I don’t understand the more technical aspects of the video but the message does make a persuasive impact. Perhaps he’s preaching to the converted with me but the argument that we should retain the option of non-MQA hi-res alongside MQA is hard to refute…
3 Likes
I thought one of the comments posted on the Youtube video page was telling:-
“As a mastering engineer, the essential thing to me is that FLAC can represent the data absolutely exactly as I have set it for the master, in a format that is about 65% the file size compared to the uncompressed PCM, and is taggable, streamable, multi-channel ready and capable of being fully hi-res - AND open source and license free. And I have been able to prove to myself numerous times via conversion round trips and null tests that it is truly lossless in its encoding/decoding”.
3 Likes
I have been listening to MQA through Room. For me it is definitely more Hi Fi and very impressive. But it is not more music! It is wrong. On some tracks I sort fell nauseous after listening. Something is not right but I can’t figure out what it is. It is so impressive but subconsciously it feels wrong. Yet I can’t figureout what is wrong!
The principle issue is that its now a solution trying to find a problem. The internet caught up and I am listening to Pink Floy in 192 direct for quboz, so whats the point of MQA?
A cash grab is what.
9 Likes
Excellent video and very informative, thanks for posting that.
Just FYI in case you haven’t seen it, readers of this thread will be interested in this post by Steve (and the previous one) in a parallel Tidal thread:
1 Like
Indeed - unlike MQA…
Hope you have read the complete answer of MQA and , if interested in detail, the answers in Audio Science Review forum, where his “measurements” have been debunked. The originator of this video has been removed in several fori for his strange style. And by the way: No one MUST hear MQA, there is always a possibility to switch back to HiFi/ or CD only.
1 Like
I have spend considerable time, listening to MQA encoded versions of tracks stored locally and via Tidal compared to both locally stored PCM and DSD versions of the same music.
All my MQA based playback was unfolded by Roon, to a max of 24/96 and played back through my NDS through a SonoreUPnP Bridge.
I have not tried to compare encoded MQA without any unfolding.
I have not heard any of the artefacts referenced in this video.
I have heard equivalent presentation of the music, in terms of soundstage, timing, scale and presentation.
I have heard improvements in MQA versions over the Redbook 16/44.1 rips I had of the music previously.
When I have HiRes FLAC I will play this, as a preference over the equivalent MQA version, particularly if the HiRes FLAC is 24/192 or 24/176.
I am undecided over MQA vs DSD versions, but then that is the same with DSD vs HiRes FLAC. However, I will play the DSD over Redbook 16/44.1
When I have just MQA versions of music, it is still enjoyable and interesting to listen to, and a pleasant experience.
Am I looking for further MQA processing in my playback chain, NO, as I rate my NDS in terms of SQ and when combined with Roon, it provides an interface to find, select, explore my collection, leverage internet sources, manage playback in multiple zones (only one having Naim equipment), and the NDS/555DR is superb IMO.
5 Likes
Why not switch forward to TRUE hires with PCM/DSD.
1 Like
Thank-you. That is not a very good choice and typical of the MQA impact. Why only CD quality? Can I not have hi-res? Obviously not with Tidal! So I subscribe to Qobuz hi-res.
And if it is so good why the MQA censorship? I would be concerned at any supplier that suppressed the truth and additionally put pressure upon Tidal and the music publisher to remove the test samples.
What have they got to hide? The fact that their technology cannot be tested suggests that they have much to hide.
Perhaps you can post the links you refer to.
The main critique by Nimar I saw in ASR prefaced their comments with
“I don’t believe MQA is manna from heaven, or the answer to audiophile dreams. More likely it’s a way for the record industry to have tighter controls over the release of hi res music, while still holding on to the originals. Fine.”
Secondly in regards to proving MQA claims and MQA testing he/she suggests other developments are not tested - this may be true but is hardly proof or a MQA endorsement.
2 Likes
No smoke without fire. MQA/Tidal reaction is disappointing enough for me to move away to Qobuz.
Rather than be transparent and engage in the debate and discuss the findings which are detailed enough to warrant a response, there’s (what appears to be) an attempt to discredit Goldensound and to shut down and prevent any testing of MQA on the platform.
Independently verify the claims vs MQA if there’s nothing to hide.
