MQA goes into reorganization.

[timothyemerson]

Does MQA stand for Monetizing Questionable Audio?

 

[Owen Smith]

SCL6 is a MQA codec designed to work wireless

All codecs can work wireless. It's just a matter of what bit rate the codec needs and whether the wireless link in use provides it. The question is what does SCL6 provide that the plethora of existing codecs for BT don't (SBC, MP3, AAC, AptX, so how many more do we need?).

and MQA intended to introduce it as part of the next versión of Bluetooth standard. This way MQA would be available for all headphones with bluetooth, at least Next versión. A Big market. But It looks Bluetooth SIG did not accept It.

I know some of the people on the Bluetooth SIG and they're smart people, probably smart enough to see through MQA's bullshit. They wouldn't want yet another codec, BT supports too many already.

I only knew Dolby Atmos AC-4 from some TIDAL tracks, that are virtualized binaural stereo. Those tracks are seen as 2.0 in MediaInfo, and I have No Player for them. If the compression is of better quality than E-AC3 (DD+), waiting to see if Dolby would make it another Atmos multichannel codec for streaming if it has lower file size for streaming than TrueHD.

We do not need any more lossy audio compression codecs. We have lossless compression like DTS HD MA, FLAC and TrueHD. If you want to keep the bit rate down run those at 16/48 or even 16/32 or 12/32. People forget 12/32 is as good as FM radio and lossless in it probably sounds better than many of the existing crappy lossy codecs. The BBC transmitted Nicam stereo TV audio at 12/32 and their main FM distribution network at 12/32 for decades, and far from people complaining the general comments were how good it sounded.

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

Reminder Bluetooth was never intended for audio...it got repurposed for it.
Not a fan of any lossy, I never keep or buy any lossy (RIP Sting DTS CDs).
MQA is a big meme in any audio community I'm in, for good reason.

 

[Owen Smith]

MQA is a big meme in any audio community I'm in, for good reason.

What reason is that? Unfolded MQA is lossy and the undecoded original is degraded with noise. Why is MQA a meme, triumph of marketing bullshit over reality?

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

Why is MQA a meme, triumph of marketing bullshit over reality?

Correct.

 

[Sonik Wiz]

What reason is that? Unfolded MQA is lossy and the undecoded original is degraded with noise. Why is MQA a meme, triumph of marketing bullshit over reality?

Yup good call.

 

[GilWave]

Lol... So Lenbrook Corp have had the wool pulled over their eyes too...

yup.

One born every minute.

 

[armyjazzer]

Does MQA stand for Monetizing Questionable Audio?

Or Mafia Quarantined Audio.

 

[Perp]

https://www.ecoustics.com/news/mqa-foqus-airia-qrono/

 

[marpow]

View attachment 106388

https://www.ecoustics.com/news/mqa-foqus-airia-qrono/

Interesting article. Unfortunately seems like the process is more complicated than before at least to the layman such as myself.
I have quite a few MQA stereo discs and a MQA capable disc player. All discs that I own in MQA sound on the better side of things.
One thing that should be noted is 99% of the MQA Japanese discs are taken from analog to DSD masters in Japan.
I do not swear by MQA, but I don't swear by any lossless or lossy format.
The biggest drawback to purchasing MQA Japanese discs is that most where previously released as SHM SACD or Hybrid SACD, so if your a long time purchaser of lossless products such as myself, you would have to double dip, which I will not do as the MQA benefit does not blow away the SHM SACD.
The big question is what if you wanted to buy a release and the choice is either MQA or SHM SACD? I might be tempted to get the MQA as I already have the player.
I try to be in the middle and educate myself through my own experience and even though in this case I am experienced, I remain in the middle as to what proper MQA listening can offer.
MQA/Tidal, etc streaming/wireless, oh well, gets too heady at some point and I end up walking away.

 

[quicksrt]

Interesting article. Unfortunately seems like the process is more complicated than before at least to the layman such as myself.
I have quite a few MQA stereo discs and a MQA capable disc player. All discs that I own in MQA sound on the better side of things.
One thing that should be noted is 99% of the MQA Japanese discs are taken from analog to DSD masters in Japan.
I do not swear by MQA, but I don't swear by any lossless or lossy format.
The biggest drawback to purchasing MQA Japanese discs is that most where previously released as SHM SACD or Hybrid SACD, so if your a long time purchaser of lossless products such as myself, you would have to double dip, which I will not do as the MQA benefit does not blow away the SHM SACD.
The big question is what if you wanted to buy a release and the choice is either MQA or SHM SACD? I might be tempted to get the MQA as I already have the player.
I try to be in the middle and educate myself through my own experience and even though in this case I am experienced, I remain in the middle as to what proper MQA listening can offer.
MQA/Tidal, etc streaming/wireless, oh well, gets to heady at some point and I end up walking away.

