MQA is Vaporware

[knickerhawk]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

I just listened to  Keith Jarrett's "Shades" in Redbook, MQA, and 24/96. I'd assume the MQA is made from the 24/96 (unless they went back to the tape, which I seriously doubt, as pretty much the entire ECM catalog suddenly appeared in Tidal and in MQA). 

The main difference I hear between the MQA and the Redbook is that in the MQA everything is pushed forward closer to the listener. Is this better? It's a matter of debate. I'd have to say yes, because it makes it easier to hear some of the detail.

But how does that sound compared to the 24/96? IMO, not as good. And clearly not. The 24/96 sounds somewhat between the Redbook and MQA in how far "forward" it seems to be. So you easily hear all the detail. But I'd say the hi-res is a more balanced, coherent, natural sound. Much more like real music and makes the MQA sound sort of artificial - impressive, but not like the real thing. 

 

I think your description of the audible effect of MQA is a reasonable one. For me, however, I would characterize it less as a "pushing forward" of the sound and rather as more of a concentration or focusing of the sound. The illusion of position isn't changed for me but the increase sense of high level detail is almost always present. I'd say I've gotten pretty good at zeroing in on the MQA signature that's common to pretty much every comparison I've made (at least 25 albums now). It's similar to that undampening effect that you can get when you take off speaker grills.

 

I just tried a brief audition of Shades. I have access to the CD and MQA versions on Tidal but I don't have the 24/96 version. Not one of my favorite Jarrett sessions but, regardless, the difference between the CD and MQA versions in my system when running the tracks through my BlueSound Node is not as significant as I hear in some recordings. I'd apply my speaker grill analogy but only to the extent that the grill is a pretty transparent one to begin with. While I don't have a 24/96 version for that particular Jarrett recording I do have one for the Jarrett and Charlie Haden collaboration, "Last Dance." Again, not a dramatic difference between the CD, MQA or 24/96. For me it really requires close listening especially between the redbook and 24/96 versions. I think I can distinguish the MQA version from the other two because of that little extra sizzle that you're probably hearing as "forwardness." What I don't get is your conviction that the 24/96 version is more "real." It's just a little different in what gets emphasized. As a fairly serious violin and piano player through my college years, I wouldn't really reward either HiRes or MQA as more "real" compared to each other but I would note that I've been far less frustrated with the playback of especially classical music in my system when listening to MQA versions compared to CD versions. In virtually every instance, I'm finding it to be a blessed lifting of some of the muffling of detail that has always frustrated my listening to classical music on CDs. Will the effect last? Will I eventually find it artificial? Can't say, but for now it's invigorating and getting me to listen to classical music again, which is great!

 

By the way, for whatever reason, I'm generally finding that the ECM recordings don't have quite as much of a differentiation than some other labels. Not sure what that means. 

 

1 hour ago, firedog said:

Just my 2 cents. I can't argue with people who like MQA. But I can't help feeling that the without exception praise some are making about every MQA track they hear is at least partially based on expectation bias. Reverse the labels on the tracks, and they'll tell you the standard hi-res track sounds better than the MQA. 

 

That's possible, of course, but the reverse bias could also be leveled against many in this thread who seem dead set on rejecting MQA based on their own set of biases (preconceptions). Shadder's rejection of MQA based on listening to a YouTube file of an analog recording of a very informal A/B comparison would be my Exhibit 1 here. 

[knickerhawk]

2 hours ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

It was a comparison test, not absolute test. So the test is valid.

 

Indeed, it is a valid test if the way you listen to music is via YouTube playback of tracks captured by live recording of somebody else's system playing the music!

 

Quote

I accept other peoples experience, so you should really accept mine.

 

Oh, but I most definitely accept your experience that you couldn't hear any good reason to adopt MQA based on that video!

 

By the way, I couldn't tell either, but I definitely could hear a meaningful difference when I listened directly on my own system to the original CD and MQA tracks used in the video, which I were already familiar with because I'm a big Chris Thile fan. Yo Yo Ma's cello sounds like he's using more rosin on his bow, and Chris Thile's mandolin is sweeter in the right way on the MQA version. My suggestion: check out the MQA version of Thile's latest release, "Thanks for Listening" - the best thing he's done outside of his Punch Brothers stuff. The recording is well done and captures the transient, metallic detail of the picked mandolin noticeably better than the CD version.  

