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


(Mike) #111

With regard to CD’s, in the 80’s I searched for new “Remastered” editions for that Digital clarity, now I’m searching for the original AAD versions for the analog tape hiss! :joy:


(Mikael Ollars) #112

Haha, impressive!
It seems you kan even play this LP in your SACD-Player! :smiley:

This fresh, re-mastered version of the album is based on the original 16 bit/ 50,35 kHz master tape from 1982, and for the first time the album is made available as a Hybrid SACD

.


(R. Neal) #113

The creators and maintainers beg to differ.

“FLAC supports linear PCM samples with a resolution between 4 and 32 bits per sample.”

MQA is muddying the water.


(Chris ) #114

Not really, MQA is a PCM file in a FLAC wrapper like any other. The MQA information is hidden where there would otherwise just be noise.


#115

FLAC is not “just” a wrapper: it is both a codec and a wrapper.

.mp3 isn’t wrapped in .flac for reasons that are unrelated to how compressed it is. Contrary to what your assertion implies (no, you didn’t say it, I’m not implying you did, I’m just adding this for clarity’s sake), losslessness isn’t a factor of being or not in a flac wrapper, otherwise MQA couldn’t be packed into there…


(Chris ) #116

I know MP3 isn’t wrapped in FLAC, why would anyone… although it can be.
The FLAC wrapper itself is lossless even if the content is Lossy… does that make sense?


(R. Neal) #117

Also, from the link…

FLAC stands out as the fastest and most widely supported lossless audio codec, and the only one that at once is non-proprietary, is unencumbered by patents, has an open-source reference implementation, has a well documented format and API, and has several other independent implementations.


#118

Firstly MQA content is wrapped inside in FLAC file so it can playback almost on any devices that support FLAC playback, whether MQA gets decoded or not in the end.

Because, FLAC is open and free codec, MQA takes advantage without having to pay license fee (smart move!) MQA only charge license free when it gets decoded in the end. It doesn’t matter whether the content is lossy or not, as long the wrapper does not change the contents information, it can get decoded in the end.


#119

have you ever heard the words “ogg”, or “vorbis” ?


(Chris ) #120

Nope… not in my orbit


(rick stehno) #121

So? If it sounds better I’ll support it. Doesn’t that same reasoning apply to analog setups? If you don’t want to support, great, state that and keep your comments to yourself. You won’t convert the people that like it


#122

You (and your ears) aren’t the center of the universe, unfortunately. Neither are mine for that matter, eh.

Not quite. Depending on how you look at it, there’s a question of shift of power that comes with MQA, and makes it especially problematic, so it’s different than, say, some nincompoop getting fleeced by buying magical stones.

If it hadn’t been for a few highly technically competent people commenting, then we’d still be believing the spin that was originally uttered, which turned out to be, let’s say… specious. On the other hand, “I like it so I’ll support it” brings exactly nothing to the discussion.

Indeed. To be quite frank, someone who’s so selfish that they’d be willing to make the compromises that the success of MQA would seem to imply, for the gain that’s offered, doesn’t, personally, interest me on a human level - just not worth my time. This said, there’s hope all the noise will serve to warn those who haven’t drunken the cool-aid, or at least counter the distortions MQA’s copywriters and astroturfers are putting out.


(Daniel Beyer) #123

Not true. That information is hidden in bit 8.


(rick stehno) #124

I wish there were competent people that would come forward and state any flaws MQA might have. I just keep hearing personal opinions and stats that are bogus.
Did you buy into sacd? DSD? Probably not because you would have to spend a few bucks to support these.


#125

Gutted. In my opinion, the compromises are substantially overstated and deliberately so. I don’t see the problems that the anti MQA campaign (cabal) threaten. I like the gain and I’m happy to see how things pan out. I guess were not mates now then but I’d suggest that it’s just a difference of opinion, nothing more.


#126

This link has probably already been posted in this thread, but just in case -


(crenca) #127

Your joking right? In case not:


(crenca) #128

Right, when it comes to High Fidelity, subjective reports and “I like it” are nothingburgers.


(crenca) #129

Here’s the deal: MQA came out with an alleged “birth of a new world” encoding that just happens to be proprietary/DRM. Bunch of folks drank the kool aid. Now it turns out is, as far as lossy encodings go, it’s pretty good “super” MP3. There is nothing to it sound quality wise - there can’t be, it’s just know art (weak filters high IM filters, etc.) that you can get through lots of products already. Beyond that, it has all the cons of a bloated DRM play.

The “I like it” is a nothingburger


(Martin Kelly) #130

You’ve obviously made your position on MQA clear, over numerous posts, and I actually agree with you on many of the points you have made concerning MQA.
However, I think your anti-MQA agenda is starting to become both irritating, and oppressive. We all know how you feel about MQA, and I completely support the notion of ‘free speech’. However, your stance is becoming increasingy repetitive, and demeaning to other contributors.
It’s just my ‘two-cents’, but please could you cease and detest from shooting people down, who actually listen to and enjoy MQA? It’s their choice, and their prerogative. I would say leave them to it, and ‘live and let live’. Peace. Drop the mike…