MQA on Tidal and Dynamic Range (DR)

[jmudrick]

If they do sound better, MQA has nothing to do with it. MQA is all about DRM. I have reverse engineered the decoder sufficiently to say that the actual audio coding parts are quite trivial. .

 

Obviously a matter of considerable disagreement as to how this "trivial coding" impacts what is heard.

 

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[mansr]

Obviously a matter of considerable disagreement as to how this "trivial coding" impacts what is heard.

 

Whatever you are hearing, you could have it without MQA. Perhaps they did some magic on the encoding end, but the result of that could just as easily have been delivered as a standard FLAC file without the need for a proprietary decoder.

[jmudrick]

Whatever you are hearing, you could have it without MQA. Perhaps they did some magic on the encoding end, but the result of that could just as easily have been delivered as a standard FLAC file without the need for a proprietary decoder.

The marginal cost of MQA decoding incorporation being less than $100 (judging from its incorporation in the Audioquest Dragonfly), many would find that a very acceptable price for price of full admission to the MQA party if better sound results. If MQA or Warner Bros or Jay Z or artists make a few bucks along the way I don't see that as a problem if it means more people get access to better sound.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[scottsol]

Whatever you are hearing, you could have it without MQA. Perhaps they did some magic on the encoding end, but the result of that could just as easily have been delivered as a standard FLAC file without the need for a proprietary decoder.

 

Woulda, coulda, shoulda. The fact is that the only meaningful hi res streaming service available in the US is using MQA. It is providing something that is otherwise not available. Everything else is nothing but speculation.

[mansr]

The marginal cost of MQA decoding incorporation being less than $100 (judging from its incorporation in the Audioquest Dragonfly), many would find that a very acceptable price for price of full admission to the MQA party if better sound results. If MQA or Warner Bros or Jay Z or artists make a few bucks along the way I don't see that as a problem if it means more people get access to better sound.

 

The Dragonfly doesn't have a full decoder. All it can do is program the ESS DAC with the indicated upsampling filter coefficients after the heavy decoding has been done in software.

 

Moreover, regardless of cost, MQA (at least the consumer end of it) has nothing to do with sound quality. If the Warner suddenly wants to deliver better quality (which I don't for a second believe they do), they could do this using existing open file formats. The only reason for choosing MQA is its DRM features.

[jmudrick]

The Dragonfly doesn't have a full decoder. All it can do is program the ESS DAC with the indicated upsampling filter coefficients after the heavy decoding has been done in software.

 

Moreover, regardless of cost, MQA (at least the consumer end of it) has nothing to do with sound quality. If the Warner suddenly wants to deliver better quality (which I don't for a second believe they do), they could do this using existing open file formats. The only reason for choosing MQA is its DRM features.

 

So you've said. It really is irrelevant what MQA "could have done" in order not to profit from its ideas, it is what it is and many are happy with what MQA offers based on initial releases however it's accomplished notwithstanding DRM poison pill concerns/paranoia.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Northern_Canuck]

+1 - drm

[audiventory]

I think the only appropriate way to evaluate MQA is on the sound quality of the files compared to other currently available sources.

 

Unfortunatelly we have no guarantee that availabe sources is real sources.

[firedog]

My point is that the record companies must be a willing participant for MQA to have any market penetration. Since MQA is inarguably a technology marketed exclusively at audiophiles, MQA's willingness to quietly use dynamically compromised (i.e., non-audiophile) input material to the MQA process is at least cynical and hypocritical.

 

Disagree with your premise. MQA is mostly intended for non-audiophiles who don't have any understanding of what's going on. It's mainly intended for streaming. Note how at Tidal it is referred to as "master" files, but no other information about it is available there. It's not even called MQA there.

 

In other words it is presented to the public as a "master quality" file b/c the labels and Tidal understand that the public actually has no idea what this means: the public only understands in some vague way that master=better. Whether it is actually better or not is irrelevant to the corporations involved and to the public. All that matters in marketing terms is that the public "thinks" it is getting something better. And I seriously doubt they give a whit what audiophiles think about it, because we aren't big enough to make any difference in the market or the viability of MQA.

 

At present it seems like it is intended for audiophiles b/c we are the only ones paying attention, and many of us will always spend money on the "next big thing" as early adopters. So they appeal to us as we help get the ball rolling.

[jmudrick]

Disagree with your premise. MQA is mostly intended for non-audiophiles who don't have any understanding of what's going on. .

 

Non audiophiles wouldn't care about MQA. Check your watch, it's 2017. Audiophiles stream.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[jhwalker]

Non audiophiles wouldn't care about MQA. Check your watch, it's 2017. Audiophiles stream.

 

Don't agree with this at all. The *vast* majority of streaming customers are not audiophiles, but are / may be attracted by the "next big thing" (e.g., "Master" / MQA / high resolution), etc., especially if it comes "free" (i.e., bundled with the service) or for a small upcharge. Audiophiles are incidental to this market.

[firedog]

Non audiophiles wouldn't care about MQA. Check your watch, it's 2017. Audiophiles stream.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

You entirely missed my point. Didn't say thataudiopiles don't steam. Bu Audiophiles are not the real target of ANY streaming service, including Tidal. The whole point of Tidal is to get non-audiophiles to pay for streaming. Otherwise it can't continue to exist. Audiophiles are not numerous enough to support it and keep it viable.

 

But you're right. Non audiophiles wouldn't care about MQA. That's why when marketing what we know as MQA to non-audiophiles, they don't call it MQA. Only audiophiles know what MQA is. You have to search at the Tidal site to find out anything about the masters and MQA. In the app, you just click on "Masters" any you get taken to those albums. Zero details available.

 

So MQA is NOT being marketed by Tidal to audiophiles. If it were, they would be providing all sorts of "audiophile" details about why it is so great. They do nothing of the sort - and they don't even call it MQA. Why do you think that is? Because they are trying to divorce it from being something that geeky audiophiles do, and appeal to a broader market that wants better sound - aka "masters" (deliberately not calling it MQA). They don't talk about unfolding or de-blurring, or anything of the sort-and barely talk about it being hi-res.

 

Lots of non-audiophiles are attracted to getting better sound - as long as it doesn't get technical and geeky (like audiophilia); and calling it "master" files also lets Tidal appeal to the snob factor. You don't have to understand or know anything about it - or even what a "master" is, but you know you are getting that "master" file which is better than what other people have.

[jmudrick]

You entirely missed my point. Audiophiles are not the target of ANY streaming service, including Tidal. The whole point of Tidal is to get non-audiophiles to pay for streaming. Otherwise it can't continue to exist. Audiophiles are not numerous enough to support it.

 

You're right. Non audiophiles wouldn't care about MQA. That's why when marketing what we know as MQA to non-audiophiles, they never call it MQA. Only audiophiles know what MQA is.

 

So MQA is NOT being marketed by Tidal to audiophiles. If it were, they would be providing all sorts of "audiophile" details about why it is so great. They do nothing of the sort - and they don't even call it MQA. Why do you think that is? Because they are trying to divorce it from being something that geeky audiophiles do, and appeal to a broader market that wants better sound - aka "masters" (deliberately not calling it MQA). They don't talk about unfolding, hi-res, or anything of the sort.

 

Lots of non-audiophiles are attracted to getting better sound - as long as it doesn't get technical and geeky (like audiophilia); and calling it "master" files also lets them appeal to the snob factor. You don't have to understand or know anything about it, but you know you are getting that "master" file which is better than what other people have.

Fine. We have differing definitions of what constitutes an audiophile.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk