Thread: Is MQA Fading Away?

Originally Posted by Lee Scoggins

Then you are missing out on some great sound via Tidal Masters. Many of the MQA files there sound spectacular.

Interesting. Peter Moncrieff was known by some to be head and shoulders over other reviewers when it came to listening skills. Many a manufacturer was angry with him after he reviewed their products. I never knew Peter personally but rumor has it that reviewers and manufacturers would sit around the campfire telling scary Peter Moncrieff stories.

Anyway, based on my understanding of MQA since day 1, I suspect Peter is right on the money regarding MQA's sonics and those who find MQA appealing.

The title of the article is Digital Done Wrong. Click link below.

Page Title

The entire digital signal processing industry is wrong and a gadfly writer is the only world authority.

Originally Posted by W9TR

The entire digital signal processing industry is wrong and a gadfly writer is the only world authority.

Umm, where does that idea come from??

I'm personally holding out for MQA Reel to Reel, for the ultimate expression of 19th century stereo.

On an objective note, we can’t see into the financials for MQA, their sales pipeline or any real detail of their corporate health. While certainly a valid question, no one here is likely to know the answer.

Well, if you ran their financials through an MQA processor, the deblurring would make things a lot clearer

Originally Posted by crwilli

On an objective note, we can’t see into the financials for MQA, their sales pipeline or any real detail of their corporate health. While certainly a valid question, no one here is likely to know the answer.

Access Denied

Here is part of the answer (just click on the link, don’t let the description deter you)

Originally Posted by rbbert

Access Denied

Here is part of the answer (just click on the link, don’t let the description deter you)

$611k in annual sales? LOL. How’s that even sustainable? That 21 employee number doesn’t seem right. You can’t sustain a payroll of 21 on $611k in REVENUE.

Then again, I just looked up one of my companies and it was so completely wrong as to be laughable. I didn’t bother checking the others.

So, not sure we can trust D&D. They were always such scoundrels, trying to sell you reports or get you to pay for this or that. Total waste of time. They would always say “but your information won’t be visible.” Good!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

One year of revenue is a start but not really that helpful. How about 5 years and a full P&L…

Originally Posted by rbbert

Umm, where does that idea come from??

It came from reading the article Stenho posted.

Originally Posted by W9TR

It came from reading the article Stenho posted.

I missed the implication there, you are right. Even though I am not a fan of MQA, I think both the specifics of JPM's criticism of MQA and his assessment about what the digital processing industry believes and strives for (as if the industry were a monoblock with only one opinion about engineering and sound quality) are wrong.

LMAO......... and to think I'm still waiting for LP's to 'fade away' , Zzzzzzzzzzz

From the Letters section in the latest TAS, Harley writes

"The MQA light on MQA-compatible DACs illuminates to confirm that the bitstream decoded by the DAC is identical to that created in the studio"

Why would he write this? MQA acknowledges that their codec is "lossy" (in a data sense) although "audibly lossless" (whatever that means). Once data is encoded, some of it is lost and can therefore never be accurately recovered, only approximated during reconstruction, so the bitstream can't be "identical" no matter how good it sounds.

More, what he says about the "MQA Light" is also not what MQA claims, which is that the audio data is correctly decoded according to the MQA DSP algorithms.

If MQA were so great, why have its proponents (essentially from the time of its introduction) felt the need to make statements about it that are factually untrue?

So MQA is in bankruptcy (insolvency) proceedings (finally!!)

I wonder what @LeeScoggins has to say about this (not too long ago he was assuring everyone that MQA was on solid financial ground, all available evidence to the contrary).

https://insolvencyintel.co.uk/mqa-limited/

no surprise - every audio format Bob Stuart has gone belly up. remember dvd audio.

Originally Posted by XV-1

no surprise - every audio format Bob Stuart has gone belly up. remember dvd audio.

DVD-Audio was not Bob Stuart's, it belonged to Panasonic and the DVD Working Group. Bob Stuart developed the MLP lossless (part of the name, and actually lossless) codec, still in use as part of Dolby TrueHD.

I wonder what will happen to Tidal now?

Originally Posted by mep

I wonder what will happen to Tidal now?

Not necessarily anything. Some possibilities that I can see?

No change (if TIDAL has continuing rights to the current MQA titles it offers)
TIDAL buys MQA and more MQA titles continue to be produced (unlikely since TIDAL's financial situation is probably similar to MQA's)
If TIDAL's MQA albums are only "on loan", MQA could disappear completely
TIDAL could drop MQA and offer true hi-res digital a la Qobuz
Someone else could buy MQA and continue as usual (also pretty unlikely but more likely than TIDAL buying it)
TIDAL could cut its losses and disappear

Another question is whether some DAC prices will drop if MQA decoding is no longer part of the DAC.