[knickerhawk]

1 hour ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

If MQA makes a mandolin "sweeter" in your words it will not reproduce "the high lonesome sound" of bluegrass, a big part of country and Americana music properly. Both my office and home systems are based on my desire to hear that sound similar to what I hear live and in the studio.

 

Your interpretation of the term "sweeter" may differ from mine, so I'll set it aside and try to be a little more literally descriptive. Listening to Thile's mandolin in the recent solo album and with Brad Mehldau, with Yo Yo Ma and with Nickel Creek all results in me hearing a more focused or coherent pluck with less veiled detail and less of a muffled or cupped hands effect on the strumming. Of course, YMMV - different systems, different listening environments, etc. - but to my ears (and yes, I've jammed on the fiddle with some bluegrass groups years ago when I spent a summer in Kentucky, so I have a pretty good feel for what a mandolin sounds like up close and live) the MQA renderings are more revealing and accurate than the CD renderings on the noted Thile recordings. "High and lonesome" is an inherently vague label that might fit the "classic" bluegrass musicians like Bill Monroe, but that's a long way from what Chris Thile is doing and I don't see how the term helps us in differentiating the MQA signature (for better or worse).

 

P.S. In case you didn't hear Thile on his radio show a few weeks ago when he was playing with his Punch Brothers group,  but they have a new album coming out. I'm crossing my fingers and hoping that it will be the first Punch Brothers album to also be released in MQA.

[knickerhawk]

20 minutes ago, vmartell22 said:

The other day I realized I was listening to a CD I bought used about 10 years ago.  I bet you the labels hate that. 

 

It's not just the big-bad-corporate labels that "hate" it. It's also the brave little independent labels and, of course, the musicians, but somehow it just doesn't feel so satisfying when you have to lump the good guys in with the greedy corporate hogs...

 

20 minutes ago, vmartell22 said:

And they want to do something about it - better for them to have you paying for life for the music - and losing access if you don't.  They rather I paid every month for that music. They know that physical media in addition to the problems of inventory, distribution, etc is also affected by that pesky first sale principle - once I bought it, I don't have to pay for it again.  Unfortunately millennials are going along - yes, there is the vinyl revival, but however impressive is in terms of growth, in absolute terms is not that significant; streaming is where is at.

 

Well, I'm no millennial (far from it, alas), but I'm happily going along with the new model. For me, the freedom and flexibility of virtually unlimited access to whatever music tickles my fancy at the moment is incredibly liberating and motivating. I love it and consider the $20 per month price tag for CD level playback (and beyond that with MQA as my happy ears tell me) to be an incredible bargain. Maybe...just maybe...those clever millennials are on to something.

 

The fundamental problem here is that it's not simply the payment model that's changed from ownership to rental. If that's all that it were about, I'd be screaming bloody murder too. But it's not - it's what you're receiving in exchange for the payment that has radically changed. In the purchase model, what you pay for allows you to listen to the same piece of music over and over and over...forever. It's very narrow/specific in terms of content but virtually unlimited in terms of access. The streaming/rental model is flipped: very broad in terms of content and very temporary in terms of access. Of course, this distinction is obvious to everyone, but it is often conveniently ignored by my fellow old-farts here with statements about having to pay for music "again" (often attended by an insinuation of corporate greed from extracting payment for the same thing over and over...)

 

20 minutes ago, vmartell22 said:

Gosh - as a business they have the right to do whatever they want. We also have the right to reject their offerings.  Specially if the deal is stacked against the consumer.

 

Your statement implies that the "the consumer" is monolithic. We're not, and what's beneficial to or highly valued by one class of consumer may very well conflict with what other consumers value. Specifically, I would note that the class of "consumers" that hang out in threads like this one on CA are likely to have significantly different priorities and preferences than those that don't. When content providers respond by favoring one consumer group over another out of economic self-interest, it's pretty inevitable that the class of consumers that lost out is going to perceive that loss in terms that villainize the greedy corporate bastards and throw up their arms in utter disgust that their naive fellow consumers have been manipulated and misled. Welcome to the wonderful world of capitalism!

[knickerhawk]

1 hour ago, Rt66indierock said:

MQA shouldn't change the sound. If it does don't you have to ask yourself why?

 

No, I don't bother with asking myself that question. Rather, I ask myself: which format I have available for playback sounds better to me? And then - the unrepentant subjective audiophile that I am - I listen to the music.

