Is MQA Fading Away?

rbbert said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's way too early to pronounce MQA dead. Let's give it a few months to see if a buyer emerges.

It's not advocacy either. I am simply giving an honest opinion of sound improvements from the format. If you could visit Atlanta, I could easily demonstrate what I am hearing.

I really don't understand all the hate for the format. It does make Peter's recordings sound better and no one ever held a gun to the consumer's head. It often seems this hobby attracts the most argumentative of people. We should give Stuart and Craven kudos for creating something clever even it doesn't work out as a business.
 
Lee Scoggins said:
...no one ever held a gun to the consumer's head...
Click to expand...

Not a gun, but not a choice either. If one has to pay for (unneeded and unwanted) MQA capability in a DAC that he wants and likes, then it is not really a choice.

I don't need to go anywhere to compare full MQA from Tidal to other hi-res versions of the same album/mastering; I have 2 very adequate MQA DACs right here.
 
rbbert said:
Not a gun, but not a choice either. If one has to pay for (unneeded and unwanted) MQA capability in a DAC that he wants and likes, then it is not really a choice.

I don't need to go anywhere to compare full MQA from Tidal to other hi-res versions of the same album/mastering; I have 2 very adequate MQA DACs right here.
Click to expand...

That is no different than having to pay for DSD capabilities in DAC that one may choose not to use.
 
still-one said:
That is no different than having to pay for DSD capabilities in DAC that one may choose not to use.
Click to expand...
Not so, there is no licensing fee for a DAC to decode DSD, and in most cases it is not something that needs to be “added”
 
rbbert said:
Not so, there is no licensing fee for a DAC to decode DSD, and in most cases it is not something that needs to be “added”
Click to expand...

I think you are picking fly shit out of pepper. Do you have the cost breakdown for how much it cost per DAC for adding MQA vice how much it cost per DAC to add DSD decoding? The argument could be made that DSD decoding is as much of a fringe requirement as having MQA decoding. What percentage of audiophiles who only listen to digital use streaming companies like Tidal or Quobuz? Neither service offers DSD files to listen to. The percentage of music that people want to listen to that was originally recorded in the DSD format is infinitesimal compared to PCM.

The majority of DSD files that people listen to have been converted from PCM to DSD. In the case of the PS Audio DSJ that I still own, it converts all PCM recordings to DSD. The front panel display lets you know what the recording originally was prior to conversion with regards to bit depth and sampling rate, but what you are listening to will be an upsampled DSD version of the original PCM recording.
 
still-one said:
That is no different than having to pay for DSD capabilities in DAC that one may choose not to use.
Click to expand...

Jim, I couldn't agree with you more. I dont understand all the negativity surrounding the nominal upcharge from a regular subscription to one that includes MQA. Not too long ago, if you wanted to rent a movie from an online source, you had 2 price points to consider - standard definition or HD.
If your TV was HD compatible, why wouldn't you pay the extra couple of bucks for the superior format.
 
Mark, The issue for many isn’t the up-charge for MQA. It’s whether that extra cost actually rendered improved SQ. That has been beaten to death and I am not going to comment on that one way or the other. Your comment on a superior format is hotly contested.

Want to talk cables instead? 😂
 
mep said:
I think you are picking fly shit out of pepper. Do you have the cost breakdown for how much it cost per DAC for adding MQA vice how much it cost per DAC to add DSD decoding? The argument could be made that DSD decoding is as much of a fringe requirement as having MQA decoding. What percentage of audiophiles who only listen to digital use streaming companies like Tidal or Quobuz? Neither service offers DSD files to listen to. The percentage of music that people want to listen to that was originally recorded in the DSD format is infinitesimal compared to PCM.

The majority of DSD files that people listen to have been converted from PCM to DSD. In the case of the PS Audio DSJ that I still own, it converts all PCM recordings to DSD. The front panel display lets you know what the recording originally was prior to conversion with regards to bit depth and sampling rate, but what you are listening to will be an upsampled DSD version of the original PCM recording.
Click to expand...

