Thread: Is MQA Fading Away?

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.

I'd like to provide an update about this as of today - July 2023, based on my interpretation of the public posts from reddit:

1. Tidal has only released some Hi-Res FLAC to Tidal iOS beta app at this moment, known as Max quality.
2. Tidal Android app beta does not get Hi-Res FLAC right now, but is expected to, soon.
3. Tidal has stated in public they hope to launch this feature in August, for iOS app, Android app, desktop apps, and web player.
4. Note the missing parts: third party API integration that you need for streamers and Roon, and Tidal Connect are missing. We may assume they will come later, and will require changes to streamer firmwares and Roon.
5. In one public post it is stated MQA tracks will be retained. In another public post it is stated MQA-sourced 16/44.1 (which, I guess, are not marked as Master) will gradually be replaced by non-MQA FLAC 16/44.1.

By the way, here's a third party opinion of the most recent public filing of the financial status of MQA Ltd.:
Discuss recent MQA developments here - #119 by Steven44 - MQA - Roon Labs Community

The Canadian company that owns NAD and Bluesound now owns MQA | Digital Trends

Is MQA being resurrected?

PICKERING, ONTARIO, CANADA, SEPTEMBER 19, 2023 – Lenbrook Corp., a diversified, privately-owned Canadian enterprise with activities in brand development, technology, and distribution in both residential and commercial audio and the communication sectors, has acquired the assets of MQA, a UK-based industry leader in high-resolution audio encoding.

This acquisition enriches Lenbrook’s intellectual property portfolio with an assortment of significant patents and introduces two prominent audio codecs – MQA and SCL6. This merger further solidifies Lenbrook’s commitment to excellence and innovation in the evolving landscape of audio technology.

“Lenbrook’s vision is of a thriving hi-fi industry where technologies that promote both consumer choice and the pursuit of the highest sound quality are deserving of investment and nurture,” states Gordon Simmonds, Chief Executive Officer of Lenbrook. “We view this acquisition as an opportunity to ensure the technologies developed by the scientists and engineers at MQA continue to serve the industry’s interests rather than be confined to any single brand or company.”

Wonder how his business plan is different than Meridian's plan?

One article said something about Linbrook working on a system to best Blue Tooth and the MQA codec could help with that.

It will be interesting to see how Tidal reacts or if they can strike a deal so that Tidal keeps offering MQA. If not, would any other streaming service jump on it, like Spotify who keeps talking high res but still hasn't gotten there.

LeeS has apparently given up on posting at this forum full of MQA haters (his words, not mine) and is (vainly?) trying to again promote MQA at the SHForums and WBF. Unsurprisingly, those forums also appear to be full of "MQA haters"; he is already alone and on the defensive in both discussions.

It's like those Freddy and Jason horror movies. Just can't kill it.

There are those here who support MQA, visit the "What Are You Listening TO" thread. Most who are against it are parrots and never heard it in any comparison or meaningful way. It's like why do people hate Nickelback, it's the cool thing. There is also a lot of MQA supporters on the Tidal FB pages.

I have to laugh many here who say they don't like MQA are also those who claim you can't hear a difference in 320 kbps and a 1411 kbps.

MQA is purchased we'll have to see still what the future brings.

Originally Posted by rbbert

LeeS has apparently given up on posting at this forum full of MQA haters (his words, not mine) and is (vainly?) trying to again promote MQA at the SHForums and WBF. Unsurprisingly, those forums also appear to be full of "MQA haters"; he is already alone and on the defensive in both discussions.

Originally Posted by AJ Soundfield

It's like those Freddy and Jason horror movies. Just can't kill it.

I could be off in my observations, I mean I don't have any 'spins' to back up what I notice, but even in 24/96 which is read in roon It's easier for me to hear a difference from the dac in my h590 than the dac in my c49. I do prefer MQA. To my ears flac leaves an edge to the music that makes me want to reach to turn treble/presence down while mqa just sounds right. I have tinnitus after 40 years on worksites, but I hope mqa grows.

Originally Posted by steve59

I could be off in my observations, I mean I don't have any 'spins' to back up what I notice, but even in 24/96 which is read in roon It's easier for me to hear a difference from the dac in my h590 than the dac in my c49. I do prefer MQA. To my ears flac leaves an edge to the music that makes me want to reach to turn treble/presence down while mqa just sounds right. I have tinnitus after 40 years on worksites, but I hope mqa grows.

Thanks for sharing your observations Steve.

I don't care about MQA one way or the other so I don't have strong feelings.

My only experience is that I did have Tidal with MQA and find Qobuz Hi-Res to sound better to me in my opinion. The Qobuz (IMO) sounds more musical.

