How badly do you really want MQA?

[mikesiegel56]

I started listening to MQA a few weeks ago. It does sound better on high quality equipment

[Cogito]

ZERO interest here. Just give us a stand-alone DAC with Dirac. You know, the soon to be released XDA-3!!!

[PaulBe]

Sept 15, 2017 9:51:13 GMT -5 KeithL said:

We have at least a few users here who want MQA really badly.
(We've already said that we aren't going to consider it unless there's significant interest.)

So, please tell us, how much would you be willing to pay to see MQA added as a feature in the next Emotiva DAC or pre/pro you buy?

No MQA for me. I think it is a hoax. It's a sophisticated container made to generate royalty revenue on both the input and output sides. Nothing more.

[SteveH]

Aug 13, 2018 9:12:51 GMT -5 klinemj said:

Aug 13, 2018 8:58:59 GMT -5 KeithL said:

The big questions are:

How many MQA releases do you find anywhere OTHER THAN Tidal?

How much MQA music do you OWN?

To be honest, I'm not a huge fan of streaming, but Tidal is obviously the only major option out there if you want CD quality or better streaming.

That said, as far as I know, both Tidal and Spotify continue to lose a lot of money.

I also hear that Spotify is going public... which should get them a big infusion of capital... and enable them to stay in business.

I've hardly bought any CD's since Tidal came out with CD quality streaming. In fact, I have purchased 3. So...the answer is...I own no MQA releases in CD form. And, while you may not be a huge fan of streaming - I and many others are. When I look at the discussions here and other forums about how people are sourcing their music, I see a LOT off discussion about streaming and very little about playing CD's.

As far as Tidal and Spotify and their financials. I have confidence that CD quality streaming services will exist. Will they offer MQA? I don't know. But, as I noted...no matter who is backing it, there are more and more MQA releases I can get to whether I own a hard copy or not. If Tidal goes away, I highly doubt those will go away...I have confidence they will reappear somewhere.

Mark

I purchased a $549 Bluesound Node 2i DAC to connect to my $5000 RMC-1 so I can enjoy the rental and purchase options of Tidal and Qobuz MQA to its fullest extent. Can Emotiva add MQA (perhaps Roon) for $500 or less?

[klinemj]

Jan 14, 2020 21:40:03 GMT -5 SteveH said:

Aug 13, 2018 9:12:51 GMT -5 klinemj said:

I've hardly bought any CD's since Tidal came out with CD quality streaming. In fact, I have purchased 3. So...the answer is...I own no MQA releases in CD form. And, while you may not be a huge fan of streaming - I and many others are. When I look at the discussions here and other forums about how people are sourcing their music, I see a LOT off discussion about streaming and very little about playing CD's.

As far as Tidal and Spotify and their financials. I have confidence that CD quality streaming services will exist. Will they offer MQA? I don't know. But, as I noted...no matter who is backing it, there are more and more MQA releases I can get to whether I own a hard copy or not. If Tidal goes away, I highly doubt those will go away...I have confidence they will reappear somewhere.

Mark

I purchased a $549 Bluesound Node 2i DAC to connect to my $5000 RMC-1 so I can enjoy the rental and purchase options of Tidal and Qobuz MQA to its fullest extent. Can Emotiva add MQA (perhaps Roon) for $500 or less?

I would think Emotiva could add ability to fully unfold MQA for $500 or less. They could also make their gear Roon ready, and surely the cost of that can't be much...a $35 Raspberry Pi can have free software that's Roon ready. So...that cost can't be much at all.

Mark

[Gary Cook]

Jan 14, 2020 22:23:15 GMT -5 klinemj said:

Jan 14, 2020 21:40:03 GMT -5 SteveH said:

I purchased a $549 Bluesound Node 2i DAC to connect to my $5000 RMC-1 so I can enjoy the rental and purchase options of Tidal and Qobuz MQA to its fullest extent. Can Emotiva add MQA (perhaps Roon) for $500 or less?

I would think Emotiva could add ability to fully unfold MQA for $500 or less. They could also make their gear Roon ready, and surely the cost of that can't be much...a $35 Raspberry Pi can have free software that's Roon ready. So...that cost can't be much at all.

Mark

I have no use for either of them and as a result I wouldn't pay even $1 for them.

Cheers
Gary

[repeetavx]

Back when I subscribed to Tidal, I felt like MQA was the closest I've ever heard to a recording sounding like a live performance. And that was without any kind of decoding software.

