MQA is Vaporware

[sp25]

I'm fairly new to the "party" round mqa and the loudness war in general. My misconceptions have been a) that the latest remaster is the best b) that louder is generally better c) that streaming music could replace my own collection d) that its worth investing in mqa hardware. What a dogs dinner that our beloved music, which to us are works of art, are generally being treated as product to re-sell over and over and with no consideration to hi-fi outside of marketing. If the original work is being compromised I see little value in spending thousands trying to upgrade my hi-fi system, its a dead end. There's still great music to listen to fortunately, just have to make the best of a bad job and try and spread the word about what hi-fi is!

[sp25]

30 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

tell the distributors that we will NOT tolerate any more garbage being sold as recordings.

 

The push really ought to come from the artists but they'd mostly sold out by 1975! As Frank Zappa humorously played "We're only in it for the money"! Seriously its also a matter of education and being able to hear how better music sounds done well. The irony of the revival in vinyl sales is that again its been driven by marketing as a cool thing to do and then its played on a cheap turntable with rubbish gear and the real value of vinyl missed.....

I should add to my list of misconceptions earlier e) that Hi-Res recordings would be the best available. Bit of a rude awakening after investing time and money in project Hi-Res. The good ones remain good just no guarantee....

[sp25]

At best it would be good if we had the choice to listen in MQA or not ie there was a button to press to turn it off or on and those that like the sound can have it, or not. Same as at the moment I have a simple tube pre-amp because I like the sound, not true hi-fi but I can use it or not, or to give an even more obvious example I might like like to listen with my speakers facing me or turned out a bit. None of its like being in the studio but I can choose my best sound for me.

[sp25]

I expect this has been done already, but for any boycott Tidal, boycott MQA campaign to gather ground there needs to be a relatively non-technical summary of this that I and other enthusiasts who haven't time or patience to read and absorb the finer details can understand, and also an easily accessible location point eg on this site. Both sides of the debate can too easily blind with science/BS!. Education, Education, Education. While we are at it can we have a boycott compression campaign too LOL

[sp25]

18 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

 

Put in its simplest terms, MQA wants to control the music distribution chain, and you will pay them for this.  You will get no benefit from this.  They will tell you that there is all kinds of magic that they perform that makes it better than the original, but it is all BS.  They want to eliminate non MQA music so you will not be able to compare.

If you are not a MQA believer Tidal has become totally useless.

Warner seems to be the spearhead behind the push to force MQA on the music consumer.  MQA needs the clout of the studios to be able to force MQA on the music consumer. Jbara moved to MQA from Warner.

Concentrating on Warner and not diluting the action elsewhere would have the best effect.

A strong and effective boycott Warner movement would send a message.

 

This thread has a wealth of information on MQA.  It is long but it shows MQA's actions through time.

Thanks for the summary, maybe it would be useful for there to be a web page or site dedicated to explaining the issues, not many are going to wade through it all and we all have different technical knowledge. One of the main problems is actually getting to hear MQA, I haven't because I don't have the hardware, but its a point of principle not to filter our great music (or compress it first!) without giving us the choice.

[sp25]

9 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Here are some pieces of information.

 

 

Thanks I'll try and find time for a closer look, I was thinking of something perhaps less technical, that enthusiasts, dealers, suppliers etc etc could refer too as part of any campaign to keep our music free of corruption. I appreciate a technical proof is valuable but might get more popular support keeping it simple. Seems like both sides have endless technical "proof"

[sp25]

11 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

The other side has NO PROOF. The MQA-shills (sorry I show my disgust at them) just have marketing speak. They offer no proof. They never do any double blind listening tests. The tests (e.g. Archimago's test) that have been done with MQA files is a crap shoot and why would I pay more for a file that sounds worse? I mean and need a new DAC and software for decoding?

 

Tell me how that seems like a good idea?

The music labels have had a monopoly on the distribution of music since 78 records! With file sharing and streaming thats gone as is their ability to charge/overcharge (eg CDs) sell and sell again the same product. Shame Tidal has gone down that road but as has been said it seem to be a front for the labels.

[sp25]

3 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

It seems what has been reported here is the labels are sending MQA files as regular high res FLAC to the streaming services. So people are paying extra to stream rhigh res FLAC files and getting shit MQA instead. Isn't that a bait an switch?

Certainly a lack of transparency! and transparency in music and in what we are being sold is what we want! It does seem to stink