But what you're saying doesn't really make sense, because in order for music to become an MQA file, the recording artist has to sign off on or AUTHENTICATE the master recording. So by definition, if Neil does not sign off on the MQA master, it cannot become an MQA file. Remember Neil developed his own Pono format and MQA would likely be seen as a competitor of the Pono music files.
@@dwightballard3868 Neil Young gave 44.1 kHz files to Tidal. He pulled back when they were converted to MQA and claimed to be "the original file" by Tidal. Neil Young is very fussy about these things. He doesn't want any "sausage making" behind closed doors without consultation with the artist. He goes ballistic with the concept "master quality" "authenticated". In his case he said that "faithful to original" was a misnomer. The processed files were not faithful to the files the artist had given them. It seems that MQA states that the onus is on the author to give the final OK to files that the service has chosen to process, package and display under the MQA label. I expect Many authors do not complain when this is done. In fact some may even feel honored by being given "pride of place". But the key concepts of authentication and faithfulness to origin that are central to MQA fly out the window. That's a consequence of 'black box' technology. If it makes a significant difference most people are willing to accept it. If the "black box" does not deliver as promised and no explanations are forthcoming disappointment and distrust may ensue.
@@ch33psk8 I think it's great that Neil Young has long been an advocate for excellent sound quality. To my ears MQA sounds better on many titles. It reminds me of taking a photo and cleaning the lens removing the haze. On some music, I can't tell the difference between FLAC and MQA. In terms of there being a "black box" most companies need to have proprietary processes to cover their costs, ensure quality and stay in business. In my opinion, intellectual property has merit and people should be compensated fairly for innovation. On my resolving system, I can hear a difference, I recently bought a Lumin U1 streamer and the level of improvement has been very satisfying and I have a better ability to evaluate streaming titles on Tidal. I trust my ears.
@@dwightballard3868 Your ears are lying to you. See video, MQA is myth-busted. It's shit. Period. And I also have an extremely transparent system, see channel. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-pRjsu9-Vznc.html
Few things which should be mentioned. 1. TIDAL mostly uses 24/44.1 FLACs for MQA, sometimes 24/48, sometimes 16/44.1. 2. MQA is lossy, and mostly resampled! The "unfolding" process is just decoding/resampling, depending on the track. Some songs (ex. from Pink Floyd) are in true 24/96 format encoded into 24/48. It's still lossy, but you can see on a spectrum buzzing from analog gear at 30 kHz. However most songs with Master quality on TIDAL have just badges applied to them. Rihanna - SOS is encoded as 16/44.1, yet during the playback (at 24/96) there are harmonics above 22050 Hz which look like a mirror of everything what was below that threshold - this indicates resampling. 3. If they're already using FLACs for Hi-Fi (16/44.1) and Master quality, then why they can't just use pure FLACs rather than adding that MQA nonsense? 4. The highest "unfold" can be done up to 24/352.8, however the highest decoding without resampling is 24/96.
What a load of complications (crap) between me and the music, why not just give us FLAC. If they must compress to save something, then use a well documented format, like Ogg Vorbis etc.
@@paulstubbs7678 I 100% agree, MQA is just a jump for the money with bold claims which are not really explained. Hi-Fi on Tidal is ironically true Master quality - it is indeed what a record label sends to them (tested it myself)
@@paulstubbs7678 Because it can bring you closer to the actual music itself. You do realise that every dac is lossy because it does digital signal processing (?) Change the volume to a different level than the recording studio? Lossy. After the unfolding of the file, MQA provides the original music as has been authenticated by the artist. It's not always better than FLAC, personally I listen to FLAC far more than MQA. But on excellent recordings, MQA sounds better, more "clarity" and less digital hash or glare mostly created by time related errors- and to be perfectly honest, my Meridian 861 doesn't have MQA decoding, and yet i still hear a benefit from MQA music.
@@dwightballard3868 And how you know those MQA recordings aren't applied with different master as "the same" hi res recordings? At the end "sounds better", can really mean anything. So maybe you can use some DSP on normal hi res files and it will be perceived as sounding better too, it is known that what is louder seems sounding better.
@@TheMqyable I agree. That's why people spend a lot of money on DACs because the DSP makes the sound better. I think it's taken a long time to address timing in the D to A signal path. Reduction in time errors reduces digital glare, which is one way I can decipher differences between high res FLAC and MQA- a key is struck on the piano and you hear the note and the natural decay resulting in the piano sounding like you are listening to it as if it were in the room. Not easy to pull that one off in my listening experience. Not always though, some older recording of the Stones and the Who sound like crap on MQA- you might hear more but it is replete with digital glare.
That was the best reaction to MQA that I have heard. It makes no sense that we can stream hi res 4k film but cannot easily and readily stream true hi-res audio. Just points out how few of us actually care about audio. The vast majority are passive listeners not active listeners of music whereas in film it is the opposite. It's a strange thing.
indeed and remove all audio from said movies or reduce the quality to something drastic like Cassette and people will go haywire Audio is very much overlooked. i see people wanting to game in 4k 60+ fps best colour moitors best graphics and sitting on integrated audio from the motherboard... it also dont help when big people in PC's like linus tech tips saying motherboard audio is all you need since they "come a long way" yes they have but not far enough
@@RapidVidsProductions what is "r/audiophile user" ? i dont use social media so if thats part of it then no i am to old for shit at least thats how it feels like that stopped using that many years ago.
You cannot stream 4k film losslessly. It is impossible and I do not think will be possible in next 50 years. That is even though all codecs supports lossless, h.264, h.265, vp9, av1.
It is not that simple. PC's audio development has been stalling for the last 15+ years when they dropped hardware accelerated sound processing and leaving it all to Windows. Gaming soundcards like Creative's incorporated HW accelerated libraries that, when implemented in games, were game-changers. Now everything's done in software - and that is not an issue anymore, as our CPUs are way faster... - problem is, no-one is willing to implement positional audio in their games, even tho' they'd just need to put it there and have OpenAL-Soft do the work. Also, integrated audio is more than enough to handle 3d/positional/cinematic/whatsoever audio and pretty well too. Even hi-fi music. Problem is, average consumers don't know how/want to spend money in hi-fi equipment, thinking that those 50€, 300watts speakers are awesome and/or Bose/Apple headphones are audiophiles grade...
MQA would have been great 15 or 20 years ago. With today's bandwidth, storage and processors... I'll stay with uncompressed. Thank you, Paul, for another great video!
