Thread: Is MQA Fading Away?

Originally Posted by rbbert

It's easy to speculate that the downward trend in profits and the upward trend in losses and debt in the years prior to and including 2021 would have continued in 2022. The problems with Tidal possibly buying MQA have been discussed (Tidal is probably in little better financial shape than MQA, although as a privately held company we don't know for sure). Someone or company might want SCL6, but would they pay enough for it to keep the rest of MQA going?

The fact remains that despite your continued advocacy, MQA in toto is a dead technology and (obviously) also dying in the marketplace. If the filtering algorithms in MQA do actually result in better sound (still being debated), offering that in some commercial form without the lossy codec does have some potential.

It's way too early to pronounce MQA dead. Let's give it a few months to see if a buyer emerges.

It's not advocacy either. I am simply giving an honest opinion of sound improvements from the format. If you could visit Atlanta, I could easily demonstrate what I am hearing.

I really don't understand all the hate for the format. It does make Peter's recordings sound better and no one ever held a gun to the consumer's head. It often seems this hobby attracts the most argumentative of people. We should give Stuart and Craven kudos for creating something clever even it doesn't work out as a business.

Originally Posted by Lee Scoggins

...no one ever held a gun to the consumer's head...

Not a gun, but not a choice either. If one has to pay for (unneeded and unwanted) MQA capability in a DAC that he wants and likes, then it is not really a choice.

I don't need to go anywhere to compare full MQA from Tidal to other hi-res versions of the same album/mastering; I have 2 very adequate MQA DACs right here.

Originally Posted by rbbert

Not a gun, but not a choice either. If one has to pay for (unneeded and unwanted) MQA capability in a DAC that he wants and likes, then it is not really a choice.

I don't need to go anywhere to compare full MQA from Tidal to other hi-res versions of the same album/mastering; I have 2 very adequate MQA DACs right here.

That is no different than having to pay for DSD capabilities in DAC that one may choose not to use.

Originally Posted by still-one

That is no different than having to pay for DSD capabilities in DAC that one may choose not to use.

Not so, there is no licensing fee for a DAC to decode DSD, and in most cases it is not something that needs to be “added”

Originally Posted by rbbert

Not so, there is no licensing fee for a DAC to decode DSD, and in most cases it is not something that needs to be “added”

I think you are picking fly shit out of pepper. Do you have the cost breakdown for how much it cost per DAC for adding MQA vice how much it cost per DAC to add DSD decoding? The argument could be made that DSD decoding is as much of a fringe requirement as having MQA decoding. What percentage of audiophiles who only listen to digital use streaming companies like Tidal or Quobuz? Neither service offers DSD files to listen to. The percentage of music that people want to listen to that was originally recorded in the DSD format is infinitesimal compared to PCM.

The majority of DSD files that people listen to have been converted from PCM to DSD. In the case of the PS Audio DSJ that I still own, it converts all PCM recordings to DSD. The front panel display lets you know what the recording originally was prior to conversion with regards to bit depth and sampling rate, but what you are listening to will be an upsampled DSD version of the original PCM recording.

Originally Posted by still-one

That is no different than having to pay for DSD capabilities in DAC that one may choose not to use.

Jim, I couldn't agree with you more. I dont understand all the negativity surrounding the nominal upcharge from a regular subscription to one that includes MQA. Not too long ago, if you wanted to rent a movie from an online source, you had 2 price points to consider - standard definition or HD.
If your TV was HD compatible, why wouldn't you pay the extra couple of bucks for the superior format.

Mark, The issue for many isn’t the up-charge for MQA. It’s whether that extra cost actually rendered improved SQ. That has been beaten to death and I am not going to comment on that one way or the other. Your comment on a superior format is hotly contested.

Want to talk cables instead? 😂

Originally Posted by mep

I think you are picking fly shit out of pepper. Do you have the cost breakdown for how much it cost per DAC for adding MQA vice how much it cost per DAC to add DSD decoding? The argument could be made that DSD decoding is as much of a fringe requirement as having MQA decoding. What percentage of audiophiles who only listen to digital use streaming companies like Tidal or Quobuz? Neither service offers DSD files to listen to. The percentage of music that people want to listen to that was originally recorded in the DSD format is infinitesimal compared to PCM.

