MQA•Foolish New Algorithm? Vote!
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
Willemj, yes I see FLAC is lossless, my error. I have used AIFF files. Does anyone stream DSD or hi-res PCM files? I get the point about does MQA sound better. But that is very subjective, and more importantly I am looking at it as a streaming option. If the freq band capability opens up, MQA will not make sense. |
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. :) |
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. |
......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. |
Yes....for now. MQA seems to fire up alot of people. Many people hate this format because they lose bits. Many people don’t like a flawed format being shoved down their throat, even though Flac, a lossy format and downloads of hi-rez files are easy to do and one does not have to listen to MQA at all. CDs did not push out albums, nor did cassettes or reel to reel tapes or any format, including mp3 files ruin the audio listening experience. 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????? |
Bumping this post from another thread before more votes come in. Editor’s notes say a lot :- johndoe21ro38 posts |