Thread: Is MQA Fading Away?

Slightly off-topic, but...

Betamax failed due to marketing considerations even though it had better picture quality. MQA only exists due to marketing considerations even though it has inferior sound quality.

MQA deserves to fade away.

I have seen several print reviewers write some of their evaluation music was streaming utilizing MQA.

More and more MQA titles are released each week. Plenty to choose from

Originally Posted by still-one

More and more MQA titles are released each week. Plenty to choose from

As long as TIDAL pays for them they will continue to be released; after all it costs the label essentially nothing except licensing fees (probably covered by TIDAL) to release a new title. The real question is what happens to MQA if TIDAL folds or decides to stop supporting it.

Originally Posted by rbbert

As long as TIDAL pays for them they will continue to be released; after all it costs the label essentially nothing except licensing fees (probably covered by TIDAL) to release a new title. The real question is what happens to MQA if TIDAL folds or decides to stop supporting it.

That same "what if" has been on the table for over 5 years now. Tidal doesn't appear any closer to exiting the scene.

MQA is audio hocus pocus. It's a lossy format pretending it's not a lossy format and it made ridiculous claims about how they would authenticate that each MQA release sounded just like the master owned by the recording labels.

Originally Posted by nicoff

Actually, Tidal alone is not enough to keep MQA Limited alive. MQA has been losing millions of dollars every year since it was created. Their 2020 financial statements shows that it lost nearly $5 million that year and had sales of about $600k. That is not sustainable even if Tidal survives.

Not necessarily. If it wished to, MQA Limited could easily cut its overhead to near zero at this time; the company itself should no longer be incurring costs beyond its payroll (R&D is done, and it doesn't manufacture anything), and it really doesn't need any current employees except bookkeeping.

Ok, talk to me like a child here. Is mqa squeezing out a superior format that I’m unaware of? A dac that can resolve all the current formats can be found for a few hundred bucks and tidal is only one streaming option.

Originally Posted by steve59

Ok, talk to me like a child here. Is mqa squeezing out a superior format that I’m unaware of? A dac that can resolve all the current formats can be found for a few hundred bucks and tidal is only one streaming option.

The answer to your first question is no.

Originally Posted by steve59

Ok, talk to me like a child here. Is mqa squeezing out a superior format that I’m unaware of? A dac that can resolve all the current formats can be found for a few hundred bucks and tidal is only one streaming option.

I'll talk to as an adult. Yes, they have.

I just read the rolling mqa debate that brings up 'goldensound's' arguments and it's enlightening for sure. mqa shouldn't replace flac any more than mp3 should, but when it can deliver higher resolution with the same bandwidth by dumping more inaudible bits i'm down. Just listened to division bell 24/192 mqa and currently believe.

Originally Posted by steve59

...Is mqa squeezing out a superior format that I’m unaware of? ...

This is indeed the only thing that I care about, because it has been hinted at on a number of occasions that the major labels would prefer to have MQA the only digital download option (over CD's and MP3/4) available to consumers. As long as that doesn't happen, who cares?

There is no issue here, just the typical anti-MQA rants from the usual suspects. MQA is available for many albums and through Tidal, and most DACs can decode it. High Res is available for many albums and through Qobuz, and all DACs can play it. If you hate MQA, play your High Res files, subscribe to Qobuz and pipe down.

Ken

on my WBF Wadax thread there was some MQA talk, so i spent a few minutes investigating......it is what it is.....

i already had this sense, but just to make sure........i took 30-35 minutes of my life i will never get back, and did a 20 second A/B on Tidal with MQA and then Quboz with standard PCM......with 10 cuts. 100% of the results were exposing MQA as slightly smeared and less vivid.....mostly less separation of the soundstage, and somewhat dynamically muted. none of the MQA were 'bad' musically. just less special.....less alive and real. some of the Quboz was regular 16/44, some the same resolution as the MQA upsample. same result regardless.

maybe some new stuff is mastered with MQA, maybe that makes a difference.

the whole idea of MQA is to 'fix' digital somehow......we already know we don't need to fix it, we just need the Wadax. but honestly that was the similar result with MQA on the MSB, maybe to a slightly less decisive degree. it was a little closer.

