MQA•Foolish New Algorithm? Vote!
As others have said, cannot we just get back to enjoying the music, no matter how we do it? I really do hope so...That’s the best thing you said. Why can’t we have our music as it was played, as close as possible to live, least untouched by all this processing. No sounds in real life are compressed, birds singing, jets flying over head, cars doing burnouts, why then do we want to stuff-up our music with compression and other forms of processing. ??????? Cheers George |
brianlucey https://sjdpacvictoria.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/clapping-hands-emoji.jpg Cheers George |
Now MQA is trying to suck in the "anti compression" audiophiles like myself, by adding this. " If you’re an audiophile who dislikes anything that smells of compression, MQA has added a "deblurring" feature. Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-benefits-and-costs#dbScRpdWEbkRZD17.99 Trouble is you can’t tell if it works by switching it off. " There’s one problem: We have no way of separating MQA’s deblurring sweetener from its compression medicine, and thus no way to critically listen to and test each process in isolation from the other. Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-benefits-and-costs#dbScRpdWEbkRZD17.99 Cheers George |
The industry never learned from the failure of HDCD HDCD didn’t fail, it was a great success, and worked far better than MQA and you didn’t pay for it, until Microsoft bought it from PMD ( Pacific Microsonic Devices) and then did nothing with it and let it die. But thank god now Professor Kieth Johnson the inventor of it I believe has bought it back of Microsoft, I and is using once again in his incredible sounding 24/96 pcm "Reference Recordings", that MQA can’t come close to in sound quality. BTW: there are thousands upon thousands of HDCD recording out there, many of which are not labelled the the HDCD logo. Cheers George |
roberjerman Can't find it can you post up a link to it? Cheers George. |
@lalitk, Stereophile were pro MQA, until recently when they started doing measurements, now they'er sitting on the fence a bit. They could have blown the $5.5K Aurender A10 thing wide open, they even asking Aurender to comment on this sly slip of the hand, but they refused to reply to what Stereophile found. I praised JA for telling it publicly, even if it was on the quiet. Cheers George |
lalitk How do you know, all the filtering has been switched off when not in MQA but PCM 44.1?? (you think it is) Have you got Stereophiles measuring equipment? As this is what it’s all about!! Cheers George |
lalitk876 postsYes, it can be disabled. In the $5.5K Aurender A10, MQA did switched off, but part of the MQA’s filtering remained active in the Stereophile tests when measuring/playing non MQA files, and no different firmwares fixed the problem. The filters that remained hobbled the non MQA sound for the worse. One must ask the question, is this done on purpose? to make MQA look/sound good compared to non MQA?? Cheers George |
THIS IS BS!!!! STOP ALL VOTING!! THIS THREAD SHOULD BE SHUT DOWN AND RESTARTED PROPERLY, AS IT COULD DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD. AS THE TITLE OF THE THREAD IS IN DIRECT OPPOSITION TO THE "YES" "NO" VOTING CRITERIA IN THE POST, DEPENDING HOW ONE READS IT kalali1,033 posts03-06-2018 12:27amAll I can say is an MQA version of an album sounds better than a non-MQA version of the same album. Same system same volume.Be very careful how you conduct MQA vs Non MQA A/B’s on the same unit, as it was found that on the new $5.5K Aurender, that some of the MQA filtering was still on, and "hobbled" non MQA albums. This was still the case even after getting numerous new firmware’s to fix it. https://www.stereophile.com/content/aurender-a10-network-music-playerserver Cheers George |
