Why We Don’t Need MQA

[Frank Harvey]

The MQA downloads I've seen seem to be mostly £13.20.

 

[shadders]

Hi,

The comment on the Pioneer Legato was not positive, so subjective experiences will always differ.

The differences between high resolution and standard CD, are minimal. I have some high resolution recordings, and they sound good, but I don't think that they are worth the premium. They do seem to have increased in price recently too. I very happy with CD recordings, although some could be better, so this does indicate that CD is very adequate, we just need better final production.

Regards,

Shadders.

I have my own views on Legato Link, so I'm not really interested in whether someone else slates it. It may not have been perfect at the time, but as I say, it certainly made the Pioneer players sound different to many others at the time. The Stable Platter Mechanism may well have been adding its contribution too. I owned two Pioneer players using these technologies, both excellent players (PDS-901 and PDS-904).

I'm not really interest in the monetary side of MQA or hi-res - I'm just interested in what sounds better and what doesn't. Personally, I do feel that the system that CDs and hi-res files are compared on plays a part in the perceivable differences. A system has to be able to be good enough to appreciate those differences. And I'm not necessarily saying that all hi-res files are automatically better.

Hi,

I had the Pioneer DV717 - which had Legato link - it was ok - i did not note anything special about it. The replacement Cambridge Audio DVD player does sound better.

With the monetary side - i think it is important, since if it does increase the cost, and you have to purchase new equipment, then there is the additional cost.

No one has reported definitively the cost of including MQA into a DAC. Everyone has to sign an NDA - that is before you learn what is involved. So, this may exclude many small businesses starting out if they cannot afford MQA licence costs. What if you implement your own DAC design - discrete - what are the costs for integrating MQA etc ?

In the end, it is whether they sound better or not - and this will decide any form of success - as long as they still provide alternative non MQA files/downloads etc.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[shadders]

The MQA downloads I've seen seem to be mostly £13.20.

Hi,

Where from ?. Thanks.

On 2L - MQA is £1 more than 192kHz/24bit FLAC.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[Frank Harvey]

The MQA downloads I've seen seem to be mostly £13.20.

Hi,

Where from ?. Thanks.

On 2L - MQA is £1 more than 192kHz/24bit FLAC.

Regards,

Shadders.

Not sure now, I was just searching around after following someone's link the other day.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Hi,

I had the Pioneer DV717 - which had Legato link - it was ok - i did not note anything special about it. The replacement Cambridge Audio DVD player does sound better.

I used to use, and still have, a DV-737. Around that time, I never really found any DVD players (and more recently, Bluray players) that sound any good for a good quality hi-fi system. The best one I've come across is the Oppo BDP105. The Legato Link players I'm referring to were dedicated two-channel CD players.

With the monetary side - i think it is important, since if it does increase the cost, and you have to purchase new equipment, then there is the additional cost.

But there is no additional cost for anyone not interested in MQA. And any extra cost per album is likely to be pennies if releasing a whole massive back catalogue from any one record company.

 

[shadders]

Hi,

I had the Pioneer DV717 - which had Legato link - it was ok - i did not note anything special about it. The replacement Cambridge Audio DVD player does sound better.

I used to use, and still have, a DV-737. Around that time, I never really found any DVD players (and more recently, Bluray players) that sound any good for a good quality hi-fi system. The best one I've come across is the Oppo BDP105. The Legato Link players I'm referring to were dedicated two-channel CD players.

With the monetary side - i think it is important, since if it does increase the cost, and you have to purchase new equipment, then there is the additional cost.

But there is no additional cost for anyone not interested in MQA. And any extra cost per album is likely to be pennies if releasing a whole massive back catalogue from any one record company.

Hi,

This will need to be confirmed in the coming months, but since MQA is an embedded format which includes 192kHz/24bit in a CD format file - that is 16bit/44.1kHz, then you download one file, and can decode the 192kHz/24bit signal if you have the relevant DAC.

So, how are they going to price this?

Why should someone who only wants CD quality pay the premium for MQA high resolution, when you don't want it?

The above assumes that they offer only one version.

It is an assumption it is only pennies. 2L are charging £1. The difference between CD FLAC and high resolution is nearly 2x, so I do not think high resolution will be priced at CD prices.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[Al ears]

Hi,

I had the Pioneer DV717 - which had Legato link - it was ok - i did not note anything special about it. The replacement Cambridge Audio DVD player does sound better.

