MQA is Vaporware

[Brinkman Ship]

6 hours ago, FredericV said:

This is the classical fanboy / shill argument, also used by the now banned Peter Veth. MQA does not offer this value, but streaming services do.

You could say the exact same about Qobuz: it offers true highres (lossless, not lossy like MQA) and customers don't have to invest in their own library / hardware.

 

US residents have had difficulty signing up for Qobuz...secondly, the Tidal interface is far superior.

 

Qobuz is also close to $200 a year more.

[Brinkman Ship]

8 hours ago, firedog said:

But that ignores the simple fact that the hi-rez masters can be streamed; or if bandwidth is thought to be an issue, a properly dithered 18/96 version of a 24/96 hi-res master is smaller than the equivalent MQA file and throws out less bits. 

 

So again, why do we need a closed; proprietary format?

What if it does actually sound better?

 

 

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Can you point out specifically what errors and misunderstandings Mr. Austin was guilty of in his articles..I believe there was Part One and Two?

It would easier to point out what he got right as that amounts to just about nothing.

[Brinkman Ship]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

It would easier to point out what he got right as that amounts to just about nothing.

That is an non answer.Specifics please?

[Dr Tone]

10 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

US residents have had difficulty signing up for Qobuz...secondly, the Tidal interface is far superior.

 

Qobuz is also close to $200 a year more.

 

Actually the Qobuz app IMO is far superior to the Tidal interface.

 

And worth every penny if you want real high resolution or regular cd lossless with the option to buy high res at a discount.  Tidal really offers nothing in comparison.

[Brinkman Ship]

9 minutes ago, Dr Tone said:

 

Actually the Qobuz app IMO is far superior to the Tidal interface.

 

And worth every penny if you want real high resolution or regular cd lossless with the option to buy high res at a discount.  Tidal really offers nothing in comparison.

I believe Tidal has a far greater Redbook CD catalog. Unless I am mistaken.

[Brinkman Ship]

I see quite a bit of pushback in the comments sections of Austin's articles. I wonder how

many Mr. Atkinson purged.

[Dr Tone]

17 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

I believe Tidal has a far greater Redbook CD catalog. Unless I am mistaken.

 

48 million tracks advertised on Tidal's site.  40 million tracks advertised on Qobuz's site.  Remove the cRap from Tidal and what's left?

 

70,000 hi-res albums on Qobuz vs 10,000 lossy MQA albums on Tidal.

[John_Atkinson]

28 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

I see quite a bit of pushback in the comments sections of Austin's articles. I wonder how

many Mr. Atkinson purged.

Only those that were flames aimed at specific posters. Flame-free criticisms are allowed to stand, of course.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

[oneway23]

2 hours ago, Dr Tone said:

 

Actually the Qobuz app IMO is far superior to the Tidal interface.

 

And worth every penny if you want real high resolution or regular cd lossless with the option to buy high res at a discount.  Tidal really offers nothing in comparison.

Tone, I've tried to use HolaVPN on numerous occasions to create an account on Qobuz over the years, to no avail.  I've also just emailed them directly and was told by their customer service that Qobuz used to give accounts to US residents 3 or so years ago, but, no longer.

 

If you have a way for me to do so, I'd greatly appreciate the assistance (via PM), but, until they launch in the US with a legal option (I understand it's apparently on the way), I'm not really sure this is a fair comparison to the large majority of folks here in the states.

 

When my wife and my parents can log onto the site, create an account, and enter payment details in their native language and without a VPN/geographical workaround, we can compare options.

[Spacehound]

2 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

What if it does actually sound better?

 

 

It won't, not if accuracy to the source is required. And 'accuracy to the original' is the very definition of high fidelity  and what most of us pay for in the price of the equipment we buy. Note that the "original" is the CD, file, vinyl record, or whatever,  as we don't have the artists playing live  in our room.

 

Though what you hear may be 'more to your preference', which is fine as it's all supposed to be enjoyment.  But your preferring it doesn't make it "better".

 

Why? Most explanations here are about what is missing and some may not be able to notice that. So I'm going to highlight what MQA adds to the original, and if you want high fidelity it should not be there:

 

Due to the 'weak' filters MQA uses a phenomenon called 'aliasing' occurs above the audible range (20Hz to 20KHz if you are young). Unfortunately this reflects back into the audible range with some instruments which produce some sound at frequencies too high to be directly audible  and  lot of electronic music. This can give a 'lively' effect which some people may like.

 

But it isn't real, it's an artefact of the MQA process.

 

(BTW: I'm new too, and like you I joined mostly to comment on MQA. But I'm sure I will find other things to comment on. And my equipment is MQA capable, though only since a couple of weeks ago - and as it was a free firmware download for my DAC it didn't cost me anything. I joined a free three month trial of Tidal at the same time.) 

[firedog]

3 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

What if it does actually sound better?

 

 

What if it actually sounds worse? 

Who determines better? The streaming services?  The labels?  And please don't tell me, "the market". The market is rigged in favor of the industry. 

I haven't seen evidence they care about either their customers or SQ. 

[firedog]

27 minutes ago, oneway23 said:

Tone, I've tried to use HolaVPN on numerous occasions to create an account on Qobuz over the years, to no avail.  I've also just emailed them directly and was told by their customer service that Qobuz used to give accounts to US residents 3 or so years ago, but, no longer.

