Qobuz vs Tidal MQA

Legacy versions Streaming Old Versions
41

Reinhard,

Just out of interest. Do the smart minds at MQA have an idea why there is so much resistance in the market? Has something gone wrong in marketing, is it a general fear of change, is there a group that has an interest in stopping the success of MQA?

For me personally:

The claims seem interesting the first time you read them. They seem like good marketing, but you get them back hard.

A lot of the audio forums are full of them because they are debatable on many fronts. The way in which the discussion goes is a reason for me to never choose a device with an MQA logo.

So yes you have me again. I don’t have MQA hardware and it doesn’t come into my house voluntarily. Because the attitude towards the market is that we are all idiots who should not complain but just buy and believe.

The moment that MQA communicates to the users in a professional and respectful manner. For me this is the moment when I want to give the technology behind MQA a chance.

42

The biggest resistance is coming on the production and distribution end, not surprisingly. That’s mainly due to the pay toll and the additional effort required.

You can debate it as much as you want but ultimately it comes down to does it sound better than CD quality PCM.

I like the format on a technical level and there is a promise there, but personally I won’t be investing in MQA content to own. I did that mistake once with HDCD. Until it becomes a widespread format, I’m sticking with PCM and DSD. For streaming it’s fine but until Apple, Spotify and the others jump on it, it will be a niche format.

43

I had already decided not to go into it any further. Every audio forum has the same arguments and the same counter arguments.

In general, it is not the quality that determines whether something is successful or not. Convenience for the user or marketing all the more. Unfortunately.

44

This seems like a damning analysis of MQA in its current form.
45

Hi DaveyJay, according to Reinhard everything in this video has already been debunked.

And we don’t understand anything about it. And we should be especially grateful that the gods and prophets of MQA give us a chance to enter this beautiful world. Where everything is more beautiful and better than the real world. Don’t worry, don’t ask questions. Read everything the prophets tell you and you will be happy.

46

I have no problem with asking questions. The thing is he’s trying the evaluate a music encoding algorithm by disseminating generic signals to then analyse what is returned back.

With the conclusions from the video, you would assume that it sounds like crap. Anybody who ever tried to play MQA content will testify that this is not the case. It sounds at least as good as CD, even with non MQA capable equipment. Whether it brings anything more is another question. The answer to that depends whom you ask.

47

Just for reference, here is the Hans Beekhuyzen’s take on the GoldenSound’s video:

48

Hans is free to respond just like everyone else. And it will certainly get him views. But he doesn’t actually respond. He reiterates his views from previous episodes. And also refers to that. And says that we don’t know how it works, but that we just have to believe. And that other DAC’s also sound great without MQA.

I really don’t know what the added value of MQA is. Why should MQA be in control for every studio, record label, streaming service, device? They themselves say that the goal is to have the entire chain under control for maximum convenience for the consumer.
Everyone should pay for the freedom of choice of a very small group of people.

No added value for the vast majority of users. And for the target group there is no consensus that it is better.

1 Like
49

MQA will never by be all and all solution. I wouldn’t mind it being just one more format being offered. If you see the value in it, use it. If not, don’t use it. If you’re focusing on redbook audio, MQA would also make sense. It’s not worse than that and you’ll have potentially some benefit with quality MQA DAC. It’s a somewhat well kept secret that MQA DACs can sound better with regular PCM content due to better processing chips.

Something similar happened to HDCD when most of the higher end CD players started supporting it. Because of the superior oversampling chips, the normal CDs sounded better. It was no longer a problem of support on the reproduction end, there was just not enough content to make it viable.

It’s also true that a higher quality DAC will make a greater difference than MQA ever can.

After years of MP3 being good enough, even the consumer oriented streaming services are now looking at offering a higher quality streaming. That’s where MQA has the biggest potential. DSD streaming will not be a reality any time soon. Who knows, Tidal might start to sell content in MQA, just like Qobuz does for high resolution PCM.

50

So my listening test with Audirvana
in conjunction with Tidal and Quboz did not reveal anything alarming.
Although the Tidal version was in Mqa, and in Quboz 24/x, I upsampled with Audirvana on my non-Mqa Dac and in my 32/96 format, there were zero differences.

To quit Tidal because of Mqa is a waste of time.
Even up-sampled in DSD format, there were zero differences.

Since I don’t have a Mqa Dac, I don’t know how good Mqa is.
Honestly, I don’t need it and don’t buy a new Dac because of the hype.

Besides, I’m someone who wants to enjoy music and not know what’s being mixed, so I’m not interested.
If there were decent musicians who could still play instruments, producers who put more value on it than compiling music on PCs and laptops, the format would be superfluous.

Nevertheless, I think that Tidal should be left to everyone’s own decision, who needs it to hear what was “supposedly” really mixed there, please go ahead.
But someone who only wants to enjoy music in good quality has to subscribe to Maq or go for the noob subscription.
I don’t think that’s okay and I understand people’s displeasure.
You pay for something that is not supposed to be losless.
That’s just not okay somewhere.