By uncompressed, I presume you mean raw PCM. But as most people are not getting yet, MQA's intent is to go beyond PCM. Checkout the Hans Beekhuyzen Channel.
@@markhedges4514 Yep, on both points. A became a cord cutter, shortly after this video. I can see the use in movie streaming. I still prefer BluRay & CD, or uncompressed extracts of both.
@@markhedges4514 Raw PCM is basically desingned to produce perfect digital copy of the analog. 44.1 khz bandwith was chosen so everything humans can hear can be reproduced (by Nyquist-Shannon). I'm somewhat confused what exactly MQA is trying to achieve... I get the removal of ADC conversion effect he describes, which makes sense. But one MQA album I've prominently seen reviewed was Dire Straits' Brothers in Arms in Techmoan. That album was recorded digitally! In fact it was one of the first, if not the first album to do so. So there's no ADC conversion from master tape, and there that way there shouln't be really anything for MQA to enhance. Yet it sounds different... Why?
@@jhutt8002 Digital can never perfectly produce a copy of an analogue master tape. A digital file has samples (snapshots) of the analogue audio at a moment in time, so 44.1 khz means there are 44,100 samples per second. Your DAC then tries to fill in the gaps. Higher resolution files have less gaps. And if you have the (non-MQA) digital master then there is less quality loss to resampling or re encoding. When recording digitally you can record higher than CD quality as well. If you didn't know you can have digital audio files that are not MQA that are higher than CD quality.
@@Tim._.. DAC doesn't "fill in" any gaps. PCM audio is based on Nyquist-Shannon theorem, I mentioned. It's mathematical theory, that proves you can perfectly reproduce wave by simply sampling it by double the frequency limit. So when ADC digitizes audio, it samples it by specified rate and frequency. If that frequency is twice the bandwith limit of audio reproduced, DAC will output exactly the same waveform that ADC had input. It's pretty complex to understand, math is strange sometimes, but that how it works. 44100 khz was chosen as sampling frequency for CD PCM, because it's perfectly adequate to produce sounds under 20000 khz. If you can notice difference with higher frequencies present, that's fine. But if I recall right MQA also limits the bandwith....
Paul is that kind of specialist who explains things to us in a sincere, simple and honest way, without hidden interests and with a common sense that doesn't offend anyone and understanding the subjectivity of the subjects.
Wasn't there a time in the early 2000s that Microsoft said that the 64kbps wma files were "cd quality"? And most people were like "yeah, it sounds just like a cd". The same was said about the 128 kbps MP3s
@@BorisZech Not all re mastered stuff is adding compression. Some are a genuine improvement. To the point of making my jaw drop. So be careful generalising.
Exactly!! It's about what your ears tell you! I have a vintage amplifier,and I've tried almost all streaming platforms,and found Tidal remarkably better no matter what they use to make it sound better.
Before I knew that MQA was compressed I was listening through a pair of Klipsch rp8000f speakers and my first thought when compared to Qobuz and Apple lossless was it sounds compressed. My friend who's an MQA lover was surprised.
Yup! I also find the MQA versions of tracks on TIDAL to be better than any other streaming service. Of course I would love to stream FLAC, but until that is available, MQA works well in my DirectStream DAC.
Bob Stuart originally told everyone that MQA is lossless. So he lied. They tell the record industry, MQA is saving your crown jewels, while at the same time they tell buyers, MQA is better than the original master. More lies.
Hold on! Bob didn't lie. MQA when used to master in the studio losses NOTHING. It's use in streaming originally unencoded music reduces resolution in the lower frequencies. Who needs better rez in the bass? Bass was always the best part of digital. MQA provides a variable bandwidth when used originally AND can be highly compressed with very little "loss" for car stereos, boom boxes and phone listening. This provides plenty sufficient bandwidth for the bass AND much higher in the "vocal" range and above. In a form that can be streamed (elevator music) and sound really good. Do not play elevator music on SOTA systems. Any more than Paul here would go on about how bad 8 track tapes sound on his IRS system.
Richard A. And MQA has higher distortion that FLAC, and inferior attack and delay. And, the MQA losses are NOT in the bass. According to Bob himself, they are in the frequencies above 20kHz. If I can find examples of 96/24 in both formats, volume matched, and recorded from the same master (which I can do on the 2L web site), the FLAC always sounds significantly better, 100% of the time. I am sure that, as the compression goes up, the differences are less, but the couple of times I have been able to make the comparison with even compressed files, I still preferred FLAC. That’s why I would never pay for Tidal (abandoned them after three days on their free trial), but gladly embrace Qobuz.
@@WellSightData It is hi res Version of mp3. Compression is based on same psychoacoustic principles as mp3. Also the upper bits above 14bit resolution are used up for folding the extra frequency above 44.1khz. So best case is higher sampling rate with lower bit depth than CD. It is in every possible aspect a lossless format and always will be, there is a fantastic paper on mqa that everyone should read. Don't buy into marketing claims . audiophilestyle.com/ca/reviews/mqa-a-review-of-controversies-concerns-and-cautions-r701/
Now I'm confused even more - I use TIDAL predominantly and most tracks I listen to seem to be FLAC 44.1/16bit. Should this be superior to the MQA format or would out have to be FLAC 192KHz? Not that my system is capable of resolving the difference but still, my brain hurts.
W N just because your car stereo is shit doesn’t mean others don’t have better, also there’s this thing called headphones and some are pretty damn good.
Hi, Paul. This is some 4 years later and still billions of people don't have the available bandwidth. It reminds me of the EV hype: the majority of the world could never afford or sustain it (and maybe nor could the planet). Full spectrum high quality audio is affordable to relatively few people on the planet, so I'm glad there's something like MQA (I don't listen to much of it, but maybe it affords people an opportunity they otherwise wouldn't have).
Correct, what Paul is overlooking here is the fact that mobile bandwidth to devices like cell phones (over a cellular data network is still here in 2023) nowhere even near what physical bandwidth is over high-speed cable, DSL or fiber optic connections to the home. Most people who stream their content don't do it because they want to, they do it because they have to (they couldn't possibly take all their digital audio files with them once they walk out the door, so they rely on streaming services like TIDAL to provide high quality music for them when they are out and about - all provided over a cellular date network the majority of the time). That's who formats MQA really appeals to, not the user that occasionally elects to stream in their home. Whether you like MQA as a technology or not, it does have an exceptionally good sound when streamed to a mobile device, far better than most other streaming formats currently available.
