No to the power of 1000.
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
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
Showing 25 responses by jon2020
Bumping this post from another thread before more votes come in. Editor’s notes say a lot :- johndoe21ro38 posts |
......MQA has caused a better listening experience for many people who like the convience of easy streaming of high quality music. Nobody is forcing MQA on the audio world. If one likes it, great. If you don’t there are many, many ways to enjoy audio. Soon the ability to stream much faster highest rez files will make MQA obsolete, perhaps. Until then enjoy it.... or something else????? The vote is not about whether one enjoys MQA or not per se, but rather more about whether MQA actually sounds better. To verify this, one can simply compare an MQA file played through a high end MQA dac/player like the Meridian 808v6 or UltraDac with a non-MQA hires PCM or DSD version played through a high end non-MQA dac from dCs, Total, Light Harmonic or Esoteric, to name a few. |
No! I should point out that your title and guidance for answering are in disagreement. The title of the post asks if MQA is a “Foolish Algorithm”, in that case “Yes” would indicate MQA is a bad (foolish) thing. In the body of the post it says voting “Yes” indicates MQA is about “better sound”, in other words MQA is a good thing. The exact opposite. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the answers above are in response to the title, rather than the body of the post. This “poll” is therefore invalid. Great observation there! I voted according to the body of the post, not the title. :) |
Before anyone downloads the Aurender MQA software, you may like to consider whether you can switch in and out of the decoder at will to allow for comparison. At the moment, I don’t yet see that option. I can’tell be sure if "Enable MQA unfolding" is a pure switch in and out once the software is downloaded. This issue would be moot for MQA dac owners. I have brought home a full MQA Meridian 808v6 player in the past for a home audition and comparing an MQA file played through it with a non-MQA version played through my Esoteric non-MQA dac, I found that the MQA file sounded softer and darker overall with significant blunting of transients. |
"In the $5.5K Aurender A10, MQA did switched off, but part of the MQA’s filtering remained active in the Stereophile tests when measuring/playing non MQA files, and no different firmwares fixed the problem. The filters that remained hobbled the non MQA sound for the worse. One must ask the question, is this done on purpose? to make MQA look/sound good compared to non MQA?" +1, georgehifi. This is exactly what I am afraid of. |
MQA recommends "Upsample Always" for non-MQA files.....Wow! https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/30381-mqa-is-vaporware/?page=279&tab=comments#co... |
"I can clearly discern the audible differences between MQA coded file at 96kHz and it’s 44.1kHz counterpart file by enabling and disabling MQA Core decoder. " It always makes me wonder why any hobbyist in audio would want to bury their ears in the sand with respect to valid comparisons. The lack of curiosity is hard to comprehend. 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. |
So far I have found MQA played via Tidal through my Vault 2 "sounds" more refined and solid than non mqa version. It doesn't really matter when you have an MQA dac as you can't really compare unless you have another non-MQA dac side by side. Anyway, we should always enjoy music that is enjoyable. It is never necessary to compare what you are enjoying with anything else :) |
Summary so far (after listening to everything with my own ears) :- 1. Foolish new algorithm? - I vote Yes 2. MQA for better sound? - I vote No 3. MQA for music industry to milk more money? - I vote Yes 4. MQA enjoyable? - Many vote Yes as indeed it is anyone’s prerogative to enjoy any format that is enjoyable 5. Is MQA Tidal better than non-MQA Tidal? - I vote Yes 6. Is MQA better than non-MQA native hires PCM and DSD? - I vote No. Enjoy the music! J. :) |
+1, ptss. Once deception is detected, why bother anymore? Conversely, if one is true in the heart, why bother to deceive? 2 big deceptions exposed :- 1. At Stereophile by JA 2.https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/38608-truncating-mqa-files-to-16-bits-and-the-blue-l... |
Summary so far (after listening to everything with my own ears) :- Looks like my unequivocal qualification right at the top before declaring my votes has been chosen to be overlooked. :( Here’s the real bust :- ".....3) Zero impact of the positive commentary from those with actual MQA experience on the others’ preconceived negative bias derived without any personal experience. I think this is known as a “bust”?........." |
"Only heard MQA/non MQA a/b demoed one time. Constellation electronics driving Magico speakers. To my ears, there was a slight preference for the MQA. JMO" No public demo has been done comparing an MQA track played through an MQA dac with a non-MQA hires version of the same track played through a non-MQA dac. Such a comparison if done will eliminate completely the potential of MQA code in a single dac unit to mess up non-MQA files, as pointed out by JA at Stereophile. This messing with a non-MQA file will result in an MQA file always sounding better than a non-MQA file from the single unit MQA dac. |
It is all subjective of course. No one here is looking for any winner from a handful of votes. People will hear what they want to hear which is perfectly acceptable in this hobby. Outside of this hobby, people also see what they want to see which is acceptable too. What I find very interesting is people reading what they want to read. Now, that’s too funny. Enjoy the music! :) |
Thanks, keithtexas, for letting us know that the dac was an Ayre. As the Ayre is a non-MQA dac, it is unlikely that they could demo mqa with it. It is probably some other MQA-capable dac on demo. No worries. At an audio show, many of us including myself, get confused with what is playing in what room at what time. :) |
The question for all and each of us is this free sound improvement worth the price and a good trade off. Bumping my post from another thread :- 1. MQA is a boon for streaming, at least for now until streaming of native hires becomes more accessible (Qobuz which streams native hires is currently not available in US and many other countries) Enjoy the Music! :) |
Jon Iverson’s even stronger condemnation in the new Stereophile won’t be officially online likely for another month or so (other than to digital subscribers) I have read Iverson’s latest editorial and it comes across as the strongest condemnation yet of MQA by Stereophile or by anyone in the audio press for that matter. This appears to run counter to the fawning over MQA at Stereophile’s sister online publication Audiostream. Be that as it may, as has been oft repeated, no criticism of MQA will have any bearing on anyone’s prerogative to enjoy listening to it. People will continue to enjoy whatever they enjoy. And this last may just carve the path to MQA’s total and complete success in its own right, to the exclusion of all other considerations - ?technical, ?drm, ?monopoly, etc, etc. Are we not afraid yet? Or, why be afraid at all when it is so enjoyable? Enjoy the Music! :) |
Non-MQA native hires streaming is here, courtesy of HighResAudio.com. Yay! https://darko.audio/2018/03/highresaudio-com-announce-hra-streaming-service/ |
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. |