I'm not for or against MQA as these are just my informal observations. Regardless, reading how strongly the anti-MQA crowd is on the various forums, MQA surely has made serious marketing mistakes to the detriment of itself.

I don't see MQA being a sustainable format and generating further revenue in the future. The MQA cow has been milked dry IMO.

Here's some current and background info
On a Mythical Quest of Ascension, Lenbrook Acquires MQA - Strata-gee.com

It bears repeating that all of us are paying for MQA, whether or not we like it or use it. The widespread incorporation of MQA capabilities in hardware and the major record labels use of it, even if not exclusive, drives up the cost of music and audio components.

Originally Posted by rbbert

It bears repeating that all of us are paying for MQA, whether or not we like it or use it. The widespread incorporation of MQA capabilities in hardware and the major record labels use of it, even if not exclusive, drives up the cost of music and audio components.

Besides that being a Captain Obvious statement, we will see if MQA drops out of new gear involved in the digital music chain. If that happens, it will be the kiss of death for MQA. It appears for the here and now that MQA is on life support and it remains to be seen if Lenbrook can resuscitate the patient.

After reading that link from Mr Peabody reading... George Massenberg, who said “I’m so relieved that MQA and SCL6 will continue under Lenbrook”…adding, “[MQA] gave us the reason to go back into the recording studio and reverse a 20-year decline in the quality of audio delivery methods.”

On the science based forum I was surprised to find no admission that there's been no advancement in sound quality since the digital format was released. Obviously if my system didn't let me hear the potential of MQA directly against the flac equivalent I would think it was a scam also. There's also a reality I can't consistently tell the difference. That brings me back to the original recording! I have a Flora Cash 44khz mqa 'baby it's ok' that while not my music I can't stop playing because the recording is so immersive, while there's 24/192 mqa recordings that don't come close to that level of intimacy. Where the MQA experience leaves me is, if MQA gives recording engineers a second shot at improving releases it's a good thing. FLAC is what it is, it's a finished product and always available for everybody for free.

Originally Posted by steve59

After reading that link from Mr Peabody reading... George Massenberg, who said “I’m so relieved that MQA and SCL6 will continue under Lenbrook”…adding, “[MQA] gave us the reason to go back into the recording studio and reverse a 20-year decline in the quality of audio delivery methods.”

On the science based forum I was surprised to find no admission that there's been no advancement in sound quality since the digital format was released. Obviously if my system didn't let me hear the potential of MQA directly against the flac equivalent I would think it was a scam also. There's also a reality I can't consistently tell the difference. That brings me back to the original recording! I have a Flora Cash 44khz mqa 'baby it's ok' that while not my music I can't stop playing because the recording is so immersive, while there's 24/192 mqa recordings that don't come close to that level of intimacy. Where the MQA experience leaves me is, if MQA gives recording engineers a second shot at improving releases it's a good thing. FLAC is what it is, it's a finished product and always available for everybody for free.

This is a great post Steve. There are recordings from decades ago that sound fantastic, and there are recordings from today that sound like crap.

My best high end audio-buddy is a recording engineer. He's been telling me for 25 years that many of the recording engineers are deaf and have do clue nor desire to focus on sound quality. Based on the vast difference in recording quality we can all freely hear I agree.

It seems the bigger issue is with crappy recording engineers than with the technology.

Originally Posted by MichaelsMinute

...It seems the bigger issue is with crappy recording engineers than with the technology.

Your buddy should have also told you that regardless of what the recording and/or mastering engineer might want in terms of sound quality, it is the producer and artist who have the final say, and the producers in particular are the ones pushing today's sonically unpleasant mastering styles. One need look no farther than award-winning producers such as Rick Rubin and Don Was to see the root of that problem

Originally Posted by mep

Besides that being a Captain Obvious statement, we will see if MQA drops out of new gear involved in the digital music chain. If that happens, it will be the kiss of death for MQA. It appears for the here and now that MQA is on life support and it remains to be seen if Lenbrook can resuscitate the patient.

It may be an obvious statement, but the idea that MQA should be widely available as an alternative format simply "because" conveniently ignores this.

Originally Posted by rbbert

Your buddy should have also told you that regardless of what the recording and/or mastering engineer might want in terms of sound quality, it is the producer and artist who have the final say, and the producers in particular are the ones pushing today's sonically unpleasant mastering styles. One need look no farther than award-winning producers such as Rick Rubin and Don Was to see the root of that problem

How many years have you worked in a recording studio? I do find it entertaining how much MQA gets certain people riled up.

Opps!... I must have been sound asleep since 2014 and missed all the fuss.... too busy really enjoying vinyl.