You are saying above that: The Japanese MQA releases are taken from previously utilized DSD masters originally for Japanese SACDs? And (MQAs) are not being mastered directly from analog masters in those cases.

 

[cbmmm3]

I just let my ears decide..........Afterall, it's music, right ?

Ive heard PLENTY of MQA discs, either full unfold or not.
I can say that 95 percent of what Ive heard is the best you can get in redbook. And at full unfold its a ninety nine percent ringer bestie

 

[4-earredwonder]

I just let my ears decide..........Afterall, it's music, right ?

Ive heard PLENTY of MQA discs, either full unfold or not.
I can say that 95 percent of what Ive heard is the best you can get in redbook. And at full unfold its a ninety nine percent ringer bestie

The problem with ANY format which requires a separate encoder/decoder like MQA and even HDCD to fully 'unfold' its effectiveness is the average joe does not want to be riddled with the added hardware expense!

In fact, to this day I am shocked at how many households still have DVD only players and haven't even matriculated to blu ray....which NOT ONLY upsamples while enhancing those DVDs but plays blu rays, blu ray audio and of course RBCDS...AND SOME CAN BE HAD FOR AS LITTLE AS $70! And DVDs aren't cheap and are still being churned out by the major studios because Deep Discount has them all and they're actually only pennies less than Bluray flicks and in some cases even hi res 4K discs!!!!!!!!!

MQA did promise 24 bit resolution with high oversampling rates from CD.....HDCD: 20 bit resolution when decoded! But the swirling controversy around MQA's sonic effectiveness caused a major division in audio/audiophile circles not seen since the introduction of SACD/DVD~Audio!

Bob Stuart who master minded Meridian Lossless Packing [MLP] for DVD Audio was the inventor of MQA and while some contend he WAS successful, the backlash was too divided to ensure MQA's continued success. The discs carried a premium price and like marpow posted above ...a lot were also available as SHM~SACDs which are NOW priced on par with those Japanese MQA discs so IMO, I'd rather have the higher res single layer SHM~SACD than the MQA counterpart.

And I still maintain to this day, if ONLY the majors equipped their mastering/duplicating chains with JVC's XRCD 32 bit technology ...we wouldn't need to have this discussion as ALL those JVC XRCD discs I own and treasure can be played on any CD player and actually benefit with stellar results! But alas, the majors aren't interested in upgrading their mastering/duplicating chains and we, the consumers, have to suffer the 'crap shoot' whenever we buy a mass produced RBCD....as in "Compressed or NOT compressed!"

Will Blu Ray Audio be the future ...Again, only for those who have the playback equipment and appreciate the sonic upgrade and unbelievable storage capacity of the nascent format. With the capacity to do Stereo/5.1/4.0/ATMOS and even Auro 3D what's NOT to . Not to mention the ability to store 1080p/i video ....... And imagine the storage capacity of UHD4K on a BD100 triple layered disc ..... Unfathomable!

Only Time Will Tell!

 

[cbmmm3]

The problem with ANY format which requires a separate encoder/decoder like MQA and even HDCD to fully 'unfold' its effectiveness is the average joe does not want to be riddled with the added hardware expense!

In fact, to this day I am shocked at how many households still have DVD only players and haven't even matriculated to blu ray....which NOT ONLY upsamples while enhancing those DVDs but plays blu rays, blu ray audio and of course RBCDS...AND SOME CAN BE HAD FOR AS LITTLE AS $70! And DVDs aren't cheap and are still being churned out by the major studios because Deep Discount has them all and they're actually only pennies less than Bluray flicks and in some cases even hi res 4K discs!!!!!!!!!

MQA did promise 24 bit resolution with high oversampling rates from CD.....HDCD: 20 bit resolution when decoded! But the swirling controversy around MQA's sonic effectiveness caused a major division in audio/audiophile circles not seen since the introduction of SACD/DVD~Audio!

Bob Stuart who master minded Meridian Lossless Packing [MLP] for DVD Audio was the inventor of MQA and while some contend he WAS successful, the backlash was too divided to ensure MQA's continued success. The discs carried a premium price and like marpow posted above ...a lot were also available as SHM~SACDs which are NOW priced on par with those Japanese MQA discs so IMO, I'd rather have the higher res single layer SHM~SACD than the MQA counterpart.

