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
giri
39 posts
 
No, it is going to die just like HDCD and others. Long live MP3 (ha!) as most of the public is tin eared.
dimora's avatar
dimora
61 posts
 
No.
shoresaudio's avatar
shoresaudio
20 posts
 
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...
tola1965's avatar
tola1965
1 posts
 
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 .
ewan
1 posts
 
 No
More to discover