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
2psyop's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
2psyop
1,511 posts
 
Many people have complained that record companies are making $$$ from MQA. I don’t know how this is a bad thing? For many years around 2000, companies were allowing music sharing, think Napster, Gnutella, Kazaa and Limewire. The big deal was artists (musicians) were not making money, record comspanies were not making money. The downloaded music was causing a huge hit because music was not paid for. As far as I can tell, Tidal pays artists more $$$ than youtube, Deezer, Spotify, Rhapsody and others. I don’t mind paying for music to help artists get paid. How many people out in audio land have music they pay for, rather than downloaded and not paid?
At least with Tidal and ( MQA) artists are getting money again? Another angle to the story...
buellrider97
369 posts
 
Oh oh , I wanna play too . But I’m stuck in a world of SCHIIT ! I’m so butthurt that I’m going back to my Layfayette 8 Track recorder . Don’t get mad at each other guys . People on the sidelines that are limited to a couple G’s for a DAC need to learn too . If I can use some sort of MQA software on my Windows laptop before it hits my Yiggy , would somebody shoot me a note and School my dumb butt . Thanks , much love , Mike B. 
jeffcbradley
1 posts
 
I vote NO. MQA does not improve anything. MQA is nothing more than the latest marketing tool for generating income for companies with degrading master tapes.
coppy777
120 posts
 
How about YES and NO.  Yes it's about better sound vs. Redbook CDs.  And No... of course it's about making money for content and software owners.  There's no free lunch.  The question for all and each of us is this free sound improvement worth the price and a good trade off.  
jon2020's avatar
jon2020
985 posts
 
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)
2. If you have a Tidal subscription and listen mostly to Tidal, Tidal MQA generally sounds better than non-MQA Tidal - better to get an MQA dac to fully enjoy Tidal MQA
3. If you don’t subscribe to Tidal, and listen mostly to your own collection of non-MQA redbook or native hires pcm/dsd files, MQA may not be an important consideration

Comparing MQA with non-MQA hires pcm/dsd files gains importance when considering a new dac - should it be MQA-capable or not?
This decision will rest on points 2. and 3.

Enjoy the Music! :)

More to discover