HIGHRESAUDIO to stop offering MQA......

[Fokus]

Was that a form of DRM also?

 

No. There is free software to convert DSD into PCM, and DSD playback capability on a DAC does not cost anything beyond the resources to implement it.

[oneway23]

My Schiit multi-bit Modi plays MQA files just fine via Tidal, which costs me the same $20 it did before all of the "sky is falling" Chicken Little's started bumping into each other, scampering around in a circle.

 

MQA may not be faultless, but, the industry isn't sustaining itself off of the .001% of music fans who spend $24.99 an album on hi-res PCM. It is valued by people like us on forums like this, yes, but, it's a niche within a niche, with no hope of any reasonable level of mass-market acceptance. You have to sometimes chuckle at what folks on such forums believe is "normal."

 

DRM or no DRM, lossy or loseless...At this point, I'll take any option to start people on the road to better sound. Let's get Tidal to stop artificially inflating user numbers and work from there.

[rbbert]

My Schiit Modi multi-bit plays MQA via Tidal just fine. No new equipment needed.

Not exactly, as even a superficial reading of MQA topics almost anywhere will demonstrate...

[EuroChamp]

So back when DSD became the rage and everyone needed to purchase a new "DSD ready" Dac it was ok. That was back in 2011 and now nearly every A/V receiver has the ability to not only play and decode DSD but stream it.

 

Was that a form of DRM also?

 

Not totally correct in my opinion:

DSD came and died, nobody wanted it. Now we have a rebirth of DSD, which, as far as I understood it, is customer driven.

[oneway23]

Not exactly, as even a superficial reading of MQA topics almost anywhere will demonstrate...

 

I'm not sure why people believe that a snide tone on a forum will somehow make their opinion or statement more true...

 

I've read more than my fair share on the topic. I personally don't believe that a second "unfolding", or "rendering", via MQA-certified DAC, serves any great purpose. 24/96 is easily obtainable via Tidal's software unfolding, which is more than sufficient.

[witchdoctor]

Universal isn't going convert anything they don't have signed contracts with the artists to distribute. And then we get back to the question of just how much hi-res stuff they have to convert to MQA.

 

Do you work at universal? Your claim is the exact opposite of what the CTO of universal just stated. Check the threads here to read the interview.

[Jud]

So back when DSD became the rage and everyone needed to purchase a new "DSD ready" Dac it was ok. That was back in 2011 and now nearly every A/V receiver has the ability to not only play and decode DSD but stream it.

 

Was that a form of DRM also?

 

No. There is free software to convert DSD into PCM, and DSD playback capability on a DAC does not cost anything beyond the resources to implement it.

 

Not totally correct in my opinion:

DSD came and died, nobody wanted it. Now we have a rebirth of DSD, which, as far as I understood it, is customer driven.

 

DSD died initially because Sony insisted on treating customers as pirates and locked DSD up tight with the SACD physical format. Ironically they did this while sigma delta modulation took over recording studios and DACs. People eventually began working with DSD, which is not as a format DRM-encumbered, apart from physical SACDs, which are. Although SACDs and the accompanying DRM may still to at least some extent weigh on the market for DSD (witness the popularity of the SACD ripping threads on this site), as a separate thing from SACD it seems to be making a bit of a comeback.

[Jud]

A couple of years ago hi-res sellers got into trouble because of standard-res content masquerading as hi-res.

 

This they solved by installing incoming inspection on the files they received from the labels. For this you subject the digital file to static and/or dynamic spectral analysis. There are plenty of tools available for this.

 

With MQA the signal is hidden, and remains hidden until decoded by a compliant device. Analysis in the digital domain is not possible. Low-res content can easily be hidden in an MQA container and no-one would be the wiser. The 'A' of MQA does not guarantee anything about the provenance of the actual source.

 

They try to be a store where the customer can have faith in the quality of the downloads. At least to the extent that fake (upsampled) hi-rez files will not be offered, as this is perceived as misleading.

 

It's like the difference between Amazon and Acoustic Sounds or Music Direct. Amazon sells anything, without checking the quality, while the audiophile stores try only to offer high quality releases.

 

I have a little less than complete confidence in the process.

 

 

A few years ago I bought a download from a site that now says they inspect everything. Another member looked at it with analysis tools and found it to be pretty horribly mangled - I don't remember that upsampled low rez was part of the problem, but there were very strange things going on with the frequency response.

 

 

After the site posted the note about checking everything, I sent a note or two inquiring about whether there was a new improved version of the download, or if they could make inquiries with the label about getting such an improved version if available. No response, ever.

[labjr]

I have a little less than complete confidence in the process.

 

 

A few years ago I bought a download from a site that now says they inspect everything. Another member looked at it with analysis tools and found it to be pretty horribly mangled - I don't remember that upsampled low rez was part of the problem, but there were very strange things going on with the frequency response.

 

 

After the site posted the note about checking everything, I sent a note or two inquiring about whether there was a new improved version of the download, or if they could make inquiries with the label about getting such an improved version if available. No response, ever.

