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
keithtexas
226 posts
 

Thanks jon2020 for the clarification.

The demo I heard was back and forth, through the same dac (Ayre I believe)

Regards

jon2020's avatar
jon2020
913 posts
 
Thanks, keithtexas, for letting us know that the dac was an Ayre. 

As the Ayre is a non-MQA dac, it is unlikely that they could demo mqa with it. It is probably some other MQA-capable dac on demo.

No worries. At an audio show, many of us including myself, get confused with what is playing in what room at what time. :)
uberwaltz's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
uberwaltz
4,946 posts
 
There will never be a "winner" in this debate
Agreed that everybody should just listen and "hear" what they desire.
There are many more subjects in the audio world with science a plenty to "prove" that what some hear is not possible.
Let us just leave it at that
jon2020's avatar
jon2020
913 posts
 
It is all subjective of course. No one here is looking for any winner from a handful of votes.

People will hear what they want to hear which is perfectly acceptable in this hobby.

Outside of this hobby, people also see what they want to see which is acceptable too.

What I find very interesting is people reading what they want to read. Now, that’s too funny.

Enjoy the music! :)
brianlucey's avatar
brianlucey
58 posts
 
It’s actually not all subjective. Science is a real thing. It allows us to listen to music in the first place as we know and love.

There are facts. There are opinions.

Let us please differentiate between Fact and Feeling

Facts:
Is MQA equal to the source? No. (we can phase flip the source vs MQA and hear this)

So is it lossless, as advertised and patented? No


Feelings:
Is it better? MQA seems subjective on this question only because audiophiles like to have a say in the playback process, with your various playback gear choices. Playback is your art form. Fair enough.

Yet MQA as better is in fact not a subjective topic. It’s not better because if there was a better sound, a skilled engineer would have done that in the processing. And why can I say that? I’m a mastering engineer and my work today is being butchered with MQA

a) Harmonic distortion the we (myself and the label and the artist does not want)
b) Mid Side power and freq changes that we don’t want
c) 8 bits can be removed and replaced with noise and the LED lights up still

Is MQA being "Authenticated" my Mastering Engineers? No. It’s being BULK PROCESSED.

Future:
Is this the best codec science and invention will ever give us? Should be stop innovation now and start paying MQA royalties for DA and Per song?

Should we make all the great DA of the world obsolete based on this subjective sport Audiophiles enjoy playing?


God please, I hope we are smarter than that.


Should Bob and Co have the courage to have a debate with serious people? Yes.
Do they? No.

www.magicgardenmastering.com
More to discover