Try a "real' VPN and not Hola.

Did you also try putting in a French address? I knew someone who used a French VPN server address, got an address of a French hotel off the net and used it to get an account. 

Once you have the account, the VPN isn't necessary. 

[Dr Tone]

39 minutes ago, oneway23 said:

f you have a way for me to do so, I'd greatly appreciate the assistance (via PM), but, until they launch in the US with a legal option (I understand it's apparently on the way), I'm not really sure this is a fair comparison to the large majority of folks here in the states.

 

The comparison has nothing to do with what is fair to US customers, I was comparing user interface and content. 

[beetlemania]

6 minutes ago, firedog said:

What if it actually sounds worse? 

 

Outside of gun-for-hire TAS and Atkinson/McGrath (whose files apparently received special attention), most others report  subtle improvement, no difference, slight preference for PCM, or coloration and loss of resolution.

 

But, hey, at least we all get to pay more for hardware and content

[oneway23]

I believe the conversation is relevant, particularly if we holding up as a gold standard for comparison a service which can currently only be accessed on one continent (8 countries, I believe?) without using some degree of workaround (no matter how seemingly insignificant the workaround may be).

 

Again, all I have seen so far are rumored prices associated with a US launch, and a vague window for roll-out.  If and when Qobuz launches in the US, and if and when we see that all current content licensing agreements are intact, only then, IMO, can we then take a fair look.  UI is one thing.  When numbers start getting bandied about with regard to content, well, we just don't know exactly what will be available as of yet.

 

Thanks for the help.  I appreciate it!

[Indydan]

3 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

That is an non answer.Specifics please?

 

Good work! You are much more subtle than the other MQA operatives that came before you. 

[FredericV]

11 minutes ago, beetlemania said:

 

Outside of gun-for-hire TAS and Atkinson/McGrath (whose files apparently received special attention), most others report  subtle improvement, no difference, slight preference for PCM, or coloration and loss of resolution.

 

A solution to a non-problem.

 

[beetlemania]

6 minutes ago, FredericV said:

 

A solution to a non-problem.

 

 

Only if it's not a problem that the labels don't have DRM or that Bob Stuart doesn't have his hand in your wallet every time you buy a DAC or an album

[mansr]

4 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

That is an non answer. Specifics please?

In what ways isn't a turd Michelangelo's David? Be specific.

[psjug]

1 hour ago, oneway23 said:

Tone, I've tried to use HolaVPN on numerous occasions to create an account on Qobuz over the years, to no avail.  I've also just emailed them directly and was told by their customer service that Qobuz used to give accounts to US residents 3 or so years ago, but, no longer.

 

If you have a way for me to do so, I'd greatly appreciate the assistance (via PM), but, until they launch in the US with a legal option (I understand it's apparently on the way), I'm not really sure this is a fair comparison to the large majority of folks here in the states.

 

When my wife and my parents can log onto the site, create an account, and enter payment details in their native language and without a VPN/geographical workaround, we can compare options.

I did not have any problem using aVPN (UK) to sign up for Qobuz.  Once I signed up, the service worked fine with a USA internet connection.  This was a couple months ago; my trial expired so I am not using this now.

 

I would just keep trying different VPN options until something works.

[Brinkman Ship]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

What if it actually sounds worse? 

Who determines better? The streaming services?  The labels?  And please don't tell me, "the market". The market is rigged in favor of the industry. 

I haven't seen evidence they care about either their customers or SQ. 

Let's try this...who determined that "Hi-rez" was "better" than Redbook CD...Who determined DSD was more "analog like"?

 

You can say that the market was rigged so that everyone went out and bought 24/192 and DSD resolution DACs.

[Shadders]

3 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Let's try this...who determined that "Hi-rez" was "better" than Redbook CD...Who determined DSD was more "analog like"?

 

You can say that the market was rigged so that everyone went out and bought 24/192 and DSD resolution DACs.

Hi,

It is the advancement of technology, that allows higher sample rates and large bit depths. There are only benefits to the consumer.

Whether you prefer the Redbook CD compared to 192kHz/24bit is personal.

MQA is going backwards from 96kHz/XXbits - since it is lossy, has aliasing, and adds harmonics (information) that was not there in the first place (see Brian Lucey comment on this site)

Regards,

Shadders.

[Ralf11]

Brinks - what value does MQA bring?

 

3rd time I have asked you this...

[mansr]

1 hour ago, oneway23 said:

I believe the conversation is relevant, particularly if we holding up as a gold standard for comparison a service which can currently only be accessed on one continent (8 countries, I believe?) without using some degree of workaround (no matter how seemingly insignificant the workaround may be).

 

Again, all I have seen so far are rumored prices associated with a US launch, and a vague window for roll-out.  If and when Qobuz launches in the US, and if and when we see that all current content licensing agreements are intact, only then, IMO, can we then take a fair look.  UI is one thing.  When numbers start getting bandied about with regard to content, well, we just don't know exactly what will be available as of yet.

 

Thanks for the help.  I appreciate it!

Where Qobuz is available doesn't really matter. Most of the world can't get Tidal either. The point is that Qobuz is able to stream lossless 96/24, thereby refuting the claim that MQA would be required for high-res streaming.