Originally Posted by nicoff

The list of failed audio formats keeps growing. We can now add MQA to the list.
The Biggest Failures in Consumer Audio/Video Electronics History | Audioholics

I anticipate that the demand for new MQA-capable DACs will vanish and that used MQA-capable equipment will soon be flooding the market (at much lower prices of course).

Too early to call it a failure. What if they find a buyer? Could be a return for investors.

Originally Posted by Lee Scoggins

Too early to call it a failure. What if they find a buyer? Could be a return for investors.

Where in the hell is the return for investors coming from? What makes you think any amount of investment can turn MQA around?
MQA is one more example of an audiophile solution in search of a problem.

Originally Posted by Lee Scoggins

Too early to call it a failure. What if they find a buyer? Could be a return for investors.

Originally Posted by nicoff

The Biggest Failures in Consumer Audio/Video Electronics History | Audioholics

This is a silly article on a silly website. Most of us have little respect for audioholics.com and this is a good illustration for why. It mixes some technologically sound developments (Betamax, DAT, SACD, DVD-A) which failed for marketing reasons with some items most of us have probably never heard of (H-PAS?) and a variety of ill-conceived from the start products (DCC, Elcaset, DIVX, HD DVD). MQA probably belongs in that last category, with the striking difference that it has enjoyed an unwarranted degree of support from the (supposedly) unbiased non-trade periodicals and webzines.

I wouldn't count it out yet, some of the biggest names in digital is on board. That may not be a lifeline though.

[QUOTE=nicoff;35894

I anticipate that the demand for new MQA-capable DACs will vanish and that used MQA-capable equipment will soon be flooding the market (at much lower prices of course).[/QUOTE]

That would be foolish to sell a DAC just because MQA goes away, the DAC still works, MQA is just a feature no longer used. That would be like selling your home theater if DTS went out of business, why, you still have Dolby and the receiver still works. Of course, if MQA ceased new DAC's would no longer offer MQA, who sells gear with defunct features?

This is normal.

2L has stated their support and preference for MQA officially. Therefore the 2L albums on Qobuz are MQA because 2L provided MQA albums to Qobuz, even if the service does not support MQA. You can also find 2L MQA coded albums from Apple Music (there are multiple hurdles in getting lossless transmission from Apple Music to a DAC, but that's another story.)

Unless Tidal changes their decision and gets all the labels cooperation/approval to replace their MQA albums by non-MQA versions (I seriously doubt this is done by simply flipping a switch), and all MQA affiliated labels such as 2L replace their albums on Qobuz by non-MQA versions, what happens to MQA Ltd. financially does not change anything at this moment regarding functional requirements from Tidal subscribers and MQA CD owners, until some drastic change occurs to the state of all current MQA content in streaming, and the labels re-release the albums in the next disc format to attract buyers.

Seems like there are several possibilities:

1. MQA goes bankrupt because they cannot find a buyer.

2. A strategic buyer like Tidal or Apple or Spotify (maybe a label too?) emerges to capture the existing MQA algorithm (Keep the Tidal Masters revenue going) or the new SCL6 algorithm for Bluetooth or both.

3. MQA gets a new investor or Bob Stuart who is independently wealthy makes an investment.

MQA Files For Chapter 11 Protection: One Too Many Losses Or Will It Be Sold Off In "Bit" Sized Pieces? - ecoustics.com


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Well, there's a shocker

No, I don't. I respectfully wonder if you understand what MQA is. If I buy a DAC today that decodes MQA that DAC would still function just fine no matter what streaming service I decided to use. If MQA goes away no one with a MQA DAC will have any issue, it will function just as it always did, the MQA decoding will just become extra baggage if you will.

Originally Posted by nicoff

Not so fast. There are some folks that are looking at buying MQA DACs because they use Tidal (I think you are one of them). If MQA goes away, Tidal will drop MQA as well. Those folks will no longer need MQA-capable DACs and will likely be moving to other streaming music services for high def content. Then they will be checking out other DACs that were not on their radar before and will get rid of the MQA DAC that they own. You follow?

Originally Posted by AJ Soundfield

Well, there's a shocker

not to me. I had been saying since day 1 that it was a big money grabbing scheme!

The two questions now become:
Who will purchase MQA assets?
What will they do with them?

The internet will endlessly riff on:
Does anybody really care?

Originally Posted by Randy Myers

not to me. I had been saying since day 1 that it was a big money grabbing scheme!

As have most audiophiles, including AJ I would expect (if he even bothered to think about it); I'm sure his post was both ironic and sarcastic.

Originally Posted by W9TR

The two questions now become:
Who will purchase MQA assets?
What will they do with them?

The internet will endlessly riff on:
Does anybody really care?

