? MQA got some splainin to do

Having actually lived through the 1970’s Quadraphonic format battles (Remember SQ/QS duking it out with CD4 formats? I still have my Dad’s Marantz CD-4 decoder) and then later on the battle between Beta/VHS, then still later DVD/Blue Ray that it dawned on me that MQA would eventually get Overtaken By Events (OBE, not to be confused with the British use of the term OBE) as available consumer streaming bandwidth increases to the point where the MQA compression hinders more than it helps. They had reached the threshold of OBE just about the time they convinced the manufacturers to get on board, and now it’s there to sell more DACs and streaming services, even though there are better sonic options elsewhere.

So, IMHO, I’d see MQA as a step up from MP3 DAP, so in that sense it’s good in that it gets more folks interested in higher end audio. And eventually some of those will convert to true high-end performance if they’re able to tell the difference of how things can sound better than MQA (using DSD, for example)

So I’d say MQA was the intermediate step up in performance. Not the end-all-be-all (nothing ever is) but at least it keeps customers interested in improving their systems, and that can only help the industry.

3 Likes

Yep, I owned the Marantz CD-4 unit, and sold the Sony SQ and JVC and Sansui QS units, and in video you had not only Beta and VHS, but also the Sanyo V-Cord format.

1 Like

As far as the bandwidth-saving Origami is concerned, I have viewed MQA as “a solution in search of a problem”, from the get go.

As to the rest of its purported features and purpose, I am an Agnostic.

As long as the MQA “process” does not end up being an insidious Trojan Horse resulting in the elimination of access to otherwise available recordings, I say let them play on.

FWIW.

2 Likes

Phillips Video2000 here, by far the best video tape format :smiley:

1 Like

And yet VHS became the main thing and Video 2000 was gone.

Comparison to DSD and MQA may technologically be correct, but in my experience from a cost point of view DSD tops everything.

It is probably undisputed that the DS DAC, Mola Mola Tambaqui, Esoteric FPGA DACs playing DSD files generally sound better than MQA.

But we are talking DAC stand alone equipment from US$ 6000 upwards. I tried to get into this DSD world with the Stellar Gain Cell DAC felt that I got fried by the fact that a DSD source for its I2S input is simply not available in the Stellar price category.

Now EUR 2000 is a lot of money, but it is not enough. Paul Mc Gowan talks about Octave Music, while the couple of albums there are pieces of art in many perspective, there are no DSD streamers available to stream DSD to a DAC. PS Audio may or may not have those in the pipeline, but even in the US$ 6000 + Perfect Wave Category there is no player available. And when we as Stellar customer begged for a Stellar price category DSD / Octave streamer as the response was rather mixed, but the general tone set was, that like it seems to be impossible to produce a SACD transport in that price category it is also likely not going to happen with Octave streamers.

Now MQA availability for consumers is of a scale comparable to VHS vs. Video2000 but the bricking of MQA is for consumers even more attractive.

Just about every brand that utilizes of the shelf DAC chips offers MQA with it. That are a huge amount of brands in a very brought and much more adorable price category. At least MQA has a better availability as Octave. Where DSD is very much limited to unknown (yet extremely good) artists MQA is a transport file format for any kind of music including much more popular artists.

Now nearly 2 years after I have invested in the SGCD, my 30 years old Technics CD player still plays pleasant sound quality, the 40 years old Thorens is still playing my vinyl while “audiophiles” are complaining that the USB and Ethernet inputs of their US$ 6000 equipment is still not good enough and that you need additional boxes like Matrix, “audiophile” switches and not to forget external clicking devices and linear pier supplies and sinfully expensive cables.

You can not blame the brought audience to not set aside or even have such budgets.

Get real:

The beating and bitching against a affordable file format and broadly available equipment that a brought audience has proudly been able (hard working) to afford feels for that audience as a kick in their face. It is absolutely counter productive to new people wanting to get started with audio equipment and you scare them away.

But hang on:
The brought audience knows what affordable MQA certified streamers (native MQA) and DACS to buy and where to find MQA high definition (yes it’s lossy) music. Please show us Octave streamers, or affordable streamers of other brands that stream native DSD! Please let me know from where I can stream the Dire Straits or Pink Floyd in DSD format!

And every CD player with digital output like my 30 years old Technics can play (extract) native MQA from MQA CD’s that is natively converted by affordable (not cheap) and very good sounding DAC’s like my NAD C658 streamer-DAC.