But quboz is no better in this respect and is able to get a grip on their problems, which is also a shame.
And Audirvana is unfortunately not in a very good position because of that.

No software subscriptions will help if Audirvana doesn’t slowly bring more streamers on board to be competitive and to be able to serve the masses who also want quality.

Because all the app-based programmes on Windows are just terrible.
They are so badly and miserably developed that they are only just good enough for mobile use.

It would also be important that Audirvana slowly gets going, as Roon is also the main competitor.
Because Roon is increasingly outranking them and developing a monopoly.
That would not be good.

52

Let me take opportunity a last time to set things straight. I am not from MQA team , nor do I have any financial interest or similar thing . I am music/HiFi lover and keen to inform myself and if wanted others about new technologies which improve sound. Resistance against MQA was started by LINN , an old and all time competitor of Meridian, where research started for MQA . It also came from non educated people, who threw some NoGos in the ring like DRM or patent or license. I highly recommend Hans Beekhuyzens video about “the video” from a strange guy. Why they would like to stop MQA I dont know, haters want attention not factual discussions. Nothing against debates , but if some argument has been proven wrong it is boring to repeat it.
You are wrong if you describe MQA teams attitude as arrogant, recommend to look at Bob Stuarts interview for What Hifi recently and you will see the opposite. Linda, the PR lady and ALL other members communicate in the utmost professional and respectful manner. Spend 99 bucks and try it once on Tidal streaming and you will not want to loose this pleasure in future. All MQA Dacs work also with non MQA files , so you have a nice 384 kHz 24 Bit Dac anyhow later.

53

You may not be part of the MQA team, but you are close to the MQA team. Hoping for inside information.

Arogance is not my problem with MQA. The aggression with which people have responded to asking logical questions is totally out of proportion and unprofessional.

In recent years I have read a lot about MQA. From supporters and opponents. I have no opinion about the technology(Sort of). MQA does not say anything substantive about this.

Many enthusiasts and people with technical knowledge try to reverse engineer how it works. I don’t think we can describe everyone as uneducated just because they don’t work for MQA. (putting people away as ignorant has a bit of arrogance)

I am not an expert, but I know enough about the recording and mastering process to know that this does not correspond to how it is presented. In the 60s we had a mixing board with a 2-track mixdown for the master suite. There you could say that you could reconstruct a lossless ADC-DAC from this analog tape. But that is no longer the case. This variant is still possible, but a multitrack from various ADCs that then never goes through an ADC again is in popmusic standard. Or a version where several ADC’s are used several times in the Mastering fase to be able to use specific analog hardware. Everything is possible and MQA has no added value there. Except that you can say that the effect that MQA gives to a mastering is something you appreciate.

Authentication means nothing if we do not know what was used as Master. It would be the first time that a record label cares about audiophiles.

In 2021, there are already such large data streams for video and data analysis that the data compression on audio files is not really relevant. Not streaming a file every time again and “expanding” every time is much greener.

There are specific instances where MQA could be a great solution(I guess) But most of what has been re-released is useless. And for most of the consumers it is useless.

If it had been put on the market as audiophile format and everything was done with a lot of knowledge and expertise on the side of the record labels, then I could have respected it. I cannot support this and consciously choose not to contribute a dollar to hardware or content.

Which, by the way, is quite difficult. Just try to find streamer software or hardware without an MQA license. And that is really not always done voluntarily by the manufacturers.

54

The main reason why people demonise MQA and Tidal is relatively simple.

Tidal made it easy by throwing something into the subscription without explanation and without thinking about it.
It simply lacks the freedom of the customer to decide freely.

That is the main reason why.
That’s why MQA is bad, at least at the moment, when you consider what the world situation is doing to it, the timing is relatively unfavourable.

At the moment, every second person does not want to have to invest money in something new if not necessary, which is normal.
The second main reason is also that the MQA administration puts the stamp on the manufacturers and demands additional money.
This is again demanded from the end customer.

The third main reason is that MQA makes a huge effort to maintain the encryption of the technology and logically raises questions instead of simply saying what’s what.
If you believe the rumours, it is not supposed to be Lossless and the customers are supposed to pay for something new that is not new at all, which is why all the fuss is about trying to screw the customer.

That is only understandable from a certain point of view.
And for marketing reasons, everyone should still be free to decide without losing the customer, which would have been the right strategy.
And over time, let the conviction prevail.

Of course, the accuracy of the Youtuber is also questionable.
Many are self-proclaimed rewiewers who claim something that is not true or the information is correct, mostly without arguments.

In the end, this is what comes out of it.
Linn has allegedly found proof where are you?
Where is the proof that MQA is not Lossless, and the proof that MQA is better than the rest?

MQA also has to clarify something in an honest way.
In the end, everyone should be allowed to decide what they think is right.
And weigh up whether they need it or not.

