is MQA the new BetaMax?

[jhwalker]

Sal-

 

I subscribe to Tidal and find it allows me to hear whatever I want, without buying. If I really like it, I buy it in some form. I can be a lot more adventurous that way in trying new music, as there is no risk if I don't like something - I just don't play it again. So I try all sorts of music that I either can't find elsewhere or stuff that is new to me and I'm not sure I'll like.

 

For instance, I just found out about a certain deceased jazz artist I'd never listened to. I loaded about 6 of his albums from Tidal, listened, and now I know which one or two I actually want to buy - and will listen to more than once after I buy them. The others I can forget about (or not) - but the experience costs me no additional outlay and it prevented me from buying a CD that I end up not listening to. I figure I'm saving at least the $20 a month I spend on Tidal that way by "not purchasing" such CDs.

 

My experience, as well. I love being able to check out new releases, new (to me) composers, etc., with no additional outlay. Then, if I like the recording, I can research and buy at my leisure - or wait until a sale comes along to buy, while still enjoying the music in my library

[monteverdi]

Darko's blog is quite sceptic too The MQA revolution: brother, you have to wait (and see) | DAR__KO

[17629]

Maybe I was too?

 

 

Joking or not, I think you're right. I've been making the same argument for years. CD was marketed as better quality that past formats (I know that some don't think CD is a step up from vinyl, but I'm talking about how it was marketed to consumers). Once MP-3 was introduced, the industry started marketing on features, and not SQ. Its a mistake that they're still paying for today, and will probably never recover from. Every other digital entertainment format was marketed on quality and are doing much better. Any typical consumer can tell you why a Blue Ray is better than a regular DVD, why a PS-4 is better than a PS-3, why 1080 is better than 720, why a more powerful PC is better than an older model, etc.... Ask them if they think MP-3 is better than CD and they always say yes. You can put thousands of songs on your iPod. Ask them about sound quality and their face goes blank.

[Miska]

If I see SACD starting to die

 

I wouldn't mind SACD dying, DSD has been freed from the chains for SACD. Physical media is obsolete in general.

 

The way it was explained to me is the HDCD code is inserted into the least significant bit (LSB) of the 16-bit word.

 

Yes, as a result, you get degraded quality if you don't have HDCD decoder. When you do, it doesn't do much help.

 

Luckily you can rip HDCD discs in decoded format. I've ripped mine (all three).

 

The use of the 16th bit for the HDCD command code is inaudible because the code is inserted for only a very small portion of time and because it is used as dither for the remaining 15 bits when it is inserted. This is what makes it compatible with CD players without HDCD decoding.

 

"Compatible", so ruining a bit of quality for majority of listeners to gain almost nothing. That's what I'd call complete crap.

 

Microsoft purchased the technology and killed it for good.

 

 

Last thing open content formats need are hiding "inaudible" information in the LSBs. Be it HDCD, MQA or watermarking.

[snapback77]

A little optimism is called for here. I am hoping that this will end the debate over which sounds better, analog or digital music. If what is said about mqa turns out to be true then we will all be enjoying music the way we did before digital, remember?

[Paul R]

A little optimism is called for here. I am hoping that this will end the debate over which sounds better, analog or digital music. If what is said about mqa turns out to be true then we will all be enjoying music the way we did before digital, remember?

 

YI YI YI!!! Please no. Snap, Crackle, and Pop can keep selling cereal! Just keep them away from my digital world please!

 

A little more seriously, transcoding Redbook to DSD128 or above seems to handle sounding like the best analog in the world to me. But then again, what do I know? (grin)

 

-Paul

[17629]

I wouldn't mind SACD dying, DSD has been freed from the chains for SACD. Physical media is obsolete in general.

 

 

 

Yes, as a result, you get degraded quality if you don't have HDCD decoder. When you do, it doesn't do much help.

 

Luckily you can rip HDCD discs in decoded format. I've ripped mine (all three).

 

 

 

"Compatible", so ruining a bit of quality for majority of listeners to gain almost nothing. That's what I'd call complete crap.

 

Microsoft purchased the technology and killed it for good.

 

 

Last thing open content formats need are hiding "inaudible" information in the LSBs. Be it HDCD, MQA or watermarking.

 

What's your opinion on this? I've felt since SACD was first introduced, that it was a big mistake to give the format the option to make just SACD's or dual layer Redbook/SACD's. If they made them all dual layer, so many people would have been building their collections even if they didn't know it. As the format became more popular, people would find out that they probably had a bunch of these things already, and have been much more open to buying a SACD player and trying the new format. Does that make since?

[Sal1950]

A little optimism is called for here. I am hoping that this will end the debate over which sounds better, analog or digital music. If what is said about mqa turns out to be true then we will all be enjoying music the way we did before digital, remember?

Ya mean with all the RiceKrispies, surface noise, wow&flutter, offset centerholes, warped records, degraded sound with each play, etc, etc, etc. Yep, I still remember and its been about 25 years ago. LOL

[bmoura]

I wouldn't mind SACD dying, DSD has been freed from the chains for SACD. Physical media is obsolete in general.

 

Much as I enjoy SACDs, I think it's pretty clear SACDs will be coming to an end down the road.

 

Today there is only 1 pressing plant left (DADC in Austria) that makes SACD discs. At some point, I'm guessing they will conclude that is no longer cost effective to continue.

 

Same with SACD players - the number of companies supplying SACD drives and chips is also declining. Along with audio companies now offering CD Player + DAC combinations vs. the earlier SACD Player or SACD + DAC products.

 

The good news is that the DSD Download market continues to grow. So we have a good alternative to SACDs already in place.

[bmoura]

What's your opinion on this? I've felt since SACD was first introduced, that it was a big mistake to give the format the option to make just SACD's or dual layer Redbook/SACD's. If they made them all dual layer, so many people would have been building their collections even if they didn't know it. As the format became more popular, people would find out that they probably had a bunch of these things already, and have been much more open to buying a SACD player and trying the new format. Does that make since?

 

It was done that way at the request of the record companies. Universal Music, for example, was very interested in the Single Layer (SACD only) discs as a copy protection method from their perspective as MP3 files became prevalent. In fact, they cited that as the reason (along with Stereo and Surround SACD options) as to why they initially issued SACD discs before issuing DVD Audio titles.

 

Another plus with Single Layer SACDs is that they can be made on many DVD-Video presses vs. the Hybrid Layer SACDs which require special pressing systems.

 

Today, most SACDs are Hybrid (dual layer) releases. The SHM-SACDs from Universal Music Japan being a notable exception.

[bmoura]

Good point. We should all first re-purchase our music collections with this ubiquitously available superior format.

 

For those who want a little lossy and lossless compression applied to their music, MQA could be the way to go.

 

I suspect listeners in pursuit of the best sound, without compression, will stick with 24/96 PCM and DSD 64 and above.

[davidbeinct]

There's not enough MQA out there for it to be the new Betamax. Before Beta disappeared the video rental stores were about 1/3 Beta 2/3 VHS. MQA is not even close to that.

[whoozwah]

Pretty certain all of my music is not going to be available on MQA.

 

Barring redbook, no other format has anywhere near all of my music, not even by a long shot.

 

QFT. When you have a fairly large collection of off-the-beaten-path progressive metal music, you don't expect you'll ever find your music again in any other format (maybe 1 or 2 here and there, nowhere near enough penetration to inspire a full-on format leap). So you do what makes the most sense, stick to redbook.