Is MQA Fading Away?

Mr Peabody said:
If what you say is how it works, then no one can get hi res from Tidal unless they have a MQA DAC.
Click to expand...

The free (although you need a subscription) Tidal desktop apps include MQA Core decoder that does MQA Core decoding / first unfold to 88.2kHz or 96kHz - This is Hi-Res. You also purchased the equivalent functionality from Aurender.

In a way, what you said is partially true. Tidal was the whole reason we at Lumin spent the money, effort and time to integrate MQA - otherwise our users could not get the most out of Tidal, or experience less than best possible SQ from Tidal. If Tidal offered normal Hi-Res FLAC in the past, things could have been very different. We supported MQA not because of MQA, but because of Tidal.
 
Mr Peabody said:
I don't know where AI gets their data but the answer I got and posted earlier is exact opposite of what Peter said.
Click to expand...

I read the AI answer. It's not wrong (although certain details can be presented better), and it's not opposite of what I said. Your main question is playback of Tidal without MQA DAC. The AI answer is that it plays, then uses several sentences to explain that you need the MQA DAC for best quality. Instead of those several sentences, it can be simply summarized as "it plays at a degraded quality without MQA DAC". The word "play" in that answer does not imply "at intended quality". It only means you get music - in the same way you get degraded SQ from playing a SACD CD-layer in a CD player.
 
Mr Peabody said:
Good try to spin. How is it obvious?
Click to expand...
I apologize for assuming that you were cognizant abut how MQA and Tidal operate.

1) Tidal HiFi has always had MQA as the only higher resolution than CD. 2) MQA requires an MQA DAC to produce its pseudo "hi-res". Both of these facts have been known since (for #1) Tidal introduced the HiFi tier and (for #2) since the introduction of MQA, and both of these occurred many years ago (more than 5, at least).

When you post "the AI answer", to what are you referring?
 
I notice that LeeS describes AS as "filled with MQA haters", as if that is unusual (or a bad thing?) I frequent a few audio sites, including the largest (SH Forums), and all of them seem to be "filled with MQA haters". Which audio sites (not associated with "publications" such as TAS or Stereophile) don't have most posters criticizing MQA and applauding its apparent imminent demise?
 
rbbert said:
I notice that LeeS describes AS as "filled with MQA haters", as if that is unusual (or a bad thing?) I frequent a few audio sites, including the largest (SH Forums), and all of them seem to be "filled with MQA haters". Which audio sites (not associated with "publications" such as TAS or Stereophile) don't have most posters criticizing MQA and applauding its apparent imminent demise?
Click to expand...

Because those of us who enjoy the benefits of MQA spent the last 7 years listening to music and not running from site to site and railing against windmills. There were sites such as the Roon forum that finally banned those threads because they get nowhere year after year. Do you really think most of us are in this hobby because we want to debate others opinions on MQA, tubes, switches, ethernet cables, Class D, DSD, power cords, value of expensive gear, double blind, compression and on and on?

I am guessing I am not the only one who usually skips involving myself in these inane discussions and only occasionally drops a post to remind others that a few zealots do not define our hobby's best interests.
 
Mr Peabody said:
I don't know how to make it anymore simple, if your DAC is not MQA can you play hi res from Tidal? Meaning no MQA software anywhere in the digital chain.
Click to expand...

software, Roon, and it sounds like your Aurender software upgrade will decode up to 24/96 even if the mqa is available at a higher resolution. to get the higher 24/192 or rare 32/352 the dac has to include mqa rendering. As mqa markets it, the first fold can be done with software and provide up to 24/96 while the second fold requires hardware.

I reached out to macintosh regarding the dac 1 and dac2 not carrying mqa and got a very clear explanation why the co has no plans to support it,. I asked 'why not carry another format?' This was the reply.

Hi Steve,

MQA is not a format, it is a data compressing scheme, to make the file size smaller for streaming.



MQA is lossy, like MP3, the original file has stuff removed from it to make it smaller and the lost data cannot be recovered.



It is also a licensed technology, the record company, streaming service and DAC manufacturer all have to pay $ to MQA to have it, and of course, YOU get charged that money.



FLAC is LOSS-LESS, all the original zero’s and one’s in the exact same order of the original file come back out when the file is uncompressed and played back. FLAC uses storage shortcuts to make the file about ½ size. For example, if there is 2 seconds of silence in a recording, the CD has like 10,000 Zeros in row on it, instead of saving 10,000 digits, FLAC just writes down: (0 x 10,000) and when you play the file, 10,000 Zero’s come back out, just like they were on the CD.



FLAC stands for: Free Lossless Audio Compression, the makers of MQA didn’t like the FREE part and so came up with something they could charge for.



WE are not going to charge you money for Lossy compression when Loss-Less compression is free..
 
steve59 said:
software, Roon, and it sounds like your Aurender software upgrade will decode up to 24/96 even if the mqa is available at a higher resolution. to get the higher 24/192 or rare 32/352 the dac has to include mqa rendering. As mqa markets it, the first fold can be done with software and provide up to 24/96 while the second fold requires hardware.

I reached out to macintosh regarding the dac 1 and dac2 not carrying mqa and got a very clear explanation why the co has no plans to support it,. I asked 'why not carry another format?' This was the reply.

Hi Steve,

MQA is not a format, it is a data compressing scheme, to make the file size smaller for streaming.



MQA is lossy, like MP3, the original file has stuff removed from it to make it smaller and the lost data cannot be recovered.



It is also a licensed technology, the record company, streaming service and DAC manufacturer all have to pay $ to MQA to have it, and of course, YOU get charged that money.



