DanSmedra

Never saw the "tab." Given the revenue stream Onkyo Music HiRes and complementary Onkyo's product categories (robust) to play those files, one would wonder why they or anyone would promote a streaming technology, which cuts into that core business. They currently list only one high-end/reference portable player with MQA. Portable Audio | DP-X1 | Onkyo USA "...​we just like to focus on the audio compression part of MQA because the strongest argument to go for MQA is currently its smaller file size in comparison to the original high-resolution audio files." XiVero GmbH Huh?? That statement seems to obfuscate the obvious. For those who purchase HiRes music, file size is a tertiary issue. For those who sell HiRes music over the Internet, it's a greater issue. MQA offers higher sound quality for those who primarily stream music. It's really not that complicated. we just like to focus on the audio compression part of MQA because the strongest argument to go for MQA is currently its smaller file size in comparison to the original high resolution audio file s .

Harrumph!

Continuation... Breaking News: HIGHRESAUDIO to stop offering MQA. We decided not to offer and support MQA any longer. We will take MQA out of the shop by 01.03. We already have taken down the MQA icon and search function in our shop. HIGHRESAUDIO stands for offering purity, original mastering source, none manipulated, tweaked or up-sampled content and codecs that are widely supported and offer use of freedom. You can trust us in what we do and have to offer! We sincerely hope for the future, that MQA will supply analysis and verification tools in order to ensure the quality of product. P.S. This is a revised version from our post yesterday! Which was not a fake. Upon request from MQA, we deleted that post. _______________________________ Not sure what's meant by "analysis and verification tools?" Are such "tools" provided with the other formats they carry in inventory? ...."offering purity" Online retailers selling hi-res music face something of a dilemma. All studio mastering is to some degree subject to "mixing"-- e.g. instruments balanced against each other and vocals, etc., to achieve the "best" sound pursuant to the technician's and artist's judgment. Once everyone is happy, the manipulated and tweaked "master" is created, in whatever format. (Only studios like Warner, Universal, Sony, etc. have access to the 'raw' recordings.) If for MQA purposes, a studio returns to the original 'raw' recordings (which is currently being represented) and uses that, then the possibility exists that an MQA file may sound superior to other "hi-res formats" available. (Keep in mind there's always lots of variables.) By setting a standard of "purity," the retailer has not allowed the consumer to exercise judgment as to "purity" and what sounds best to their ears. This then represents a lost sale. Will the representation of "purity" better drive sales? I think that's here-to-be-seen. Note: I only stream music, so I don't really care how this falls out. Having done A/B testing using my ears, I conclude MQA will be here for the long haul. I believe the fear of hi-res files not being offered for sale because of MQA is not realistic. They'll take your money any way you want to give it to them.

...all I hear are moans and groans of those (who have spent a small fortune on hi-res music files and corresponding playback equipment) being emotionally threatened that streaming music (via relatively inexpensive equipment) might just sound TOO good due to end-to-end MQA encapsulation. PS. Most chicks won't be able to tell the difference AND likely won't care as their minds are elsewhere. "Designed, edited and operated in Berlin and Hamburg, Germany, HIGHRESAUDIO is the first commercial music download service for audiophiles offering only music recordings in high-resolution audio standard at 24-bit. "HIGHRESAUDIO doesn't offer any up-sampled, technically manipulated and tweaked recordings. "HIGHRESAUDIO exclusively offers high-resolution music downloads in stereo and if available in 5.1 Studio Master Quality in FLAC, ALAC, DSD, DXD-FLAC and MQA format for an immediate download ("Instant Download"). "

