Jussi posted his results showing open source FLAC compression could create files smaller than MQA with equivalent resolution in January 2016. He also expressed concerns about leaky filters at that time, which were subsequently substantiated by Archimago’s testing linked in Crenca’s post above.
2 Likes
They can do DRM without mqa also, they did it before. I the music industry believes DRM is a part of it further it will implement it regardless of MQA or not and limit you to aac.
Sorry, don’t understand your point in this reply to my post.
Thanks for your opinion and suggestion, but I won’t be taking you up on your offer. A clarification: I am not “shooting anybody down”, I am keeping it about ideas: how MQA came to market, how the market reacted in a generic way, etc. You’re the one making it personal, and asking me to “cease and desist” because you find such analysis “oppressive”. In fact, I believe your post violates community guidelines, certainly in spirit and even in letter. However I think you just made a mistake and I am not going to flag your post… 
1 Like
That’s how progress happens though. Yes we take bad turns as well but hey we are only human afterall.
MQA is not another choice like PCM, DSD, and even MP3 and AAC. It is a play at the level of format and standard. It is an attempt to limit choice, not expand it. See the technical articles linked on this thread…
3 Likes
I think the term ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ springs to mind… 
1 Like
I wonder why? Say more…
You talk about MQA being ‘a play at the level of format and standard’. It is not. Period.
The definition of ‘Format’ when it comes to music includes definitions such as ‘Vinyl’, ‘CD’, ‘Minidisc’ and ‘Download’. MQA cannot assume the definition of ‘Format’. Yes, there are MQA downloads/streams, but they remain that - downloads, or ‘streams’, and are ultimately subservient to that particular taxonomy. MQA cannot, therefore, presume to be a ‘Format’.
‘Standard’? The term ‘Standard’ implies that it will be the only single accepted standard, a bit like the CD RedBook ‘Standard. That is, frankly, unachievable for any type of music download/stream today. Many different types and variations of downloadable file/stream exist in the ecosystem today, including MP3, AAC and FLAC. MQA is but one of those. And it cannot, and will not replace all of those. That’s an impossibility. Therefore, ipso facto MQA cannot be, and cannot become a ‘standard’ for digital music distribution/consumption.
MQA is simply a player in the market, nothing more, nothing less.
And it will either succeed or fail, a bit like MLP or DSD.
Time will tell. But in the meantime, I’m glad it’s here.
Time will tell. As always…
1 Like
Hey, you used Latin! 
Your logic might be valid (not that I parsed it that closely) but your conclusion is false.
In a software and digital context, a format/standard is what is at bottom. It’s the ground upon which everything else in the software/hardware computing environment is built. TCP/IP and HTML are examples. No matter what product (from a high level browser, underneath that to your OS, and underneath that…) your using to read this text right now, your can do so because of these formats/standards. PCM is the standard in our (digital) music ecosystem (DSD is more like a tangent “use case”). MP3 and AAC are built upon the open PCM format/standard. MQA is as well, but it is an attempt to “manage” the standard in such a way that limits it and consumers - not expand it. It is a DRM play.
It can easily replace open PCM as the dominant format. All that needs to happen is that the big 3 decide that they are only going to release music going forward in MQA (or anything else like it). The big 3 are all significant shareholders in MQA Ltd. MQA was built, from the beginning, to be DRM - that’s what it is, that’s the purpose of its design. It might be a failed DRM play, depending on what happens, but it is DRM rather it is successful or not, or even as just a niche player in a larger market.
3 Likes
Although currently only available for subscribers of the German magazine c´t of Heise and of course only of interest for those who can read German, I would like to refer to a very interesting article in the current issue of this magazine on the merits of MQA: https://www.heise.de/select/ct/2019/7/1553848329916615
c´t concludes that 24 bit MQA streaming with at least 48 kHz has certain advantages over normal CD 16 bit quality concerning noise properties but that this advantages could also be obtained with normal FLAC streaming at at least 24bit/48kHz. c´t considers MQA to be not lossy. C´t doesn’t see a sound revolution in MQA but acknowledges positively the provided “dithering with digital signature”.
1 Like
It is in the eyes of MQA Ltd. They have indicated such. It’s not debatable.
I disagree. And don’t forget that MLP ‘failed’ with DVD-A. Nothing is set in stone.
You can’t really disagree with there corporate goals and plan. It is what it is.
1 Like
Who cares what masterings are used. If MQA uses a certain master and it sounds better then MQA sounds better. If vinyl uses a different master and sound better, then use vinyl. We have no control what engineer uses for the master, all we can do is listen to the end product and judge for ourselves.
I compared MQA vs redbook, hires, and vinyl, sold my $14k tt setup and prefer MQA
3 Likes
I thought that old threads were automatically locked? Difficult to see the point of this resurrected one continuing. Can the Mods close it please.
2 Likes
MLP was sold to Dolby I believe and is the basis for Dolby Tru HD. That’s a big fail then 
1 Like
Well. Not a ‘fail’ as far as Dolby-HD is concerned. But DVD-A didn’t last.
I think that was my point 
That logic makes no sense. That is like saying if an MP3 album uses a certain mastering and sounds better than a 24/96 album using a different mastering, then MP3 sounds better than 24/96.
1 Like
Nor did SACD, the iPod and MP3 won that war due to convenience. But both other formats sounded great.