The majority of DSD files that people listen to have been converted from PCM to DSD. In the case of the PS Audio DSJ that I still own, it converts all PCM recordings to DSD. The front panel display lets you know what the recording originally was prior to conversion with regards to bit depth and sampling rate, but what you are listening to will be an upsampled DSD version of the original PCM recording.

The highlighted part of your post pretty much undermines your argument. For a DAC with a delta-sigma DAC chip everything is PWM, and for most (maybe all) using FPGA to tell the DAC what to do (as with your PS Junior), DSD is simply "there" and not an added feature. True, for a R2R or ladder DAC without FPGA, it would be more complicated, but that is not how the majority of DACs being sold operate.

And there is no licensing fee for DSD. That licensing fee is how MQA, Ltd generates its income, so I doubt it is insignificant.

Originally Posted by Mr Peabody

LOL, the real irony is my DAC does not decode MQA, I did pay to download the first unfold software from Aurender, the reason it was my understanding that I needed MQA to get hi res from Tidal (higher than 44.1k), now that I'm thinking of a new DAC I wanted MQA for the final unfold, now it could be going away. Always late to the party, frown, I guess not fashionable in this case.

If anyone has Tidal without the MQA DAC can you tell me if you get hi res when playing those tracks?

Someone earlier was talking about Tidal having to replace the MQA tracks with non MQA tracks for hi res but someone else I was talking to who is an IT guy/audiophile told me losing MQA would be no big deal for Tidal like those hi res tracks would keep playing. But if that's true I should be getting at least 192k now. Unfortunately, I'm not able to see any display to see what I'm receiving. I can see from the Aurender app what is being sent but not what is actually playing.

1. Outside of MQA, there is currently no Hi-Res FLAC from Tidal at this moment (there is only CD-quality 44.1kHz FLAC from Tidal - until Tidal decides to actually add Hi-Res FLAC). You can, however, get non-MQA Hi-Res from Qobuz. Disregarding streamer support (for you and me), Hi-Res is also available from Amazon and Apple Music.
2. AAC is lossy. It is not Hi-Res.
3. The MQA Core Decoder upgrade you purchased from Aurender decodes MQA to 88.2/96kHz also known as first unfold. You will not see 192kHz or higher from your non-MQA DAC display. (You also get MQA Core decoder from Tidal desktop app, Roon and Audirvana.)
4. Your IT guy is partially correct that MQA still plays without MQA decoder, but you get degraded SQ without MQA decoder. (That's similar to playing HDCD without HDCD decoder, or playing the CD layer using a CD player from a CD/SACD Hybrid Disc you paid additional money for).
5. You already paid for the MQA Core Decoder. You are not "losing MQA" unless you turn it off, get rid of your streamer, or the MQA content vanishes or gets replaced by non-MQA versions.

Originally Posted by crwilli

Mark, The issue for many isnÂ’t the up-charge for MQA. ItÂ’s whether that extra cost actually rendered improved SQ. That has been beaten to death and I am not going to comment on that one way or the other. Your comment on a superior format is hotly contested.

Want to talk cables instead? 😂

Hey Craig!
I hope you got your 18 in before getting Infront of a computer.

Ill tell you now, I respect everyone's opinion as long as they aligned with mine me
Joking aside, I say to each, their own. I think MQA is song dependent. Sometimes, I think the MQA algorithm is better, sometimes not. i say that about all the formats.

Originally Posted by crwilli

Mark, The issue for many isn’t the up-charge for MQA. It’s whether that extra cost actually rendered improved SQ. That has been beaten to death and I am not going to comment on that one way or the other. Your comment on a superior format is hotly contested.

Want to talk cables instead? 😂

What format did I say was superior?

