2. digital
  3. 134597-477

MQA•Foolish New Algorithm? Vote!

Vote please. Simply yes or no. Let’s get a handle on our collective thinking.
The discussions are getting nauseating. Intelligent(?) People are claiming that they can remove part of the music (digits), encode the result for transport over the net, then decode (reassemble) the digits remaining after transportation (reduced bits-only the unnecessary ones removed) to provide “Better” sound than the original recording.
If you feel this is truly about “better sound” - vote Yes.
If you feel this is just another effort by those involved to make money by helping the music industry milk it’s collection of music - vote no.
Lets know what we ‘goners’ think.
P.S. imho The “bandwidth” problem this is supposed to ‘help’ with will soon be nonexistent. Then this “process” will be a ‘solution’ to a non existing problem. I think it is truly a tempest in a teacup which a desperate industry would like to milk for all its worth, and forget once they can find a new way to dress the Emporer. Just my .02

ptss
gdnrbob
4,447 posts
 
No, I think it is another 'Dolby'-type of format.
It might sound better to some, but it seems more of a signal alteration than anything else.
B
jon2020's avatar
jon2020
986 posts
 
......MQA has caused a better listening experience for many people who like the convience of easy streaming of high quality music. Nobody is forcing MQA on the audio world. If one likes it, great. If you don’t there are many, many ways to enjoy audio. Soon the ability to stream much faster highest rez files will make MQA obsolete, perhaps. Until then enjoy it.... or something else?????

The vote is not about whether one enjoys MQA or not per se, but rather more about whether MQA actually sounds better.
To verify this, one can simply compare an MQA file played through a high end MQA dac/player like the Meridian 808v6 or UltraDac with a non-MQA hires PCM or DSD version played through a high end non-MQA dac from dCs, Total, Light Harmonic or Esoteric, to name a few.
pmotz
412 posts
 
No!  I should point out that your title and guidance for answering are in disagreement.  The title of the post asks if MQA is a “Foolish Algorithm”, in that case “Yes” would indicate MQA is a bad (foolish) thing.  In the body of the post it says voting “Yes” indicates MQA is about “better sound”, in other words MQA is a good thing.  The exact opposite.  I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the answers above are in response to the title, rather than the body of the post.  This “poll” is therefore invalid.
jon2020's avatar
jon2020
986 posts
 
No!  I should point out that your title and guidance for answering are in disagreement.  The title of the post asks if MQA is a “Foolish Algorithm”, in that case “Yes” would indicate MQA is a bad (foolish) thing.  In the body of the post it says voting “Yes” indicates MQA is about “better sound”, in other words MQA is a good thing.  The exact opposite.  I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the answers above are in response to the title, rather than the body of the post.  This “poll” is therefore invalid.

Great observation there!
I voted according to the body of the post, not the title.   :)
2psyop's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
2psyop
1,586 posts
 
Willemj, yes I see FLAC is lossless, my error. I have used AIFF files. Does anyone stream DSD or hi-res PCM files? I get the point about does MQA sound better. But that is very subjective, and more importantly I am looking at it as a streaming option. If the freq band capability opens up, MQA will not make sense.
More to discover