Regarding Tidal being small potatoes, on this we agree. We audiophiles exist in a world where small sound differences are important but it’s a niche within a niche in the larger music buying community and the average citizen just doesn’t care or isn’t even aware of it.
That said, if this is true then why are MQA critics so vocal? Why not live and let live? Where has Bob Stuart harmed us as music lovers?
Just a thought. How can anyone claim that Song A or Album A sounds better on a different hi rez music codex given the obvious myriad of factors that determine the end user's reaction / preference on sound quality? Sadly, all too common on this and other audio forums. I continue to not understand how one can make an objective observation on a hobby that is so inherently subjective in nature.
Lee, please don’t tell folks that don’t want MQA that they can’t hear, or lack critical listening skills or do not have resolving enough systems, that is condescending and an issue I have with the high end audio press.
I never said that people that don’t want MQA need to have it. In fact, in all of my postings and prior on Audiophile Style that it is up to the consumer to decide. I even specifically use the words, “no one is holding a gun to your head.”
Now it is fair for me to speculate that some people are lacking resolving systems or critical listening skills if they can’t hear sound differences in MQA. Bob Stuart’s presentation years ago at the LA show with Sunny’s components revealed significant sound improvements yet some in the audience there could not hear them.
It is also not condescending as people do vary in critical listening skills and system resolving quality.
The biggest issue with MQA in my opinion wasn’t that it was lossy, but trying to bring back DRM into music. Change a couple bits and stuff and force the industry to pay a royalty/fee to “unfold” it. Seriously?
Now it is fair for me to speculate that some people are lacking resolving systems or critical listening skills if they can’t hear sound differences in MQA. Bob Stuart’s presentation years ago at the LA show with Sunny’s components revealed significant sound improvements yet some in the audience there could not hear them.
Just checking, was that the one where they demonstrated MQA's "superiority" against MP3's (and forgot to tell the audience they were comparing MQA to MP3 ?
I never said that people that don’t want MQA need to have it. In fact, in all of my postings and prior on Audiophile Style that it is up to the consumer to decide. I even specifically use the words, “no one is holding a gun to your head.”
Now it is fair for me to speculate that some people are lacking resolving systems or critical listening skills if they can’t hear sound differences in MQA. Bob Stuart’s presentation years ago at the LA show with Sunny’s components revealed significant sound improvements yet some in the audience there could not hear them.
It is also not condescending as people do vary in critical listening skills and system resolving quality.
Very recently FLAC files have been sounding great as I get them in place of MQA on Tidal. Been very impressed but who knows where this is going to end up. Right direction though.
I simply cannot escape the impression that MQA has the trappings of a cult. It's a con, but in the view of some in the industry is supported by the unquestioned "authority" of one man (who in this case used to be an industry leader in digital) and his acolytes, and only the 'enlightened few' will find redemption, those who are 'in the know' (here, with sufficiently "resolving systems" and "critical listening skills").
Of course, there are also those who just happen to enjoy MQA, for whatever reason, but that's a different matter.
cognitive dissonance
Cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort that results from holding two conflicting beliefs, values, or attitudes. People tend to seek consistency in their attitudes and perceptions, so this conflict causes unpleasant feelings of unease or discomfort.1
The inconsistency between what people believe and how they behave motivates them to engage in actions that will help minimize feelings of discomfort. People attempt to relieve this tension in different ways, such as by rejecting, explaining away, or avoiding new information.
If you entered this MQA debate without knowing the background you might wonder what all of the angst and yes cognitive dissonance is all about. I did. To summarize for myself, if no one else.
There appear to be two or three groups of viewpoints in this conversation, perhaps more. Excuse me for generalizing their positions.
One camp says that MQA is an excellent technology providing hi rez, possibly superior sound using less space. Another say the sound is not superior and questions the worth and veracity of the technology. Yet another group dislikes MQA not so much because it sounds bad but because they in their advertising have misled the public and it is not really lossless.
