Whats your opinion on MQA

[doggiehowser]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=...&v=M6JAmv1wZJc

Hmm can you hear a difference? Even on YouTube!??

[Karl Maga]

Originally Posted by doggiehowser

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=...&v=M6JAmv1wZJc

Hmm can you hear a difference? Even on YouTube!??

Doggie, it was rather obvious to me (at your provided YouTube link). I'm thoroughly enthused, I can't wait to audition MQA full unfolding where there's nothing between my ears (which my wife says is a real and well proven fact) and the speakers. If I hear it then, I'll be making a purchase!

[doggiehowser]

Yeah I was surprised I could too - on Youtube no less!

[Musicmansweden]

Maybe you have seen this before; I found an interesting article from Linn in Scotland from I have bought a lot of hifi through the years.

https://www.linn.co.uk/blog/mqa-is-bad-for-music

Interesting nevertheless...

[rnrmf1971]

Ok, I stopped after the first song because there's no parity with the comparison.

The non MQA file is 16/44.1 and the MQA is 24/96.
All else being equal, I'd generally expect a 24/96 file to sound better.

The only thing this suggests to me is that, yes, higher bit rates sound better.

So, are all the comparisons in the video like this?

This is not to diminish the benefit of being able to stream higher bit rate files. That's great, but what I watched of the first comparison gives me ZERO information about the quality of MQA, only that a higher bit rate sounds better.

[Karl Maga]

That is a fair point that the non MQA file was 16/44.1. I had not noticed that, I simply listened. I assume all files were the same as he was flipping back and forth between the same two Yo-Yo Ma albums. I'll have to re-watch and take note of the other album/artist he briefly compares.

Originally Posted by rnrmf1971

Ok, I stopped after the first song because there's no parity with the comparison.

The non MQA file is 16/44.1 and the MQA is 24/96.
All else being equal, I'd generally expect a 24/96 file to sound better.

The only thing this suggests to me is that, yes, higher bit rates sound better.

So, are all the comparisons in the video like this?

This is not to diminish the benefit of being able to stream higher bit rate files. That's great, but what I watched of the first comparison gives me ZERO information about the quality of MQA, only that a higher bit rate sounds better.

[Karl Maga]

I thought his point was not made well. His chief complaint is that MQA will control "The Market", and that MQA will profit.

I reject his "control" point, and I think profit for a better mousetrap is ok: it drives innovation.

Originally Posted by Musicmansweden

Maybe you have seen this before; I found an interesting article from Linn in Scotland from I have bought a lot of hifi through the years.

https://www.linn.co.uk/blog/mqa-is-bad-for-music

Interesting nevertheless...

[Still-One]

Originally Posted by rnrmf1971

Ok, I stopped after the first song because there's no parity with the comparison.

The non MQA file is 16/44.1 and the MQA is 24/96.
All else being equal, I'd generally expect a 24/96 file to sound better.

The only thing this suggests to me is that, yes, higher bit rates sound better.

So, are all the comparisons in the video like this?

This is not to diminish the benefit of being able to stream higher bit rate files. That's great, but what I watched of the first comparison gives me ZERO information about the quality of MQA, only that a higher bit rate sounds better.

I am not sure why you stopped since the source was Tidal and other than the MQA offerings Tidal only streams music up to 16/44. You knew that going in.

There are only handful of MQA releases that you can purchase and compare to hi-rez versions acquired from other hi Rez sites. The selection of MQA titles for purchase is nowhere near the thousands available on Tidal.

[doggiehowser]

+1 [emoji106]

What Still One said

I'm getting MQA for zero premium over the regular 16/44 service. And better sound quality which you also attested to.

And I'm not paying a premium to get it supported on my DirectStream DAC. And even if MQA fails to a horrible death, I'll still be able to play hires PCM and DSD on the same DAC.

Seemed like a no brainer.

[rnrmf1971]

Originally Posted by Still-One

I am not sure why you stopped since the source was Tidal and other than the MQA offerings Tidal only streams music up to 16/44. You knew that going in.

There are only handful of MQA releases that you can purchase and compare to hi-rez versions acquired from other hi Rez sites. The selection of MQA titles for purchase is nowhere near the thousands available on Tidal.

I don't have Tidal so I don't really know what they offer. I just went in thinking it was a comparison on equal ground between MQA and non-MQA.

When I saw that wasn't the case, I stopped watching, because I expect higher bit rates to sound better when all else is equal.

If MQA files didn't sound better, there'd be little reason for Tidal to offer them.

I find it interesting that there are only a handful of comparisons to be made, though. I didn't know that, either.