2. digital
  3. 134990-477

“MQA is a philosophy”..John Stuart

Full quote- “In brief, MQA is a philosophy more than it’s ‘just a codec’. 
Your thoughts??
ptss
ptss OP
1,964 posts
 
All input is much appreciated.
jon2020 - “Bob” Stuart Is J(John) Robert Stuart of Meridian & MQA. 
 lalitk: I appreciate your question. I’m trying to wisely expose a business idea/proposition, supported by 2 of the largest recording companies, that if implemented will have a significant “detrimental” and “long lasting” effect on the recording of new music of all genres. We, in this forum, are music lovers first and foremost. It’s why we buy quality equipment and freely share experiences that may benefit others. Peter ptss
ptss OP
1,964 posts
 
Spell check changed ‘widely’ to ‘wisely’. Freudian slip??
amg56's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
amg56
887 posts
 

I thought MQA - Master Quality Authenticated music, dealt with providing a common standard to streaming and download files, which can range through 256kbps or 320kbps, AAC, MP3 or Ogg Vorbis depending on your source. It is the provider of the source to ensure a common standard of audio reproduction. It also (sneakily) will make sure that the original has been paid for and therefore can be played. sort of what is happening to Blu-Ray standards.

Red Book is comprehensive set of standards relating to digital media such as CDs. (Please correct me if I am wrong). I don't know if it relates to streaming or downloads because it was written over a decade ago.

MQA is trying to standardise these download/streaming files so that the listener gets a common quality of sound. I am not saying that this sound is better or worse than vinyl or CD. It is just a method of reproducing to a common standard (and verifying that is an original or purchased copy).

I realise that you can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear, but a lot of older vinyl and CDs were mastered on some woeful masters and remastering can exemplify/amplify a lot of original inherent faults.

I have heard a standard stream of tracks I know and then listened to the MQA versions and they do sound cleaner and more even. This is via digital jiggery to sound better. Can you honestly make a common CD sound better than how it has been produced? Having said that, I do not agree with the point that we will need to/ or should pay more for music that

1. We already have but it sounds better as "MQA" so we must pay more for it,

2. We should pay more for MQA via streaming, in which case we wouldn't know what we were being charged,

3. The past music we know and love should not have a premium for MQA placed on it. If MQA is to be an extra charge, do it for music starting from a "date" or all new music or some such.

Sorry for the long diatribe.......
Adrian

cj1965
124 posts
 
A chief inherent feature of MQA is security and authentication. Very little of this side of the "product" is talked about or acknowledged by the "inventor". The files cannot be copied for example to serve as a backup should the original get corrupted. You don't "own" the copy after purchasing it. You merely purchased the right to playback the file. The codec is proprietary and guarded as if it were (actually is) the mechanism that ensures complete control of distribution and pricing in the marketplace. It is a means of guaranteeing that all copies of the copyright protected material in the marketplace come from and fall under the full control of one source.  Effectively, it is nothing like the open source standard we now have with respect to PCM digital audio. If you are an electronics company that wishes to build products that handle MQA, you have to  secure a licensing agreement with MQA.

Can you all say CHA - CHING??
lalitk's avatar
lalitk
5,120 posts
 
@ptss,

“We, in this forum, are music lovers first and foremost. It’s why we buy quality equipment and freely share experiences that may benefit others”  - I appreciate and agree with your sentiment. 

Please keep us updated on the progress of your proposition. I wish you the best!

FWIW, to my ears and in my system, MQA files sounds consistently better than 16bit/44.1kHz files. That’s not to say that Tidal streaming sounds bad on non-MQA files. I enjoy both formats and by personal preference rooting for hi-res streaming.  

My days of buying CD’s and paying for hi-res download are long gone, thanks to Tidal streaming! 
More to discover