He answered what it is with some facts. Then, he said some people think it is good, but that he doesn't. He seemed to answer both questions in the title.
Frankly what you actually said is: "I think my customers are idiots, but if they want to pay extra for the Magic Snake Oil, I am going to give it to them!! As long as they PAY!" :)
Thanks for tackling this issue. I can't agree with you more. No bandwidth problem, no need to crush the music. Imagine the same for video, people would be up in arms
I’m right there with you. As a business person you’re there to give the customers what they ask for while upholding the values of the brand. But as a person, I don’t prefer to listen to any compressed musical format. They all just make me feel like something is off and as a professional who works with sound all the time I can promise you its not subjective. If someone uploads an MP3 or WMA into our music library at work and I hear it playing even from around the corner I almost always can tell that its not one of the master quality songs right off without any effort. They just don’t “sing” in the same way as a master quality file.
The fact why MQA has taken off so well with the record companies is because that they don't have to offer full master quality to the public. Fully decoded MQA is only available from the analog output of the DAC supporting MQA. No digital version of decoded hires track is available for copying. In addition MQA offers possibility for metadata so the audio files can be watermarked. From the record companies' perspective MQA makes sense. To make the consumers like the MQA they have created the temporal smearing hoax to sell it to audiophiles. Nowadays there are more and more DSP devices in audio equipment that require decoded digital signal for processing. MQA doesn't work with those as you can't decode the signal after it has been processed by DSP. Also many audio companies have put huge effort creating proprietary digital filters on their DACs and MQA requires that the filter is replaced by their own filter. MQA is a DRM for the record industry, man in the middle collecting licence fees and creates unnecessary limitations for equipment manufacturers. There are too many cons and too few pros for it. Despite their claims on audio quality it's never better than the original hires audio file.
You clearly don't understand MQA. Meridian has DSP devices in their audio equipment. In fact, they were the first company to incorporate DSP processing in an audio systems and they not only support MQA, but they invented it, so your statement that MQA doesn't work with DSP based systems is nonsense and therefor you shouldn't be listened to on any level. You should simply go back and study MQA more and maybe ask questions to Bob Stuart before you make outrageously incorrect claims. MQA is NOT DRM. DRM is completely different and that has to do with copying the file. MQA is not DRM by any stretch of the imagination. To compare it is silly and simply being ignorant. They are offering as close to the full mastered version, it just gets compressed so they can easily stream it since a lot of recordings were done with high bit/sample rates that aren't as conducive to streaming. Bob Stuart and the others at Meridian that invented MQA probably know more about digital audio in the farts they emit from their ass than you'll ever know in your entire lifetime. Meridian was the company that designed the first Digital Master converters for the recording industry. They were the ones that figured out that timing/jitter is critical part of digital audio. Shannon/Nyquist didn't know about jitter and the importance of timing in their efforts.
Huh? If the recording was done originally in a digital format, they been selling versions of those digital recordings. They have some at HD Tracks and other digital download sites in the same bit/sample rate as the original. It's just a matter of how they do the mastering process. With a lot of pop recordings, they use things like Audio Compression, Limiting, etc. etc. during the Mastering process, but they are getting rid of that in new masters for these High Res Digital download sites. They also have analog recordings that were archived in DSD format and they release either the DSD version that's the same as the original, OR they convert to PCM and offer in a variety of bit/sample rates, also with minimal amount of altering during the mastering process. The problem is that they are expensive and they take up quite a bit of room depending on the format you download and the bit/sample rates offered. obviously for mobile device users, it's ridiculous to have a decent catalog of High Res download, which is why Streaming is better for those with mobile devices. The issue is availability and cost. Yes, not all recordings are available in His Res Digital downloads, but those catalogs are growing as is the MQA catalog for streaming. But the masses can't afford to stockpile $20 digital downloads, but they would opt either for $10/mo for AAC/OggVorbis Lossy, which is what Spotify and Apple use, OR if they can get an MQA DAC, then they will more likely pay $20 to listen to Tidal's complete catalog, which is growing as the record labels are converting their catalogs over to MQA as fast as they can. Why buy it when it costs $$ to buy it, and $$ to store in a hard drive system, when you can just pay $20 a month a stream anything they have in their catalog?
Oneness100 The tech behind MQA has been asked from Bob Stuart several times and the answers have been vaque at best. The format has been analyzed by experts and it is lossy. The temporal smearing thing is BS as many recordings are done in several sessions with different recording gear. How are you supposed to correct for the ADC in studio if there are several different ones used during the process. MQA decoding happens in the digital filter just before the DAC. What if you have a three way active speaker with DSP crossover and DAC for each way?
Not only is what they say about temporal smearing BS, but the phase shifts caused by their reconstruction filters increases temporal smearing. The reconstruction filters are inadequate and cause aliasing.
Here's what I want to know: Why do we need MQA when we already have compressed formats that support higher resolutions? I mean, the only difference seems to be that an unprocessed MQA file is still listenable despite losing bits to data noise. That's neat, but don't existing methods work pretty well for compressing high-resolution audio?
I think the point is that while FLAC and ALAC (among others) can support HD audio, those codecs are completely open source and don't require a licence fee to use. They can just be incorporated into hardware. However HD FLAC and ALAC require higher bandwidths than CD quality FLAC and ALAC. MQA on the other hand compresses the ultrasonic data held in the higher sampling frequencies in a lossily compressed form to in the top bits of a regular 16 bit/44.1KHz sample so (theoretically) you can get an HD sound in the same bandwidth as a CD quality FLAC or ALAC. But, you need an authenticated player to use the MQA data, the data itself is DRM'd and it takes up data in the regular 16 bit sample, meaning that if you don't have an authenticated player, you get a reduced bit depth (and possibly high frequency noise from the undecoded MQA data in the audbile spectrum) I would imagine that MQA is a format destined to die because while older people will -love it- not notice a difference, younger people will hear the noise and *_hate_* it.
Look at what Netflix charges to stream HD, or even 4K, video. An uncompressed WAV ripped from a CD plays at 1,411 kbps. FLAC can reduce that bitrate by around 40% losslessly. Streaming a 16-bit/44.1 KHz FLAC file takes 20% or less of the bandwidth that streaming 1080p video does! Now tell me it makes any sense that Tidal can't "afford" to stream lossless audio. I'm assuming much of that monthly fee is covering licensing fees to the record labels (I don't know what Tidal pays per stream vs what Netflix pays), but is it really THAT much more? So much more that they need to lie to their customers about what they're getting?