Me too! But I always find statements like this a bit humorous. No apology is really necessary for engaging MQA "subjectively" and holding an "opinion" regarding what we find pleasing. Appreciation of beauty (in whatever venue: food, art, music, a photograph of a beautiful woman/man, whatever) is not some lesser or inferior activity. Humans normally don't evaluate musical beauty looking at images of electron patterns on an oscilloscope. To call it "simple," extends the myth of the superiority of so-called reductionistic* science and attempts to extend it into the realm of music appreciation and sound "quality." To speak of "factual representation of any reality" is anything but "simple." I appreciate the late Prof. Theodore Roszak's insight into this. "An expert, we say, is one to whom we turn because he is in control of reliable knowledge about that which concerns us. In the case of the technocracy, the experts are those who govern us because they know (reliably) about all things relevant to our survival and happiness: human needs, social engineering, economic planning, international relations, invention, education, etc. Very well, but what is “reliable knowledge”? How do we know it when we see it? The answer is: reliable knowledge is knowledge that is scientifically sound, since science is that to which modern man refers for the definitive explication of reality. And what in turn is it that characterizes scientific knowledge? The answer is: objectivity. Scientific knowledge is not just feeling or speculation or subjective ruminating. It is said to be a verifiable description of reality that exists independent of any purely personal considerations. It is true…real…dependable…it works. And that at last is how we define an expert: he is one who really knows what is what, because he cultivates an objective consciousness. p. 208 Thus, if we probe the technocracy in search of the peculiar power it holds over us, we arrive at the myth of objective consciousness. There is but one way [according to scientism’s elite and followers] of gaining access to reality—so the myth holds—and this is to cultivate a state of consciousness cleansed of all subjective distortion, all personal involvement. What flows from this state of consciousness qualifies as knowledge, and nothing else does. This is the bedrock on which the [modern] natural sciences have built; and under their spell all fields of knowledge strive to become 'scientific'. The study of man in his social, political, economic, psychological, historical [and religious] aspects—all this, too, must become objective: rigorously, painstakingly objective. At every level of human experience, would-be scientists come forward to endorse the myth of objective consciousness, thus certifying themselves as experts. And because they know and we do not, we yield to their guidance. p. 209. Theodore Roszak, The Myth of Objective Consciousness, The Making of a Counter Culture, Anchor Books, 1969. * the practice of analyzing and describing a complex phenomenon in terms of phenomena that are held to represent a simpler or more fundamental level, especially when this is said to provide a sufficient explanation.

That's a Pandora feature, 400 unique music identifiers and algorithms which help customize you listening preferences. At $4 @ month, I couldn't live without both. TIDAL does have Radio Stations based on the Artist, but it drifts/struggles rather quickly. Also My Music for Artist/Album favorite collections feature. Try out Echo Nest for an array of identifiers and code plugins. http://static.echonest.com/labs/demo.htm

As a TIDAL premium subscriber, I'm sure glad they have the grunts searching the archives for all the better master files. Amazing how many they seem to be finding.

Thanks, that's a very impressive explanation. You reference the "original file" which I assume is a hi-res file, available via download or in limited selection albums at about $25 a pop. Yes? To my knowledge, these large hi-res files are not being commercially streamed, correct? You must buy the physical CD or download via online purchase. These make up a certain class of audiophiles hi-res libraries. Yes? You write, "Because of the terrible interpolation filter (I wouldn't know a "terrible" IF, if I saw one), it may at first glance look like some high-frequency content has been restored here, but it is all fake. All you actually get is images of the lower frequencies and a rising level of dither noise." Since I'm a simple guy and have yet to master listening to music with my eyes via an oscilloscope, rather than my ears, I'll take your word for it. What's puzzling to many of us is why MQA'd files, streamed via TIDAL, sound aesthetically more pleasing (more spacious/3D, tonally richer, and easeful) than non-MQA's versions. I've done firsthand A/B tests, making appropriate volume adjustments, and I don't believe my ears are playing tricks on me. I make no claim for my eyes. At the end of the day, I'll spend dollars on MQA streaming vs. any other delivery. I guess that doesn't qualify me for the "audiophile" class of listener. I hold no opinion regarding the SQ of hi-res albums vs. the same album MQA'd--purchased or streamed. It's really at mute issue for many of the streaming crowd.

Let's see if I'm following your claim correctly. The original article by Chris and MQA's website show the signal between 48kHz to 96kHz is losslessly "encapsulated" and "folded back into" the core MQA file. What do YOU mean by "actually" preserved? Are you saying that the band of the signal that's losslessly compressed and decompressed is never "actually preserved" (semantics) or doesn't even exist at all on playback? If the latter, you're claiming Chris and MQA's explanation are fraudulent?

