So you say, but I disagree and am happy to have MQA available on Tidal.
Interestingly, so many fine sounding MQA files are 44 k/24 and as such according to your definition, not high res at all. (Ok, only just)
The thing is MQA is MQA, the sound of the studio and the frequency rate is of no consequence to the listener. (Beyond an academic interest).
If you like some Jazz try this
This is a pretty good example of that MQA marketing non sense.
That is why they are on their road to nowhere.
Why should a CD sound different than a 16/44 FLAC file? It IS the same.
It will sound the same, it is the same.
The point is that it the mastering quality that makes the difference. I have a bunch of CD rips that sound better than 24/192 files just because the mastering used on the CD are superior to the mastering used for the 24/192 files.
All MQA really does is use less bandwidth for high res releases. If MQA sounds better, it is because you like the mastering better. It is really that simple.
If only it was that simple. MQA is applied to the final master and it’s the removal of the pre ringing that adds to it.
Careful Mastering and recording is a given.
It is that simple. I listened to plenty of MQA masterings that sucked compared to CD masterings or SACD masterings I have and preferred the CD or SACD. I also listened to many MQA masterings that were better than CD masterings I have or Tidal non-MQA albums.
The most important element in sound quality is the mastering and will always be the mastering. Not MQA, DSD, or 24/192. If you think otherwise, all you have done is bought into the MQA hype.
We agree on the mastering issue, MQA is the final step for delivery
Oh, I see, not intendend, so it must be an accident. Maybe the programmer has slept on his keyboard and by coincidence he inserted code for DRM.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
AJ
This doesn’t require a new distribution format at all. Apodizing upsampling filters have been doing this for over a decade already… You can do the same for all RedBook and HiRes material.
MQA just doesn’t have any functional point. Downloads in MQA cost 2€ more per album than the original hires. And have gone through lossy compression…
Upsampling filters are better without the MQA’s very limited ones.
Yes
No the don’t
Not they ones developed specifically for MQA.
In the music industry it was always about money.
Stereo microphones were invented, because the producer could tell the musicians, it is only a mono recording. So the musicians were payed less money.
Many HiRes files are not better masters, just upsampled. The AES has written software to detect this. Because they consider it as a problem. Madonna CDs as example.
Why is it not possible to do the final unfolding in software? Why must it be done in hardware, directly on a DAC?
Some very rich people invest in MQA. They do not care about the music. They just want a return of investment.
Do you really believe, there is another background than just make more money for some people?
Because that’s how it works if you look into it. The DAC is a gateway that introduces distortion and for MQA to compensate an MQA aware DAC is required.
It’s not a software only product, although you can enjoy the benefits of first unfold into a generic DAC of your choice or preference. Some may even prefer that particular distortion.
You can use systems for a purpose other than what they have been commonly used for in the past if they are the tools for the job.
I have hammers that I use skilfully when needed, I don’t go around smashing things up.
Of course it can be done in software, it is just upsampling with MQA’s filters. But they need to give some advantage to DAC manufacturers so they charge for the feature and badge.
However, MQA is distortion generator itself, so you gain added noise and distortion with it compared to the original.
But if you want, you can find the MQA DAC side filters here:
Exactly my point. It is all about money. Like that they can ask for license fees for every device sold.
I know, it is easy possible to implement in software, but MQA inc does not want it.
Hell, if they did it in software they’d have to do away with the entire pretense of some magic sauce in the encoded files and simply apply the filters to unmolested files.
The MQA detractors really get tiresome. Why not let those of us who like MQA enjoy it and move on to something else you can be positive about? We get it, you don’t like MQA. Fine.