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 7 responses by ptss

ptss OP
1,964 posts
 
Pmotz. Thank you for pointing out the conflict. An important point. New “improved” question coming soon. Thanks to all. Very interesting re Tidal!
ptss OP
1,964 posts
 
Thanks to all responders. Particular mention to pmotz indenifying the lack of clarity in the OP; also to georgehifi for highlighting the blatant disrespect of the MQA folks exhibited by attempting to ensure their filters would ‘always’ be in place - “without the consumers knowledge” thereby completely invalidating any attempted comparisons between MQA and NON MQA playback. FWIW this type of underhanded behaviour turns me off. If I go to someone with a simple question—and find they lie to me—they’ve just educated me on how to interpret anything else they say. Shameful behaviour on their part,no? I chose not to deal with people who misrepresent anything to me. And I think most reasonable feel as I do. 
ptss OP
1,964 posts
 
I find Brian Lucy’s comment very readable and valuable. He operates Magic Garden Mastering. As a professional his livelihood depends on attention to detail. His comment that the MQA file is not equal to the original is undeniable : reversing the phase of the original and comparing with the MQA version should provide a null and he states it doesn’t. For the MQA version to be truncated(shortened) by 8 bits - and still have the light come on confirming you are listening to an MQA certified file is simply a scam. Having pros weigh in on this is very welcome. 
ptss OP
1,964 posts
 
Someone please identify the huge record companys that are already “Shareholders” in this MQA effort to turn the quality of “all” music into that which will “work” for the ubiquitous cellphone users. And, thanks again to the Professional,Brian Lucy, for creating hope that it will be ARTISTS who will hold out to archive their precious works in the manner that sounds best under quality conditions-during the recording and mastering of their “babies”. 
ptss OP
1,964 posts
 
I believe the young generations demand for high quality “video” will make bandwidth and speed of the net- and the quality of cellphones- such that compression of/for -audio- will become irrelevant. I’m sure the big players are well aware of this. Therefore this attempt to capture the market will shortly reveal itself for the simple attempt at a “money grab” by the tech company and the industry “investors”/- or should they better be called “co-owners”??
ptss OP
1,964 posts
 
I believe unsound re 5G.
ptss OP
1,964 posts
 
It’s gratifying to hear dedicated MQA enthusiasts comparing it to Netflix—- great for the convenience and scope it gives — but absolutely no comparison to a Bluray through a decent bluray player. 
More to discover