MQA is Vaporware

[Don Blas De Lezo]

2 hours ago, Revelation said:

 

 

I know converters and it sounds like Qobuz are using Mytek converters which have a very open detailed sound but slightly edgy on the top end.

 

So you got the Qobuz option where you get an analog signal out of the Qobuz converters and into a line in on your pre/amp ?  What kind of cable do Qobuz use out of their Mytek converters and into your home ? If its silver or silver-coated , that can also contribute to brightness or edgy-ness .  I have so many more questions but I must now continue to roll around on my living room floor whilst stabbing myself in the eye with a plastic fork much to the bemusement of my wife .   

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 hours ago, Revelation said:

I know converters and it sounds like Qobuz are using Mytek converters

No streaming service uses a converter. The digital files from the labels are placed on a CDN and delivered to your audio device. 

[Revelation]

20 minutes ago, Don Blas De Lezo said:

 

So you got the Qobuz option where you get an analog signal out of the Qobuz converters and into a line in on your pre/amp ?  What kind of cable do Qobuz use out of their Mytek converters and into your home ? If its silver or silver-coated , that can also contribute to brightness or edgy-ness .  I have so many more questions but I must now continue to roll around on my living room floor whilst stabbing myself in the eye with a plastic fork much to the bemusement of my wife .   

You need to read my post better. I said it sounds like the Mytek. I never said they are using Mytek converters 

[Don Blas De Lezo]

2 minutes ago, Revelation said:

You need to read my post better. I said it sounds like the Mytek. I never said they are using Mytek converters 

 

" I know converters and it sounds like Qobuz are using Mytek converters ... "    Streaming services do not use converters , Mytek or other ... they just stream the file to your player to be converted by your converter.    

[botrytis]

8 hours ago, watts said:

 

 

Yeah, that whole "ad" is weird.

 

First, who cares if one MQA track sounds better than another MQA track? The point is what is the advantage of MQA over lossless? It has become quite clear: none. 

 

Second, there are actually people out there using a $150 DAC with a $2000 digital cable?

 

Third, I am not knocking that Zen DAC, but what would the consumer cost of it be if they didn't have the MQA fees on it? 

 

We know - about 100 USD. That was the difference between one Topping model with and without mQa.

[Revelation]

5 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

We know - about 100 USD. That was the difference between one Topping model with and without mQa.

You guys are too much. 

 The main difference D50 has ESS ES9038Q2M Sabre chips,and the D70 has dual AK4497 DAC chips.

[danadam]

9 hours ago, Revelation said:

 The main difference D50 has ESS ES9038Q2M Sabre chips,and the D70 has dual AK4497 DAC chips.

What does this have to do with anything? The price difference between D90 with and without MQA was about 100 ($ or €):

https://apos.audio/blogs/news/topping-d90se-vs-d90-comparison-chart

 

At audiophonics.fr (but discontinued): D90 non-mqa 749 €, D90 mqa 849 €

[botrytis]

11 hours ago, Revelation said:

You guys are too much. 

 The main difference D50 has ESS ES9038Q2M Sabre chips,and the D70 has dual AK4497 DAC chips.

 

It was the same model which had mQa and non mQa and it was on Archimago's site.

[Pierre LeMonf]

19 hours ago, Revelation said:

You need to read my post better. I said it sounds like the Mytek. I never said they are using Mytek converters 

Your premise sounds rather ridiculous. 

[botrytis]

11 hours ago, danadam said:

What does this have to do with anything? The price difference between D90 with and without MQA was about 100 ($ or €):

https://apos.audio/blogs/news/topping-d90se-vs-d90-comparison-chart

 

At audiophonics.fr (but discontinued): D90 non-mqa 749 €, D90 mqa 849 €

 

That is the mQa tax. That is how much it costs to use the 'patented' mQa file grinder system.

[AudioDoctor]

On 1/3/2022 at 4:57 PM, Don Blas De Lezo said:

 

So you got the Qobuz option where you get an analog signal out of the Qobuz converters and into a line in on your pre/amp ?  What kind of cable do Qobuz use out of their Mytek converters and into your home ? If its silver or silver-coated , that can also contribute to brightness or edgy-ness .  I have so many more questions but I must now continue to roll around on my living room floor whilst stabbing myself in the eye with a plastic fork much to the bemusement of my wife .   

