MQA finally taking off. The format for the future?

PA · « **on:** 6 May 2016, 12:18 pm »

With the new deal with Warner and companies like Pioneer releasing portable MQA players is MQA finally starting to happen.
Any one here who actually heard the format?

Quote

Warner Music Group has signed a long-term licensing deal with MQA. The agreement, which is the first between the new High Res Audio codec company and any major music company, should significantly increase the amount of music available in the format. The agreement paves the way for recordings from Warner’s expansive catalogue to be made available in studio master quality files. - See more at: http://www.insideci.co.uk/news/mqa-signs-long-term-licensing-deal-with-warner-music.aspx#sthash.Wb4T0NLI.dpuf

http://www.insideci.co.uk/news/mqa-signs-long-term-licensing-deal-with-warner-music.aspx

http://www.whathifi.com/news/pioneer-xdp-100r-worlds-first-mqa-ready-hi-res-music-player

wushuliu · « **Reply #1 on:** 6 May 2016, 12:40 pm »

Paul mcgowan of ps audio didnt seem too impressed with mqa...

JLM · « **Reply #2 on:** 6 May 2016, 01:38 pm »

Heard it briefly at Axpona 2016, but with unfamiliar material, so couldn't form an opinion. But it is most intriguing.

Cheeseboy · « **Reply #3 on:** 6 May 2016, 06:08 pm »

Yes I heard a Tidal stream at THE Show last year. It was very impressive. In my opinion it will satisfy as the next big leap in audio.

OzarkTom · « **Reply #4 on:** 21 Jul 2016, 02:15 pm »

NAD ANNOUNCES PARTNERSHIP WITH MQA

http://www.mqa.co.uk/customer/news/post/nad-partners-with-mqa

Anonamemouse · « **Reply #5 on:** 22 Jul 2016, 05:54 am »

MQA was DOA, and I don't think it will somehow come to life.
So far only one record company has actually released its music in MQA. A few more have looked into it (Warner being one of the leading companies), but so far have not shown any results, and I for one don't think they will ever release anything in MQA.

Follow a few of the links here: http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=141825.0

dB Cooper · « **Reply #6 on:** 27 Jul 2016, 12:45 pm »

Not so fast, buckaroo. Schiit Audio makes some interesting points on this page explaining their non-participation:
http://schiit.com/news/news/why-we-wont-be-supporting-mqa
No doubt at least some others have similar positions. MQA seems to be four things: 1) Another attempt to ram DRM down consumers' throats; 2) Another way to get consumers to pay for the same music all over again; 3) A scheme to make file compression more efficient, mostly benefitting streaming services; 4) And an attempt to generate a licensing revenue stream for some entity or entities from every piece of hardware and software involved. Of the four, only #3 seems to potentially benefit the consumer... but This article by Benchmark Audio states that,in a comparison to standard FLAC files, file sizes were actually larger for the MQA file. It also points out that, contrary to widespread assumption, MQA is actually not lossless.

Phooey.

As of the moment, its an easy 'Pass' for me.

lokie · « **Reply #7 on:** 27 Jul 2016, 02:49 pm »

As a consumer, the question is more short term: Is it better than the competition? MOG, Pandora etc..

Maybe I have this wrong, but it's not like you have to buy a bunch of hardware to play? Right? And your not locked into a long term contract.

It's a fairly inexpensive experiment.

Whereas SACD's required a SACD player (interconnects, power cords, etc., etc.) then buying a bunch of SACD's of music you probably already have at $30 bucks a pop. W a sound quality that is hit or miss.

dB Cooper · « **Reply #8 on:** 27 Jul 2016, 03:33 pm »

Quote from: lokie on 27 Jul 2016, 02:49 pm

As a consumer, the question is more short term: Is it better than the competition? MOG, Pandora etc..

Maybe I have this wrong, but it's not like you have to buy a bunch of hardware to play? Right? And your not locked into a long term contract.

It's a fairly inexpensive experiment.

Whereas SACD's required a SACD player (interconnects, power cords, etc., etc.) then buying a bunch of SACD's of music you probably already have at $30 bucks a pop. W a sound quality that is hit or miss.

Actually, yes, you do need to buy dedicated equipment to listen to the MQA decoded signal (addressed in the Schiit press release). This could be anything from a portable player to a dedicated DAC for a component system. Most importantly, if a MQA-formatted file is played on non-MQA signal path, it will play but sound quality is actually degraded (discussed in the Benchmark article).

The two documents I cited can explain these concerns much better than I can and I recommend them. To me, as I said, it seems more about generating revenue for the purveyors of the dedicated equipment and source material involved, along with another run at DRM.

