MQA is Vaporware

[UkPhil]

4 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

 

So these are actually 13 bit crap?

Based on how they dissect the file to add the proprietary data they must be losing dynamic range to fit it in. 
MQA’s states they ensure sound is preserved up-to 17 / 48 this clearly cannot be true with these conversions 

 

 

 

[FredericV]

24 minutes ago, Tintinabulum said:

I thought the theory was that the characteristics of the ADC in the original studio recording are compensated for by (filtering) in the replaying DAC. So yeah, sausage.

 

There is a lot of music which uses lower quality samples often based on old recordings (low-fi) combined with high quality recent work.

Some examples:

dZihan & Kamien
Parov Stelar
Verve remixed
Gotan project
Amon Tobin

So what ADC to compensate for? It's impossible to fix music where multiple sources of sampling is combined as an artform.
Fixing the old samples would for sure mess with the low-fi sound signature of certain samples the artist intended.

Doing that on purpose and not giving the consumer the choice to have this effect on or off, is wrong.

Releasing all future music with the MQA sausage as only option, is wrong.

Replacing good music once relaesed as redbook, by 13 bit MQA CD, is pure evil.
 

[The Computer Audiophile]

24 minutes ago, Tintinabulum said:

I thought the theory was that the characteristics of the ADC in the original studio recording are compensated for by (filtering) in the replaying DAC. So yeah, sausage.

That’s laughable. Batch converting files that used multiple ADC converters in even a single song works terrific. Or so we’re told by MQA. 

[KeenObserver]

It keeps sticking in my mind that we have spent years and years refining our playback systems only to be told by Warner that we are only going let you have MQA corrupted garbage.

It harkens back to the days when the studios dictated who got contracts, who got air time, and how much royalties you received.

And if you were black, you got less royalties and sometimes none.

Warner wants to go back to the days when they could dictate all aspects.  Shame on us if we let Warner walk all over us.  As long as Warner exists I will never buy their products

[The Computer Audiophile]

Think about all the recordings being made in 2020 and 2021 while distanced. Multiple studios, home studios, etc...  It’s comical that MQA tries to say it’s fixing ADC issues when multiple ADCs are used within each track. 

[KeenObserver]

You really should read about the tot system ( or dop plan) in South Africa.

Is this not what Warner and MQA are doing to the music consumer?

Keep in mind that those people are the financial backers and controlling interest in MQA.

It is a frightening prospect that those are the people that want to control the distribution of music.

[UkPhil]

26 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Think about all the recordings being made in 2020 and 2021 while distanced. Multiple studios, home studios, etc...  It’s comical that MQA tries to say it’s fixing ADC issues when multiple ADCs are used within each track. 

And let’s be honest after 4 years were are the professional MQA ADC’s in the Industry, None to my knowledge other than Mytek an early backer of MQA. 
You would think there would be a rush to de blur recorded music as part of the recording process if it was deemed that important  

[Rexp]

6 hours ago, daverich4 said:

Are you sure Tidal SELLS downloads? I can’t find any place to purchase music from them. You can download music from them for offline listening but it will disappear the minute you end your subscription. 

They don't promote it for some reason, just google 'Tidal store' 

[Alex McBellott]

Just my personal opinion. 
i have subscriptions to Qobuz, Tidal, Amazon HD. I like to make direct comparisons. 
I regularly listen to music through Vinyl LPs and Sacd. 
so to say that the media is just a vehicle for music. 
Mqa, behind its technical background, has GREAT marketing. Bob Stewart is an entrepreneur and a manager and knows very well what "the industry" wants. He just took advantage of his technical and marketing skills developed at Meridian. 
This said I personally don't see , for the moment, a "big brother's watching you" situation. 
if you don't like Mqa stuff you can use Qobuz or Amazon HD. Quality is superb for both as it's hi rez Flac and Qobuz user interface is really good (Amazon HD has margins for improvements...). 
When I move from Qobuz to Tidal Mqa I don't feel I'm moving from paradise to hell: they are both great listening experiences.
And both my Tannoy Canterbury SE or Martin Logan Ethos speakers are quite revealing. 

 

[MikeyFresh]

59 minutes ago, Alex McBellott said:

Just my personal opinion. 
i have subscriptions to Qobuz, Tidal, Amazon HD. I like to make direct comparisons. 
I regularly listen to music through Vinyl LPs and Sacd. 
so to say that the media is just a vehicle for music. 
Mqa, behind its technical background, has GREAT marketing. Bob Stewart is an entrepreneur and a manager and knows very well what "the industry" wants. He just took advantage of his technical and marketing skills developed at Meridian. 
This said I personally don't see , for the moment, a "big brother's watching you" situation. 
if you don't like Mqa stuff you can use Qobuz or Amazon HD. Quality is superb for both as it's hi rez Flac and Qobuz user interface is really good (Amazon HD has margins for improvements...). 
When I move from Qobuz to Tidal Mqa I don't feel I'm moving from paradise to hell: they are both great listening experiences.
And both my Tannoy Canterbury SE or Martin Logan Ethos speakers are quite revealing. 