 

YOU HAVE QUESTIONS?  MAN, I HAVE EVEN MORE...

[AudioDoctor]

On 1/3/2022 at 2:24 PM, Revelation said:

I got Qobuz going on my NAD preamp and Focal Aria speakers. I found some songs sound better than Tidal,  Tidal sounding better Qobuz and some sound too similar to say which one is better.

 

1. The Beatles remixed Let it Be album. Get Back sound great on both. 

2. Rolling Stones Tatto you: Start me Up. Tidal sounded better. There was a slight edge on the snare drum on Qobuz. 

3. Donald Fagen Nightfly IGY. Tidal is warmer and louder. The CD is closer to Qobuz which sounds better than Tidal.

4. Rolling Stones.  A rock and a hard place. Qobuz is a very clean and slightly edgy. Tidal sounds better...though very similar, it just does not have that edge. 

5. The Eagles Hotel California from Hell Freezes over. I hear that same crystal slightly hard edge on Qobuz that I heard on A rock and a hard place. Tidal is slightly more easy on your ears.

 

I know converters and it sounds like Qobuz are using Mytek converters which have a very open detailed sound but slightly edgy on the top end.

 

That's not the revelation you think it is...

[sphinxsix]

1 hour ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

That's not the revelation you think it is...

 

This OTOH.... (to be revealed soon...)

 

 

[Currawong]

On 1/4/2022 at 5:24 AM, Revelation said:

I got Qobuz going on my NAD preamp and Focal Aria speakers. I found some songs sound better than Tidal,  Tidal sounding better Qobuz and some sound too similar to say which one is better.

 

1. The Beatles remixed Let it Be album. Get Back sound great on both. 

2. Rolling Stones Tatto you: Start me Up. Tidal sounded better. There was a slight edge on the snare drum on Qobuz. 

3. Donald Fagen Nightfly IGY. Tidal is warmer and louder. The CD is closer to Qobuz which sounds better than Tidal.

4. Rolling Stones.  A rock and a hard place. Qobuz is a very clean and slightly edgy. Tidal sounds better...though very similar, it just does not have that edge. 

5. The Eagles Hotel California from Hell Freezes over. I hear that same crystal slightly hard edge on Qobuz that I heard on A rock and a hard place. Tidal is slightly more easy on your ears.

 

I know converters and it sounds like Qobuz are using Mytek converters which have a very open detailed sound but slightly edgy on the top end.

 

Since the Beatles seem to have been MQA'd by hand, the sound is pretty good. Much of the modern pop I've heard sounds like it has been run through a 3D plug-in of sorts, making it sound more spacious. This is not such a bad thing -- I have the Audeze Mobius, and, even though their sound quality is OK normally, when you enable 3D mode, listening is much nicer. They are great for watching Youtube videos, but that's another discussion. 

 

But, my point is, if MQA had just simply offered to process new pop and the like albums, without all the marketing nonsense, I don't think there would have either been an issue with the quality of the result, nor the process. 

 

Where there definitely IS a problem comes when you listen to older music mastered onto tape. Take Miles Davis and the like -- it has had the bass boosted and the sound quality is distinctly degraded.  Classical, likewise, has been passed through some kind of noise reduction, and the atmospheric cues that our brain uses to interpret the space have been removed, so it sounds unnatural. 

 

I'm starting to believe that MQA is just another Theranos, and that, excepting the folding, their secret source is just a bunch of existing plug-ins. In other words the whole nonsense about b-splines and time domain stuff is just a smokescreen for some fancy mastering using existing software.

[firedog]

3 hours ago, Currawong said:

Since the Beatles seem to have been MQA'd by hand, the sound is pretty good.

Since the original individual tape tracks were digitized at 24/192 in about 2009 (as were the completed analog master tapes), and kept as digital masters, the exact provenance of those masters is known, and the ADC is certainly known. It's probably still at Abbey Road.

So if you did a white glove conversion of these to MQA, you could get a very good result, much better than batch conversion.

[Phil Baker]

To those comparing Tidal with MQA and Qobuz, this is simple to understand and not at all complex. It's right in front of our eyes.

