Strange to hear any MQA bashing from a cost or sound quality issue.
But that's exactly how any new feature gets evaluated: Cost vs. value.
MQA is Legit!
Ok, there is something special about MQA. Here is my theory: MQA=SACD. What do I mean by this? I mean that since there might be the "perception" it sounds better, then there is way more care put into the mastering and the recording. Of course I have Redbook CD's that sound just as good (although they tend to be "HDCD" lol)... Bottom line: a great recording sounds great. I wish more labels and artists put more time into this--it's great to hear a song for the 1000th time and discover something new.
What are your thoughts on MQA and SACD?
What are your thoughts on MQA and SACD?
- ...
- 91 posts total
I always seem to agree with shadorne, that must represent the lack of an original opinion on my part. Has anyone posted the MQA patent yet in this thread? In contrast to the title of the patent, it is a lossy compression method, although there may be some reasons why the codec may be better for listening to some music files... I agree with the prevailing sentiment that paying attention to the mastering makes sense for all file formats. I believe this is the published patent: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/2f/bc/4b/f9595654c743bb/US9548055.pdf Cheers - Gerry |
This is all such a lie. Meridian is dead and they need $. "MQA reveals every detail of the original recording." (actually it is blurry) "MQA captures 100% of the original studio performance. It then cleverly adapts to deliver the highest quality playback your product can support." (there is no "studio performance" everything in audio is processed and distorted on purpose for effect. even a purist recording has mic, pre, AD, panning, eq, level. the highest quality product is the NATIVE SAMPLE RATE of the approved mastering session. A 192 AD for $200 is not better than a $24,000 44.1 AD. Get real folks, this is all marketing lies.) @waltertexasI mean that since there might be the "perception" it sounds better, then there is way more care put into the mastering and the recording. No more is put into any mastering than any other, except as driven by the needs of the people who want to be happy with the results. You are assuming something that is not real. MQA processing is being bulk applied to back catalogs to create a market, contravening the concept of mastering engineer authentication. So you’re just wrong here. MQA is a touch louder, with distortions, and a recessed center image ... and all that distortion can sound good ... yet as a mastering engineer it’s a travesty. As a person of principle, it’s a con the likes of which the audio world has never seen. |
- 91 posts total