Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[cellhead]

It [DSD] is important, but the fact you don't support MQA yet is the reason why I am not upgrading to MC 24.

[Awesome Donkey]

It's important, but the fact you don't support MQA yet is the reason why I am not upgrading to MC 24.

It already does... if you use no DSP and have the volume set to 100%. MC can passthrough MQA to a MQA-capable DAC.

[RD James]

It's important, but the fact you don't support MQA yet is the reason why I am not upgrading to MC 24.

MQA is a closed proprietary lossy audio codec designed to reduce bandwidth for streaming services.
If audio quality is the reason you're buying them, you should stick to an open and free lossless format such as FLAC.
If disk space is the problem, use AAC (a proprietary, but open audio codec).

[dtc]

MQA is a closed proprietary lossy audio codec designed to reduce bandwidth for streaming services.
If audio quality is the reason you're buying them, you should stick to an open and free lossless format such as FLAC.
If disk space is the problem, use AAC (a proprietary, but open audio codec).

MQA is a streaming format.You do not buy MQA files and there is no issue of disk space with MQA. You obtain MQA through a streaming service. There are pros and cons to MQA, but buying files and storage are not among them.

[RD James]

MQA is a streaming format.You do not buy MQA files and there is no issue of disk space with MQA. You obtain MQA through a streaming service. There are pros and cons to MQA, but buying files and storage are not among them.

MQA tracks are sold as downloads.

[dtc]

MQA tracks are sold as downloads.

Where can you get commercial available MQA downloads? I know of one or two minor places, but nothing significant.  The primary availability is through streaming.

People are asking for MQA support for Tidal.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Where can you get commercial available MQA downloads? I know of one or two minor places, but nothing significant.  The primary availability is through streaming.

People are asking for MQA support for Tidal.

About the only significant source for MQA downloads is the 2L site. 

But, why are we talking about MQA in a thread/poll about DSD?

[Screwdriver]

I went and did my best to find a good reason to use MQA. My buddy went to Europe for a few weeks and loaned me his PSAudio DirectStream DAC so I was able to get all the unfolding BS.

Bottom line. When you have easily deliverable 24/88.1 files that don't need exotic players and DAC's to play them why have MQA and its DRM crap. MQA is a lossy format and no amount of magic is going to bring back what was lost.

MQA is a ponzi scheme and I am glad JRiver has no plans to support it.

[dtc]

There is currently no DRM issue with MQA. Some people speculate that there is a DRM scheme built into MQA, although the MQA folks deny it.

You can take partial advantage of MQA by using the software unfolding available in various apps like Tidal. You do not need anything special other than the program.

With Tidal you have access to far more 24/88 albums than you will ever buy.

There is no readily available source for 24/88 streaming other than MQA, at least not in the US.

Of course, if you don't hear any difference with MQA, then you are probably not going to hear any difference with 24/88.

MQA is not a Ponzi scheme. I don't think you know what that term means.

[Screwdriver]

There is currently no DRM issue with MQA. Some people speculate that there is a DRM scheme built into MQA, although the MQA folks deny it.

You can take partial advantage of MQA by using the software unfolding available in various apps like Tidal. You do not need anything special other than the program.

With Tidal you have access to far more 24/88 albums than you will ever buy.

There is no readily available source for 24/88 streaming other than MQA, at least not in the US.

Of course, if you don't hear any difference with MQA, then you are probably not going to hear any difference with 24/88.

MQA is not a Ponzi scheme. I don't think you know what that term means.

Digital rights management (DRM) is a set of access control technologies for restricting the use of proprietary hardware and copyrighted works.[1] DRM technologies try to control the use, modification, and distribution of copyrighted works (such as software and multimedia content), as well as systems within devices that enforce these policies. (From Wiki)

Pon·zi scheme
ˈpänzē ˌskēm
noun
a form of fraud in which belief in the success of a nonexistent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first investors (Bob Stuart and others) from money invested by later investors.

People need licensed software and hardware to use it....How is that not a form of DRM?

And as it being a Ponzi Scheme......People are paying into this by purchasing MQA DAC's, getting MQA content....for no real benefit over existing standards and paying a premium for that right. People at the top will make money, and people at the bottom may one day have a DAC that has MQA laser etched on it as a reminder....but no MQA.

[Awesome Donkey]

All the proprietary stuff aside, my only real issue with MQA is that it's a lossy format.

[Screwdriver]

All the proprietary stuff aside, my only real issue with MQA is that it's a lossy format.

That too.....

Plus with today's bandwidth, 24/88.1 FLAC's would be easily supported. Anything higher than that is debatable.

[RD James]

There is currently no DRM issue with MQA. Some people speculate that there is a DRM scheme built into MQA, although the MQA folks deny it.