After looking at the evidence available I would have to say I can see some merit in all of the viewpoints. As far as the company being misleading or even fraudulent there seems to be quite a bit of evidence that points to them having at the very least an over zealous marketing strategy. The ins and outs of the actual technology are over my pay grade but it is apparent that it is not universally accepted. What people think of the sound ranges from what some would say is cult like acceptance to a definite dislike.
Now the sound is what is most important to me. As a Tidal user MQA has been their default hi rez format so I listen to it frequently. I think it sounds fine although I wouldn't go so far as to say it is superior. My DAC does not do the final unfolding so perhaps I shouldn't even have an opinion on how it sounds. I will say my vinyl sound is superior. Hi Rez downloads that actually are as advertised are better, although I find good ones are few. FLAC files can sound quite good, better than MQA I don't know, I haven't spent the time to reach a conclusion. When both formats were available I would keep both and on some albums I did have a preference for the FLAC copy but on many works there was no readily apparent difference. The quality of CD's that I have ripped always surprises me, the good ones sound good, lol. At the end of the day unless the format is inferior well produced and mastered recordings tend to be quite listenable and enjoyable.
Apparently the market has decided. Will I be sad to see MQA go? Not really as long as something as good or better is available.
All of this debate does not take into account that the full MQA process is not just to press one button and you get a file. Some files get essentially remastered with the 'MQA Process' and some don't (most on Tidal just got the pushbutton conversion). The early demos were not just 'hear this new codec', it was hear the 'MQA process' which was more than just a new codec, and engineers fiddled with them to sound their best. Not truly an apples to apples comparison. (I've not heard anything about the MP3 thing mentioned above before).
TAS and its major contributor's have made it very clear which hills they intend to die on, one is named MQA, another is One Step. They are paternalistic.
*__WHY I’M NOT ON TIDAL__* TIDAL is calling their files of my songs Masters. But Tidal’s MQA files are not my masters. I make my masters - not TIDAL. I don’t need some hocus-pocus file manipulation that claims to improve my work. I made my masters the way I wanted them to sound. If TIDAL...
Tidal is not misleading me. Master level is a term they coined. It does not mean master tape. It means what they want it to mean. I find the Hi-fi plus level to be an improvement over the standard level. Other than that each recording is judged by me on its' own merit.
Lossless despite it's marketing implications is a technical term with a specific meaning. I Either it is or is not. Again, each recording must be judged on its' own merit.
With all due respect, when it comes to music playback, "Master level" (i.e. the term they coined) is a tad misleading. When it comes to recordings and playback, "Master" is a word commonly used to refer to "recording master(s)".
Which is probably why Tidal coined the expression -- for that matter, so did MQA.
OTOH, the stereotypical insurance broker bombards us with hyperbole and we don't worry about it, so why go abllistic about MQA & Tidal? They're only trying to peddle their wares
With all due respect, when it comes to music playback, "Master level" (i.e. the term they coined) is a tad misleading. When it comes to recordings and playback, "Master" is a word commonly used to refer to "recording master(s)".
Which is probably why Tidal coined the expression -- for that matter, so did MQA.
I recall when I purchased a ARC SP-9 MKII. At last, I was getting some of Nhat ARC magic. I did not really do my homework. Imagine my chagrin to find out not only was it not a tube amp, ARC had not bothered to call it a hybrid. They had put one tube in the phono path. Don't get me wrong I love hybrids. In fact, the amp I was using at the time was a hybrid.
If I had known, it was basically not a tube preamp I could have purchased a hybrid or solid-state preamp that was either just as good or better for half the price.
It bothers me that so many are not bothered by the fact they were lied to. Some even go to the extreme of claiming MQA told the truth. That's disturbing.
At least a certain record company is being sued for their deception.
P.S. Its 'OK by me if you still love MQA.
m.neilyoungarchives.com
www.digitaltrends.com