I used to use, and still have, a DV-737. Around that time, I never really found any DVD players (and more recently, Bluray players) that sound any good for a good quality hi-fi system. The best one I've come across is the Oppo BDP105. The Legato Link players I'm referring to were dedicated two-channel CD players.

With the monetary side - i think it is important, since if it does increase the cost, and you have to purchase new equipment, then there is the additional cost.

But there is no additional cost for anyone not interested in MQA. And any extra cost per album is likely to be pennies if releasing a whole massive back catalogue from any one record company.

Hi,

This will need to be confirmed in the coming months, but since MQA is an embedded format which includes 192kHz/24bit in a CD format file - that is 16bit/44.1kHz, then you download one file, and can decode the 192kHz/24bit signal if you have the relevant DAC.

So, how are they going to price this?

Why should someone who only wants CD quality pay the premium for MQA high resolution, when you don't want it?

The above assumes that they offer only one version.

It is an assumption it is only pennies. 2L are charging £1. The difference between CD FLAC and high resolution is nearly 2x, so I do not think high resolution will be priced at CD prices.

Regards,

Shadders.

That's expensive for a download. Why anyone would want an MQA download and have to pay for extra hardware is something I cannot get my head around. Stick to hi-res and don't pay for something that will only benefit streamers.

 

[manicm]

From what I've seen at 2L, MQA is a pound more expensive than 24/192 for premium albums at 16 quid. What's a pound between friends I say.

But for your major labels - they're still greedy thieves who see the consumer as criminals. For example - why the hell do we even have a disc format for 4K when USB/hard drive would have been a probably superior solution? Because like record labels, comsumer convenience be damned for all eternity.

4K disc sales are going to bomb. Likewise there are increasingly conflicting reports of whether Tidal is in the red or not. If high-res streaming fails one of two things will happen:

1. MQA will bomb, or

2. Labels will come to their senses and offer downloads.

 

[shadders]

From what I've seen at 2L, MQA is a pound more expensive than 24/192 for premium albums at 16 quid. What's a pound between friends I say.

But for your major labels - they're still greedy thieves who see the consumer as criminals. For example - why the hell do we even have a disc format for 4K when USB/hard drive would have been a probably superior solution? Because like record labels, comsumer convenience be damned for all eternity.

4K disc sales are going to bomb. Likewise there are increasingly conflicting reports of whether Tidal is in the red or not. If high-res streaming fails one of two things will happen:

1. MQA will bomb, or

2. Labels will come to their senses and offer downloads.

Hi,

The reason for my post was that it has been indicated in the comments and other forums of CD's being MQA encoded.

This would NOT be of any benefit to the majority of people if that is all that the record labels offered.

We require that MQA is restricted to downloads only - as it is really an enthusiasts format.

Someone earlier stated that the format for MQA be forced upon everyone to move LPCM CD to MQA CD - so we only have the option of MQA CD's.

Since MQA by its very construction is reportedly high resolution, then every CD is automatically high resolution, whether you want it or not.

All that is required is a DAC to decode.

The issue is, record labels will not give away a high resolution recording for CD prices. MQA is already £1 more than the best Linear PCM high resolution download. Thus, forcing people to MQA CD's will increase the prices of CD's significantly. Assume £9.99 for a new released CD - this will be a 60% increase to £16.00 as per downloads.

I think that record labels must provide the options - whether download or physical - MQA and non MQA recordings must always be available.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[Al ears]

From what I've seen at 2L, MQA is a pound more expensive than 24/192 for premium albums at 16 quid. What's a pound between friends I say.

But for your major labels - they're still greedy thieves who see the consumer as criminals. For example - why the hell do we even have a disc format for 4K when USB/hard drive would have been a probably superior solution? Because like record labels, comsumer convenience be damned for all eternity.

4K disc sales are going to bomb. Likewise there are increasingly conflicting reports of whether Tidal is in the red or not. If high-res streaming fails one of two things will happen:

1. MQA will bomb, or

2. Labels will come to their senses and offer downloads.

Hi,

The reason for my post was that it has been indicated in the comments and other forums of CD's being MQA encoded.

This would NOT be of any benefit to the majority of people if that is all that the record labels offered.