 

1. Qobuz and other true hi-res services deliver the original artists' master files at 192/24 in the open lossless FLAC standard. It's as close to what the artist created as anything that exists.
 

2. Tidal w/ MQA manipulates/processes/modifies the artists' master files. They then call these files Tidal Masters, usurping the definition of what a master file really is. Furthermore, to create these imitation masters, MQA charges the record companies and the customer for the manipulation. 

 

In one case you get the authentic original in an open lossless format. In the other case you get a manipulated version in a proprietary format.

 

MQA was originally invented as a way to reduce the size of the file when data transmission and memory costs were high, a worthwhile purpose. But, these costs have plummeted, so now there is no good reason for MQA.

[The Computer Audiophile]

38 minutes ago, Phil Baker said:

To those comparing Tidal with MQA and Qobuz, this is simple to understand and not at all complex. It's right in front of our eyes.

 

1. Qobuz and other true hi-res services deliver the original artists' master files at 192/24 in the open lossless FLAC standard. It's as close to what the artist created as anything that exists.
 

2. Tidal w/ MQA manipulates/processes/modifies the artists' master files. They then call these files Tidal Masters, usurping the definition of what a master file really is. Furthermore, to create these imitation masters, MQA charges the record companies and the customer for the manipulation. 

 

In one case you get the authentic original in an open lossless format. In the other case you get a manipulated version in a proprietary format.

 

MQA was originally invented as a way to reduce the size of the file when data transmission and memory costs were high, a worthwhile purpose. But, these costs have plummeted, so now there is no good reason for MQA.

 

+1000

 

 

[skraggy]

On 1/12/2022 at 2:22 AM, Phil Baker said:

 

1. Qobuz and other true hi-res services deliver the original artists' master files at 192/24 in the open lossless FLAC standard. It's as close to what the artist created as anything that exists.

 

Is that actually true? I always assumed that many of those 192/24 were newly mastered high res versions and that the original masters were mostly locked away by the record companies.

 

I have been reading this thread for a while now and I agree with most here that MQA is at the very least utterly useless. However, I still use Tidal, mostly because I just don't find Qobuz that enjoyable, since their pIaylists are, to put it delicately, a pile of steaming dog excrements. I use streaming only to discover new music and still buy the stuff I like, either on vinyl or as a download (many times both), and Tidal just works better for that (at least with my music taste).

 

 

[botrytis]

36 minutes ago, skraggy said:

 

Is that actually true? I always assumed that many of those 192/24 were newly mastered high res versions and that the original masters were mostly locked away by the record companies.

 

I have been reading this thread for a while now and I agree with most here that MQA is at the very least utterly useless. However, I still use Tidal, mostly because I just don't find Qobuz that enjoyable, since their pIaylists are, to put it delicately, a pile of steaming dog excrements. I use streaming only to discover new music and still buy the stuff I like, either on vinyl or as a download (many times both), and Tidal just works better for that (at least with my music taste).

 

 

 

Some not all but that isn't the point. Even with over sampling the file, it still gives what the musician wanted it to be. That is way different than what mQa does.

[mevdinc]

On 1/12/2022 at 4:22 AM, Phil Baker said:

To those comparing Tidal with MQA and Qobuz, this is simple to understand and not at all complex. It's right in front of our eyes.

 

1. Qobuz and other true hi-res services deliver the original artists' master files at 192/24 in the open lossless FLAC standard. It's as close to what the artist created as anything that exists.
 

2. Tidal w/ MQA manipulates/processes/modifies the artists' master files. They then call these files Tidal Masters, usurping the definition of what a master file really is. Furthermore, to create these imitation masters, MQA charges the record companies and the customer for the manipulation. 

 

In one case you get the authentic original in an open lossless format. In the other case you get a manipulated version in a proprietary format.

 

MQA was originally invented as a way to reduce the size of the file when data transmission and memory costs were high, a worthwhile purpose. But, these costs have plummeted, so now there is no good reason for MQA.

Very nicely put.

Even the last point about reducing the file size was a pointless proposition, as lossless Flac cpmpression was already around and widely used. It seems their intented purpose was something else from day one.

[mrjktcvs]

13 hours ago, mevdinc said:

Very nicely put.

