Don’t listen to the naysayers about how MQA is crap

(Jeff) #91

Meridian has always used similar filters to MQA so I would hope it sounds good to owners as that’s the sound they obviously prefer.

My cousin thinks his Sonos bar thingy is the best sounding speaker system ever. He has zero point of reference, so I believe him.


That is my concern, so since we have many MQA experts (no snark intended) gathered here I would like to ask a question of anybody.

If a DRM-like scheme is instituted would it still be possible to extract the music for ripping to disk or is it at that point to tightly integrated with DRM that it can’t be recovered?

These arguments about whether MQA sounds better or worse than RedBook, etc. are a fool’s errand. Since the experience is subjective (like interconnects, streamers, power cables, etc.), there’s no answer one way or the other. Let everyone listen the way they want. Personally, I never use MQA as a matter of principal, and sonics.

(crenca) #93

That is the point, but without a “tightly integrated cypher scheme” like Apple tried more than 10 years ago now. What you would extract (and you can do this easily enough today) is a kind of super MP3 - something very close to 16/44 (less so to say, 17/96) but not quite. Lot’s could be said here. You “possess” a reasonable facsimile, but not the original. The labels can tell their investors “we fixed the pirating problem - consumers now have something close but no cigar to our “crown jewel” masters”. The trade publications can say “we audiophiles now have an end to end recording that is perceptually the same thing as a hi res master, even if it is not exactly the same as a hi res master”, everyone can say “we don’t need lossless mp3 AAC streaming any more - the masses can now enjoy ‘hi res’ without the downsides”.

That was how it was supposed to work out, and that is how MQA wanted to sell itself to the market. The devil is in the details. A super MP3 is still an lossy encoding. DRM is still not in the consumers interests in any real way. MQA still is a rent seeking licensing scheme along the entire recording/delivery/manufacturing/end user chain. So MQA does not really deliver very well on the pros even from a label perspective, but certainly delivers on the cons as a $licensing$ scheme…


Thanks for the reply.

If I read it correctly, yes it can be extracted but it’s sh*t. So not really a copy protection scheme for people that don’t care about the quality of the music. For the rest of us, it’s all down hill from here.

For those that say DRM will never happen, my reply is if they can do it they will do it. All that’s happening now, MQA-CDs for example, are just a prelude.

Today, in Amerika, the division is between what’s good for a political party and what’s good for the country. For the MQA fanboys (whether the sonics are truly improved or not) there’s a parallel there.:neutral_face:

(crenca) #95

Well, sort of. Is it as good as the original, 16/44 or above? No, but that is the point. Is it darn close? Yep. Can a golden ear audiophile listening to his $6k headphone rig (like me :wink: ) tell the difference when the masters are the same (something that many skip over in their subjective listening reports) between MQA and the equivalent 16/44 or hi res? Sometimes, barely. If the music has sufficient HF content I can start to hear the HF f&^*ery that the MQA folding process introduces. But I am 1 out of a 1000, one out of a million. Most people don’t have $6k HP rigs. Most folks don’t even have Roon and/or a “mid fi” system. Most people listen to mp3/aac music with phones and earbuds made in China with about $1 in parts. For them it works.

Which brings us to the irony: Bob S background an experience was in Audiophiledom, so he knew how to sell this superMP3 to audiophiles who are always and willing to purchase anything, no matter how dubious, for a sound quality tweak that only they usually can hear. They talk about “veils” being lifted and other nonsense, and they convince themselves quite easily that the fad tweak of the week does absolute wonders to their systems.

In other words, the very people who should have been least interested in a superMP3 are the very people Bob S choose as his “market opinion leaders”, and of course he was right.

(rick stehno) #96

Now Bob S. Is a liar. When does this propaganda stop? Just like somebody else noted, if you don’t like it, then say you don’t like it and drop it. No need for bogus reasons that are incorrect. When most of us say we like MQA, we don’t come up with bogus reasons why it’s better. We let our ears do the judging


Amen. Like letting your nose do the judging of that fine white powder the nice guy on the street corner gave you for cheap is always the right way to examine a problem. Who cares what’s in the baggy, plus, the guy seemed nice so why would he do anything bad ?

And if you’re thinking of quitting, or that smoking isn’t good for you, don’t forget that more doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette.

(Chris ) #98

I would use my nose on a nice Malbec for sure… Quality assured :joy:


You mean that drink whose quality has been proven to mostly derive from the sticker, with experts having trouble telling the difference between bottles ? :stuck_out_tongue:

(Chris ) #100

The taste is also influenced by the music you play… :sunglasses:


There is no Meridian in my system and MQA sounds great. Thin, what a joke;.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

(R. Neal) #103

Recording, mixing and mastering matter most. Done properly it sounds great on 16/44.1, MQA, and even 320k mp3.

Crappy recording, mixing and mastering (not to mention crappy playing, singing, songwriting, arranging and instrumentation) sound crappy on all formats.

MQA is a distraction, designed to extract profits from every step in the process, for the benefit of a few at the expense of everyone else.

FLAC is the correct, proper, open standard going forward.

(Mike) #104

Agreed. Once you go FLAC, you never go back.

(Chris ) #105

FLAC is not a format, it is a lossless file compression system that works for any format. MQA on Tidal comes in a FLAC wrapper as does CD. MP3 is so compressed being truly Lossy it doesn’t need FLAC.

(Chris ) #106

This should stir the pot. An MQA LP.

(Martin Kelly) #107

WHAT next!


The problem with modern LP pressing is majority are mastered from digital masters not analog masters, you don’t get the true analog mastering effects. There are only a small handful of LP mastered from analog master tapes…

Whether it is MQA or PCM they all based on digital recording. Obviously they are going to be have ‘digital sound’ as opposed to analog sound from analog recording.

(Chris ) #109

I know this to be true, hence old vinyl is what those ‘in the know’ collect for Lossy analog sound they love so much. :joy:


By the way analog in strict sense is not lossy while digital is only lossless between the defined boundary. Anything beyond the defined boundary is not captured at all, thus it is completely cut of information.