2. misc-audio
  3. 181571-179096

Why is everyone so down on MQA?

Ok. MQA is a little bit complicated to understand without doing a little research. First of all: MQA is not technically a lossy format. The way it works is very unique. The original master tape (Holy grail of SQ) is folded or compressed into a smaller format. It is later unfolded through a process I don’t claim to understand. The fully processed final version is lossless! It is the song version from the original master tape. FYI, original master tapes are usually the best sounding, they are also the truest version of any song- they are painstakingly produced along with the artist in the studio during the recording process. Ask anyone, they are the real deal. For some reason most people hate the sound quality! One caveat, the folding/unfolding process is usually carried out at one time by a dac. But some dacs only compress and do not unfold….I think Meridian should explain dac/ streamer compatibility issue. When your hardware supports the single step the sound quality is pretty amazing. They should have explained in more detail what the format is all about.

128x128walkenfan2013
plaw
89 posts
 

Hey, quit bashing on MQA. I think we can all agree it sounds better than: MP3, YouTube, Spotify, Apple Music, Prime Music, AM Radio in your car and a Bose speaker covered with a black garbage bag.

erik_squires
16,137 posts
 

@plaw

I like how you think.  MQA's motto should be "At least we don't suck!"

pedroeb
493 posts
 

Perhaps we should be asking the doomsdayers what did you use to decode MQA that led you to your conclusion, or are you merely guilty jumping on the derogative bandwagon because you're a theorist and that's all theorists are capable of doing?

fair
51 posts
 

People are mostly down on MQA because:

(A) Tidal encoded significant number of 44/16, that is, CD-quality files, with MQA. This was not a smart move, because compression inherent in MQA took its toll on a format that wasn’t highly resolving to start with.

(B) MQA is a proprietary lossy DRM-enabled format. This adds friction to its use, as one needs to have a compatible streamer to fully unlock the MQA data. Moreover, MQA licensing cost naturally makes such streamers more expensive.

MQA’s sweet spot would be streaming of 192/24 and 384/24 files. Compression could be beneficial for the provider’s expenditures on bandwidth, loss of sound quality would be imperceptible, and pirating of essentially full-resolution studio masters would be inhibited.

painter24's avatar
painter24
310 posts
 

MQA was not really a solution for a problem that didn't exist; to my mind, it was a thinly veiled, cynical attempt to ring fence and monopolise the streaming market. It was never about giving the end user a superior listening experience.

 

More to discover