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

Showing 2 responses by arch2

arch2
308 posts
 
Ptss - When I read your questions it sounds like your asking about the "intent" of the format, not whether it sounds better or not. So to answer what I read as the intent of your questions: Yes, I do think MQA is a processing algorithm that was created for better sound quality, and Yes, it was created to make money. What isn't done to make money? Let me know if I'm off base with my understanding of the question.

Now, do I think MQA makes an audible and worthwhile difference versus redbook? With my system and the music I listen to 100% yes!

Is MQA inferior to high resolution downloads, SACD and vinyl? Maybe, I don't have the ability for direct comparison. But listening to MQA on Tidal allows for better than CD sound (in my system) and the opportunity to listen to a vast library without having to purchase each download, and accessing those choices is darn near instantaneous. If I were into those other formats I would explore the world on Tidal then buy what I like on high res DL, SACD or vinyl (if available). I don't see this being an either/or proposition. I realize this isn't a debate on the pros and cons of Tidal but it sort of goes hand in hand with why you would want MQA processing. So there is a market for MQA processing and I guess it's for folks like me. Oh and did I mention it sounds better than CD? 

Sorry, this is Audiogon. No such thing as a yes or no answer ; )
arch2
308 posts
 
@jon2020 
“So you are comparing MQA 96 to non-MQA 44.1?
A more valid comparison would be between MQA 96 and non-MQA 96 PCM.”

Why? I’m looking for an improvement over cd quality streaming. I agree that MQA may not be the equal of high resolution downloads (I don’t know for sure, I have not compared) but why is a comparison with non MQA 44.1 not as valid if my objective is to receive better than cd quality sound? My comparisons have been my cd collection saved to hard drive vs. same titles on Tidal with MQA processing. MQA sounds better on my system (PS Audio Directstream jr). If my PS Audio is now doing something to 44.1 files that make them not sound as good pre MQA then yes I want to know that.

“However, I would hazard a guess that maybe, after paying for the MQA download, one would prefer not to investigate further just in case the new findings invalidate the purchase.”

That is certainly true with many things audio but not really relevent to Tidal users. You pay your 20 bucks a month and you get cd quality streaming, oh and by the way you get a bunch of MQA titles as well. Happy listening.

More to discover