Neil Young’s comments are also interesting in they challenge the value of MQA, and what it does to his music (Goldensound’s point), and therefore the hifi subscription (family hifi in my case)
While I may not notice the difference, I don’t want to feel ‘ripped’ off or made to feel lossy, about it 
4 Likes
Oh my Paul, that answer was given to the claim that you must hear MQA and cant get the file without MQA codec. Of course you get High Resolution from an MQA file, but streaming services don’t want to stream 192 kHz 24 Bit files without special codecs because they need too much bandwith for a mass service. And you know that even Youtube had to turn off 4k streaming because of limited availability of bandwith during corona times . There is NO censorship from MQA, just an offer to get up to 384 kHz 24 Bit files not bigger than a conventional 44/16 file. They have nothing to hide, but protect their property of a codec, which needed if not I recommend about 10 years and a lot of high level technicians and medical experts (psychoacousticians) to be ready. I did not say it cant be tested , but “the net” meanwhile knows that the tests of selfpromoted golden ear where flawed due to the nature of mqa , which is mainly about timing , not so much about frequency response. I hope you can distinguish between Authentication and DRM , if not I recommend the files at AES or MQA about it. My proof for endorsement are Bob Ludwig , Morten Lindberg, Bob Katz or similar guys with real awarded golden ears , and the amount of growth for MQA files in Tidals offer. If you dont like it, dont use it, but pls don’t spread rumours if you have not taen time to inform yourself.
1 Like
Quite simple because of size. Not everybody in real world has a T1 connection, where size does not matter. Especially if our kids need the net for homeschooling. And dont think about 1 connection but about millions of users, and you could understand that here size matters.
Qobuz does
24/192 in stereo is about 1 MB/s, a trivial network load. And I don’t know about the UK, but in Germany even the lower mobile plan tiers typically exempt music streaming from monthly limits because it’s trivial, and that includes Qobuz. There may well be situations in which MQA’s compression may be helpful or required, but it’s less of an issue every year.
4K video is at least 15 MB/s or better 25, which is quite a difference. Even so, IIRC the Youtube and Netflix limitation lasted only for a short time at the beginning of the pandemic.
5 Likes
I dont think anyone still has T1 connections. And you will have a hard time feeding MQA down a T1 (it was a long time since I heard anyone talk about T1:s).
We are on the verge of 5G and today we have 4G/LTE which now is very low cost. I pay EUR 12/mon on top of my phone fee to have unlimited LTE that I use for HD video-streaming and audio. And some even give you media bandwidth for free,
You say “just an offer to get up to 384 kHz 24 Bit files not bigger than a conventional 44/16 file”. Now that is what I call lossy compression, if you call this High Resolution then you are doing a disservice to your friends in the MQA-community. At least if you mean using the same bandwidth as 44/16 which is what you are implying elsewhere. The bandwidth needed for true high res (192/24) is about the same as for a Netflix-stream, around 5MBit.
I also saw your and Bob Stuarts discussion on the magic “single” master. You are wrong because the difference between the masters is not about bitrate as you both seem to think. It is about content and context. I may have done only part-time duty in mastering but even I managed to squeeze in that much 
1 Like
Not possible as many of the CD only titles on Tidal are now MQA encoded. I was gifted an ongoing ‘lifetime’ sub last year, and even I’m considering ponying up and switching back to Qobuz. Not only does Qobuz sound better, they aren’t in on the scam I consider MQA to be, regardless of the sound quality, which in most cases I find odd and fatiguing despite sounding more ‘hifi!’ to begin with.
1 Like
There where a few networks toying with not including streaming in their budgets. But its not common place in the UK, besides in high saturation areas it’s hard to stream anything lossless, I’m in London area and even 256kb Tidal wouldn’t hold up on my commute to work, only Spotify was any good as it buffers so much more ahead than the rest. Speeds might be good in areas with low use count but it soon drops dramatically when you have high utilisation. I remember being an early adopter to 4g it was superfast for a while until all networks and phones got it and it dropped massively.
Of course the difference between MQA and not MQA is not about bitrate . And you are right , we talk about same bandwith. And since you know so much about MQA , you also know its about timing, correcting old converters and much more complex things. Its also not about how much you can squeeze into you master, but how to bring most of it to the analog part of your endusers equipment. I am just a passionate music lover, who spent some time as hifi reviewer, product manager in consumer/stage electronics and telecom. One who loves new technologies which do a better job for hifi performance than was available before it came to market.
Interesting, never had a problem with this in Berlin, using Qobuz on the mobile in full hi-res glory.
(In Germany, I have the lowest Vodafone monthly plan and unlimited music streaming is included (you can choose if the limitation shall be lifted for either music, video, gaming, etc. Or choose more than one for a flat fee of IIRC 5 euros)
But in any case, this is for mobile and the apps have settings to use e.g. mp3 on phone data connection. So yes, if someone wants hi-res while being mobile (or using an LTE-based uplink at home), MQA may well have an advantage.
But for the usual DSL internet connections and similar at home, there are few you will find that cannot handle a 1MB/s stream, and those will be unusable for most anything that consumers typically do.