Originally Posted by steve59

On the science based forum I was surprised to find no admission that there's been no advancement in sound quality since the digital format was released.

For those mired in 19th century 2ch, including latest Kool-Aid flavor MQA. This needs "admission"??

Originally Posted by Mr Peabody

There are those here who support MQA, visit the "What Are You Listening TO" thread. Most who are against it are parrots and never heard it in any comparison or meaningful way. It's like why do people hate Nickelback, it's the cool thing. There is also a lot of MQA supporters on the Tidal FB pages.

I have to laugh many here who say they don't like MQA are also those who claim you can't hear a difference in 320 kbps and a 1411 kbps.

MQA is purchased we'll have to see still what the future brings.

How could you possibly know that? I had a Tidal subscription for over a year and listened to MQA versions of many albums. I dumped Tidal and kept Quobuz because Quobuz sounds better.

Originally Posted by MichaelsMinute

How many years have you worked in a recording studio? I do find it entertaining how much MQA gets certain people riled up.

I don't think the post to which I was responding (an edited quote) mentioned MQA; it (and I) refers to the mastering excesses prevalent today and for about the last 20-25 years. One only needs to correspond with a few respected recording engineers, or even just read some published interviews with them, to understand my post.

Originally Posted by rbbert

One only needs to correspond with a few respected recording engineers,

Perfect - so you agree with my post.

And it sounds like you have no real world experience vs. my best friend who has almost 30 years in recording studios in NY, LA and Nashville.

My point is our current technology can produce some fantastic sounding recordings and have been able to for decades. The issue is the deaf or "don't care" people behind the consoles.

Thanks.

I've not heard of Quoboz, most compare Tidal to Qobuz.

Originally Posted by mep

How could you possibly know that? I had a Tidal subscription for over a year and listened to MQA versions of many albums. I dumped Tidal and kept Quobuz because Quobuz sounds better.

Originally Posted by Mr Peabody

I've not heard of Quoboz, most compare Tidal to Qobuz.

Is that all you have?

Originally Posted by mep

I had a Tidal subscription for over a year and listened to MQA versions of many albums. I dumped Tidal and kept Quobuz because Quobuz sounds better.

Same story here. I had Tidal for several years. When Qobuz became available, I got that as well and ran both side by side for about 6 months or so, maybe longer. After that, I dumped Tidal and kept Qobuz.

Not that MQA sounded horrible, but it didn't sound great either. Some albums, MQA sounded slightly better than Tidal's normal versions, some MQA sounded worse. But neither sounded as good as Qobuz.

Originally Posted by MichaelsMinute

Perfect - so you agree with my post.

And it sounds like you have no real world experience vs. my best friend who has almost 30 years in recording studios in NY, LA and Nashville.

My point is our current technology can produce some fantastic sounding recordings and have been able to for decades. The issue is the deaf or "don't care" people behind the consoles.

Thanks.

And my point is that is is often not the engineer himself who is making the mastering decisions that result in the final product, but rather the producer and the artist. Sure some engineers “don’t care” or “can’t hear”, but many if not most are just as unhappy with the final product as we listeners are. Check with your studio friend and see if he does not agree with this (I am fairly sure he will)

Originally Posted by rbbert

And my point is that is is often not the engineer himself who is making the mastering decisions that result in the final product, but rather the producer and the artist. Sure some engineers “don’t care” or “can’t hear”, but many if not most are just as unhappy with the final product as we listeners are. Check with your studio friend and see if he does not agree with this (I am fairly sure he will)

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.

Originally Posted by chops

Same story here. I had Tidal for several years. When Qobuz became available, I got that as well and ran both side by side for about 6 months or so, maybe longer. After that, I dumped Tidal and kept Qobuz.

Not that MQA sounded horrible, but it didn't sound great either. Some albums, MQA sounded slightly better than Tidal's normal versions, some MQA sounded worse. But neither sounded as good as Qobuz.

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.

Originally Posted by MichaelsMinute

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.

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.

Originally Posted by rbbert

and nothing in the last 10-12 years, but I doubt much has changed in that time, except possibly for the worse)

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.

Originally Posted by rbbert

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.

Give it up, it's hopeless. He has a "friend" who works in recording studios and his friend knows everything.

Originally Posted by rbbert

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.

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.

Originally Posted by chops

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.

"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.

Originally Posted by MichaelsMinute

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.

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.

Originally Posted by rbbert

"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.

And I agree.

Originally Posted by rbbert

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Randy Myers

I do not stream (surprise, there are some of us out there).

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

delete

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.

Was hoping these MQA threads would 'fade away'

Originally Posted by Puma Cat

They will, soon enough. Cheers.

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.

Originally Posted by still-one

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)

Originally Posted by rbbert

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.