This pretty much nails it: 1:07 - "We support MQA in our products (...), we don't do it in our DAC's, we do it in our streaming things, because MQA requires changes to our D/A converters, that we are not willing to make because we don't want to compromise their performance or their sound."
I recently got into DVD audio. It sounds slightly better and great with surround system. 2.0 is only good for headphones and portable music. But in home audio is better with the standard high end equipment. And certainly better in surround. You get more atmosphere.
the worst thing about mqa is that they can degrade the sound quality and stop certifying companies to be able to decode it, and there is an encryption scheme embedded in it that can be used for DRM.
I am really impressed with how good the quality of the lossy formats like ogg is. I would have loved to have had an high res lossy format, but without any mysterious witchcraft. What if we set it to 24 bit, and if we need to go higher than 48 kHz, would 64 kHz be enough? Is higher always better and is it never good/high enough? 24/64 would require approx twice the bandwidth of a cd right? Would a codex like flack bring it back to around 1400? Maybe a lossy 24/64 to around 900 - 1400 would sound better than a cd?
It is a fair answer to the question asked! I haven't heard the mqa but I'vs been researching about it and I would like to hear it when enough albums will be avalibale. There is reason why hifi manufacturer are also called the designers - they design the sound upon records that are given to them. They are the end of the line, not the beggining. Time will show.
44.1 khz allows for 2 samples per wave to over 20 khz (the limit of even a teenager's ears) which is is proven mathematically to be all that's needed to accurately represent all waves to 20 khz. And 16 bit, other than it's maximum 96 dB SNR, has never been distinguished from 24, 32, 1024 bit or greater in double blind testing. Anybody claiming they can hear the difference between 44.1 khz 16 bit and 192 khz 24 bit (other than a very subtle noise floor over 80 dBa in a quiet studio) is simply mistaken or lying. MQA, especially when added to standard CDs, only lowers the quality by embedding a lossy extension stream into a now sub 16-bit 44.1 khz compromised CD track, so part of the audible CD stream has compression artifacts, while the extended information it provides isn't audible to anyone, especially everybody over 30 due to presbycusis, so there's a net reduction in quality over the original CD (but very slight). Adding MQA to flac makes far more sense. At least then the inaudible lossy extension stream doesn't reduce the quality of the lossless carrier stream.
@@lolerie The first unfold isn't lossless. A noise floor is introduced to a pristine recording. This is the first unfolded data. And even source recording with an audible noise floor have a different sounding noise floor after the folded stream is added. MQA is not lossless. It's not even perceptually lossless. Worst yet, the unfolded streams aren't even audible to anyone in double-blind testing. MQA is nothing but a marketing hyped lie the industry embraced because CDs stagnated profits. Again, by no stretch of the imagination is MQA lossless. it's a flat out lie.
@@brandon1902 "noise" floor is indeed introduced, but that is encoded MQA signal, thus it is removed after 2nd unfold (some of it after 1st too) (or on some very rare files after 3rd), ultrasound noise is the second unfold. And BTW, MQA format is just TrueHD mechanism. So they pack some of it in "TrueHD"-like and then compress with flac. 2nd unfold that unpacks ultrasound data is lossy indeed.
I remember having a 13" black and white tv in my room with a rabbit ears antenna which got maybe 5 channels that were actually watchable and a small transistor am/fm radio complete with an earpiece! That was in the early 80's as a teenager. I am absolutely blown away at what is out there now in the wonderful world of audio and video! Thank you for the explanation.
16-bit MQA doesn't turn into 24 bit upon unfolding. You need a 24-bit 44.1khz MQA to start with. If you are starting with 16-bit, it will stay as 16-bit after unfolding, and the space in which the high frequency content was truly folded has actually been truncated away, so you are left with only a small prediction stream of what was once folded, but not the real folded content itself.
Paul in your opinion does your Stellar DAC sound better on your reference system then your streamer since it doesn't support MQA? The FPGA DAC in your streamer is it any way compromising since it does MQA? I use Tidal and also have many DSD and high res downloaded music files and I am wondering if I buy a DAC with MQA will it compromise my sound of non MQA content?
The data lost is ultrasonic which means you didn't need it in the first place. It also does some damage in the audible range. I can't think of any reason for its existence.
The original premise for MQA was to make streaming more efficient. That matters less and less as internet speeds increase. You just can’t beat a lossless format, and certainly not with one that compresses a signal, as clever as MQA unquestionably is. It’s never going to catch on as a mainstream format and will be history pretty soon.
I don't know if it's going to be history. here's why. The average consumer does not buy expensive DACs and have the financial means to buy $20 digital downloads of Lossless files. If more and more computer/smartphone/tablet mfg. start adopting MQA enabled DACs, then that will give the consumer an easier route to listening to MQA streaming audio. Obviously Lossy Streaming 16/44.1 files has taken over the CD sales, and it's a matter of time for MQA to take over high res Lossless Digital Sales, because the only people that can afford $20 a clip for a digital download are making lots of money and are willing to spend it. As far as the sound quality of MQA vs Loss or even the original uncompressed version is, some long term listeners are preferring MQA as time goes on, even though they might run across a bad album hear and there, but many long term reviewers are actually liking MQA a lot, so time will tell how fast it gets adopted. Remember, the masses dictate which format is going to win, not the audiophiles. Remember SACD? That's been hanging on by a thin thread. DVD-A? That didn't take off. How about DSD digital downloads? Nope. Not a big enough demand for it to take off. MQA has the best ability IF the smartphone/laptop/tablet mfg start MQA'ing their internal DACs. LG just came out with the first MQA enabled smartphone, so we'll see how many more come out over the next few years. I heard HTC might release MQA smartphones, but it's more up to Apple and Samsung, which cater to the upscale masses as to the success of MQA, ultimately. But the thing is, the Big 3 are behind converting their catalogs to MQA, which SACD never got, and if they can build a bigger catalog as fast or even faster than the Lossless Digital Download, then it will lend itself to a bigger demand. I doubt you can hear a vast difference in your system between the two and you might be surprised with MQA over standard Lossless. I would personally try a variety of recordings over an extended period of time with a proper DAC and playback system before making the final decision.
MrCatalysis101 I think you didn't understand the concept of MQA regarding "lossy". There's a part of data that nobody can hear but there are still needed for the other purposes such as sample timing density. I suppose you are not bat so you don't hear the ultrasound. It is like you implement UV in picture because you need better visible spectre but the nouseproduct of that is UV and it is irrelevant what you will do with it because either way you won't see it. It could remain in natural state but it is compressed for the streaming sake. But the speed of internet is not what makes MQA relevant. On the other hand, the main labels had already signed with MQA so you're post is history at this very moment.
