Jump to content
IGNORED

MQA is Vaporware


Recommended Posts

If it is simply a matter of choice, I really don't care what someone else chooses.  The business model of MQA is to become the de facto standard for distributing music, giving MQA control of the music industry.  And every music consumer will have to pay.

Boycott Warner

Boycott Tidal

Boycott Roon

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Daccord said:

A while ago I went through my album "favourites" on Tidal and made sure I didn't have any MQA material. If I couldn't replace an MQA album with the redbook version I removed it from my collection. I've just taken another look and my favourites list now contains quite a few MQA albums. That's it, Tidal subscription ends today.

 

Unless you are a MQA believer, it seems like Tidal is pretty much useless now.

Boycott Warner

Boycott Tidal

Boycott Roon

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

 

That's great!

 

The people of Flint didn't have to pay extra for what was in their water!

I have no idea what you’re blathering on about but your observation doesn’t seem very keen to me. Chris said people paid a “Tax” to listen to MQA and I asked him what that was because I’m not. How about if you stand down on my question until we hear back from him?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

The FLAC container is a lossless system.  The MQA file inside is lossy.  And corrupts the original music, no matter what Bob says. 

 

I hope we are not seeing a resurgence of the MQA BS.  My hip boots are in storage.

The xiph.org site states:

  • FLAC should be lossless. This seems obvious but lossy compression seems to creep into every audio codec. This goal also means that flacshould stay archival quality and be truly lossless for all input. Testing of releases should be thorough.

How can MQA then wrap a lossy file inside without xiph reacting ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, daverich4 said:

I have no idea what you’re blathering on about but your observation doesn’t seem very keen to me. Chris said people paid a “Tax” to listen to MQA and I asked him what that was because I’m not. How about if you stand down on my question until we hear back from him?

 

There’s no free lunch. A screenshot posted a few pages back shows the added cost for MQA on Tidal, most hardware with MQA costs the manufacturer a fee they pay MQA. I say most because MQA gave a few manufacturers a free pass by not charging them per unit. 
 

All costs are passed on to consumers on way or another. 

Founder of Audiophile Style

Announcing The Audiophile Style Podcast

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tintinabulum said:

Not really it's very tired stuff, very lame. But hey, keep on banging the drum, nobody's listening.

So you'll promise to put this thread on ignore then? That's GREAT, you're a poor listener anyway.

no-mqa-sm.jpg

Boycott Radio Paradise

Boycott TIDAL

Boycott Warner Music Group

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

The people that don't have MQA decoders, what do they get, besides crippled music?

I basically agree, but most of the time, WITH MQA we are getting just as much REAL crippling as without MQA.   The amount of effective bit-error from the extreme compression (works out to about 15-20dB) that wobbles all around, and cannot be undone with a normal expander is MUCH greater than what MQA does alone.   However, MQA is yet another layer/enabling technology that potentially can add access controls.   A few bits of noise is less consequential than the distorted signals that are being tolerated.  I can get similar to 18bits of audible performance from 16bit material already -- however controversial some people might believe that my solution is -- it is real, by virtue of the strategies of the industry.   Wierdly, if current industiry misbehaviors continue, I can subvert those few bits of MQA distortion, yet get better *audible* quality than MQA decoding itself.

 

Perhaps MQA should be thought of as a step too far.   MQA does NOT guarantee quality -- period.   Whatever traceability devolves into being specious.  The only 'advantage' is using the technology as a kind of access control in the future.  (No MQA advocates do any  blah blah about access controls not being added yet --- that isn't the jist of what I am writing here.)

 

John

 

ADD-ON:   Sorry about the apparent crankyness...   People CAN enjoy these recordings -- no matter.    There is a *big difference* between enjoying a recording vs. a high fidelity hobby.   About the time of CD and poor quality digital downloads, a TRUE high-fi and audiophile hobby tended to bifurcate.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...