With operating losses and debt orders of magnitude greater than "profits", I'm not sure what those "assets" are? A lossy codec for streaming music from ONE provider? A codec for wireless music transmission that has (so far) been rejected by Bluetooth (but may offer real advantages over what currently exists)?

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.

Originally Posted by rbbert

With operating losses and debt orders of magnitude greater than "profits", I'm not sure what those "assets" are? A lossy codec for streaming music from ONE provider? A codec for wireless music transmission that has (so far) been rejected by Bluetooth (but may offer real advantages over what currently exists)?

That's based on figures from Fiscal 2021. Hard to speculate on what license revenue was in 2022.

IP could be worth a good bit. Maybe Tidal doesn't want to see Tidal Masters going away. Maybe a hardware mfr will want SCL6.

I wanted to play with ChatAI here's a bit of what it came up with.

Does a person need a MQA compatible DAC in order to play higher than 44.1k resolution files from Tidal?


No, you do not necessarily need an MQA compatible DAC to play higher than 44.1k resolution files from Tidal. Tidal streams high-resolution audio files in two different formats: FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Codec) and MQA (Master Quality Authenticated). If you have a standard high-resolution DAC that supports FLAC up to 192kHz/24 bit or higher, you can stream and play Tidal's high-resolution FLAC files without any issues. However, if you want to stream Tidal's MQA files and decode them to their full resolution, then you will need an MQA compatible DAC. An MQA compatible DAC is able to fully decode the MQA files and restore the original studio-quality sound. Without an MQA compatible DAC, you can still stream and play Tidal's MQA files, but they will be downsampled to a lower resolution.
What is the difference between Tidal's hi fi tier and the Master tier?


Tidal offers two tiers of subscription services: HiFi and Masters. The HiFi tier offers users access to Tidal's library of high fidelity (hi-fi) music in CD-quality, which is 16-bit/44.1 kHz. HiFi also offers access to exclusive content, music videos, and editorial editorial content. The Masters tier, on the other hand, offers a higher quality of music playback than HiFi. Masters is based on the industry-standard MQA (Master Quality Authenticated) technology, which enables high-resolution streaming of studio-quality music files. With Masters, Tidal streams music in 24-bit/96 kHz or 24-bit/192 kHz (depending on the availability), providing an even higher level of sound quality. The difference between these two tiers of subscription lies solely in the quality of music playback. HiFi tier offers CD-quality streaming, while Masters offers higher-resolution 24-bit streaming.
So if I am a Master tier subscriber from Tidal I can play 192k files without a MQA compatible DAC?


Yes, if you are a Tidal Master tier subscriber, you can play 192k files without an MQA compatible DAC. Tidal uses two types of audio formats for its Master tier - MQA and non-MQA. Non-MQA files are hi-res audio files that are encoded in the FLAC format with a sampling rate of either 96kHz/24 bit or 192kHz/24 bit. These files can be played back by any compatible audio endpoint or DAC. MQA-encoded files are also 96kHz/24 bit or 192kHz/24 bit, but they are packed in a way that allows them to be streamed in smaller file sizes. In order to unfold the MQA-encoded audio, you need an MQA-compatible DAC, which can decode and interpolate it into a higher resolution audio signal. However, even without an MQA-compatible DAC, Tidal will still stream the audio at a 96kHz/24 bit or 192kHz/24 bit resolution.

According to this if MQA goes under Tidal will be fine. Well, I guess as long as Tidal has duplicate HR & MQA for all available albums where MQA is offered.

Originally Posted by PeterBrodbeck

If your DAC does not support MQA, you will not be able to fully decode and play MQA encoded tracks on Tidal at the highest resolution. However, Tidal offers high-res streaming without MQA, so you can still listen to music at resolutions higher than 44.1kHz.
I would like to add that MQA is not the only way to get high resolution audio from Tidal, and many DACs support high resolution audio without the need for MQA decoding. In addition, Tidal offers multiple streaming options, including FLAC and AAC, which deliver high-resolution audio in a variety of resolutions.

You were spot on

Originally Posted by Lee Scoggins

That's based on figures from Fiscal 2021. Hard to speculate on what license revenue was in 2022.

IP could be worth a good bit. Maybe Tidal doesn't want to see Tidal Masters going away. Maybe a hardware mfr will want SCL6.

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.

You are correct. I thought my questions may be answered but as I think about it when selecting albums on Tidal I see MQA but have never seen an option to select a regular hi res vs MQA, its always been MQA. So if Tidal has those FLAC hi res I wonder why an option is not given to select either/or. I suppose time will tell.

Originally Posted by nicoff

That would be the big question.

When I was a Tidal subscriber, I recall that the first MQA unfold was done by software. That first unfold was limited to 96khz. I used Roon to do the first unfold.
To get the maximum resolution out of the MQA file, you needed to do other steps/unfolds. Those other unfolds could only be done with DACs that supported MQA.