[knickerhawk]

29 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

With Tidal streaming RedBook in normal FLAC has been just fine.

 

What troubles me with MQA in this model is compromised quality, and extra "MQA tax" that is added on everything, and an attempt to force me to also buy new hardware because that way someone makes more money. Plus it makes my life so much harder because it tries very hard to screw up things like digital room correction, headphone cross-feed processing and such. All that pain and suffering instead of using that standard FLAC for hires streaming just like they already do for RedBook...

 

 

I understand, but those are your pain points and concerns with the format based on your personal preferences and personal investment in equipment, knowledge, content, etc. For me, MQA has been nothing but a "free" Tidal upgrade and a welcome improvement to my personal music playback enjoyment. I think the jury is still very much out with respect to how much, if any, of a "tax" will be imposed by MQA as well as who's going to end up paying that tax.

[knickerhawk]

4 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

In my case I was already happy with well recorded music so I ask the question. And ask you why is your opinion better than mine?

 

It isn't, and I haven't asserted that it is. I've been careful to acknowledge that my preference is personal and based on my own personal situation. Likewise, I will assume that you aren't trying to impose you personal musical listening preferences on me.

 

4 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

MQA is about taking away choice not giving consumers choices.

 

Yes, I'm well aware of that line of argument. I now how it goes...trojan horse and all that...but so far it's only given me more choices. 

[knickerhawk]

1 hour ago, 4est said:

More choices? The other day upon his death I was trying to listen to Tom Petty and the Redbook files wouldn't play. I was stuck with MQA versions. I just tried again, and his first album is still that way on Tidal. I fear this is the beginning...

Well, the CD versions are working now (at least for me). I'm not sure it's quite time to panic yet. Most of the Petty/Heartbreakers albums are available in both versions. A few are CD only and a few are MQA only (including the first). I don't see any particular pattern there and I haven't personally noticed CD versions disappearing as soon as MQA versions are released but I must confess that I haven't paid attention either. 

 

Out of curiosity, have you done any blinded A/B testing of MQA vs CD playback run through a non-MQA dac? I couldn't detect anything sighted and the couple of tracks I tried blinded yielded nothing either. If you've successfully identified an audible difference, I'd love to hear more. What album? What was it that you were hearing that allowed you to differentiate? Thanks.

[knickerhawk]

27 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

IThe Pro-Ject DAC is doing that, but then people tend to complain somewhat that there's annoying lag before MQA kicks in and some samples are lost from the beginning. No problem with normal PCM playback though, so it is not crippling normal use cases.

 

I've noticed on my BlueSound Node streaming Tidal content that when the track first starts playing there's a little "HR" icon (instead of the normal "CD" for Redbook tracks). After a couple of seconds the HR icon switches to the MQA icon. I'm wondering if that delay is the same thing that's going on with the Pro-Ject DAC? Something weird happened this past weekend. For about an hour or so, every MQA track I played never switched from the HR icon to the MQA icon. However, if I paused the play the MQA icon appeared soon after unpausing. I haven't noticed that problem since.

[knickerhawk]

1 hour ago, neo_vino said:

As a new member who did not read the 300 pages of this thread and is a mid range audiophile who used to listen music via an oldish LP12... I must confess that I'm currently having a blast going through Tidals MQAs (using Bluesound Node 2). 

 

I mostly mothballed my turntable and LP collection years ago but, otherwise, I'm in the same boat as you with respect to the blast I'm having with enjoying MQAs on Tidal run through the BlueSound. As a Tidal subscriber who hadn't paid any attention to the audio press or sites like CA for at least several years, I was completely clueless about either the MQA hype or the blowback when I first stumbled across the "Masters" option in Tidal late last year (hint to Tidal: you're doing a piss poor job of marketing this stuff to your subscribers). Anyway, I started listening to the MQA tracks listed on the Masters page and immediately realized there was something intriguing and somehow better sounding. (Again, note, I was "unbiased" by MQA propaganda at the time I first started listening.) When I started doing some A/B testing with the CD versions of the same tracks the vague sense of what sounded to me as a general "improvement" I was hearing was confirmed relative to the CD versions. I virtually always preferred the MQA version. To me there was a pretty consistent "signature" to the improvement: more detail around the instruments and voices, as if the proverbial veil had been lifted. Less of a cupped hands effects on voices, more differentiation between massed instruments and voices, a slight sense of increased "concentration" or "consolidation" of individual instruments and, therefore, improved spacing. To me and, at least, in my modest system, the improvements are pretty subtle but nearly always detectable upon serious listening. After reading up on the MQA controversy I also did some "blinded" A/B testing of the CD vs. MQA tracks. I was able to confirm to my own satisfaction that I can very consistently identify which track is the CD version and which is the MQA version. It was almost trivially easy to do with tracks I'd already compared "sighted" but even applies to tracks I hadn't previously compared.

