As much as I dislike the idea of MQA, this statement seems wrong on many levels. There are already a "few thousand" MQA titles on Tidal (and this is after only about 9-10 months), and AFAIK Universal Music has only released a handful of their huge catalog so far. HDCD is just not comparable in any way to the other formats you discuss; it was a stopgap, and was always a stopgap when there was no other way to improve on delivering better than CD-quality commercially. SACD, who knows; as has been pointed out elsewhere, looked at world-wide there are more titles being released today than at almost any time previously. Bluray Audio was practically D.O.A., but since you get virtually the same sound quality in Bluray video, it hardly matters (more and more concert and music videos released on BD every week). I have a pretty substantial music collection (around 20,000 hours) and a significant (>20%) amount is in some hi-res digital format. It is only as niche as you want it to be.
MQA Discussion
- Thread starter still-one
- Start date
KeithR
Active member
There are 5,000 titles already streamable from Tidal in less than a year. SACD had 6,000 titles in the first 10 years.
iirc, 40% of Tidal customers pay up for HiFi service right now.
BlueFox
New member
Give me a few days, and there will be another.
I don't know about all that Lumin/Berkely stuff, but I found comparing a Tidal 16 bit /44 kHz track vs. the MQA 24 bit/48 kHz quite interesting. Song used was Talking Heads Once in a Lifetime.
First the MQA track was recorded at a lower volume, so I attempted to adjust volume by ear, but it is not that simple because different instruments are louder than others from track to track. i.e.: it is remixed! It is not the same track. Therefore using a db meter to match volume is pointless.
I find it impossible to try to evaluate the higher resolution. The non-MQA track sounds louder because the bass and drums are mixed at a higher level. Whereas the MQA track the cowbell is MUCH more prominent so the cymbals are more recessed. Would this give the impression of higher resolution? "oh, listen to the cowbell now with MQA!" As well the vocals have more echo in them with the non MQA track. I think I like the non MQA version better; more bass and drums. What I don't know is if they remixed the MQA version, or if it the regular album that was remixed; I am assuming the latter as the regular album has bonus tracks.
So why didn't they "MQA" the album with the bonus tracks?
Anyone else interested in A/B ing this song on their setup?
Another price:
I got family plan: $29.99 for multiple users in the same household. Spotify was $14.99 but only 320 KBPS of course.
CPP
Active member
Make you wonder which actual master they used in the conversion to MQA ; https://www.discogs.com/Talking-Heads-Once-In-A-Lifetime/master/56981
still-one
Active member
- Thread Author
- #1,007
The difference, in post #995 you make it sound like we are paying an additional $10 per month to get MQA. In reality anyone who wanted to stream CD quality (16/44.1) had to pay for Hi-Fi Quality (that is what Total calls it) and pay the $19.99 per month from Day 1. In January they added a new level "Master Quality" aka MQA and left the price at $19.99. So yes, we pay the same additional $10 per month to get either CD quality or MQA versus MP3 quality for $9.99.
On this site as well as two other similar "audiophile" sites no one to my knowledge has come out and said they have subscribed to Tidal for MP3 quality. The positive comments come from individuals who appreciate the SQ of CD quality streaming and pay the $19.99. I am sure there are many "non-audiophile" types who only pay the $9.99.
Hi Francisco,
I believe the Lumin U1 is the music server portion of the Lumin S1 (without DAC).
Best,
Ken
The U1 sounds better.
the professor
Well-known member
CPP
Active member
I think our marketing message is that U1 is (functionally equivalent to) the digital part of the S1 because many users asked for it, but actually U1 is very different in the hardware. The increased processing power in U1 also allows resampling from/to DSD128, which is not possible with the rest of the Lumin product line. The absence of unneeded DAC and analog circuit also lowers electric noise, which is a significant factor of the sound quality of a transport.
Phishphan
Active member
Yes. It's outstanding!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
audio.bill
Active member
Some further thoughts on MQA from SoundStage: "Is MQA Better, Worse, or Just Different?"
"Although I don’t have an MQA-compatible DAC, MQA-processed files can be played by non-MQA DACs, and some have reported that they sound better than the non-MQA versions."
Then you have no opinion. Live with full blown MQA for a few months and then let's talk.
I was listening a good part of the day yesterday, almost exclusively to MQA and vinyl. During my MQA listening, I noticed half way through the second full album, "holy sh!t, I'm still listening to digital and haven't once got itchy to jump around songs."
Has digital historically converted album listeners into track listeners?
Will MQA reverse this trend?
Is MQA a panacea for badly recorded albums? Hell no. Are there cases where the vinyl trumps it? Hell yes! Are there cases where DSD trumps it? Hell yes! Are there cases where redbook trumps it? Not that I've heard.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
jdandy
New member
Mike.......I don't think digital converted album listeners into track listeners, at least not me. That's because I have always been a track listener as well as a full album listener. As far back as the late 60's, yes I know that was a half a century ago, I was recording my favorite LP album tracks onto reel to reel tape. I made dozens upon dozens of mixed music tapes for years and played them often. I was also playing both sides of LP's through that same time period. Then along came cassettes and the mixed music tapes moved to that format and shifted the listening experience in my vehicles. It wasn't much different than listening to FM radio, just no DJ and no commercials.
What digital has allowed me to do, particularly in the age of music servers, is build playlists of my favorite titles and genres more conveniently. What used to require hours and lots of physical hands on dexterity with albums, tonearms, and tape machines can now be accomplished within a few minutes of searching a digital library and tapping on songs you want in a playlist. The effortlessness and efficient nature of creating digital playlists improves the entire listening experience in my opinion. Having said that, I still put LP's on the turntable and listen to side A and Side B. I still place CD's and SACD's in my transport and listen to the entire recording. It is wonderful to have all of these options, but my point is the digital age did not make me a track listener. That started for me over 50 years ago, long before digital was even a faint inkling in some engineer's brain.
I will agree with you that the modern audio playback options that have been available since the advent of MP3 files and the whole file sharing thing that went on for years have fostered a different way to enjoy music by allowing the listener to navigate a music library with the touch of a finger, and this does promote track listening. I just don't agree that it was the digital age that started it. Furthermore, whether MQA will reverse this trend is yet to be seen, but frankly I doubt it. People naturally gravitate to what pleases them and avoid what turns them off.