The highlighted part of your post pretty much undermines your argument. For a DAC with a delta-sigma DAC chip everything is PWM, and for most (maybe all) using FPGA to tell the DAC what to do (as with your PS Junior), DSD is simply "there" and not an added feature. True, for a R2R or ladder DAC without FPGA, it would be more complicated, but that is not how the majority of DACs being sold operate.

And there is no licensing fee for DSD. That licensing fee is how MQA, Ltd generates its income, so I doubt it is insignificant.
 
Mr Peabody said:
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.
Click to expand...

1. Outside of MQA, there is currently no Hi-Res FLAC from Tidal at this moment (there is only CD-quality 44.1kHz FLAC from Tidal - until Tidal decides to actually add Hi-Res FLAC). You can, however, get non-MQA Hi-Res from Qobuz. Disregarding streamer support (for you and me), Hi-Res is also available from Amazon and Apple Music.
2. AAC is lossy. It is not Hi-Res.
3. The MQA Core Decoder upgrade you purchased from Aurender decodes MQA to 88.2/96kHz also known as first unfold. You will not see 192kHz or higher from your non-MQA DAC display. (You also get MQA Core decoder from Tidal desktop app, Roon and Audirvana.)
4. Your IT guy is partially correct that MQA still plays without MQA decoder, but you get degraded SQ without MQA decoder. (That's similar to playing HDCD without HDCD decoder, or playing the CD layer using a CD player from a CD/SACD Hybrid Disc you paid additional money for).
5. You already paid for the MQA Core Decoder. You are not "losing MQA" unless you turn it off, get rid of your streamer, or the MQA content vanishes or gets replaced by non-MQA versions.
 
crwilli said:
Mark, The issue for many isnÂ’t the up-charge for MQA. ItÂ’s whether that extra cost actually rendered improved SQ. That has been beaten to death and I am not going to comment on that one way or the other. Your comment on a superior format is hotly contested.

Want to talk cables instead? 😂
Click to expand...

Hey Craig!
I hope you got your 18 in before getting Infront of a computer.

Ill tell you now, I respect everyone's opinion as long as they aligned with mine me:D
Joking aside, I say to each, their own. I think MQA is song dependent. Sometimes, I think the MQA algorithm is better, sometimes not. i say that about all the formats.
 
crwilli said:
Mark, The issue for many isn’t the up-charge for MQA. It’s whether that extra cost actually rendered improved SQ. That has been beaten to death and I am not going to comment on that one way or the other. Your comment on a superior format is hotly contested.

Want to talk cables instead? 😂
Click to expand...

What format did I say was superior?
 
rbbert said:
The highlighted part of your post pretty much undermines your argument. For a DAC with a delta-sigma DAC chip everything is PWM, and for most (maybe all) using FPGA to tell the DAC what to do (as with your PS Junior), DSD is simply "there" and not an added feature. True, for a R2R or ladder DAC without FPGA, it would be more complicated, but that is not how the majority of DACs being sold operate.

And there is no licensing fee for DSD. That licensing fee is how MQA, Ltd generates its income, so I doubt it is insignificant.
Click to expand...

I see nothing highlighted in my post and I never said there was a licensing fee for DSD.
 
A representative of Tidal has posted on Reddit that Tidal will be adding hi-res FLACs to their library
 
mep said:
I see nothing highlighted in my post and I never said there was a licensing fee for DSD.
Click to expand...

You are being somewhat disingenuous. You asked if I knew the relative costs of adding DSD capability compared to MQA, and in this comparison the biggest cost by far is the MQA licensing fee. DSD capability is merely a technological hurdle solved long ago, with minimal or no added cost as I described.
 
rbbert said:
A representative of Tidal has posted on Reddit that Tidal will be adding hi-res FLACs to their library
Click to expand...

In that case Tidal would not need MQA files at all. Another nail in the coffin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top