Originally Posted by rbbert

The highlighted part of your post pretty much undermines your argument. For a DAC with a delta-sigma DAC chip everything is PWM, and for most (maybe all) using FPGA to tell the DAC what to do (as with your PS Junior), DSD is simply "there" and not an added feature. True, for a R2R or ladder DAC without FPGA, it would be more complicated, but that is not how the majority of DACs being sold operate.

And there is no licensing fee for DSD. That licensing fee is how MQA, Ltd generates its income, so I doubt it is insignificant.

I see nothing highlighted in my post and I never said there was a licensing fee for DSD.

A representative of Tidal has posted on Reddit that Tidal will be adding hi-res FLACs to their library

Originally Posted by mep

I see nothing highlighted in my post and I never said there was a licensing fee for DSD.

You are being somewhat disingenuous. You asked if I knew the relative costs of adding DSD capability compared to MQA, and in this comparison the biggest cost by far is the MQA licensing fee. DSD capability is merely a technological hurdle solved long ago, with minimal or no added cost as I described.

Originally Posted by mep

What format did I say was superior?

Mep - He was referring to my comment of the superior format.

Originally Posted by rbbert

A representative of Tidal has posted on Reddit that Tidal will be adding hi-res FLACs to their library

That's good news!!

Originally Posted by The Bodiezaffa

That's good news!!

Just as Qobuz is getting ready to launch in Canada . Hopefully soon you will have 2 true hi-res streaming services instead of none.

Originally Posted by The Bodiezaffa

Mep - He was referring to my comment of the superior format.

Thanks. Too many Marks!

Originally Posted by mep

What format did I say was superior?

My post was referring to Bodizaffa’s (Mark) post.

Originally Posted by crwilli

My post was referring to Bodizaffa’s (Mark) post.

Got it.

If MQA has a sonic advantage over a lossless format, its my opinion it is not due to their compression algorithm. Those and the need for them have pretty much faded away unless you are at the edge of the universe and have CenturyLink ADSL.

A few years ago I was in that boat and supported MQA. Now I have fiber internet.

In my view any sonic improvement is due to their use of specific apodizing encoding filters designed to mitigate the damage done by the low pass filters used in mastering A/D converters, especially early ones. This is potentially a big deal and gets overlooked. Maybe someone will step up and buy this piece of the puzzle.

Apart from this, any value their compression algorithms have would be to reduce steaming costs for service providers. So far Tidal is the only test case. We’ll see what happens and if thy pony up some cash to keep their streaming costs lower.

Lots of ways this could play out.



This technology may have value and we’ll see what happens

Reddit - Dive into anything

In short, Tidal is going lossless FLAC.
Bye MQA.

Jesse Dorogusker on the relationship of Tidal and MQA:
“Hi-res FLAC will come soon. TIDAL added MQA when others were streaming low bitrate AAC (and some still do). It was a balance of quality and bandwidth. Cell networks are better now. Hi-res FLAC files will be big, but we think the infra is ready, even on mobile.”

Member asked:
“Any chance Tidal might acquire MQA?”

Jesse Dorogusker:
“No, not acquiring MQA.”




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Originally Posted by W9TR

If MQA has a sonic advantage over a lossless format, its my opinion it is not due to their compression algorithm. Those and the need for them have pretty much faded away unless you are at the edge of the universe and have CenturyLink ADSL.

A few years ago I was in that boat and supported MQA. Now I have fiber internet.

In my view any sonic improvement is due to their use of specific apodizing encoding filters designed to mitigate the damage done by the low pass filters used in mastering A/D converters, especially early ones. This is potentially a big deal and gets overlooked. Maybe someone will step up and buy this piece of the puzzle.

Apart from this, any value their compression algorithms have would be to reduce steaming costs for service providers. So far Tidal is the only test case. We’ll see what happens and if thy pony up some cash to keep their streaming costs lower.

Lots of ways this could play out.



This technology may have value and we’ll see what happens

This is not news; many people (including me) have said for years, in fact starting at the time of MQA’s introduction, that the filtering algorithms should have been separated from the lossy compression so that listeners could determine if there is a sonic benefit (or not).

