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 brianlucey

brianlucey's avatar
brianlucey
164 posts
 
It’s actually not all subjective. Science is a real thing. It allows us to listen to music in the first place as we know and love.

There are facts. There are opinions.

Let us please differentiate between Fact and Feeling

Facts:
Is MQA equal to the source? No. (we can phase flip the source vs MQA and hear this)

So is it lossless, as advertised and patented? No


Feelings:
Is it better? MQA seems subjective on this question only because audiophiles like to have a say in the playback process, with your various playback gear choices. Playback is your art form. Fair enough.

Yet MQA as better is in fact not a subjective topic. It’s not better because if there was a better sound, a skilled engineer would have done that in the processing. And why can I say that? I’m a mastering engineer and my work today is being butchered with MQA

a) Harmonic distortion the we (myself and the label and the artist does not want)
b) Mid Side power and freq changes that we don’t want
c) 8 bits can be removed and replaced with noise and the LED lights up still

Is MQA being "Authenticated" my Mastering Engineers? No. It’s being BULK PROCESSED.

Future:
Is this the best codec science and invention will ever give us? Should be stop innovation now and start paying MQA royalties for DA and Per song?

Should we make all the great DA of the world obsolete based on this subjective sport Audiophiles enjoy playing?


God please, I hope we are smarter than that.


Should Bob and Co have the courage to have a debate with serious people? Yes.
Do they? No.

www.magicgardenmastering.com
brianlucey's avatar
brianlucey
164 posts
 
"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.
More to discover