MQA hi-res audio has been saved by one of hi-fi's big hitters

By Joe Svetlik
published

And it's hard to think of a better outcome for SCL6

MQA has been saved from administration
(Image credit: MQA)

MQA has been saved. The hi-res firm went into administration earlier this year, but now it's been bought by Canadian firm Lenbrook, which also owns Bluesound, NAD and PSB.

UK-based MQA created two audio codecs: MQA and SCL6. Both provide better quality sound over wireless Bluetooth.

What's next for MQA remains unclear, but Lenbrook hints that it will be business as usual.

"Lenbrook's vision is of a thriving hi-fi industry where technologies that promote both consumer choice and the pursuit of the highest sound quality are deserving of investment and nurture," Gordon Simmonds, Lenbrook's chief executive officer, said in a press release. 

"We view this acquisition as an opportunity to ensure the technologies developed by the scientists and engineers at MQA continue to serve the industry's interests rather than be confined to any single brand or company."

MQA has over 120 licensees (including Tidal courtesy of its Tidal Masters selection) and several content partnerships. Lenbrook claims its primary objective was "to provide certainty for business and technical developments that were underway prior to MQA's administration". 

The company is retaining "a core group" of MQA staff including engineers, developers and those in sales and marketing. 

Previously we had theorised Apple could be a good home for MQA. However, as owner of the hi-res BluOS platform – one of the best Sonos alternatives – Lenbrook looks well-placed to help MQA thrive. Let's hope it does just that. 

MORE:

Apple could supercharge its hi-fi offering with one simple step – and it involves MQA

Not convinced by Tidal? Here’s all of the hi-res services compared

Check out our first impressions of SCL6

Here's why we think MQA's saving is a great thing for hi-fi

Joe Svetlik
Joe Svetlik

Joe has been writing about tech for 17 years, first on staff at T3 magazine, then in a freelance capacity for Stuff, The Sunday Times Travel Magazine, Men's Health, GQ, The Mirror, Trusted Reviews, TechRadar and many more (including What Hi-Fi?). His specialities include all things mobile, headphones and speakers that he can't justifying spending money on.

17 Comments Comment from the forums
  • AllanM
    This is very unfortunate news. Most audiophiles where hoping for a swift death for MQA.
    Reply
  • Hifiman
    I have no firm views about MQA one way or another but dispassionately it does seem to now be an answer to a question (bandwidth) that is no longer as relevant as previously. Perhaps not a swift death but instead a well earned retirement is in order.
    Reply
  • nopiano
    Hifiman said:
    I have no firm views about MQA one way or another but dispassionately it does seem to now be an answer to a question (bandwidth) that is no longer as relevant as previously. Perhaps not a swift death but instead a well earned retirement is in order.
    I think its inventor was hoping to enjoy a more luxurious retirement!
    Reply
  • manicm
    I for one am glad it survives. Streaming at 24/196 is still very wasteful. And also the new MQA for headphone streaming on phones is very promising.

    There's nothing wrong in having more choice. And you still need different Bluetooth codecs, as for example LDAC ironically does not sound great at lower bit rates
    Reply
  • manicm
    nopiano said:
    I think its inventor was hoping to enjoy a more luxurious retirement!

    Everyone in this business is looking for one
    Reply
  • firedog
    I doubt this saves MQA.
    I suspect they are planning on using the SCL6 tech in their own projects.

    Tidal is dropping MQA. Soon there will be essentially no source. So manufacturers will also drop it.
    Lenbrook is a hi-fi competitor. It's competitors won't want to work with it and reveal proprietary info in order to have MQA DACs, etc that are basically pointless.
    Reply
  • Office Dog
    Hifiman said:
    I have no firm views about MQA one way or another but dispassionately it does seem to now be an answer to a question (bandwidth) that is no longer as relevant as previously. Perhaps not a swift death but instead a well earned retirement is in order.
    Bandwidth is perhaps not as relevant to today's individual user as previously - though don't underestimate the data appetite of hi-res audio on-the-go - but it is increasingly important to streaming companies delivering bucketloads of data; from both cost and sustainability angles. Also, bandwidth was just one of MQA's original three USPs, and its other two ('deblurring' of the recording and music file provenance) remain 100% relevant. People wishing death/retirement to an audio technology - one that is entirely optional to consumers as well as (comparatively more) environmentally friendly - mystifies me.
    Reply
  • Office Dog
    AllanM said:
    This is very unfortunate news. Most audiophiles where hoping for a swift death for MQA.
    It's not unfortunate news, I guess, for those who enjoy MQA. (And for those who may work for MQA for that matter!) Also, I'd be interested to understand more about your 'most audiophiles, etc' statement - on which data is your comment based?
    Reply
  • firedog
    Office Dog said:
    Bandwidth is perhaps not as relevant to today's individual user as previously - though don't underestimate the data appetite of hi-res audio on-the-go - but it is increasingly important to streaming companies delivering bucketloads of data; from both cost and sustainability angles. Also, bandwidth was just one of MQA's original three USPs, and its other two ('deblurring' of the recording and music file provenance) remain 100% relevant. People wishing death/retirement to an audio technology - one that is entirely optional to consumers as well as (comparatively more) environmentally friendly - mystifies me.
    MQA albums files are sometimes actually larger than flac- especially MQA CD.