 

 

I guess you missed the part(s) about MQA's attempt and threat of an end-to-end monopolization of the music distribution chain and how unfriendly this entire scheme is to both consumer and artist alike?  

 

Moreover, please don't gloss over the numerous details presented very recently in this thread as meaningless, your relatively low post count here makes that quite suspect.

 

The recent discussion here is one of the long ago stated goal of MQA to provide the major music labels (who have a financial interest in MQA) with a "one deliverable" approach in which not only TIDAL, but other streaming platforms will receive the same lossy/Proprietary/DRM-laden adulterated quality bullshit album tracks, thereby stifling all consumer choice on the matter while charging more and re-cornering the distribution chain.

 

Concurrent with that strategy has been a slew of baseless "MQA is better than the original master" claims, parroted by the audio press complete with an additional "3rd unfold" literally birthing new worlds. That all amounts to nothing more than lousy marketing-speak, and flat out deceptive claims and lies such is lossless quality. Then there is the abomination known as MQA-CD, which isn't Redbook Compact Disc specification at all. Please, we should be paying MP3 tier pricing for that garbage.

 

The above is a brief refresher should you or anyone else be unaware, but it hardly scratches the surface of what's already been detailed in this very thread over several year's time.

 

Are we to believe from your 4th post here that you subscribe to Qobuz, TIDAL, and Amazon HD, and truly think others don't face any threat either now or in the future from an MQA-only landscape? That is your 2 cents?

 

Why would someone subscribe to 3 paid streaming services unless they enjoy wasting money? 

[asdf1000]

53 minutes ago, MikeyFresh said:

Then there is the abomination known as MQA-CD, which isn't Redbook Compact Disc specification at all. Please, we should be paying MP3 tier pricing for that garbage.

 

This is something awfully bad. This is objectively worse than CD quality.

 

Speaking specifically about MQA-CD, this is false advertising:

 

 

[Alex McBellott]

2 hours ago, MikeyFresh said:

 

I guess you missed the part(s) about MQA's attempt and threat of an end-to-end monopolization of the music distribution chain and how unfriendly this entire scheme is to both consumer and artist alike?  

 

Moreover, please don't gloss over the numerous details presented very recently in this thread as meaningless, your relatively low post count here makes that quite suspect.

 

The recent discussion here is one of the long ago stated goal of MQA to provide the major music labels (who have a financial interest in MQA) with a "one deliverable" approach in which not only TIDAL, but other streaming platforms will receive the same lossy/Proprietary/DRM-laden adulterated quality bullshit album tracks, thereby stifling all consumer choice on the matter while charging more and re-cornering the distribution chain.

 

Concurrent with that strategy has been a slew of baseless "MQA is better than the original master" claims, parroted by the audio press complete with an additional "3rd unfold" literally birthing new worlds. That all amounts to nothing more than lousy marketing-speak, and flat out deceptive claims and lies such is lossless quality. Then there is the abomination known as MQA-CD, which isn't Redbook Compact Disc specification at all. Please, we should be paying MP3 tier pricing for that garbage.

 

The above is a brief refresher should you or anyone else be unaware, but it hardly scratches the surface of what's already been detailed in this very thread over several year's time.

 

Are we to believe from your 4th post here that you subscribe to Qobuz, TIDAL, and Amazon HD, and truly think others don't face any threat either now or in the future from an MQA-only landscape? That is your 2 cents?

 

Why would someone subscribe to 3 paid streaming services unless they enjoy wasting money? 

Everybody can have a bad day and it seems this is yours. Just relax and MAYBE tomorrow can be a better one for you. 
 

this said... I really don't understand all your rage. Apart some personal reasons i'm not interested in. 
 

I've read, in the recent years, many technical white papers about Mqa and, considering my job, I think I have enough experience to understand the business model and strategy behind this Mqa "standard". 
 

So what?

 

A lot of people hate Mqa. Listen to Qobuz. Listen to Amazon HD. Where's the issue? Just don't start crusades to convince people of your one and only truth. 
 

Others are Mqa fan-boys. Listen to Tidal. Where's the issue? Just don't start crusades to convince people of your one and only truth. 
 

As written in my previous post I'm perfectly aware that there is a planned strategy and great marketing behind Mqa. Wow: what a news!

 

But I'm also aware that it sounds good. And this is what I'm interested in. 
 

I listen to music with Qobuz, Tidal and Amazon HD because I want to listen with my ears without being influenced by one fan-boy or the other. 
The day one streaming platform decreases its quality I'll abandon it. 
Otherwise I'll continue to pay for the subscriptions as I'm doing now. Without asking for your permission...

