Brian,
Thank you for chiming in on this extremely important topic. Your perspective is clearly the most enlightening of all those I’ve read, even statements of various hardware companies who have worked with MQA but found deficiencies.
To answer another poster, I’ve only heard 1 MQA track with no comparison, but hearing the same Dylan track back in my system (PCM or SACD), revealed MQA similarly to what is being described.
Are there any lawyers here who’d like to chime in. I’m just daydreaming, but with an expert opinion like the one Brian provided above, hypothetically could a case be made that MQA being marketed as "Master Quality" represents a false claim and deceptive marketing?
And if so, could a group of music consumers present a letter to the legal departments of record labels promoting MQA releases that indicates they must re-brand a potentially highly flawed format without the claim of delivering the master to the consumer?
Though far fetched, what about a class action against entities engaged in distributing and promoting this material, for customers who have already bought hardware and software that may in fact not deliver what was promised, and that it’s creators might have actually been advised of this by industry professionals, as indicated in Brian’s post.
This is the future of recorded music we’re debating here, in a paradigm that may in fact completely envelope the entire industry.
While some may find this absurd, I feel it’s worth fighting to get it right, not only for we who dedicate tremendous resources to the reproduction of recorded music, but for future generations who may only experience music of a certain era through a potentially compromised and flawed medium.
I'd like to forward Brian's opinion to Stereophile and TAS, and have them weigh in on this alternative viewpoint from someone with deep experience of master vs. MQA.
Thank you for chiming in on this extremely important topic. Your perspective is clearly the most enlightening of all those I’ve read, even statements of various hardware companies who have worked with MQA but found deficiencies.
To answer another poster, I’ve only heard 1 MQA track with no comparison, but hearing the same Dylan track back in my system (PCM or SACD), revealed MQA similarly to what is being described.
Are there any lawyers here who’d like to chime in. I’m just daydreaming, but with an expert opinion like the one Brian provided above, hypothetically could a case be made that MQA being marketed as "Master Quality" represents a false claim and deceptive marketing?
And if so, could a group of music consumers present a letter to the legal departments of record labels promoting MQA releases that indicates they must re-brand a potentially highly flawed format without the claim of delivering the master to the consumer?
Though far fetched, what about a class action against entities engaged in distributing and promoting this material, for customers who have already bought hardware and software that may in fact not deliver what was promised, and that it’s creators might have actually been advised of this by industry professionals, as indicated in Brian’s post.
This is the future of recorded music we’re debating here, in a paradigm that may in fact completely envelope the entire industry.
While some may find this absurd, I feel it’s worth fighting to get it right, not only for we who dedicate tremendous resources to the reproduction of recorded music, but for future generations who may only experience music of a certain era through a potentially compromised and flawed medium.
I'd like to forward Brian's opinion to Stereophile and TAS, and have them weigh in on this alternative viewpoint from someone with deep experience of master vs. MQA.
