MQA•Foolish New Algorithm? Vote!

Yes, for me it's most noticeable improvement is in the albums of the 60's 70's 80's. It seems to reduce the nose floor, and the extraneous sounds of some of the recording gear or recording enviroment. Some of the MQA files I'd listened to barely sound different or improved. I've given up comparing MQA to non MQA files,  and generally select the MQA when given an option. 

I prefer SACD and DSD for SQ. MQA is not the be all and end all, I imagine it to be a stepping stone in the eventual realization of the digital format.

I didn't realize that master tapes would be batch processed in MQA. And I had imagined that with new releases, the album engineer would have been involved in the MQA process. And I'm surprised to read here that there is less data being steamed. But being said, it could be a cost/bandwidth saving for the streaming company.

I also think that given time we will be able to stream DSD quality.  MQA might evolve,  but digital files, streaming and down-loading are the winners here. Although vynal is fantastic, I haven't spun a disc in 18 months....

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. 

Hi @lalitk ,

I have not heard MQA on my system. I don't think that is very relevant in the big scheme of things. There are so many variations in the recording and mastering of music that I highly doubt that MQA can "improve" how music sounds with an algorithmic approach. Testers also found this to be true when trying different recordings. You have to change the algorithm, blah blah blah, but that works on one recording but not another. The reality is that the quality of music is mostly determined by the recording and mastering process. I have heard CDs from the 90s that sound fantastic as-is. My opinion is that music producers need to focus on the recording and mastering of music and that the representation of that music should try to stay true to the original recording. Any post processing will be an interpretation of the original, which will work for some cases but not others, and will also add artifacts to the music. All of the arguments I've seen so far seem similar to cases where the measured results show an early roll off in frequency response yet testers claim that equipment sounds great. I don't buy into such claims. I feel that good test results are a necessary but not sufficient condition for equipment to sound good. This has to be supplemented by listening to confirm that it does indeed sound good. This is my opinion and I am sure others feel differently. To each his own.

With 5G around the corner, I can’t help but wonder why we’ll need any more “lossy” manipulations?

I can't believe MQA has gained so much traction, more significant mprovements are available through well engineered digital filters which don't seek to monopolize the recording process.