My problem was that i had to "mine" for the songs that I wanted to listen to, because the search engine didn't look for just MQA songs.

So even though I really enjoyed the "presences" of MQA, I couldn't justify paying four times the cost of Disney+ for a service that I found aggravating to use.

I hate that even though I think that it is a superior technology, that because of its proprietary isolation and spotty application, that it like BetaMax will die from the marketplace

[mulla]

Sept 15, 2017 9:51:13 GMT -5 KeithL said:

We have at least a few users here who want MQA really badly.
(We've already said that we aren't going to consider it unless there's significant interest.)

So, please tell us, how much would you be willing to pay to see MQA added as a feature in the next Emotiva DAC or pre/pro you buy?

[mgbpuff]

I have two devices that I can listen to Tidal MQA on, a Cary Audio AiOS integrated amp, and a Project Pre Bo S2 Digital DAC. The AiOs unit drives NHT 2.5 towers, and the Project goes through a Cary SLP 03 preamp to Muscical Fidelity 550K Monoblocks to Revel Ultra Salon II speakers. I have other systems also that do not have MQA sources and I listen to them all especially my Magnaplanar 3.7 speakers driven by all Emotiva electronics. Not all, but when I get music that I like in an MQA version, it seem more real intimate and life like than any others. MQA is mathematically sound and brings something to the table, but all hi-res music can sound really good. If you are a hobbyist who likes to sample many different forms of audio equipment, I recommend that you try MQA before you bash it.

[dennis2]

I want it badly. Last couple of months I've started using Tidal Masters more and more. Their MQA library is still not huge, but it's getting better and better. The Tidal Connect feature that was released recently is also great

[mrwoolly]

I've been following the writings of Dr. Mark Waldrep a.k.a Dr AIX and his concern that MQA is yet another smoke and mirrors audio snake oil. Going back to 1st principles and looking at how getting the very best out of the recording has always been his objective. Once music became digital the possibility for degradation of the bit pattern became a bone of contention. But fundamentally if the data doesn't change from recording to playback the sonic quality is down to the DAC and analog signal path.

From Mark's independent Hi-Res challenge it is very apparent that the vast majority of people, audio enthusiasts/members of this message board included can't tell the difference between music recorded in "high definition" versus 44.1kHz CD Red Book spec. For some listeners their equipment just can't reproduce the bandwidth all along the signal path. Heck, even the "high definition" version of Paul Simon's Graceland is a mixture where the vocals and instruments recorded in South Africa was sampled at 44.1 kHz and the 192kHz material added in the USA.

MQA is a black box proprietary system of signal processing that does change the original material and does not recreate the original.

Before you all pile on and educate me, take some time to understand what MQA is doing and have a cup of tea and watch this www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRjsu9-Vznc

Then you'll understand why I won't buy any gear that carries the MQA license fee.

[novisnick]

Apr 16, 2021 17:09:56 GMT -5 mrwoolly said:

I've been following the writings of Dr. Mark Waldrep a.k.a Dr AIX and his concern that MQA is yet another smoke and mirrors audio snake oil. Going back to 1st principles and looking at how getting the very best out of the recording has always been his objective. Once music became digital the possibility for degradation of the bit pattern became a bone of contention. But fundamentally if the data doesn't change from recording to playback the sonic quality is down to the DAC and analog signal path.

From Mark's independent Hi-Res challenge it is very apparent that the vast majority of people, audio enthusiasts/members of this message board included can't tell the difference between music recorded in "high definition" versus 44.1kHz CD Red Book spec. For some listeners their equipment just can't reproduce the bandwidth all along the signal path. Heck, even the "high definition" version of Paul Simon's Graceland is a mixture where the vocals and instruments recorded in South Africa was sampled at 44.1 kHz and the 192kHz material added in the USA.

MQA is a black box proprietary system of signal processing that does change the original material and does not recreate the original.

Before you all pile on and educate me, take some time to understand what MQA is doing and have a cup of tea and watch this www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRjsu9-Vznc

Then you'll understand why I won't buy any gear that carries the MQA license fee.

Lets get him!

