Author Topic: Why I don't give a **** about MQA...  (Read 1434 times)

Offline tmazz

  • Out Of My Speaker Cabinet
  • ******
  • Posts: 8344
  • Just basking in the glow of my tubes.....
Re: Why I don't give a **** about MQA...
« Reply #15 on: February 14, 2018, 09:45:20 AM »

I can see a future for MQA, if kids can hear the improvement over 192k mp3.

But unfortunately there is a second half to that equation. Once they decide they can hear a difference they have to decide that the difference is worth paying for. As it is less than half of the tidal users subscribe to the Hi-Fi service, Meaning that more than half the Tidal user base is perfectly happy with mp3 quality. And if they are not willing to pay for Redbook, they certainly will not be laying out cash to buy MQA enabled hardware.

And even if young people get to the point where they hear the difference, it will in all likelihood not matter much to them because of the way that they tend to consume their music. Most of their listening is done on the go using earbuds and portable devices. This leads to two issues. One, their listening is usually done as a background to other activities and as such they are not paying attention to the music in a way that would allow them to appreciate they higher SQ. And two, the listening is very often done in hostile acoustic environments. If you are listening on the subway I don't care how high of a bitrate your files are, the ambient noise is going to wipe out any additional SQ you might get.

If you ask me the biggest challenge this hobby faces in the long run is getting more people to enjoy sitting down and listening to music as a primary activity. Because only then will people be able to really appreciate and start to value the things that a good high end system can bring to the party. One of the big draws of a good high end system is the way it can draw out an emotional connection between the listener and the music. It's tough to make an emotional connection when you are focusing 90% of you attention on an activity other than the music.

Unfortunately if music is being use mainly to kill the silence while we are doing other things, convenience and simplicity will win out over SQ for most folks.
Remember, it's all about the music........

• Nola Boxers
• Sunfire True SW Super Jr (2)
• Quicksilver Mid Monos
• ARC SP-9
• VPI HW-19 Mk IV/SDS/SME IV/Sumiko Blue Pt. Special
• EE Minmax DAC/Bluesound Node/Denon 2910
• TWL Power Cords/MIT Cables

Offline richidoo

  • Out Of My Speaker Cabinet
  • ******
  • Posts: 11120
  • Autumn Equinox today
Re: Why I don't give a **** about MQA...
« Reply #16 on: February 14, 2018, 09:48:31 AM »
Rich, I don't know if you read any of the posts in the Bryston Circle on AC but James Tanner posted a lot of links to some good information on MQA.

Thanks for the links Scotty! 
"If one should desire to know whether a kingdom is well governed, if its morals are good or bad, the quality of its music will furnish the answer." - Confucius

Offline rollo

  • Out Of My Speaker Cabinet
  • ******
  • Posts: 5331
  • Rollo Audio - Home demo the only way to know
Re: Why I don't give a **** about MQA...
« Reply #17 on: February 15, 2018, 08:49:58 AM »
   When ALL agree including designers of world class DAC's maybe. For now very happy with a dedicated transport, DAC and 44.1 not upsampled.
   I use a separate SACD player for well SACD's. Why ? IMHO players that offer both must compromise one format over another. For me the only players that do proper justice to both formats are way to expensive.
  Until one actually hears state of the art redbook in direct comparison it it all BS. When directly compared if better I will be first one to say so. Until then happy trails.

contact me  at or visit us on Facebook
Lamm - Aqua Acoustic Formula & La Scala DAC- INNUOS  - Rethm Speakers - PI Audio Uberbuss - Triode Wire Labs- Kuzma - Furutech - Audio Hungry Qualiton - Fritz Carrera speakers -Gigawatt-Arion

Offline DRN

  • Seeking Help
  • **
  • Posts: 34
Re: Why I don't give a **** about MQA...
« Reply #18 on: February 15, 2018, 10:01:16 AM »
Completely agree, don't give a shit about MQA!!!!!!!!

Offline _Scotty_

  • Obsessively Audiophilic
  • ****
  • Posts: 553
  • “Sic transit gloria mundi”
Re: Why I don't give a **** about MQA...
« Reply #19 on: March 02, 2018, 09:24:20 PM »
New article by archimago on computer audiophile website.
Good overview of the technology and it's shortcomings without hyperbole.

