Recently I had a completely different view of MQA. I had a negative view, and after a heated message between me an another I looked into MQA again to try and form a different perspective in case I was wrong.
I take no credit for this post as it was a message from Danny Dulai on another thread that got me thinking in a different way.
Recently I had a completely different view of MQA. I had a negative view, and after a heated message between me an another I looked into MQA again to try and form a different perspective in case I was wrong.
I take no credit for this post as it was a message from Danny Dulai on another thread that got me thinking in a different way.
Whether I agree or disagree with the business model of MQA, I wish to focus this post on the āAā.
Authenticated music as the artist intended and retaining that sound is a must to me. I think we need to focus on that more.
Equipment standards have to be such to ensure this authenticated music is, well authenticated as intended. This part of MQA I agree with.
This idea should be an industry standard and should be policed to ensure what the artist(s) make and intended is not betrayed by downsampling/upsampling and copying etc. Should this be by means of DRM, no, but it must have means of protecting the songs, albums to prevent quality being degraded or tampered with. The sources of the music, such as streaming services play part in this policing as it must, in my view, be made illegal to alter the music as an artist intended.
Paying for licences to allow supply of this standard is a must, so must a license be required to allow making copies. Equipment manufacturers and software service providers should pay a license fee for the relevant tech to decode the music. We the consumer do our part by paying a fair price for the equipment and the pleasure of listening to the music (stream, download etc). This doesnāt mean equipment manufacturers are stuck with making the same equipment, just the decoding stage should be the same. The conversion to analogue can be as they want I suppose. Services like Roon can be used to correct the equipmentās signature if the user wants to.
I downloaded some MQA classical music from www.2l.no and I was surprised I could copy it. I copied it several times over and each time my Roon NUC and DAC combo unfolded fully to the original quality (I guess) and this shouldnāt be allowed (my view).
These are my views and I wonder how many may share similar views.
Iāve made some upgrade tweaks to my system in the last 24 hours and Iām also hearing a difference in MQA music where I didnāt appreciate it before. Placebo effect, I donāt think it is. Most of the music I listen to via streaming services are on CD in my garage. I dug out my CD transport and compared to the MQA streamed versions and most times I preferred MQA versions.
It could be said that the file sizing of these songs would be enormous if no compression applied. Yes I agree, but for a lot of people I believe broadband caps are unlimited. Mobile devices could just be for offline use only. Bandwidth seems more important to music streaming services from my view and part of the current purpose of MQA.
I could be naĆÆve in this, but if what I write makes sense, makes sense to me. Open to views.
(FYI - since using Roon I have unleashed greater sound quality in both Qobuz, Tidal and own stored music).
Oh, I do appreciate individuals equipment at home may not be what the recording studios used, but could room correction be used to get close to this?