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
robelvick's avatar
robelvick
619 posts
 
Yes, 100%. For me, it’s a no brainer. In my system, MQA sounds great, so I will continue to play it, and continue to enjoy the hell out of it.

If you have a subscription to Tidal, like a lot of us Agoner do..it is simply a gift. Temporary, maybe? In the meantime, I’m going sit back, relax, and keep hitting play!


ricwa
23 posts
 
Yes. Tidal provides the opportunity to compare many tracks/albums in both MQA and redbook formats.  Listening to just about any Tidal MQA track on my Aurender A10 noticeably improves SQ. The improvement with MQA is not subtle.
arch2
308 posts
 
Ptss - When I read your questions it sounds like your asking about the "intent" of the format, not whether it sounds better or not. So to answer what I read as the intent of your questions: Yes, I do think MQA is a processing algorithm that was created for better sound quality, and Yes, it was created to make money. What isn't done to make money? Let me know if I'm off base with my understanding of the question.

Now, do I think MQA makes an audible and worthwhile difference versus redbook? With my system and the music I listen to 100% yes!

Is MQA inferior to high resolution downloads, SACD and vinyl? Maybe, I don't have the ability for direct comparison. But listening to MQA on Tidal allows for better than CD sound (in my system) and the opportunity to listen to a vast library without having to purchase each download, and accessing those choices is darn near instantaneous. If I were into those other formats I would explore the world on Tidal then buy what I like on high res DL, SACD or vinyl (if available). I don't see this being an either/or proposition. I realize this isn't a debate on the pros and cons of Tidal but it sort of goes hand in hand with why you would want MQA processing. So there is a market for MQA processing and I guess it's for folks like me. Oh and did I mention it sounds better than CD? 

Sorry, this is Audiogon. No such thing as a yes or no answer ; )
lalitk's avatar
lalitk
5,570 posts
 
This just in....Aurender N10/N100/W20 owners now able to purchase MQA Core Decoder license from within the Aurender Conductor app for $54.99.

This will allow users to hear MQA coded files at 88.2kHz or 96kHz sample rate through a non-MQA compatiable DAC’s.

http://www.aurender.com/blog/new-software-release-note-4/post/system-sw-4-5-11-36-app-2-9-3-93-189


gdnrbob
4,452 posts
 
If I recall correctly, the MQA provided by Tidal is only a 'partial' decoding.
You have to buy into whole MQA system in order to get the full 'benefit'.
Hence, my post equating it with Dolby.
B
More to discover