I left Tidal some time ago. I didn’t realise that it was all MQA now.
There is no no-MQA subscription, though they just added one in Australia. But my understanding is that if you configure the app to use Hifi and not Masters (or with the Naim app) you get CD quality anyway, at least this is what their FAQ says. Though I could be wrong, some people seem to say you get the CD-compatible version that MQA degrades to when played on non-MQA devices, which is not exactly the same
There is a video on YT by Hans Beekhuyzen that is supposed to be a response to Goldensound:
I don’t think he addresses any of the points made by Goldensound - basically just asserts that he is a trained listener (whatever that is), and he thinks MQA sounds good. Which it may well, but is it better than, for example, FLAC? He seems, really, to dodge both what Goldensound was doing and saying, and whether MQA is better than the alternatives.
Beekhuyzen annoys the crap out of me, because he has all this measurement gear sitting in the background of his videos, but he never shows any measurements and just ventilates subjective drivel.
P.s., i saw this response video of his about MQA earlier and i didn’t feel his arguments had much substance. He tried to make it look like Goldensound’s arguments against MQA were just a matter of ‘taste’ or ‘opinion’, which is really misrepresenting the extensive research that Goldensound did on his video.
I’ve not watched many of his videos, but from those that I have I would concur.
I actually canceled my Tidal subscription and will encourage everyone to the same. I haven‘t realized how restrictive MQA is. It is initiated by a single, small, laughable company that is after licensing money. They achieved this by influencing the end user to believe the format is magic. An as we all know as soon as someone states what the benefits are, they are suddenly heard.
I support Qobuz now. They seem to be still an European company which is also a benefit.
However, he is reinforcing that he has never heard any of the attributes that the YouTube video posted by Golden Sound references.
As I haven’t either, as stated here Goldensound’s view on MQA - #18 by simon.pepper
Infact, has anyone, who has listened to an MQA encoded track, but subject to the 1st unfold undertaken, heard any of the attributes described?
I don’t listen to MQA/Tidal Masters tracks without them unfolded, as I used Roon to playback through my NDS, so can’t speak to the findings for these comments, which is half of the findings in the YouTube video.
He says that he does measure equipment regularly - he just rarely includes his measurements in his videos.
I do find it quite strange that his opinion of the sound quality of audio equipment he reviews should be labelled as ‘subjective drivel’ on this forum of all places. I’ll warrant that the vast majority of Naim users on this forum choose to purchase Naim kit on the basis of its subjective sound quality (dynamics, PRAT etc) rather than because of its specifications.
I rather like Hans Beekhuyzen’s approach to reviewing hi-fi equipment, and when I audition hi-fi equipment myself I do so on the basis of extended listening tests (preferably in my home system) rather than by reading up on raw specifications.
I guess i just don’t like his pseudo-scientific tone which he doesn’t substantiate with more objective data.
Other subjective reviewers like Steve Guttenberg i do appreciate a lot, because they leave out that “i’m pretending to be objective and scientific” shtick.
Different strokes for different folks!
I have a full unfold MQA DAC in the office, and I still think Redbook and hi-res PCM sounds better.
Aside from that, no matter how it sounds, MQA is nothing but a pox, an attempt at money grabbing from manufacturers and record labels at the expense of the consumer, by a handful of desperate individuals who really should be selling overpriced cables instead instead of trying to fleece the music industry.
Goldensounds published his files allowing us other lazy audiophiles to have a listen. I dont know why this scared the MQA-folks. It doesn’t necessarily mean they got scared - they have done and said other things that makes me think they are just freaky and paranoid bunch of guys
Personally i think the ultimate problem of MQA is not a matter if it sounds better or not. The problem is that it is creating a solution to a problem which is questionable and maybe even not existing and does it in way the end user only gets confused because it is a proprietary technology nobody can really look objectively into (which is ok, they developed it for many years).
Ultimately when file size was at a premium I think MQA could have brought something to the table. Now i see it as a form of complex upsampling technology (called unfolding) which is an alternative way of getting higher resolution files by using a rather complex process of software and hardware decoding.
For me it adds even more variables into streaming (which is already a quite complex topic) that some people including myself do not want to deal with.
Ultimately the biggest mistake was how it was (or still is?) implemented into TIDAL, where you basically get MQA from hi-res files and from other formats, thinking you are listening to the “Master Recording” when you are actually not.
At the end of the day i think one can easily live without it - or not care about it - but of course if you are a TIDAL user you have to deal with it one way or the other.
That Goldensound video created a stir which may put MQA in a worse light than the company actually deserves, as they just provide an alternative way of upsampling. You do not have to embrace it but some people seem to like what MQA does to the sound, which is their choice and which is what matters.
Not really, as you can only “upsample”, as you put it, files that have been “downsampled” using MQA. And in their unfolding hidden data from the “downsampling” apparently is still there and reappears, albeit not bitperfectly, whereas in true upsampling no additional data appears.
Yeah, i know they use some kind of downsampling first, i was rather speaking in the grand scheme of things. At the end of the day they provide a higher bitrate and/or samplerate than the original and that is was seems to matters. Their claim is that they remove stuff from the master (which in itself often contains noise and unwanted information). So what is better? A bitperfect upsample of a master containing unwanted information or the MQA treatement where they remove (and add) some of the stuff. I don’t know. Maybe for some masters the MQA treatement bring some benefit. For properly mastered recordings i surely would prefer a “honnest” and bitperfect approach.
Surely the benefit of MQA lies with the distributor rather than with the end listener. Most broadband these days (not all I accept) can cope with hi res files but the bandwidth saving of MQA for the broadcaster is probably substantial. I have assumed that the intention of MQA was to provide an acceptable (not necessarily the best) hi res listening experience which, reading the discussions, it seems to achieve whilst providing benefits to the deliverer (and some hardware companies).
Sorry IB that was meant to be a reply to the thread not to your post.
Yes, I was just picking up on your use of the word upsample, as I think it is not really like upsampling at all. Nothing about MQA make me want anything to do with it. And as others have pointed out, their so-called correction for the original ADC may be a complete fallacy, such as where there have been multiple different ADCs in the recording process.
Same here.
Qobuz gives peace of mind in that regard. Some claim their catalogue is not vast enough but it is surely big enough to satisfy one’s needs. There are always other options to listen to the music it is missing.
The only MQA I have listened to is the RP stream. It is definitely distorted at the top end on either the full ‘unpack’ via the 2I, and also on the one stage unpack via the 2i plus Qutest.
I am listening to RP now on cd quality. It is fuller sounding and more balanced.
I think it’s safe to assume that MQA isn’t going to make it, there is just too much opposition.
A bit similar to how 3D was never going to make it on film / TV.
It could take a while to fully die out though…