[Rexp]

3 hours ago, Alex McBellott said:

Just my personal opinion. 
i have subscriptions to Qobuz, Tidal, Amazon HD. I like to make direct comparisons. 
I regularly listen to music through Vinyl LPs and Sacd. 
so to say that the media is just a vehicle for music. 
Mqa, behind its technical background, has GREAT marketing. Bob Stewart is an entrepreneur and a manager and knows very well what "the industry" wants. He just took advantage of his technical and marketing skills developed at Meridian. 
This said I personally don't see , for the moment, a "big brother's watching you" situation. 
if you don't like Mqa stuff you can use Qobuz or Amazon HD. Quality is superb for both as it's hi rez Flac and Qobuz user interface is really good (Amazon HD has margins for improvements...). 
When I move from Qobuz to Tidal Mqa I don't feel I'm moving from paradise to hell: they are both great listening experiences.
And both my Tannoy Canterbury SE or Martin Logan Ethos speakers are quite revealing. 

 

Tidal MQA sounds crap through non MQA DAC's. So hopefully its not too difficult to understand the problem if they make all their ouput MQA'd.

[Alex McBellott]

4 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Tidal MQA sounds crap through non MQA DAC's. So hopefully its not too difficult to understand the problem if they make all their ouput MQA'd.

Really? I hope what you write is not true because I use a Matrix Audio X-Sabre Pro as a Dac from my Node 2i used as pure streamer and, as you know, in this case I have the Node 2i do the first unfolding to 24/96 and this is what arrives to the Dac via Coax. Then I apply a fast roll off linear phase filter on the X-Sabre Pro. 
I'm missing the "magic" of the Mqa filter applied by the Mqa "certified" Dac?

Mmmmmh: this is still to be proven. 
But... considering that with my actual set up the sound quality is definitely comparable with the one of the above mentioned two other streaming platforms... does it mean that with a "certified" Dac it can increase?

This is what marketing makes you believe. I personally think it's a matter of the filter that is going to be applied. And it doesn't necessarily be that the Mqa filter is better than another filter applied by a non Mqa Dac. 
Or you want to convince me that all the "magic" is to move up from reading on my Dac 192 instead of 96?

Again: this is the marketing behind Mqa. And they are good at that. 
I going to purchase a Lumin T2 or Matrix Element X to make direct comparisons with my Node 2i-X Sabre Pro combo but... I'm pretty sure end results will not make me change the idea that the thing you really need is the first unfolding in Mqa that can be done via SW without spending a single dollar or euro or Gbp. 
Again: just my PERSONAL opinion. 

[FredericV]

1 hour ago, Alex McBellott said:

Really? I hope what you write is not true because I use a Matrix Audio X-Sabre Pro as a Dac from my Node 2i used as pure streamer and, as you know, in this case I have the Node 2i do the first unfolding to 24/96 and this is what arrives to the Dac via Coax. Then I apply a fast roll off linear phase filter on the X-Sabre Pro. 
I'm missing the "magic" of the Mqa filter applied by the Mqa "certified" Dac?

MQA actually has one unfold which can restore the damage done by the crypto DRM: the first unfold.
The second and non-existing third unfold are all about upsampling the output of the first unfold, which has max 17/96 or 17/88.2 of available audio, output as 24/96 or 24/88.2.

e.g. if an MQA dac wants you to believe it's output if 24/352.8, this is actually a 24/44.1 distribution file, first unfold to 17/88.2 of actual audio data, output as 24/88.2 and then upsampled to 24/352.8

So in your case, you have the unfold that matters because of your BS device.

Those without any MQA decoder have to endure a form of crippling + higher noise floor when MQA files are being played without any form of decoding, which was not even the case with regular redbook. This is all explained in their patent, there is even deliberate crippling mentioned in it.

MQA takes away your rights to regular PCM files containing actual audio data (e.g. replace CD with crippled 13 bit MQA CD), and then sells them back to you.

[Alex McBellott]

1 hour ago, FredericV said:

MQA actually has one unfold which can restore the damage done by the crypto DRM: the first unfold.
The second and non-existing third unfold are all about upsampling the output of the first unfold, which has max 17/96 or 17/88.2 of available audio, output as 24/96 or 24/88.2.

e.g. if an MQA dac wants you to believe it's output if 24/352.8, this is actually a 24/44.1 distribution file, first unfold to 17/88.2 of actual audio data, output as 24/88.2 and then upsampled to 24/352.8

So in your case, you have the unfold that matters because of your BS device.

Those without any MQA decoder have to endure a form of crippling + higher noise floor when MQA files are being played without any form of decoding, which was not even the case with regular redbook. This is all explained in their patent, there is even deliberate crippling mentioned in it.

