It would not be MQA studio if the owners of the music are not involved. Just MQA. I would think, with the amount of MQA released recently and the age of some of the music, that MQA studio would not be possible.
So far, I have been overjoyed at the sheer quality of the MQA music I have been hearing so far. So, yep… I’m happy.
MQA is the overall title, as I’ve already explained, there are two levels of authentication. Re read perhaps.
Not at all, people say artists complain MQA is applied to their output. I wonder if they complain MP3 is applied to their output. MQA will at least raise the quality well over and above MP3, and the success of portable MQA DACs attests to this. Higher quality is becoming cool and that’s a great thing, thanks to MQA
You definitely weren’t talking about the “owners of the music” in the post(s) I replied to. You were clearly talking about us mastering engineers. We mastering engineers don’t usually “own the music” we master. It’s hard to believe that you honestly misunderstood this.
No, you haven’t “explained” this at all. This is how you were trying to define the “A” in MQA:
In other words, your “definition” of Master Quality Authentication includes:
a) authenticated music (“signed studio masters”),
b) non-authenticated music that may be authenticated in future releases,
c) non-authenticated music that will never be authenticated.
If “authentication” can also mean b) and c), it doesn’t mean anything anymore.
I completely disagree.
As I see it MQA is a brand name, if you like. It has to be called something and the Studio release speaks for itself.
The standard MQA (Not Studio) has been through the MQA process and is certified as such (authenticated) which means it’s an MQA file free of the pre ringing artefacts and properly rendered by an MQA DAC. The master, properly delivered without transmission artefacts, authenticated.
Much music can never be authenticated beyond this level, but it is what it is and is free of artefacts.
If an Artist owns their music, they would need to sign it off for MQA if they wanted an MQA studio release. They may not be bothered and have more things to do with their time, who knows?
It would be great if the artist was able to sign off all the time wether they own their music rights or not, but that would be a perfect world. There are myriad reasons why this may not happen. I wish it would happen.
In the finish, it’s not up to me to decide as I am only and end user who enjoys what he experiences.
Unfortunately, this doesn’t stop you from trying to tell people who actually work in the music business how this business actually works.
You’re going to have to explain this one to me. What do you mean by “transmission artefacts” and what are the other artefacts it’s free of?
Genuine question.
Do you? Why didn’t you respond to any of my points then? Why did you suddenly come up with a definition that has absolutely nothing to do with the one you provided in your previous post, the post that I replied to?
People ask me, I give my view as I see it, what can I say. I like MQA and enjoy it a lot.
This troubles many on here for some reason. Just the mention of MQA in any thread means I get jumped on as if I have insulted their mother or something.
People will have to accept MQA is a thing and I will mention it if I feel it’s appropriate in any post I like on this forum. Mods can edit it out if they feel like it. That’s up to them.
It’s ridiculous in my opinion that MQA music has its own thread lost in the Audio Products forum and not in Music section. But I digress…
Well the pre ringing or blurring as it’s sometimes referred. You know, the main thing MQA does to make music sound more real (In my opinion and experience)
I do my best on here to state my views. I believe I covered it all in one way or another…
Sorry @Chrislayeruk I’m hard of understanding here. Specifically the meaning of the term “transmission artefacts”. What transmission are you discussing and does this introduce artefacts or are these artefacts that affect “transmission”?
Perhaps because MQA is a product and not music?
And judging by current activity it’s not that lost 
Music is the product, MQA is just a method of delivery to get it to you in peak condition… Personally I won’t listen to music I don’t like just because it’s in MQA. I listen to the Music I like in the format it comes on, but when I find it in MQA it’s a great day…
This endless argument is silly and pointless. Probably 50 percent of threads on this forum regarding SQ somehow end up being about the merits of MQA or lack thereof. Why can’t people just accept the fact that some people don’t like MQA (for various reasons) and others of us do, and let it go at that?
If you like MQA, I recommend you subscribe to Tidal or purchase MQA recordings and equip your music system with a fully capable MQA DAC. If you don’t like MQA, I recommend you not subscribe to Tidal or purchase MQA recordings and don’t equip your music system with a fully capable MQA DAC.
Arguing that someone else should or should not like MQA is pointless at best. Personally, I like MQA but I also like high resolution and CD quality. I find all three nearly equivalent most of the time, but not always. I subscribe to both Tidal and Qobuz and have MQA DACs and non-MQA DACs.
Because it’s a campaign.
Yes, an advertisment campaign.
Crikey, if I’m part of an advertisement campaign, I’m not being paid for it… Perhaps I should ask lol although I think they could do better than me wittering on 
Now, let me think, what companies out there in the big wide world advertise and is that illegal or immoral? Hmmmmmm
And, what companies exist to make a profit? That seems to be an issue for some here. I’m as liberal as most anyone here, but we don’t need socialized music, do we?
We all want wages and for that we need to earn money, perhaps advertise and sell services and stuff… It’s the money go round