Meanwhile, most of the major record labels have signed on, and more and more independent labels are MQAing every year, while more and more hardware vendors are announcing support for the technology.
I think for the success of MQA on a mass scale, I honestly think that Apple would be the Lynch pin to make it successful. Tidal has very limited success and it's because there simply not smartphones, tablets, or computers with native MQA support, so in order to take advantage, consumers have to spend $200 or more on an external USB DAC, which is fine for budget minded audiophiles, but that might not be enough. People want convenience and to have the ultimate convenience, their smartphones/tablets/laptops should at least have an internal MQA enabled DAC to at least play back the majority of these recordings to 24.96 or 24/192 level and those that want to go past that, will have to spend more on a higher end DAC, which is still a very limited market. The question is, will companies like Apple, Samsung, and the rest of the top end smartphones/tablets/laptops install a MQA enabled DAC as standard? That's what is going to get MQA to be a huge success.
Great video! MQA has DRM built-in and that's a big reason to avoid it altogether (for me at least). Regarding sound quality... If MQA is so cool and marvelous as some people say... well let's wait for an open source implementation of MQA's ideas on a free unencumbered audio format like FLAC.
Thats’ my beef as well. While Bob and Meridian are trying to sell the format to the audio nuts, they are simultaneously going to the record labels and distributors (apple, tidal) and selling the digital rights management capabilities. Remember encrypted CDs that Sony tried out in the early 2000s? Streaming is killing the music industry slowly. I applaud MQA for at least trying to get better sound out of it. But the fact that the tech, the DRM, etc, are all inextricable from each other has always given me pause.....
nihilonsaro there are extremely smart people in the open source audio community (i.e: xiph.org)... if they didn't care to create something similar to MQA so far... well it's highly probable it's bullsh*t. I don't believe in proprietary "magic" really.
Why not just encode in a lossy format (perhaps Vorbis, which can go up to 192 KHz) with high resolution and bitrate? The proprietary filtering that MQA uses is mostly just a gentler filter, as compared to the traditional brick wall filter that CD uses (with all the pre-echo associated with that). This reduces ringing and pre-echo (which is often simply inaudible), but it can be done through any competent resampler now days.
Paul you explain how it is compressed, I agree. But I want to know is what does it take is near and dear to you? Please elaborate, because you never do.
So if you have a choice between playing a song on MQA or HIFI quality on Tidal (assuming you have equipment that supports MQA), which is the better quality to use?
I agree at 100% with you about this. It doesn't make any sense to care about bandwidth that lossless audio takes while we don't about 4k video streaming. All over the technology history, it looks like picture quality is much important than sound quality for most average peoples. Not everyone understand that a film or a video is composed of 50% sound and 50% pictureI. I remember the "standard" television age where audio was crappy! Fortunately things are changing now but for me, trying to reduce bandwidth usage with a lossy audio format will always stay the WRONG CHOICE. No I DONT want of this "master" quality format! I prefer to stay at 16 bits 44.1 kHz but with a lossless format. I think it sounds MUCH much natural.
Very good approach about what MQA is. What took my attention also when I heard about MQA for first time was some point you mention in this video. I mean that today you can stream 4K video quality that has way more ammount of information than a FLAC audio file….so where is the concern about file size for audio streaming?? I saw also a video from a channel called Vivir Digital where Roy’s said that MQA came out 10 years later, just when internet bandwidth for streaming is not a concern. Roy’s in that video also is referring to your video Paul. All the best from Buenos Aires!
Right on Paul. Right at the beginning of RMAF 2017 you sat me and my Dad in the front row of your listening room. Your system sounded amazing! One of the best sounds at the show for sure. Rutter's Requiem came on and I was blown away and brought to tears. I own this Reference Recording and I have never heard it sound so real and emotional. I heard hardly any MQA at RMAF and the best sound I heard at the show was your room, Sanders room, Vandersteen, VAC/Tannoy, and Clearaudio/Martin Logan. When I use Tidal to compare MQA to non MQA of the same album the MQA usually sounds better. However when I compare the Tidal MQA to non MQA in JRiver the non MQA in JRiver usually sounds better. Especially when my JRiver file is Hi Res. My dedicated optical transport sounds even better. There seems to be something wrong with the non MQA versions on Tidal verses what I own on JRiver. MQA in my computer or streamer is as far as I want to take it. But that would only be for steaming and discovering new music. I prefer to own my music. And with MQA you own nothing.
But tidal says Up to 9216 kbps. but then they also have such things as, for example, dolby Atmos and Sony's 360 reality. and they apparently also have Flac. what the impact is on sound quality can also be an issue
But video streaming services are kind of doing the same as MQA. Netflix 4k videos are like 15-20mbit/s when a (lossless) 4k blu ray has up to 90-100mbit/s ... they're also throwing out information to lower bandwidth usage.
Awesome-sauce! There are videos about how mqa is lesser in quality (measured) compared to stream platforms that use pure flac. I did an extensive testing of different platforms and it seems there are audible differences, not entirely sure why, resampling or something else? Tidal is the only one that sounds more mellow and “sweeter” to my ears, not a bad thing, depends on the music and your equipment on which is more preferable.
Well and straight talking. You don't chew your words as we say in my country. I think that people don't like when someone mess up with his music and that is what you said. I listen to an interview of BOB STEWART and when he started talking about neurosience etc i said to my self ...ok...... And most of all MQA is served as a lossless format although as you well mentioned, is not . GREAT thanks, because our voice can't be heard as loud as yours does. AND LASTLY ...as an example , mp3 is a lossy format but it does not alterate music , it is just have fewer information.
Very interesting, but.... The Red Book engineers who designed the CD44.1/16 digital recording system knew exactly what they were doing. This is a no-compromise system with wide flat frequency response, huge dynamic range and very low distortion. This specification exceeds the specs of the finest studio microphone and the best loudspeaker system, not to mention limitations in the human ear. There is a widespread belief that higher data rates and bit depth must result in higher quality, this is a total falacy. A well engineered CD can deliver a perfect copy of the signal captured by the studio microphone. For various technical reasons, any attempt to improve on this can actually degrade sound quality. If there is actually an improvement, which is doubtful, it will be so subtle that it will be totally swamped by other shortcomings in the playing system. There are many factors in the chain than have huge effects on perception by the listener. For example, two makes of high quality loudspeakers may sound very different. Even moving loudspeaker position in the room can have a big effect. So called hi-res recordings are marketing hype. Better to spend your money on high quality loudspeakers you like the sound of.
