24/48 (usually the latter) before the "unfold".  Maybe, some of the 24/44.1 files were really 16/44.1 with padding?

Seems like a hassle for the record company to release two 16/44.1 versions. 

[Cebolla]

8 hours ago, daverich4 said:

20 hours ago, Cebolla said:

Unless you are on the odd occasion streaming an actual MQA-CD track, your streaming device is actually receiving a doctored version of the MQA tracks from TIDAL's online server, at 16/44.1kHz...

Roon and my DAC think Tidal’s MQA files are 24/whatever. Are you saying they’re not?

 

Oh dear - yes to @Rexp, no to you!

 

I was responding specifically to @Rexp's streaming device's method of connecting to TIDAL on a TIDAL HiFi account, which isn't licensed to access TIDAL's MQA file tracks and can only request non-MQA (ie, CD resolution at 16/44.1kHz) access. TIDAL's online server supplies a (downsampled) CD res version of the original undecoded/distribution MQA file tracks in that case.

 

Roon is officially licensed by TIDAL to access MQA file tracks, so is able to request MQA access (as opposed to restricted to non-MQA/CD res access in @Rexp's case), if you are using a TIDAL HiFi account. Hence Roon will be able to stream the original undecoded/distribution MQA tracks from TIDAL's online server (at either 24/44.1kHz or 24/48kHz) and decode them to the MQA Core signal (aka 'first unfold') as required. 

[Cebolla]

6 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

MQA CDs are 16/44.1. However, the only MQA files that I ever streamed from Tidal were either 24/44.1 or 24/48 (usually the latter) before the "unfold".

 

That's because, unlike @Rexp, your TIDAL client is licensed to be able to request MQA file tracks from TIDAL's online server.

[mansr]

7 hours ago, jabbr said:

I don’t see it this way at all. Paul has his own opinions. Not everyone needs to be rabidly anti-MQA. Some people may even like the sound. I personally don’t even care about the sound — Ive stated my objections. People are entitled to have a rational discussion without being labeled a shill. If we can’t we mind as we’ll end this thread because everything relevant has been said.

Nothing Paul has said about MQA strikes me as particularly rational.

[John Dyson]

7 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

I don’t see it this way at all. Paul has his own opinions. Not everyone needs to be rabidly anti-MQA. Some people may even like the sound. I personally don’t even care about the sound — Ive stated my objections. People are entitled to have a rational discussion without being labeled a shill. If we can’t we mind as we’ll end this thread because everything relevant has been said.

 

 

(This response is not intended as being contrary to the person I am replying, rather somewhat agreeing.)

Here is an equivalent example:

 

Just because I don't like the sound of FM dynamics processors doesn't mean that there isn't a technology in some of them that can improve simple compressors when they are sometimes artfully used.  Equivalently, being against MQA, doesn't mean that one must hate everything associated with it -- for example, DSP processing can be a good thing, but MQA uses DSP processing techniques.

I totally hate the sound of a poorly designed bipolar transistor amplifier (I think that almost everyone does -- you know, the roughly 25 mv strong base-emitter voltage nonlinearity -- therefore, all transistor circuitry is bad?)  Believe it or not, there are workarounds that mitigate much of that kind of nonlinearity -- but, transistors are bad -- vacuum tubes all the way...  Oh wait, they get too hot, and the voltage of operations are too dangerous -- avoid them!!!   They also distort and are difficult to stabilize vs. age/time -- BURN THEM ALL!!! :-).

 

We are in an age of too much absolutism, too often ascribing some kind of metaphysical/absolute evil to something that we dislike/disagree with.  MQA (to me) is a bit disgusting -- it decreases quality and is used to control access to music, eventually WILL be used to change the freedom of music presentation.   However, just because a tool will be used for badness, doesn't mean that everything about the tool is bad.

PS -- I apologize for not claiming that MQA is absolutely disgusting instead of 'a bit disgusting'! :-).

 

John

[Norton]

1 hour ago, Cebolla said:

 

That's because, unlike @Rexp, your TIDAL client is licensed to be able to request MQA file tracks from TIDAL's online server.

 

This looks to be significant and certainly new information, at least  to me.  I fully get that some Tidal HiFi playback routes are licensed to do the initial MQA decode  and some are not.  But are you saying that when used  in “pass  through” mode, leaving a capable MQA DAC to act as both MQA decoder and renderer, MQA licensed Tidal HiFi playback routes will pass a MQA 24 bit stream to the DAC, while unlicensed Tidal HiFi devices can only pass a non-MQA 16 bit stream?  For example, in pass through mode, Roon or the Tidal desktop will send a MQA 24 bit stream, whereas a Bryston BDP (which can access my Tidal account but is not MQA licensed) will send non-MQA 16 bit?  It was over a year ago, so memory may fail me, but when I briefly had a MQA DAC in my system (Project S2), I think I recall the celebrated blue light and sample rate indicator still suggested that the Project was receiving  a 24 bit MQA stream via Tidal.HiFi on my Bryston.

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 hours ago, Cebolla said:

 

Oh dear - yes to @Rexp, no to you!

 

I was responding specifically to @Rexp's streaming device's method of connecting to TIDAL on a TIDAL HiFi account, which isn't licensed to access TIDAL's MQA file tracks and can only request non-MQA (ie, CD resolution at 16/44.1kHz) access. TIDAL's online server supplies a (downsampled) CD res version of the original undecoded/distribution MQA file tracks in that case.

 

Roon is officially licensed by TIDAL to access MQA file tracks, so is able to request MQA access (as opposed to restricted to non-MQA/CD res access in @Rexp's case), if you are using a TIDAL HiFi account. Hence Roon will be able to stream the original undecoded/distribution MQA tracks from TIDAL's online server (at either 24/44.1kHz or 24/48kHz) and decode them to the MQA Core signal (aka 'first unfold') as required. 

What are you talking about here?

 

If one has Tidal HiFi, he has access to the MQA versions of albums. I’ve never seen Tidal give access to lossless pure PCM but not lossy MQA. 

[Rexp]

16 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

What are you talking about here?

 

If one has Tidal HiFi, he has access to the MQA versions of albums. I’ve never seen Tidal give access to lossless pure PCM but not lossy MQA. 

Yes I do have access to MQA just dont have an MQA ready dac at the mo. What I am finding is the latest remasters (2018 onwards) sound very good in Tidal HiFI and wondered if it had anything to do with MQA?