Bad beef the files I linked has nothing to do with Mqa. It was to show how good tidal on its own is. The opposite of Mqa.
I did link a file from tidal of Tull. This file can be played in both ways. The file does seem better in Mqa. To me anyway. I don’t see why anyone would be not wanting better for free.
The one I posted above is way beyond just good in fact on my setup and others it’s an amazing album. Maybe this is more about what good or great is for me or others here.
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.
Elk, I wonder if you could answer a question for me. I'm really--respectfully--interested in understanding your views about MQA. There's a rather large amount of information available about MQA, for example in at least two (possibly more) publicly available patent applications. These sources go into considerable technical detail describing what the technology is all about. There are holes for sure, plenty of unanswered questions, as you would expect for any proprietary technology. I'd also suggest that the two principals involved--Stuart and Craven--have pretty impressive CV's in audiophile terms. Yes, they're aiming to make money, much as any (or most) entrepreneurs do when they have a new product--but they don't look to me like fly-by-night bullshit artists.
So I have difficulty reconciling the principals’ reputations and the abundance of fairly convincing technical information–much of it dense but understandable to smart, technical folks–with this vision of playing “tricks” and artificially “sweetening” the music. Do you think they were always untrustworthy? Is this some sort of late-career, cash-it-in scam? Are they deluded?
MQA could be defective; I don’t yet understand it well enough to know for sure. Even smart people can be wrong sometimes. I just have a difficult time wrapping my mind around the idea of Stuart and Craven as petty con-artists.
Jim - I realize you didn’t ask me, but my two cents is that I don’t think anyone considers them con artists, but I don’t like that they were able to manage such a swift acquisition of large catalogs, acceptance from labels, etc. whether anyone wants it or not. The degree of acceptance by the industry and press and the number of people excitedly defending it is more surprising/alarming to me than the number of people questioning it. Not sure if the whole thing will end up being a tempest in a teapot, but it feels like some sort of coup with cheering masses ; )
Do you realize this is what was said of tidal as well ? My view is simple we are end users only
I have spent money to buy the best sound I can in both equipment and Music this to me is part of the process. All of the music we want or own remains the same
Jim - I realize you didn’t ask me, but my two cents is that I don’t think anyone considers them con artists, but I don’t like that they were able to manage such a swift acquisition of large catalogs, acceptance from labels, etc. whether anyone wants it or not. The degree of acceptance by the industry and press and the number of people excitedly defending it is more surprising/alarming to me than the number of people questioning it. Not sure if the whole thing will end up being a tempest in a teapot, but it feels like some sort of coup with cheering masses ; )
Thanks for this. It's totally legitimate to question MQA. It's just that sometimes the questioning does seem to fall over the edge a bit, and that really does matter. it's important for all of us to keep the conversation on the right plane. We're all susceptible to the temptation of trying a little too hard to win the argument and losing sight of the big picture. This is an entrepreneurial space, almost by definition. People want to make money by helping people have transformative experiences through music. That's a given. Within that, though, there are a lot of idealistic folks trying to improve people's lives by giving them better musical experiences--present company (i.e., PS Audio) NOT excepted.
I’m totally OK with criticizing MQA. I’ve got no problem with it at all. As I hope my previous message indicated, I just hope we could treat it as a respectful conversation, one that doesn’t impugn anyone’s motives or tactics (beyond what’s to be expected in an entrepreneurial space). Don’t get me wrong: There are people whose motives and tactics I’m happy to impugn–and to have others impugn. I just think smart people with a strong reputation, whether it be Paul McGowen or Peter Craven, are due a certain respect until it’s demonstrates that they’ve crossed some line and compromised themselves, and I haven’t seen that. Indeed there are some legitimate philosophical questions here–i.e., whether original source files ought to be messed with (my answer: they shouldn’t, but that doesn’t necessarily mean every consumer should have free, open access to them (those source, or “master” files) for one low, low price). But intentional manipulation–“sweetening” and “tricks”–seems disrespectful and, arguably, hard to defend.
I’ll add that I’m a guy who LIKES well-placed disrespect. I’m just not sure that in this case it’s well-placed.
