Any News on MQA Lately?

erik_squires

One thing that I should point out to anyone comparing MQA, is that to do it right re-mastering is required. Meaning you have to work your way back to the original multi-track digital files before you can produce a 2 channel MQA product ... when I have heard significant differences what I heard seemed due to this re-mastering and the choices taken at that time

This is a very important point. If you're comparing two versions of a recording, but they are taken from different masters, you really can't make any valid conclusion about things such as whether MQA benefited one of them. There are too many variables.

@ejr1953  If PS Audio wanted to I'm pretty sure they could implement it purely as a software solution for you as could Chord.

Cleeds,you sound spot on. Making MQA just another way to "repackage" music. What else is new?

I hope MQA never gets off the ground.   It's not that the format is flawed, just the people who created it.   

The original plan was to also allow streamers to unpack it and send high res to the DAC of your choice.  Since they now chosen to remove the ability Im no longer interested.  

MQA is bad for music lovers!  Let's let Warner bros know .  

@emailists

Well, read Benchmark's blog on the matter. To them it IS a seriously flawed system. Their points are accurate too, but I'm not sure about audibility.

Personally I was really excited about the "digital origami" idea, when I thought it was lossless.

The good news is that if this is a good idea, then undoubtedly some one will produce an open-source version of the same idea without the flaws or licensing requirements.  Personally I would love to have my music collection take 1/4th it's current size if it could be done without any loss of quality.

Best,

Erik