Geoff37 S - explained perfectly. Rendering to 16 bit during mastering doesn’t necessarily mean a loss of audio, as explained by Izotope - their software is very capable of a lossless conversion from 24 bit to 16 (for CD). Obviously, if not manufacturing CDs, one can stream in 24 bit. The audio won’t be any ‘better’ however.
Gordon Shumway It is surprising how many “experts” clearly do not understand how digital audio works. Poor digital recordings are due to sloppy engineering and not the fault of the recording format. Tidal claims to offer MQA versions of vintage analog recordings. This is quite dishonest as it it is impossible to recover detail lost in the original analog recording. “Better than CD quality” is snake oil.
Gordon Shumway please keep up the comments and call out this garbage. 16 bits with modern shaped dithering can give 100dB dynamic range, way above the dynamic range required for all kinds of music. Al this BS on hi-res audio is doing a great dis-service to audio enthusiasts.
Gordon Shumway All very interesting and totally agree. I too was first into quality audio when vinyl was the only option. I still have my large vinyl collection packed away in boxes, probably never to be played again. I think my earliest stereo album is a Decca recording from 1958. Sounded stunning for the time but I do not miss the hassle and expense of a vinyl system. Amazingly good for a bit of rock scraping on a plastic disc but full of compromises. My system now is 100% streaming. Yamaha pre-amp/streamer, Emotiva XPA2 power amp and full range floor standing electrostatic speakers hand built by E R Audio here in Australia. I doubt any system could sound better regardless of price.
Gordon Shumway Agree with all you write. It is easy to imagine the digitising process breaks up the waveform into tiny chunks and the DAC joins up the dots and outputs an analog waveform that is not smooth but has stairsteps, so increasing sample rate and bit depth must give a smoother and more accurate analog signal. It is unfortunate this is believed by so many enthusiasts but it is unforgivable for those in the industry to be so ignorant, or even worse, understand the process but push the myth for commercial gain. Higher than 44.1kHz just captures supersonic noise that has nothing to do with the music but could produce products that appear in the audible range. 24Bit 144dB is not only pointless it is fortunate this huge dynamic range is impossible for a home system. A 144dB peak above listening room noise would cause instant hearing damage. CD’s are capable of superb audio quality, if only the engineer has the motivation to do a good job.
Great explanation. I love it when he pointed out that bandwidth is not a problem. I just want to add to his point that it will be even less of a problem with the roll out of 5G. Tindal will have to change its business philosophy or someone will come and eat its lunch.
Music is used as portable media, movies less so. I have 30gb of data contract. That's like 10 hours of lossless music or many more of mqa. I also can't get more than few albums of dsd on my phone, so I need Tidal and mqa for my hq music on the go.
That's like saying that you want to be able to stream 4k video to watch on an iphone 5S. It makes no sense. You aren't able to hear any difference between 768 kHz DSD, CD quality FLAC, mqa and 320kbps mp3 from your phone anyway.
@@Hmkls Why wouldn't you be able to hear a difference on a phone? Shure you can't if you use wireless Bluetooth headphones or cheap DAC integrated into usb to 3.5 adapter. I use LG G8X with 3.5 jack output, Quad DAC and AKG studio headphones.
@@miharoskar On my 5000 Euro desktop audio setup I hear at best negligible differences, in most cases. I'd be surprised if you can distinguish them in a blind AB test with your portable gear. Besides, there is no proof that MQA actually sounds "better", while there is a lot of proof that states the opposite
@@Hmkls Hearing a difference is not a problem. DSD has its own character to the sound that is easily distinguishable from other formats. MQA usually just sounds smoother and a tad more dynamic. Many times I listen random playlists on Tidal and I often check my phone when I hear better quality if it's an MQA file and I'm mostly right. Agree with MQA not being lossless, but it sounds better than 44/16.
@@miharoskar In my experience, MP3 usually sounds smoother and more dynamic than the same music in hi-res formats because it is less detailed and more compressed. It's worse quality, but subjectively speaking it could be more enjoyable to listen to for some people. So "smoother" and "more dynamic" to me is irrelevant to "better quality". Better spatial information, better 3D imaging and more micro-details is what defines high quality audio for me. Tidal advertises and pushes for mqa so it is in their interest that music in mqa sounds better than their standard option in Tidal, so to compare formats within Tidal is not an objective comparison of formats themselves.
Ostensibly, yes, and I don't have a good answer. However, two things to consider: first, to my ears, MQA encoded music doesn't sound as good as lossless. Second, there's absolutely no need to modify the file to a lossy format in the first place. So, wherever the cause, it makes no sense because at the end of the day, the music suffers.
Thank you for the plain truth. I have yet to hear MQA demonstrated to be better than hi-res PCM of the same recording. And the system was a dCS Vivaldi stack, with D’Agostino Momentums, through Wilson Alexx’s. MQA robbed the piano of all air, harmonics, and body. PCM version sounded like a proper Steinway in a beautiful hall. Don’t believe the hype. Trust your ears.
MQA is literally a trashtop overhyped audio upscaler. It's the audio equivalent of using Photoshop to turn your 1080p image to a "4k" one. MQA 24/96 is usually larger than a FLAC at 16/44.1.
In terms of streaming-bandwith at home, Paul is right. There is no problem to stream native DSD or uncompressed 24/196FLAC, at least in urban areas. But things are different in many rural areas and especially in mobile streaming. Even with 5G in the near future, there will not be any affordable flat rate tier and carriers will still charge for exceeding data limits. For mobile highres streaming MQA is the ideal format for audiophiles - up to now. The best of all would be an open-soure FLAC-like format with MQA technology, in order to avoid DRM restrictions or any kind like the Dolby-dead end. IMHO, MQA sounds better than CD and almost as good as 24/192 FLAC or native DSD, as long as you own a decent system. But don‘t post too many pros and cons in forums, like I just did ;). Listen to the music, enjoy it and make your own judgement.
Actually, I didn't use Tidal for a little while, because it had buffering issues. I'm in Philadelphia. I recently upgraded my internet speed. I was over 25 mb/s, but it wasn't good enough. Now my provider upgraded me to 50 mb/s and Tidal buffers fine.
