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
jon2020's avatar
jon2020
988 posts
 
So far I have found MQA played via Tidal through my Vault 2 "sounds" more refined and solid than non mqa version.

It doesn't really matter when you have an MQA dac as you can't really compare unless you have another non-MQA dac side by side. 
Anyway, we should always enjoy music that is enjoyable.
It is never necessary to compare what you are enjoying with anything else :)
uberwaltz's avatar
uberwaltz
13,381 posts
 
I am not truly comparing
Just adding my 3 cents on what I like the sound of.......
In my system to my ears
Nuff said
lalitk's avatar
lalitk
5,561 posts
 
@jon2020,

I don’t feel the need to further investigate or loose my sleep over $54.99 MQA Core Decoder upgrade. To my ears, most MQA coded files easily yield audible improvements in my system over Tidal 16bit/44.1kHz files.

And to answer your earlier question about why not compare MQA 96 vs non-MQA 96 PCM coded files is pretty simple...why pay for 96 PCM files when I can enjoy just as good MQA 96 files at no additional charge.

As you said, “It is never necessary to compare what you are enjoying with anything else :)”
arch2
308 posts
 
@jon2020 
“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.”

Why? I’m looking for an improvement over cd quality streaming. I agree that MQA may not be the equal of high resolution downloads (I don’t know for sure, I have not compared) but why is a comparison with non MQA 44.1 not as valid if my objective is to receive better than cd quality sound? My comparisons have been my cd collection saved to hard drive vs. same titles on Tidal with MQA processing. MQA sounds better on my system (PS Audio Directstream jr). If my PS Audio is now doing something to 44.1 files that make them not sound as good pre MQA then yes I want to know that.

“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.”

That is certainly true with many things audio but not really relevent to Tidal users. You pay your 20 bucks a month and you get cd quality streaming, oh and by the way you get a bunch of MQA titles as well. Happy listening.

mcgal
199 posts
 

When streaming Tidal, I prefer the sound of MQA Masters over non-MQA. My problem is that there needs to be more MQA albums available on Tidal that I would actually listen too. 
More to discover