 

Seems like you're talking about HDTracks. I don't see how people who also own an audiophile record label can be like they are. I don't believe they ever corrected the Joni Mitchell LOTC screw up. However, I don't see how MQA will make the record labels more ethical. And may make it easier to cover up fakes.

[firedog]

I have a little less than complete confidence in the process.

 

 

A few years ago I bought a download from a site that now says they inspect everything. Another member looked at it with analysis tools and found it to be pretty horribly mangled - I don't remember that upsampled low rez was part of the problem, but there were very strange things going on with the frequency response.

 

 

After the site posted the note about checking everything, I sent a note or two inquiring about whether there was a new improved version of the download, or if they could make inquiries with the label about getting such an improved version if available. No response, ever.

 

I had a similar situation with "A Love Supreme", that was shown to be fake. A year or two later HDT started selling a "real" hi-res remaster. I wrote them and they gave me the new improved version for free.

[Jud]

Seems like you're talking about HDTracks.

 

 

 

Got it in one.

 

 

 

However, I don't see how MQA will make the record labels more ethical.

 

 

 

Short of Jesus Himself appearing to them, I'm not sure what would. (And the RIAA would probably want to check the Holy Hard Drive for illegal mp3s.)

 

 

 

And may make it easier to cover up fakes.

 

 

Quite possibly. I am actually far less worried about "fake" hi res than I am about plain old crap. This follows directly from the fact that mastering means far more than resolution to my listening enjoyment. You'll note the download I mentioned in my previous post may well have been "authentic hi res" (i.e., not converted from a lower sample rate), but it was indubitably crap.

 

 

 

By the same token, there are albums I have listened to via MQA stream that have sounded good (and in some cases were a large improvement on the previously available master), while there are others taken from "authentic hi res" masters that were headache-inducing. In the latter cases I think it's very likely I'd be nearly as or equally unhappy with a non-MQA hi res version of the same mastering.

[Jud]

I had a similar situation with "A Love Supreme", that was shown to be fake. A year or two later HDT started selling a "real" hi-res remaster. I wrote them and they gave me the new improved version for free.

 

Lucky man. You want to write them about my complaint?

[oneway23]

I had a similar situation with "A Love Supreme", that was shown to be fake. A year or two later HDT started selling a "real" hi-res remaster. I wrote them and they gave me the new improved version for free.

 

I've mentioned this before elsewhere, so, I apologize if this is redundant, but, the same happened for me. Actually, in my case, I believe they offered either a refund or the new download.

[bogi]

Good questions. I suspect it is all hirez sales will go down due to MQA streaming. Universal will convert their entire catalog!! To get hirez all you will need is a phone and ear buds. People will still buy hirez but MQA streaming will surely siphon off some sales just like red book streaming siphoned off CD and itune sales.

 

Take typical people who use steaming and typical people who download hires. Do you think they are mostly the same people? I don't think so.

 

Typical persons who use streaming don't care about hires. However, some Tidal users may try MQA. Maybe temporarily, maybe for longer time.

 

Typical persons, who are downloading hires are using dedicated DACs. Now do you think that most of them is going to change their DAC because of MQA? I don't think so. Do you think most of them plans to substitute hires downloads with MQA streaming? Reading this forum I didn't get such impression. Maybe non MQA FLAC type hires streaming has more potential. Maybe a poll on this forum could answer this question.

[Cebolla]

Indeed. Not sure why some are still fixated on HiRes streaming only being deliverable by MQA.

[Samuel T Cogley]

I'm not sure why people believe that a snide tone on a forum will somehow make their opinion or statement more true...

 

I've read more than my fair share on the topic. I personally don't believe that a second "unfolding", or "rendering", via MQA-certified DAC, serves any great purpose. 24/96 is easily obtainable via Tidal's software unfolding, which is more than sufficient.

 

The second bolded sentence strongly suggests that you were being willfully disingenuous with the first. Who exactly is being snide again?

[oneway23]

The second bolded sentence strongly suggests that you were being willfully disingenuous with the first. Who exactly is being snide again?

 

Big difference between my offering a personal opinion and rbbert questioning someone's knowledge that even a "superficial" level of reading would apparently have cleared up.

 

I wasn't referring to you, personally, as snide, yet, you felt compelled to call me out on it? Why?

[realhifi]

DSD died initially because Sony insisted on treating customers as pirates and locked DSD up tight with the SACD physical format. Ironically they did this while sigma delta modulation took over recording studios and DACs. People eventually began working with DSD, which is not as a format DRM-encumbered, apart from physical SACDs, which are. Although SACDs and the accompanying DRM may still to at least some extent weigh on the market for DSD (witness the popularity of the SACD ripping threads on this site), as a separate thing from SACD it seems to be making a bit of a comeback.

 

You mean you couldn't (or can't) record a SACD from analog outputs from a SACD player? What is DRM anyway? Not as in what does the acronym mean but how is it stopping someone from copying something to another format?

