MQA is Vaporware

[firedog]

1 hour ago, Don Blas De Lezo said:

 If Tidal offered to pay me 50 bucks cash monthly to use it and Qobuz doubled their price , I would still stick with Qobuz easily .  I'll put sound quality and morals above saving a few bucks any day. 

Morals and bucks discussions don't make a lot of sense without know each participants level of disposable income. One person's insignificant amount is significant for another.

[Daren F]

10 minutes ago, firedog said:

Morals and bucks discussions don't make a lot of sense without know each participants level of disposable income. One person's insignificant amount is significant for another.

 

I don't disagree with what you're saying but, 40% off of $20.00 is $14.29. About the same price as a qobuz account.

[Shimei]

37 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

Problem is your Dirac Live IS NOT compatible with MQA. MQA does not allow any Room correction software to be used on it's files as it already used DSP as part of the decoding/encoding.

 

 

 

Thank you for this additional information. 

Explains, perhaps, why to my ears I preferred no room correction in the end result. 
I've ditched Dirac Live for near four months now. 

Appreciate you input. 

[Shimei]

32 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Couldn't disagree more strongly. There have always been Walmart shoppers and always will be. That doesn't mean the rest of us don't exist. 

Ha love your response,

Please excuse my defeated morale in sarcasm. 
You gents have been enjoyable to engage w/. 
I need spend more time here. 

Enjoy!

[KeenObserver]

Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the consumer.

I would not care if people chose to buy into MQA. IF it was a choice! The business model of MQA and the studios backing it is that MQA would be THE distribution method for all music.

Look at the video of RMAF 2018 and imagine a world where those people were the ones running the entire music distribution chain!

There will always be those that accept the contaminated brandy as their lot in life. And there will be those that choose to have a free and open choice.

[asdf1000]

On 9/18/2019 at 7:56 AM, Rt66indierock said:

Spotify has marketing research that says people aren't interested in hi-res or CD quality streaming.

 

The golfing buddies didn't factor in The Amazon effect? 

 

Next up Apple Music and YouTube music...

 

https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/22/22295273/spotify-hifi-announced-lossless-streaming-hd-quality

[Allan F]

6 hours ago, Shimei said:

There used to be a time when contradictions were indicators of illogic, irrationality, or hypocrisy. However, nobody really cares anymore. Welcome to the new norm. 

 

Only in Trumpland.

[KeenObserver]

Look! There's Bigfoot!

[abrxx]

On 2/21/2021 at 6:34 PM, The Computer Audiophile said:

No, MQA removes data to decrease file size. The encoded file just tells the DAC to upsample the audio to 192 or whatever high rate was the original. No data is expanded or gotten back. Given that 99% of DACs upsample internally to much higher rates than that, it’s kind of comical. 

 

That doesn't sound right. Everything I've read previously indicated that the "rendering" process involves upsampling to the highest rate of the DAC (using their custom mnimum-phase-like filters). The original sample rate is simply available as meta data to be displayed by the DAC or software.

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 minutes ago, abrxx said:

 

That doesn't sound right. Everything I've read previously indicated that the "rendering" process involves upsampling to the highest rate of the DAC (using their custom mnimum-phase-like filters). The original sample rate is simply available as meta data to be displayed by the DAC or software.

That certainly could be the case.
 

Displaying a sample rate that’s not delivered or played is classic. It’s the grift that keeps on gifting. At one time the file was 24/192, however you get it at 17/96 and it’s played at 768, but we’ll show you 192. Clear as mud. 

[AudioDoctor]

All other arguments aside, the fact that Qobuz sounds better than TIDAL, and not by a small margin, should be enough to seal the deal. I will admit I have a TIDAL subscription but that's because I have people in my house that like music that Qobuz doesn't have. If that were no longer an issue I would drop TIDAL like a hot potato. However, I do not infect my personal Euphony Server with TIDAL, that stays in the Roon library on an entirely different machine, I have some standards...  ;-)

[ShawnC]

5 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

That certainly could be the case.
 

Displaying a sample rate that’s not delivered or played is classic. It’s the grift that keeps on gifting. At one time the file was 24/192, however you get it at 17/96 and it’s played at 768, but we’ll show you 192. Clear as mud. 

In a recent thread on MQA on the Roon site, a long time contributor and MQA advocate (but thankfully respectable) was showing how his Meridian speakers displayed he was listening to wonderful sounding MQA at 352K.  Myself and another Roon member had to inform him that Meridian Speakers max out at 96K by there internal DACs. 

 

Years ago when I was researching Meridian speakers I was surprised that have never updated their DACs to meet the higher rate demanded by the consumer, yet their eager to display what the consumer wants, even if it can't deliver.

 

It's amazing how many MQA lovers know so little about how it works.  And why do they always say its beautiful?  No matter what genre it's always beautiful.  I never use that term describing music, maybe a live performance at the Opera but not a recording.

[firedog]

4 hours ago, ShawnC said:

Years ago when I was researching Meridian speakers I was surprised that have never updated their DACs to meet the higher rate demanded by the consumer, yet their eager to display what the consumer wants, even if it can't deliver.

it's still not uncommon for DRC systems to work at rates of 96 or even 48.

[Shimei]

9 hours ago, AudioDoctor said:

All other arguments aside, the fact that Qobuz sounds better than TIDAL, and not by a small margin, should be enough to seal the deal. I will admit I have a TIDAL subscription but that's because I have people in my house that like music that Qobuz doesn't have. If that were no longer an issue I would drop TIDAL like a hot potato. However, I do not infect my personal Euphony Server with TIDAL, that stays in the Roon library on an entirely different machine, I have some standards...  ;-)

 

I haven't actually auditioned Qobuz after scrapping Dirac Live from out of the audio chain. Next month I'm going to revisit Qobuz. 
Question, anyone have anything to offer by way of equipment? I'm streaming from a Bluesound Node 2i directly to an amplifier. The once bottleneck [Dirac Live through a Minidsp DDRC-88A / BM] has been removed. 
Anyone aware of the Bluesound not being able to deliver the sampling rate Qobuz advertises? 
I'm using the internal DAC w/in the Bluesound Node 2i for 2.1 channel signaling. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, Shimei said:

 

I haven't actually auditioned Qobuz after scrapping Dirac Live from out of the audio chain. Next month I'm going to revisit Qobuz. 
Question, anyone have anything to offer by way of equipment? I'm streaming direct from a Bluesound Node 2i directly to an amplifier. The once bottleneck [Dirac Live through a Minidsp DDRC-88A / BM] has been removed. 
Anyone aware of the Bluesound not being able to deliver the sampling rate Qobuz advertises? 
I'm using the internal DAC w/in the Bluesound Node 2i for 2.1 channel signaling. 

The Node 2i is a gem. 

[botrytis]

10 hours ago, abrxx said:

 

That doesn't sound right. Everything I've read previously indicated that the "rendering" process involves upsampling to the highest rate of the DAC (using their custom mnimum-phase-like filters). The original sample rate is simply available as meta data to be displayed by the DAC or software.

 

NOPE - that is NOT what the patent on MQA shows.  Go through this thread and MQA is explained pedantically by people who are way smarter than I am. To them I owe a nod of thanks because it made me a more informed consumer.

 

The reason MQA files are not that much smaller than the 'same' resolution FLAC file is that FLAC cannot compact the MQA rendered file well. It is kind of like taking one zip file and putting it into another zip file. There will be no shrinking of the data because the data repeats cannot be found to put into the pointer part of the file. If one does not know what I am talking about, zip actually looks at the whole file and if there are certain data repeats, it places a pointer there and at the beginning of the file it puts a dictionary of all the pointers with what data they belong to, so one can reconstitute the file after decompressing.

[Abtr]

14 hours ago, AudioDoctor said:

All other arguments aside, the fact that Qobuz sounds better than TIDAL, and not by a small margin, should be enough to seal the deal. I will admit I have a TIDAL subscription but that's because I have people in my house that like music that Qobuz doesn't have. If that were no longer an issue I would drop TIDAL like a hot potato. However, I do not infect my personal Euphony Server with TIDAL, that stays in the Roon library on an entirely different machine, I have some standards...  ;-)

Whathifi doesn't agree with you: https://www.whathifi.com/us/qobuz/review

 

Anyway, apart from MQA and true high-res, which may sound different, there is no audible difference IME between Qobuz and Tidal when the same lossless redbook version of an album is streamed from either service using the same hardware. Are you sure you have exclusive mode and force volume checked and loudness normalisation unchecked in the Tidal client?

[botrytis]

51 minutes ago, Abtr said:

Whathifi doesn't agree with you: https://www.whathifi.com/us/qobuz/review

 

Anyway, apart from MQA and true high-res, which may sound different, there is no audible difference IME between Qobuz and Tidal when the same lossless redbook version of an album is streamed from either service using the same hardware. Are you sure you have exclusive mode and force volume checked and loudness normalisation unchecked in the Tidal client?

 

 

Whathifi also did a bullshit review of MQA that was just a regurgitation of all the adverts that MQA has put out. Sorry if I don't trust a rag that does that.

[AudioDoctor]

1 hour ago, Abtr said:

Whathifi doesn't agree with you: https://www.whathifi.com/us/qobuz/review

 

Anyway, apart from MQA and true high-res, which may sound different, there is no audible difference IME between Qobuz and Tidal when the same lossless redbook version of an album is streamed from either service using the same hardware. Are you sure you have exclusive mode and force volume checked and loudness normalisation unchecked in the Tidal client?

 

I am going to have to politely disagree with you.

[Abtr]

53 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

I am going to have to politely disagree with you.

I agree that the Whathifi article is BS. And IMO there is no obvious way the exact same bits will result in different sound depending on whether they are streamed from a Qobuz, or a Tidal server, especially when they are buffered and reclocked by a modern USB DAC. But I agree to disagree. It's basically the old bits are bits discussion and as such it has nothing to do with MQA.

[Currawong]

4 hours ago, Abtr said:

I agree that the Whathifi article is BS. And IMO there is no obvious way the exact same bits will result in different sound depending on whether they are streamed from a Qobuz, or a Tidal server, especially when they are buffered and reclocked by a modern USB DAC. But I agree to disagree. It's basically the old bits are bits discussion and as such it has nothing to do with MQA.

 

You may wish to investigate, with some depth, how USB works. There is plenty of discussion in other threads about this.

[KeenObserver]

I am not entirely familiar with UK accounting principles. Does the 16 February filing on Company House indicate that MQA issued stock to cover a loan?

[lucretius]

On 2/16/2021 at 11:17 PM, Archimago said:

Darko is a salesman. He believes whatever the companies tell him to believe, be it expensive cables or promoting MQA. Of course, other audio magazines are like this as well...

 

This certainly appears to be the result, although I cannot say what Drako's intent was.

[lucretius]

On 2/14/2021 at 1:55 PM, KeenObserver said:

There are a number of people that still believe the BS that MQA spews.

 

I sometimes get confused between bs and B.S., although that's likely a moot point.

[lucretius]

On 2/16/2021 at 11:17 PM, Archimago said:

I think that labelling "anti-MQA" audiophiles as "extremists" is rather silly of Darko.

 

Why even use the anti-MQA label? Since when is MQA the reference? (Labelling the opposing view as "anti" is an old strategy.) How about "pro-lossless"?