1 Like
55

You can use Tidal as CD quality or as Master quality, both for same price. You can buy a MQA DAC or not , wher is your “freedom” diminished . You can buy a MQA CD or stay with your standard CD. Nobody forces you to buy MQA . MQA was brought to the market MANY years ago, and studies for at least 10 years before it came to market. Tell me about timing in that case. The only timing was the eagerness of Bob Stuart and his team to get transport of music to the customer better and right, e.g. fully downwards compatible regardless of capability of your equipment. As said many times MQA is completely lossless up to 48 kHz and above that just disregards high volume part of signal , because there is no signal related to music or room information, just technical overkill to store this area, if you take modern science of hearing into consideration. Pls read the official answer from MQA to the self proclamed golden ear , and you will find all answrs , where he failed in testing. The proof of MQA working is in the ears of the best mastering and sound engineers , who take up MQA and recommend it. Because of the side effect to need only one version of the master instead of many for different portals or file formats. Agree with you that everybody , who knows to use the ears, can decide on his/her own . Many people did that and enjoy it very much, including myself.

1 Like
56

They though about it hard and well. For them the biggest benefit is that the cover all subscription tiers with the same file. It’s a huge saving in terms of storage space and even more importantly bandwidth. That’s what exactly the problem MQA has been designed to tackle.

If you only care about CD quality, you’ll be just fine with Tidal and MQA. That’s regardless of what you think about MQA. I don’t buy the argument that MQA sounds worse than 16/44.1 PCM when played on non MQA capable equipment. I tested myself and I can’t tell the difference.

57

Until now, there was not much choice. For the way I consume music. Almost every streamer supports MQA.

Fortunately, there is now the option to start using Pure Music with Apple Music. This appears to be an MQA free solution.

59

Discussion is coming back because I want to have my five cents on the subject.
Last 3 months I used Tidal as trial using Audirvana 3.5 purchase voucher.
Subscription ended on the 6th of this month.
Before it ended I started to use Qobuz voucher and compared few tracks between these 2 services.

Before in the past I used trials of those services but not with Audirvana.

With my old ears I had difficulty to hear the difference between Qobuz and Tidal

I was using PC with Windows 10 , Audirvana 3.5 latest version
Zen Dac Ver 1 and Sennheiser HD 6XX Massdrop headphones
What I noticed is that because of small size of files being streamed it was very easy for my old PC to start and play those MQA files
Qobuz needs fast PC and my old machine I had to pause sometimes in order for Audirvana have enough time to buffer enough data to stream Qobuz

Later I used my LG V 50 phone with Quad Dac built Inn and MQA decoder
I used USB Audio Player Pro app with Qobuz and Tidal built-in same as Audirvana
This player is showing speed of stream in kbps
Tidal MQA was going around 1 Mbps less or more a little , compared to Qobuz 5 Mbps and over playing same track 24/192
I couldn’t decide which stream I like better

My conclusion is that MQA is a great transport for streaming and this is simple huge benefit for Users

It happened that I have quiet few ripped MQA CD’s and their size of whole album is like around 200 mb
and they sound extremely good after being unfolded by Audirvana or Roon

Again it is easy to store them and They are space savers on the phone on the go for example
That’s too bad that beside very few Japanese CD’s only Tidal is kind of locking this MQA tracks for it’s own benefit not letting MQA to fly free in the world
And I think this fact is making people angry about this invention that they have to pay for it
It is not free
Very few original MQA albums on Torrents
No freebie no like that’s it
I hate it
I want free MQA being everywhere
Than I would used and like it very much
Why not to like if it’s widely available
I am sorry I guess Jay Z and Byonce Has secret pact going on with Meridian audio
We keep MQA under the lock and make money as long as possible
Who cares if MQA will fail or not
We made already tons of dollars and euros selling Tidal everywhere and that locking system is still working.
While everyone is lowering hi res streaming prices our MQA wonder is still holding same price
We already won this battlefield of discussion about MQA

Lot of pessos amigos for JZ and Meridian

60

You want free music?
You want free MQA?

Don’t you think that musicians, songwriters and others in the music industry deserve to be paid for their work?

I know many musicians and studio engineers - all very talented, and none of them are rich.
They all have bills to pay, and deserve to be paid for what they do so well.

61

I think that you missundestood my message and sarcasm writing that it should be free
I wrote that people hate MQA because isn’t free
I am big supporter of MQA

62

Because its a lossy compression? And not really 24/192 bit just upsampling?
And people don’t like it because they have to pay. And it is not so good as MQA tells you.

If you like small files. Try the High quality setting for Roon. And let R8Brain upsample. If you also like it then you save even more space.

You could set Qobuz on lossless. The stream is even smaller compared to MQA. And upsample.

See if you like it.

No one would be against a great and free audio codec. But I have no idea why it should be MQA that forces the entire chain to buy licenses and software decoders to pay per decode.

1 Like