[realhifi]

Not totally correct in my opinion:

DSD came and died, nobody wanted it. Now we have a rebirth of DSD, which, as far as I understood it, is customer driven.

 

I wonder how many people in my city know what DSD is and then how many that do actually pursue and purchase DSD recordings. I know a few audiophiles in my area and none of the ones I know purchase DSD recordings. A lot of them still use discs as their main source.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Big difference between my offering a personal opinion and rbbert questioning someone's knowledge that even a "superficial" level of reading would apparently have cleared up.

 

I wasn't referring to you, personally, as snide, yet, you felt compelled to call me out on it? Why?

 

You claimed a Mimby would decode MQA. It doesn't. Someone pointed that out. Your response was that you didn't "believe" in decoding anyway. None of this changes the fact that your Mimby does not decode MQA. It's classic sour grapes.

 

I hope that answers your query.

[oneway23]

Not at all. I apologize if the post wasn't clear, but, I never claimed in the post that my mimby was responsible for decoding MQA. I meant that a new DAC wasn't a requirement to enjoy the benefits of MQA. The Tidal software decoding, which does, in fact, do the first unfold before sending the audio to my mimby at 24/96, is sufficient for my purposes after reading and testing. It is my personal belief that an MQA certified DAC, which is responsible for all subsequent folds after Tidal's software decode, is largely a non-factor.

 

I'd be a pretty petty person if an audio discussion on a forum led to "classic sour grapes." An unnecessary jab. It's really not all that serious...I apologize.

[ElviaCaprice]

I wonder how many people in my city know what DSD is and then how many that do actually pursue and purchase DSD recordings. I know a few audiophiles in my area and none of the ones I know purchase DSD recordings. A lot of them still use discs as their main source.

 

More than those pursuing MQA, which is about the maximum potential reach for it (MQA) also, unless it gets forced through DRM/greed.

[realhifi]

More than those pursuing MQA, which is about the maximum potential reach for it (MQA) also, unless it gets forced through DRM/greed.

 

Actually no. Of those I mentioned that did not purchase DSD all of them were aware of MQA. Two were already Tidal subscribers and the others knew about Tidal and were giving it more serious thought after hearing about the MQA tie in.

 

PS. If I have anything to do with it (and I do) many more will know about MQA in the coming year.

[rbbert]

I'm not sure why people believe that a snide tone on a forum will somehow make their opinion or statement more true...

 

I've read more than my fair share on the topic. I personally don't believe that a second "unfolding", or "rendering", via MQA-certified DAC, serves any great purpose. 24/96 is easily obtainable via Tidal's software unfolding, which is more than sufficient.

 

it wasn't a snide comment. You are a member at enough other forums besides this one to realize that all those people who have heard MQA with or without a MQA-capable DAC claim a significant difference (improvement) with an MQA DAC. As far as you have posted, you have not yet listened with an MQA DAC, so what you "believe" may (or more pertinently, may not) be true.

[oneway23]

it wasn't a snide comment. You are a member at enough other forums besides this one to realize that all those people who have heard MQA with or without a MQA-capable DAC claim a significant difference (improvement) with an MQA DAC. As far as you have posted, you have not yet listened with an MQA DAC, so what you "believe" may (or more pertinently, may not) be true.

 

This is why, if you'll notice, I always try to make a point to put phrases such as "In my opinion", "My personal view", etc., into my posts. I'm not on here making any grand proclamations, or attempts at larger statements about anyone else's experience. I can only speak from my own.

 

I've purchased many high-resolution albums in both 24/96 and 24/192 PCM. I've even, in one or two cases, purchased both for the same album with the aim of direct comparison. ON MY SYSTEM and TO MY EARS, I have to focus with the intensity of a Jedi to notice even the slightest difference. 24/96, therefore, is my personal sweet-spot.

 

Taking that into account, knowing that 24/96 is historically perfectly suitable for my needs, I was thrilled when I discovered that Tidal was handling the first unfolding, giving audibly-transparent 24/96. I've since done more A/Bing between my hi-res files and Tidal's "Masters" than is probably considered sustainable for mental stability, and, much to my delight, there's little, if any, difference...Wonderful! I'm having a great time with Tidal and MQA.

 

Never at any point did I get on here and disparage the idea of an MQA DAC, nor did I actively discourage anyone from going out to buy one. In fact, in the post that you quoted, I said, "I personally don't believe", did I not? You know why that is? It's because I, me, myself, am thrilled to be getting audibly transparent 24/96. I don't care how many additional unfolds an MQA DAC does, because no 24/192 download has even shown me that I'm missing anything meaningful. Your experience may be different, it may not.

 

I concede that I have not yet heard an MQA DAC, though I am completely open to the possibility that it may offer an improvement. I guess I'm just content with my 24/96 for now.

 

By the way, why put the word believe in quotes? Beliefs don't require empirical proof, they're personal. Putting it in quotes is nothing more than a subtle attempt at being insulting.