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
brianlucey's avatar
brianlucey
154 posts
 
"It's all subjective" is what MQA is selling now, because the idea that it's equal to the source, lossless, has failed.

What is more important is that mastering engineers like myself are playing NO PART in the bulk processing of catalogs with MQA, so the whole idea of "Authenticated" is a lie. 

And on my current work, four Billboard #1s last year, it's not better it's worse.  There are artifacts I don't want and the artist and label did not want at decision time. 

Another part of the label, the catalog division, is all about the money. But as audiophiles, you all are supposed to want to hear that the "artist intended" and MQA is not that in 99.9% of the cases on the market today.
georgehifi's avatar
georgehifi
10,312 posts
 
brianlucey
"It’s all subjective" is what MQA is selling now, because the idea that it’s equal to the source, lossless, has failed.
What is more important is that mastering engineers like myself are playing NO PART in the bulk processing of catalogs with MQA, so the whole idea of "Authenticated" is a lie.


https://sjdpacvictoria.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/clapping-hands-emoji.jpg

Cheers George
arvincastro's avatar
arvincastro
121 posts
 
I vote "Yes" for MQA:  on Tidal, I find that most of the MQA versions of albums/titles sound better than the non-MQA versions to my ears.  And, Yes again, that I view MQA as a way to get better sound from streaming, but not as a end-all format that replaces lossless files & SACD's that I have/will purchase/download.  

In my view, there are simply no downsides to MQA as a streaming format.  It is part of my Tidal subscription and a built-in MQA-capable DAC is a feature on my (recently acquired) Bluesound Vault 2.  Put together with Tidal, this has greatly increased my enjoyment in listening.  And, AFAIK, none of the doomsday scenarios have come to pass yet.  It is still very much your option on whether or not to MQA.  I suspect, if it ever does appear that the powers that be try to "force" it...it will be met with great indifference in terms of purchasers.

I get that MQA is not lossless.  I get that it can be scientifically proven to be inferior bit-for-bit and measurement-wise to FLAC, DSD, DXD, etc.  And, I completely understand from a recording pro's POV that MQA is not what they/the artist intended.  But, I am not an engineer or scientist.  I am a consumer of content, the end-user...I am the customer.  And what I hear from MQA, for the most part...I like.

As others have said, cannot we just get back to enjoying the music, no matter how we do it?  I really do hope so...

Arvin
georgehifi's avatar
georgehifi
10,312 posts
 
As others have said, cannot we just get back to enjoying the music, no matter how we do it? I really do hope so...
That’s the best thing you said.

Why can’t we have our music as it was played, as close as possible to live, least untouched by all this processing.

No sounds in real life are compressed, birds singing, jets flying over head, cars doing burnouts, why then do we want to stuff-up our music with compression and other forms of processing. ???????

Cheers George
john1
114 posts
 
As others have said, cannot we just get back to enjoying the music, no matter how we do it? I really do hope so...

That's the argument for cigarette smoking. Forget about the future, enjoy it now. That it's guaranteed much or most of the time to be not what the artist intended leading to we know not what (that has the incredibly polite John Atkinson passionately exclaiming publically for the first time in his long career) combined with its substantial potential for killing all more advanced improvements for digital, stone cold dead, is dismissed because the transitory pleasure of the moment is all & who cares how unstable the foundation it is built on is?

 If MQA is as radically successful as it hopes to be & many (& not that much fewer disagreeing) in this thread are nonchalant about - they will have plenty to bitterly complain about.   Just not their own culpability.

MQA is NOT improving. Other formats are, that they will kill if successful. Be careful about picking the winning (in terms of Quality) side. Surrendering to monopolies so cheaply says a great deal about you & us, encourages lack of integrity in audio & everywhere else in our lives. In VERY unsubtle ways. "I just don't care & like to sell out cheaply" is an easy response just now. You'll have to live with what that means & says about you - in addition to what it does to Audio.
More to discover