What is MQA?

[freek]

Paul, sir, you master the idea of "to respectfully disagree". It is a more pure form and at the same time more pleasant way of conversing. Oh, your videos are spot on and very informing;)! Cheers!

[jeremyhughes]

Paul says, “It (MQA) does something funny to the music and imaging that I don’t like”. Yup. MQA filters alter the phase. Fact - with MQA the High frequencies are delayed compared to low frequencies. This mostly affects imaging but can change timbre too. We locate sounds above 2000 Hz by their relative loudness. Below 2000 Hz we use time delay of arrival at each ear. These different sound location abilities are sensed separately but, of course, the best imaging occurs when phase is preserved between low and high frequencies and everything makes sense to our ears/brain at the same instant in time (in-phase).. Audio engineers have known for a long time that imaging is best preserved when phase is preserved.

[lynnpoole]

This was taken from the Wikipedia page on MQA
''In a blog post title "MQA is Bad for Music. Here's why"[18] Hi-fi Manufacturer Linn Products criticises MQA's licensing requirements, asserting that MQA is "...an attempt to control and extract revenue from every part of the supply chain, and not just over content that they hold the rights for."

[Labor_Jones]

I learned a lot, but I think this about LOSS of SOUND
and some who think they FEEL IT
and others convinced you'd never know the difference.
I side with you actually.

[motorradmike]

Paul, you really do t mind touching that third rail. MQA is purportedly the superior digital format. In the end, it is still a DRM scheme. I’ve been thoroughly enjoying my Red Book CD’s even more...

[RDERA]

One can’t deny that it changes the original analog recording, but in which way you answer determines if you get to join me at my dinner table 😂. You really did keep your composure on this question. I wouldn’t have been able to keep it under a 15 minute rant with my opinion. Keep up the great content, I always enjoy your uploads👍!!

[ShareHobby]

MQA is “Master Quality Authenticated “. To me MQA sounds many times better than regular 24bit FLAC. The time smearing has been eliminated. Spaciousness of the music is greatly enhanced. I have a difficult time listening to regular FLAC after listening to MQA. If MQA does “color” the sound like many claim, it’s my now favorite color.

[BrianNavalinsky]

I feel the same way about Comcast. Bass is okay but movie soundtracks seem to lose midrange and highs have a digital "glare". Even streaming YouTube gives me better quality sound.

[royferntorp]

Audio media has always changed the sound from the source, along with mic's and pre's. Vinyl degrades through handling and friction, tape has some serious limitations and digital gets converted down to mp3's. 192kHz files are gigantic and if you record multi-track with this resolution you better have some really fast and large drives.

[taranagnew]

when you transfer mqa files, what sample rates does it loose?

[lazarprodanovic]

Well for me at least DSD does the best job removing the ADC - DAC conversion shortcomings making it sound more natural in its native form. I think 96 KHz 24 bit Flac is perfectly fine for preserving what we can hear as a mid point between size and quality which turning out DRM. When using DoP (DSD) real time hi quality conversion on 96KHz Flac you get that natural felling DSD has back while saving a lot of bandwidth and without any DRM property nonsense all free & open source. Recently DoP RTC is seeing a lot of adoption (HF player, Neutron...) & it makes all formats sound better even lossy ones. I think that's the way to go.

[RectifiedMetals]

Only complaint I have with MQA is that it’s only on Tidal. Amazon HD is kicking their ass!

[hushpuppykl]

I’m streaming MQA from Tidal. Compared it with non MQA tracks and it does sound slightly different. Can’t really describe it in detail (or I still can’t put my finger on it) but I’m undecided if it’s better or not. It’s just different.

I still find audiophile CDs to still sound very good.

[paulphilippart]

Used to get disc writers that boasted MQA burning quality, I had a Yamaha years ago, it was excellent though I must say, really solid glass master ready burn, were especially good at non skipping in car cd compilations, due to the depth of groove.
Joking aside its just another corporate marketing scam to get you to buy your whole collection again in this pristine copyright protection free oil slick.

[edgarortiz]

Nicely done Paul . You are a man of integrity . Different is not necessarily better . I am sure they are already working on the successor to this format .It's all a giant merry-go-round to keep you spending your hard earned money . Once the mqa moneytrain slows down they will release yet another " far superior " format to deplete your resources. It is far better to wait till the cost is extremely affordable before you take the plunge .

[callending]

Given that Tidal seems to be the main promoter for MQA these days, it can be adjusted to "HiFi" in one's account settings in Tidal if MQA isn't desired.

[philipphager]

Why not use a DAT Tape? :) 48kHz and improved 16bits of depth... developed in the 80's

[sheerwaist]

MQA is MEMORY QUESTIONABLE AUDIO...In a nutshell inferior over priced digital or analog equipment will almost always give out second rate sound...The end answer is stick with what you know and don’t ask too much otherwise you will get caught up in a load of old gobbledegook pretty much what I am doing now 😎

[gzubeck]

MQA=...adding a digital leash to your audio enjoyment. :>)

[WitzyZed]

I’m curious as to how MQA varies from HDCD. MQA manages to “fold” sample rate onto itself, whereas HDCD managed to hide more bits.