Testing MQA: Is it worse than FLAC?

[The Computer Audiophile]

On 4/2/2021 at 10:03 AM, saturdayboy said:

What about people who are of the opinion that the MQA versions streaming on Tidal are better than the non MQA?

With all due respect, what about them?

 

How many people are you talking about?

 

If you’re talking about a dozen guys with a Facebook group and the old guard press, that’s hardly enough people on which to base any argument. 

 

If you want to stick with your line of reasoning, what about the people who believe the opposite?

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 4/2/2021 at 10:03 AM, saturdayboy said:

I’m pretty sure that more often than not those are the same masters.

How do you have any idea about this? You’d not only need to talk to who provided the music to the services but also check their work. 

 

 

 

On 4/2/2021 at 10:03 AM, saturdayboy said:

The point is are all those people who think it sounds better wrong, and you’re right?

Again, how many people are you talking about?

 

Its not just him, so you could say, “ are all those people wrong and even more people who disagree with them right?”

 

 

 

 

On 4/2/2021 at 10:03 AM, saturdayboy said:

Is personal taste irrelevant in listening?

 

Personal taste is great. But, MQA Ltd’s stated goal of providing record labels with the technology to replace all existing music with the MQA version means that everyone is stuck with a plain hamburger made with commodity beef. Many people prefer something better, but MQA has removed our choice. 
 

Removing data, adding noise, and forcing people to pay extra for it, isn’t my idea of desirable. 
 

 

Watch this video and tell me if you think MQA is a honest company. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

11 minutes ago, saturdayboy said:

Are you trying to save them from themselves?

I would never want to do that. I’m trying to save pure PCM for myself. Some people here only have access to Tidal. Tidal recently removed tons of pure PCM albums in favor of MQA versions. This leaves consumers without a choice. Pay the MQA tax or hear one’s music sound even worse. 
 

Not cool in my book. 
 

 

If a Tube amp company made a deal with all the record labels that listeners need tube amps, I’d be against that tube amp company. Not because of how they sound but because it removes choice for everyone. 

 

Similarly, if labels mandated 32/384 WAV PCM and removed all other formats for people I’d be against it. MP3 serves a purpose and I support it’s existence. 
 

Perhaps Bob Stuart shouldn’t have said the quiet part out loud, when he told everyone that MQA’s goal was to enable record labels to replace all other versions of music and keep the real masters locked away. Now, it’s up to the record labels to decide what we get. The streaming services have no choice but to accept what’s delivered to them. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

I should also note that comparing formats is preposterous. A white glove converted MQA file can sound better than a sloppily created pure PCM version. Same goes for high resolution versus MP3. The sound of MQA files can easily be duplicated without the MQA process. There’s no need for a proprietary format to accomplish anything it does. Saying MQA sounds good is like saying hamburgers taste good. There are plenty terrible examples of both. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

17 minutes ago, saturdayboy said:

Look who’s part of the big lie!!!

 

https://www.dcsltd.co.uk/dcs-launches-mqa-support-across-product-ranges/

 

Is there a point to that statement? Honestly, help me parse out what you mean.

[The Computer Audiophile]

16 minutes ago, saturdayboy said:

Pretty respected, including here. Why would they do that, and why aren’t you calling them out for perpetuating the lie like you are MQA inc.?

 

13 minutes ago, GoldenOne said:

Because they're a business. 

Because if customers are demanding something, then a manufacturer will do what drives more sales. 

 

See ps audio for example. They support mqa but also have a video where Paul explains he does not like mqa. 

 

Just because a manufacturer makes their products compatible with something it is not a statement of agreement with mqa's marketing claims. 

 

 

Yes.

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, saturdayboy said:

This looks like it was predominantly a stock swap to put some luster on two turds

Square is far from a turd.

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

Sorry, a higher res file compared to a 44.1. I can tell you are a MQA maven. That is a bullshit comparison. Tey a 96/24 REGULAR FLAC version then tell us what you think. This comparison is crap.

Perhaps you misunderstood Charles?

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, saturdayboy said:

Just pointing out that prices for hi res streaming are dropping, and MQA has done little to effect that. btw - TIDAL dropped their prices again today.

 

Yes, Tidal lowered prices for CD quality, but kept the mQa tax on its HiFi Plus tier. CD quality is $10 per month and mQa is $20.