Originally Posted by Alpinist

There is no issue here, just the typical anti-MQA rants from the usual suspects. MQA is available for many albums and through Tidal, and most DACs can decode it. High Res is available for many albums and through Qobuz, and all DACs can play it. If you hate MQA, play your High Res files, subscribe to Qobuz and pipe down.

Ken

Well said. I default to Qobuz, but there are still albums on Tidal which are not on Qobuz and many of those are in MQA.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Been on Qobuz for a while since I dropped Tidal. Why listen to MQA when I have the LP's or CD's or downloads of my fav music. To each their own and there is nothing wrong with that. .

When I had an MQA DAC I thought the sound quality was excellent. MQA is based on a solid technical foundation using well-known psychoacoustic principles. No hocus pocus.

I have since sold my MQA capable DAC and switched to Quobuz. I don’t miss MQA, but I have had to increase my internet plan to accommodate the unnecessary higher bandwidth.

I guess It’s a ‘don’t care’ for me at this point. If I got an MQA capable DAC again I’m not sure what I’d do.

Originally Posted by W9TR

...MQA is based on a solid technical foundation using well-known psychoacoustic principles. No hocus pocus.

FWIW, this is also true of MP3 and AAC, and the same "reservations" about the sound quality of those formats applies to MQA. For example, I find AAC 320k to be just fine for mobile listening (car); at any speed over about 25 mph I can't tell the difference between that and "lossless" audio even in my fairly quiet cars. Most listeners are fine with 256k AAC anywhere anytime.

Originally Posted by nicoff

Really!? So how in the world are they going to secure more business?

Yes, how? They have no new products to develop. Do you mean they need to have some representatives (i.e., ad men) to keep pushing their product?

Originally Posted by Mike Lavigne

on my WBF Wadax thread there was some MQA talk, so i spent a few minutes investigating......it is what it is.....

If I got those results I would blame the Wadex and dump it.

I could have sworn I saw the MQA rep in the synergistic research room at the Florida audio expo. Did he leave MQA?

Originally Posted by still-one

If I got those results I would blame the Wadex and dump it.

Originally Posted by still-one

More and more MQA titles are released each week. Plenty to choose from

Yep, and MQA technology is being issued on a limited number of LPs with the Plangent Process.

I am hearing that MQA is doing very well. They continue to announce a large number of completed licensing deals each year.

Originally Posted by Lee Scoggins

...I am hearing that MQA is doing very well. They continue to announce a large number of completed licensing deals each year.

You do realize that this is a relatively meaningless statement re: the "health" of the company, don't you?

God help us all if they start making MQA LPs.

Originally Posted by GSOphile

My understanding is that they are selling licenses and making sure that people comply with their standards/processes before certifying a licensee's offering.

Although nobody seems to know exactly what that means, since it (the standards/processes) has changed several times since MQA's introduction.

Originally Posted by Edward

I could have sworn I saw the MQA rep in the synergistic research room at the Florida audio expo. Did he leave MQA?

Most likely that was Ken Forsythe

A perfect place for him to be....LOL

Originally Posted by rbbert

Although nobody seems to know exactly what that means, since it (the standards/processes) has changed several times since MQA's introduction.

They ran out of psychic mediums to contact the spirits of the dead artists and recording engineers to get their approval that the MQA files sound just like the original master tapes.

Originally Posted by mep

They ran out of psychic mediums to contact the spirits of the dead artists and recording engineers to get their approval that the MQA files sound just like the original master tapes.

While that is certainly a possible explanation, at least equally likely (and perhaps more worrisome) is that they change their standards and processes to meet the demands of the marketplace; surprisingly enough, those demands rarely correlate with or result in improved sound quality.

Originally Posted by rbbert

You do realize that this is a relatively meaningless statement re: the "health" of the company, don't you?

You do realize that Tidal is part of Square that has a market capitalization greater than Spotify. I have little knowledge of how they will integrate the various businesses controlled by Block but Tidal could be part of a way to deliver special, unique, or limited edition content to its users. NFT's are a new but hot item for some market segments. For example a unreleased Whitney Houston demo has sold at auction, as an NFT, for ~$1million.

I have read, in several locations, that MQA was/is a money grab by Bob Stuart. Because of how they are attempting to control everything with this format I would tend to believe this is true.

Originally Posted by Randy Myers

I have read, in several locations, that MQA was/is a money grab by Bob Stuart. Because of how they are attempting to control everything with this format I would tend to believe this is true.

