MQA is Vaporware

[The Computer Audiophile]

Some interesting mQa info. 
 

I’m out in Los Angeles this week and had an opportunity to talk to a “civilian” who recently got interested in HiFi. He has some very basic but wisely selected gear. 
 

Out of the blue he asked me about mQa. Wanted to know my opinion. He said he was looking at differences between Qobuz and Tidal, and that sparked his interest in researching mQa. 
 

He found @GoldenOne’s videos right away. Unsurprisingly he didn’t connect the Chris in the RMAF snippet with me. Nonetheless, he wasn’t thrilled with mQa, after doing a little online research. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, Daccord said:

 

Sorry, I think this says more about USB "isolators" than it does about MQA. However, at least USB gadgets are easy to avoid and don't try to extract pennies from every musical transaction.

But if everything accept MQA works through the isolator, that suggests to me that MQA and the isolator don't mix. Not sure which one to blame, but I won't make assumptions or judgements. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

 

My recollection is that unless the DAC's particular firmware specifically permits, once MQA filtering has been used for any track in a listening session, it will be used for all further tracks in that session, no matter what the listener selects.  See if what you're finding with the D90 at least might be due to this "precedence effect."

 

🤮

[The Computer Audiophile]

8 minutes ago, Jud said:

Now think about what that means for the comparative listening sessions where reviewers heard tracks produced for that filtering, then listened to tracks not produced for that filtering, through what they thought were different filters.

The birth of a new reviewing world 😳

[The Computer Audiophile]

I’d say it’s all up to two things.
 

mQa flys if:

 

1. Spotify uses it or

2. Labels force it upon streaming services

 

or it dies. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, MaxBuck said:

I still really don't understand the antipathy toward MQA, aside from the marketing babble its promoters use.

 

Doesn't it provide the opportunity to stream high-quality audio while minimizing data usage?  For that purpose alone it seems like a good idea.  Many people are somewhat data-limited, and the ability to lower their GB costs strikes me as a good thing.  But I'm sure I'm missing something here.  Bottom line: all the anti-MQA talk I've heard and read focuses purely on the "MQA = bad" canon without providing any reasons as to why it's bad.  (And don't cite that it "violates the creative output of the recording engineer."  I really couldn't care less what they might want.)

I highly recommend you read up on mQa and watch @GoldenOne’s videos. 
 

MQA consumes more bandwidth than pure PCM when compared Apples to Apples. It chops off information, adds it’s own proprietary encryption, then resamples it up to where it was before it chopped it off. 
 

The big thing for me is it reduces consumer choice. Roon users in Canada only have Tidal as an option for streaming. Tidal removed tons of pure PCM content and replaced it with mQa. Try streaming Tracy Chapman’s self titled album without mQa on Tidal. You can’t. 
 

It’s lossy as well. 
 

If you want lossy perceptual encoding, use MP3 or AAC. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

20 minutes ago, MaxBuck said:

No, you provided discrete, objective reasons for avoiding MQA.  Appreciate that.

 

Apparently, simply asking the question here is enough for people to downvote one's posts.  Interesting phenomenon.

Your post has been repeated dozens of times over the years and often the posts lead to pissing matches. We are just tired of BS. Don’t take it personally if you had good intentions. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, jcbenten said:

"Authenticated" means the DRM triggers are in place...has nothing to do with the provenance of the music.  IMO.

No need to use “IMO” on that one :~)

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 hours ago, skikirkwood said:

 

One of the major reasons Spotify chose the Ogg Vorbis file format is it's open source, and therefore royalty free: https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Spotify-use-the-relatively-obscure-Ogg-Vorbis-file-format

 

There is zero chance Spotify would choose any compression scheme that required paying a royalty. 

People who work at Spotify watched my RMAF mQa presentation on YouTube. I know this because they told me. They clearly researched mQa for some reason. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

No mention of mQa in this one. Kind of surprising such a huge supporter of it now has a system that can’t reproduce it. 
 

https://headlinermagazine.net/spotlight/inside-morten-lindberg-immersive-genelec-studio.html

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

It’s a contractual obligation that has been in place for years. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, UkPhil said:

A waste of effort on Sony’s part to be quite honest 

Agree. 
 

All the labels agreed to convert their entire catalogs to mQa years ago. This is just Sony following through. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

19 minutes ago, UkPhil said:

Looking into the mQa fan page it’s seems to have been supplied to them directly,  nothing in the press as yet which seems strange 

I bet Sony is thrilled to see mQa leaking its press releases to a Facebook group of sycophants. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Ah mQA, supposed to clear things up with its single deliverable and illuminating lights. 
 

I can’t think of a more obfuscated technology. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Doesn't matter. mQa is mQa and Roon sends the info back to the mothership. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

So you're sayin' your DACs are vaccinated :~)

[The Computer Audiophile]

Interesting to see Tidal labeling only track 8 as mQa. Roon labeling the entire album as 24/44.1, even though only track 8 says 24/44.1 at playback, and Roon not identifying track 8 as mQa on playback. This whole mQa thing removes all the ambiguity and shenanigans, just like Bob said :~)

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

FWIW Chris, your HQPlayer settings are the most interesting thing about this post 🙂

 

 

I love it :~)

[The Computer Audiophile]

mQa = the original Big Lie. 
 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

58 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

 

"Lighten up, Francis."

 

Maybe MQA hangs on, in part, through savvy marketing that some who aren't favorably disposed to the technology might even  consider propaganda. But it's definitely not the original Big Lie. That term was actually introduced by the author of Mein Kampf ("große Lüge") back in the 1920s.  Let's not get carried away. As Chris noted at the beginning of his infamous MQA seminar at RMAF 2018: "Nobody is saving babies in HiFi, Nobody is killing puppies in HiFi."

 

You stole my line, that I stole from Stripes :~)

 

I had no clue of the use the the Big Lie predating its use today. I used the term a bit tongue in cheek. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

26 minutes ago, Confused said:

Is this misleading

 

Yes.

 

26 minutes ago, Confused said:

and just a little bit desperate

 

Yes.

[The Computer Audiophile]

If all streaming went mQA, count me out. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

26 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Something I just found ... enable English subtitles to follow,

 

 

Really wish that was a written interview. Took a lot of time to watch what could’ve been read in a couple minutes. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, ARQuint said:

If MQA can't be sold to audiophiles of the "sounds better" sort when technical objections have been as powerfully presented as they have been here and elsewhere, the road to anything like universal adoption becomes that much more difficult for it's creators.

I disagree. 
 

mQa isn’t about consumer demand or acceptance. I’m willing to bet the vast majority of Tidal users couldn’t tell us what the letters mQa stand for or identify a sonic difference. Yet, we have truckloads of music being dumped into Tidal, and removal of pure PCM at the same time. 
 

Success of mQa depends on the labels having the guts to force it upon those who license the content. If the labels will only license mQa, then it succeeds. Right now music services have a choice, thus mQa is a failure. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

20 minutes ago, opus101 said:

 

Interesting that in the review of the Luxman player linked above, its revealed that because it has the capability to play MQA CDs, any non-MQA version on the same disc cannot be selected, by contractual requirement. This tells me that MQA is about denying vanilla PCM.

Not enabling a consumer to A/B compare what’s on a disc. Sounds like something a totally transparent company that believes in its product would do. Not.