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
ejr1953
914 posts
 
IMO, it's not a clear "yes" or "no".

To me, most of the MQA remasters DO sound better, but not all of them.

Using jon2020's list:

1. Foolish new algorithm? - I vote No
2. MQA for better sound? - I vote Yes more than No
3. MQA for music industry to milk more money? - I vote Yes
4. MQA enjoyable? - I vote Yes
5. Is MQA Tidal better than non-MQA Tidal? - I vote Yes
6. Is MQA better than non-MQA native hires PCM and DSD?
- I vote No (especially compared to DSD).

I'm beginning to wonder if the reason my SACD/CD player sounds the best is that I have a PS Audio DirectStream DAC & transport, with the I2S interconnects...which from what I'm learning, separates the musical bits from the timing, making the timing more accurate.  I'm wondering if adding a "reclocker" to my USB path from the source to the DAC will produce the same level of sound quality that I'm enjoying with the I2S linked products.

At some point I'll probably spring for some reclocking device.
ptss OP
1,964 posts
 
Thanks to all responders. Particular mention to pmotz indenifying the lack of clarity in the OP; also to georgehifi for highlighting the blatant disrespect of the MQA folks exhibited by attempting to ensure their filters would ‘always’ be in place - “without the consumers knowledge” thereby completely invalidating any attempted comparisons between MQA and NON MQA playback. FWIW this type of underhanded behaviour turns me off. If I go to someone with a simple question—and find they lie to me—they’ve just educated me on how to interpret anything else they say. Shameful behaviour on their part,no? I chose not to deal with people who misrepresent anything to me. And I think most reasonable feel as I do. 
jon2020's avatar
jon2020
986 posts
 
+1, ptss.

Once deception is detected, why bother anymore?
Conversely, if one is true in the heart, why bother to deceive?

2 big deceptions exposed :-

1. At Stereophile by JA

2.https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/38608-truncating-mqa-files-to-16-bits-and-the-blue-l...

Post removed 
keithtexas
352 posts
 
Only heard MQA/non MQA a/b demoed one time.  Constellation electronics driving Magico speakers. To my ears, there was a slight preference for the MQA. JMO
More to discover