That's probably why the "final unfold" is so tricky/problematic for hardware manufacturers. Isn't their proprietary signal manipulation what distinguishes one DAC from another? And that's why it's being repeated over and over... "I guess. But hi-res isn’t a panacea for a poor recording or master though, is it? No, it is not. A bad master cannot be corrected by MQA and a nicely mastered file streamed via good old Redbook will, all other things being equal, sound better than a dynamically compressed master streamed via MQA. The things is: all things are rarely equal. It’s highly probable that a Redbook file converted to analogue by an Aqua La Scala MKII will easily better the SQ of that same song MQA-d but converted to analogue by an AudioQuest DragonFly." John Darko

It seems one of the major current tensions among audiophiles in various forums is the viability and supply of music delivery channels. Hi-res music owners clearly seem threatened and angst over streaming music becoming too popular and its SQ too good. I think their concerns are unfounded. As silly as it sounds, some forums have small groups of anti-streaming and MQA 'protestors'. I'm not sure whether they are retired, unemployed, or live in mom's basement, but they are drawn (as if with a sci-fi tractor beam) to express dissent and write denigrating comments toward that segment who enjoy streaming and who optimistically look at MQA as a possible enhancement to sound quality and musical enjoyment. Enthusiasm for TIDAL/Masters and the emerging market for MQA-certified hardware seems to make certain audiophiles downright miserable...as if music pleasure is a zero-sum equation. "It's just not 'fair'!" Really? Audio Industry Take Note. Those of us who enjoy streaming services like TIDAL, Pandora, Spotify, etc. and its ability to introduce music listeners to new artists and genre as well as replay favorites from massive cloud-based libraries, are excited about TIDAL/Masters and the future of MQA.

Silly statements, labjr. I'm not "negative" on the audiophile industry nor do I believe streaming is for everyone. Like yourself, I'm for "choice" as well as seeing all things audio flourish. I don't see this as an either/or proposition. If folks like yourself continue to fork out $$$ for hi-res libraries, producers will continue to produce what consumers want. Under capitalism, it's supply and demand thing. I believe your fears (paranoia?) are unfounded.

So much cynicism and naysaying. Don't be so negative. 12-13 years ago, I began using the 'free' Pandora app, then quickly switched to their nominally priced ad-free streaming and remain their loyal customer. A few years later, when MOG came along with the ability to play artists/albums, I signed up for that service as well. When MOG got mugged, I switched to TIDAL. Being retired, I stream continuously. Of the 45 million, many will become streaming music addicts like me. When 'free' runs out, they'll shop the market for a replacement, and hopefully become paid subscribers of TIDAL and its MQA quality sound. At that time, I suspect both Sprint and TIDAL will share that revenue stream.

I'll mention that last comment first. The need for "cash infusions" may have come to an end. JayZ and his group of artist/investors plus bought TIDAL for $56 million. Former owner Aspiro did retain some percentage of ownership. The company recently sold 33% to Spirit for $200 million, a one-year ROI of nearly 1,100%. Sprint is said to have added its 45 million users to TIDAL's HiFi/Masters subscription rolls, initially at no extra cost to Sprint cellular users. To turn loose of $200M, Sprint suits must have liked what they heard. TIDAL has made a huge leap forward in viability as a streaming company. Also being reported is that Pandora and Spotify are working on improving the SQ of their product. Bottomline: this is a win-win for streaming music consumers. ______________________ Clearly, the 'divide' among music listeners is between those who have built expensive-yet-limited digital libraries and those who have not (Streamers). I find some younger "Audiophile" types tend to link their identity and emotional well-being to feelings of superiority (pride), when they encounter or engage so-called "run-of-the-mill" music consumers (Streamers). In their mind, Streamers supposedly lack musical taste, listening skills, and technical knowledge of audio engineering. MQA threatens to blur this traditional divide/distinction. MQA also potentially threatens a huge swath of the esoteric audio hardware industry. Most of these have spent decades perfecting their 'secret sauce', upon which company and individual financial fortunes rest. Some companies who heavily marketed DSD products a year ago (e.g. PS Audio), are now 'unhighlighting' that distinction. If MQA lives up to its claims, which include a fair amount of subjective appreciation (I like the SQ I heard in a simple A/B test), then the new musical streaming reality will be around for more than a little while.

Q. Are there any significant changes in SQ between different streamers? An. As you understand, a steamer should simply pass whatever digital signal is being broadcast from the music service on to your audio system. However, most "High End servers," also acting as streamers, contain their own DAC circuitry and chip. The DAC portion is one critical 'link' in the SQ equation, with each DAC product marketing their own technological 'magic'. A high-end streamer should allow you to bypass the on-board DAC and simply pass the digital signal on to a separate DAC, if you so choose. If that's the design, then the server/streamer's UI (user interface) and remote control is most important. For that, you want both stability and elegance, IMO. Roon, running on a computer, appears to currently reign as the UI and streamer "king on the mountain".