Jump to content
IGNORED

MQA is Vaporware


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, hineni said:

What I'd like to see from MQA proponents is some acknowledgment that we have to give something up to get whatever MQA offers. They can maintain the trade-offs are worth it, but the denial of any downsides or dangers blows their credibility, IMO.

 

I'd like to see them acknowledge and address:

 

1) the possible loss of end-user DSP functions such as bass management, room correction and digital equalization,

 

2) the loss of freedom to choose the digital filter of one's choice for all digital files,

 

3) the prospect that MQA files may become the ONLY digital format available, even outside the streaming world, and MQA's efforts to extend beyond streaming, and

 

4) an accurate reporting of the DRM capabilities in MQA (not what people have promised or not promised to do, but the worst case scenario built into MQA). 

 

The market will decide if MQA is, on balance, good. But there has to be a balanced presentation of the facts. 

 

These are decent points. I will do my best to address them.

Link to comment

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). 

 

Yes it's a closed system thus it poses obvious ethical issues (I'm a programmer and I preach for open source as much as possible) but as far as my transition from vinyl only to streaming, I have to admit my expectations are surpassed.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
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). 

 

Yes it's a closed system thus it poses obvious ethical issues (I'm a programmer and I preach for open source as much as possible) but as far as my transition from vinyl only to streaming, I have to admit my expectations are surpassed.

 

 

 

Well as long as you're happy....

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
44 minutes ago, knickerhawk said:

 

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 of 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.

 

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, for example, the MQA version sounds "squashed" vs a CD rip I have of (I presume) the same recording.

 

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

 

 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?)

Link to comment
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).

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, knickerhawk said:

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.

 

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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, knickerhawk said:

 

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.

My guess is that that is correct. The advantage Qobuz offers is big discounts when you buy downloads.

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment
1 hour ago, knickerhawk said:

 

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.

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.

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. 

 

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

 

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. 

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment
1 hour ago, knickerhawk said:

 

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.

 

It is not the same product.

Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, knickerhawk said:

 

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.

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.

Link to comment

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?

 

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

 

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

 

 

Link to comment
54 minutes ago, knickerhawk said:

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

 

Thanks.   I think we are on the same wavelength here.  On the Bruckner, "sleepy" is pretty much how I'd describe the  16/44 .  But #7 seemed improved  via MQA, more detail and dynamics.  Agreed that the Saint Saens has probably been through so many remasters that the  Tidal version may not bear any comparison with my CD example from the Mercury box set.  I also compared the Staatskapelle Elgar symphonies in MQA with my own 24/96 downloads of the same but couldn't hear much difference.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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!

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...