We require that MQA is restricted to downloads only - as it is really an enthusiasts format.

Someone earlier stated that the format for MQA be forced upon everyone to move LPCM CD to MQA CD - so we only have the option of MQA CD's.

Since MQA by its very construction is reportedly high resolution, then every CD is automatically high resolution, whether you want it or not.

All that is required is a DAC to decode.

The issue is, record labels will not give away a high resolution recording for CD prices. MQA is already £1 more than the best Linear PCM high resolution download. Thus, forcing people to MQA CD's will increase the prices of CD's significantly. Assume £9.99 for a new released CD - this will be a 60% increase to £16.00 as per downloads.

I think that record labels must provide the options - whether download or physical - MQA and non MQA recordings must always be available.

Regards,

Shadders.

Based on your comments then MQA will bomb. Not sure why anyone would want MQA in any physical format. As I said it's ace is in streaming and it is only here I can see it having any practical benefits.

 

[Frank Harvey]

We require that MQA is restricted to downloads only - as it is really an enthusiasts format.

Why should enthusiasts be restricted to downloads? As MQA works in hi-res and standard, it is anyone's format.

Someone earlier stated that the format for MQA be forced upon everyone to move LPCM CD to MQA CD - so we only have the option of MQA CD's.

As I said, not forced (although depends on your outlook). If all CDs were MQA, they can be purchased by anybody and everybody. This increases sales of MQA CDs and brings costs down, as opposed to selling far less MQA CDs and them being priced an extra £5+ over normal CDs. There's no reason, with all CDs becoming MQA, that street prices would be any different to now.

Since MQA by its very construction is reportedly high resolution, then every CD is automatically high resolution, whether you want it or not.

But it still plays in a normal CD player. And as above, prices shouldn't be any different.

The issue is, record labels will not give away a high resolution recording for CD prices. MQA is already £1 more than the best Linear PCM high resolution download. Thus, forcing people to MQA CD's will increase the prices of CD's significantly. Assume £9.99 for a new released CD - this will be a 60% increase to £16.00 as per downloads.

Agreed. If they want to go ahead and create another CD vs SACD where the one that isn't CD wins, then they'll gain nothing. But doing it my way as mentioned earlier means every sale generates revenue for MQA, everyone has a CD quality or hi-res CD to play as they wish.

I think that record labels must provide the options - whether download or physical - MQA and non MQA recordings must always be available.

Providing options always means one will lose out, and prices widen. And that gets higher quality no closer to the masses.

 

[drummerman]

Based on your comments then MQA will bomb. Not sure why anyone would want MQA in any physical format. As I said it's ace is in streaming and it is only here I can see it having any practical benefits.

As a guarantee of a recording from a Master?

 

[shadders]

We require that MQA is restricted to downloads only - as it is really an enthusiasts format.

Why should enthusiasts be restricted to downloads? As MQA works in hi-res and standard, it is anyone's format.

Someone earlier stated that the format for MQA be forced upon everyone to move LPCM CD to MQA CD - so we only have the option of MQA CD's.

As I said, not forced (although depends on your outlook). If all CDs were MQA, they can be purchased by anybody and everybody. This increases sales of MQA CDs and brings costs down, as opposed to selling far less MQA CDs and them being priced an extra £5+ over normal CDs. There's no reason, with all CDs becoming MQA, that street prices would be any different to now.

Since MQA by its very construction is reportedly high resolution, then every CD is automatically high resolution, whether you want it or not.

But it still plays in a normal CD player. And as above, prices shouldn't be any different.

The issue is, record labels will not give away a high resolution recording for CD prices. MQA is already £1 more than the best Linear PCM high resolution download. Thus, forcing people to MQA CD's will increase the prices of CD's significantly. Assume £9.99 for a new released CD - this will be a 60% increase to £16.00 as per downloads.

Agreed. If they want to go ahead and create another CD vs SACD where the one that isn't CD wins, then they'll gain nothing. But doing it my way as mentioned earlier means every sale generates revenue for MQA, everyone has a CD quality or hi-res CD to play as they wish.

I think that record labels must provide the options - whether download or physical - MQA and non MQA recordings must always be available.

Providing options always means one will lose out, and prices widen. And that gets higher quality no closer to the masses.

