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
lalitk's avatar
lalitk
5,570 posts
 
@georgehifi,

“Have you got Stereophiles measuring equipment? As this is what it’s all about!!”

And how do you know Stereophile is not paid to keep MQA controversial? After all the article is getting all the attention of non-MQA users...LOL!!!


markalarsen's avatar
markalarsen
658 posts
 
Yes. 
mofimadness's avatar
mofimadness
4,993 posts
 
Yes, Tidal with MQA sounds better than without.
georgehifi's avatar
georgehifi
10,312 posts
 
@lalitk,
  And how do you know Stereophile is not paid to keep MQA controversial?

Stereophile were pro MQA, until recently when they started doing measurements, now they'er sitting on the fence a bit.

They could have blown the $5.5K Aurender A10  thing wide open, they even asking Aurender to comment on this sly slip of the hand, but they refused to reply to what Stereophile found.

I praised JA for telling it publicly, even if it was on the quiet.

Cheers George 
jon2020's avatar
jon2020
988 posts
 
"I can clearly discern the audible differences between MQA coded file at 96kHz and it’s 44.1kHz counterpart file by enabling and disabling MQA Core decoder. "

@lalitk,
So you are comparing MQA 96 to non-MQA 44.1?
A more valid comparison would be between MQA 96 and non-MQA 96 PCM.

It always makes me wonder why any hobbyist in audio would want to bury their ears in the sand with respect to valid comparisons. The lack of curiosity is hard to comprehend.

However, I would hazard a guess that maybe, after paying for the MQA download, one would prefer not to investigate further just in case the new findings invalidate the purchase.
More to discover