MQA•Foolish New Algorithm? Vote!

It’s actually not all subjective. Science is a real thing. It allows us to listen to music in the first place as we know and love.

There are facts. There are opinions.

Let us please differentiate between Fact and Feeling

Facts:
Is MQA equal to the source? No. (we can phase flip the source vs MQA and hear this)

So is it lossless, as advertised and patented? No


Feelings:
Is it better? MQA seems subjective on this question only because audiophiles like to have a say in the playback process, with your various playback gear choices. Playback is your art form. Fair enough.

Yet MQA as better is in fact not a subjective topic. It’s not better because if there was a better sound, a skilled engineer would have done that in the processing. And why can I say that? I’m a mastering engineer and my work today is being butchered with MQA

a) Harmonic distortion the we (myself and the label and the artist does not want)
b) Mid Side power and freq changes that we don’t want
c) 8 bits can be removed and replaced with noise and the LED lights up still

Is MQA being "Authenticated" my Mastering Engineers? No. It’s being BULK PROCESSED.

Future:
Is this the best codec science and invention will ever give us? Should be stop innovation now and start paying MQA royalties for DA and Per song?

Should we make all the great DA of the world obsolete based on this subjective sport Audiophiles enjoy playing?


God please, I hope we are smarter than that.


Should Bob and Co have the courage to have a debate with serious people? Yes.
Do they? No.

www.magicgardenmastering.com

No, it is going to die just like HDCD and others. Long live MP3 (ha!) as most of the public is tin eared.

No.

I've heard it on an mqa-equipped DAC in my system and compared it, and it's kind of obvious how I feel about it (given my avatar).  Is it different?  Yes. Is it better? Well...it's different.  

I think what really p#sses a lot of us high-end consumers off is how rags like Stereophile (and especially John Atkinson) have stooped to the level of gaslighting for mqa, even going so far as to insult the entire portion of the Internet who does not agree with him.  It's not that they're just *mentioning* mqa, they're hammering it at us hard and fast. And they are not the only ones.  The audiophile press are genuinely in disbelief as to why us clueless consumers don't see that mqa is the Greatest Audiophile Thing Ever.

As for the consumers? We just want to know what the press's agenda is.  Also, the failure of the mqa folks to appear at a panel at RMAF is telling.  And has anyone tried to read the technobabble nonsense in mqa's white papers?  Incomprehensible. Give us the clean, no-BS version.  And other than highly controlled tests personally hovered over by bob stuart, with masters of unknown origin, has there ever been a truly fair and honest comparison?  Not that I know of.

The industry never learned from the failure of HDCD; this is just round two. We have sufficient broadband to stream lossless at a full 24-bit, 96kHz, and with Qobuz on the horizon in the US and Tidal in continual financial distress, there really is no guarantee mqa will be around for streaming in a year or two from now.  

Short version?  It is the answer to a question nobody asked. 

You can guess my vote in this poll...

I have yamaha as 801 int amp has built in ess 32 dac 9010, also bought project pre box  S2 with MQA decode with ess 9038 to debate. With Tidal I can compare MQA files and the same non MQA . My opinion I have think MQA is just another filter option, pre box has 8 filters but MQA definitely has a tad more midrange to other filters your choice with Tidal .