Yes
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
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
- ...
- 166 posts total
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 |
“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. |
1. Foolish new algorithm? - I vote Yes 2. MQA for better sound? - I vote Yes 3. MQA for music industry to milk more money? - I vote Yes 4. MQA enjoyable? - 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. 7. The Best: It's free with Tidal HiFi. Even I don't have a MQA hardware. But my PC can still send MQA to 88.2 Khz, 96 Khz /24bit. My DAC can still decode. Sound better than 44.1Khz/16bit FLAC |
- 166 posts total