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
mys_iii
3 posts
 
No. It's just another way to add more processing to music and add artifacts. I've read some of the test results on MQA and it doesn't seem to quantitatively provide much benefit over standard methods but does add unnecessary artifacts, especially in the higher frequencies. Given modern day technology, we should be striving to have less processing and more precision ( 24 bit or higher ) to get closer to the vinyl sound.
lalitk's avatar
lalitk
5,555 posts
 
@mys_iii,

Have you actually heard MQA files in your system?
uberwaltz's avatar
uberwaltz
13,381 posts
 
You have read about it?
But not actually heard it?

Hmmmm
😗😗
sdj888
13 posts
 
Yes, for me it's most noticeable improvement is in the albums of the 60's 70's 80's. It seems to reduce the nose floor, and the extraneous sounds of some of the recording gear or recording enviroment. Some of the MQA files I'd listened to barely sound different or improved. I've given up comparing MQA to non MQA files,  and generally select the MQA when given an option. 

I prefer SACD and DSD for SQ. MQA is not the be all and end all, I imagine it to be a stepping stone in the eventual realization of the digital format.

I didn't realize that master tapes would be batch processed in MQA. And I had imagined that with new releases, the album engineer would have been involved in the MQA process. And I'm surprised to read here that there is less data being steamed. But being said, it could be a cost/bandwidth saving for the streaming company.

I also think that given time we will be able to stream DSD quality.  MQA might evolve,  but digital files, streaming and down-loading are the winners here. Although vynal is fantastic, I haven't spun a disc in 18 months....

jon2020's avatar
jon2020
988 posts
 
I think MQA will succeed only for streaming.

As for downloads, it will be tough for MQA to compete. It all depends on how they price their downloads against 16/44 cd quality. It will be difficult to price it above cd quality simply because redbook as is actually sounds fabulous with the much improved tech of today. For the mass market, mp3 looks to be sufficient.

If MQA prices their downloads below redbook, it would look like a product that is a step down in quality and that would be a PR nightmare for the marketing department. 


More to discover