Is MQA Fading Away?

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.
 
steve59 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
rbbert said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
steve59 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
MichaelsMinute said:
...It seems the bigger issue is with crappy recording engineers than with the technology.
Click to expand...
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 :!:
 
mep said:
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.
Click to expand...

It may be an obvious statement, but the idea that MQA should be widely available as an alternative format simply "because" conveniently ignores this.
 
rbbert said:
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 :!:
Click to expand...

How many years have you worked in a recording studio? I do find it entertaining how much MQA gets certain people riled up.
 
Mr Peabody said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
MichaelsMinute said:
How many years have you worked in a recording studio? I do find it entertaining how much MQA gets certain people riled up.
Click to expand...
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.
 
rbbert said:
One only needs to correspond with a few respected recording engineers,
Click to expand...

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.
 
mep said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
MichaelsMinute said:
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.
Click to expand...
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)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top