[Craig B]

There is no reason to use MQA outside of Tidal.

Though I did recently see a digital download that offered MQA files as an option, in addition to the typical hi-res formats.

[AJinFLA]

https://neilyoungarchives.com/news/1

[Stercom]

According to this publication dated today (January 5, 2021) Neil Young took down his content on Tidal because he claims Tidal calls MQA music "Masters" and then he says he'd be fine with it if they called it "Tidal Masters".




So, I just checked Tidal's website and this is what I found................ :

[AJinFLA]

So, I just checked Tidal's website and this is what I found................ :

Frequently Asked Questions

x What is TIDAL Masters

HiFi audio is a superior sound but is still limited in its resolution—44.1 kHz /16 bit. TIDAL has partnered with MQA to deliver something substantially better: an authenticated and unbroken version (typically 96 kHz / 24 bit) with the highest possible resolution—as flawless as it sounded in the mastering suite.
And exactly as the artist intended it to sound.

Even all the dead ones. Amazing.

https://tidal.com/masters

[Stercom]

Neil Young can do whatever he wants with his music (and refuse royalties) but this seems like foolish semantics to me especially when he says he's ok with it if they would just call it "TidalMasters"

[newzooreview]

Auralic is also calling out MQA for their DRM scheme:

https://us.auralic.com/pages/auralic-vs-drm

I would definitely avoid MQA DACs. The Mytek DACs that support MQA, for example, run all music through the MQA process. It's basically a layer of processing that adds unknown coloring and manipulation, as Neal states.

[Stercom]

Auralic is also calling out MQA for their DRM scheme:

https://us.auralic.com/pages/auralic-vs-drm

I would definitely avoid MQA DACs. The Mytek DACs that support MQA, for example, run all music through the MQA process. It's basically a layer of processing that adds unknown coloring and manipulation, as Neal states.

Where you getting this information about Mytek? I owned a Mytek Brooklyn. I know you can turn MQA off because I remember doing it! Like I said to begin with, the OP should just get a Bluesound Node2i and check MQA out for himself.

I just found the Mytek manual online. You can turn MQA off:





 

[newzooreview]

Correct. The Mytek DAC ships with MQA on and as sold it runs all files through MQA processing, regardless of whether they are MQA files or not. It is not possible to have non-MQA files play on this DAC without MQA processing unless you completely disable MQA plyback. There is no way to play MQA files on either the Mytek Brooklyn or Manhattan while leaving the non-MQA files unaffected by the MQA processing.

[Letitroll98]

Other than at an audio show I've never heard a fully unfolded MQA recording, so I have no ability to comment on sound quality.  But I do subscribe to both Tidal and Qobuz and they're very different in their interface and library, Tidal being much better than Qobuz.  Since I don't have an MQA DAC and don't plan on getting one, I'm comparing what you get with partial unfolding of MQA vs Qobuz hi rez, which as expected is better.  If you have an MQA DAC or plan on buying one I'd go with Tidal no contest.  But for me I'll try to adapt to the Qobuz interface and deal with the sightly less extensive library, if that helps at all.

[newzooreview]

While the Auralic article starts off talking about DRM, it discusses the development of the MQA format further down:

"MQA was developed prior to 2014, at a time when bandwidth limitations could have made streaming a larger high-resolution file across the internet a difficult and unreliable endeavor. As a consequence, MQA compresses and removes portions of the original file to make it easier to stream across the internet for complete delivery. This reveals MQA to be a solution for a problem that no longer exists, or a dated technology, rendered unnecessary, since bandwidth limitations are no longer an issue.

Since MQA’s compression method permanently removes bits from the original file, it must do so in a lossy manner, compromising the integrity of the full file, and does not deliver an actual high-resolution music format. Due to this loss of integrity, AURALiC does not consider MQA to be a part of true high-performance audio. In terms of quality, MQA offers little better than CD-quality FLAC as a format and is essentially a high-resolution version of MP3."

