Michaels HiFi
Well-known member
I see. You don't really disagree with my post nor do you have have first hand experience. You just wanted to be argumentative for no reason on a forum. Got it. Thanks.
Is MQA Fading Away?
- Thread starter nicoff
- Start date
I see. You don't really disagree with my post nor do you have have first hand experience. You just wanted to be argumentative for no reason on a forum. Got it. Thanks.
CPP
Active member
Same for me. Dumped Tidal for Qobuz. To me it just sounded better. For me, MQA, take it or leave. Haven't listened to it since 2019 when I dumped Tidal.
Why are you so argumentative?? What is first hand experience? Sitting in a studio during a recording session? Watching and working with a mastering engineer preparing a release? (I have done both, more than once; more back in the pre-digital age '70's and '80's than since, and nothing in the last 10-12 years, but I doubt much has changed in that time, except possibly for the worse)
No I don't "disagree" completely with your post, I'm trying to point out that there is more to the picture than what the recording and mastering engineers (they aren't necessarily the same person) "hear" and want in the final product; the engineer rarely has the final say about that.
chops
Active member
The garbage that passes for music today has certainly got worse, that's for sure. That's why the majority of my "mainstream" music listening dies out around the year 2005, and even that's pushing it. More like late 90's.
mep
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2013
- Messages
- 5,101
Give it up, it's hopeless. He has a "friend" who works in recording studios and his friend knows everything.
Michaels HiFi
Well-known member
I'm just responding to your posts. Sorry if you don't like back and forth on a forum and view that as argumentative. I didn't realize you were to have the last word on posts and no one could respond to you. Sorry. My bad.
"Pop" music and its sub-genres (such as "modern country") may well have gotten worse, for the most part that is outside my listening. Jazz is vibrant, "alternative" continues to progress, there are newer classical artists producing great music, etc.
Ummm, you were the one who first used the term "argumentative"; my use was meant to be ironic, and perhaps I should have added an emoji to make that more clear. Back and forth in forums is (sort of) what it's all about.
BTW, what I posted about the engineers' and artist/producer's contribution to the sound of the final release shouldn't really be a point of contention; if you still don't understand that you need to check with your friend again. In the relatively uncommon cases where the engineer does have the final say it is usually the result of a hard-fought battle, with the result relished by the engineer in question.
chops
Active member
And I agree.
Michaels HiFi
Well-known member
Hey Rob - if my point wasn't clear I own that. I was responding to "and the producers in particular are the ones pushing today's sonically unpleasant mastering styles.".
Yes producers can influence the actual sound quality, many times they don't and many times they do. I was reading your post as the RE's never have any input or responsibility. Not sure if that's what you intended.
My point was that in his 30 years of experience - not simply sitting in for a session or two - more times than not the STUDIOs have had a large influence on the SQ, and THAT (whether you want to include producers or not is irrelevant to my overall point) is the main issue for inferior SQ. It's NOT a technology limitation that MQA somehow needs to rescue us from - it's a recording issue by poor decisions at the studio level.
I should have taken a step back and simply stated debating whether it's the RE or the producer misses the point that it is not a technology issue.
Randy Myers
Well-known member
To me it is an irrelevant conversation. I do not stream (surprise, there are some of us out there). I have a hard enough time deciding what to listen to from my own 400 or so vinyl albums and 1200 or so digital albums on my server.
To me the finest digital format, by far, is DSD. DSD128 or above preferred (HQPlayer makes it easy for my DAC to only see DSD512).
My experience with MQA is doing direct comparisons to DSD, and there was no comparison whatsoever. A friend of mine was in the forefront of DSD recording and has all of his material available in DSD (and up to DSD512). He is also an advocate of MQA, but mainly for portable and streaming purposes, and states that MQA does not hold up to DSD. He has given me direct comparisons of his albums in both formats. With my portable (an Astell&Kern with MQA capability and using Abyss Headphones) I can do an exact comparison, and, in my view, I can tell, in no uncertain terms, which I like better.