    You can also take a hi-res file and convert it to 18/96 with dither - it will be no larger , and often smaller, than the equivalent MQA file, and if done properly - less lossy.
    So no need for "file size saving via MQA".

    deblurring-is fake. MQA, btw, never actually explained what it is; they just asserted that it existed and that their tech fixed it. No proof or actual verifiable demonstration was ever offered.

    The digital filters MQA uses in "unfolding" actually ADD transient distortion to files. This has been objectively demonstrated. Too bad you aren't aware of the facts. (Of course, this added distortion may be euphonic to some and what they like about MQA).

    provenance - also fake. When thousands of albums are released in a short period of time in MQA versions, what "authentication" do you think is going on? Answer: none. It's just mechanical batch conversion by an MQA algorithm. Not to mention: who do you think "authenticates" a 60 year old album from which the artist, producer and engineer have all died?
    Answer: a low level clerk at the record company vault.

    Plus: it's also been demonstrated that MQA files CAN be altered and still turn on the blue light. Again, you are woefully uninformed.

    In addition, we have multiple instances of albums appearing in MQA where all of the principals involved said they didn't approve it and had nothing to do with the release. Neil Young was one, and he forced Tidal to take down MQA files because of that (as unlike most artists, he has legal control of his files),

    So no "authentication" actually happens in almost all the cases- except for a small number of "white glove" MQA releases.

    MQA had no purpose except as an attempt to use proprietary closed source tech to try and make money.
    It serves no actual purpose that can't be accomplished without it, and at zero cost to the consumer.

    It's simply a scam.
    Reply
  • Office Dog
    firedog said:
    MQA albums files are sometimes actually larger than flac- especially MQA CD.

    You can also take a hi-res file and convert it to 18/96 with dither - it will be no larger , and often smaller, than the equivalent MQA file, and if done properly - less lossy.
    So no need for "file size saving via MQA".

    deblurring-is fake. MQA, btw, never actually explained what it is; they just asserted that it existed and that their tech fixed it. No proof or actual verifiable demonstration was ever offered.

    The digital filters MQA uses in "unfolding" actually ADD transient distortion to files. This has been objectively demonstrated. Too bad you aren't aware of the facts. (Of course, this added distortion may be euphonic to some and what they like about MQA).

    provenance - also fake. When thousands of albums are released in a short period of time in MQA versions, what "authentication" do you think is going on? Answer: none. It's just mechanical batch conversion by an MQA algorithm. Not to mention: who do you think "authenticates" a 60 year old album from which the artist, producer and engineer have all died?
    Answer: a low level clerk at the record company vault.

    Plus: it's also been demonstrated that MQA files CAN be altered and still turn on the blue light. Again, you are woefully uninformed.

    In addition, we have multiple instances of albums appearing in MQA where all of the principals involved said they didn't approve it and had nothing to do with the release. Neil Young was one, and he forced Tidal to take down MQA files because of that (as unlike most artists, he has legal control of his files),

    So no "authentication" actually happens in almost all the cases- except for a small number of "white glove" MQA releases.

    MQA had no purpose except as an attempt to use proprietary closed source tech to try and make money.
    It serves no actual purpose that can't be accomplished without it, and at zero cost to the consumer.

    It's simply a scam.
    And... we're off. I guess you're not one for disagreeing agreeably. I just don't get the aggressiveness and arrogance that (some) people adopt in forums. My opinions? I like how MQA files sound; I am happy to pay for TIDAL Masters; and I don't mind paying for MQA-compatible kit. And while I disagree with what you think, I am happy for you to make your own choices. As for Neil Young, that'll be the same Neil Young who launched his own store to sell his own music - hardly a neutral observer.
    Reply