[Promee]

Promee - I see you are new to AudioCircle. Thanks for a well written and informative response! That's what threads like this are for.

ThePriest - I see you are new to AudioCircle as well. Great video! Too bad they actually didn't listen to any MQA files v. non-MQA files but it was fun hearing the CEO of MQA and the presenter go at it over how MQA works! haha.

My pleasure! Been really enjoying my time here so far!

[Jeff_From_Michigan]

Via Tidal I could easily hear the difference between a fully unfolded MQA and a non-MQA stream when switching between the exact same songs.

Out of curiosity, have you compared the TIDAL MQA Master to the non-MQA upsampled to DSD versions of the same track(s)?

To my ears, the latter sounds better.  I'm curious what your impressions are.

[VinceT]

Thank you all to have chimed in.

The responses have been very helpful and given me much to consider. The MQA question also now delves into other file formats like DSD, FLAC etc. And the gear needed to best deliver these different formats and again to consider what is worth pursuing in the digital journey.

 

[Letitroll98]

Out of curiosity, have you compared the TIDAL MQA Master to the non-MQA upsampled to DSD versions of the same track(s)?

To my ears, the latter sounds better.  I'm curious what your impressions are.

This likely exposes my digital ignorance, but how to you sample the "non MQA upsampled to DSD" tracks on Tidal?

[Stercom]

Out of curiosity, have you compared the TIDAL MQA Master to the non-MQA upsampled to DSD versions of the same track(s)?

To my ears, the latter sounds better.  I'm curious what your impressions are.

Good point, I was talking about non-upsampled redbook v. MQA. Upsampling, NOS (non-oversampling), bit rate conversion etc is a whole other discussion that's been beat to death. Kind of like MQA.

[VinceT]

Correct. The Mytek DAC ships with MQA on and as sold it runs all files through MQA processing, regardless of whether they are MQA files or not. It is not possible to have non-MQA files play on this DAC without MQA processing unless you completely disable MQA plyback. There is no way to play MQA files on either the Mytek Brooklyn or Manhattan while leaving the non-MQA files unaffected by the MQA processing.

Interesting....so these new dacs coming out now with MQA processing within the chip all have this chararcteristic? Example, there is some buzz about the new Gustard X16 and the A18 and A22. I know the X16 goes for around 500.00 usd and measures very well. I know this is whole can of worms but I think I need to go there in regards to some of the NOS and R2R dacs that don't have the best specs but folks love the sound and have a great soundstage.

These new dacs are kind of a contridiction. There are some folks who say they have great specs, low distortion, super clean, very transparent etc. and come in at a great price point and would not use a noisey NOS, or ladder dac if thier lives depended on it. Yet at its core ...literally, the dac adds a coloration with MQA. But a lot of people like MQA. Personally, I am torn. A 500.00 do it all dac is appealing, but something tells me one of the noisy ladder, NOS, or tube dacs maybe something I would like better.

[whell]

As has been said, MQA is a solution to a problem that no longer exists for most who want to stream hi res audio files: bandwidth limitations.  MQA is now nothing more than a marketing ploy wrapped in a DRM scheme.

Qobuz has found a way to deliver excellent sound without the need for MQA.  Note that record companies are most likely delivering the same source music files to both Tidal, Qobuz, Deezer, etc.  Tidal has to add MQA encoding to those files, where Qobuz et al is not.  MQA adds nothing of value, then, to the listening experience for the consumer.  It does add DRM and additional audio processing that benefits MQA and the record labels.  So, if I can stream the same source files from Qoboz and Tidal, why would I want to pay Tidal and MQA extra for the privilege?

Not a Qobuz subscriber, by the way.  Used to subscribe to both Tidal and Qobuz.  Might return to Qobuz someday, but would never go back to Tidal unless they dropped MQA.

[VinceT]

Especially since the unfolding at the chip level adds something to the original recording that wasn't originally there. You still see ladder dacs being made as well, so maybe some don't measure as well as some of the oversampling dacs, they still are very appealing and have strengths of their own.