MQA: That Sounds Good. To Me.

still-one said:
Keep on telling yourself it sounds worse. That doesn’t make it correct.
Click to expand...

Jim, I don't have to convince myself one way or the other anymore. I have long ago settled that argument by sitting down and comparing MQA on Tidal to Qobuz with Roon. I still have both Tidal and Qobuz.

My ears did not agree with most of MQA. I used various genres of music and MQA was only a bit more entertaining with certain genres that benefited from what is perceived as more energy and drive from most electronic, rock and some pop music. Genres that I listen to less often. On my favorite Jazz and Blues, as well as some classical music, the perceived artificial edginess of MQA was more of a hinderance than a benefit with a less natural presentation. On a casual listen, when comparing blind, the Qobuz will come across as a more laid back and flat presentation that is lacking the sparkle, even on the high resolution/bit depth material. That of course is the more natural presentation vs the MQA artificialness to my ears.

Enjoy MQA of course if that is your thing and it bring you closer to your favorite music. There is no harm in it and all these comparisons are purely subjective indeed. The fact that MQA is lossy, obviously can be analyzed and proven to be "different" sounding, does not mean one cannot still enjoy it.
 
Expectation bias is likely at play here.

Some folks buy into MQA. They subjectively listen and believe to hear or perceive amazing sound.

Likewise some folks see the objective test results that show that MQA is lacking; that it is not bit-perfect; it is flawed, etc. Then they listen to MQA and... they agree that it is flawed.

Has the objective tests, biased that individual? Perhaps, but unlike the folks that base everything on what they hear, the objectivists are backed by actual results to prove it.

It is hard to argue against facts.
 
What I find interesting is that the HT world has had proprietary lossy codecs in DD and DTS seemingly forever. No conspiracy theories, no DD sounds bad, no DD ruins the dialog, no DD is watermarking. No DD is taking over the world and must be stopped. Maybe some comparisons between DD and DTS. That’s it. Nary a contrarian peep out of anybody. Is it the market itself? Or the people who participate in it? Dunno.
 
So for all the MQA believers, is there really any “A” left in MQA? If so, how did Mark Waldrep’s files end up on Tidal before he authenticated them? I also learned this morning that the major labels that are participating in MQA actually have their own MQA encoders which means they are inputting their own digital files to the MQA encoder and outputting an MQA file. It’s just another revenue stream for them.

In order to believe a lossy format represents a serious improvement to digital audio and that MQA is everything it was purported to be, you have to still believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.
 
W9TR said:
What I find interesting is that the HT world has had proprietary lossy codecs in DD and DTS seemingly forever. No conspiracy theories, no DD sounds bad, no DD ruins the dialog, no DD is watermarking. No DD is taking over the world and must be stopped. Maybe some comparisons between DD and DTS. That’s it. Nary a contrarian peep out of anybody. Is it the market itself? Or the people who participate in it? Dunno.
Click to expand...

Really?? Ever heard of DTS-HD Master Audio or Dolby TrueHD?
 
W9TR said:
What I find interesting is that the HT world has had proprietary lossy codecs in DD and DTS seemingly forever. No conspiracy theories, no DD sounds bad, no DD ruins the dialog, no DD is watermarking. No DD is taking over the world and must be stopped. Maybe some comparisons between DD and DTS. That’s it. Nary a contrarian peep out of anybody. Is it the market itself? Or the people who participate in it? Dunno.
Click to expand...

here is why there are no protests over object based dsp multi-channel codecs such as Dolby Atmos (Dolby True HD). it does not hold itself up as a better, more pure version of 2-channel. it's completely honest that it's about making for a completely different thing. and more suited to support video, whether music or movies. and it's not 2 channel, it's 7.1.4, or 9.3.6, or even more channels......with heavy doses of dsp.

so it's not going down the road of MQA and passing itself off as an improved version of straight up digital 2 channel. which to my ears MQA mostly fails at in my system. i don't hate it, but i also don't think it has much value. i've yet to find a native digital file of any recording that is not equal or better than the MQA file. MQA adds nothing positive to the original file.

all that said, i can be perfectly happy with MQA files.....if the original is not handy.
 