Originally Posted by Mike

Reddit - Dive into anything

In short, Tidal is going lossless FLAC.
Bye MQA.

Jesse Dorogusker on the relationship of Tidal and MQA:
“Hi-res FLAC will come soon. TIDAL added MQA when others were streaming low bitrate AAC (and some still do). It was a balance of quality and bandwidth. Cell networks are better now. Hi-res FLAC files will be big, but we think the infra is ready, even on mobile.”

Member asked:
“Any chance Tidal might acquire MQA?”

Jesse Dorogusker:
“No, not acquiring MQA.”




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Stick a fork in in it...

Can anyone with a non-MQA DAC play 96k or 192k from Tidal now?

If you can then I don't understand why add FLAC hi res, unless it's so those with MQA can receive hi res and bypass that software. If not, then seems there's a section of customers being left out and adding FLAC would increase potential customers.

I don't know if MQA is good, bad, or not and I have no dog in this fight. I do know when I went from Tidal to Qobuz I feel like I got improved SQ.

Whatever the reason is I don't know. But I prefer Qobuz. If MQA is really all that great I'm really not missing it.

Originally Posted by Mr Peabody

Can anyone with a non-MQA DAC play 96k or 192k from Tidal now?

If you can then I don't understand why add FLAC hi res, unless it's so those with MQA can receive hi res and bypass that software. If not, then seems there's a section of customers being left out and adding FLAC would increase potential customers.

I'm not sure what you are asking, but I suspect it will be weeks or months before there is a large selection of hi-res FLACs on Tidal. The MQA offerings may well stay there also, depending on the arrangements between Tidal and the labels.

Originally Posted by Mike

Member asked:
“Any chance Tidal might acquire MQA?”

Jesse Dorogusker:
“No, not acquiring MQA.”

f6c.jpg

I don't know how to make it anymore simple, if your DAC is not MQA can you play hi res from Tidal? Meaning no MQA software anywhere in the digital chain.

Originally Posted by rbbert

I'm not sure what you are asking, but I suspect it will be weeks or months before there is a large selection of hi-res FLACs on Tidal. The MQA offerings may well stay there also, depending on the arrangements between Tidal and the labels.

The Hi-Res on Tidal should be the same as the Hi-Res on Qobuz with no special DAC requirements.

Cool, as I wasn’t switching to qobuz with its crappy app and limited catalog.

Originally Posted by Mr Peabody

I don't know how to make it anymore simple, if your DAC is not MQA can you play hi res from Tidal? Meaning no MQA software anywhere in the digital chain.

As answered in post #109, before Tidal starts giving you non-MQA Hi-Res FLAC, you only get up to CD-quality or MQA coded music. You get degraded SQ from MQA music without MQA decoder in place. In this case, you will not see anything beyond 44.1kHz or 48kHz displayed on non-MQA DAC.

If you care about it this much you should subscribe to Qobuz, so you can enjoy Hi-Res music now, instead of waiting.

Originally Posted by Mr Peabody

I don't know how to make it anymore simple, if your DAC is not MQA can you play hi res from Tidal? Meaning no MQA software anywhere in the digital chain.

I see that this has already been answered. I thought the answer was obvious before you asked the question, which is why I wasn’t sure what or why you were asking.

Originally Posted by KeithR

Cool, as I wasn’t switching to qobuz with its crappy app and limited catalog.

What genre of music do you listen to that has a limited catalog on Quobuz?

If what you say is how it works, then no one can get hi res from Tidal unless they have a MQA DAC. This seems a bad decision from the beginning as it limits your customer base. Those without MQA DAC who care about receiving hi res would be forced to use another streaming service.

I care because I like to know how things work, especially when it involves me. You can't make a good decision without the facts.

Just so you know I have tried to subscribe to Qobuz. Last year they gave a card for 3 fee months. I can't seem to get subscribed, I used two separate emails. I don't know where they reference their data it seems there is an issue with my date of birth. I said forget it, it shouldn't be that hard. Even they couldn't help. I didn't even get to the point to input pay info.