[JKCashin]

STealing that

[stiehl11]

Apr 16, 2021 17:09:56 GMT -5 mrwoolly said:

I've been following the writings of Dr. Mark Waldrep a.k.a Dr AIX and his concern that MQA is yet another smoke and mirrors audio snake oil. Going back to 1st principles and looking at how getting the very best out of the recording has always been his objective. Once music became digital the possibility for degradation of the bit pattern became a bone of contention. But fundamentally if the data doesn't change from recording to playback the sonic quality is down to the DAC and analog signal path.

From Mark's independent Hi-Res challenge it is very apparent that the vast majority of people, audio enthusiasts/members of this message board included can't tell the difference between music recorded in "high definition" versus 44.1kHz CD Red Book spec. For some listeners their equipment just can't reproduce the bandwidth all along the signal path. Heck, even the "high definition" version of Paul Simon's Graceland is a mixture where the vocals and instruments recorded in South Africa was sampled at 44.1 kHz and the 192kHz material added in the USA.

MQA is a black box proprietary system of signal processing that does change the original material and does not recreate the original.

Before you all pile on and educate me, take some time to understand what MQA is doing and have a cup of tea and watch this www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRjsu9-Vznc

Then you'll understand why I won't buy any gear that carries the MQA license fee.

Just ran across the video you linked on my own and came here to check to see if anyone else had posted it. Really well done and informative. Ultimately, it comes down to what someone likes/prefers. But if anyone thinks MQA is a superior format for preserving audio quality, this video graphically shows it is not.

And, you're correct that most can't tell a difference between high-res and CD quality. The best score in a post I made on the Lounge with a hearing test between mp3 and CD quality was 2 out of 6.

[adan]

Apr 22, 2021 11:54:10 GMT -5 stiehl11 said:

Apr 16, 2021 17:09:56 GMT -5 mrwoolly said:

I've been following the writings of Dr. Mark Waldrep a.k.a Dr AIX and his concern that MQA is yet another smoke and mirrors audio snake oil. Going back to 1st principles and looking at how getting the very best out of the recording has always been his objective. Once music became digital the possibility for degradation of the bit pattern became a bone of contention. But fundamentally if the data doesn't change from recording to playback the sonic quality is down to the DAC and analog signal path.

From Mark's independent Hi-Res challenge it is very apparent that the vast majority of people, audio enthusiasts/members of this message board included can't tell the difference between music recorded in "high definition" versus 44.1kHz CD Red Book spec. For some listeners their equipment just can't reproduce the bandwidth all along the signal path. Heck, even the "high definition" version of Paul Simon's Graceland is a mixture where the vocals and instruments recorded in South Africa was sampled at 44.1 kHz and the 192kHz material added in the USA.

MQA is a black box proprietary system of signal processing that does change the original material and does not recreate the original.

Before you all pile on and educate me, take some time to understand what MQA is doing and have a cup of tea and watch this www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRjsu9-Vznc

Then you'll understand why I won't buy any gear that carries the MQA license fee.

Just ran across the video you linked on my own and came here to check to see if anyone else had posted it. Really well done and informative. Ultimately, it comes down to what someone likes/prefers. But if anyone thinks MQA is a superior format for preserving audio quality, this video graphically shows it is not.

And, you're correct that most can't tell a difference between high-res and CD quality. The best score in a post I made on the Lounge with a hearing test between mp3 and CD quality was 2 out of 6.

Are you talking about the NPR article? www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality

If so, I got 3/6, the ones I got wrong were 320KB MP3 version, what does that mean? Well, to me it means I bought some great speakers and sub, thanks Emotiva! (let's not forget the cheap dac from amazon and the cheap stereo receiver from best buy circa 2005ish.)

On topic, I also seen the infamous MQA youtube video and I'm glad I stayed clear from that format, I'm happy with my FLAC and DSD files.

[Radblue]

After spending 1 year with a Node2i and Tidal MQA I'm now in the group " don't really care, either way". I found some recordings sounded better with MQA but most just sounded a lil diferent.
I would much more willing to pay for native DSD capabilities.

[405x5]

How badly do I really want MQA?
Well let’s see…Thread got started almost 4 years ago.
Think I’ll wait a while longer

[repeetavx]

Back when I had Tidal, I tried different combinations of source rates and DAC rates.

A 44.1k encoded file sounded better when I set my XMC-1 DAC clock "speed" to 192k. It sounded better than decoding it at 96k or its native 44.1k.

Which brings me to the subject of this post. Each clock speed had its own custom set of filters setting. Just play around with the settings until the associated filters produce a sound that is most suited to your taste.

