I understand the impression that the article was a bit judgmental/demanding.
Timm also makes a great point that the analysis appears to be “album” v. “single.” I never understood buying CD for a single track, but many people did just this. With single track downloads and streaming this is not longer necessary. And, as already mentioned, a greatest hits album certainly could diminish back catalog sales. Then again, the Eagles’ Greatest Hits is the number two best-selling album of all time (behind Michael Jackson’s Thriller).
These differences in perception, assumptions, etc. is exactly why it is illuminating to discuss specific articles, as well as consider the ideas and opinions expressed by other members.
Finally had the time to read the whole Seger article. It is interesting, especially as the general ongoing assumption is that you simply “have to” embrace streaming.
The issue all along - through this transition from physical media to streaming - has been: For the record companies - how do we keep control of our properties, keep making money, and keep it from being stolen; and for the artists - how do we get properly distributed, compensated, and not ripped off by either the record company or end users? If they just release the catalog in MQA it’ll all be OK
There are all manner of justifications for why an artist would receive x (vs. say, 10x or 100x) ten-thousandths of a cent per stream, but does it really go without saying that you have to do it?
One of the observations in the article that stuck out to me was, “his current level of very substantial success eliminates any pressing need to participate more fully in the digital age.” What’s more, he HAS BEEN substantially successful THE WHOLE TIME in between - selling physical media. So he’s (assumedly) in the enviable position of the money not being an issue. Most artists are over a barrel, as there was a tendency to adopt lifestyles based on maintaining their peak incomes for the remainder of their lives.
Seger was unusual also with regard to sharing the wealth - the SBB members were all millionaires, at least at one point. I have no idea if he continues to share income from the album sales, though I would imagine so. Many of his studio albums were recorded with “hired guns” like the Muscle Shoals Swampers, though one of the most successful records was Live Bullet, which featured the SBB.
Your correct on this I completely agree. My one and only point is to say a format sounds bad on paper only. I don’t think anyone who had a comparison to norm and mqa on one the good ones would lay claim it’s bad or not worth it.
No maker should have to expend money on a full unfolding I get that. But to insult me or others that it’s bad period reminds of the pwd mkii days when dsd was bad.
Maybe I am just nit getting it here as I do st times
You do know that PS Audio has listened repeatedly to MQA implementations feeding the DS and didn’t like the sound? I know you know that PS Audio is currently working on MQA integrated in the bridge.
besides any ps audio personnel has any OWNER’S of the ds weighed in on this.
And please keep in mind in no way am I saying ps audio should bother with mqa as a complete unfold
i like others are just confused of hiw it does not sound good over normal tidal from my streamer. Now as for the bridge two that sounds like a great idea
I wonder if will sound bad with the bridge as it’s claimed to with the normal digital inputs hahahha. I’ll bet your kissed off at me
don’t be TED I am just being honest in my view and love ps audio products.
Uggh. A lot of DS owners here. I am one as a matter of fact.
I think it is fair to say I disagree with a ‘new’ tech when it is lossy and loses information. I also think it is fair to say philosophically some feel going lossy is a step in the wrong direction.
Ive seen the argument that MQA shouldn’t be compared to hi-res but only to redbook since that is what it replaces on tidal. The ‘new’ bar apparently?
Ive seen people in favor of it even say 'a lot of smoke and mirrors. ’ Who hitches their wagon to smoke and mirrors? Raise your hand. :).
I get it - people want their tidal to sound better but that doesn’t have to silence people that disagree with an approach.
tidal does the MQA implementation in their software right? So - the software is altered. I could change the sound of jriver by adding a ton of EQ - and I might say ‘this sounds better’. Maybe I’m a purist. And quite frankly I want my dac designers to be purists as well, believe in non lossy formats and design to them if they need to add backwards compatibility for lossy formats - fine I get that. But a future one?? And even so - if it must be for marketing - so be it. Maybe it improves tidals cd quality sound - and that’s great. But quite frankly I would want tidal to stream hi res pcm or DSD. This again pushes the possibility of that off in the distant future if at all
I started out as an MQA booster and I still see its merits, but this forum has caused my position to evolve. I’m definitely opposed to MQA becoming the de facto standard in the recording studio based upon everything Ted and Andreas have said. I wish someone would create an non-MQA solution to streaming bandwidth issues and sell it to Spotify so we’d have a real horse race.
I’ve been off these boards for a while and wanted to catch up on MQA. I’m glad the Bridge is being updated to accept it, though I’m dubious of the way MQA is being rolled out, (first allow streamers, then no streamers, partial unfolding in software as opposed to full)
And while I’ll get to hear it for myself, MQA sounding different from the master could just be an artificial (if pleasing) addition.