Good reminder Jim. All too often on forums discussion of said topic devolves into a “my opinion is best because…” vs “your opinion has no merit because…” scenario. If the intent of a thread is to discover the ultimate “true” answer to a certain question, then unbiased, open minded discussion is crucial. I fear that our nature as human beings precludes us from being either unbiased OR open minded without some effort. To further complicate the matter, when we are discussing things “audiophile” we are all operating from separate base lines as all of our systems/rooms are configured differently, hence the oft mentioned YMMV post script. I am really not sure what to make of MQA at this point. I subcribe to Tidal and was excited to play some of the “Masters” tracks to see what all of the fuss was about. To my ears, pretty much every track that I played sounded pretty good so I concluded that MQA was worthwhile. Unfortunately I listen to mostly classical and there were no albums in the Masters list with which I was “intimately” familiar that I could use to adequately compare Masters vs redbook. Anything I played off of Tidal (Masters or otherwise) sounded good on my DS. Since adding the Singxer SU 1 DDC to my system things have changed. The DDC allows me to feed the DS via I2S whereas before I was going pretty much direct via USB from my PC to the DS. Now my system favors the redbook tracks. Masters tracks are very “bright” and just don’t sound good anymore compared to redbook. The redbook offerings went up in SQ in my system by a wide margin whereas the MQA tracks took a step back. The Singxer and all accompanying cables are still very new (less than 100 hrs) so this may change in the future. So I guess when it comes to MQA your mileage may definitely vary depending on implementation. Mine certainly has.
Perhaps where the lines get drawn is whether you think of it purely as a streaming codec or not. If I didn’t care about owning some form of physical “MQ” file, I guess I wouldn’t care. A .dsf I pay for and download seems different in fundamental ways from an MQA file I pay for and download for my music library. I guess many would question why I would want to do that, when, for the price of one DL per month, I can have the world on Tidal. (I have and want both - physical media on the DMP/DSJ sounds better than anything on Tidal). I expect the vast majority of music consumers would consider this audiophile nit-picking.
The old notions of end-user music “ownership” have certainly evolved over the past decade or two.
There you go mr beef it’s why I love it. Given I also own over 12TB of music I don’t plan to buy any unless it’s something not on tidal.
As for sound if I were to buy any music it will not be mqa but dsd. so fundamentally we are on different sides as you plan to own
I do plan to buy a couple of great quality albums for curiosity in mqa.
so far nothing on tidal or mqa beats my own dsd or hi Rez. But it does add quality to the sound and while I cannot say what they do. I can say it’s not just eq
what it does sound like is analog or relaxed less tense. It does add separation to the notes
i am glad that after all the posts I did to get anyone to lay claim it sounded better was pulling teeth some did.
for the guy using a usb converter don’t trust what any of them do. I have tried over ten some very expensive. In the end a good server is best for me.
Also while using the ds dac no converter I owned or tried improved USB from a server. In fact for me they hurt things
like making it brighter , thinner and some darker. Also some removed the air around the music making it flatter. The ds sounded best for me from USB alone and a server be it aurender or a made server.
Others may feel different but I’ll bet few if any tried all I did before I sold it.
Haven’t heard the Singxer but it sounds interesting on paper. Tried all the USB “decrapifier” dongles and they went in - and out - of various sockets. The first one to make a significant positive difference (which has not come out since) is a Startech USB ethernet device (with added linear PS) which I got prior to the LANRover coming out. Beta’ed the LR and found it to be much like the Startech.
The biggest finding for me from the whole USB journey was to fully appreciate how inherently bad it is for getting digital audio from server to DAC unless it is at least galvanically isolated. Since I got the DMP, I don’t listen to the server much at all.
With regard to the music ownership deal, I guess my feeling is that some of us are concerned that this could represent the beginning of a sort of control over master-quality music something like SACD (which of course didn’t work out well for Sony), except that MQA has managed to make the DRM-like aspect of it much more palatable (or ignorable/transparent) to way more people. If it becomes widely embraced in music production for its catalog-control aspects, which would be understandable, then un-MQA’d .dsf’s - or even CDs - may become unavailable for new music going forward. Then if you want to hear the music in its best form, you will be forced to use MQA.
