Tidal Goes Hi-Res with MQA

[timster (RadiatorCatHammock)]

(2017-01-05 17:21)glevethan Wrote:  Wow- it would be nice if this is incorporated into the DS architecture.

MQA Hi Res and ROON - wouldn't that be something

Yeah. Like a chocolate teapot.

[Tin]

I can't wait until people start claiming it sounds so much better than the 16/44.1 original.

Let's be real here, the majority of the music out there is 16/44.1 to start with, and MQA is not going to beat the 24 bit originals as it is a lossy encoding technique.

If you are serious about audio, you'd get the 24 bit version when available and not setlle with MQA. If there isn't a 24 bit version MQA isn't going to help a bit.
It is a bull shit product, if you would excuse my bovine expression.

[erho]

(2017-01-06 09:45)Tin Wrote:  I can't wait until people start claiming it sounds so much better than the 16/44.1 original.

Let's be real here, the majority of the music out there is 16/44.1 to start with, and MQA is not going to beat the 24 bit originals as it is a lossy encoding technique.

If you are serious about audio, you'd get the 24 bit version when available and not setlle with MQA. If there isn't a 24 bit version MQA isn't going to help a bit.
It is a bull shit product, if you would excuse my bovine expression.

^^^+1

[andy2]

+1 - 100%
Thank You Tin, could not agree more!

[timster (RadiatorCatHammock)]

(2017-01-06 10:52)andy2 Wrote:  +1 - 100%
Thank You Tin, could not agree more!

Time for a Poll? I think it'd be 99.9999% against here.

[FransZappa]

There seems to be some confusion.

MQA is a lossless format, MQA files are encoded directly from the original file which is never 16/44.1 because 16/44.1 is CD format compressed from higher resolution master files. High resolution Flac files, Wav files or Mqa files are 24 bit (or higher) resolution files.

Mqa is a different way of compressing (just as Flac does) or folding (as Mqa sometimes calls it) big audio files. That is the difference.

Does it sound better? A LOT of audio experts and reviewers think it does, read AudioStream, Stereophile or check this link http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2016/0...ds-better/

Do you need or want Mqa? That's up to you. Should Linn support Mqa? That's up them I guess. But since Tidal and Roon are supporting it Linn might be trailing on this one.

[timster (RadiatorCatHammock)]

(2017-01-06 11:05)FransZappa Wrote:  There seems to be some confusion.

MQA is a lossless format, MQA files are encoded directly from the original file which is never 16/44.1 because 16/44.1 is CD format compressed from higher resolution master files. High resolution Flac files, Wav files or Mqa files are 24 bit (or higher) resolution files.

Mqa is a different way of compressing (just as Flac does) or folding (as Mqa sometimes calls it) big audio files. That is the difference.

Does it sound better? A LOT of audio experts and reviewers think it does, read AudioStream, Stereophile or check this link An inconvenient truth: MQA

Do you need or want Mqa? That's up to you. Should Linn support Mqa? That's up them I guess. But since Tidal and Roon are supporting it Linn might be trailing on this one.

So inconvenient the site you refer to's been taken down?

I think it's also a question of whether it's DRM too which is a worry to say the least - and watermarked etc.

[FransZappa]

Damnit, just as I was trying to be smart

Updated the screwed up link, should work now.

You are right about the watermarks and all. There are companies who have their reservations about Mqa, Schiit for one. Not bothering with a link to that one for now

[Tin]

(2017-01-06 11:03)timster Wrote:  

(2017-01-06 10:52)andy2 Wrote:  +1 - 100%
Thank You Tin, could not agree more!

Time for a Poll? I think it'd be 99.9999% against here.

A poll? After the Brexit and the USA elections, and to be honest, we had a lousy poll in the Netherland as well, I have lost all hope in polls.

Also we have a large group of people here who are very enthusiastic and sometimes get ahead of themselves. They hope that MQA will bring them Nirvana, or another band of their choice, and will vote in favour despite secretly knowing it is the forementioned load of crap.
MQA is like religion and politics, they get a very long way if you know how to play someones desires.

So all hail Farage, Johnson, Trump and Meridian... let us rejoice in ignorance.

I'll take the rest of the day of from the form. This is depressing.

---

(2017-01-06 11:18)FransZappa Wrote:  Damnit, just as I was trying to be smart

Updated the screwed up link, should work now.

You are right about the watermarks and all. There are companies who have their reservations about Mqa, Schiit for one. Not bothering with a link to that one for now

Okay, one last one:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_Q...henticated

MQA is lossy.
Please refrain from posting otherwise.

[timster (RadiatorCatHammock)]

(2017-01-06 11:23)Tin Wrote:  

(2017-01-06 11:03)timster Wrote:  

(2017-01-06 10:52)andy2 Wrote:  +1 - 100%
Thank You Tin, could not agree more!

Time for a Poll? I think it'd be 99.9999% against here.

A poll? After the Brexit and the USA elections, and to be honest, we had a lousy poll in the Netherland as well, I have lost all hope in polls.

Also we have a large group of people here who are very enthusiastic and sometimes get ahead of themselves. They hope that MQA will bring them Nirvana, or another band of their choice, and will vote in favour despite secretly knowing it is the forementioned load of crap.
MQA is like religion and politics, they get a very long way if you know how to play someones desires.

So all hail Farage, Johnson, Trump and Meridian... let us rejoice in ignorance.

I'll take the rest of the day of from the form. This is depressing.

I know how you feel Tin, I really do. The world is going to hell in a handcart. But I think this quote from Zappa's article really puts the kybosh on MQA:

Quote:One implication for DAC manufacturers signing up for MQA certification is that Bob Stuart’s team will need to recalibrate the filter each time a change is made to the DAC design – e.g. a move from Wolfson to ESS chips means fresh MQA code will be required. FPGA DAC developers whose changes come thick and fast via software updates might see this scenario as less than ideal.

So not all is lost.