Even the last point about reducing the file size was a pointless proposition, as lossless Flac cpmpression was already around and widely used. It seems their intented purpose was something else from day one.

They are trying to follow the business model Dolby used 50 years ago. The difference is Dolby made a huge difference -- we needed it.

[skraggy]

On 1/13/2022 at 9:33 PM, botrytis said:

 

Some not all but that isn't the point. Even with over sampling the file, it still gives what the musician wanted it to be. That is way different than what mQa does.

 

But does MQA actually do anything besides the whole marketing mumbo jumbo? 

 

I have never heard any MQA on one of those fancy DACs, but through Roon I cannot find any meaningful difference between Qobuz and Tidal, except when there are different masters available. If pressed I would say that Qobuz maybe, just maybe, sounds a tad bit better, but not fundamentally different.

 

Don't get me wrong though, from everything I read about this topic, I think MQA appears to be a crappy company with rather dubious intentions and I hope Tidal gives up on MQA at some point (or Roon includes Spotify or Apple). 

[botrytis]

33 minutes ago, skraggy said:

 

But does MQA actually do anything besides the whole marketing mumbo jumbo? 

 

I have never heard any MQA on one of those fancy DACs, but through Roon I cannot find any meaningful difference between Qobuz and Tidal, except when there are different masters available. If pressed I would say that Qobuz maybe, just maybe, sounds a tad bit better, but not fundamentally different.

 

Don't get me wrong though, from everything I read about this topic, I think MQA appears to be a crappy company with rather dubious intentions and I hope Tidal gives up on MQA at some point (or Roon includes Spotify or Apple). 

 

Yes, it makes music sound worse, unless you hear 'white glove conversions' then it is 50/50.

[The Computer Audiophile]

41 minutes ago, skraggy said:

 

But does MQA actually do anything besides the whole marketing mumbo jumbo? 

 

I have never heard any MQA on one of those fancy DACs, but through Roon I cannot find any meaningful difference between Qobuz and Tidal, except when there are different masters available. If pressed I would say that Qobuz maybe, just maybe, sounds a tad bit better, but not fundamentally different.

 

Don't get me wrong though, from everything I read about this topic, I think MQA appears to be a crappy company with rather dubious intentions and I hope Tidal gives up on MQA at some point (or Roon includes Spotify or Apple). 

I believe the McGill University study showed the listeners couldn’t hear a difference. If this is the case for many people, then mQa is just a tax on the entire system, without a benefit. 

[John Dyson]

1 hour ago, skraggy said:

 

But does MQA actually do anything besides the whole marketing mumbo jumbo? 

 

I have never heard any MQA on one of those fancy DACs, but through Roon I cannot find any meaningful difference between Qobuz and Tidal, except when there are different masters available. If pressed I would say that Qobuz maybe, just maybe, sounds a tad bit better, but not fundamentally different.

 

Don't get me wrong though, from everything I read about this topic, I think MQA appears to be a crappy company with rather dubious intentions and I hope Tidal gives up on MQA at some point (or Roon includes Spotify or Apple). 

The frustrating thing about the 'marketing info' is the implication that there might be a quality improvement in certain situations.  MQA can NOT make an improvement, and provides mostly decrease in technical quality.  (Note: the only way that an improvement might manifest would come from a very special/limited case.)   The only slight benefit for MQA is some data compression, but even then -- data compression is almost passe, and also there are better compression schemes with differing/better tradeoffs.  (Any allusion to better quality because of source authentication depends entirely on the person doing the sign-off, and most seem not to be a very good judge or memory of what the recordings really should sound like.)

 

Differences from mastering scheme to mastering scheme make most of the difference BY FAR.   In fact, the data/quality/perceivable changes from mastering BLOW AWAY any improvement/damage done by MQA.

 

Basically, MQA is a big nothing-burger.  It only costs the consumer, but offers no useful improvement, especially nowadays. (i.e. data compression isn't nearly as useful as in the old days, but even then -- there are better data compression methods than MQA.)

Why pay (licensing fees)for it?  Why pay another gatekeeper to the actual recording quality? 

 

The ONLY notable 'effect' is for diverting some of the income to the MQA license holders.