Hi,

The entire point of MQA is that it is a differentiator to CD and high resolution downloads, including physical. The value is that it is different. If it becomes as ubiquitous as CD, then it loses its value. The music labels cannot sell it cheap.

We still have DVD, Blu-ray, and 4k Blu-ray, and their prices are staggered based on perceived value. High volume DVD, low volume Blu-ray, and probably even lower volume 4k Blu-ray.

Will I be investing in 4k Blu-ray? No, as I do not have a 4k TV.

Nearly everyone has a full HD TV, yet Blu-ray is still expensive, and people buy DVD's.

MQA will follow the same model, and quite right too. The differences between the formats is minimal.

I am sure there are golden ears out there that will report on the negative impact in the rise of the noise floor of their CD's by 12dB, when they review the MQA offering.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[Frank Harvey]

We still have DVD, Blu-ray, and 4k Blu-ray, and their prices are staggered based on perceived value. High volume DVD, low volume Blu-ray, and probably even lower volume 4k Blu-ray.

Will I be investing in 4k Blu-ray? No, as I do not have a 4k TV.

Nearly everyone has a full HD TV, yet Blu-ray is still expensive, and people buy DVD's.

DVD's price is still high because people are buying them. And why are people buying them? Because they're still available. If DVDs had been discontinued, Bluray would now be the dominant format, making it cheaper for everyone. I reckon they'd be about the same price as new DVDs are now. But then, most Bluray are in 5 for £30 sales in about 3 months nowadays anyway.

 

[shadders]

We still have DVD, Blu-ray, and 4k Blu-ray, and their prices are staggered based on perceived value. High volume DVD, low volume Blu-ray, and probably even lower volume 4k Blu-ray.

Will I be investing in 4k Blu-ray? No, as I do not have a 4k TV.

Nearly everyone has a full HD TV, yet Blu-ray is still expensive, and people buy DVD's.

DVD's price is still high because people are buying them. And why are people buying them? Because they're still available. If DVDs had been discontinued, Bluray would now be the dominant format, making it cheaper for everyone. I reckon they'd be about the same price as new DVDs are now. But then, most Bluray are in 5 for £30 sales in about 3 months nowadays anyway.

Hi,

People buy DVD's because they are happy with the quality. What you are saying is obvious. If you cut the supply then people will stop buying them. Of course this will happen, if you do not make it, no one can buy it. I do not foresee people still buying something that is not made.

For new releases, DVD is £9.99, Blu-ray is £14.99, Blu-ray 3D is £17.99, and 4k Blu-ray is £19.99.

Simple price assignment based on perceived value, derived from the product differentiators.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[Frank Harvey]

I suppose I can explain it a different way as many times as I like, but it comes down to the fact that whilst there are numerous choices, there will always be losers, and the losers are those that want the highest quality, as they're paying far more than anyone else because they're buying a product that sells small amounts compared to the low quality option.

The ONLY reason DVD costs £10 each is because people are buying them, which is pushing the price higher than it should be and keeping it there. If Bluray was the dominant format, and DVD sold far less, they'd be a fiver. EVERYONE could be enjoying Bluray for £10 each instead if DVD had ceased production when Bluray was introduced.

 

[shadders]

I suppose I can explain it a different way as many times as I like, but it comes down to the fact that whilst there are numerous choices, there will always be losers, and the losers are those that want the highest quality, as they're paying far more than anyone else because they're buying a product that sells small amounts compared to the low quality option.

The ONLY reason DVD costs £10 each is because people are buying them, which is pushing the price higher than it should be and keeping it there. If Bluray was the dominant format, and DVD sold far less, they'd be a fiver. EVERYONE could be enjoying Bluray for £10 each instead if DVD had ceased production when Bluray was introduced.

Hi,

High resolution has always been niche and will always be niche. In general, no one wants it. It is the classic, stack them high, sell them cheap. Supply and demand.

If you examine the age of the albums available for download at high resolution, they remain the same price whatever the age. Why is that?

With CD's and video discs, the reduce in price after some time, since they are deemed less new (release date wise).

Again, it is perceived value, and high resolution offers a niche product, which very few people want. Your approach would not work with cars, or watches etc., so why should the industry make it cheap when less than 1% of the population want it?

