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
dlcockrum's avatar
dlcockrum
2,190 posts
 
Here’s a couple of other revealing stats based on responses from this thread:

1) 100 percent correlation of negative responses from those that have never actually heard the product.
2) 100 percent predictability of 1) above based on the clearly derisive wording of the original post.
3) Zero impact of the positive commentary from those with actual MQA experience on the others’ preconceived negative bias derived without any personal experience.

I think this is known as a “bust”?

Dave
jon2020's avatar
jon2020
986 posts
 
"Only heard MQA/non MQA a/b demoed one time. Constellation electronics driving Magico speakers. To my ears, there was a slight preference for the MQA. JMO"

No public demo has been done comparing an MQA track played through an MQA dac with a non-MQA hires version of the same track played through a non-MQA dac. 

Such a comparison if done will eliminate completely the potential of MQA code in a single dac unit to mess up non-MQA files, as pointed out by JA at Stereophile.

This messing with a non-MQA file will result in an MQA file always sounding better than a non-MQA file from the single unit MQA dac.

jon2020's avatar
jon2020
986 posts
 
Summary so far (after listening to everything with my own ears) :-
1. Foolish new algorithm? - I vote Yes
2. MQA for better sound? - I vote No
3. MQA for music industry to milk more money? - I vote Yes
4. MQA enjoyable? - Many vote Yes as indeed it is anyone’s prerogative to enjoy any format that is enjoyable
5. Is MQA Tidal better than non-MQA Tidal? - I vote Yes
6. Is MQA better than non-MQA native hires PCM and DSD? - I vote No.
Enjoy the music!
J. :)

Looks like my unequivocal qualification right at the top before declaring my votes has been chosen to be overlooked. :(

Here’s the real bust :-

".....3) Zero impact of the positive commentary from those with actual MQA experience on the others’ preconceived negative bias derived without any personal experience.
I think this is known as a “bust”?........."
uberwaltz's avatar
uberwaltz
13,381 posts
 
+1 Dave!
benzman's avatar
benzman
408 posts
 
Been enjoying MQA on the Aurender A10 for a year now  I would not pay extra for it but free it is good
More to discover