MQA Discussion

still-one said:
The above in not what you asked for in the previous post. Here you state “while browsing Tidal” that can be done. In your previous post you indicate when in Roon you want to be able to identify MQA titles in Tidal. As you stated that can’t be done.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry if I didn't repeat the whole line... But here it is: I want to, while browsing Tidal, *within Roon*, to be able to identify which are MQA and which aren't.
I found the excuses that were pointed in Roon's forum to be, frankly, ridiculous. So Roon can display the little "E" badge for explicit lyrics, but it somehow doesn't know which album is MQA and which aren't...
Maybe wklie can shed some light into this, since his company HAS been able to identify the MQA tracks and properly badge them...
 
asiufy said:
Maybe wklie can shed some light into this, since his company HAS been able to identify the MQA tracks and properly badge them...
Click to expand...

The way we show the MQA icon for Tidal in Lumin app is straightforward - simply according to the metadata Tidal gives us.

My understanding is that Roon CTO considered this method to be not perfect. It may occur that the metadata indicates it's a Tidal Master album, but actual Tidal streaming downgrade it to CD quality or refuse to stream it due to regional licensing, etc. (However, we never received such a report. And even if this inaccuracy can happen occasionally in theory, I still think it's better to offer this function.)
 
wklie said:
The way we show the MQA icon for Tidal in Lumin app is straightforward - simply according to the metadata Tidal gives us.

My understanding is that Roon CTO considered this method to be not perfect. It may occur that the metadata indicates it's a Tidal Master album, but actual Tidal streaming downgrade it to CD quality or refuse to stream it due to regional licensing, etc. (However, we never received such a report. And even if this inaccuracy can happen occasionally in theory, I still think it's better to offer this function.)
Click to expand...

Yep, that's what I understood as well. Since it's out of their control, they'd rather not provide the information. Clearly unacceptable, but...
I don't get that excuse, specially given that you can always get the exact signal path with Roon, by click on that blob next to the song that's being played. Seems like they expect Tidal to do all the work for then, and only present the MQA album when it can actually be played as such (taking into account the user's subscription, settings, etc.)
 
asiufy said:
Yep, that's what I understood as well. Since it's out of their control, they'd rather not provide the information. Clearly unacceptable, but...
I don't get that excuse, specially given that you can always get the exact signal path with Roon, by click on that blob next to the song that's being played. Seems like they expect Tidal to do all the work for then, and only present the MQA album when it can actually be played as such (taking into account the user's subscription, settings, etc.)
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but this is a load of crap, if I've ever read one.

If they don't want to display false positives that's their choice and I agree with them. Don't use Roon if you think they are holding out because they are lazy and don't want to do the work.
 
Dr Tone said:
I'm sorry but this is a load of crap, if I've ever read one.

If they don't want to display false positives that's their choice and I agree with them. Don't use Roon if you think they are holding out because they are lazy and don't want to do the work.
Click to expand...

I love Roon. It's by far the best interface. They go above and beyond, including that nice signal path display. I just don't get why they can't be bothered to provide another piece of very useful information. You don't need to get all worked up about it. I was just venting my frustration with an otherwise incredible product.

I never said they're lazy, I just don't think their excuse is a good one. Again, no need for you to get all worked up about it...

cheers,
Alex
 
There are now 10000+ MQA albums on Tidal including duplicates, based on the MQA_List.csv from meridianplugged forum.

According to Roon forum, "removing Duplicates, Singles & EPs there are 7,392 Albums in the list."
 
rbbert said:
I read this the other day, and wondered then how anyone could possibly think MQA is a good thing for the music lover who cares about good sound. Perhaps coincidentally, there is a similar opinion expressed here

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/viewpoint/0218/Hacking_Hi_Res_Audio.htm
Click to expand...

Some ridiculous claims made as well.

1) People that don't like MQA because it's lossy with possible future DRM implications are biased and that's why they don't like the sound of MQA. He then proceeded to say that MQA for a fact is at least as good as the source lossless master.

2) Persons with large music collections most likely used questionable means to get their content.
 
Dr Tone said:
Some ridiculous claims made as well.

1) People that don't like MQA because it's lossy with possible future DRM implications are biased and that's why they don't like the sound of MQA. He then proceeded to say that MQA for a fact is at least as good as the source lossless master.

2) Persons with large music collections most likely used questionable means to get their content.
Click to expand...

3) People who buy a $99 MQA DAC to only proclaim MQA sucks. No, your DAC does.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Mike said:
3) People who buy a $99 MQA DAC to only proclaim MQA sucks. No, your DAC does.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

If it isn't obvious on a $99 DAC when Bob is trying to market this to mobile, why would anyone in their right mind spend big money on a new MQA Dac?
 
Dr Tone said:
If it isn't obvious on a $99 DAC when Bob is trying to market this to mobile, why would anyone in their right mind spend big money on a new MQA Dac?
Click to expand...

Because a $99 DAC is still a $99 DAC. When someone puts that on a $50,000 system, it will suck. The issue is they compare the MQA version on a $99 DAC to the PCM version on a $10,000 DAC. It’s like trying to win a race with three tires missing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Mike said:
Because a $99 DAC is still a $99 DAC. When someone puts that on a $50,000 system, it will suck. The issue is they compare the MQA version on a $99 DAC to the PCM version on a $10,000 DAC. It’s like trying to win a race with three tires missing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Well that's silly, you compare it to the PCM version on the same DAC.
 
Dr Tone said:
Well that's silly, you compare it to the PCM version on the same DAC.
Click to expand...

Of course you do. But I’ve read posts by people proclaiming MQA not to be so great, after their $99 experiment.

I had a gentleman in the store yesterday. We did Redbook/DSD vs MQA comparisons on the MSB Select II and he was completely blown away at the MQA.
 
But how MQA sounds is almost irrelevant to whether or not MQA is a "good thing". It's proprietary, it will limit our format choices (if MQA has its way, fortunately not yet a done deal), it prevents users from using DSP without additional A>D and D>A steps, and in the long run it will cost us more money.

If MQA's filtering actually results in consistent sonic improvement, I have no doubt that that can be incorporated into A>D and D>A of lossless hi-res PCM (and quite possibly even better sound quality).

Why these (to me) obvious issues with MQA continue to be essentially ignored by its proponents continues to baffle me.
 
rbbert said:
But how MQA sounds is almost irrelevant to whether or not MQA is a "good thing". It's proprietary, it will limit our format choices (if MQA has its way, fortunately not yet a done deal), it prevents users from using DSP without additional A>D and D>A steps, and in the long run it will cost us more money.

If MQA's filtering actually results in consistent sonic improvement, I have no doubt that that can be incorporated into A>D and D>A of lossless hi-res PCM (and quite possibly even better sound quality).

Why these (to me) obvious issues with MQA continue to be essentially ignored by its proponents continues to baffle me.
Click to expand...

In audio, how it sounds is the main thing that matters. Everything else is just to keep beating the horse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top