MQA has a place if you have a legacy or restricted bandwidth broadband access, metered internet access and/or mobile access. If you have above 10mbps download bandwidth, then you should be able to enjoy lossless HD at 192/24.
Qobuz streams upto 192/24 lossless PCM and it’s a delight to use and listen to… for me that renders MQA on the Tidal platform obsolete. It’s a shame Tidal don’t offer lossless Hidef … they have lost at least one customer as I have switched to a platform that does.
These days wholesale cloud bandwidth cost is significantly reduced compared to just a few years ago.
That’s only a dream in these parts and we’ve heard there are no plans for OpenReach to upgrade us. However, for me having my favourite music on CD, Vinyl and ripped to hard disk renders MQA on the Tidal platform obsolete. MQA is to streaming what Elcasset was to analogue replay.
Catch-Up TV and Amazon Prime Music works OK even with our lowly 4 to 5 Mb/s.
Yes I appreciate that… it took me four years on the Parish Council and a lot of persistence and headache to ensure we had BDUK government funding for our parish (village and outlying areas ) … once you get the government funding via your county council or equivalent … it goes to tender and typically it’s Openreach who will then install the infrastructure…perhaps it’s a shame most (but certainly not all) companies leave it all to OpenReach in rural areas.
I went from a rather shaky 3.5 Mbps ADSL to a rock solid 48.5 Mbps VDSL. I have neighbours half a mile away that went from <1Mbps ADSL to 80 Mbps FTTP
But for those of us in more rural locations, if you don’t ask and beprepared to put some work in you might not get… and there are options for most… it’s the next level up at gigabit access that is challenging or hugely expensive.
For me, MQA is about more than about bandwidth. I find the processing of MQA to be quite desirable and the sound is usually preferable to the Hi Res alternatives. The emotion and the sound is more like real music to my ears. I attribute this to the a/d cleanup and the d/a reconstruction techniques. I also have not heard any artifacts at this time Perhaps in time, they will become obvious to me. Eventually, I am sure that others will and Chord have, worked on this problem to improve the sound of Hi Res.
A) Recording…
Take a 24/192 datastream…
Write it to a file
Play back…
Send the data through the Reconstruction filter to the DAC
B) Recording…
Take the same 24/192 datastream
Remove some data from the lower frequencies
Extract some of the data from the higher frequencies
Work out what artefacts will be created when reducing the sample rate
Work out an approximate correction for these artefacts
Reduce the sampling rate to 1/4 in a way that leaves artefacts
Recode the reduced dataset from the higher frequencies
Add this in to the lower frequencies
Recode the reduced dataset from the higher frequencies
Add in the partial correction for the artefacts
write it to a file
Play back…
Extract the reduced set of lower frequencies from the data stream into a new data stream
Add interpolated values between the samples
Decode the partial correction for the artefacts & add this to the data
Decode the reduced dataset from the higher frequencies & add this to the intermediary samples
Send the data through the Reconstruction filter to the DAC
So all this processing that removes information from the original 24/192 data stream and only puts some of the information back, while at the same time leaving some remaining uncorrected bits of the artefacts, somehow improves the data?
I have tidal and qobuz subscriptions. Many titles were available only on tidal but the balance is changing. I am close to abandoning tidal and saving some money.
Hi Xanthe, what a great description! I personally enjoy some MQA files but on balance tend to play the hi res qobuz files more often (via Roon). This is not necessarily a conscious decision but on reflection, and viewing my Roon history, it is a fact.
I am getting closer to cancelling my tidal subscription but there is still a part of me that respects the fact that they at least claim to be concerned about sound quality. I imagine they will be better than Amazon HD - not looking forward to Amazon dominating the streaming market!
Hi @Guinnless, the only thing stopping me from cancelling is the thought that I don’t want to be party to the possible decline of a hi res provider and easing the way for Amazon dominance!
I’m often quite surprised when looking through artists discographies how many releases are unique to Qobuz or Tidal. Also Roon integrates both so seamlessly that for the price of one swanky cable I’ll keep both for the foreseeable.
Generally I avoid MQA but it’s more an article of faith rather than careful A vs B analysis.
I have an ‘MQA DAC’ on my 2nd system and through this system MQA files sound to me at least very nearly as good as the equivalent hi-res downloads from Qobuz. However, to my ears MQA files played via my Linn Klimax DS/1 streamer (which does not have an ‘MQA DAC’) with the first unfold carried out by Roon also sound at least very nearly as good as the equivalent hi-res downloads from Qobuz.
Although I haven’t taken the time to test this for myself, I can quite believe that without the first Roon MQA unfold, MQA files do not sound as good as non MQA hi-res equivalent files. So it isn’t a huge surprise to me that those with Naim, Chord or other non MQA DACs and without access to Roon are not impressed by MQA.
There are of course others who have access to Roon but don’t like MQA. Some people report that they always hear unpleasant digital artefacts when playing MQA files. I do not fall into this category, although if I did then I would not choose to listen to MQA coded material. Some simply don’t like MQA from a technical perspective and whilst I don’t necessarily agree with their arguments I do respect the arguments put forward by some (not all) of those who take this stance. For the rest, then I guess that the sound quality of MQA files is to at least some extent influenced by the specific streaming/DAC equipment used.
I normally choose to buy hi-res download material from Qobuz rather than the 16bit equivalent, and I normally choose to listen to MQA ‘Masters’ on Tidal rather than 16bit equivalents. However, most of the time (MQA or not) I find that the difference in sound quality is to my ears rather subtle and possibly not worth the extra money. Of course, my definition of ‘subtle’ may be very different from that of others. I know people whose definition of ‘in a different league’ or ‘blows the other out of the water’ is simply that they can simply consistently discern a difference between two file versions or two different pieces of equipment.
For me, and on my systems, the difference between hi-res and (‘good’) 16bit material is usually fairly subtle (using my personal definition of subtle), but there are of course some exceptions and it could simply be that my DACs and in particular my Linn Klimax DS/1 DAC portray 16bit material particularly well.