Offline Nick B

  • Administrator
  • Audio Neurotic
  • *****
  • Posts: 1443
Re: Why I don't give a **** about MQA...
« Reply #20 on: March 02, 2018, 09:51:43 PM »
New article by archimago on computer audiophile website.
Good overview of the technology and it's shortcomings without hyperbole.

Hey Scotty,
Very interesting article and analysis. First time I’ve seen the patent diagram.
ICEpower 1200as2 stereo amp
Audio Hungary APR 204 preamp
KEF LS 50 speakers
Border Patrol SE dac
Auralic Aries Mini
Roon & Tidal
Don Sachs phono
Basis Ovation turntable
Graham 1.5 T tonearm
AT-ML150 cartridge
PI Audio Uber
All cables by Gary A

Offline dBe

  • Certifiable
  • ***
  • Posts: 203
Re: Why I don't give a **** about MQA...
« Reply #21 on: March 03, 2018, 08:14:06 PM »
I stand by my original statement.  I love quote: "A solution looking for a problem" which is largely my viewpoint.

As a 70 year old man that knows "how to listen", but with admittedly age related frequency deficits, I do not hear or see MQA as a better way, but merely another way.

The inherent SQ of well done, minimilist NOS 44.1/16 still keeps me in the seat.  Every, and I mean EVERY attempt to get "more" from digital audio recorded in native 44.1/16 format sounds a tad wrong.  This especially applies to massively oversampled formats.  I truly believe that it all comes down to the huge shifts in phase relationships that screw with the integrity of the music.

If we are to "improve" digital audio it needs to be done at 44.1, 88.2 or 176.4... Without the brutality of decimation.  It's all about sampling rate integrity for me.

« Last Edit: March 03, 2018, 08:16:15 PM by dBe »

Offline TrueAudio

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: Why I don't give a **** about MQA...
« Reply #22 on: September 22, 2018, 04:20:28 PM »
I found out about this by cruising on the net reading as much as I could.  It's VHS/Beta/HDCD/DVD-A/SACD/MSMFT/LSD all of again.

The worst thing that can happen to Redbook is when it is decimated to 96K or above.  88.2 sounds infinitely better than 96.  Whose moronic idea was that anyway... oh, yeah: video guys  ](*,)
"MQA has received criticism from various sources within the music industry.

Audio product manufacturer Schiit Audio announced that it will not be supporting MQA due to, amongst other reasons, the understanding that “…supporting MQA means handing over the entire recording industry to an external standards organization.”[16]

In a blog post title “MQA is Bad for Music. Here’s why"[17] Hi-fi Manufacturer Linn Products criticises MQA’s licensing requirements, asserting that MQA is " attempt to control and extract revenue from every part of the supply chain, and not just over content that they hold the rights for.”[17] Linn conclude[clarification needed] that as a consumer you will "…pay a higher price for the same music, and you’ll pay more for your hi-fi system too. And even if you don’t buy into MQA, everyone will get less innovation, creativity and poorer music as a result."[17]

In an interview for online publication Positive Feedback, engineer Andreas Koch is critical of MQA due to its lossy algorithms and compression, along with its licensing requirements; also saying that a format such as this "does not solve any problem that the world currently has."[18] Koch was involved in the creation of the Super Audio CD, the development of the Direct Stream Digital codec, and is co-founder of audio product manufacturer Playback Designs.

An article titled Digital Done Wrong[19] on the International Audio/Video Review web site, concluded that MQA is founded on a fundamentally unsound understanding of correct digital audio processing and found that playback of a sample MQA encoding demonstrated gross distortion and reconstruction failure. It did however comment that some listeners may find the technical defects of MQA encoding subjectively pleasing.

Some critical comments have been made in online forums such as the Computer Audiophile forum[20] and in audio magazine website comments, and a few writers have expressed concern in some areas. Over 80 detailed questions, some of which voiced these concerns, were submitted to the editors of the Computer Audiophile forum and subsequently addressed in detail by the creator of MQA, Bob Stuart, in an extended question-and-answer article.[21]"