[Music] HiFi Quality: Master Quality Authenticated Lossless Streaming (MQA)

I'm a proud Spotify Premium subscriber. Also a proud audiophile with a sound system to die for. Please Spotify, Please Please Please give the world lossless streaming through your vast catalogue and music-loving community service. The MQA (Master Quality Authenticated) idea is an option the world should have. It has the potential to stream high-quality audio without hiccups or burps to everyone! Please Please Please make the audio world a better place!

Updated on 2018-12-12

Hey folks,



 

Thanks for coming to the Community, and adding your vote to this idea!



 

We're setting this idea to 'Not Right Now', as this isn't something we have any immediate plans to implement. We appreciate you sharing your thoughts.

 

If we do have any new info to share, rest assured we'll check back in here with a new status.

 



Thanks.

Related Ideas

Comments
miketanner
Newbie

MQA fine print requires unpacked MQA to be output into a MQA certified audio DAC. AFAIK there is no software DAC (can someone tell me about Tidal's implementation?) and integration of MQA certified DAC into cellphone CPUs will be time consuming. Hence, I think this has gotta be sometime down the road unless spotify gives MQA an offer it can't refuse. 

DCMB
Newbie

For me it's not an issue of MQA or not, the normal CD resolution playback in Tidal KILLS Spotifys' compressed playback as it is.  And in my ears -through a high end DAC of course - their 24 bit versions sounds even better. MQA certified or not I don't care, if it sounds better it IS better. And it does. Period.

 

I just wish Spotify would sound better than now, thats all.  The day they step up the quality is the day I quit my Tidal subscription and come back to Spotify! 

Sneakysomfan
Newbie

Word

Dmw00
Newbie

Yes, I'm a Spotify premium user that would love to see this and not have to use Tidal

HenrikStevn
Gig Goer

NO!

 

MQA is nothing but a scam. CD-quality FLAC is fine, but "hi-res" and MQA are scams and a waste of bandwidth and resources.

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/Music/comments/6n9nxf/good_people_of_rmusic_we_absolutely_need_to_talk/

DCMB
Newbie

HenrikStevn;  if you cant hear a difference between 16/44 & 24/96

I say: Good for you! It might save you some money!

But please dont tell me that I cant hear the difference, because I CAN!

I on the other hand have many years of experience working in 24bits in a very good studio with Genelec speakers & Apogee conversion. However I do not need those to hear the difference, its clearly audieble in my home enviroment, Though I have fine gear there too (ifi Retro Stereo 50 & Audeze LCDXC) On a phone with 10$ phones you cant play MQA, but if you could I wouldn't hear the difference either. 

you refer to some article that I have not read yet, but I've read others like it, and the "facts" are seldom sprung from first hand experience, always from other peoples theorys, and always from the point of view that the writer knows better than the rest. 

It seems terribly important to some people that everyone else share their specific point of view. If I say I hear the difference and want to pay more; why is it so important to you that I don't? It could be out of sheer concern for my well being, but I doubt it...

The question is if you have actually tested the difference yourself, (in a proper environment of course)?

 

D. 

DCMB
Newbie

Let me also add thar I really don't care if other people hear the difference or not, neither would I bother posting here if I didn't think Spotify was the better service!

If everything else was better in Tidal, I would happily just go there and never look back. Unfortunately the perfect service right now would be a mix between the two, and I don't want to pay for both. 

 

also; the article HenricStevn is referring to (that I have now read),

is right about the downsides of the industrial side of MQA, or spelled correctly; the capitalistic side of it. 

My system doesn't play MQA, as far as I know. What I DO know is that when I compare a hifi version of a song in Tidal to its Master version, the master clearly exhibits the trademark of higher resolution. 

And THAT is what this thread should be about, and THAT is what I am asking Spotify. To improve the sound quality! Doesn't have to be MQA. 

If Spotify would upgrade, but choose to stay at CD quality, that is perfectly fine by me! (for now...)

Then I would move back to Spotify. 

 

And this (@ CD Quality) is where the mentioned article fails...

 It claims that there is  no evidence that any resolution above 16/44 has any benefits....   Dude, That is just waaaay out wrong! Those who claim this I hope do work professionally in sound!  My ears are my evidence; unfortunately I can't lend them to you ;)

 

D. 

Spoiler
 
HenrikStevn
Gig Goer

The difference you're hearing is due to mastering differences, not due to the format. If you had conducted proper double blind tests, you would know this. I refer you to Meyer & Moran's paper on the audibility of a CDDA-quality ADC/DAC loop inserted into a hi-res chain. Just like every other competently set up test, no one could hear a difference. I also refer you to Monty from Xiph.org, who created the Ogg Vorbis and FLAC codecs. They don't need patents or licenses to be successful.

 

The tests where people apparently did hear difference, were all flawed, with deliberately bad filter configurations or other errors that either introduced audible artifacts or compromised the procedure.

 

No one has been able to do a proper double blind test of MQA. Why? Because the encoders and decoders aren't freely available. You have to pay a license and sign an NDA. Why? Because they don't want fair comparisons to be made, because their product is a scam.

 

The differences you are hearing on Tidal are due to mastering and volume differences and nothing more.

 

Hi-res is a scam, and so is MQA.

DCMB
Newbie

Hi res is a scam... If you were working with audio production you would know that is not true. 

and I have files in Hi-res and CD quality made from the same master from a highly renowned mastering company in which you CAN hear a difference. and  no, there is no differece in volume. 

I wonder if people know what to listen for? its NOT about frequency content, its about depth, timber, details, transients, imaging, spacing. 

 

I say it again; does your view on this subject come from your own experience?

some people also say there cannot be a difference in sound between two audio cables. please!  

 

D. 

 

DCMB
Newbie

and also, just out of curiosity;

do you also think there is no difference between mp3 and lossless?

 

D.