Hi Paul, and Comments; I have been listing to Paul and following others. My question is; If I wanted to build or buy a computer to upload music to, (I have cd's) and would like to pay for a service. What are some options on this, I know about power supply noise?.... I am not looking for the "best".... what I would call "good".... my thought is I have a sailboat and want to have a music server, nothing fancy; but I do care about music.
All I can do say is, the music that I listen to. was recorded on crappy 70s equipment, so what do I care if it sounds like the producers intended? Take an old Deep Purple album. It sounded blurry on the best hifi equipment then and it cannot sound any better today, not on any system.....but...the remastering of that music streamed through MQA is absolutely fantastic...the MUSIC never sounded better...on ANY system..I LOVE Tidal
The big advantage I see with MQA encoded CDs is the ability to create standard 16/44 WAV files on a standard CD and play it in ANY CD player at lower resolution CD quality, or higher res with the right gear. Studios can stick with releasing standard CDs instead of proprietary formats like SACD, which require special players. Everyone has a CD player in their car, or somewhere. With the MQA encoded WAV files, the high resolution data is coded (i.e. folded, or compressed) into a low level signal in a few of the least significant bits of the 16 bit audio. How much audible noise that high res data produces on standard CD players remains to be seen. I'm hoping the Engineers mastering those files don't use it as an excuse to over compress the low res 16/44 content (spawning a new loudness war) to mask out that high resolution "noise" data from our ears. My hope is the MQA movement encourages Engineers mastering them to actually do a good job with the low res 16/44 content too, giving that a high dynamic range in addition to the much higher range expected with the MQA decoded signal. As we learned from the loudness wars, It's all in that Mastering! With the right hardware (MQA enabled DAC), you can play back those WAV files, decoded, and play it back at 24 bit, >192KHz data rates, Master Quality. There are also software players available that can decode and play it to standard DACs, albeit at slightly lower 24/96 quality. So far, my research has turned up Audirvana. I actually see it as a great way to rip/archive CD WAV files as a standard lossless file (e.g. flac) into my media library, using any CD drive, then play it back anywhere, low or high res, depending on which gear I use. There's just no easy way to do that with proprietary formats like SACD. I'd prefer the studios just sell straight up hi resolution FLAC files instead, but they don't for most of the artists I want (or SACD either). I'm sure that's all about the copyright protections. If the artists and studios got on board with MQA encoded CDs, it seems like a great compromise. I'd much rather see CDs come with the MQA label, instead of nothing but Vinyl as the only option with a high quality "mastering".
I have a lot of respect for Paul. That being said, I have adopted MQA and am enjoying it. I have a very resolving system as well. Even the experts in the field of audio reproduction can't agree on it's merits. I guess we will have to wait and see if a streaming service such as Tidal will adopt a system to deliver 24/192 with no compression or changes to the signal at all. Most people are happy with mp3 quality and balk at paying $20.00 a month let alone 30 or more. Call me a naive fan boy but I do believe there is something to the "debluring" filter used in the process that gives the music a more analog like sound quality.
Hi Paul, Bandwidth - I remember 20-odd years ago seeing a demo by British Telecom where they had a bunch of ISDN modems streaming video from a server in London. At the time "there is no way this will ever happen - it would be impossible to have the bandwidth, let alone the space for all of the material" - That was my Bill Gates "no-one will need more than 560k" moment. Never say never in the world of tech :) I've not heard MQA, but in my world I have very little need for it - I can carry 200Gb micro SD cards with all of the 24/96 or 24/192 material that I want when I'm out and can add as many drives to a server as I want and keep it all locally, fed with a 200Mb pipe. Great video as always, thanks!
I have listened to a number of MQA recordings with my Mytek DAC. It is definitely not lossless, but it does have a slight euphonic quality that some people might like. I prefer the original WAV or FLAC, of DSF (best of all). MQA might be cool for streaming at a party or restaurant, but in critical listening it sounds a bit fuzzy and loses detail. The time correcting/filter process may lend a nice sound, but overall it is lossy. I compared a 24/352 FLAC of a 2L Mozart album with a 24/352 MQA process "Remix" which was also FLAC, and an actual MQA file made from the latter. There are a lot of factors that influence the sound of a remix, but the MQA remix FLAC was actually the best sounding one, and it sounded better than the MQA file from the same master. The original mix was also better than the MQA file.
If you live in parts of rural America, bandwidth is an issue. Even companies that claim to deliver high speed, such as the satellite internet companies. don't deliver real high speeds to the customer. So, I appreciate efforts to provide a usable streaming product to us.
MQA was promoted to high-end audio as hearing for the first time what the engineers heard in the recording studio. Another equated MQA performance to "experiencing the birth of a new world." That's nonsense. One high-end audio review Peter Moncrieff (well known for he well-trained ears) said of MQA, "Such naïve listeners might well prefer the sound of MQA to other competing systems that reveal the truth about real sounds, so they might well erroneously pronounce MQA's sound to be superior precisely because of what is in fact MQA's gross distortion and reconstruction failure here, with all brief transient attacks." Also, just because two high-end audio magazine editors-in-chief highly endorsed MQA for its performance equating to pigs flying, does not mean the high-end audio sector believes any such nonsense. If anything, I suspect it implies that high-end audio "leaders" are complete sell outs. In my opinion.
I called out JA at Stereophile once for gaslighting his readership about MQA. I respect what he has done in the industry but his incessant praising of MQA seemed highly suspicious. Not too long after, he backed off, likely due to all the backlash readers gave him and Stereophile. At AXPONA this year, MQA (and Tidal, for that matter) were barely a presence. I feel MQA is pretty much dead anyway.
In my opinion, MQA is bad news for everybody and in all aspects. Paul McGowan was kind and diplomatic yet professional and honest in his response to the question, "Is it any good?" Good job, Paul. Should MQA die (please Lord), will anybody attend its funeral?
I gave up on streaming, i now just buy high res FLAC and DSD format music without DRM, and play them locally. Not only is bandwidth not a big deal anymore, but we have so much storage capacity that we really don't need to care about the file size anymore. Just load it up, flash memory is cheap. I now use Sony HAP-Z1ES for my home setup and Pioneer XDP-300 for portable, and load them up with FLAC and DSD. Using subscription fee to buy the music is a fun experience, and if you want to try music before you buy, there's always the degraded version you can try in RU-vid...
Please would you explain the difference between MQA and SACD. I find that there are far too many different formats, each with their own advocates, but it is difficult for the average consumer to understand which one is best for them.
