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
jon2020's avatar
jon2020
986 posts
 

"In the $5.5K Aurender A10, MQA did switched off, but part of the MQA’s filtering remained active in the Stereophile tests when measuring/playing non MQA files, and no different firmwares fixed the problem. The filters that remained hobbled the non MQA sound for the worse.
One must ask the question, is this done on purpose? to make MQA look/sound good compared to non MQA?"

+1, georgehifi.
This is exactly what I am afraid of.
lalitk's avatar
lalitk
5,505 posts
 
@georgehifi,

I can’t speak about what transpired in A10...in my N10, I can clearly discern the audible differences between MQA coded file at 96kHz and it’s 44.1kHz counterpart file by enabling and disabling MQA Core decoder.

Now, let me get back to enjoying the fabulous MQA files 😉
jon2020's avatar
jon2020
986 posts
 
"I can clearly discern the audible differences between MQA coded file at 96kHz and it’s 44.1kHz counterpart file by enabling and disabling MQA Core decoder. "

@lalitk,
So you are comparing MQA 96 to non-MQA 44.1?
A more valid comparison would be between MQA 96 and non-MQA 96 PCM. 
georgehifi's avatar
georgehifi
10,312 posts
 
lalitk
I can clearly discern the audible differences between MQA coded file at 96kHz and it’s 44.1kHz counterpart file by enabling and disabling MQA Core decoder.

How do you know, all the filtering has been switched off when not in MQA but PCM 44.1?? (you think it is)
Have you got Stereophiles measuring equipment? As this is what it’s all about!!

Cheers George
lalitk's avatar
lalitk
5,505 posts
 
@jon2020,

Dang it....I lost track of what is this poster about 😆

“If you feel this is truly about “better sound” - vote Yes”
More to discover