Originally Posted by wklie

As answered in post #109, before Tidal starts giving you non-MQA Hi-Res FLAC, you only get up to CD-quality or MQA coded music. You get degraded SQ from MQA music without MQA decoder in place. In this case, you will not see anything beyond 44.1kHz or 48kHz displayed on non-MQA DAC.

If you care about it this much you should subscribe to Qobuz, so you can enjoy Hi-Res music now, instead of waiting.

Good try to spin. How is it obvious?

Originally Posted by rbbert

I see that this has already been answered. I thought the answer was obvious before you asked the question, which is why I wasn’t sure what or why you were asking.

I don't know where AI gets their data but the answer I got and posted earlier is exact opposite of what Peter said. There's nothing obvious about what I asked, presuming that's why the lack of answers unless everyone has MQA DAC's. I trust that Peter in his position would know.

Besides if you thought it obvious why not either answer or not say anything? Instead, you said you didn't understand which is what I trust is the truth of the matter.

Originally Posted by rbbert

I see that this has already been answered. I thought the answer was obvious before you asked the question, which is why I wasn’t sure what or why you were asking.

Originally Posted by Mr Peabody

If what you say is how it works, then no one can get hi res from Tidal unless they have a MQA DAC.

The free (although you need a subscription) Tidal desktop apps include MQA Core decoder that does MQA Core decoding / first unfold to 88.2kHz or 96kHz - This is Hi-Res. You also purchased the equivalent functionality from Aurender.

In a way, what you said is partially true. Tidal was the whole reason we at Lumin spent the money, effort and time to integrate MQA - otherwise our users could not get the most out of Tidal, or experience less than best possible SQ from Tidal. If Tidal offered normal Hi-Res FLAC in the past, things could have been very different. We supported MQA not because of MQA, but because of Tidal.

Originally Posted by Mr Peabody

I don't know where AI gets their data but the answer I got and posted earlier is exact opposite of what Peter said.

I read the AI answer. It's not wrong (although certain details can be presented better), and it's not opposite of what I said. Your main question is playback of Tidal without MQA DAC. The AI answer is that it plays, then uses several sentences to explain that you need the MQA DAC for best quality. Instead of those several sentences, it can be simply summarized as "it plays at a degraded quality without MQA DAC". The word "play" in that answer does not imply "at intended quality". It only means you get music - in the same way you get degraded SQ from playing a SACD CD-layer in a CD player.

Originally Posted by Mr Peabody

Good try to spin. How is it obvious?

I apologize for assuming that you were cognizant abut how MQA and Tidal operate.

1) Tidal HiFi has always had MQA as the only higher resolution than CD. 2) MQA requires an MQA DAC to produce its pseudo "hi-res". Both of these facts have been known since (for #1) Tidal introduced the HiFi tier and (for #2) since the introduction of MQA, and both of these occurred many years ago (more than 5, at least).

When you post "the AI answer", to what are you referring?

I notice that LeeS describes AS as "filled with MQA haters", as if that is unusual (or a bad thing?) I frequent a few audio sites, including the largest (SH Forums), and all of them seem to be "filled with MQA haters". Which audio sites (not associated with "publications" such as TAS or Stereophile) don't have most posters criticizing MQA and applauding its apparent imminent demise?

Originally Posted by rbbert

I notice that LeeS describes AS as "filled with MQA haters", as if that is unusual (or a bad thing?) I frequent a few audio sites, including the largest (SH Forums), and all of them seem to be "filled with MQA haters". Which audio sites (not associated with "publications" such as TAS or Stereophile) don't have most posters criticizing MQA and applauding its apparent imminent demise?

Because those of us who enjoy the benefits of MQA spent the last 7 years listening to music and not running from site to site and railing against windmills. There were sites such as the Roon forum that finally banned those threads because they get nowhere year after year. Do you really think most of us are in this hobby because we want to debate others opinions on MQA, tubes, switches, ethernet cables, Class D, DSD, power cords, value of expensive gear, double blind, compression and on and on?