PA · « **Reply #9 on:** 29 Jul 2016, 10:59 pm »

The download pictured on the player is on sale until September for $10, all formats same price. But on the site I only see PCM, Flac and DSD, no MQA: http://www.soundliaison.com/

Quote from: PA on 6 May 2016, 12:18 pm

With the new deal with Warner and companies like Pioneer releasing portable MQA players is MQA finally starting to happen.
Any one here who actually heard the format? http://www.insideci.co.uk/news/mqa-signs-long-term-licensing-deal-with-warner-music.aspx

http://www.whathifi.com/news/pioneer-xdp-100r-worlds-first-mqa-ready-hi-res-music-player

Mike-48 · « **Reply #10 on:** 23 Aug 2016, 04:12 pm »

Quote from: dB Cooper on 27 Jul 2016, 12:45 pm

Not so fast, buckaroo. Schiit Audio makes some interesting points on this page explaining their non-participation:
http://schiit.com/news/news/why-we-wont-be-supporting-mqa
No doubt at least some others have similar positions. MQA seems to be four things: 1) Another attempt to ram DRM down consumers' throats; 2) Another way to get consumers to pay for the same music all over again; 3) A scheme to make file compression more efficient, mostly benefitting streaming services; 4) And an attempt to generate a licensing revenue stream for some entity or entities from every piece of hardware and software involved. Of the four, only #3 seems to potentially benefit the consumer... but This article by Benchmark Audio states that,in a comparison to standard FLAC files, file sizes were actually larger for the MQA file. It also points out that, contrary to widespread assumption, MQA is actually not lossless.

Phooey.

As of the moment, its an easy 'Pass' for me.

It's a pass for me, too, for exactly the reasons stated. PLUS . . . want to insert a digital crossover in the chain? You're SOL unless your MQA-certified DAC has one, because MQA prohibits output of the unencoded digital stream. So for those audiophiles (like me) who use any form of DSP for room correction, tonal voicing, or crossover to subwoofers, this is a big, big problem. Also a huge problem for companies like miniDSP who make widgets that work in the digital realm. In essence: NOTHING with digital inputs and digital outputs will work properly with MQA encoded files. This KILLS the DSP field, where some of the most innovative developments in audio are occurring right now.

Yuck!

Phil A · « **Reply #11 on:** 23 Aug 2016, 04:26 pm »

I have no interest in it. I can see it as a good option for someone who uses something like Tidal or internet radio.

Bubbamike · « **Reply #12 on:** 15 Sep 2016, 05:29 pm »

MQA is a money grab, plain and simple. The licensing costs are very high for manufacturers. I see it as just another "better way" that the audio press is trying to push upon us.

bacobits1 · « **Reply #13 on:** 15 Sep 2016, 06:53 pm »

It was just stated Tidal lost 25 mil 28 last year.
https://sg.finance.yahoo.com/news/jay-zs-tidal-posts-huge-115747894.html
MQA is dead in the water without Tidal.
Tidal can't keep up with the price it's charging now MQA will just increase it.
I'll stay away not interested because of in the money grab and the DRM scheme.

zoom25 · « **Reply #14 on:** 15 Sep 2016, 07:21 pm »

So someone correct me if I'm wrong: MQA is not only lossy but has DRM and need for special hardware? In what possible situation would I ever need MQA? I currently use WAV for my main rig or FLAC for compression. Somebody please help me understand why I would need MQA. Does MQA does something funky to the original file and make it sound different?

*Scotty* · « **Reply #15 on:** 15 Sep 2016, 08:34 pm »

zoom25, read this article by Benchmark Audio and many of your questions will be answered.
https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/163302855-is-mqa-doa
Scotty

zoom25 · « **Reply #16 on:** 15 Sep 2016, 08:51 pm »

Quote from: *Scotty* on 15 Sep 2016, 08:34 pm

zoom25, read this article by Benchmark Audio and many of your questions will be answered.
https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/163302855-is-mqa-doa
Scotty

Thanks for the link to the article. I read that and the one from Schiit, plus others in passing over the past months, yet I still cannot pinpoint the reason for why there is a need for MQA in the first place? Perhaps I am not able to read between the lines...

smargo · « **Reply #17 on:** 15 Sep 2016, 09:19 pm »

Quote from: Bubbamike on 15 Sep 2016, 05:29 pm

MQA is a money grab, plain and simple. The licensing costs are very high for manufacturers. I see it as just another "better way" that the audio press is trying to push upon us.

what are the licensing costs anyway - what is expensive?

bacobits1 · « **Reply #18 on:** 15 Sep 2016, 09:37 pm »

Good question but it would be passed down to us.
I have not seen any quote on that. Manufacturers are not about to pay anything plus revealing any proprietary
Filters scheme etc which would be required for MQA to do its thing.

SoCalWJS · « **Reply #19 on:** 15 Sep 2016, 11:55 pm »

Well, since this thread has been going on for over 4 months with less than 20 replies, I'll make my prediction:

Will MQA be the format of the Future? NO!