MQA•Foolish New Algorithm? Vote!

Ptss - When I read your questions it sounds like your asking about the "intent" of the format, not whether it sounds better or not. So to answer what I read as the intent of your questions: Yes, I do think MQA is a processing algorithm that was created for better sound quality, and Yes, it was created to make money. What isn't done to make money? Let me know if I'm off base with my understanding of the question.

Now, do I think MQA makes an audible and worthwhile difference versus redbook? With my system and the music I listen to 100% yes!

Is MQA inferior to high resolution downloads, SACD and vinyl? Maybe, I don't have the ability for direct comparison. But listening to MQA on Tidal allows for better than CD sound (in my system) and the opportunity to listen to a vast library without having to purchase each download, and accessing those choices is darn near instantaneous. If I were into those other formats I would explore the world on Tidal then buy what I like on high res DL, SACD or vinyl (if available). I don't see this being an either/or proposition. I realize this isn't a debate on the pros and cons of Tidal but it sort of goes hand in hand with why you would want MQA processing. So there is a market for MQA processing and I guess it's for folks like me. Oh and did I mention it sounds better than CD? 

Sorry, this is Audiogon. No such thing as a yes or no answer ; )

This just in....Aurender N10/N100/W20 owners now able to purchase MQA Core Decoder license from within the Aurender Conductor app for $54.99.

This will allow users to hear MQA coded files at 88.2kHz or 96kHz sample rate through a non-MQA compatiable DAC’s.

http://www.aurender.com/blog/new-software-release-note-4/post/system-sw-4-5-11-36-app-2-9-3-93-189

If I recall correctly, the MQA provided by Tidal is only a 'partial' decoding.
You have to buy into whole MQA system in order to get the full 'benefit'.
Hence, my post equating it with Dolby.
B

Have not heard and compared, but it is a lossy compressed format which by definition means less accurate than original.

So that alone seems like a step in the opposite direction in regards to at least the accuracy of the sound.

Of course the most accurate sound does not necessarily mean "best sounding" so there are lots of other digital processing tricks that might be played to make things sound better, even with less accurate data to start. It sounds like the highest frequencies are being transformed in a lossy manner in this case. So trained younger ears might be better equipped to distinguish than older, if audible at all. Kinda like a Trojan Horse perhaps in practice. Most will probably never notice a difference even if there is one.

THIS IS BS!!!! STOP ALL VOTING!!

THIS THREAD SHOULD BE SHUT DOWN AND RESTARTED PROPERLY, AS IT COULD DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD.

AS THE TITLE OF THE THREAD IS IN DIRECT OPPOSITION TO THE "YES" "NO" VOTING CRITERIA IN THE POST, DEPENDING HOW ONE READS IT

kalali1,033 posts03-06-2018 12:27amAll I can say is an MQA version of an album sounds better than a non-MQA version of the same album. Same system same volume.

Be very careful how you conduct MQA vs Non MQA A/B’s on the same unit, as it was found that on the new $5.5K Aurender, that some of the MQA filtering was still on, and "hobbled" non MQA albums. This was still the case even after getting numerous new firmware’s to fix it.

https://www.stereophile.com/content/aurender-a10-network-music-playerserver

Cheers George