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
georgehifi's avatar
georgehifi
10,312 posts
 
The industry never learned from the failure of HDCD

HDCD didn’t fail, it was a great success, and worked far better than MQA and you didn’t pay for it, until Microsoft bought it from PMD ( Pacific Microsonic Devices) and then did nothing with it and let it die.

But thank god now Professor Kieth Johnson the inventor of it I believe has bought it back of Microsoft, I and is using once again in his incredible sounding 24/96 pcm "Reference Recordings", that MQA can’t come close to in sound quality.

BTW: there are thousands upon thousands of HDCD recording out there, many of which are not labelled the the HDCD logo.

Cheers George
2psyop's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
2psyop
1,586 posts
 
Many people have complained that record companies are making $$$ from MQA. I don’t know how this is a bad thing? For many years around 2000, companies were allowing music sharing, think Napster, Gnutella, Kazaa and Limewire. The big deal was artists (musicians) were not making money, record comspanies were not making money. The downloaded music was causing a huge hit because music was not paid for. As far as I can tell, Tidal pays artists more $$$ than youtube, Deezer, Spotify, Rhapsody and others. I don’t mind paying for music to help artists get paid. How many people out in audio land have music they pay for, rather than downloaded and not paid?
At least with Tidal and ( MQA) artists are getting money again? Another angle to the story...
buellrider97
389 posts
 
Oh oh , I wanna play too . But I’m stuck in a world of SCHIIT ! I’m so butthurt that I’m going back to my Layfayette 8 Track recorder . Don’t get mad at each other guys . People on the sidelines that are limited to a couple G’s for a DAC need to learn too . If I can use some sort of MQA software on my Windows laptop before it hits my Yiggy , would somebody shoot me a note and School my dumb butt . Thanks , much love , Mike B. 
jeffcbradley
1 posts
 
I vote NO. MQA does not improve anything. MQA is nothing more than the latest marketing tool for generating income for companies with degrading master tapes.
coppy777
141 posts
 
How about YES and NO.  Yes it's about better sound vs. Redbook CDs.  And No... of course it's about making money for content and software owners.  There's no free lunch.  The question for all and each of us is this free sound improvement worth the price and a good trade off.  
More to discover