Yes
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
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
- ...
- 166 posts total
To whatever degree MQA does good things to the sound for some, it is unquestionably trying to take over the entire, digital audio ecosystem (& may succeed). John Iverson & Atkinson both warn in their full page As We See It columns in the last 2 Stereophile issues that could both easily modify all recordings in ways, not of our choosing as well as prevent and/or corrupt all future digital formats & improvements. This kind of "format monopoly" Iverson refers to in the current 2018 April issue on the first page will in no way, shape or form drive quality improvements either within MQA & certainly W/O. The engine that drives capitalism is removing any and all obstacles to generating ever more capital. To what degree will a monopoly allow quality for its own sake to emerge as any kind of priority? Think about it. Before you don the shining, seductive (at this moment in time only) restraints MQA appears to be. Cries of, "Who knew?" will then be factually answered with, "You knew." Think about it. Now & not in the future - after the fact. |
Jon Iverson's even stronger condemnation in the new Stereophile won't be officially online likely for another month or so (other than to digital subscribers) > https://www.stereophile.com/content/more-mqa |
I find Brian Lucy’s comment very readable and valuable. He operates Magic Garden Mastering. As a professional his livelihood depends on attention to detail. His comment that the MQA file is not equal to the original is undeniable : reversing the phase of the original and comparing with the MQA version should provide a null and he states it doesn’t. For the MQA version to be truncated(shortened) by 8 bits - and still have the light come on confirming you are listening to an MQA certified file is simply a scam. Having pros weigh in on this is very welcome. |
- 166 posts total