I believe that setting my DAC "decoding speed" to 192k allows for a larger window of harmonic interactions.

[KeithL]

I think there's something that needs to be clarified here...

The source device sends digital data to the DAC - which then converts the digital audio signal into analog audio.

The DAC has no choice whatsoever except to "decode" the audio signal at the sample rate at which it is received.

You cannot "set the decoding speed on the DAC".

You can configure the Tidal client to request various different versions of the album (the "CD quality" version or the "HD version").

The Tidal client will then request that audio stream, receive it, and convert it into a standard digital audio format.

You can then configure your computer to pass this on to the DAC as-is or to up-sample or down-sample it.

 (When you choose WASAPI or bit-perfect playback you are instructing the computer to pass the audio data to the DAC without altering it.)

 (When you select a specific sample rate you are instructing the computer to convert the incoming digital audio as needed so the output always matches that sample rate.)

 (Some programs, like jRiver Media center, offer more complex processing options.)

The DAC then convert the digital audio signal, at whatever sample rate it receives it, into analog audio.

- virtually all modern DACs use oversampling internally to simplify the design of their internal filters (and there are very good reasons for doing this)

- some DACs offer an extra up-sampling step in their software (since filtering is involved each option offers yet another "flavor" of coloration you may choose)

- many processors, including ours, may also perform internal sample-rate conversions before submitting the audio data to the DAC - for a variety of reasons

- and, obviously, things like EQ and room correction perform their intended functions by altering the data as well

The XMC-1 (and our RMC-1 and XMC-2 as well) will always DISPLAY the sample rate they are receiving from the source device.

Then, depending on the options you have selected, they may convert it directly into analog, or convert it to a different sample rate for processing before sending it to the DACs.

(For example, we convert it to 48k before sending it to the Dirac filters, which operate at that sample rate internally.)

(Of course, since the output you'll be listening to is ANALOG, what goes on inside is somewhat moot, except for how it affects the sound of the output.)

However there are a few things worth noting:

- Reducing the sample rate requires that information be discarded (which may or may not be audible).

- Up-sampling to a higher sample rate CANNOT create new information; so it cannot actually improve the accuracy or audio quality of a file or stream.

  (It's main legitimate purpose is to facilitate other things that may help prevent a loss of audio quality at other steps in the process.)

- ALL digital up-sampling or down-sampling involves filtering, which often produces subtle alterations in sound, and is the difference you usually hear.

And, yes, just as certain engines seem to run better at a specific speed, some DACs may perform better with inputs of a certain sample rate.

(But usually the difference you hear is just a "side effect" of the sample rate conversion process... and some different sample rate conversion programs do sound slightly different than others.)

May 4, 2021 21:03:42 GMT -5 repeetavx said:

Back when I had Tidal, I tried different combinations of source rates and DAC rates.

A 44.1k encoded file sounded better when I set my XMC-1 DAC clock "speed" to 192k. It sounded better than decoding it at 96k or its native 44.1k.

Which brings me to the subject of this post. Each clock speed had its own custom set of filters setting. Just play around with the settings until the associated filters produce a sound that is most suited to your taste.

I believe that setting my DAC "decoding speed" to 192k allows for a larger window of harmonic interactions.

[KeithL]

That was my experience with listening to MQA content...

Sometimes it sounds noticeably different and sometimes not.

And, when it does sound noticeably different, sometimes it is an improvement, and sometimes not.

(Which is the same experience I often have with other "remasters".)

However, to be honest, I have had pretty much the same experience with DSD files and SACDs.

The SACD version of an album often sounds quite different than the CD version.

However, from my experience, the difference remains when I convert that DSD file to a PCM file using a good quality converter...

This suggests that the DSD version really sounds different because it's mastered differently - and not because of the recording format.

But, since DACs do process DSD a little differently than PCM, and the conversion process is not mathematically "bit-perfect", it is difficult to make a direct comparison.

You will also find that, if you convert the same DSD file to PCM using different conversion programs, the result will often sound a tiny bit different...

This is due both to the fact that there are various settings involved and the fact that not all programs do the conversion equally well...

May 4, 2021 9:08:16 GMT -5 Radblue said:

After spending 1 year with a Node2i and Tidal MQA I'm now in the group " don't really care, either way". I found some recordings sounded better with MQA but most just sounded a lil diferent.
I would much more willing to pay for native DSD capabilities.