 

So, yes indeed, just like you, I'm having a "blast" getting to know (or getting reacquainted with) lots of music. I haven't had this much fun since I first subscribed to Tidal some years ago. (It doesn't hurt that ECM released its catalog to Tidal at about the same time, since I'm a fan of many of the works in the ECM catalog.) For most of the participants on this thread, MQA is a fraud, a hype, a trojan horse, etc. For me, it's been a meaningful improvement in my home-based music enjoyment. And it cost me nothing in the sense that I was already a committed Tidal subscriber. No complaints here.

[knickerhawk]

13 minutes ago, Norton said:

 

I've spent some time with MQA over the last  few weeks.  Despite  some outstanding results, from my listening so far I'm by no means 100% sold and certainly not hearing any kind of consistent improvement over non MQA material.  In some cases the MQA version sounds "squashed" vs a CD rip I have of (I presume) the same recording.

 

Almost all of my comparisons have been between the 16/44 versions vs the MQA versions streamed through Tidal. I haven't bothered to compare any of my "old" ripped CDs since pretty much all of them are also available on Tidal. What you describe as "squashed" might be what I'm describing as "concentrated." In my system it's usually not very dramatic and my reaction to the effect is more positive than negative because it tends to heighten my sense of space. Can you give me an example of one of these "squashed" recordings? If it's on Tidal, I'd be happy to listen and reply here with my own reaction.

 

Quote

 

I note though that the dog pays much more attention to MQA (not sure if that is good or bad SQ wise...)

 

Alas, my loyal listening companion moved on to a dimension with perfect sound forever...

 

Quote

 

 I'm interested in how you are listening- does the Bluesound  offer the "full" MQA experience or do you output to a DAC ( and if so, MQA certified it not?)

 

For my comparisons I run everything through my BlueSound streamer with its built-in DAC. BlueSound is "certified" by MQA (but limited to the first unfold, if I understand correctly).

[knickerhawk]

30 minutes ago, Ran said:

 

https://www.qobuz.com/gb-en/plans/music-streaming-subscription

 

Have you heard what the cost will be for the Sublime subscription with HiRes streaming when it becomes available in the US? Based on the UK pricing, it looks like it will be considerably more expensive than Tidal.

[knickerhawk]

2 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

If she was a buddhist, or skih, then she will be back on earth somewhere else.

We never discussed her religious inclinations, but she worshipped squirrels and sticks, so I kind of doubt that she was a buddhist or sikh at heart. 

[knickerhawk]

5 minutes ago, Norton said:

 

Marcel Dupre Saint Saens Symphony 3  sounded awful to me on MQA, much better on my CD.  In the interests if balance,  Staatskapelle Barenboim Bruckner  Symphony  7 was quite an improvement on MQA vs my CD.  Both are on Tidal.

Thanks. I'll fire up the rig this afternoon and report back.

[knickerhawk]

4 hours ago, Norton said:

 

Marcel Dupre Saint Saens Symphony 3  sounded awful to me on MQA, much better on my CD.  In the interests of balance,  Staatskapelle/Barenboim Bruckner  Symphony  7 was quite an improvement on MQA vs my CD.  Both are on Tidal.

 

Tidal clearly doesn't have 16/44 and MQA versions of the same masterings for the Saint-Saens. The 16/44 version is from a 1991 CD compilation and the MQA version expressly says "Remastered - 2015." Bearing that in mind, I agree with you that the CD version sounds better and the MQA version features strings that feel like they have been mashed together into the center of the stage. Of course, it's impossible to say how much (if any) of that effect is due to MQA as such and how much was due to other aspects of the re-mastering. I will say this, however: the difference in the soundstage is not typical of the "signature" I've become accustomed to expecting from MQA versions (and I've listened to dozens and dozens now). The Barenboim/Bruckner example you gave is far more representative of the typical MQA effect I'm hearing. I actually spent more time with the Staatskapelle/Barenboim live recording of Bruckner's 4th. That 3rd movement is a particular favorite of mine. When the horns announce their entrance, the MQA version just has more presence. The 16/44 is somehow a little sleepy by comparison (and, no, I'm not detecting a difference in sound level). By the way, the track times are identical and, unlike the clearly remastered Saint-Saens, there's no reason to assume that the Barenboim recordings were remastered for the MQA version. 

