MQA•Foolish New Algorithm? Vote!

“Trouble is you can’t tell if it works by switching it off“

Who cares if it works or not, all I care is whether MQA files sounds better than the other competing streaming resolution or not. To my ears and in my system, they do.

If MQA is so bad then why in earth, HDTRACKS, Acoustic Sounds and others are still on fence to offer high resolution streaming? Thanks to MQA, I have a choice not to pay $16-24 for high resolution downloads.

In the absence of any real competition, MQA should prevail and hope it becomes the standard of high resolution streaming.

1. Foolish new algorithm? - I vote Yes
2. MQA for better sound? - I vote Yes
3. MQA for music industry to milk more money? - I vote Yes
4. MQA enjoyable? - 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.
7. The Best: It's free with Tidal HiFi. Even I don't have a MQA hardware. But my PC can still send  MQA to 88.2 Khz, 96 Khz /24bit. My DAC can still decode. Sound better than 44.1Khz/16bit FLAC

"It's all subjective" is what MQA is selling now, because the idea that it's equal to the source, lossless, has failed.

What is more important is that mastering engineers like myself are playing NO PART in the bulk processing of catalogs with MQA, so the whole idea of "Authenticated" is a lie. 

And on my current work, four Billboard #1s last year, it's not better it's worse.  There are artifacts I don't want and the artist and label did not want at decision time. 

Another part of the label, the catalog division, is all about the money. But as audiophiles, you all are supposed to want to hear that the "artist intended" and MQA is not that in 99.9% of the cases on the market today.

brianlucey
"It’s all subjective" is what MQA is selling now, because the idea that it’s equal to the source, lossless, has failed.
What is more important is that mastering engineers like myself are playing NO PART in the bulk processing of catalogs with MQA, so the whole idea of "Authenticated" is a lie.

https://sjdpacvictoria.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/clapping-hands-emoji.jpg

Cheers George

I vote "Yes" for MQA:  on Tidal, I find that most of the MQA versions of albums/titles sound better than the non-MQA versions to my ears.  And, Yes again, that I view MQA as a way to get better sound from streaming, but not as a end-all format that replaces lossless files & SACD's that I have/will purchase/download.  

In my view, there are simply no downsides to MQA as a streaming format.  It is part of my Tidal subscription and a built-in MQA-capable DAC is a feature on my (recently acquired) Bluesound Vault 2.  Put together with Tidal, this has greatly increased my enjoyment in listening.  And, AFAIK, none of the doomsday scenarios have come to pass yet.  It is still very much your option on whether or not to MQA.  I suspect, if it ever does appear that the powers that be try to "force" it...it will be met with great indifference in terms of purchasers.

I get that MQA is not lossless.  I get that it can be scientifically proven to be inferior bit-for-bit and measurement-wise to FLAC, DSD, DXD, etc.  And, I completely understand from a recording pro's POV that MQA is not what they/the artist intended.  But, I am not an engineer or scientist.  I am a consumer of content, the end-user...I am the customer.  And what I hear from MQA, for the most part...I like.

As others have said, cannot we just get back to enjoying the music, no matter how we do it?  I really do hope so...

Arvin