MQA takes away your rights to regular PCM files containing actual audio data (e.g. replace CD with crippled 13 bit MQA CD), and then sells them back to you.

Guys, feel free to continue with your crusades. 
I prefer to listen to music. Qobuz, Tidal, Amazon, Sacd, Vinyl: I don't really care. 
i'm just interested in quality and I find it with or without Mqa. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

9 minutes ago, Alex McBellott said:

Guys, feel free to continue with your crusades. 
I prefer to listen to music. Qobuz, Tidal, Amazon, Sacd, Vinyl: I don't really care. 
i'm just interested in quality and I find it with or without Mqa. 

Call it whatever you want, that doesn’t make it so. 
 

We want quality as well. That’s why we don’t want MQA. 

[Alex McBellott]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Call it whatever you want, that doesn’t make it so. 
 

We want quality as well. That’s why we don’t want MQA. 

I read that you are the founder of this site. 
in this case when you write "we" you mean that this is the official position of the entire group. 
if this is the case I leave the group immediately. 
I didn't understand this is the Anti-Mqa web site. 
my bad for not understanding it. 

[KeenObserver]

3 minutes ago, Alex McBellott said:

I read that you are the founder of this site. 
in this case when you write "we" you mean that this is the official position of the entire group. 
if this is the case I leave the group immediately. 
I didn't understand this is the Anti-Mqa web site. 
my bad for not understanding it. 

 

I find it hard to believe that you did not know exactly what this site was about.  This site is seeking the truth about MQA.

[The Computer Audiophile]

8 minutes ago, Alex McBellott said:

I read that you are the founder of this site. 
in this case when you write "we" you mean that this is the official position of the entire group. 
if this is the case I leave the group immediately. 
I didn't understand this is the Anti-Mqa web site. 
my bad for not understanding it. 

No worries. By Alex. 

[KeenObserver]

8 hours ago, Alex McBellott said:

Just my personal opinion. 
i have subscriptions to Qobuz, Tidal, Amazon HD. I like to make direct comparisons. 
I regularly listen to music through Vinyl LPs and Sacd. 
so to say that the media is just a vehicle for music. 
Mqa, behind its technical background, has GREAT marketing. Bob Stewart is an entrepreneur and a manager and knows very well what "the industry" wants. He just took advantage of his technical and marketing skills developed at Meridian. 
This said I personally don't see , for the moment, a "big brother's watching you" situation. 
if you don't like Mqa stuff you can use Qobuz or Amazon HD. Quality is superb for both as it's hi rez Flac and Qobuz user interface is really good (Amazon HD has margins for improvements...). 
When I move from Qobuz to Tidal Mqa I don't feel I'm moving from paradise to hell: they are both great listening experiences.
And both my Tannoy Canterbury SE or Martin Logan Ethos speakers are quite revealing. 

 

 

Bob Stuart is a failed business man.  Meridian lost money until Bob Stuart left. Meridian often used proprietary connects to lock you into Meridian. ( Sound familiar?).  Meridian kept it's head above water because Bob Stuart's friends in the media propped up the company.  Meridian has becime profitable now that Stuart has left.

[KeenObserver]

Great Marketing?  Repeating the same BS over and over again is great marketing? And when that fails Warner and MQA tell the market that they have no choice in the matter, That's great marketing?

 

MQA is a scheme that is only successful if it is forced on the consumer.  That is what Warner and MQA are attempting.

[FredericV]

2 hours ago, Alex McBellott said:

Guys, feel free to continue with your crusades. 
I prefer to listen to music. Qobuz, Tidal, Amazon, Sacd, Vinyl: I don't really care. 
i'm just interested in quality and I find it with or without Mqa. 

I prefer quality, and not being mislead about the resolution. MQA's resolution indicator on my Mytek DAC is the upsample resolution by the second unfold, not the actual resolution!

[PeterSt]

5 hours ago, Rexp said:

Tidal MQA sounds crap through non MQA DAC's.

 

What makes you think that MQA does *not* sound crap through MQA DAC's ?

You must be confusing DACs with Decoders. And a decoder does not need to resided in a/the DAC ...

[SoundAndMotion]

2 hours ago, Alex McBellott said:

I read that you are the founder of this site. 
in this case when you write "we" you mean that this is the official position of the entire group. 
if this is the case I leave the group immediately. 
I didn't understand this is the Anti-Mqa web site. 
my bad for not understanding it. 

Chris doesn't like MQA. I don't like MQA. But that does not mean this is an anti-MQA site. Some people here like it, and you can post on a variety of topics. Some people may disagree with some of your posts....

 But as far as I can tell, of the 5 audio web sites I regularly read, and the 1 I occasionally read, the majority of posters on all of them don't like MQA. There's one site where I think the distribution is reversed, but I don't read it anymore (not because of MQA).