The 4K video you're streaming is more compressed than what you will find on a UHD disk. Nobody is sending out a 40GB to 75GB movie out for viewing on a streaming service. The same can be said for audio. Streaming services don't want to tie up bandwidth sending out uncompressed audio. That being said, as far as MQA is concerned, thanks but no thanks. I would prefer to rip a CD or play a DSD or SACD before going MQA. MQA may be fine but I don't feel it's an answer to any questions I had.
Of course streaming Netflix is compressed compared to UHD Blu Rays (which are themselves compressed), but that's not the point. Uncompressed 24/192 'pcm' is about 9mbps (little b), without any lossless compression, which is higher than most 1080p content, but less than most 4k streamed content. MQA is 100% unnecessary.
Great answer to the question! But I would like to put my 2 cents in here with regard to streaming. I'm a product child of the 70's with training in audio engineering with a very good ear. I do agree with you in what you have mentioned here and in my comments to follow really don't go much into MQA as I prefer FLAC files. but my concern with regard to streaming that is in the courts today is with streaming the artists are only getting digital rights a 1/3 of what they would normally get through mechanical rights which is by purchasing a CD or LP which is a tangible product. Myself I prefer buying tangible products because to score a CD or an LP is a team effort from the artists themselves to the band members, producer, background vocals, instruments, strings, audio engineers, where it was recorded, where it was mastered, etc. None of this is reflected in a stream or a download plus if you download music and you have all this music stored on a hard drive and it crashes all that music and hours one puts in to download that you store is lost. But yes we do have to come up with a standard for CD's and I suggest instead of compressing down to a WAV file just record as a FLAC file with no compression what so ever then it would be comparable to and LP with very little loss in quality????? That way artists get the full rights that their entitled too, the consumer gets all this information in regards to how it was made, you have much better quality as opposed to a download, and lastly one has backup should the hard drive crash, sample as and I'd be more then happy with that!
The idea that people who are paying from streaming audio are not paying the artists for their work is a fallacy. People who pay for streaming audio are providing a vast and essential support for the music industry and that should not be under estimated or derided. Tangible products are wasteful and polluting from production to consumption to disposal and nobody needs any of that. If I was to tangibly buy and store all the music I enjoy listening to I would need to buy a bigger house. There is no need to store any music in your hard drive. It is all there in the cloud.
@@petermartin9494 Hi Peter you are so wrong by saying this to me! First of all if it comes to buying a house with a library I'd do it in a heart beat!!! So here is an example of how much I love music as I'm a musician and play guitar. So I bought two custom made guitars in 1993 that are Trangable products not stored in the cloud that at the time cost me 10,000.00 as commissioned. Today those two guitars are worth 36,000.00 today. So when I'm no longer on this earth I have my family and grand kids who will benefit from me and my love of music and will enjoy what I listened to and why!! This BS that you are giving me how I'm polluting by doing what I'm doing is nonsense and by storing your music in the cloud is better is also BS! What happens if the servers go down or hacked because the cloud is really not the cloud! Also I'm a professional in the corporate and entertainment industry and I know artists are not getting their fare share of the pie as I live it every day and have seen the collapse of a once very strong industry with musicians out of work due to gingles being taken over by computers being used to cut and paste or sampling being done. Also lastly I believe if an artist puts their heart and soul into a product they put out is an historic effort and should have lasting accrements just like my guitars have had, and trust me can the cloud do that???? So if you believe artists are being well done by then please I'd like to hear your professional opinion on this????
@@myleshpatterson1563 Ok, fine. I will stop paying hundreds of $ a year for the music I stream and just listen on the radio and youtube for free. I am delighted to help!
What do you mean by "...instead of compressing down to a WAV file just record as a FLAC file with no compression..." ? FLAC is a lossless compression codec, it's not a format per se in and of itself. It compresses the file (PCM) that's fed to it. It needs a source file to compress, it doesn't make the source file.
So which is better, the mp3 crap most folks listen or MQA. If this is means to get people to listen better formats as an artist I’m all for it. BTW Tidal pays better..
I think MQA apppeals to those who buy into the reason for it. For audiophiles the word "lossy" is not what we want to hear. Like Amazon music using Opus to encode "HD" audio. I can't believe in HD that is lossy, end of story. The reason to compress data is monetary, not for quality. I'll ALWAYS opt for lossless, surely thats the point?
What I can't figure out is who asked for MQA in the first place, who would want it now, and why? Still on dial up internet? Data storage too expensive? Nah, the fact is that people are easily tricked by gimmicks and marketing, even to the extent of convincing them that they want products that they never asked for and do nothing for them.
Neil Young tried to sell high resolution audio to the general public. Remember the Monty Python sketch where the majority of British housewives could not tell the difference between Whizzo butter and a dead crab? I think this is the main problem. Even if MQA is all that any audiophile could hope for, most people are not audiophiles and cannot tell horseradish from horse apples. They are listening to MP3 quality files on a phone with $20 earbuds, or on speakers the level of computer quality. And they are happy. It seems to me we're talking about a limited segment of the population that can discern and care enough to spend more for this HQ MQA streaming or buy new MQA compatible equipment to decode MQA CDs. (I just saw a video about MQA CDs. I didn't even know the animal existed.) That's why I think the format is destined to be the next Betamax, laserdisk, Elcaset, buggy whip, whatever. Personally, I play CDs ripped to FLAC, and since I have a relatively large CD collection that I'm happy with, I want to maximize reproduction of that format. A new format? Forget about it. (I don't deny high resolution can sound a bit better. Michael Fremer called 16/44 a "meat grinder" of sound. I think there is a subtle loss -- not perfect sound forever -- but meat grinder is hyperbole.) I have vinyl, too, but I'm far from as enthusiastic about it as Fremer. Off center records -- even slight off-center -- drive me nuts.
Perhaps someone from the naysayer side of this can mention a specific MQA album they have listened to, what if any level of decoding from MQA was present, where was the sourced MQA derived from, and what the discernment they heard. Everything else is technobabble. Have been listening to this constant blathering since the 60's, and most often it is populated by theories and conjecture excluding the actual listening of the particular device. This includes things like the Tice clock, putting CD's in the freezer, green markers, etc etc etc. All were either backed up or excluded from actually trying them. Took a pass on the Tice clock, but did get their regulated power supply. ;)
7:45 please do understand that people have data cap on their 4GB or 7GB phone plan and streaming a 50MB audio file isn't optimal. but your point is fair, at home with no data cap, it's not really a problem