FLAC is LOSS-LESS, all the original zero’s and one’s in the exact same order of the original file come back out when the file is uncompressed and played back. FLAC uses storage shortcuts to make the file about ½ size. For example, if there is 2 seconds of silence in a recording, the CD has like 10,000 Zeros in row on it, instead of saving 10,000 digits, FLAC just writes down: (0 x 10,000) and when you play the file, 10,000 Zero’s come back out, just like they were on the CD.



FLAC stands for: Free Lossless Audio Compression, the makers of MQA didn’t like the FREE part and so came up with something they could charge for.



WE are not going to charge you money for Lossy compression when Loss-Less compression is free..
Click to expand...



What a great clear explanation. Thanks for sharing.
 
steve59 said:
software, Roon, and it sounds like your Aurender software upgrade will decode up to 24/96 even if the mqa is available at a higher resolution. to get the higher 24/192 or rare 32/352 the dac has to include mqa rendering. As mqa markets it, the first fold can be done with software and provide up to 24/96 while the second fold requires hardware.

I reached out to macintosh regarding the dac 1 and dac2 not carrying mqa and got a very clear explanation why the co has no plans to support it,. I asked 'why not carry another format?' This was the reply.

Hi Steve,

MQA is not a format, it is a data compressing scheme, to make the file size smaller for streaming.



MQA is lossy, like MP3, the original file has stuff removed from it to make it smaller and the lost data cannot be recovered.



It is also a licensed technology, the record company, streaming service and DAC manufacturer all have to pay $ to MQA to have it, and of course, YOU get charged that money.



FLAC is LOSS-LESS, all the original zero’s and one’s in the exact same order of the original file come back out when the file is uncompressed and played back. FLAC uses storage shortcuts to make the file about ½ size. For example, if there is 2 seconds of silence in a recording, the CD has like 10,000 Zeros in row on it, instead of saving 10,000 digits, FLAC just writes down: (0 x 10,000) and when you play the file, 10,000 Zero’s come back out, just like they were on the CD.



FLAC stands for: Free Lossless Audio Compression, the makers of MQA didn’t like the FREE part and so came up with something they could charge for.



WE are not going to charge you money for Lossy compression when Loss-Less compression is free..
Click to expand...

You pay more for DSD because you think it sounds better.

You pay more for hi rez because you think it sounds better.

Some of us listen to MQA whenever possible because we think it sounds better.

You forget that SACD (DSD) was developed because the original Sony/Phillips patents were expiring. They wanted to maintain that income stream There were no altruistic ideals behind SACD and DVD-A.

This lossey argument is plain horse--poo. The end result is what counts . The filters created for MQA (especially those created by dCS at least) can make it sound better

In my case and probably for most dCS owners we have not paid one extra penny for MQA. dCS provided it to current owners free of charge. In addition you pay the same on Tidal for MQA and normal 16/44 tracks.

Last, most of the music available on hi-rez sites (HDtracks, DSD, 2L) is either jazz, classical, or older rock. None of which are genre that keep me in this hobby. If it wasn't for new releases I would be done and spend my money and time elsewhere. I have no desire to hear the same old stuff over and over again. A good percentage of new releases were made available in the MQA format.
 
still-one said:
Because those of us who enjoy the benefits of MQA spent the last 7 years listening to music and not running from site to site and railing against windmills. There were sites such as the Roon forum that finally banned those threads because they get nowhere year after year. Do you really think most of us are in this hobby because we want to debate others opinions on MQA, tubes, switches, ethernet cables, Class D, DSD, power cords, value of expensive gear, double blind, compression and on and on?

I am guessing I am not the only one who usually skips involving myself in these inane discussions and only occasionally drops a post to remind others that a few zealots do not define our hobby's best interests.
Click to expand...

Some excellent points; however, apparently there aren’t enough of “you” to keep MQA viable?

As far as “our hobby’s best interests”, though, I must take issue, for reasons that many have posted: proprietary, lossy, putting record companies’ interests ahead of consumers (users), advertising that is at least borderline fraudulent, etc.

One would hope that for the price of a DCS DAC MQA capability would not be an extra charge. Even after Oppo Digital was no longer selling new products it added MQA capability to the 203/205 free to owners.

If in fact “new” music’s only “hi-res” format is MQA that is even more reason for MQA to go away; then perhaps the record companies might be more interested in releasing it in true hi-res.
 
still-one said:
You pay more for DSD because you think it sounds better.

You pay more for hi rez because you think it sounds better.

Some of us listen to MQA whenever possible because we think it sounds better.

You forget that SACD (DSD) was developed because the original Sony/Phillips patents were expiring. They wanted to maintain that income stream There were no altruistic ideals behind SACD and DVD-A.

This lossey argument is plain horse--poo. The end result is what counts . The filters created for MQA (especially those created by dCS at least) can make it sound better

In my case and probably for most dCS owners we have not paid one extra penny for MQA. dCS provided it to current owners free of charge. In addition you pay the same on Tidal for MQA and normal 16/44 tracks.

Last, most of the music available on hi-rez sites (HDtracks, DSD, 2L) is either jazz, classical, or older rock. None of which are genre that keep me in this hobby. If it wasn't for new releases I would be done and spend my money and time elsewhere. I have no desire to hear the same old stuff over and over again. A good percentage of new releases were made available in the MQA format.
Click to expand...

Jim, regardless of what forum you subscribe to, you can always be counted on to speak your truth. Funny enough, its my truth too! Carry on, Sir.
 
wklie said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
I like Tidal and Mqa, but it would be nice if they could also offer some high rez or flacs. We pay the premium for Tidal.

We have Spotify Duo and Tidal Master.

Ive never tried Qobus but i have alot of high rez files and sacds and bd audio.. So im familiar.

Spotify we have because my wife loves it, and I have many Spotify Connect gadgets.

I hope Spotify comes with Lossless soon, they already raised the price.
 
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.
 
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.


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