MQA disappointing


#1179

We will keep listening to the ~15,000 MQA releases that we enjoy and generally agree sound better than the standard CD version. You can keep sounding off about what you don’t like about MQA with the knowledge that you have absolutely no say as to whether it continues to grow in the marketplace.


(Martin Kelly) #1180

But it doesn’t make you ‘right’ with regard to the facts now, does it? The fact is, as I’ve said before, is that there are supporters of MQA, and there are detractors. Some people are of the opinion that MQA sounds better than other formats. And that their ‘truth’.


#1182

It may have been (past tense) but not any more, all that has been said. This is reiteration at best , opinion and campaigning more like


(Martin Kelly) #1183

Heard it all before. Read it all before.
I just trust my ears. And MQA sounds OK IMO.


(Jeremy) #1186

/MQA authenticate on

If a Roon post is flaggd is that like the blu audenticated lite with MQA?

Shud we B diskusing ownly authentikrated pusts vat R mustard kwalitee and de-burped?

/MQA authenticate off

Woot it works!


(crenca) #1187

Going from memory here, but folks have chopped 8 bits (of 24) off of a MQA file and yet the blue light still comes on. Another way that the audiophile ‘veil’ has been lifted off of MQA with facts :wink:


(Jeremy) #1188

That isn’t a fact it’s a nuance. MQA is nuanced. If only you were sophisticated enough to understand the delicate detail, beauty and glorious sound of 8 bits of audio resolution being flushed down the toilet. And then…ahhhhh… the blue light comes on…heaven!


(Martin Kelly) #1189

No facts, just unfactual prejudice. That’s what you post in this thread. Without a doubt.
I love vinyl, but I hate it when the needle gets stuck in the groove. That’s when it’s time to trash the record.


#1190

This sums up the state of affairs these days and goes well beyond MQA – this applies to every part of our lives. It will be the @Anders_Strengberg’s of the world that sink us. Purchase validation taken to the extreme.


#1191

That is, sad to say, completely true. You can take the best plate of food in the world, throw some (MQA) crap in it, & you know as well as I do that there will be some people that stand up & ask for seconds.


(crenca) #1192

Examples? I will stand corrected if true. I’m a fact_sayer, not a nay_sayer. That’s a downside of what’s the word, a “political” analysis of MQA (aka, the “some like it and some don’t” explanation). It can end up being a moral argument, one that disparages one or more persons as “prejudiced” and the like instead of the things MQA should really should be judged on - the truth of MQA, DRM, encodings/formats/standards, digital ecosystems, and the like.


#1193

I’ll judge MQA on how it sounds, call me old fashioned. Debating truths? Is this thread MQA disappointing morally or musically? Perhaps we can split the thread into two?


(Rudi) #1194

Facts:

  • MQA stores a 24/96 Hires file in a smaller file after compression (Original = 100%, FLAC = ca. 70%, MQA = ca. 40%). I will leave out the even more extreme comparison to a 24/352.8 hires file.
  • A file processed by MQA does not contain all the information of the original file. The original cannot be reconstructed from the MQA version, hence MQA is lossy. Whether only inaudible parts are left out is subject to debate. I know of no scientifically controlled double blind test for audibility of the lossy size reduction.
  • An unfolded MQA file is different from the original file (see null tests mentioned in this thread). Pls note that this is not in contradiction to MQA potentially sounding the same as hires.
  • Some people prefer the sound of the MQA version, some prefer the hires original. All accounts about these preferences I have heard so far seem to be anecdotal (no statistically valid sample sizes, no ABX methodology, no certainty whether the same masters were used)

So much for the facts.

But the debate will continue, I am sure. Even more so after this article in Whathifi:


(Martin Kelly) #1195

I agree completely, and I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. Splitting this discussion this way makes perfect sense.
The OP was disappointed in the SQ of MQA. They expected something from MQA, and their expectations fell short sonically.
This is a different thing entirely to debating whether or not, as a commercial product, MQA has a place in music distribution and consumption in the world today. I agree that MQA should be scrutinised through this perspective, and it should be debated as to whether or not a lossy codec, that purports to be ‘Master Quality Audio’ is being promoted and advertised ‘correctly’ and honestly by MQA Ltd. And whether or not we ‘need’ such a development. But this thread is not that place, IMO.
It is obvious that @crenca is critical of MQA’s corporate strategy and objectives. And I do agree with some of the points they have made. But I think this debate needs to move to another thread, and this will allow this thread to stay focussed on the SQ of MQA, be it ‘good’ or ‘bad’.


(Martin Kelly) #1196

Perhaps MQA’s ‘mantra’ is really this?
image
As I’ve just stated, I really think this debate belongs in a separate thread.


(Chris ) #1197

MQA do not stop file sharing. If you own the file, you can share it. Wether you should do this is another question but MQA does not stop you. That would be DRM wouldn’t it?


(Martin Kelly) #1198

Hahaha!! That very much depends on what your definition of DRM is, doesn’t it? :wink:


(Jeff) #1199

It’s disappointing in every regard as it takes away choice on filtering which affects how it sounds. It doesn’t matter if some like it.


#1200

I’m not disappointed, sorry. So not in my regard, not in every regard (without being pedantic). The OP was specific concerning his regards…


(Jeff) #1201

Yes we know but this thread is for those that don’t like it for any reason including being forced into a sound by time smearing minimum phase filters.