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
laserjock1963
139 posts
 
I have Tidal and Gen1 and Gen2 Bluesound Nodes.
MQA is like a free bonus to me.
I haven’t done any critical testing but I listen to the MQA version when available through the analog outputs and use Pure Direct and it sounds good to me.

I have quite a few DVD-A and SACD discs and thouroghly enjoy them as well. (5.1 surround is quite enjoyable at times)

Now, if I could just find time to unpack the Revels and get them in the mix would be great.
Enjoy

Chris


ptss OP
1,964 posts
 
Pmotz. Thank you for pointing out the conflict. An important point. New “improved” question coming soon. Thanks to all. Very interesting re Tidal!
headphonedreams
523 posts
 
Yes. I think the key thing is trying to get better sound than 16/44 with the same or lower bitrate, and they might have done that.
jon2020's avatar
jon2020
985 posts
 
If I understand it correctly,  MQA is higher bit rate than 16/44.
ejr1953
907 posts
 
IMO, it's not a clear "yes" or "no".

To me, most of the MQA remasters DO sound better, but not all of them.

Using jon2020's list:

1. Foolish new algorithm? - I vote No
2. MQA for better sound? - I vote Yes more than No
3. MQA for music industry to milk more money? - I vote Yes
4. MQA enjoyable? - I vote Yes
5. Is MQA Tidal better than non-MQA Tidal? - I vote Yes
6. Is MQA better than non-MQA native hires PCM and DSD?
- I vote No (especially compared to DSD).

I'm beginning to wonder if the reason my SACD/CD player sounds the best is that I have a PS Audio DirectStream DAC & transport, with the I2S interconnects...which from what I'm learning, separates the musical bits from the timing, making the timing more accurate.  I'm wondering if adding a "reclocker" to my USB path from the source to the DAC will produce the same level of sound quality that I'm enjoying with the I2S linked products.

At some point I'll probably spring for some reclocking device.
More to discover