I am guessing I am not the only one who usually skips involving myself in these inane discussions and only occasionally drops a post to remind others that a few zealots do not define our hobby's best interests.

Originally Posted by Mr Peabody

I don't know how to make it anymore simple, if your DAC is not MQA can you play hi res from Tidal? Meaning no MQA software anywhere in the digital chain.

software, Roon, and it sounds like your Aurender software upgrade will decode up to 24/96 even if the mqa is available at a higher resolution. to get the higher 24/192 or rare 32/352 the dac has to include mqa rendering. As mqa markets it, the first fold can be done with software and provide up to 24/96 while the second fold requires hardware.

I reached out to macintosh regarding the dac 1 and dac2 not carrying mqa and got a very clear explanation why the co has no plans to support it,. I asked 'why not carry another format?' This was the reply.

Hi Steve,

MQA is not a format, it is a data compressing scheme, to make the file size smaller for streaming.



MQA is lossy, like MP3, the original file has stuff removed from it to make it smaller and the lost data cannot be recovered.



It is also a licensed technology, the record company, streaming service and DAC manufacturer all have to pay $ to MQA to have it, and of course, YOU get charged that money.



FLAC is LOSS-LESS, all the original zero’s and one’s in the exact same order of the original file come back out when the file is uncompressed and played back. FLAC uses storage shortcuts to make the file about ½ size. For example, if there is 2 seconds of silence in a recording, the CD has like 10,000 Zeros in row on it, instead of saving 10,000 digits, FLAC just writes down: (0 x 10,000) and when you play the file, 10,000 Zero’s come back out, just like they were on the CD.



FLAC stands for: Free Lossless Audio Compression, the makers of MQA didn’t like the FREE part and so came up with something they could charge for.



WE are not going to charge you money for Lossy compression when Loss-Less compression is free..

Originally Posted by steve59

software, Roon, and it sounds like your Aurender software upgrade will decode up to 24/96 even if the mqa is available at a higher resolution. to get the higher 24/192 or rare 32/352 the dac has to include mqa rendering. As mqa markets it, the first fold can be done with software and provide up to 24/96 while the second fold requires hardware.

I reached out to macintosh regarding the dac 1 and dac2 not carrying mqa and got a very clear explanation why the co has no plans to support it,. I asked 'why not carry another format?' This was the reply.

Hi Steve,

MQA is not a format, it is a data compressing scheme, to make the file size smaller for streaming.



MQA is lossy, like MP3, the original file has stuff removed from it to make it smaller and the lost data cannot be recovered.



It is also a licensed technology, the record company, streaming service and DAC manufacturer all have to pay $ to MQA to have it, and of course, YOU get charged that money.



FLAC is LOSS-LESS, all the original zero’s and one’s in the exact same order of the original file come back out when the file is uncompressed and played back. FLAC uses storage shortcuts to make the file about ½ size. For example, if there is 2 seconds of silence in a recording, the CD has like 10,000 Zeros in row on it, instead of saving 10,000 digits, FLAC just writes down: (0 x 10,000) and when you play the file, 10,000 Zero’s come back out, just like they were on the CD.



FLAC stands for: Free Lossless Audio Compression, the makers of MQA didn’t like the FREE part and so came up with something they could charge for.



WE are not going to charge you money for Lossy compression when Loss-Less compression is free..

What a great clear explanation. Thanks for sharing.

Originally Posted by steve59

software, Roon, and it sounds like your Aurender software upgrade will decode up to 24/96 even if the mqa is available at a higher resolution. to get the higher 24/192 or rare 32/352 the dac has to include mqa rendering. As mqa markets it, the first fold can be done with software and provide up to 24/96 while the second fold requires hardware.

I reached out to macintosh regarding the dac 1 and dac2 not carrying mqa and got a very clear explanation why the co has no plans to support it,. I asked 'why not carry another format?' This was the reply.

Hi Steve,

MQA is not a format, it is a data compressing scheme, to make the file size smaller for streaming.



MQA is lossy, like MP3, the original file has stuff removed from it to make it smaller and the lost data cannot be recovered.