A closed-source format that can only be played in specially licensed players/hardware is effectively a form of DRM.
It doesn't prevent the tracks being copied, but restricts where they can be played.

That too.....
Plus with today's bandwidth, 24/88.1 FLAC's would be easily supported. Anything higher than that is debatable.

For a service provider like Tidal, the ability to stream high-res audio at the same bitrate as CD-quality audio makes sense if it's decoded within the player. Bandwidth isn't cheap at that scale.
What doesn't make sense is trying to sell MQA as a stand-alone format and requiring licensed hardware to decode the full quality stream, while making false claims about the quality being better than lossless encoding.

[dtc]

Digital rights management (DRM) is a set of access control technologies for restricting the use of proprietary hardware and copyrighted works.[1] DRM technologies try to control the use, modification, and distribution of copyrighted works (such as software and multimedia content), as well as systems within devices that enforce these policies. (From Wiki)

Pon·zi scheme
ˈpänzē ˌskēm
noun
a form of fraud in which belief in the success of a nonexistent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first investors (Bob Stuart and others) from money invested by later investors.

People need licensed software and hardware to use it....How is that not a form of DRM?

And as it being a Ponzi Scheme......People are paying into this by purchasing MQA DAC's, getting MQA content....for no real benefit over existing standards and paying a premium for that right. People at the top will make money, and people at the bottom may one day have a DAC that has MQA laser etched on it as a reminder....but no MQA.

Not the proper place to debate, but according to your definition a Ponzi scheme involves a "nonexistent enterprise", which is not the case here. Plus, a Ponzi scheme includes falsifying records to investors, which is not happening here. People buying MQA DACs know what they are buying and the DACs work as advertised.  Your really distorting the original idea of a Ponzi scheme here.  But, as I said, not the place to debate that.

As to DRM, the 16/44/48 form can be played on any system that plays normal CDs and be copied without restriction. The DRM considers about MQA are that some think that MQA may implement a DRM scheme like Blu-Ray, which means they could not even be copied.

According to your definition of DRM, then Dolby Digital and DTS are both DRM, yet people do not describe them that way.

Its all a matter of definitions, but MQA does not fit a lot of the traditional measures of DRM.

No need to discuss further, as it is not really germane to how MC handles MQA.

[dtc]

All the proprietary stuff aside, my only real issue with MQA is that it's a lossy format.

I would prefer lossless high res streaming, but it is not available, at least in the US.  And, I believe the MQA catalog is currently bigger than the lossless high res catalog, with a greater commitment from the owners of the content to MQA than to high res in general. 

MQA is not a good solution, but it is currently better than other high res streaming alternatives.

[AndyU]

I would prefer lossless high res streaming, but it is not available, at least in the US. 

Qobuz offers lossless high res streaming in Europe and is coming to the U.S. in what they call “the Fall” which probably means, given that it is software, Christmas.

http://www.audioxpress.com/news/qobuz-expands-team-and-prepares-for-us-launch-in-fall-2018

I’ve used Qobuz for a few years. It is very good. No MQA nonsense.

[dtc]

Qobuz offers lossless high res streaming in Europe and is coming to the U.S. in what they call “the Fall” which probably means, given that it is software, Christmas.

http://www.audioxpress.com/news/qobuz-expands-team-and-prepares-for-us-launch-in-fall-2018

I’ve used Qobuz for a few years. It is very good. No MQA nonsense.

Understood. How big is the Qobuz high res catalog?

EDIT: I found a couple of references to 1 M high res tracks, which is pretty impressive. I found a reference that said that many of those are vinyl rips which come from the archival efforts of the French National Library, but on quick look I cannot find out much about that.  As such, they would be different from high res mastered from the original tapes. But as a vinyl lover, this is a good thing, assuming they are 33 rpm vinyls. I am aware of 78 archival projects, which are less interesting.

Any Qobuz users have any insight?

[AndyU]

Understood. How big is the Qobuz high res catalog?

EDIT: I found a couple of references to 1 M high res tracks, which is pretty impressive. I found a reference that said that many of those are vinyl rips which come from the archival efforts of the French National Library, but on quick look I cannot find out much about that.  As such, they would be different from high res mastered from the original tapes. But as a vinyl lover, this is a good thing, assuming they are 33 rpm vinyls. I am aware of 78 archival projects, which are less interesting.

Any Qobuz users have any insight?

Don’t know anything about the hires vinyl rips from the French National Library, they’ve maybe got something todo with Qobuz being a French company. As far as hires stuff goes, I’d say very roughly about a half of new releases are available in high res, perhaps slightly more in classical, and a goodly proportion of the back catalogue. When Qobuz hits the US I am sure you will get a trial period the same as we did in Europe so you can enjoy its riches.