And I still maintain to this day, if ONLY the majors equipped their mastering/duplicating chains with JVC's XRCD 32 bit technology ...we wouldn't need to have this discussion as ALL those JVC XRCD discs I own and treasure can be payed on any CD player and actually benefit with stellar results! But alas, the majors aren't interested in upgrading their mastering/duplicating chains and we, the consumers, have to suffer the 'crap shoot' whenever we buy a mass produced RBCD....as in "Compressed or NOT compressed!"

Will Blu Ray Audio be the future ...Again, only for those who have the playback equipment and appreciate the sonic upgrade and unbelievable storage capacity of the nascent format. With the capacity to do Stereo/5.1/4.0/ATMOS and even Auro 3D what's NOT to . Not to mention the ability to store 1080p/i video ....... And imagine the storage capacity of UHD4K on a BD100 triple layered disc ..... Unfathomable!

Only Time Will Tell!

Ralphie. Great post

 

[barfle]

I definitely feel the pain of those who find out about yet another format that their gear won’t play. I’ve tried to keep a fairly open mind about what I’m going to sink my hard-earned IRA funds into, and I’ve had to reject a bunch of them over the years. How many VCR formats did I not buy into? How many tape formats did I not buy into? How many disc decoders were left on the shelf? How many video discs did not find a home in my den?

MQA seemed like a solution in search of a problem. I have little doubt that the discs were mastered and manufactured with care and probably sound pretty good even if they’re not “unfolded.” But i couldn’t justify the expense on yet another piece of hardware for a marginal and likely inaudible (to my ears) improvement.

I fully expect to expand my system to Atmos within the next year (if I don’t keep blowing my budget on media), but, at this time, I’m not planning any other major upgrades unless something simply craps out.

We make our decisions ourselves. I’d love to hear some “unfolded” MQA recordings, but again, I might not be able to hear an improvement.

 

[gene_stl]

It looked to me like the main purpose of MQA was DRM and an attempt to skim a tax from hobbyists both on the playback hardware and on the music software. Since there have been credible statements that MQA didn't do much if anything and they came out shortly after it began to be promoted and by such luminaries as Mark Waldrep, I avoided MQA to the extent that I could. But the Oppo 205 does decode it and I had an opportunity to get one. Since I have the playback capability I bought for a bargain price two MQA discs. I don't notice any difference.

This is an expensive hobby to participate in. I have observed that there have always been multiple tiers and levels cost wise. If they had restricted their activities to the top tier "yacht club audio" I wouldn't have minded nor cared. But it looked like , if they were successful in their efforts their tentacles would reach down into my wallet and I guard that very jealously. Even if I have squandered huge sums of money on the hobby.

 

[barfle]

It looked to me like the main purpose of MQA was DRM and an attempt to skim a tax from hobbyists both on the playback hardware and on the music software. Since there have been credible statements that MQA didn't do much if anything and they came out shortly after it began to be promoted and by such luminaries as Mark Waldrep, I avoided MQA to the extent that I could. But the Oppo 205 does decode it and I had an opportunity to get one. Since I have the playback capability I bought for a bargain price two MQA discs. I don't notice any difference.

Mark Waldrep certainly was NOT a promoter of MQA. He devoted an entire chapter in his book disparaging the format. He used Mridian Lossless Packing (MLP) in his DVD-As, but if you read his book, he’s definitely got an issue with MQA.

 

[atrocity]

The problem with ANY format which requires a separate encoder/decoder like MQA and even HDCD to fully 'unfold' its effectiveness is the average joe does not want to be riddled with the added hardware expense!

Beyond the mere expense, there's also the issue of being completely screwed if your hardware dies after replacements are no longer available. That's certainly something media freaks like us know about thanks to all the quad formats, 4-track cartridges, PlayTapes, Beta, VHS, Laserdisc, CED, VHD, HD-DVD and probably a thousand others I can't remember at the moment.

 

[atrocity]

The big question is what if you wanted to buy a release and the choice is either MQA or SHM SACD? I might be tempted to get the MQA as I already have the player.

I would get the SACD because I think there's a much better chance of still being able to play it as intended 20 years from now, even if "play it" means "stream the bits from whatever storage technology the Jetsons are using."

 

[4-earredwonder]

I still find it odd that audiophile labels EVOSOUND and Norwegian Classical label 2L still continue to release in the MQA format .... EVOSOUND has separate MQA CD releases [like the upcoming Mr Big album] and 2L includes MQA encoding on their CD/BD~A disc combo releases!

https://evo88.com/products/mr-big-t...ease-date-12-july-2024?variant=45602777989363