I do hope the new Bridge offers more than just MQA. Would it be possible to have FPGA included so as new formats arrive the bridge can be reconfigured, even if that mean a fee to help offset development /license costs?
I thought it comical that someone might read Paul or Ted’s comments and say they are somehow anti MQA. But every time Paul has ever touted something; Lens, Native, Bridge, DSD, etc, the sound improvement was exactly as Paul described, so I’m comfortable trusting his opinion.
Another thing about Ted’s approach is the incredibly simple output section. I don’t believe any other MQA (or most any) Dacs have that topology, and I think it’s a big part of DS’s almost creamy analog sound. I wonder what that would sound like done with tubes? Is it possible to have a Ted + Bascomb project?
I do and it’s on par with the reg to mqa you heard. I know mqa is a lot of smoke and mirrors
but for tidal being free it’s an improvment and thanks for replying
what disappoints me of ps audio is claiming not to hear it and say it’s sounds worse an extrmly frustrating concept that’s on you TED lol.
a disappointment in ps audio for me especially as the ds does pcm very well.
Al, I don’t think we ever claimed we don’t hear MQA. I have said a number of times that I have heard MQA at multiple demonstrations - each time the improvement was obvious. I don’t think it’s a life changing improvement, but it’s there and obvious.
With respect to our own DAC, the MQA decoder makes the DAC sound worse - that may simply be implementation - though I suspect it has more to do with incompatibility than anything else.
We are currently working with them to implement it into the bridge, as Ted says.
Hi Al, sorry to hear about your health issues. Hope things are better. Encoded MQA sounds better when decoded with software, just as it does when you compare the Tidal tracks with and without decoding. So yes, better.
Good a saving grace. I loved the bridge two a very well made product that when comparred it rivaled my best server over USB. Glad the bridge sounds good.
1234 - Sorry to hear about the health issues, particularly if it necessitates getting rid of gear that soothes the soul.
I’m a DSJ owner, and as you may know, it is not possible to listen to fully decoded MQA on the DS DACs. Nor, in fact, is it possible on the majority of DAC manufacturers’ products. So the only meaningful comparative experience I have is with the small Meridian which has only 1/8" stereo out. I attached it with a Kimber RCA Y cable (which tends to be more “revealing” than I like) to my pre.
My brother and I listened to a number of the 2L tracks, with and without, and were not able to discern much, if any difference. That is the only “test” I have done, as I’m not particularly interested in buying or trying a DAC that fully implements MQA simply to see if MQA is all it’s cracked up to be. Even if a given DAC does reveal the claimed magic, I object to the method of its implementation on a number of principles.
With regard to other situations - trade show demos and the like (and here I include Tidal) - there is no way of knowing what you are comparing. Often at trade shows, they are playing something you have never heard on gear you don’t know, and there is no A/B’ing with a “traditional” file of any kind. Yeah - sounds good. You can’t conclude anything from that.
As with the track you linked - a hifi sort of track with spanky pizzicato transients and so forth. It sounds good. Without comparing it to anything else, it has no meaning for me with regard to the “MQA Controversy”. So when you seem to get upset about some of us here not giving it a fair shake, I’m not sure what you’re looking for - just to say whether one unfolding sounds better than none? It doesn’t matter if it’s on a DSD or DSJ, or any other DAC that doesn’t decode MQA. Paul is saying the full implementation doesn’t sound good on his DAC, and doesn’t want to share code with MQA.
The questions still remain - do we need MQA? Why all the secrecy/obfuscation surrounding the technology? Why do the manufacturers and end users have to “buy in” so to speak, unless it is essentially a method of catalog control? Etc.
emailists said
And while I'll get to hear it for myself, MQA sounding different from the master could just be an artificial (if pleasing) addition.
It remains unclear to me what MA claims to do with specific types of files. I understand that with higher resolution than Redbook, MQA claims it can encode into a 44/16 file some higher resolution material. To the extent this is true, the processed high-resolution file could sound better than Redbook. I am more suspicious of the claims MQA "fixes" existing recordings.
MQA could also be sweetening files. It is not hard to know what will please an audiophile. I have a couple of tricks I can can apply to recordings the majority of listeners think sound better. The existence of such tricks makes MQA’s claims uncomfortable for me. If anyone is curious, post a short zipped FLAC file. I will process it and post it back.
A great example of mqa being great on most any dac