MQA - Article on what and how

Discussion in 'Digital Sources' started by Drugolf, Sep 29, 2017.

Tags:
  1. Drugolf

    Drugolf AK Subscriber Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,061
    Location:
    Boise
  2. +48V

    +48V hi-fi or die

    Messages:
    2,441
    Location:
    Tega Cay
  3. Condorsat

    Condorsat Audio Enthusiast

    Messages:
    3,953
    Location:
    Ohio
    Nice read. :thumbsup:

    IMHO .... Most relevant quote was first video from Mastering Engineer Eric Boulanger "Most important part is A for authentication" ... cut to the chase ... that's the main reason for opposition would be my guess (from an average consumer point of view).

    Quote from article.
    That's why I would like to see it succeed ... but I will continue to sit on the sidelines for now ... would have to buy MQA compatible DAC & I just bought new Schiit DAC last year.

    Best audio industry reason I heard to oppose was given by Jasson Stoddard & Mike Moffit (Schiit Audio).
    Schiitting on MQA

    IMHO ... this is how they are looking at it ... stifles innovation playing forward.

     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2017
    IPADave likes this.
  4. botrytis

    botrytis Trying not to be a Small Speaker Hoarder Subscriber

    IPADave likes this.
  5. E-Stat

    E-Stat Super Member

    Messages:
    4,002
    I just shake my head at the notion of "lossy high resolution". WTF?

    I have access to MQA content via my Tidal HIFI account. Some versions are clearly sourced from different masters with differing track lengths. As Charles Hansen of Ayre observed: MQA means "more questions than answers". :)
     
  6. Alobar

    Alobar Pulling out of the Last Chance Texaco.. Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,896
    Location:
    SE Alaska
    Boilerplate MQA .. The best advertisement is that which comes masquerading as an article such as this one.
     
    IPADave likes this.
  7. runnin'

    runnin' Super Member

    Messages:
    1,147
    I was going to post, saying the same thing. What Hifi is only pushing an agenda by the sound of it.
     
    IPADave likes this.
  8. nj pheonix

    nj pheonix AK Subscriber Subscriber

    Messages:
    8,080
    Location:
    New Jersey
    I'm happy to sit on the sidelines for now
    (Probably forever):idea:
     
  9. IPADave

    IPADave AK Subscriber Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,456
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    It seems that all of the audio rags are fully on board with MQA. Streophile's John Atkinson in particular is a vocal advocate. I get the sense that he has an erection when he writes about MQA. Even Michael Fremer likes it! Personally I think it's a money grab.

    -Dave
     
  10. dewdude

    dewdude I fix stuff.

    Messages:
    3,077
    Location:
    Manassas, VA
    I never liked the idea. I didn't like the idea when the company released a video saying how it "works". Folding high frequencies in to the noise?

    I have lots of problems with that. For starters, you cannot fold something "under" the noise and expect to recover it. Once it's lost in the noise, it's lost in the noise. So this means they must be actually increasing the noise level in order to create something that can be recovered. It also sounds a lot like spectral band replication; which is never a good idea and just synths the effect of having a missing frequency range.

    Any proprietary format like this is simply a way to make money. It's a bad solution to a problem that doesn't exist in my book. It's all pacebo effect.
     
  11. botrytis

    botrytis Trying not to be a Small Speaker Hoarder Subscriber

    Of course they are. MQA and Meridian (parent company) are throwing money at them. John Atkinson also LOVES Magico speakers and I can't find one blessed thing good about them (so shrill I think they are horns!).

    It used to be honest reviews, now it is playing for the paying audience.
     
  12. botrytis

    botrytis Trying not to be a Small Speaker Hoarder Subscriber

    If you want to get all technical about MQA - https://www.xivero.com/blog/hypothe...per-technical-analysis-of-mqa-by-mqa-limited/

    This paper says it all. MQA is a crap shoot. They say they are getting Masters also, but 'whose' Masters and how can we prove it (we can't we have to take their word for it). Like for instance they was one review comparing high res FLAC to MQA and the MQA file was 3 seconds longer - that mean it was a different master. That means absolutely nothing. This is what MQA is doing getting the choir to preach on MQA and then get the audiophiles (who believe these yahoo's like a God) to buy all in. I was at a recent DCS event and I was asking salient points and 2-3 people there left while mumbling (he is saying bullshit MQA is where it is at). The people from DCS were very political about it but they understand. When you make 80K disc players you need to have an audience as broad as can be.
     

Share This Page