I don't think CD is the low quality option, as mp3 seems to be quite popular. This is empirical evidence that high resolution should remain high cost.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[Frank Harvey]

But keeping hi-res out of reach of the masses is no way to get it adopted by the masses!! 4K video is becoming popular, partly because it is becoming harder and harder to buy a non 4K large screen TV, and people are wanting to utilise what they have, seeing it as a waste if they don't have and 4K sources. If it wasn't for the widespread availability of 4K TVs, we wouldn't have so many 4K sources available (virtually every type of video delivery system offers 4K).

And this is despite the fact that the benefit of 4K is dubious at best on 50/60" screens.

 

[shadders]

But keeping hi-res out of reach of the masses is no way to get it adopted by the masses!! 4K video is becoming popular, partly because it is becoming harder and harder to buy a non 4K large screen TV, and people are wanting to utilise what they have, seeing it as a waste if they don't have and 4K sources. If it wasn't for the widespread availability of 4K TVs, we wouldn't have so many 4K sources available (virtually every type of video delivery system offers 4K).

And this is despite the fact that the benefit of 4K is dubious at best on 50/60" screens.

Hi,

Blu-ray is still very much less popular than DVD. People are not bothered about high resolution audio or video. The differences are minimal, so people are happy with DVD resolution. Same for mp3, it is ok, meets most peoples needs. Behaviour has changed, music is background now, not a main event. Given the plethora of music tastes that don't need high fidelity, high resolution will not be popular. Admittedly it is a shame, but then, MQA has overheads compared to other high resolution material, and storage is cheap, so compression is really ok for streaming.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Blu-ray is still very much less popular than DVD. People are not bothered about high resolution audio or video. The differences are minimal, so people are happy with DVD resolution.

Differences are certainly not minimal (unless viewed on a small screen), and there's only a handful of films I have come across that aren't any better on Bluray, but that's been because of not being mastered for Bluray, being just a straight port across formats.

Same for mp3, it is ok, meets most peoples needs. Behaviour has changed, music is background now, not a main event.

It started in the 90s with MP3. Slowly conditioning our senses to low quality audio. Flat TVs appeared, got thinner and thinner, sound suffered. Producers of mobile phones force their compressed music systems on people (Apple/Sony etc), and include low quality headphones. The list goes on.

 

[Andrewjvt]

Blu-ray is still very much less popular than DVD. People are not bothered about high resolution audio or video. The differences are minimal, so people are happy with DVD resolution.

Differences are certainly not minimal (unless viewed on a small screen), and there's only a handful of films I have come across that aren't any better on Bluray, but that's been because of not being mastered for Bluray, being just a straight port across formats.

Same for mp3, it is ok, meets most peoples needs. Behaviour has changed, music is background now, not a main event.

It started in the 90s with MP3. Slowly conditioning our senses to low quality audio. Flat TVs appeared, got thinner and thinner, sound suffered. Producers of mobile phones force their compressed music systems on people (Apple/Sony etc), and include low quality headphones. The list goes on. 

 

Lorde posted a picture on her instagram of cheap mobile phone in ear, earphones with the words, something like, 'using these every night listening to my new lp because i want to hear my new record the same way you guys do. Very sad.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Lorde posted a picture on her instagram of cheap mobile phone in ear, earphones with the words, something like, 'using these every night listening to my new lp because i want to hear my new record the same way you guys do. Very sad.

Facebook or Twitter?

 

[Al ears]

Based on your comments then MQA will bomb. Not sure why anyone would want MQA in any physical format. As I said it's ace is in streaming and it is only here I can see it having any practical benefits.

As a guarantee of a recording from a Master?

I am not sure if that is even possible when it comes to older recordings. Who's master? and do you definitely want it when some later re-masters are miles better.

 

[manicm]

Differences are certainly not minimal (unless viewed on a small screen), and there's only a handful of films I have come across that aren't any better on Bluray, but that's been because of not being mastered for Bluray, being just a straight port across formats.

I quite agree, but an upscaled DVD of a recent movie will most likely look good too, albeit not on a 4k screen.

On a sadder note - HighResAudio will bafflingly stop offering MQA downloads from March. They confirmed this to me via email.

 

[Andrewjvt]

Lorde posted a picture on her instagram of cheap mobile phone in ear, earphones with the words, something like, 'using these every night listening to my new lp because i want to hear my new record the same way you guys do. Very sad.

Facebook or Twitter?

on twitter mate