As I’m getting on in years and have a large library, etc. it’s more of the principle of the thing that is potentially problematic.
Sorry I cannot post pictures from my iPhone or cannot find a way lol.
Hd tracks is comwing out with mqa cd s now.
Aka chesky brothers.
My server uses its own dedicated USB card and it’s own D.C. Psu. In total I have four battery regulated D.C. Psu s. For the server.
But I do get your point and again glad I am nkt alone in how the help or not. Most all help the cheaper dacs but below a ds type dac. Even my HUGO was hurt by any of them too.
JimAustin said
But intentional manipulation--"sweetening" and "tricks"--seems disrespectful and, arguably, hard to defend.
I understand your point, and I unintentionally started this by noting that one can fairly easily process music files in a way that audiophiles find pleasing. (Which I do not necessarily see as fraud; all recording is artifice. A bit of EQ, a touch of compression, etc. is often employed to make a recording sound better. Completely legitimate. On the other hand, a bit of sweetening does not a new legitimate revolutionary format make.)
I have no reason to suspect MQA of fraud. But I admit their lack of transparency as to the technical process, and their slippery responses to questions make me uncomfortable. MQA’s refusal to let others process recordings of their choice with MQA, the unwillingness to readily admit MQA is lossy, the initial demand that MQA be built into hardware, etc. raises questions. Their marketing efforts are additionally disturbing. (See, Andreas Koch’s article for more).
MQA is a lossy format. I have no objection to MQA processing high resolution files for streaming in the same bandwidth as Redbook if they actually sound better than Redbook. But I am very suspicious of MQA’s attempts to take over both the recording and playback side of music reproduction.
It is a bit like claiming they have built a better mousetrap, but not letting anyone else see it, only they can bait it, and only special mice are allowed near it. And then they wave the trap around with a few perfect exemplar mice attached as proof it is superior.
What Elk said. Their marketing is a bit too slick and they seem far from transparent. I too wonder just why they refuse to allow a direct comparison of a known master and an MQA processed version of this known master with no difference between the tracks other than the MQA processing. I think that many if not most of us come to the same conclusion when speculating upon this quandary. I’ll say it: MQA is likely to lose such a comparison. I’ll even say that I have not yet given the few sample tracks that I have downloaded (from 2L, I forget) much of a listen. Then again, I also admit that I am not the most discerning listener and my current active system is not the most critically resolving.
Their marketing approach as outlined above by Elk has been enough to substantially sour me on this new distribution format. Given that, I also admit that it does seem a likely improvement over streaming straight Redbook. One detail here: it is my understanding that MQA streaming is 44.1/24, not 16 bit but it is unfolded into ±16 bit at a higher rate. please correct me if I misunderstand.
MQA is a lossy format. I have no objection to MQA processing high resolution files for streaming in the same bandwidth as Redbook if they actually sound better than Redbook. But I am very suspicious of MQA’s attempts to take over both the recording and playback side of music reproduction.
It is a bit like claiming they have built a better mousetrap, but not letting anyone else see it, only they can bait it, and only special mice are allowed near it. And then they wave the trap around with a few perfect exemplar mice attached as proof it is superior.
Well said. I don’t see any need for a new format that’s less than lossless - not in this day and age of wonders. Isn’t the goal to not lose ground? Haven’t we worked hard enough to gain ground in service of good sound? Lord knows it’s been a struggle since the early days of CD.
Since getting Roon I’ve listened to very little MQA, instead piping FLAC rips and Tidal streams into my Bridge II.
Last night for a change of pace I USB’d the laptop into my PWDII to revisit MQA software decoding through the Tidal app, and hell if it wasn’t the most rapturous session I’ve had in a month. I think it comes back to timing. There’s something about the envelope of a rock band’s groove and pulse that MQA nails in a way I’ve never heard before. The track that stole my face and made me dance in the listening chair was “Who Is It” from Talking Heads '77.