[knickerhawk]

4 hours ago, firedog said:

One of the gripes against MQA is that it claims to sound better than the hi-res masters from which it was produced, not just better than CD.

 

I am not in a good position to comment on any such claim because I only have a few HiRes downloads and don't consider my experience comparing HiRes vs. MQA to be definitive enough to draw any conclusions. I am only comfortable commenting on the CD vs. MQA differences readily accessible on Tidal because that's all I've listened to sufficiently.

 

I sense that a number of vocal participants in this thread (not referring to you) have not personally compared MQA vs. HiRes themselves and have ignored or dismissed the improvements vis-a-vis CDs, yet they are not reluctant to dismiss MQA altogether (inclusive of the CD vs MQA differences). Does that no strike you as a little irresponsible?

 

4 hours ago, firedog said:

As you might have noticed, the biggest MQA proponent here just posted that MQA is indistinguishable from hi-res  masters in properly setup testing. If you agree, then MQA has something going for it. 

 

I'm not here to defend him or comment beyond what I can offer from my own personal experience.

 

4 hours ago, firedog said:

 

But then the question remains: why do we need an additional closed proprietary format?  Just stream flac hires masters. No need for MQA. 

 

"Just stream flac hires masters..." That's a little easier said than done. If you can point me to such a service available in the US that doesn't cost significantly more than $20 per month, I'd be grateful. Otherwise, I just answered your question.

 

4 hours ago, firedog said:

And as you noted, MQA has a sound signature. Not everone likes it. Some people hear the opposite of what you are hearing: a less natural sound and loss of detail. This is with an MQA DAC (full unfold and rendering) compared to hires versions of the same music. 

 

Again, I'm offering my own now fairly extensive listening experience of CD vs MQA comparisons. I will leave it to others to duke it out over the differences at higher resolutions and more MQA unfolds than what is available to me through Tidal/BlueSound.

[knickerhawk]

12 minutes ago, rn701 said:

An article somewhere said it would be the same as Euro/GBP except in dollars, $9.99/mo for mp3, $19.99/mo for CD, and $349.99/year for hi-res and discounted downloads.

 

Thanks for the info. I'll keep an eye on it and will probably trial it when the service is available. Will make for an interesting comparison with the Tidal/MQA alternative, albeit at over $100 more per year. Personally,I have no interest in the discounted downloads. I'm not sure I understand the value proposition there.

[knickerhawk]

12 minutes ago, WAM said:

Hello Knickerhawk,

 

Just read your post about the A/B-testing. Was this a fair A/B; ic, did you use the same dac/same quality interlinks for the MQA files and the little silver disc?

 

Go to this post where I explained how I conducted my blinded A/B test. As should be obvious after you read that post, everything was the same other than the files themselves. 

 

12 minutes ago, WAM said:

 

About ECM: they still favor vinyl or cd for the best sq (I concur, to be honest).

 

Yep. My ECM LPs are among the few that I still bother to listen to.

 

12 minutes ago, WAM said:

 

But nice to read you like your new listening experience (that's what it's all about, isn't it?).

 

Amen!

[knickerhawk]

15 minutes ago, WAM said:

Hello Knickerhawk,

 

I just read your post about the A/B testing. If I am correct, you did not use the silver disc, but you used cd-quality files. That's not the same. It's a fairy tale that cd and redbook-flac are equal in sq. For some reason, the cd-transport makes a (big) difference.

 

It's of course possible (maybe even probable) that you'll hear differences between playback from a CD and from a rip of the CD or a stream of the 16/44 file. You're introducing hardware variables into the equation. That's not what interests me though. I rarely bother with playing back my personal library of ripped CDs. I just do everything from Tidal. That's mostly because I listen to new stuff and/or stuff that I didn't have on CD anyway. Since I have virtually no interest in going back to the stone age of CD playback, the relevant comparison for me (and probably for most people who opt for streaming on a service like Tidal) is what (if any) audible difference can be heard when opting for streamed MQA (or HiRes) versions vs 16/44 versions. 