Just can’t see the point of MQA when you can get the real thing.

[Mitchco]

For those interested in a technical breakdown of MQA: A Review of Controversies, concerns and cautions:
https://www.computeraudiophile.com/ca/reviews/mqa-a-review-of-controversies-concerns-and-cautions-r701/

Also, MQA-CD listening test: http://archimago.blogspot.com/2018/08/mqa-cd-x-uhqcd-listening-test-by.html

[JimH]

And Mitchco does his homework.  He is a constant source of fact and truth concerning digital audio.

Thanks, Mitch.

[Screwdriver]

For those interested in a technical breakdown of MQA: A Review of Controversies, concerns and cautions:
https://www.computeraudiophile.com/ca/reviews/mqa-a-review-of-controversies-concerns-and-cautions-r701/

Also, MQA-CD listening test: http://archimago.blogspot.com/2018/08/mqa-cd-x-uhqcd-listening-test-by.html

I point people all the time to Archimgo's blog. Lot's of MQA info there.

[michael123]

If Tidal offers MQA as the only source of hi-res material, then we should be able to listen to it. What is the purpose of this boycott?

Same with DSD. There are albums. There are DSD DACs. And there are customers.

You know, blu-ray is also lossy compressed

[mojave]

You know, blu-ray is also lossy compressed

Blu-ray is not an audio codec. All of my Blu-ray discs have one or more of the following lossless audio codecs: PCM, DTS-HD MA, Dolby TrueHD.

[michael123]

Yes, not an audio codec.

The point is since Tidal has no other high-res streaming besides MQA, usually people say (compressed, lossy) MQA sounds better than losless CD-quality

[Hilton]

I've done quite a lot of testing and reading on MQA and there's a few things that are being missed in this conversation.

From my listening and comparison to FLAC/DSD/DSF and MQA at various different sample rates:

1. MQA does more than just compress the bits and uncompress them, particularly with Full MQA unfolding in the DAC.
Older sources remastered for Hi-Res seem to benefit the most from MQA full unfolding because MQA "fixes" inherrent ADC/DAC limitations of the era that the original recordings were made in. (pre-ringing/deblurring)

In newer recordings the differences around filters (pre-ringing/ deblurring) are far less noticeable.

2. The Tidal MQA files at 44.1/48/88.2/96khz  sounds exactly the same to me on my HD-600 headphones.
Only the 192khz MQA files sounding very slightly cleaner in the top end when compared to a DSF/DSD file. (mostly probably just the difference in the DSD filtering with MQA mastering and encoding probably applying a more aggressive filter when creating the MQA master)

3. MQA works as advertised upto 96khz - there are measurements that have been done out there that prove this.  Yes it's lossy, but it's lossy where it doesnt matter. (above 60khz - which is mostly noise that we cant hear anyway)

I dont mind using MQA for Tidal to make streaming possible over 4G and still retain perfect playback when compared to the original source.
I'll support MQA for streaming but still buy my music as DSD or FLAC, as the so called MQA pre-ringing/deblurring can be done in DACS or software with adjustable filters to almost the same effect.

[fitbrit]

MQA is a streaming format.You do not buy MQA files and there is no issue of disk space with MQA. You obtain MQA through a streaming service. There are pros and cons to MQA, but buying files and storage are not among them.

This site sells MQA albums. Link goes to Blues, but other genres available too:

https://onkyomusic.com/US/mqa-blues

[dtc]

This site sells MQA albums. Link goes to Blues, but other genres available too:

https://onkyomusic.com/US/mqa-blues

Yes, however, it is a very limited catalog compared to what is available through streaming. 

[RD James]

1. MQA does more than just compress the bits and uncompress them, particularly with Full MQA unfolding in the DAC.
Older sources remastered for Hi-Res seem to benefit the most from MQA full unfolding because MQA "fixes" inherrent ADC/DAC limitations of the era that the original recordings were made in. (pre-ringing/deblurring)

In newer recordings the differences around filters (pre-ringing/ deblurring) are far less noticeable.

If it's already in the recording, converting to MQA is not going to fix that.
But ringing is a non-issue for valid audio signals.
For non-valid signals (clipped/aliased) minimum phase filtering distorts more than linear phase filtering.
Professional audio equipment is all linear phase for a reason.

If their claims about mastering quality were true, all audio signals in the track would be valid and thus it would be better to use a linear phase filter.
 

3. MQA works as advertised upto 96khz - there are measurements that have been done out there that prove this.  Yes it's lossy, but it's lossy where it doesnt matter. (above 60khz - which is mostly noise that we cant hear anyway)

It doesn't. The MQA filter actually causes aliasing and distortion.
The whole thing is a sham. You're better off streaming lossless 44.1kHz audio than an MQA-encoded track.