I’ll say it again: to these ears, in my system, MQA streaming sounds better than Redbook anything.
Guys, you don’t have to buy hardware or repurchase your library to have this…
I am completely in your view except I do now see Paul’s and others view.
We as end users just want better sound and on tidal it’s free and in most cases is a good improvment
I think the real issue is another format to buy into. But PAUL keep in mind we get screwed in our music anyway this is free. And you do not need to feel forced to make your USB compliant especially if you do the bridge 2.
cymbop - not to be a PITA, but was it the 2005 remaster, and had you heard it before? The CD sounds amazing, and completely trounces the LP. So are you comparing listening to the MQA with listening to the remastered CD?
I’m not saying MQA can’t or doesn’t sound good. I’m just trying to sort out whether folks are listening to an MQA track on Tidal (or wherever) and ascribing the sound to MQA, when often it’s simply made from a good master or remaster.
I recently took '77 and MSABAF CDs out of the library, and I had never heard their early stuff sound like that. That’s when I realized it was a remaster.
I am completely in your view except I do now see Paul’s and others view.
We as end users just want better sound and on tidal it’s free and in most cases is a good improvment
I think the real issue is another format to buy into. But PAUL keep in mind we get screwed in our music anyway this is free. And you do not need to feel forced to make your USB compliant especially if you do the bridge 2.
Right, Al. I am with you. But here’s the thing. Why do we need this new lossy format? What does it buy us or anyone?
My problem is a fundamental one. Supporting another lossy format.
FLAC already enables us to stream high resolution audio at CD bandwidth rates and the result is lossless - no data changed - what goes in comes out. That’s what interests me.
I don’t want to give up data or musical information - even if someone’s trying to convince me “I won’t miss it” or, “I can’t hear it anyway”. Especially if that same person suggests they’ve poured a bit of sweet syrup over the loss to make me even happier - and ignore what I once had is now gone.
I am just not big on giving up that which we, as an industry - as fellow Audiophiles - have worked so hard to get. High resolution audio seemed like a gift, mana from heaven - and now someone comes along and wants to take it away.
This is the danger of acceptance. If the labels all buy in, it’s the death of two things: lossless high resolution audio and DSD.
Neither of which am I willing to give up for a bit of sweetened music to salve my pain.
pcm or dsd. And bad beef and you make good points what master am I listening to anyway.
They have cherry picked albums that were not very good but loved by many
I own some music in many formats
cat Stevens all I could find. Including vinyl rips.
None of them are very good. Even chads from acoustic sounds has the same studder on the same songs and same time.
So I love him but skeptical. Now I also own two version vinyl rips. No studder lol. Point is whike we never know where our music comes from in chain of cammand we can get a jist by mixes. Chads whike claiming new is the same on all forms to a tee except my vinyl rips. What a coincidence hahaha. But in mqa what I hear in improvment is beyond a remix it’s going up the food chain I feel and some how opens up the music. What or how this is done I don’t know. But there claim they get there magic by purely software and not a better master or new one is the train stop I get off at.
Now one more observation. One of the mqa I noted as being much better than my cd is Black Sabbath paranoid and master of reality.
I own three versions of both.
Vinyl is ok
cd stinks
and a SHM sacd.
Tidal mqa is better than two but the SHM blows there versions away every time. This brings me to the point of there are some very good masters to pick from.
Badbeef, admittedly I wasn’t reporting an A/B of any sort, just impressions of one session in which my ears returned to MQA after a few weeks of redbook listening.
And Paul, I hear you. If I possessed a terabyte worth of 24/196 recordings, I wouldn’t have any interest in MQA. What I have is 1200 CD rips from discs I’ve collected over the last 30 years, and they are trounced in sound quality by software-decoded MQA that I can stream for $20/mo.
You’re arguing that MQA is a fool’s errand because in theory 24/196 must sound better because MQA has fewer bits than 24/196. But to this fool who cares about sound, MQA is the best sound he has ever had in his home, and he has no interest in acquiring a library of 24/196 albums at $20 each.
This fool won’t let the platonic ideal of 24/196 become the enemy of best sound I’ve ever had in my home.