[knickerhawk]

33 minutes ago, Shadders said:

It has been mentioned that on some DAC's that MQA filters are not turned off when listening to non-MQA material - maybe worth checking that when you listen to 16/44.1 material that MQA filters are in fact not enabled ?

 

I don't think that issue applies to Tidal/Bluesound. There are no filter options to turn on/off. 

[knickerhawk]

14 hours ago, firedog said:

 

Not really. The question is why the industry won't give Tidal actual hi-res to stream instead of MQA. If you think about what the answer could be, you'd understand some of the anti-MQA attitudes. 

 

I live in the present. And in the present I live in the US and have no practical HiRes streaming option other than what Tidal offers via MQA. I'm delighted to at least have that option, especially since in the present it costs me no more than what I was already paying for 16/44 streaming. The OP's title for this thread was "MQA is Vaporware." Well, for me, today, it's not vaporware. It's real, it offers a wide and growing selection of music and most of the time I prefer the sound it offers than what's otherwise available to me to stream in the present. I'm happy.

 

As for the future, unlike many of the participants in this thread who've invested a great deal of money in incompatible equipment and who've built large and expensive collections of HiRes music and who have considerable psychological and financial incentive to protect that commitment into the future, I've got very little sunk costs in hardware and software that is threatened by MQA. It will be easy to switch if/when a better HiRes streaming option becomes available, but I'm also just fine with the Tidal/MQA solution.

 

Quote

I'd also be willing to put money on the fact that MQA will not stay "free/no extra cost" if it succeeds in establishing itself. What's good in the short term is not always what's best for you in the long term. 

 

Whatever...I understand the evil-empire argument, but I don't pretend to have the brilliant predictive powers to foretell how all of the economic, business and technology variables will sort out. If I had those powers, I would have bought Bitcoin when my son told me to and sold it when I told him to. Your wager is the kind of easy, hollow one that predominates on forums like this one. Meanwhile, I've not read a coherent argument on this nearly 300-page thread to justify my abandonment of my current music streaming model.

 

Quote

Not everyone hears what you hear. Some dislike the sound of MQA or think it is at best a slightly different, but not better sound. They are also against closed, proprietary formats with DRM elements.

 

It's not the insight you probably were shooting for, but your statement IS insightful:  There seems to be a correlation between a dislike of the sound of MQA and a dislike for "closed, proprietary formats with DRM elements." 

 

Quote

It's a pretty big value if you buy downloads regularly. There are people who "pay for" their entire Sublime subscription by the amount they save on downloads. 

 

How does one determine that so-called "savings?" As long as they continue to subscribe to a service that enables them to stream the same content they've downloaded, then they haven't "saved" anything yet. As far as I'm concerned that model is flawed and hopelessly old school. 

[knickerhawk]

53 minutes ago, Sonicularity said:

Getting back to MQA, could the registered trademark use of MQA Lossless be considered false advertising?

 

https://www.trademarkia.com/mqa-lossless-85965607.html

 

 

 

 

Have you seen this in actual advertising use? It doesn't appear on the MQA website, and I haven't come across it elsewhere, but perhaps I've missed it? Given the different typeface and look from the current logo (which doesn't include "Lossless"), my guess is that this particular mark will never see the light of day in actual use. 

[knickerhawk]

55 minutes ago, firedog said:

 

I think this is way off base, Present systems aren’t incompatible. You can play MQA on them with the first unfold and according to MQA this gives you many of it’s benefits. Nothing about MQA makes a collection of hires music obsolete or sound bad.

 

I didn't mean to imply, of course, that the mere existence of MQA out there in the world somehow makes an existing collection of hires (and existing hardware/software) sound bad. The term "incompatibility" was probably a bad choice, as I'm not meaning it in the narrow sense that a MQA file can't be played on an existing system, but rather in the same sense that older CD players are "incompatible" with SACDs. I was shortcutting the concept of limited compatibility, which you can achieve with an appropriate software decoder in your playback chain, and combining it with the broader notion of a playback model built around "ownership" of native hires and maximal control of filters and DSP applied by the end user and all of the evils that will descend on that model when MQA takes root. From reading this thread, it certainly appears to me that many participants view MQA as, broadly speaking, "incompatible" with the model they're invested in.

