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

Showing 12 responses by lalitk

Yes for now until we (consumers) are given more options to stream high resolution streaming.

I am tired of double, triple dipping of our favorite music in tapes, records, CD’s and don’t even get me started on the ridiculous cost of high res downloads.

This just in....Aurender N10/N100/W20 owners now able to purchase MQA Core Decoder license from within the Aurender Conductor app for $54.99.

This will allow users to hear MQA coded files at 88.2kHz or 96kHz sample rate through a non-MQA compatiable DAC’s.

http://www.aurender.com/blog/new-software-release-note-4/post/system-sw-4-5-11-36-app-2-9-3-93-189


@jon2020,

Aurender owners have an option to enable/disabled MQA Core Decoder within the Conductor app. From what I heard so far, the decoder is staying enabled.
@georgehifi,

I can’t speak about what transpired in A10...in my N10, I can clearly discern the audible differences between MQA coded file at 96kHz and it’s 44.1kHz counterpart file by enabling and disabling MQA Core decoder.

Now, let me get back to enjoying the fabulous MQA files 😉
@jon2020,

Dang it....I lost track of what is this poster about 😆

“If you feel this is truly about “better sound” - vote Yes”
@georgehifi,

“Have you got Stereophiles measuring equipment? As this is what it’s all about!!”

And how do you know Stereophile is not paid to keep MQA controversial? After all the article is getting all the attention of non-MQA users...LOL!!!


@jon2020,

I don’t feel the need to further investigate or loose my sleep over $54.99 MQA Core Decoder upgrade. To my ears, most MQA coded files easily yield audible improvements in my system over Tidal 16bit/44.1kHz files.

And to answer your earlier question about why not compare MQA 96 vs non-MQA 96 PCM coded files is pretty simple...why pay for 96 PCM files when I can enjoy just as good MQA 96 files at no additional charge.

As you said, “It is never necessary to compare what you are enjoying with anything else :)”
@crwilli57,

Is your assessment based on real time comparison between MQA files and FLAC/DSD recordings in your system or hearsay? 
“Trouble is you can’t tell if it works by switching it off“

Who cares if it works or not, all I care is whether MQA files sounds better than the other competing streaming resolution or not. To my ears and in my system, they do.

If MQA is so bad then why in earth, HDTRACKS, Acoustic Sounds and others are still on fence to offer high resolution streaming? Thanks to MQA, I have a choice not to pay $16-24 for high resolution downloads.

In the absence of any real competition, MQA should prevail and hope it becomes the standard of high resolution streaming.


@jon2020,

Thanks for sharing the news on HRA hi-res streaming. It’s would be very interesting to read reports on how hi-res streaming stacks up against MQA. I have been anxiously waiting on Qobuz to enter US territory for a while. 

HDTracks announced their plans to introduce hi-res streaming late last year but since then we have heard nothing.