1 Like

John, while PS audio does a good attempt to get rid of licensed high quality file formats they are simply far from affordable for the budget that average households spend on Audio equipment.

MQA equipment is much more affordable and MQA music is at least available also from popular artists:

This is what mattered for the consumer when VHS came around and matters also when it comes to these music file formats. You can find the proud MQA label on a lot of affordable and good equipment.

As for me: high res music is not standardized, a expensive gamble and prone to a lot of bitching like the video blog against MQA.

I settle for CD quality, my vinyl and even lossy Apple file formats, when recorded and mastered well even on my mainstream equipment it sounds extremely good. I will try MQA because it is embedded in the system I now own, it has not been the driver for me to buy it.

The main driver to buy the MQA certified streamer DAC was reliability as it is considered main stream equipment. Main stream equipment by my 40 years of experience has served me more reliable so far.

1 Like

Will anyone be surprised if another proprietary technology for music streaming appears in the next few years?

1 Like

Was that a cartridge format, or was that the open reel format?

1 Like

I had machines for VHS, Betamax, Video2000 and Video8. Video2k was my favourite.

1 Like

Hopefully, DSD streaming will appear.

video2000 was a cassette format, better pic quality, much better hi speed picture quality too :slight_smile:
8 hours per cassette (4 hours per side!)

vhs won because they made sure plenty of pron was available on that platform (not my cuppa tea but mostly legal).

i am not suggesting ps audio start distributing smutty sound files i hasten to add :slight_smile:

You don’t want Wild Man Steve to be reissued in DSD on Octave Records???

1 Like

Actually no.

It doesn’t matter either as I have become beyond caring. I can buy, download and stream redbook CD quality, play vinyl.

If I could believe Apple rumors, Apple will settle on CD quality, which is nice, but I can live with their lossy AAC format as remastering of Apple Music is very good.

For the very rare occasions I want to play higher resolution files I convert DSD to FLAC and play FLAC. If I stumble over good music in high resolution format, I am not actively looking for high resolution formats anymore.

If and when the Audio industry can finally decide for one standard high resolution format I might become interested again. Not a file format supported by a couple of companies and even fewer music labels, but by the entire industry.

2 Likes

I have learned my lesson not to pay a lot of money for expensive equipment that is capable of playing rare file formats.

DSD music is extremely hard to find, and even if you finally do find some, they won’t sell it to you because of author rights.

This happened to me when I tried to pay for the DSD downloads of Nils Lofgren, Dire Straits and Pink Floyd.
When I called the online music store in the US I was told that they could not accept somebody from outside the US to purchase DSD files from them.

That music is not available in Europe in DSD format, at least I couldn’t find it after long sessions of searching on the Internet.

Perhaps the Audio and music industry should realize that their customers feel extremely, let me put it mildly, “disappointed” when that happens after paying EUR 1800 for a DSD compatible Stellar Gain Cell DAC.

So yes, to me high resolution is all snake oil, regardless the file format.

It will remain that way for as long as there is not a standardized easy to buy file format for a much broader range of music.

1 Like

I just read elsewhere that beginning in 2012, every single master sent to Apple had to be in 24 bit depth, and Apple requested, but did not require, that the sampling rate be 96KHz. So, to me, it would make sense that Apple offer these either instead of, or in addition to 44.1/16. I guess we shall see.

1 Like

I did not know that, perhaps that explains also why even Apple lossy sounds so good, their master files are good.

With a good recording and good master. I trust you can do quite some lossy compression before it really starts getting bad.

If the master is less, well s…t in will result in …t out.

Should Apple offer lossless red book CD to stream I will be delighted off course. It is perhaps silly me, but I would still buy CDs of music I really like, there is something else about spinning those discs. I refer to the dedicated thread about about that subject.

I think that if folks that that something sounds good it should be put up against a 2496 version of the same thing. That to me is the sweet spot for normal digital and can be burned to DVDs.

I love higher res PCM and really like DSD/SACD, but Sony and the industry dropped the ball big time as they soon realized that most folks want convenience first and then 2nd “good enough”.

Bottles of wine that are $100 or more are not for every one.

2 Likes

But to make it a valid comparison, both tracks being pared must be volume matched. If you play and compare identical copies of the same track and one is a few tenths of a dB higher than the other, the one with the higher volume will sound better.

I think everyone know that levels must be matched.