 

55 minutes ago, firedog said:

Of course the same type of logic and assumptions applies in reverse to people who like MQA, so you made absolutely no point here.

 

It doesn't work like that. We're not starting tabla rosa (i.e., unbiased by any prior experience with and "investment" in any format) and then some of us are preferring the sound of one format (and thence becoming biased in their preference for that sound) and others of us are preferring the sound of the other format (and thence becoming biased in our preference for that sound). Rather, we are (virtually) all starting from one state and either continuing to prefer that existing state (non-MQA sound) over a new state (MQA sound) or changing our preference. The potential for bias and the types of bias that might muddy our judgment is not comparable.

 

55 minutes ago, firedog said:

Some people dislike MQA on principle, some have listened to it in a fair test and decided it isn’t what it’s cracked up to be.

 

Sure, but what's your idea of a "fair" test for someone who already objects to MQA? And how often do you think those predisposed to dislike it on non-listening grounds are actually submitting to "fair" tests? (By the way, I will happily concede here that many marketing-driven MQA demos are unfair and untrustworthy as well.)

 

55 minutes ago, firedog said:

It’s really not hard. Get a discount when buying a download b/c of your subscription. If you were going to buy the download anyway, you just saved the money.

 

You've only saved money if there really is an audible difference that favors the downloaded version and you thereafter exclusively listen to the downloaded version. You haven't saved money (indeed, you've wasted it) if you can't hear any difference. From a rational economic behavior perspective, the only reason in this second scenario to ever download a file is at the point you've decide to no longer renew your subscription (I'm simplifying here and excluding special cases like temporary sales, risk of liquidation/bankruptcy/termination of the service). There are numerous reasons why you might not renew the subscription, but most of those either do not necessitate downloads/purchases (e.g., cheaper/better subscription service becomes available) or do not otherwise justify downloads/purchases (e.g., lost your hearing, gear got stolen, grown bored with the recreation). The point here is that the claimed download "savings" and potential for covering the cost of the hires subscription is pretty dubious unless there really is a SQ benefit (see below).

 

55 minutes ago, firedog said:

I don’t know what you have in your music collection, but I regularly buy music I have tried out at Tidal. Why? SQ of the downloads is better than listening over streaming. Tidal has good SQ, but not as good as the sound of a good file. 

 

Perhaps it is in your system, but in my system I can't hear any meaningful difference between the CDs I've ripped and the corresponding 16/44 tracks on Tidal - certainly not enough of a difference to justify the cost of downloading or purchasing/ripping new CDs. Besides, unrestricted access to a vast library of music via Tidal has minimized my desire to constrain my listening experience based on the tiniest of possible benefit of local playback. For me personally, the ownership model is dead.

[knickerhawk]

5 minutes ago, firedog said:

Basically, you wrote a long post saying that only your personal point of view and approach makes sense, and your personal system, listening habits and abilities are a model for everyone. Ever consider that maybe it “perhaps it is in your system”? Or your ability to hear the difference between Tidal, CD, and hi-res?

 

Please quote where I claimed that my "listening habits and abilities are a model for everyone."  Good luck finding it...

 

5 minutes ago, firedog said:

 

And btw, a “fair” test of MQA is a blind test.

 

Agreed. I've done it. How many others in this thread have done a blind comparison, let alone one in their own personal listening environment?

 

5 minutes ago, firedog said:

 

Your POV that somehow people who’d don’t like MQA come to it with greater expectation bias than those that do like it is ridiculous. MQA has years of hype around it about how great it sounds. Even  the name itself is an attempt to influence the listeners opinion in favor of a “master” that’s “authenticated”.

Finally, the fact that Tidal has.a special section for “Masters” that supposedly sound better than what’s in the “Hifi” section doesn’t influence opinion at all, does it?

 

Sure. There's plenty of marketing hype to go around. That is by no means unique to MQA and magically absent in competing "high resolution" solutions. I challenge you to find one square inch of the audio world that isn't sullied by marketing hype and BS. That's why we both agree that blind testing is the only hope for minimizing bias that influences everyone. My basic point remains, however, that the kind of bias likely to influence someone to prefer a new model is rather different from the biases that influence someone to stick with the model they are psychologically and financially invested in. Again, the best answer here is to submit oneself to blind testing.

[knickerhawk]

16 minutes ago, botrytis said:

It means absence of preconceived notions or goals.

 

It means I made a typo.