Therefore, the real value of MQA is for streaming. I have never tried this comparison because of the above stated reasons. Until DSD is a viable streaming format there may be a place for MQA. In my use there is not.
To me the finest digital format, by far, is DSD. DSD128 or above preferred (HQPlayer makes it easy for my DAC to only see DSD512).
My experience with MQA is doing direct comparisons to DSD, and there was no comparison whatsoever. A friend of mine was in the forefront of DSD recording and has all of his material available in DSD (and up to DSD512). He is also an advocate of MQA, but mainly for portable and streaming purposes, and states that MQA does not hold up to DSD. He has given me direct comparisons of his albums in both formats. With my portable (an Astell&Kern with MQA capability and using Abyss Headphones) I can do an exact comparison, and, in my view, I can tell, in no uncertain terms, which I like better.
Therefore, the real value of MQA is for streaming. I have never tried this comparison because of the above stated reasons. Until DSD is a viable streaming format there may be a place for MQA. In my use there is not.
Michaels HiFi
Well-known member
We are the exact opposite.
I only stream as I love the ability to discover new music simply by swiping my finger on Qobuz or Apple Music.
I do miss the days of the having physical media to touch and look at (think album sleeves), but I don't miss the maintenance, space, and hassle of having to get out of my seat for them. LOL
steve59
Member
delete
steve59
Member
I personally don't understand why MQA stils up so much hostility? Maybe because my experience with it has been just as mixed as with flac or PCM. I have Tidal and Qobuz also but at this point I prefer Tidal for the size of its library and while most of the time I can't tell a difference in formats there are some gems on MQA that sound better thru my system than any 24/192 qobuz release I've heard yet. I also couldn't give a rats a$$ for bit perfect if I hear an alternative that sounds better.
The idea of MQA replacing flac is ridiculous, but I've heard enough good releases from mqa to keep paying the monthly premium to support it.
The idea of MQA replacing flac is ridiculous, but I've heard enough good releases from mqa to keep paying the monthly premium to support it.
Puma Cat
Well-known member
Lenbrook is basically buying MQA to obtain the IP and patents.
In my experience with repect to different "formats", it all comes down to the quality of the...MASTERING.
The best-sounding digital recordings I own, hands down, are from Linn (some classical recordings) and the Audio Wave XRCD24s series of Blue Note (which are 16/44 Redbook) jazz recordings that were (re)mastered by Alan Yoshida. I read a quote by a very knowledgeable music recording industry "insider" (can't remember who at the moment, sorry) that if every digital recording had been mastered by Alan Yoshida, we wouldn't have needed 96/24 PCM,192/24 PCM, SACD, DSD64, DSD128, DSD256, MQA, blah, blah, blah, Alan's 16/44 recordings would be...it.
Personally, I happen to agree with that perspective.
CPP
Active member
Was hoping these MQA threads would 'fade away' 
Puma Cat
Well-known member
still-one
Active member
Many of you have been saying that for over 7 years. Yet there are many thousands of MQA releases that never were nor never will be released in formats above 16/44. Tidal adds more each week.
Many of you have been saying that for over 7 years. Yet there are many thousands of MQA releases that never were nor never will be released in formats above 16/44. Tidal adds more each week.
Which really isn't a "problem" IMHO, especially since it is unlikely the new owner of MQA (the company) will pursue the original goal of having MQA replace other hi-res digital formats.
However, the post to which you responded merely asked for the threads discussing MQA would disappear; not the same thing as asking MQA to disappear (which it now appears to be doing, regardless of whether or not new titles are added to Tidal)
still-one
Active member
Which really isn't a "problem" IMHO, especially since it is unlikely the new owner of MQA (the company) will pursue the original goal of having MQA replace other hi-res digital formats.
However, the post to which you responded merely asked for the threads discussing MQA would disappear; not the same thing as asking MQA to disappear (which it now appears to be doing, regardless of whether or not new titles are added to Tidal)
If you are correct that Stephens response was actually limited to MQA threads disappearing, then I definitely interpreted it incorrectly. My bad.