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
jon2020's avatar
jon2020
988 posts
 
I think MQA will succeed only for streaming.

As for downloads, it will be tough for MQA to compete. It all depends on how they price their downloads against 16/44 cd quality. It will be difficult to price it above cd quality simply because redbook as is actually sounds fabulous with the much improved tech of today. For the mass market, mp3 looks to be sufficient.

If MQA prices their downloads below redbook, it would look like a product that is a step down in quality and that would be a PR nightmare for the marketing department. 


mys_iii
3 posts
 
Hi @lalitk ,

I have not heard MQA on my system. I don't think that is very relevant in the big scheme of things. There are so many variations in the recording and mastering of music that I highly doubt that MQA can "improve" how music sounds with an algorithmic approach. Testers also found this to be true when trying different recordings. You have to change the algorithm, blah blah blah, but that works on one recording but not another. The reality is that the quality of music is mostly determined by the recording and mastering process. I have heard CDs from the 90s that sound fantastic as-is. My opinion is that music producers need to focus on the recording and mastering of music and that the representation of that music should try to stay true to the original recording. Any post processing will be an interpretation of the original, which will work for some cases but not others, and will also add artifacts to the music. All of the arguments I've seen so far seem similar to cases where the measured results show an early roll off in frequency response yet testers claim that equipment sounds great. I don't buy into such claims. I feel that good test results are a necessary but not sufficient condition for equipment to sound good. This has to be supplemented by listening to confirm that it does indeed sound good. This is my opinion and I am sure others feel differently. To each his own.
unsound
7,329 posts
 
With 5G around the corner, I can’t help but wonder why we’ll need any more “lossy” manipulations?
tobes's avatar
tobes
436 posts
 
I can't believe MQA has gained so much traction, more significant mprovements are available through well engineered digital filters which don't seek to monopolize the recording process.
bluesy41
211 posts
 
Yes! True MQA is so good that the best turntable and LP would have a hard time beating. If your system and speakers are cable of truly reproducing MQA quality you will seriously be hard pressed to find something better. I thought I was listening to MQA until I got a true MQA decoder DAC and now I’m in music bliss.

Cheers 
More to discover