W9TR said:
What I find interesting is that the HT world has had proprietary lossy codecs in DD and DTS seemingly forever. No conspiracy theories, no DD sounds bad, no DD ruins the dialog, no DD is watermarking. No DD is taking over the world and must be stopped. Maybe some comparisons between DD and DTS. That’s it. Nary a contrarian peep out of anybody. Is it the market itself? Or the people who participate in it? Dunno.
Click to expand...

Could it be that lossy, DSP, and multi-channel are over hyped by the 2-channel folks? [emoji15]
How can a YouTube video with low resolution audio be more enjoyable and engaging than a high-resolution audio? [emoji44]
Could it be that high resolution audio is way overrated?
 
PS. Based on what I know, the HT world does not stress about fancy cables, or expensive power cords, etc.

The HT world rely on objective tests to make sure that the image is correct (gamma adjustment, etc, etc). In other words, measurable and objective tests.

That’s very unlike the 2-channel audio that rely on subjective “my-ears-tell-me this” stuff.
 
Great responses to my original post. Seems like there are a lot of good reasons why proprietary codecs are not a problem in the HT world. Also with DTS and DD there are two major players competing and innovation is happening as a result. One fear with a single player is if they win, choice and innovation go out the window.
 
nicoff said:
PS. Based on what I know, the HT world does not stress about fancy cables, or expensive power cords, etc.

The HT world rely on objective tests to make sure that the image is correct (gamma adjustment, etc, etc). In other words, measurable and objective tests.

That’s very unlike the 2-channel audio that rely on subjective “my-ears-tell-me this” stuff.
Click to expand...

I think that the Video world has always been based on objective measures of performance, agreed to by experts and published as a standard. That includes the development of perceptual audio and video coders. (ex:mp3) Granted that has been fraying a bit with things like DolbyVision.

Contrast that with 2 channel audio where objective measurements don’t tell the entire story or are wholly discounted in favor of listener’s opinion.
 
W9TR said:
Rob - of course I have heard of (and listen to) DTS-HD MA and TrueHD.

I’m not sure I understand your point.
Click to expand...

They are both lossless high resolution digital audio formats in use in the HT world
 
I've moved from Tidal to Deezer & must admit am very much enjoying the flac over the mqa
 
Isn't it interesting that MQA (lossy, expensive) inspires discussion whereas for example MP4 (less lossy, free) does not? I'm sure more audiophiles would admit to listening to mqa, while I'm guessing no-one would admit in public to listening to MP4...
Admittedly, the brand "master quality authenticated" sounds miles better than "moving pictures experts group layer 4, or MP4 for short".

Is it in the name?
 
Gregm said:
Isn't it interesting that MQA (lossy, expensive) inspires discussion whereas for example MP4 (less lossy, free) does not? I'm sure more audiophiles would admit to listening to mqa, while I'm guessing no-one would admit in public to listening to MP4...
Admittedly, the brand "master quality authenticated" sounds miles better than "moving pictures experts group layer 4, or MP4 for short".

Is it in the name?
Click to expand...

Audiophiles understand that lossy formats like MP3 aren't up to RB standards and don't pretend to be. MQA was marketed as hi-rez and superior to all other digital formats.
 
Sony has he releasing thousands of titles in MQA.

Not to start any arguments, but IF you have an MQA DAC and IF you have tidal and Qobuz, compare Michael Jackson’s Thriller album (same album) MQA Vs high res on Qobuz. Listen to Billie Jean for example. Hmmm…definitely got to give the edge to MQA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Mike said:
Sony has he releasing thousands of titles in MQA.

Not to start any arguments, but IF you have an MQA DAC and IF you have tidal and Qobuz, compare Michael Jackson’s Thriller album (same album) MQA Vs high res on Qobuz. Listen to Billie Jean for example. Hmmm…definitely got to give the edge to MQA.


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

How do you know all different sources came from the same remaster? Maybe an equation with 2 unknowns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top