Pete_1 wrote:
 

No. We’re not using any MQA masters.

Here’s how it works currently: we assemble blocks of programming as 16/44.1 FLAC files. Those are then encoded into MQA. The folding/unfolding is something that happens when MQA encodes higher resolution input files into 16/44.1 output files. That whole part of their encoding isn’t utilized by our MQA stream at this time.

Here’s how it will work in the future: we assemble blocks of programming as 24/96 FLAC files, from uncompressed (non-MQA) masters of the highest available bitrate — 24/192, 24/96, 24/48, or 16/44.1 — that are then encoded, with folding, into a 16/44.1 MQA bitstream. They will also be available as uncompressed 24/96. 

In neither case will be be forcing people — like Tidal does — to play MQA streams via non-MQA DACs.  In theory, MQA files play back as normal 16/44.1 on non-MQA gear, but there are some who challenge that, and in our case it won’t be an issue.

I personally never noticed much of a difference, but I honestly haven't pursued it much as my external DAC doesnt support it (my external Bel Canto DAC always outperforms in apples to oranges comparison with my Node 2I internal/MQA DAC)

Some of the criticism

Criticism

MQA has received criticism from various sources within the music industry.

Audio product manufacturer Schiit Audio announced that it will not be supporting MQA due to, amongst other reasons, the understanding that "…supporting MQA means handing over the entire recording industry to an external standards organization."^<18>

In a blog post title "MQA is Bad for Music. Here's why"^<19> Hi-fi Manufacturer Linn Products criticises MQA's licensing requirements, asserting that MQA is "...an attempt to control and extract revenue from every part of the supply chain, and not just over content that they hold the rights for."^<19> After having discussed several disadvantages for both the artist and the consumer Linn concludes that as a consumer you will "…pay a higher price for the same music, and you'll pay more for your hi-fi system too. And even if you don't buy into MQA, everyone will get less innovation, creativity and poorer music as a result."^<19>

In an interview for online publication Positive Feedback, engineer Andreas Koch is critical of MQA due to its lossy algorithms and compression, along with its licensing requirements; also saying that a format such as this "does not solve any problem that the world currently has."^<20> Koch was involved in the creation of the Super Audio CD, the development of the Direct Stream Digital codec, and is co-founder of audio product manufacturer Playback Designs.

An article titled Digital Done Wrong^<21> on the International Audio/Video Review web site, concluded that MQA is founded on a fundamentally unsound understanding of correct digital audio processing and found that playback of a sample MQA encoding demonstrated gross distortion and reconstruction failure. It did however comment that some listeners may find the technical defects of MQA encoding subjectively pleasing.

Some critical comments have been made in online forums such as the Audiophile Style forum^<22> and in audio magazine website comments, and a few writers have expressed concern in some areas. Over 80 detailed questions, some of which voiced these concerns, were submitted to the editors of the Audiophile Style forum and subsequently addressed in detail by the creator of MQA, Bob Stuart, in an extended question-and-answer article.^<2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

 BillG wrote:
 
Will this mean that many tracks will be MQA and those who choose not to use MQA equipment will still be playing MQA tracks but not unfolded?

 BillG wrote:
 

I'm disheartened to hear that RP is supporting MQA, an endeavor to exert control over the industry.  It is likely to fade away, unless more support it.  You may be doing so "one step away", but you are supporting it.  My RP contributions have now ended unless and until RP disavows MQA, or it does indeed fade away on its own.

 Mikey78 wrote:
 
Our initial MQA stream will be 16/44.1, so there's no resolution improvement. That will be coming in the future. 

The improvements I hear in our MQA stream are due to the 'audio voodoo' they apply to correct A/D & D/A errors in the recording, mixing & mastering process. In my opinion, that adds a lot of extra detail and texture to many recordings. I like the way it sounds. I find it more compelling & immersive. More musical. 

It will always be an option, not something forced on anyone. 

 dotnet wrote:
 

MQA is an additional option for owners of BluOS-enabled devices.  BluOS users can choose to listen to RP via MQA or FLAC (unlike Tidal, where in most cases there isn’t an option). 

MQA can be used in lots of ways that some people find objectionable — as a form of DRM, to misrepresent Hi-Res MQA streams/files as “lossless 24/96”, etc. That’s not what we’re doing. We’re saying “we think that our MQA-encoded audio sounds better than our lossless FLAC audio”.  That’s purely our opinion. Everyone is free to agree or disagree, to listen or not listen.

We’re also not paying any fees to MQA, if that makes any difference. Those are paid by the manufacturers, whose products you are free to not buy if you consider MQA to be objectionable. 

It's not launched, yet as per Bills reply to my original question it's launching 7th of April.

Preference wise, I guess it depends, if the FLAC is limited to 16/44.1 and the MQA is higher then yes it should sound better, depending on the original recording, after all if the quality wasn't there to start with no matter the format it won't come out.

Once it's launched I'll give it a listen and see what I think.

TBH I'd prefer to listen via Roon as I can quick link on the artist/track/album and find them and add them to my library, I'm pleased to report RP has opened my ears to many a new artist and the integration with Roon make it so easy to find out about the artist.

BUT if it does sound better via BluOS and MQA then I will go that route, I'm sure RP would not go down this route if they didn't feel there was a reason to do it, and sound quality can only be the reason IMHO.

Cheers

Mikey

 black321 wrote:
 

 Mikey78 wrote:
 
I've got the node 2i as well.

I suppose you prefer MQA stream?

It's an additional stream, only available via BlueOS the FLAC and lesser MP3 streams are staying as well, so a gain for people who want to access MQA and no change for those who don't !

 dotnet wrote:
 

 Mikey78 wrote:
 
That’s a shame. It was great while it lasted, but I’m not going along with supporting that MQA scam.

Thanks for the info Bill, hopefully we can persuade you to let slip the URL ;-)

 BillG wrote:
 

 Mikey78 wrote:
 

MQA will be available only via BluOS-enabled hardware like your Bluesound Node. The BluOS update for that is rolling out on April 7. 

Great to hear that RP is going MQA !

Great music, even better sound !

I use a Bluesound Node 2i however I use it as a ROON endpoint, my question is will you make the MQA stream available via ROON or will you be sticking with BLUOS ?

I can obviously access via BLUOS but I like to stay inside my ROON world if possible

Thanks in advance and keep up the great work !

Cheers

Mikey