microRendu and MQA

[barrows]

There seems to be a segment of folks here on CA and on other audiophile forums who have convinced themselves that MQA == DRM. The only thing I could say is - do your own research. The facts do not support that conclusion.

 

This would depend on how you define DRM. MQA encoded files deliver below CD quality who played back without MQA decoding, and MQA decoding is closed source requiring a licensed decoder only available in certain products. Because it is closed source, if you purchase MQA files, and you do not have an MQA decoder, you cannot access the content (excepting with sound quality loss). Sounds like DRM to me...

[barrows]

I think it would not be a good idea to buy MQA files. MQA is a fig leaf for the music industry. It gives them a way to offer, thru streaming, something like hi-res and do it using something like DRM. They can say that they are offering listeners a true hi-res experience without exposing the real high resolution master file to the stream of commerce where it would certainly be abused. They learned their lesson after the file sharing debacle and will not make that mistake again. They will never offer a real hi-res file of any commercially viable music. Maybe classical music recorded in an old church in Norway but not any artist that they can count on to sell in large numbers.

 

What! There already are hi res downloads available of lots of commercially viable music with no DRM.

[barrows]

You must have a machine that prints money, take every available MQA track on Tidal and multiply by the cost of a hirez disc and then ad in the cost of a hirez dac. If you prefer DSD rock on but to me its not worth the $$$$$ to buy discs, dacs, and SACD players.

 

If you only get music from Tidal, then you will miss out on music which is not available there... Personally, I would probably not want to listen to more than 10% of the MQA tracks available on Tidal so your math makes 0 sense. I have nothing against streaming services if they serve my needs, but I would not, ever, rely on a streaming service entirely, as this limits my music selections.

[barrows]

Audiophiles should resist MQA, simple as that.  MQA is not bit perfect, and adds artifacts not associated with the original music.  From a technical point of view, MQA is faux high res.  It is bewildering to me that the same people who complain mightily about some hi res downloads and their exact provenance are willing to promote MQA's awful money grabbing policies, exclusivity, and the addition of artifacts to music.

If we do not resist MQA at all points, it may become a standard, and music will suffer for it.  Demand real hi res, not MQA bastardized music.