This entire hobby seems to be a money grab. Controlling content has been No. 1 for years.

Originally Posted by still-one

You do realize that Tidal is part of Square that has a market capitalization greater than Spotify...

I was referring to MQA, Ltd., not TIDAL

Originally Posted by Randy Myers

I have read, in several locations, that MQA was/is a money grab by Bob Stuart...

This is merely an opinion, not necessarily a fact, unless you consider anything sold as a "money grab". MQA sells a product for which people pay money, the same as any other commercial enterprise.

Originally Posted by rbbert

I was referring to MQA, Ltd., not TIDAL

Sorry if I misunderstood. I was alluding to your Post #7 where you ask where would MQA go if Tidal fails or stops supporting it.

Which is still a valid question, but the more recent one was in response to Lee's comment that MQA is doing well because they continue to sell new licenses. Anyone with even a passing acquaintance with the business world knows that the 2 do not necessarily correlate. And merely because TIDAL is part of a large conglomerate there is no guarantee that it will continue; perhaps if anything the opposite because if it becomes a money sink it would probably be closed out. A large conglomerate with other businesses might have less incentive to continue it than an owner with more emotional (and perhaps financial) investment.

Originally Posted by rbbert

This is merely an opinion, not necessarily a fact, unless you consider anything sold as a "money grab". MQA sells a product for which people pay money, the same as any other commercial enterprise.

What has been more referenced is the attempted to limit any kind of competition. To require that music companies work with them, etc., etc. Way more than a company trying to position themselves for success. They attempted to make themselves the one and only. A really bad decision in many peoples view.

Similar to what Sony did with Betamax and SACD, etc. But on a much larger scale, because if they had their way MQA would be the one and only digital format. An extremely poor calculation on their part.

Originally Posted by rbbert

Which is still a valid question, but the more recent one was in response to Lee's comment that MQA is doing well because they continue to sell new licenses. Anyone with even a passing acquaintance with the business world knows that the 2 do not necessarily correlate. And merely because TIDAL is part of a large conglomerate there is no guarantee that it will continue; perhaps if anything the opposite because if it becomes a money sink it would probably be closed out. A large conglomerate with other businesses might have less incentive to continue it than an owner with more emotional (and perhaps financial) investment.

Hip Hop related artists were one of the driving forces forces in the growth of Cash App. You can see why Dorsey and Jay Z looked at Tidal and now it fit into what is now part of the Square umbrella. "Meanwhile, [Tidal] remained a relatively small player in a cutthroat industry where topdog Spotify boasts 155 million premium subscribers. TIDAL is estimated to have closer to 1 million paid subscribers. If Square leverages the power of Cash App and it’s new found backdoor into the music industry, it could create one of the biggest record companies and music streaming platforms at the same time." Tidal should continue to grow under that position.




Forbes Money

I don’t know if MQA is fading away, but I do know I have never come across a MQA file, or ever have a reason to use, or try, it.

Originally Posted by BlueFox

I don’t know if MQA is fading away, but I do know I have never come across a MQA file, or ever have a reason to use, or try, it.

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

Originally Posted by rbbert

You do realize that this is a relatively meaningless statement re: the "health" of the company, don't you?

I was financial analyst on Wall Street for many years so I know how to judge the health of a company. I cannot reveal all I know about the company as many conversations are confidential but these licensing deals are very lucrative and they continue to refine and develop multiple technologies. They also have a very solid group of investors. They will be around for a while.

Originally Posted by Lee Scoggins

... I cannot reveal all I know about the company as many conversations are confidential but these licensing deals are very lucrative and they continue to refine and develop multiple technologies...

"very lucrative"? In 2020 their total sales were about $600,000; for a company with (presumably) more than a handful of employees and at least some physical overhead costs I don't see how that translates to very lucrative. Unless of course they are hiding much of their income?

The fact that you are having confidential conversations about financial matters with a company that makes a product that your publication reviews does not instill confidence that the review(ers)' opinions are unbiased; it makes you appear to be a dealer rather than a review publication.

Mmmm it could be I guess, but not for a short period of time anyway, cuz there are still a lot of people who want MQA feature on their streamers or players, I wouldn't say it's gonna fade away, just maybe becoming less major of a digital music feature, but still requested haha...