It is also a licensed technology, the record company, streaming service and DAC manufacturer all have to pay $ to MQA to have it, and of course, YOU get charged that money.



FLAC is LOSS-LESS, all the original zero’s and one’s in the exact same order of the original file come back out when the file is uncompressed and played back. FLAC uses storage shortcuts to make the file about ½ size. For example, if there is 2 seconds of silence in a recording, the CD has like 10,000 Zeros in row on it, instead of saving 10,000 digits, FLAC just writes down: (0 x 10,000) and when you play the file, 10,000 Zero’s come back out, just like they were on the CD.



FLAC stands for: Free Lossless Audio Compression, the makers of MQA didn’t like the FREE part and so came up with something they could charge for.



WE are not going to charge you money for Lossy compression when Loss-Less compression is free..

You pay more for DSD because you think it sounds better.

You pay more for hi rez because you think it sounds better.

Some of us listen to MQA whenever possible because we think it sounds better.

You forget that SACD (DSD) was developed because the original Sony/Phillips patents were expiring. They wanted to maintain that income stream There were no altruistic ideals behind SACD and DVD-A.

This lossey argument is plain horse--poo. The end result is what counts . The filters created for MQA (especially those created by dCS at least) can make it sound better

In my case and probably for most dCS owners we have not paid one extra penny for MQA. dCS provided it to current owners free of charge. In addition you pay the same on Tidal for MQA and normal 16/44 tracks.

Last, most of the music available on hi-rez sites (HDtracks, DSD, 2L) is either jazz, classical, or older rock. None of which are genre that keep me in this hobby. If it wasn't for new releases I would be done and spend my money and time elsewhere. I have no desire to hear the same old stuff over and over again. A good percentage of new releases were made available in the MQA format.

Originally Posted by still-one

Because those of us who enjoy the benefits of MQA spent the last 7 years listening to music and not running from site to site and railing against windmills. There were sites such as the Roon forum that finally banned those threads because they get nowhere year after year. Do you really think most of us are in this hobby because we want to debate others opinions on MQA, tubes, switches, ethernet cables, Class D, DSD, power cords, value of expensive gear, double blind, compression and on and on?

I am guessing I am not the only one who usually skips involving myself in these inane discussions and only occasionally drops a post to remind others that a few zealots do not define our hobby's best interests.

Some excellent points; however, apparently there aren’t enough of “you” to keep MQA viable?

As far as “our hobby’s best interests”, though, I must take issue, for reasons that many have posted: proprietary, lossy, putting record companies’ interests ahead of consumers (users), advertising that is at least borderline fraudulent, etc.

One would hope that for the price of a DCS DAC MQA capability would not be an extra charge. Even after Oppo Digital was no longer selling new products it added MQA capability to the 203/205 free to owners.

If in fact “new” music’s only “hi-res” format is MQA that is even more reason for MQA to go away; then perhaps the record companies might be more interested in releasing it in true hi-res.

Originally Posted by still-one

You pay more for DSD because you think it sounds better.

You pay more for hi rez because you think it sounds better.

Some of us listen to MQA whenever possible because we think it sounds better.

You forget that SACD (DSD) was developed because the original Sony/Phillips patents were expiring. They wanted to maintain that income stream There were no altruistic ideals behind SACD and DVD-A.

This lossey argument is plain horse--poo. The end result is what counts . The filters created for MQA (especially those created by dCS at least) can make it sound better

In my case and probably for most dCS owners we have not paid one extra penny for MQA. dCS provided it to current owners free of charge. In addition you pay the same on Tidal for MQA and normal 16/44 tracks.

Last, most of the music available on hi-rez sites (HDtracks, DSD, 2L) is either jazz, classical, or older rock. None of which are genre that keep me in this hobby. If it wasn't for new releases I would be done and spend my money and time elsewhere. I have no desire to hear the same old stuff over and over again. A good percentage of new releases were made available in the MQA format.

Jim, regardless of what forum you subscribe to, you can always be counted on to speak your truth. Funny enough, its my truth too! Carry on, Sir.